Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I want to bring to the attention of the House a success story called My Brother's Place. My Brother's Place was named the Metro Toronto food bank's agency of the month in September 1992 and has many other endorsements from organizations, an NDP cabinet minister, a former NDP cabinet minister and many, many individuals in the social services community. Indeed, it is seen as the last and only resource for many who would otherwise fall through the cracks.

My Brother's Place is home to those who are making the very difficult adjustment from long-term institutionalization to life in their own community. Without a review, without an investigation, this six-year success story now finds itself struggling, with very, very little support in either human or program resources. The cuts have been so deep that six former full-time workers and 12 part-time staff now find themselves unemployed. A system of peer monitoring is being used to fill those lost positions.

In spite of this insurmountable difficulty, the board, the residents and the community at large continue to support one another. "Draconian" is the only word those who know My Brother's Place can find to describe this slash operation to a success story.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. It concerns your government's abandonment of community information centres in Ontario.

This province's 74 community information centres, such as Information Orillia, are the only autonomous, non-profit organizations that collect and distribute consolidated information in the province of Ontario. Among their services, community information centres distribute provincial information on behalf of every ministry, from Agriculture and Food to women's issues, and have special access programs for groups in their communities that have difficulty getting information, such as volunteer language interpreters and seniors services.

Community information centres know their communities and they know their clients have complex problems. They know exactly what human service information they require.

Community information centres are cost-effective. Their services cost $25 per hour, compared to $100 per hour for other information providers such as Bell Canada and the Ministry of Health.

In 1991, Information Orillia received 10,059 inquiries, of which 37% were referred to all levels of government. To October 21, 1992, Information Orillia had received 9,881 inquiries, of which 2,992 have been referred to all levels of government. Inquiries about general community services and consumer needs rank high on Information Orillia's statistical records.

Minister, I urge you to support the development of community information centres as key community-based information providers and reinstate a comprehensive provincial funding program to enable them to continue to provide the necessary service.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Last Friday a blow was delivered to my constituents in Pickering that was so intense, the shock has not yet begun to set in. The Interim Waste Authority dropped a bomb on the community that has started a tidal wave of outrage. I share this outrage. It's not fair. Pickering has done its share.

I am speaking about the IWA release of the short list of candidate sites. Four out of the five sites chosen for a Durham landfill site are all in Pickering, not to mention that right on the Pickering-Markham town line there looms a spot that may be the site of a huge Metro-York dump. Potentially, if sites T1 and M6 are chosen, Pickering will have to endure 1,000 acres of dumps that will receive garbage from Durham, York and Metro.

This is outrageous. The town of Pickering has already had to put up with decades of other people's garbage. Not only that, it has a nuclear power plant and a sewage treatment plant. Most importantly, the people of Pickering have never recovered from the scars of the expropriation of 20 years ago. That was when the federal and provincial governments took 40,000 acres of prime agricultural land and have left it to go fallow.

It's because of the years of inaction by government after government that these lands are now the target of the IWA. All five sites I have mentioned are provincially owned. As PACT has so correctly put it, "The IWA is practising the three Cs -- close, cheap and convenient."

I vowed to support the people of the town of Pickering. I don't believe that IWA must stand for "It's Whitevale Again." I don't believe it's Pickering's turn again. To the mayor, Wayne Arthurs, the board of the mayor's task force and the members of PACT, Pickering Ajax Citizens Together, I pledge to put an end to the uncertainty and allow the people of Pickering to get on with their lives once and for all.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The Minister of Natural Resources is sending out a confusing message to the communities and industries in northern Ontario that depend upon Ontario's forest resources for their economic survival. At the same time, he is creating an environmental deficit of huge proportions.

While the minister claims to be developing a sustainable forestry framework, the budget for reforestation within the MNR has been gutted. Compounding the problem, the minister is holding off making fundamental decisions regarding next year's reforestation activities. For example, we are nearing the end of November and we do not now know how many tree seedlings the ministry will fund for planting on crown land.

1340

This decision should have been made and communicated to groups such as the private tree seedling growers association over two months ago. These growers remain in economic limbo until the new year as a result of the continued dawdling of this government.

Similarly, it is clear that forest tending is not a priority for this government. A decrease of over 30,000 hectares in forest tending has occurred since the NDP has taken office. The implications of this trend are severe for industries and communities which depend upon the economic spinoffs which the tending of this important resource provides.

While funding cutbacks are affecting the reforestation industry in Ontario in a tangible way, there is an increase of 11% in the salary-benefits budget and a 23% increase in the "information resource and policy budget" of this ministry. This is unacceptable.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm appalled by this government's insensitivity to the desperate needs of those who are trying to care for relatives with autism.

I recently received a letter from a woman who is trying, along with her family, to care for her 24-year-old twin brother who has autism. She writes, "Our family has to be tensed up to deal with emergency situations that can happen at any time, such as the adult running away, becoming upset in the car and smashing the windshield or windows or becoming violent at home and hurting other people."

This family cannot obtain a full psychiatric and neurological assessment for him. Although they live less than an hour's drive away from the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, which has a dual diagnosis program capable of such an assessment, they live outside the hospital's catchment area and there is no similar program servicing their community.

Despite this family's valiant and best efforts to keep their son at home, they were recently forced, because of exhaustion and stress-related health problems, to place him in a schedule 1 facility.

My colleagues and I have raised the issue of the inadequacies of the special services at home program recently. I want to tell the Premier that the extreme difficulties being experienced by this family are the result of this government's failure to ensure that this critical and important program is adequately financed and administered. I urge the government to show compassion and provide assistance.

POLICE BRAVERY AWARDS

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): On the way in to Queen's Park this morning, I passed by a church and it had a sign outside highlighting an upcoming sermon. The sign simply said, "It is easy to be brave from a distance."

Today I and my government colleagues pay tribute to Sergeant Robert Higginson and Police Constable John Stemmler of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, both of whom recently received the 1992 Ontario Medal for Police Bravery, Ontario's highest award. Both received a specially designed medal in the shape of a cross, one of the traditional symbols of valour.

Unlike the sign I mentioned, both of these individuals demonstrated courage, superlative bravery undertaken without concern for personal safety, but not from a distance.

On August 13 of this year, Sergeant Higginson tried to block the escape route of two bank robbery suspects, who were very heavily armed with guns and explosives, by standing in front of their van. Seeing that Higginson was in danger of being shot or run over, Constable Stemmler drove his car in front of the suspects' van, preventing it from moving. The suspects then turned their loaded guns on both of the officers and only surrendered after a third officer approached the suspects from behind and ordered them to lay down their guns.

The residents of the Waterloo region thank both officers for their commitment, courage and excellence. If I may coin a phrase, without question, in the Waterloo region our cops are tops.

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Members of the Legislature have been receiving letters from people who have children and others who are mentally challenged in their families. I'd like to quote briefly from one of those letters.

"I have a special interest in writing to you concerning the mentally handicapped. They are threatening to cut back $5 million from the sheltered workshop system. We have fought long and hard to get our children out of institutions and back into our community. Please don't let us go backwards because of lack of funds and send our children back to the institutions."

Societies are judged by others by the manner in which they treat their most vulnerable citizens and surely among the most vulnerable are mentally challenged individuals of all ages. As this government spends millions of dollars on questionable self-congratulatory advertising and public opinion manipulation, as the provincial government lavishes funds on its unpopular ideological agenda, thousands of mentally challenged people of all ages may see their financial resources diminished.

I've always believed that we, in this assembly, are elected to defend those who cannot defend themselves, those who are not the privileged and powerful in our society. In this light, I urge the government to abandon its threat to reduce funding to sheltered workshops for mentally challenged people in our province. I urge us to do that, and the Premier and his minister to do that, in light of all of the letters that have come in and for the sake of those children who are most vulnerable in our society.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Today I would like to advise the Minister of Community and Social Services of the despair she has created in my riding by cuts to programs for disabled children and developmentally delayed adults.

How can she explain to Debra and Alf Mann and their daughter Susan, who have had help cut from 20 summer hours to 10, or to Gina and Doug Jeffries and their daughter Rebecca, who have been cut from 15 summer hours to 10? What should Alma and Charles Gilbert and their daughter Pat do now that they have been cut from 20 summer hours to nine, or Georgina and Pat Mulhall and their daughter Anita, who were used to 20 hours and now must make do with six in the summer months and none during the school year? Marjory Shorthouse's grandson, Christopher, now gets only 15 hours instead of 28, while Wells Barlow, who took early retirement to care for his stepson, Gordon, has now had Gordon's seven hours cut off completely.

Each of these families, as well as Marg and Gord Pallister, whose 10 hours have been cut to six, understands the need for fiscal responsibility, but they do not understand why you spend almost half of your budget on a small percentage of people in institutions at the expense of those living at home.

Are these families in Grey and thousands like them all over the province to assume that this government no longer cares about them? Are they to assume that this government has changed its position and now wants to keep developmentally challenged children locked up in institutions?

They have asked me to ask you to spend your budget in a fairer and more equitable manner. They have asked me to ask you to remember the thousands of disabled kids who live out in communities among caring families and friends who need your help.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): During the past two and a half years the province of Ontario has been in the stranglehold of the worst recession since the Depression of the 1930s. Our NDP provincial government has, through the $700-million anti-recession program, the $2.3-billion Jobs Ontario program and the $1.1-billion Jobs Ontario Training program, created jobs and maintained jobs.

While these positive steps are helping in our recovery, we cannot, on our own, provide the push that it requires to make Canada and Canadians prosperous again. We need the private sector and the federal government of this country to come on board in these initiatives. While the private sector is coming on board, Prime Minister Mulroney and the federal government are not.

After the referendum vote, Prime Minister Mulroney captured headlines by saying that now is the time to concentrate on the economy. To date, Prime Minister Mulroney has been attending one $500-a-plate fund-raising dinner after another. While he has been building his Conservative Party's campaign coffers, he has done nothing about our economic woes.

It's time that Prime Minister Mulroney immediately call a first ministers' conference on the economy and come on board in helping us in our recovery.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): First, I would invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the members' gallery west, a former long-standing member of the assembly and, indeed, a former minister of the crown from the riding of Huron, Mr Jack Riddell. Welcome.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a report from the commissioners of estate bills with respect to Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital, which reads as follows:

"Presuming the allegations contained in the preamble of the bill to be proven to the satisfaction of the House and on the understanding that the word 'express' be deleted from section 12 of the bill, we are of the opinion that it is reasonable for the bill in that amended form to pass."

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LIMITATIONS REFORM

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I am very pleased to announce today that I will be seeking first reading of a new Limitations Act. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its landmark decision last month on limitation periods in incest cases, noted the "chorus calling for reform in this area of limitations law" and called Ontario proposals "welcome developments."

Specifically, these reforms will remove all limitation barriers to civil lawsuits by victims of sexual assault if the assault took place in a relationship of trust or dependency. In the case where a limitation period has already expired under the present law, the new provisions will apply if the defendant committed the assault, knowingly encouraged it or permitted his or her agent or employee to commit it.

In other types of sexual assault or in the case of physical assault in a relationship of intimacy or dependency, there would still be a limitation period, but it would not apply unless the defendant could show that the victim had for at least two years been fully capable of taking legal action and had not done so.

These provisions also implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients where the abuse is committed by a health care practitioner. In addition, the Minister of Health will be tabling this afternoon legislation aimed at eliminating sexual abuse by health care professionals, which also responds to many recommendations of the task force.

In addition to the reform of limitation periods in abuse cases, this bill effects comprehensive and dramatic reform of limitations law in Ontario. It will have an impact on virtually every civil lawsuit in our courts. Ancient and complex rules that trap laypeople and lawyers alike will be replaced by a single two-year limitation period that will not start to run until the plaintiff knows or ought to know the material facts of the claim. In most cases, plaintiffs will have up to 30 years to discover these facts.

In cases involving health care practitioners and building designers and contractors, where the material facts are discovered relatively quickly, claims may be barred after 10 years. This will provide much-needed certainty to groups providing professional services who now face the prospect of indefinite exposure to legal claims. Under the present law, they are particularly vulnerable to problems of maintaining insurance, preserving records and shifting standards of practice over the whole of their career and even into retirement.

As a general rule, limitation periods will not run while the plaintiff is under the age of majority or is incapable of commencing proceedings because of a physical, mental or psychological condition.

While measuring the limitation period from the time of discovery of the material facts will help those whose cases are now barred prematurely, the reality is that most people know the necessary facts almost immediately. In these cases, the two-year limitation period will ensure that defendants will not have to wait long to find out if they are going to be sued and will be able to get on with their lives more quickly than before.

I will not go into further detail about the bill for the very good reason that the major principles have been before the public in the form of draft legislation for over a year. The principles themselves emerged from the report of a broad-based consultation group. The response to our extensive public consultation on the draft legislation has been strongly supportive of the consensus that has been reached.

I should add, however, that our consultations did identify two areas requiring ongoing review.

Limitations reform comes in the midst of a long-term project to reform defamation law. Accordingly, as an interim measure we will retain the structure of the current limitation periods for lawsuits against newspapers and broadcasters, with the option of moving to a two-year limitation period when the defamation law reform process is completed.

In the area of environmental harm, we have not yet included any exemptions to the 30-year ultimate limitation period. When the environmental bill of rights proceeds there will be an opportunity, if it is thought appropriate, to exempt the proposed new right of action created under that bill. We will also renew our discussions with groups interested in environmental matters to see if further exceptions should be made.

We particularly welcome comment on the defamation and environmental issues, along with comments on the bill generally.

This bill frees us from the constraints of 300 years of antiquated legal rules and marks the beginning of a new era of fairness and justice for everyone involved in civil litigation.

Once again, I would like to thank the Limitations Act consultation group, whose membership included representatives of the Ontario women's directorate, the Canadian Bar Association, persons with disabilities, building designers and contractors, hospitals, doctors and municipalities. I would also like to thank all of those groups and individuals who commented on the consultation draft bill.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I will be moving introduction of the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act, 1992, today.

The amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act being introduced today are aimed at eliminating sexual abuse in health care.

These reforms are, I think, a very important step forward towards making our province a safer place to be. People seeking health care have the right to expect that the treatment they receive from a health care provider will be proper and not improper, that it will be caring and not damaging.

The mistreatment of patients by health professionals in the form of sexual abuse is never acceptable and it must not be tolerated.

The very tough penalties to be written into the law are intended to deter health professionals from abusing their power and breaking the relationship of trust they have with their patients.

The law must also assure anyone who becomes the victim of sexual abuse that they have effective recourse.

Through the college's disciplinary process the new law gives victims more power vis-à-vis the health professional against whom they are lodging the complaint. We hope this will restore the faith in the disciplinary process for victims who complain and that, as a result, the disciplinary process itself will become less daunting.

I would like to note that the Limitations Act that will be introduced today by the Attorney General, Howard Hampton, will mean that there will be no limitation period on victims who may choose to seek recourse through the courts for the sexual abuse that has taken place in a relationship of trust or authority.

The overall effectiveness of the Regulated Health Professions Act, including sexual abuse prevention, will be monitored by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. The advisory council, a new innovation under the RHPA, has the critical role of making sure that the legislation serves the public interest. Made up of people who do not work in the health professions or in the civil service, it should be meeting for the first time early in the new year and taking on this challenge.

On October 8 the Ministry of Health released its position paper, Taking Action Against Sexual Abuse of Patients. During the 30-day consultation period that followed we heard presentations from victims of sexual abuse, we held round table discussions with them and with health professionals, and we also received numerous written submissions.

We have seriously considered the arguments that were put forth by consumers and health professionals in the writing of these amendments that I will be tabling today.

One of the arguments made was against our proposed concept of three levels of sexual offences, each with different penalties. Victims said this could lead to a trivializing of incidents of sexual impropriety. Remarks, behaviour or acts of seduction that might be categorized as sexual impropriety could be just as damaging to the patient as sexual violation, they said. It was noted that all sexual abuse is a violation of a patient's rights.

Health professionals said the three levels of offences would make proving of charges more difficult, and they wanted simplification.

Mr Speaker, I want to now quickly run through some of the highlights of the act being introduced today and ask you to keep in mind the importance of the factor that this will apply to all 24 regulated professions.

As a result of the consultation, some of our proposals for action outlined in the position paper of October have changed. I'm proposing these amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act:

There should be one level of sexual offence, not three as earlier proposed, and that it be called sexual abuse. Three categories will be defined in law to cover sexual relations, touching of a sexual nature and behaviour or remarks. When it is found that sexual intercourse or other defined acts of sexual violation have occurred, the discipline committee will be required to revoke a health professional's certificate of registration for a minimum of five years and impose a fine of up to $35,000.

Penalties for other acts will not need to be specified because the full range, from reprimand to revocation of registration, will be available to the discipline committee. On this point, we want to establish that whether a patient has been subjected to wrongful behaviour, wrongful words or wrongful acts, it is all serious and it is all abuse.

1400

We are proposing that any health professional who has reasonable grounds to believe a colleague of any regulated health profession has committed any act of sexual abuse must report it to an appropriate college. A failure to report will be a ground of professional misconduct.

If it is a patient who has disclosed the alleged sexual abuse, he or she will be asked to consent in writing to be identified in the report. It's a protection for that kind of privacy.

In the area of mandatory reporting, we intend to consult further with health professionals on extending the mandatory reporting provision to other forms of professional misconduct that would endanger the life or safety of a patient and to any conduct indicating incapacity or incompetence.

The RHPA will also require health professionals to make a report when they've learned of the sexual abuse of a patient through psychotherapy or counselling that they may be providing to another health professional. On this point, I have grappled with the very serious concerns of balancing public protection and the need to encourage health professionals who abuse patients to seek treatment. Incentives will be written into the legislation which I hope will encourage the individuals to seek the treatment they need.

We are proposing that the college disciplinary committees be given power to grant intervenor status to any complainant whose good character, proper conduct or competence is in question.

We support the involvement of the complainant in the hearing process in every reasonable way. On this point, I want to point out that the task force report asked for more from government, and on that I'm asking the Attorney General to inquire into what the role of the complainant should be in a disciplinary process and whether there should be any guaranteed rights. I believe that this issue should be addressed but viewed in a broader context of the existing law.

I am therefore asking the Attorney General to consider referring this issue to the Ontario Law Reform Commission so that it can make recommendations vis-à-vis all professional discipline hearings, including health. It is of concern to me that the existing disciplinary process may be discouraging persons from coming forward with complaints about health professionals.

We are proposing that there also be disclosure by defence counsel of the identity of experts and the substance of their opinions and the professionals that they will rely on at the disciplinary hearing.

Under current law, prior to a disciplinary hearing, the college, that is, the prosecution, must disclose the elements of its case to the accused. In practice, most colleges provide full disclosure. The professional, on the other hand, is under no obligation to disclose any part of his or her case.

This disclosure by the defence will help the prosecutor to prepare for any accusations towards the victim's actions or character that could come up during the hearing. This will help reduce the victim's sense of being traumatized again.

We propose that programs be established in each of the 21 colleges to finance and regulate funding for the victims and to help them pay for therapy and counselling. Health professions that enjoy the privilege of self-regulation must be prepared to accept the financial responsibility of compensating the victims of abuse by their members.

The issue of the compensation fund, how it would be financed and what it would provide for, was discussed extensively during the consultation by both victims and health professionals. I expect that debate to continue and I will move that the amendment act be referred to standing committee at second reading.

In closing, I want to thank all of those who participated in the consultation process. I want to thank the CPSO for initiating its task force. I want to thank Marilou McPhedran and all the members of the task force for the tremendous sterling work they've put into their recommendations to the college and to government.

I want to thank the victims of abuse who came forward and exposed their wounds and talked to us about the very real experiences they had and helped in many ways to guide us in the directions that we are taking today. I believe that was a very painful process. I believe it was painful for them to experience those feelings and to tell those stories again, but I hope it was also part of the healing process and that by seeing government take direct and swift action, it will also contribute to their healing.

Without their help, the help of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the ministry staff who have worked hard and long on this as well, I do not believe this process would have been initiated, almost two years ago now, or that in all likelihood we would be here today setting out on the road to passing this ground-breaking legislation.

LIMITATIONS REFORM

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I want to compliment the Attorney General for advancing this particular initiative. He always does extremely well when he's advancing the initiatives that were undertaken by Ian Scott. This legislation, in fact, the consultation process and the reform were initiated by Ian Scott and completed by this Attorney General, and I want to compliment him for it.

I also want to compliment David Cooke, the member for Kitchener in the last Parliament, who advanced a private member's bill on the Limitations Act. He was extremely concerned about victims' rights and their ability to have access to justice through the courts. I think he increased the profile of this issue and had a significant effect on this legislation as it came through the system.

I do want to say that this legislation does open up access to justice for many people. It makes technical improvements to the legislation which will improve credibility within the justice system and credibility within the legal profession. I think it's a very good initiative from that point of view.

However, it does address a number of issues affecting a number of people. It is very technical in nature, and so I urge the Attorney General that when this bill passes second reading that it go to public hearings across the province for two reasons.

I think there is an educational process to be accomplished by going out to public hearings across the province and I believe that, because it is very technical in nature, members of the legal profession and victims' groups across the province should have an opportunity to advance amendments and to gain a better understanding of this legislation.

I do want to compliment the minister on advancing this particular legislation, and we look forward to dealing with it in clause-by-clause and committee.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): In responding to the statement by the Minister of Health, I think it's fair to say we all recognize that trust between patients and health care professionals must be a very fundamental element of that professional-patient relationship.

On October 8 the Minister of Health released a discussion paper which presented the government's first response to the McPhedran task force report and also to the College of Physicians and Surgeons' own review. We've very pleased to see that the minister has responded in such a quick fashion to the report.

However, we do remain concerned as to whether there was sufficient time for the consultation that was necessary. We are considering all the issues associated with what will be a new reporting and disciplinary requirement for all the self-governing health professions. Was a one-month consultation period enough time to properly do that? We all want to be certain that these initiatives will work, particularly having the goal of zero tolerance. We are concerned that hasty decisions may hinder their acceptance and the practical way in which the regulations are implemented.

One thing I urge the minister not to forget is the role of the survivors. They urgently need and we must urgently encourage them to be part of the consultation process. I know they have up to date but, quite frankly, when we're looking at this, the survivors do not have the same resources as the professional groups do. They do not have the type of time, they do not have the staffing and they need this assistance, they need to be part of this consultation process and they must be heard. I know the minister will act on this.

The minister has outlined the mandatory reporting requirements to the college of all three of the categories of sexual offences: impropriety, transgression and violation. We certainly support the recommendations for mandatory reporting of sexual transgressions and violations. However, we share the concern of the College of Physicians and Surgeons with respect to the reporting of impropriety and we've joined with the college in urging the minister to reconsider this decision.

We are somewhat dismayed to see that the minister is raising issues in the policy that are not associated with the sexual abuse issues which have been considered. Placing incompetence and incapacity on the table, for example, by the back door, as it were, is in our view misplaced zeal. There should be further discussion in this regard and the working relationship between the newly regulated professions and existing disciplines should be more completely established before these protocols are put in place.

The minister is right to want to put these issues on the table, but we believe that she's somewhat premature in doing so. We do commend the minister on her initiatives and hope she takes our comments into account.

1410

LIMITATIONS REFORM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Dealing with the Limitations Act, it's a good thing that we're finally getting to some reform of this area. But I will tell you, there's no panacea for reforming this area because there are always going to be people who are going to miss limitations. If you condense limitation periods, I suspect there are going to be even more people who are going to miss them.

However, it's a good thing to have a standard limitation period. It's a good thing that we no longer will have the favouritism to certain areas such as the crown seven-day notice periods, six-month Public Authorities Protection Act issues, and I think that will be a benefit to those practising law and their clients.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise and respond to the Minister of Health's statement regarding the issue of sexual abuse of patients. Minister, I find it extremely ironic that during this week you would be trying to take the moral high road and restore the tarnished image of your government by making this announcement today. But your making this announcement allows me to remind you that the moral high road is achieved through action, not words, and the Piper debacle speaks volumes.

Many people have worked long and hard in this province and in this country to ensure that the past conduct of victims cannot be used against them in legal proceedings except in very limited circumstances. Yet Pipergate shows the extent to which your government is willing to go to smear a woman who claims to be a victim of sexual abuse.

In your remarks in today's announcement, you said: "People...have the right to expect that the treatment they receive from a health care provider will be proper and not improper, that it will be caring and not damaging."

Minister, I suggest you get your own house in order. Your government's attempt to make public Judi Harris's criminal record flies in the face of any measures that you have announced today. I don't know how you can remain part of a government that on the one hand advocates victim rights while at the same time openly and very directly further victimizes the victims of sexual abuse.

Now we learn that many victims and former inmates of the Grandview Training School for Girls are afraid to come forward. Your government's actions have been outrageous and today's announcement shouldn't have been made in light of the fact that Judi Harris has not received an apology from John Piper.

You should be ashamed to be part of a government that allowed Mr Piper and his dirty tricks campaign to further victimize women who have been very courageous in coming forward with complaints of sexual abuse.

I think that before you made today's statement you should have asked Mr Piper earlier today to apologize to Judi Harris. It is ironic that you can try to take the moral high road today while your government is so badly tarnished by Pipergate.

I haven't had the opportunity to review the specific legislative draft you'll be tabling in the House this afternoon, but I do want to say that I hope before the committee hearings start -- and I hope those hearings are delayed until later next year so that health care professionals and groups have the opportunity to review the draft legislation -- you'll take a hard look at the message your government has sent out and the damage John Piper has done.

Today you tell health care professionals that they have to get their houses in order, that they have to get their acts together. I say that there's a little soul-searching to be done on your side of the House before you lecture health care professionals.

Again, Minister, I don't know how you could get up today and make this announcement. It's an important announcement, but its importance and its relevance are lost in light of the actions of your government. Again, you should be ashamed. I would be ashamed to be part of that cabinet. Backbenchers in that government and all cabinet ministers should be ashamed.

John Piper must be made to apologize to Judi Harris, or victims of sexual abuse will have no confidence in either the announcement you made today, Minister, or any further actions taken in the area of sexual abuse by your government. I demand an apology. Later this afternoon you should talk to John Piper. He must apologize if your government is to have any credibility in this area.

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was five weeks ago that a report was due before the House. The report on the Race Relations and Policing Task Force that came out today was long awaited. It was delayed by the Premier's office, I'm sure, and delayed by the Solicitor General. An important report like this came out today and not one statement by the minister about something that has been waited for.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Scarborough North -- I appreciate his point of interest. There is not anything out of order. As the member knows, there is nothing in the standing orders to compel ministers to make statements.

Mr Curling: Could I give the minister an opportunity -- he's here, the report is here; it's five weeks late -- to get unanimous consent to make some comments on this very, very important report.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make his statement? No, I heard a no.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOHN PIPER

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Premier. Mr Premier, I have been reliably informed that the Ontario Provincial Police do not have in their possession the document which Mr John Piper offered to the Toronto Sun last Tuesday. Mr Premier, can you confirm this fact?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Absolutely not. I am not going to comment, on a daily basis, nor do I think the member should, on any kind of basis, on the police inquiry. I have no idea, and should not have any idea, with respect to the ongoing conduct of the police investigation.

I would suggest to the honourable member that in order to maintain the integrity of the process -- and I say this to the honourable member -- he himself should be very wary of commenting on a daily basis in terms of what he has heard with respect to the ongoing investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I think the honourable member really has to consider what he is doing. He is directly asking the Premier of this province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- to comment on a police investigation as it is ongoing. Nothing could be more improper --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and the honourable member should know that in his heart of hearts. In his heart of hearts, he should know that.

Mr Conway: At noon today the information officer for the Ontario Provincial Police told my staff that they could not confirm the whereabouts of the central document in the Premier's much-vaunted police investigation. Is the Premier telling this House that he is not aware of the fact that at noon today the police are telling us they cannot confirm the whereabouts of the document which Mr John Piper offered the Toronto Sun?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say very directly to the honourable member, let's get this in some perspective. The OPP are carrying out an investigation on an ongoing basis. I have no idea what conversations took place between an information officer and members of his staff.

All I will say is that the statement he has relayed to us is substantially different from the statement that led into his first question, substantially different. First of all, he says it isn't there. Then he says they can't confirm.

I can only say that I think it is highly improper for the honourable member to be asking questions with respect to an ongoing police investigation. I think that raises very basic questions about his tactic and his strategy. I have no intention as Premier, I don't think any member should have an intention, of interfering in any way, shape or form with an ongoing police investigation. Nothing could be more improper than for a Premier or indeed, I would argue, for any other member of the Legislature to so interfere. Nothing could be more improper.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor; his final supplementary.

1420

Mr Conway: On the basis of the information which I have received from the information office of the Ontario Provincial Police, I believe that the provincial police do not have the central document at issue in this whole question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Let me ask the Premier this question. If the police do not have, as I believe they do not have, the central document --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs, Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Even though you have no evidence.

Mr Conway: I have the evidence of a conversation with the information office of the Ontario Provincial Police. If the government, as I have asked on two previous occasions this afternoon, can indicate to the contrary, I'm quite prepared to accept that information.

But let me ask the Premier this: The Premier has said that he has undertaken, or launched, or caused to be launched, a police investigation into this matter. The Premier, as a lawyer, will know that if the provincial police do not have that document which Mr Piper offered to Ms Dawson of the Toronto Sun, there can be no police investigation, for there will be nothing to investigate. Our lawyer Premier must surely understand that. Would you not agree, Mr Premier, that in the absence of that document there can be no meaningful police investigation?

Hon Mr Rae: This is preposterous, this is truly preposterous. The member is building fiction upon fiction upon fiction, he is building baseless allegation upon baseless allegation and thinks he's making an argument. This is a commonsense question. The information was public on Friday morning. As soon as that information was made public, the matter was referred to the OPP. The OPP have complete carriage of an investigation. It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that the honourable member is somehow going to be, on a ticker-tape basis, sitting at his desk getting the information from the OPP saying, "How is it going today?"

What does this say? What does this say about the new standards of the Liberal Party of Ontario? They're the ones who are preaching standards.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Even on the basis of a simple basis of law, your question is without any foundation whatsoever.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I want to return to my main point. On the basis of the information I have today, I believe the key document is not in the possession of the OPP. That's what's at issue and that document is missing, and if the government can tell me I'm wrong on the basis of evidence, I am quite willing to stand corrected.

My next question on the basis of the missing key document: I want to go back now to last Friday, Saturday and Sunday. On Friday morning, the Premier's appointed director of communications and good friend, John Piper, resigned in disgrace. Very shortly thereafter, the Attorney General's department launched a police investigation. Later that day, Friday, the Premier, returning from his Asia tour, said at an airport press conference that he was shocked and appalled and did not condone the action.

Two and a half days afterwards, on Sunday evening, under cover of darkness and in the company --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the member place his question, please.

Mr Conway: Two and a half days after the Attorney General's department caused the police investigation to begin, and with no reference to the police as to what they were about to do, the disgraced John Piper, in the company of Bob Rae's chief of staff, returned to this building in the middle of the night and removed substantial papers and other information.

I ask the Premier, in light of what the Attorney General's department did Friday morning, in light of what you said Friday night, how was it possible for that to have happened? Particularly, how was it possible for Mr Piper to be accompanied by your chief of staff, Ms Morrison, to allow Mr Piper to remove from this place in the middle of the night all kinds of potentially very relevant information to any kind of inquiry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite is building an argument that's based on hot air. It started with hot air and it's ending with hot air. He's making all kinds of allegations, all kinds of representations, that bear no relationship to the facts. The OPP was given carriage of this matter on Friday. Legal advice was sought from the Deputy Attorney General with respect to the removal of certain of Mr Piper's personal effects from the office.

He's now making allegation that all kinds of government documents were taken, which allegation is quite false. He describes it as under the cover of darkness, in the middle of the night. Mr Piper made no secret of the fact that he was here, that he was coming to take away his personal effects, and that's what he did, under close supervision. He signed in and he signed out, and he took out information under the advice of the Deputy Attorney General. So the suggestion here that there's something else going on -- I mean, he starts his question on that assumption. The honourable member is a man of great imagination, but I suggest to him that his imagination is getting carried away. I would also suggest to him that in all fairness to the Ontario Provincial Police, he ought to let them do their job --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- which is precisely what I intend to do.

Mr Conway: Let's just recall a couple of facts. It was quite clear in this Legislature yesterday that as of yesterday, Mr Rae did not know what happened in this place on Sunday night. Mr Rae, the Premier, reported to this House yesterday that according to Ms Morrison, no log was kept of any of the information or materials removed by Mr Piper on Sunday evening. So we know, according to the Premier himself, buttressed by evidence from his chief of staff, that no record was kept of what was removed from this place on Sunday night.

Mr Premier, my question is, how will the Legislature, how will Judi Harris, how will the people of Ontario ever know what was removed Sunday night by the disgraced John Piper just hours before the police investigators could come and begin their work? How will any of us, including Judi Harris, ever know what was removed Sunday night?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: I want to advise the honourable member, in the light of his first question, that I've just been told that Superintendent Bob Guay, who is the official spokesman of the OPP, actually said he would not confirm whether or not they had the document because he would not comment on the status of an ongoing investigation. Is the honourable member going to apologize for the premise of his first question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Conway: My question remains, Mr Speaker. Let there be no mistake where the burden of responsibility lies in this regard. It wasn't my chief of staff or my communications adviser who somehow accessed confidential information from the justice system and was willing to use that against a defenceless citizen. That didn't happen in my office. That happened in the office of the Premier of Ontario.

My question remains: What went out of this place on Sunday night? What was in those boxes? How can the Premier assure the Legislature and the people of Ontario, when hours before the police could come, Mr Piper was somehow allowed, under the supervision of Ms Morrison from his own staff --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A political appointee.

Mr Conway: -- a political appointee -- to come to this place and remove that information?

The Premier talks about the police. Why weren't the police along with Ms Morrison Sunday night to supervise the removal of those papers and things? If the Premier is such a slavish devotee of police inquiries, why were not the OPP alongside Ms Morrison Sunday night to supervise the removal of those papers?

Hon Mr Rae: Quite simply, because of the advice of the Deputy Attorney General, and the advice he received was that that was not necessary in light of the fact that all Mr Piper was doing was removing his personal effects.

I just want to say to the honourable member that I'm taking responsibility for what's going on. When is he going to start taking responsibility for the questions he's asking and for the phoney premises on which they're based? Maybe he'd better start paying some attention to taking responsibility for some of the allegations and the questions he's asking in this House.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Premier, and I think one could legitimately question whether indeed the Premier is taking responsibility for his trusted confidant's actions.

The Premier has indeed condemned Mr Piper's actions, but I think it's important to understand what Mr Piper was attempting to do. One could fairly draw the conclusion that his actions were part of an orchestrated effort to rehabilitate the reputation of the member for Kitchener, Mr Ferguson. One part of that effort was the unusually well publicized elevation of Mr Ferguson to parliamentary assistant in the Ministry of Transportation. Another part, apparently, was Mr Piper's effort to smear the complainant in regard to allegations against Mr Ferguson.

Mr Premier, can you indicate if you have initiated an internal review to determine what happened in respect to the Piper matter and what other actions Piper took in regard to Mr Ferguson's problems, and if not, why not?

Hon Bob Rae: I have made the decision -- it's a decision I've taken on some reflection and for which I take responsibility -- that an internal review must wait for the outcome of a police investigation, and I'll tell the member very directly why: for the simple reason that any investigation carried out by me or members of my staff would be running parallel to and at the same time as that of the police inquiry.

My own view has been that it's better in terms of the interests of justice and of ensuring that there's no hint or suggestion of any interference of any kind by me or by anyone else on my staff; that any information that is received simply be directed to the police, and that no other inquiry should be launched or made by this office or by me.

That's a decision I've made. I've made it after reflection, and upon reflection, I think it's the wisest course.

I can assure the honourable member, of course, that once the police investigation has been completed, I will take whatever further action is necessary to indicate clearly to the public, to everyone concerned, our administration's and my administration's commitment to fairness, to integrity and to dealing with and getting at the root of this problem. That's the way in which I've decided to handle it and I think on balance it's the correct way to handle it.

Mr Runciman: The police investigation --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: The police investigation is focused on one specific concern and that's the use of Ms Harris's court records with respect to release into the media. That's all it's looking at. I think there are other concerns that the Premier has a responsibility to deal with. Some of these, I believe, are that he should be inquiring as to whether Mr Piper spoke to a crown attorney, to Mr Ferguson's lawyers, to anyone else connected with the case. What about other people in the Premier's office? Were they involved in this effort to rehabilitate Mr Ferguson's reputation?

It seems incomprehensible that a senior adviser to the Premier has engaged in an effort to smear a woman who has been victimized over and over again throughout her life, and the Premier is not sufficiently concerned, apparently, to try to determine how widespread, how far-reaching that effect has been within his government, and especially within his own office. How can you justify your own failure, Premier, to determine just how far the rot extends within your own government and your own office?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member says he knows what the police investigation is going to focus on and he knows what it's all about. I would say to the honourable member, I don't prejudge what questions the police are going to ask. I don't think anyone should. I don't think anyone should prejudge the outcome of any police investigation in any way, shape or form. I think that's inappropriate.

He then goes on to say that somehow what we're doing reflects a lack of concern. I say in all honesty to the member, I have wrestled with this thing -- I think everybody who knows me knows that's the case -- in terms of what is the best way, the most effective way, to ensure that we will get to the bottom of whatever is there and that we will deal with it in the fairest way possible to everyone concerned.

My judgement has been that, initially, it requires a police investigation. It requires a thorough review by them and, as I say, if there's further action to be taken, it will be taken.

But I would suggest to the honourable member that even some of the things he suggested would be very inappropriate being launched by me at this particular moment and at this particular time with regard to what the police are doing. That is my very strong view with regard to the suggestions he's made. I don't think it would be appropriate for the carriage of justice in this province for the Premier to be dealing with the question in the way he's suggested at this particular time, precisely because there is a police inquiry going on.

1440

Mr Runciman: To be polite, that is so much hot air and nothing else. I have spoken to Inspector Guay. I spoke to him today, and he is focusing solely on Mr Piper's meeting with a representative of the media and his offer to release court documents to that representative of the media. That's what they're looking at to see if there was indeed any violation of the law in respect to his activities.

What I'm talking about is a much broader investigation, a much broader inquiry into what happened in respect to a variety, perhaps, of officials within your own government and your own office in respect to the apparent efforts to rehabilitate Mr Ferguson's reputation.

I believe of all of the blunders and misconduct that we've witnessed over the past couple of years in respect to ministers and aides of this government, this is undoubtedly the most serious, because it involves allegations of abuse of power directly from the Premier's office. It's beyond the realm of possibility that a trusted senior adviser to the Premier would engage in this kind of activity unless he thought it was in accordance with something his Premier would want done.

The Premier says his critics are out to lunch, and I say to the Premier that he's the one who's been out to lunch and continues to be out to lunch. He hired Mr Piper, he's the head of a government where a senior political appointee in his office attempted to smear a female victim and he's the individual standing in this House today refusing to undertake an investigation into the extent of the rot in his own office.

The Speaker: Could the member place a supplementary, please.

Mr Runciman: I remind the Premier that his office isn't a private one; we're paying for it. Taxpayers are paying for it to the tune of almost $3 million. The people have a right to know. Will the Premier today commit himself to a full inquiry of activities in his government and his office surrounding the Ferguson affair?

Hon Mr Rae: With due respect, I say to the honourable member that if he's suggesting, in light of all that he said before in preparation for the question -- and I think it is contained in the question, so let him make the allegation. If he's saying that this is something I wanted to have done -- is that what he's saying? I heard him say that.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Yes.

Hon Mr Rae: If he's saying that, I've known the honourable member since I got here 10 years ago, and I say to the honourable member that his suggestion --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: This is very clear. I just want to say to the member that his suggestion is profoundly offensive to everything that I believe in and stand for in public life. The idea that I would condone or support or in any way approve of what took place is completely wrong and completely false. I think I've indicated earlier that what took place is unacceptable. It does not in any way correspond to what I would support or agree with or condone in any way, shape or form, and I think everybody who knows me and knows anything of what I've stood for in my 15 years of public life would know that's the case.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We know what your speeches were like in opposition. We know exactly what you stand for: power at any price.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound has been recognized.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Premier, I think we're dealing here with a question of responsibility, and I think it is just that simple. Pardon us if we on this side of the House and the media are slightly confused about what ministerial responsibility is and isn't in your government. I have several very direct questions to you, sir, as the Premier. Who hired Mr Piper? Who brought him on to the public payroll? To whom does Mr Piper report? What was his job description, and what was his salary?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the honourable member will know that Mr Piper had an order-in-council appointment, which, needless to say, has been revoked effective November 20; that he reported both to the principal secretary in my office as well as to me and that this was well known; that he had responsibility on an ongoing basis for the overall communications work and effort of the government, and his salary is set within a range that's the range of deputy ministers, and I don't think there's any question about that.

I would say to the honourable member, in anticipation of perhaps some future questions, I accept my responsibilities to deal with a situation which I find to be completely unacceptable, and that's exactly what I'm doing. I think I also have to deal with it in a way that shows a degree of respect for due process and a degree of respect for the independence of the police. I would have thought this is something the honourable member would appreciate and understand. It's not an easy thing to have to deal with. I just don't think you can run three or four parallel investigations at the same time.

Mr Eves: The Premier's asking us and the public to believe that Mr Piper acted totally independently, totally on his own in this matter; never discussed his actions with anyone, with no assistant. He didn't discuss his actions, as you just said, with your principal secretary, to whom he's supposed to be reporting, as you just said.

Mr Piper was responsible to no one in your office. Do you not think that, at the very least, the person to whom Mr Piper is supposed to report is just as responsible for Mr Piper's actions as he is and that person should step aside, pending the police investigation?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say directly to the honourable member that this matter is under review by the police with respect to Mr Piper's action. I think it's very clear that the decisions that have been made by him are ones I do not condone or support, and I think it's very important that the police investigation be allowed its independence and that respect be paid to that.

I would say to the honourable member, let's not prejudge anything with regard to what took place or what didn't take place. That has to be determined initially by the police. As I say, if further inquiries are required or further reviews are necessary, I will do whatever I think is necessary to get to the bottom of a situation I've found to be quite unacceptable.

Mr Eves: There are two different things here. The police investigation is one thing. I presume the only reason you'd have a police investigation is to investigate some sort of criminal activity. That has nothing to do with ministerial responsibility. We have seen your government and various ministers in your government try to get off the hook of ministerial responsibility time and time again.

We saw a Solicitor General whose constituency assistant wrote a letter to a justice of the peace. We saw a Minister of Correctional Services who should have known what was going on in his ministry, but didn't. What happened to those two people? Nothing happened to them until you decided to politely shuffle them aside in the next cabinet move. Yet we have a Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who appears as a Sunshine Boy and he gets turfed immediately. We have a Minister of Health who indirectly and inadvertently mentions a confidential name and she has the class to step aside. We have a Minister of Northern Development who deliberately smears a doctor's reputation and then admits that she lied. She gets to stay because she has the famous dad.

Now we have responsibility here, but this time, sir, with all due respect, the responsibility is yours. Are you going to accept it or not?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member is asking -- I think he's saying directly -- I think the member for Bruce was raising it the other day, saying that there should be an election called instantaneously and that should be the response. I will say to the honourable member, we've taken the steps. I took the steps and I'm taking the steps that I believe are necessary to ensure that the right thing is done and that the right thing happens.

I would say to the honourable member, I indicate very clearly how I feel about this issue and the steps I intend to take to deal with it. But I would say to the honourable member, that's the course I have set. There's other business upon which this government is engaged and upon which this province is engaged and I'm preoccupied with those as well.

I've set a course with respect to the police investigation. Let that investigation take its place with respect to what has happened. As I said to the member, if anything further needs to be done, it will be done. That's the direction we're taking.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Renfrew North.

1450

Mr Conway: Accepting that any investigation -- a police investigation, a legislative inquiry, a judicial inquiry -- will only be as good as the information that inquiry can obtain, I want to come back to Sunday night and I want to ask the Premier once again about the conduct within his departmental office, which is the highest office in this province.

Mr Premier, having regard to what you said on Friday night about your disgust at what Mr Piper had done, having regard to what the Attorney General's department had done earlier Friday morning in terms of causing the police investigation to begin, how was it possible that your chief of staff could have come back to this place Sunday night with the disgraced Mr Piper, neither one of whom bothered to call the OPP or the justice department to tell them what they were about to do -- how was it possible for Ms Morrison, as your chief of staff, to come here Sunday night and allow the withdrawal of papers and things that will clearly bear on any inquiry?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm going to just say to the honourable member that his first question that he asked today was based on a false premise. It was based on a conversation which he says his staff has. He says this is his hard information and this is his revelation. We then hear from Inspector Guay saying that of course he couldn't confirm or deny, because it's the policy of the OPP not to comment on an ongoing investigation.

The honourable member for Renfrew North didn't have the courtesy, and still doesn't have the courtesy, to stand up in this House and say: "The premise of my first question was quite wrong. I apologize to the House for having given the impression that I knew something that in fact I don't know." I would say to the honourable member that he's done it again, because he stated in the preface to his question that there was no contact at all with the justice department.

I have indicated in this place in answer after answer that Miss Morrison indicated very clearly that she spoke directly to the Deputy Attorney General, that inquiries were made with respect to what was the appropriate thing to do and what was the way to do it. She followed the advice that she was given, Mr Piper left with documents and a clear memo is left to file with respect to what took place.

I would say to the honourable member that so much of the premise, so much of what he is saying and so many of the allegations he is making are without any foundation whatsoever. It's time he took some responsibility for the quality of the questions he's asking, quite apart from his concern about anything else.

Mr Conway: I can assure this House that I did not come here this week planning to be questioning the leader of the government about this kind of misconduct in his office. I want to be very clear. On the basis of my conversations with officials at the OPP, I believe that as of noon today the Ontario Provincial Police did not have the key document. Let there be no confusion in anyone's mind about what I believe in that connection. If I am wrong, I will be pleased to be shown that I am wrong.

The information here is absolutely essential, and I ask you and all reasonable members to think about what we're being asked to believe and accept. A high official in the highest office in the province has committed a grave misconduct, and two and a half days after he left and a police inquiry began he was allowed, in the company of the Premier's top aide --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Conway: -- to come to this place and remove boxes of information without anyone telling either the police or the justice department that he was going to do that.

How, in this world of Shelley Martel and John Piper, did this happen? How could this have happened, Mr Premier? Don't you understand that your response to date, a very limited police inquiry which, as the member for Leeds-Grenville said, is not going to deal with the questions of conduct in the Premier's office, is a wholly inaccurate response to the questions of public morality and private conduct in the highest office in the province, namely yours?

Hon Ms Gigantes: What was the question?

Hon Mr Rae: I heard a mountain, a torrent of rhetoric. I heard a series of allegations and level upon level and higher and higher platitudes of rhetoric. I did not actually hear a question with respect to what he said but I would say to the honourable --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm sure he says there was one. Maybe somewhere in the interstices of whatever it is that he said we will be able to distinguish a question. But I would say in response to the honourable member, and I say it really in connection with what I said yesterday, that I take this issue too seriously to take him very seriously at all with respect to what he's asking.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Premier. Premier, today you hide behind the OPP investigation and you won't answer questions because an investigation is going on. I understand that on Friday you called in the OPP to perform this investigation. On Sunday night boxes of documents were taken out of Mr Piper's office. What I ask you very specifically is whether the OPP were contacted before anyone went into Mr Piper's office to remove anything. Was the permission of the OPP given to do that?

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell the member directly that the Deputy Attorney General was contacted with respect to what was appropriate conduct.

Mr Harnick: My question was specifically, was the OPP contacted? You were the one who called in the OPP on Friday. What I say to you, Premier, is, who the hell is the deputy minister? He wasn't running this investigation. The OPP were. For you to have called anybody in or permitted anybody to take those documents is tampering with evidence. I put it to you, Premier, that somebody in your office is guilty of obstructing justice if that's what happened. I put it to you that this investigation had better deal with that aspect.

Hon Mr Rae: The member has just made an allegation. I'm sure there'll be lots more before we're all through. If you've got an allegation to make, I say to the honourable member, you know how to do it and you know where to go. Say it outside. Say it outside and make it very clear, if that's what you're saying. I know the honourable member, and I have a certain degree of respect for him. I just would say to him very directly that if he's making an allegation with respect to me or somebody working with the government --

Mr Harnick: The facts lead to that allegation.

Hon Mr Rae: Oh no, you're not. Now he's not. Now he's withdrawing it. No, no. You can't have it both ways.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: You can't have it both ways.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: One minute you rely on the deputy minister and one minute you hide behind the OPP. Which is it?

Interjection: Say it outside.

Mr Harnick: I just may say it outside.

Interjection: Say it outside.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Why not say it outside? It's a fact. You let Piper into his office, he's got the evidence, and that's a fact.

The Speaker: Order. Certainly, if we all went outside it would be quieter in here.

Mr Mahoney: Well, let's go. Why don't we all go? We're not doing anything in here.

The Speaker: But with a measure of restraint perhaps the member for Willowdale would have an opportunity to pose his supplementary.

Mr Harnick: By way of supplementary --

The Speaker: No, I just about gave something away. That was apparently your supplementary.

Interjection: Oh, let him go ahead.

The Speaker: He's had one supplementary.

New question.

1500

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. During constituency week, on November 12 I had a town hall meeting in the township of Thurlow, and Edith and Wilburt Jeffs --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I can't hear the question. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

Mr Johnson: As I was saying, my question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. On November 12, during constituency week, I had a town hall meeting in my township of Thurlow, and Edith and Wilburt Jeffs came to me with a very tragic story.

They told me of how they had invested $130,000 in some stock that might be familiar to some members in here, like Denison and Campeau and, tragically, because of very bad information given by their financial services broker, they lost that money, $130,000, their life savings.

I would like to ask the Minister of Financial Institutions, do Mr and Mrs Jeffs have any recourse to recapture any of the dollars they lost as a result of very bad information given to them by the financial services broker?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): Unfortunately, although the member's question is a very important one and a serious one, currently in Ontario the Ontario Securities Commission is responsible for the regulation of the investment sector.

The securities commission has the ability to suspend or cancel the licence of a brokerage firm or salesperson and to forward information to the police around a police investigation, around any matters of a criminal nature that might be uncovered in its process of regulating a brokerage or a salesperson.

But in terms of the question of compensation itself, the losses suffered by people from the operations in the stock market and the loss of value in stocks which they've purchased, those are things they would have to pursue in the courts, through civil remedy, in terms of the present system.

Mr Johnson: In talking to Mr and Mrs Jeffs, I found out that this problem isn't unique, that the problem of bad recommendations, bad information given to potential investors by financial services brokers, is not unique to their particular problem of losing their $130,000 life savings. In fact this is widespread.

I was wondering if the Minister of Financial Institutions could tell me if there's any legislation pending. Are there any changes to current legislation that would give them more security in their investments?

Hon Mr Charlton: The question that the member raises is also an important one. We have received some recommendations from the Ontario Securities Commission and are proceeding to develop legislation and regulations that will give the securities commission more effective enforcement mechanisms in certain circumstances to deal with situations like this.

Unfortunately, the only protection for loss, for compensation of loss, is the industry protection fund, which deals with the actual insolvency of companies themselves. The actual losses around investments made are not protections which are covered by that fund.

The only protection in that respect that we're considering that is already part of the system is the civil remedy protection. We're trying to beef up the system in terms of the OSC's ability to in fact ensure the appropriate operation of the marketplace and of brokerages and salespeople out there.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Premier, concerning Will Ferguson, the member of the government who was forced to resign as a result of the allegations of Judi Harris, a member who is still subject to an OPP investigation, a member who, incidentally, about three weeks ago was appointed a parliamentary assistant, with an increase in salary of over $10,000: some message to the victims, some message to the justice system that has to investigate that matter.

Mr Premier, my question relates to his involvement with John Piper. Can you confirm to this House whether Will Ferguson had any discussions with John Piper about the campaign to smear Judi Harris? If you cannot confirm it, will you ask Mr Ferguson into your office this afternoon to ascertain whether he had any communication with Mr Piper relating to the smear campaign?

As a parliamentary assistant in your government, he holds a position of trust, a position of responsibility. You have an obligation to ascertain the involvement of Will Ferguson, who is the subject of this particular matter. Please, Premier, come clean.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say with all respect to the member and I just say to him very directly, I am coming clean. I say to him, of course we all must do that. That's exactly what I'm doing.

I've made the decision -- I explained it in an answer to the member from Leeds -- that I will not launch inquiries of members with respect to anyone. I would say to the honourable member it's my judgement that it is not appropriate for me to do that at this point and I would say to him that I have to await the outcome of any inquiry.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Chiarelli: With all due respect, the Premier's answer is incredible. You have a member of your government, a parliamentary assistant, who is the subject matter of a promotion and a smear campaign, both of which took place at the same time: the smear campaign to his accuser, and you personally promoted him. The optics are very bad, Premier, in terms of some sort of orchestrated strategy.

But the issue is this. Will Ferguson is at the heart of this. He's a parliamentary assistant. The two crown attorneys in Owen Sound have denied responsibility for providing the criminal record. The person who had access is Will Ferguson's lawyer. Will you ask Mr Ferguson if his lawyer or anybody on his staff provided that record to Mr Piper?

It's critical and has nothing to do with the OPP investigation; it has to do with how you manage your government and how you manage your parliamentary assistants and your backbenchers. Please come clean, Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that it's precisely because of my respect for the independence of the police and for the need for them to make their inquiries and for them to deal with it directly that I've made the decision that I have.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Carleton.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Premier as well. Mr Premier, you and I are elected to this Legislative Assembly. I'm a member of the Legislative Assembly. You are a member of the government. I am responsible to my constituents for certain matters as an MPP. You are responsible to the people of Ontario as an elected member of the government. Where does the time come for the responsibility to the people of Ontario for Mr Piper's action? Who is responsible to the people of Ontario for Mr Piper's action?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that I think I answered his question when it was asked in its previous form by the member for Parry Sound. Mr Piper did something which was in no way, shape or form condoned by me or by this government and there is now a police investigation into what took place.

I would say to the honourable member that I think the public of Ontario knows how strongly I feel about this matter. I think I've indicated very clearly and very publicly how strongly I feel about this matter. That is the basis upon which I am acting and that is the basis upon which I am reporting to the House and answering questions in the House with respect to what took place.

Mr Sterling: Unfortunately, it leads one to draw the conclusion, therefore, that as long as a minister of a government or a minister of any of the government ministries is not aware of what the civil service or the people who work for him might or might not do or might or might not have said, he is not responsible. Am I interpreting your vision of ministerial responsibility correctly?

1510

Hon Mr Rae: My vision of the responsibility of the Premier is to answer the questions that are put to him in this House, to answer to the people of the province, to be accountable for decisions that are made, decisions that are not made and to respond when mistakes are made, as they have been. I think that's the nature of the parliamentary system, that's the nature of cabinet government and that's the nature of political life today.

I've made very clear that I don't find what took place acceptable; I find it unacceptable. It is something that we are determined to get to the bottom of and we're going to do that in a systematic, fair and reasonable way, in a way that reflects the interests of the province of Ontario, and if I may say so, in a way, I think, that would have been followed by previous governments in terms of dealing with a difficult situation which requires a comprehensive response, a response that is serious, that is diligent, that is interested in finding and getting to the truth and that is also prepared to recognize the nature of the process we are involved in.

Because of what was revealed on Friday, the first initial response in terms of looking at it, obviously, was for Mr Piper to go right away, and he resigned. The second one was for any possibility of there being any criminal element involved in terms of what took place, for that matter to be reviewed as soon as possible by the police. As I've said to his colleagues and will say to the member very directly, say to him as clearly as I possibly can, if there are further measures that need to be taken, of course they will be taken.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. The minister is aware that on Friday the IWA released a short list of candidate sites. The minister also knows that almost one third of the sites of the last 16 are within a few kilometres of each other, all on the North Pickering land assembly, the 20,000 acres of provincially owned land in the north end of my riding.

The people of Pickering have been relatively quiet since the release of the long list of sites in June. They knew it was inevitable that there would be sites in Pickering; there always are. Friday brought this to an abrupt end when the IWA drew back its bow and set its sights on the biggest target in the town of Pickering.

My question to the minister is this: In the vast acreage of undeveloped land throughout the entire greater Toronto area, how could it be that 5 out of the 16 sites fall within a few kilometres of each other and all happen to fall within the provincial land holdings expropriated by the provincial Tories and the federal Liberals? Is it a coincidence or is it because the IWA is practising the three Cs -- close, cheap and convenient?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I indeed know the depths of the feelings of the member and of his constituents and I want to assure him that the premise of his question that it is a coincidence and that Whitevale is close, cheap and convenient is incorrect.

As the member knows, it had always been the commitment of our party, in opposition and in government, that no new landfill site would be opened without an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment process is a planning process that, by a series of eliminations, arrives at a preferred site. The criteria that the Interim Waste Authority has been using have been fully discussed, much debated and therefore a fair and open process.

As a result of the application of those criteria, a short list of sites was determined. When those sites have been evaluated, hydrogeologically and for their other social and economic impacts, then a preferred site will be determined and an Environmental Assessment Board will determine whether or not that's an appropriate site for the waste that is generated within the region of Durham.

Mr Wiseman: Pickering is the host of just about every negative imaginable. They have had decades of dump sites with the Brock West, Brock North and Beare Road landfill sites. They have a nuclear power plant with its veritable sea of hydro lines. The minister may recall that just a few months ago this community had to deal with the reality of just what it meant to have a nuclear power plant near with the tritium spill that took place.

Pickering has a sewage treatment plant that takes the sewage not only from Durham but from York as well. They have had to live with the expropriation of 40,000 acres of land over the last 20 years, both by the federal and provincial governments. To this day, they live with the uncertainty of what this has left them with. Many of the homes have been in the families for generations. They have had an airport looming over their heads for years and years. One might ask what is left or, even worse, what harm could another dump do?

It has been suggested that Pickering is revisited time and time again because it is seen as a community that is so tarnished that a little more won't hurt.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his supplementary, please. I ask the House to come to order and I would ask the members on the opposition side to allow the member, who has been recognized and has a right to ask a question, to ask it.

Mr Wiseman: Mr Speaker, it's obvious they don't want me to have this question because of their culpability in having the sites located there by their years and years of neglect.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Wiseman: Can the minister tell me if the environmental assessment takes into account social equity, that is, a community's track record of having to endure decades of negatives that have resulted in the degradation of the comfort and wellbeing of a community?

Hon Mrs Grier: The residents of Pickering are well served by having as their member an environmentalist who has fought harder than any previous member of that area on their behalf, and I want to say that very strongly in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I also want to say to the member that the environmental assessment process will indeed look at all aspects of potential landfill impacts on the environment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: The environmental assessment process will look at the economic, the social and the natural aspects of the situation, and an independent environmental assessment hearing board will make the final determination when it gets to the point of looking at the preferred site.

The IWA's site search has specifically addressed the question of social equity, and the public has been consulted over the last year for its views on this subject. But I must say to the member that there are very different views about social equity. People say, "Preserve agricultural land." Others say, "We don't want a landfill site adjacent to a built-up area." Those are precisely the kinds of debates and the kinds of arguments that the Environmental Assessment Act is designed to accommodate, to facilitate and to resolve, and I'm confident that that will happen in a fair and open manner.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Motions? On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I am totally unimpressed with your call for the end of question period, when you allowed almost seven minutes to elapse on the question clock and almost more than that when she finished her thing. Earlier on today you stood in your place --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: -- and you allowed two minutes to run off the clock while they barracked about the questions on the leader's part on the opposition benches.

You have given the Conservatives on two consecutive days a question after time has expired. Why no question today, Mr Speaker, when you know full well that the whole activity was designed to postpone another question today for us? Mr Speaker, I ask you to reconsider your ruling.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, he will know that indeed I keep a close eye on the clock. In fact, there is a weekly time sheet which appears on my desk, and it may be of interest to the members to know that, almost without exception, we have on a daily basis a 50-50 split in time between questions asked and responses given. I monitor that very closely in an effort to ensure that as many members as possible will have an opportunity to pose questions. It indeed could --

Mr Elston: You stood in your place and gave them two minutes off the clock just for barracking at us.

The Speaker: Whenever there is disorder, the Speaker has a responsibility to try to maintain order. The member will recall that I commented yesterday that indeed I was impressed with the restraint which was shown on both sides of the chamber both Monday and Tuesday. Such restraint was not quite as evident today and hence it was very difficult to maintain order. I cannot do this job alone. It requires the efforts of every member in this chamber to try to maintain order and decorum so that we can maximize the number of questions which are asked.

Indeed, there was an act of generosity yesterday which may in fact not have been the most wise thing to do. I was attempting to establish some balance in terms of questions asked and answers given, and perhaps I was in error in doing that. It was done in an effort to try to assist the opportunity for opposition members to ask questions.

All I can do is request all members on both sides of the House to try to exercise some restraint so that it is not necessary for me to interrupt the proceedings. It's the last thing a Speaker wants to do, interrupt the proceedings, and I do it most reluctantly, but --

Mr Elston: We should have a running tab on how long you stand and do that very interruption.

The Speaker: Motions? Petitions?

1520

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It has been sent in by the Our Lady of Perpetual Help school PTA, which is in St George-St David riding. I'm reading it on behalf of Ian Scott since he isn't here to put into the Legislature.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two education systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in these areas, yet it has access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students, and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students, than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded, not only fully, but with equity and equality."

I am signing this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions? I wish people would take their seats so that I could see who wants to present a petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine the economic recovery in the region;

"Whereas it will cause a decline in the commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

I too affix my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by 86 individuals, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario, through David Winninger, MPP for the riding of London South, and Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario:

"That, in our opinion, no benefit to the people of the province of Ontario can be realized by broadening the scope of legalized gambling to include casinos, electronic gambling devices or anything else beyond the present legal options."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislature of Ontario to "reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I've affixed my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I support this petition and have signed it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly in regard to the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for the family life, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship to many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my signature to the petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of the elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I affix my signature to that as well.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition signed by 85 constituents from the Catholic Women's League of Canada, Hamilton diocese:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Commission in its September 1 ruling extended full family and bereavement benefits to same-sex arrangements; and

"Whereas this is believed by Catholic women as detrimental to the family and society,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of the province of Ontario, to appeal this ruling of the Human Rights Commission."

I affix my signature.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have two petitions addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-polio is a new phenomenon to attack survivors of polio;

"Whereas the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association has been formed to help survivors of polio;

"Whereas most family practitioners do not have the specialized knowledge to treat post-polio symptoms effectively,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the rehabilitation centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

I have affixed my signature.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region;

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax,

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any changes to the property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

This is signed by many of my constituents and I too affix my signature.

1530

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 33 residents of the county of Middlesex who petition the Legislative Assembly to set aside the report of the arbitrator, Mr John Brant, because his report does not reflect the expressed wishes of the people in Middlesex in their majority, who believe this decision is not in the best interests of the people in the London and Middlesex area. It awards too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London, will jeopardize agricultural land and the viability of the county and our rural way of life and in no way reflects the possibility, inasmuch as alternate proposals exist.

I have signed my name to this petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition on the subject of market value assessment.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of the city of Toronto, strongly urge that Metropolitan Toronto council skip its market value assessment proposal. Instead, it should be referred to the Fair Tax Commission in order to create a property tax system that is fair and equitable."

I have signed my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition on behalf of St Clement's school in my riding, Etobicoke West.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province...supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet has access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pool of corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equality and equity."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have yet another petition to the members of provincial Parliament on the question of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affixed my signature to the petition.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have another petition. This one is signed by some residents in my riding as well as throughout other parts of Metro.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine the economic recovery in the region;

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax,

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

This is signed by many of my constituents and I too affix my signature to it.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with regard to saving fish and wildlife and it reads as follows:

"We feel Bud Wildman of the MNR is acting irresponsibly and unable to handle the job as minister. He should resign.

"The killing of fish and wildlife by native people out of season and for commercial reasons should be stopped."

It's signed by approximately 800 people from the London area and I have signed my name to the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mrs MacKinnon from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr35, An Act to revive P.J. Construction Limited

Bill Pr63, An Act to revive Modern Optical Ltd.

Bill Pr68, An Act to revive Rainbow Halfway House

Bill Pr73, An Act respecting the City of York.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr68, An Act to revive Rainbow Halfway House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIMITATIONS ACT (GENERAL), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA PRESCRIPTION (DE NATURE GÉNÉRALE)

On motion by Mr Hampton, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 99, An Act to revise the Limitations Act / Loi révisant la Loi sur la prescription des actions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Minister, do you wish to make any brief remarks?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Yes, briefly. As I mentioned in my statement earlier today, the bill will implement much-needed and long-awaited reform of the law relating to limitations of actions. While it will benefit everyone involved in civil litigation in our courts, it is of particular significance to victims of sexual and other abuses. In many cases, there will be no limitation period whatsoever.

The bill reflects a broad public consensus that has emerged from active consultation. I look forward to the same consensus in support of the bill in this assembly.

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

On motion by Ms Lankin, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 100, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, do you have any brief comments?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Yes. I'm pleased to seek leave to introduce the bill today. This amendment bill is addressed at ending sexual abuse by health professionals directed towards patients. It's the result of work that has been done over the last two years, initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, its establishment of a task force, the task force report and its recommendations responded to by the college.

After a period of consultation, we are pleased to bring forward the amendments that will apply to all regulated health professionals. As I indicated in my remarks today, following second reading we will be moving to committee in which we hope there can be further consultation with affected parties.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REFERRAL OF BILL 94

Mr Philip, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved government notice of motion number 22:

That notwithstanding any standing order, the subject matter of Bill 94, An Act to amend certain Acts to implement the interim reassessment plan of Metropolitan Toronto on a property class by property class basis and to permit all municipalities to provide for the pass through to tenants of tax decreases resulting from reassessment and to make incidental amendments related to financing in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be referred to the standing committee on social justice for the purpose of conducting public hearings pending the referral of the bill to the committee after second reading and that the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet from 3:30 pm until 10 pm on November 30, 1992.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Only, Mr Speaker, that on the first reading, the reading does not comply with the actual notice that has appeared. The committee was unfortunately named "social justice," but I presume he required it to be "social development."

The Deputy Speaker: Could you make the correction?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and Acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Sorry, I thought I said social development. If I read incorrectly, I correct the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Philip has moved, on behalf of Mr Cooke, government notice of motion number 22. Mr Philip.

Hon Mr Philip: This implements an agreement reached by the three House leaders on the matter that I've just read.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Indeed, this allows the committee to begin taking briefings from the ministry and other people prior to second reading being obtained. We certainly want to ensure that the committee is able to start its public work as early as possible, and consent to this being processed today.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have some concerns about this resolution. I'm going to say from the outset that I agree that we should start the hearings on Monday. However, the way this resolution is written, I can only conclude that the person who wrote it doesn't know anything about the English language whatsoever. There's no punctuation, and it's very hard to get a sense of what this resolution means.

It's very open-ended. It could give you the impression that we're only going to get one day of hearings on market value reassessment. It is absolutely critical that all of the people who are affected by market value should have their time to be heard, because all of the submissions that were made to Metropolitan Toronto and to the municipalities were on the basis of a different plan, not the plan that was cooked up on the fly in the last two hours of debate at Metro.

I want to point out that all of the protestations of the government to suggest that, really, this isn't MVA are absolute baloney. Let me say why it's baloney. This is just a sublethal dose of MVA, but it is MVA no matter how you twist and turn it.

If you consider that the class which is now known as the "excluded" class -- previously it was known as the "other" class -- is getting full MVA, to the extent that they are paying $80 million more under this MVA plan, and if you look at what the residential reductions are overall in Metro, $60 million, if it wasn't for the excluded class paying considerably more under full MVA, then indeed the residential class everywhere in Metro would get no reduction. So the suggestions that the Minister of Municipal Affairs makes to try to get his caucus in line on this issue are absolutely preposterous. This is full MVA.

The newspaper reports which preceded this bill coming to the House suggested that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was going to make sure that caps were in place for the residential people; he wasn't happy with the idea or the fact that caps would be removed at point of sale. Yet this minister, who's prepared to interfere in all kinds of other issues, is so gutless that all he wimpily says in his bill is that Metro Toronto is going to have to pass a bylaw to make sure that point-of-sale clicks in for these people. That is no protection whatsoever.

This is the same government that in fact was prepared to interfere in the Toronto Islands, much against the wishes of Metropolitan Toronto. It's an interventionist government, and yet on this particular issue it's trying to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways. You are giving Metro the loaded gun and saying, "You take the responsibility." The responsibility is equally split between this government and Metropolitan Toronto. We're going to see massive bankruptcies under this plan. There's full market value assessment for all the excluded categories, which covers the railway lands, the municipal parking lots, the TTC and Hydro lands.

The government, in one of its policy documents which emanates from the policy convention of the NDP in 1984 and is binding on this party and has never been rescinded, states, "The NDP opposes any further introduction of market value assessment." It is not apparent by the government's actions that it opposes it. Many of the members in this House campaigned in the last election as being against market value reassessment. Not only did they campaign as being against market value reassessment, but they said they would fight market value reassessment. Many of those people are now in the cabinet. The member for Beaches-Woodbine, the member for Riverdale, the member for Dovercourt and the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, among others, all fought against MVA and said they would fight it. Some fight.

This is as laughable as that document you put out to the people during the last election called Agenda for People. It was the most dishonest document the people of Ontario have ever read, because there wasn't a shred of truth in it. I am not going to allow the members of this government to get away with the fact that this is not MVA. It is MVA. Otherwise, why would the excluded class not be paying reduced amounts? They are paying the full MVA. I see one of the members at the back there nodding her head. When a house is sold, it's going to full MVA. If that isn't full MVA, I don't know what is. You obviously haven't read the bill and you don't understand what you're talking about. But that is typical for this government.

This is MVA. It's poisonous. It's going to kill business after business in this community. Small businesses are the ones that are disproportionately being hit by this bill. Small businesses are the people who drive the jobs of this province. It is well known that in Canada small business creates more jobs than large corporations. In the past the NDP has always said that it was against these big multinationals. Well, it's the big multinationals that are gaining out of this scheme and the small people who are suffering.

We have examples in Yorkdale, in the shopping plaza, where the largest anchor tenants are going to get enormous reductions in their taxes under this plan and the small people, who are already paying more rent than the anchor tenants, are going to be paying more taxes. What a shameful state of affairs we've got to.

We have a government that campaigned on something and is absolutely turning its back and playing Pontius Pilate on this. I am disgusted. I had always known that I did not like socialism, but I at least thought there would be some honesty. There is no honesty in this government. It's a preposterous idea that you would try to get away with the fact of telling the public this isn't MVA -- it is MVA -- and try to tell the public that you're protecting it because you want a bylaw passed by Metro to ensure that point-of-sale is not involved. All it says is that you pass that bylaw and then, once you've passed it, Metro can impose point-of-sale, full MVA.

1550

Well, Metro, let me tell you, has already voted on three occasions to have MVA and has already passed the resolution that there should be point of sale. Back in 1988 and again in 1989, they voted that, yes, they would have point of sale for residences. Again in 1992, they voted for this.

So do not have the effrontery to suggest to the people who are watching this debate that you are protecting them. You are not protecting them at all. You are handing a loaded gun to Metropolitan Toronto and, as sure as can be, it will pull the trigger. If you think they won't, you are bigger fools than I took you to be.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I won't accept that. I find it very insulting, personally. I find it insulting, honestly. So please, I want you to retract that last word that you said.

Mr Turnbull: Are you suggesting that I retract the word "fools," Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Please, don't play around.

Mr Turnbull: Is that what you're asking me to do?

The Deputy Speaker: I am asking you to retract that word.

Mr Turnbull: I am asking you, is that what you're asking?

The Deputy Speaker: I am asking you to retract the word "fool."

Mr Turnbull: I will say "incompetent" --

The Deputy Speaker: No. I want you to --

Mr Turnbull: I will replace the word, Mr Speaker, with "incompetent."

The Deputy Speaker: No, please take your chair. I have asked you to withdraw that word. I find it insulting, and please don't make any further comments.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: I've asked you.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I am speaking to you about, I'm getting guidance from the Chair --

The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker is given certain power to act. Please don't let me use it.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I think that the word "fool" is perfectly parliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker: I will not tolerate that word. I'm asking you to withdraw, once.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw the word "fool" and replace it with the word "incompetent."

The Deputy Speaker: That is all that I want to hear.

Further debate.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, just briefly, the member for York Mills was discussing the matter of market value assessment and I don't think was able to finish his remarks.

I would only add that certain classes of property have been singled out for full market value tax increases without protective caps. We have heard a lot about protective caps and this minister has indicated that there will not be full market value assessment instituted, but when we're looking at the details of this bill we will find that indeed there will be some classes of property which will not be protected by caps.

I'll give you one example. In 1992, this year, the Parking Authority of Toronto paid $6.7 million in local taxes. Under the Metro scheme, the parking authority would pay $19.4 million, an increase of $12.7 million. We all know the parking authority in Toronto is unable to shoulder this kind of a new tax burden and consequently, it's easy to understand, will not be able to maintain its operation. Consequently, 300 people will lose their jobs. Obviously, this cannot be the intention of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's indeed a pleasure for me to be able to rise and participate in this debate. You can't help but think, as I've sat in the House for the past couple of days and listened to the debate, how the continuation of the debate in this chamber is simply an extension of the debate that's been happening around this particular issue --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: If you could clarify for me, are we debating the MVA or the motion that's before us?

The Deputy Speaker: We are debating the motion.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, I'm sorry.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: I --

Mr Ruprecht: You believe that's what you're doing now, are you? This is not the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: It's a debate on the motion.

Mr Ruprecht: This is the motion.

Mr Perruzza: Oh. No, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Anything further on the motion?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd just like to clarify one point, if I may. The reading of the motion would indicate that the social development committee be authorized to meet from 3:30 until 10 on November 30. In fact, there were provisions made for the committee to meet for eight days with two days' clause-by-clause, and we are scheduling meetings to include even Saturday and Sunday to accommodate all the people.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The motion was introduced, as you know, by Mr Philip and this is what we're debating: the motion. Any further debate on the motion introduced by Mr Philip?

I will then pose the question. Mr Philip introduced the motion on behalf of Mr Cooke. Mr Philip has moved government notice of motion number 22. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REASSESSMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES NOUVELLES ÉVALUATIONS DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 94, An Act to amend certain Acts to implement the interim reassessment plan of Metropolitan Toronto on a property class by property class basis and to permit all municipalities to provide for the pass through to tenants of tax decreases resulting from reassessment and to make incidental amendments related to financing in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin de mettre en oeuvre le programme provisoire de nouvelles évaluations de la communauté urbaine de Toronto à partir de chaque catégorie de biens, de permettre à toutes les municipalités de prévoir que les locataires profitent des réductions d'impôt occasionnées par les nouvelles évaluations et d'apporter des modifications corrélatives reliées au financement dans la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): This issue is one that has a great history, and I know the member for Eglinton mentioned it yesterday. History tends to be somewhat revised on occasions by individuals, depending which side of the argument they may be on.

I will say at the outset that I have, as an elected official, been for the past 10 years fully in favour of market value assessment. I always have been. I haven't changed my position. I've always endorsed the concept and I've always endorsed the fact that we have to bring the reassessment act of Metropolitan Toronto up to date so that it may be more equitable and more fair. Categorically, I've not changed my mind or position on this issue since being elected.

Having said that, I cannot say that about the government. The government clearly had a position in the 1980s that was in opposition to market value assessment. I found it very difficult to understand how anyone at a party level could oppose an issue like market value assessment so categorically. Clearly, what has happened is that upon winning the election in 1990 they found themselves in the awkward position of being on record as being opposed to market value assessment yet having to deal with the issue in a more responsible manner, and that was the manner of being in government.

Since they got elected, there has been some waffling and vacillating on this issue from all sides. I know all caucuses of all three parties have some dissent and some in favour. It seems to me that this could be an issue that I believe could be decided on a free vote by all three parties. It seems to be an issue of local concern that needs to be aired freely and openly by all caucuses.

I took exception in 1984 to the fact that the government, the then NDP opposition, would categorically rule out market value assessment. I guess, having taken that position, it's very clear my thoughts on that process were fairly accurate. I believe it was a prognostication of things to come with this government when it chose to change its mind.

There are people upset out there about the fact that the government did change its mind, because they got categorical promises. I look across the floor and I can see some members who categorically promised not to institute market value assessment. They come from the government back benches and they come from the government cabinet as well. There are people out there who have grave concerns about this particular compromise that was adopted at Metro council and have grave concerns with the government and the way it has waffled and in fact turned on what they consider to be a major party plank.

My real concern stems from how this government decided to handle this issue. What this government is in fact suggesting to this House today, to the people of Metropolitan Toronto and all member municipalities is, "We still don't support market value assessment and we're implementing this piece of legislation today, but it really isn't market value assessment."

1600

Somebody has to be wrong on this issue. Is this the first step towards market value assessment, like some suggest, or is it like the minister suggests, not full market value assessment? Somebody's clearly not being totally forthright with the public. In my opinion, in a sort of subverted fashion this government has taken a very tiny step to institute market value assessment, a step, none the less, that will lead to the road to market value assessment.

They've done so because Metropolitan Toronto council reached a compromise on the issue not once but twice, and the second time it just so happens that this is the government in power. What I will say is, to the people who believe this is full market value assessment, it is not, and to the people who are suggesting this is not market value assessment, it is.

What we have is a government that has taken this very important local issue and turned into nothing but crass local politics. They simply turned this issue into an issue where they're not offending anybody but satisfying no one. The suggestion has been made that the municipality of the city of Toronto was not a firm supporter of market value assessment. Well, that's not shocking. The city of Toronto has never been a supporter of market value assessment, and I doubt in the future if you'll ever find the city of Toronto supporting market value assessment.

It is absolutely no secret that the city of Toronto's going to have to pay more money to run Metropolitan Toronto under market value assessment than it would have otherwise. To make the argument that an entire municipality doesn't support it is simply to say market value assessment is dead in the water in Metropolitan Toronto and will never happen, and the inequities that are in place will be in place for ever because they may not be addressed under section 63 or section 70.

I don't accept that. I didn't accept that as a member of Metro council representing the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, where it was very close with respect to market value assessment, the winners and the losers. I don't accept it as the member for Etobicoke West in the provincial Legislature, where clearly the winners outnumber the losers. But in my history when it was very close my position was still the same.

Fundamentally, I believe in fair taxation. If we don't have fair taxation then the system falls apart. We must do our best to ensure that the taxation we have implemented is as fair as it possibly can be. No one on that side of the House or this side of the House would ever say the system that is in place today is even remotely close to the word "fair." No one.

Everyone agrees what we have in place doesn't work. I agree; everyone agrees. It's so bad that the city of Toronto and Etobicoke and all municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto lose literally hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes a year because businesses and residents appeal their taxes in a hodgepodge system where you can't lose. You can't lose because the system is so warped, so distorted and has no ability to be equitable that at the assessment board you always win.

What happens when you always have people -- a lot of times it's the same people -- who appeal their taxes and always win? Their taxes go down and those people who don't appeal their taxes are simply paying them like they think they should as good citizens. Taxes go up to make up the difference. That happens across all municipalities, so in that sense there is no clear winner.

The argument will be made that the people in the city of Toronto and some portions of North York have made for a long, long time. I used to listen to this argument. They say that this specific tax structure we have, which is market value assessment, isn't fair. It's not fair because it only measures the value of a home. It only measures the value and is not based on any ability to pay. That is true. There is no debate. That is true.

The gauntlet was thrown down some seven or eight years ago now, maybe six at Metro council, to the mayor of North York, Mr Mel Lastman, and to the mayor of the city of Toronto, Mr Art Eggleton. "If it isn't fair, gentlemen, you go away and bring back a new system designed by you and your councils and your experts and consultants and treasurers and financial analysts and give us a system that is fair, that is equitable and that treats everyone in a fair and uphanded manner." Some six or seven or eight years later the report still does not exist.

I look directly across the floor at the member for Downsview, who was a member of that city of North York council when this gauntlet was laid down for his mayor and the mayor of the city of Toronto that said, "Bring us back a system that is fair," and nothing was accomplished. Why was nothing accomplished? Because although market value assessment may not be a perfect system, although it may not work in all cases, although there may be certain areas where it needs to be fine-tuned, the bottom line is that it's the fairest system we've got. That's the bottom line.

I sit in my seat here and hear the concerns echoed by my friend the member for York Mills, whom I truly respect. I respect the fact that he is representing his constituency and I respect the fact that he's speaking on behalf of his constituents, who truly believe that this is not a fair system and they're not getting a fair shake. Good on him for coming here and saying so, because that's what we are elected to do. But we are also elected to do what is fair and what is equitable. We must treat all people in the same fashion, regardless of what city they live in or what street their house happens to be on.

Mr Speaker, I can rhyme off, as the member for Eglinton and I know the member for Parkdale will stand up and rhyme off to you and this Legislature, case after case after case where taxes will be going up, but capped, as being unfair. I can stand here and match them case for case. I can match you on every instance.

The only difference is that in the issues I bring forward these people have been paying these taxes for 42 years. For 42 years they've been paying these taxes and they're overtaxed. They know they're overtaxed and they want their rebate. They want their fair and equitable treatment.

I can show you a house in Etobicoke-Lakeshore on a street that is not considered desirable in the least, in a house that you wouldn't classify as being worth much more than $150,000, and in Metro that's cheap, and the taxes are $4,500. You can drive through areas in Rosedale and Cabbagetown, you can drive through these neighbourhoods and find homes that are palatial mansions where they pay taxes the same amounts or less.

The comment will be, "It's isolated," but being through this issue for 10 years, seeing the people come to me and saying, "Why am I paying so much when they pay so little?" it's not isolated. It's patently unfair. If we can't be fair about the simple thing of collecting municipal taxes to build your roads, to build your schools and to provide sewage, what can we, as stewards of the taxpayers, be fair about?

I come at this with a long history and maybe some will accuse me of a slanted view, but as they bring these issues forward, my heart can only sink because I know for every single individual you show me, be it a residence or a business, I got one to match it. The only difference is, they've been paying.

1610

They're not all hardship cases; I don't even pretend that they're all hardship cases. I know personally, where I live, my taxes would go down by $400 or $500 on my home, and I don't believe I'm a hardship case. But for the people like me, there are others where it is a hardship case, and for businesses that happen to be located on Bathurst, don't try to tell me, don't try to insinuate that it's harder to stay in business on Bathurst than it is on Bloor Street. It's the same economy, it's the same recession, it's the same dollars, and they're having just as difficult a time. The only difference is this: Some of these people have gone out of business because they're overtaxed. What is fair about a system like that?

Mr David Winninger (London South): You're overtaxing our patience.

Mr Stockwell: The member from London across the floor suggests I'm overtaxing his patience. It's not an issue in London, but it is an issue in Etobicoke and the city of Toronto and North York and Scarborough. It's a big issue there. I only ask you to bear with me, since you changed the rules, for another 15 minutes, because I consider it very important.

What has Metro council done? Metro council has made what I think is one of the toughest and hardest decisions it had to make. It took a compromising position from a vast array of political sorts from all spectrums of the political rainbow to come up with a deal that really, immediately, puts what I suggest are very few people out of business, if any.

The people who are going to get a reduction get capped. They aren't getting their full reduction; they're capped again. The people who are getting increases are capped again. They've said that they will increase these caps slowly and they'll increase these caps so that you can defend yourself against a crisis of an increase in taxes.

Metro council worked long and hard to come up with this compromise, and if I were the government of the day -- and I'm not, but if I were -- I would have said to the members in the cabinet that this is a good deal. This is as fair as it's going to get. I wouldn't have monkeyed around with it, because if you do fool around with this process and force it back to Metro council and it can't come to an agreement on the changes this government is forcing it to make, it will never happen. It will never happen.

I say to the government members opposite, don't allow your Minister of Municipal Affairs to start fooling around with what Metro council adopted. Don't let your Minister of Municipal Affairs change the parameters they used, because this deal is a very shaky deal. It's shaky because there are a lot of parties involved and there are a lot of votes involved that could easily fall off the table with any major changes.

Make no mistake about it, the forces against this deal are powerful and they're very eloquent. They make very persuasive arguments. Make no mistake about that. Don't ever underestimate the city of Toronto or the mayor or the members of the city of Toronto. I understand what they're doing. They're representing their constituencies, and that's what we're supposed to do. I accept that fact.

I accept the fact that they don't like what I'm saying. I accept the fact that they don't agree with what I'm saying. But if you start messing with this, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs is trying to do, you're going to break that opportunity, an opportunity for people in Etobicoke, for people in Scarborough, whose only sin, to be overtaxed, was to have their house built after 1942.

That's the only sin they've had. So they've had to have increased taxes because when the assessor came around, he assessed them on the rate that the house was built. That's the only thing they did wrong, and that's why they pay more in taxes. If you want to jeopardize that, if you want to put that into some kind of black hole, start changing the rules Metro adopted.

The members opposite, I say very clearly, if you don't like it, vote against it. I say to the minister who's here today, if you don't like it, vote against it. Do that. I say to the members opposite who have very strong opinions on this, if you don't like Metro's deal, vote against it. It's better that you vote against it than change it, because if you change it, nothing will happen. Nothing will happen. That will be the real travesty. That is at the crux of this issue.

That is why I'm so proud of our party on this issue. I'm so proud of our party on this issue because we can stand here in this House and speak as we believe on this issue, on market value assessment. If we don't like it, we vote against it. If we accept it, we vote for it. It will come as a shock to some members across the floor, because that's called the democratic process.

I know full well there are a lot of whipped votes over there, because the Minister of Health herself stood in this chamber yesterday and said, "I don't like this, I don't accept this, I'm not in favour of this, but I'm voting for it," and they're voting for it for what I consider to be all the wrong reasons.

Interjection: She likes her limo.

Mr Stockwell: I don't suggest that about the Minister of Health. What I suggest is that if you vote in favour of this for the wrong reasons and you allow to take place the changes the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done, you in fact could put this thing under, you could kill it. It's kind of like the argument about insurance: When is 80% more than 90%? This is the case where if you vote in favour of something, you could kill it.

I appeal to my colleagues from the suburbs of Metropolitan Toronto opposite, the members for Downsview and Yorkview and the members opposite, if you really believe in market value assessment, take the report that Metropolitan Toronto council adopted and vote for it. But don't leave them in the very uncertain situation where you're going to damn them by changing the compromise.

I know I can appeal to at least one of those members, the member of North York council. I know I can appeal to him because he knows exactly how tenuous this is, he knows exactly how difficult this is, he knows exactly how difficult it was to come by and he knows exactly how hard it will be to ever come to another compromise.

I want to conclude by offering a short history on the 1989 situation. In 1989, Metropolitan Toronto council came up with another compromise. In that compromise they didn't seem to take into consideration the concerns with respect to the commercial community out there, and that was a mistake. What was adopted from that was a change that allowed us to cap the commercial community as well, particularly that of small business.

I will say this too: I heard a lot of complaints, I saw a lot of parades and I saw a lot of action in opposition to this particular market value assessment before the compromise. But you know, since they've had this compromise, I haven't seen that. I've seen politicians and I've seen a few other political hangers-on, but I've not seen the business community come out and resoundingly, without debate, condemn this.

You know why I think that's the case? You know why I think they're not out resoundingly condemning this? It's because I think that fundamentally the business community would support this. Fundamentally, when it comes down to the crunch, the business communities that were so severely hit, that have been protected under this plan, will support it. They'll support it because it's fair. It's fair for them, it's fair for the businesses in the surrounding municipalities, it's fair for the residents and it's fair for the residents in the surrounding municipalities.

1620

If you look, I think you're finding without a doubt that since this was passed in Metro council, the hue and cry that was out there -- and I think maybe well founded, before a compromise could be reached -- has changed dramatically. I think it's important that we note that, because what that says to me and what I think it should say to the government across the floor is that maybe a local government worked something out. Maybe a local government came to a reasonable compromise. Maybe if you'd left the Toronto Islands issue to the local government, it could have done the same as well. That is what I consider to be the crunch of the issue.

The last point I'd like to take up, and this is what the major contention is with the opposition, my opposition, on this, which is the city of Toronto, is that they seem to have some concern with respect to point of sale and this government seems to have some concern with respect to point of sale. I support point of sale.

I'll tell you why I support point of sale. If someone is selling their house, who lived in that house under the assumed taxes and is having them capped and moved up on a very gradual basis -- if they decide to move, if they decide to leave, then the person buying the house can be fully aware of the taxes on that house when he buys it. You can put a little proviso in the MLS listings in Metropolitan Toronto --

[Interruption]

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Sergeant at Arms, would you -- I would ask the people in the gallery to refrain from shouting. You are guests here and we welcome you to stay. Otherwise, if you do continue, I will ask you to leave.

Mr Stockwell: They can, at point of sale, have the full knowledge of how much the taxes are on the property, and those are what the fair market taxes are. When they go to buy the house, they'll make a decision on whether or not to buy the house depending on what the taxes are.

The argument, and it was obviously echoed very clearly in the gallery and I was going to put it forward, is that these people will not sell their homes because the taxes will be higher. How do the people in Etobicoke and North York sell their homes? How do the people in Scarborough sell their homes? How do these people sell their homes when their taxes are significantly higher than they should be under market value reassessment? They do it because there's value.

The last thing is, if you don't believe in the value under this reassessment plan, the beautiful system we've set up is that you appeal your taxes. Everybody has the right to appeal their taxes. If you think you've had it overstated you appeal, and if you appeal and win you get a reduction.

So don't tell me that the people in Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York who are having just as difficult a time getting by during this recession should pay artificially higher taxes because we can't come to a decision, because we can't reach a compromise. That's not fair. That's not equitable. Across the floor, I say to you that that's the last thing I would have expected from your party.

Finally, I say to those across the floor, if you don't like market value assessment, change it. If you don't think it's fair, change it. If you don't think it's being equitable, change it, because you know something? You can't run from this argument any more, because you've got all the levers of power in your hands. If you don't like it, change it. I demand that you change it if it's not fair and equitable. I demand for you tell me what is fair and equitable. I demand that you let me know and my constituents know what is a fair and equitable tax system, because if this isn't good enough, what is?

All I hear is, "This isn't good enough." All I hear is, "I'm opposed to MVA." All I hear is, "Reassessment is no good." Then tell me, folks, what is good, what is fair and what is equitable?

The silence is always deafening, because they don't have an option. They don't have an alternative. If they do put out an alternative, it's shot down by their own communities before it can even reach the Metropolitan Toronto level.

I thank the members opposite for hearing me. I thank those in the Liberal Party, some of whom, I'm sure, are going to disagree with what I've said. Again, I thank those members in my caucus who are also in agreement and those who disagree.

I say again to the members across the floor, I make three challenges to them when it comes to this issue. My first challenge is, make this a free vote; let everyone decide. The second challenge is, if this doesn't work, tell us what does, show us what does. The third challenge is, before you make your vote and before you determine it just based on your own local municipalities, please come and see me. I'll supply you with names and addresses and lists of businesses and residential communities that have been overpaying their taxes for 40 and 50 years. Then look me in the eye and tell me the system that is in place today is fair and equitable and the only people who need protecting are yours.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The member for Etobicoke West is normally pretty persuasive, but in this case he is leaving some gaps. He's saying, for instance, that all increases are capped; essentially that's what he's making us believe. But what would he say, for instance, to development sites currently vacant? What would he say to rights of way and utility corridors and properties for which grants are paid in lieu of taxes? What would he say? I'd like to hear what he's going to say.

Secondly, he's saying that the whole business community is not resoundingly against market value assessment. I would question him by simply asking him, would he be prepared to change his mind if the business community in Metro Toronto would come and make a presentation before this committee and say that it is against market value assessment? Is he then prepared to change his mind and say, "No, we need to change it," or he would be prepared to speak against it?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My colleague the member for Etobicoke West and I have had many very vigorous debates privately about this particular issue, and it's one of the very few issues that I fundamentally disagree with him on.

But he raised some very good questions and one of them is, is this MVA? The government is trying to suggest this is not MVA. Indeed it is MVA; there's no doubt about it. That is the issue where we both, I believe, agree on that. This is MVA. We know that in fact the excluded category, which was previously referred to as the "other" category, is not capped in any way; it is getting full MVA.

At point of sale, I want to make the point that people who are selling their homes today are certainly not doing it for speculative reasons. Anyone who has an unusually large tax increase is going to be penalized as a result of the inflationary trends that existed in 1988 where certain areas went up disproportionately to others.

I do want to point out that, yes indeed, the people who are against MVA have offered an alternative and that is unit assessment. Unit assessment has been proven to be workable in a test model where they have analysed the numbers from Pickering.

I do applaud his call for the government to have a free vote; let all members stand up and be counted. Indeed, in debate yesterday, the Minister of Health was saying that this is a wrong plan, awful, she didn't like it, but she was going to vote along with the government.

What must the electorate think when you campaign in an election and you say you're going to be against something and then afterwards you get a cabinet position -- and I see a cabinet minister; the member for High Park-Swansea is here today. She campaigned as being against market value, and indeed the member for St Andrew-St Patrick campaigned against it.

1630

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): We're hearing a lot about the negative component to business. What about the positive component to business, for instance, in Yorkview? What about Adidas, which is going to experience a $16,000 decrease in taxes? Are we saying that they're unhappy with MVA? Are we saying that all of the businesses in Yorkview, in Downsview and a few other areas around the city are unhappy with MVA? I don't think that's what we're saying at all. I think that the people who have spoken in regard to the negative component are speaking on behalf of their communities, and I don't blame them for that, but don't hide the issues.

The resales: On the average, the home owners in Yorkview have been paying $2,500 to $3,000 in taxes. They've been selling their homes. They've been doing okay in terms of resale, so let's not hide the issues. What about the people in Yorkview, the people in Downsview who are waiting for this long-awaited decrease? Isn't it fair to them? Isn't it a fact that they've been subsidizing for years now? Let's not hide that issue.

We talk about the negative component in a particular part of the city, but we don't talk about the positive components that exist around the rest of Metro. Stop hiding the issues. This is a compromise, and the people of Yorkview agree with that. They're not getting the full reduction; they're getting 40% the first year and 10% the next. They're not happy with that, but they've compromised. I ask that the people in Toronto and the people in York Mills do the same thing. It's a compromise. Let's not hide the issues.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Eglinton.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know you're automatically pointing to me because you knew I was about to be on my feet on this issue. I say to the member for Etobicoke West that while you normally are, as the member for Parkdale said, quite persuasive, in this case I'm afraid I feel very differently than you. You were talking about, for instance, the businesses and you said, "They're all on a level playing field across Metro."

But one thing I pointed out yesterday -- and I'm not sure if the member from Etobicoke was here at the time; I know the member for St Andrew-St Patrick wasn't, for instance, and she will be very interested in this -- was the number of small businesses across Metro that will face the maximum 25% increase, plus whatever other increases come their way, because of Metro council's budgetary increases.

In North York we're looking at 7,600 businesses; 28.1% of all the small businesses in North York will receive the maximum increase. In Etobicoke, 4,700; 30.3% will receive the maximum increase. In Scarborough, 6,500; 28.9% of all small business in Scarborough. In East York, 1,200; 40.3% of small business in East York will be facing a 50% tax increase over the next three years.

I defy the member from Etobicoke to look at this legislation and see where it addresses new businesses. It doesn't, because new businesses will not be protected by this cap. So those businesses will pay the 200%, 400%, 600%, 800% increases. They will be appraised at full market value. This hurts business, and I don't think he should deny it.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. The member for Etobicoke West, you have two minutes.

Mr Stockwell: I'm not certain if the member for Eglinton was in here for my whole speech.

Ms Poole: I was watching you.

Mr Stockwell: I did mention the fact of point of sale, and I also agree with my same criteria for point of sale as far as a new business is concerned. If you're a new business, you investigate these kinds of things, and if these taxes are too high, then you don't locate there.

Ms Poole: That's the problem.

Mr Stockwell: That's the way business works, and that's the way business will always work. But to use that as an argument against any kind of reassessment ever is foolhardy. You'd never have any reassessment of any kind at any point for ever if that was always your argument, because somebody's going to get an increase. Shake the trees. When you do reassessment, people get increases. That happens. So if your argument is, "People are going to get increases so we can't do it," I don't agree with you.

Second, you tell me there are businesses that are getting increases. Yes, there are, but talk about those businesses that are getting decreases. They are finding it difficult to get by because their taxes are higher than they should be. They're paying, so they can't meet their payroll, so they can't stay in business, so they lose their family business. As the mayor of North York says, "What are these people, chopped liver?"

Of course I understand. Being in business, I really appreciate what you're saying, but for every increase, there are more decreases. Sixty-two per cent across Metropolitan Toronto will be receiving decreases.

Let's talk business, as the member for Parkdale said. You're telling me about the business people who come out to committee and say, "We're opposed." I'll bring businesses out that are in favour. What about Campbell Soup on the lakeshore? They supply a lot of jobs for a lot of people and they're paying thousands and thousands of dollars too much in taxes. Why can't they be looked after?

The point I'm making to you is that yes, there are increases, but don't deny there are decreases for those who have been overpaying.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's indeed a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I can see from the feelings in this chamber that there are mixed views on all sides of this issue, in fact, with all three parties.

Quite frankly, I thought when the debate entered this arena, the debate would hover around the issue of taxes and the issues of fairness and equity, but all that's happened in this arena is precisely the same thing that has happened for the last 25 years or so within Metro. The issue of fairness, the issue of equity and the issue of justice have given way, quite simply, to politics and political gamesmanship. That's precisely what's happened in this Legislature.

I've sat by and listened to the member for Eglinton participate in the debate and talk on market value assessment, I've sat by and listened to the member for York Mills participate in the same debate, and I've just sat and listened to the member for Etobicoke West participate in the debate as well. While I agree with the member for Etobicoke West, I can't proceed to make comments on some of his comments without first reflecting back to some of the comments that were made by the member for Eglinton and reiterated by the member for York Mills.

Mr Speaker, as you know, because you're a fair-minded member of this Legislature, currently within Metro, we are on a market value system that is antiquated. Old properties, relatively old properties, new properties that come on stream, are all assessed at their current value, but then they revert back and the assessed figure they are given is based on 1940 values. What does this suggest? This suggests that if a property came on line prior to 1940, its assessments will generally be much lower than similar properties of similar value that came on line much later.

What do you have resulting in the current system? Inequities. It's just not inequities between the city of Toronto and the city of North York, the city of East York and the city of Etobicoke, or the city of Toronto versus the city of Scarborough. No, those aren't the only inequities that happen. There are also inequities that exist between neighbourhoods. There are neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto which pay an uneven share of taxes, a disproportionately uneven share of taxes. You will find as you go through the city of Toronto and you visit neighbourhoods that have been redone, redeveloped, that have come on stream much, much later, they will pay a disproportionately higher rate of tax than what their neighbours will pay.

1640

So this isn't an issue of the city of Toronto versus the city of North York or the city of Etobicoke versus the city of Scarborough. It's an issue of older properties versus newer properties. It's an issue of properties of similar values in different locations, in different neighbourhoods, paying disproportionately higher taxes.

As I look over to the member for Willowdale, he represents very much this kind of community. In Willowdale, what do you have? You have a lot of older homes which essentially were built in and around the 1940s, and what's happened is that a lot of the homes have been torn down and they've been built anew. So you have homes side by side, in many cases with not much difference between them -- similar lots, similar properties -- which pay disproportionately different taxes.

Now, I know the member for Willowdale will probably stand later in this debate and will point out on this particular point that in fact the newer homes are in most cases a little larger. The old house may be 1,500 or 2,000 square feet. The new home, considered a monster home, may be 2,500 or 2,600 square feet. But the difference in taxes, their actual property taxes, is thousands of dollars.

What fairness is there in a system of taxation that essentially allows these kinds of inequities? I say to you, Mr Speaker, because you're a fairminded member of this Legislature, there is none. There is no fairness.

I'm not making the argument here today that market value assessment is a fair form of taxation. Absolutely not. It is not a fair form of taxation. It bears no relevance on ability to pay, none whatsoever. However, it's the current system we have, market value. All that has been asked and all that Metro council is asking is what 272 or 282 other municipalities within the province of Ontario have already asked for and, quite frankly, already received: that the province return back to them more current rolls, more current assessment values, to which they apply their mill rates and levy their taxes on a fairer basis than what you currently have in Metropolitan Toronto.

That doesn't happen here. That is what I thought the debate was going to revolve around: quite simply, the issues of fairness, the issues of equity, the issues of justice. But what have we seen and what have we had? We've had members essentially defending the city of Toronto, and it's no secret that the city of Toronto opposes any form of update in the property tax system that you have. Quite clearly, they would be the loser. On the whole, they are undertaxed because of the current system, because what we do is we translate values within Metropolitan Toronto back to 1940 values.

So if you're sitting there and you receive your property tax assessment form come this late November or December -- and I suspect that in Metro this year, that will be delayed -- the figure that you see on your form is a 1940 assessed value for your home. People can't understand it. People don't know what it means. "What does it mean that my home is assessed at $6,000 or $6,200 or $7,000?" "Well, that's what your home essentially would have been worth in 1940." But in fact that's misinformation, because that's not what their home, if they live in the suburbs, would have been worth in 1940. In fact, it would have been worth substantially less.

So they've come on stream at a much higher rate of tax. Where is the fairness in that? I suggest to you that there is no fairness in that. On this form, there's a little line at the bottom which says, if you don't agree with this assessment, just fill it in, send it back to us, and you'll have an appeal. You'll have your day in court. So for those brighter individuals in our communities who can read and who feel that they are paying a disproportionately higher rate of tax, they fill in the form and they send it in, and what do they do? They have their day in court.

You know what the Assessment Review Board panellist will say to them? "Prove to me that you pay a higher rate of tax than properties within your neighbourhood." This is a trick in itself. Obviously that's something that's very difficult to do, because generally neighbourhoods are built up all at one time. So if you're paying higher, all of your neighbours are paying a higher rate as well. What chance have you got to seek justice, to seek fairness, to seek equity under our current system? You've got none, that's what you've got. None.

So you're essentially penalized for where you live. Even though you know that under a market value system, and that's the system we have, when you compare your own property, your own home, to a home of similar value located in an older area of town, your taxes will be higher, you say to yourself: "Jeez, this is not the way it's supposed to be. Taxation systems are supposed to be relatively fair."

There are some individuals who are a little smarter than others, and they'll find some loophole; they'll do some things which may cause them not to pay as much tax as another individual in a similar class. But by and large, our systems are supposed to be fair, they're supposed to be equitable, they're supposed to be just. I say to you, in our current property tax system, that simply doesn't exist.

So what have you had happen in the last 25 years in Metro? There's been a debate which has essentially caused nothing. You've had powerful blocks, powerful groups of people who have banded together and resisted change, not in the name of fairness, not in the name of justice, not in the name of equity, but in the name of politics, because their own political hides were at stake.

It's no secret that Metro hasn't asked for this before, because the city of Toronto council, along with the city of North York council, when they weren't directly elected to Metro, got together and blocked any reform because North York, Willowdale and York Mills would lose, the city of Toronto would lose. So they got together, mustered the votes and blocked the change. That's all that happened. It was politics. They were afraid of their own political hides, nothing more, nothing less. It was crass. To continue the argument today essentially makes no sense to me.

1650

What you've had happen in recent years, the political dynamics of Metro have changed. What we witnessed several years ago, 1988, were direct elections to Metro. You change the political dynamics and the decision is a little different. That's all that happened. That's the only thing that opened the door for this compromise we have before us today. That's the only thing. In 1988 you have a direct election -- and the Liberal government did that, caused direct elections to Metro -- and Metro hammered out a compromise plan. Why? Because the political dynamics changed.

The mayor of North York couldn't whip his boys and girls all behind him together and vote as a block any more because they were no longer nominated by the council; they were directly elected and accountable to the people they served. So they hammered out a compromise which they forwarded back to the former Liberal government, based on 1984 values. They said, "This for us is fair." They were going to give full decreases to the residential sector, they were going to cap the commercial-industrial sector increases and their decreases as well.

What did the Liberals do? They sent it back. They said: "That's not good enough. We don't want it based on 1984 values. We want it more current, based on 1988." Why? Because they knew they were one year away from an election. They essentially had no guts.

The member for Eglinton stands in her place, and stood in her place yesterday, and talked about how with her input and with her will that decision was essentially sent back.

I see the former Minister of Revenue just walked into the chamber. He had a direct hand in this. He knows what he was doing. He knew what he was doing when he sent it back.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I didn't send anything back.

Mr Perruzza: He essentially sent it back because he wanted no change, he wanted the debate to happen all over again. We all know what happened after that. Members in the suburbs, Liberal members in the suburbs, essentially took a beating.

I listened this afternoon to the wise advice from our member --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Just a moment. I'd just like to say to the honourable member that there should not be any talking to and fro in the House. If you're going to address comments please do it through the Chair. I would request also that other members in the House refrain from interjections because they are perfectly out of order. I ask the honourable member for Downsview to continue.

Mr Perruzza: I sat by this afternoon and I listened to the wise advice from our friend the member for Etobicoke West, who delivered an eloquent speech, a speech similar to the one he delivered when he was a member of Metro council. He convinced me then, he convinced me again today, but is his position reflective of his party's position, of the Conservative Party's position with respect to this issue? No. Absolutely not.

For 42 years the Conservatives sat idly by and let this inequity happen. What did they do when they had chances to revamp the system, when they had an opportunity to bring the system to a more recent level and to a fairer level? I'll tell you what they did. They passed the buck.

Mr Mancini: Who did that?

Mr Perruzza: The Conservatives. They passed the buck.

Mr Mancini: No.

Mr Perruzza: Absolutely. They passed the buck.

In 1972 they introduced amendments to the act which essentially said to municipalities: "Look, if you want this to happen, you decide. You do it. You come back to us and you let us know and it'll automatically happen. We'll just return the rolls to you." That's what they did, they passed the buck. Passing the buck in Metro caused no change because Metro couldn't muster the votes to make change happen. Because we have no change, we have immeasurable inequities in the system.

I've listened to the arguments put forward by the city of Toronto members with respect to the residential portions with the 5% increases. This is going to cause a problem for people. If you get the full increase for a house that's reassessed in Metro that should be receiving a substantial property tax increase, those increases are capped to 5%. That's going to cause a problem for people.

Businesses are going to be put out of business en masse, absolutely, because if they receive a 25% increase over three years, then they're gone. They won't be able to stick around. They're not going to make it. What about the businesses and the properties in the newer neighbourhoods within Metro such as Downsview and such as Yorkview? What about those? Nobody cares about those.

When we witnessed the Metro debate, you saw all the "Stop MVA" signs. We all know it's usually the people resisting change who are going to be actively negatively impacted on. They're the ones who come out. They're the ones with the loudest voices. It's not the people who are going to get benefits from change, because they don't know about it. They don't trust politicians. They think every politician is just simply going to raise their taxes. Nobody believes they're going to get tax decreases. Absolutely not.

I'm going to quote some numbers for you. There are businesses in Yorkview and in Downsview and in newer parts of Metro that have for years been paying higher rates of tax. I look at Micro Machine and Tool on Oakdale Road. They're paying $8,000 a year more than what they should be paying, and they're surviving. They've been paying this for years.

I look at W A Construction, again on Oakdale Road. They currently pay $140,000 a year. They would go down to $108,000. They're paying $31,000 a year more than they should be paying, and they've been paying it for years. They're struggling to survive.

I look at Royalcrest Lifecare on Finch Avenue West. They're paying $46,581 more per year than what they should be paying. They're struggling to survive, and they're making it. Conrad Beauty Ltd, the little shop on Norfinch Drive: $13,715 more than they should be paying, and trying to survive.

I'll give you another statistic. That's the business side of it. I'm going to give you one more number and you contemplate this. Roxborough Drive: For some of you who don't know, this is north Toronto.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): No, it isn't. That's the city of Toronto.

1700

Mr Perruzza: The city of Toronto. I stand corrected. Roxborough Drive: From the statistics, a house currently valued at $1,836 million is paying $3,306 in property taxes. In North York, a house worth $255,000 is paying $3,434. They're paying more, a little working-class bungalow. If you factor in at roughly 25% of income, a guy making a household income of $500,000 a year is paying $3,000 in property tax. A household income of $55,000 a year is paying $3,400 in tax.

That, in a nutshell, is quite frankly what we're talking about. The Metro compromise isn't the best solution. It's not the best thing for these people. They don't get their full decreases, people who should be legitimately getting a decrease. But it's a compromise, and I commend this government and every member of this government who is going to stand in his or her place and vote in favour of some fairness, some equity and some justice.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Ruprecht: I know the member for Downsview is quite sincere in his comments, but there are some items in this discussion that really should be looked at more carefully. I would not want him to say, and people across the province of Ontario to believe, that the city of Toronto is against any form of tax changes. That simply is not the case. There have been a number of proposals, and they have been made.

But above all, the member for Downsview should certainly know that you don't go into an area and propose massive changes that are going to affect people detrimentally right across the board, not only in the city of Toronto but in other places as well, without any impact studies.

What I would like the member for Downsview to address himself to is the question of economic impact studies. Does he not realize what would happen? He's quoting us all kinds of different cases, but what he has not told us and cannot quote to us, apparently, or he is unable to, is to tell us how many people will be pushed out of their homes, how many seniors are going to be unable to pay the taxes.

What is going to be the repercussion on the whole city? What are we going to do here, when the economy is lousy at this stage of the game? And in terms of our business infrastructure and structures and businesses on our main streets, when they are being forced to close, what will he say then? Does he not realize there's going to be an economic blight created in this city?

The residents from his own riding are going to the city of Toronto to work. They don't just come from the city; they come from his place, and that is why they're able to afford the taxes they have been asked to pay. So please address yourself to the facts, and I would hope to get a response.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Harnick: I listened intently to the very fine speech made by the member for Downsview. I grapple with this issue because it's a very difficult issue. But one of the things he says strikes me. He says that people who are against this government plan, against this piece of legislation that's now before us, are resisting change. At the same time, he also tells us that market value as it's being proposed is not fair. It is not fair -- that's what he said -- and he said, "But even though it's not fair, you shouldn't be resisting change."

When a piece of legislation is supported and it's not fair, it makes me wonder, how we can go down the path blindly? How can we be led to vote for something where somebody is supporting it and at the same time he says it's not fair? It strikes me that what we should be doing is to look for something that is fair. We should be looking for something that can be better.

We should be looking for something that isn't pitting Scarborough against North York and North York against Toronto and Toronto against Etobicoke and ending up with a package at the end of the day that my friend quite candidly and very honestly, and I applaud him for it, says is not fair.

You'll never convince me to vote for this bill when in the same breath you tell me it's not fair. I remind the member of the position of his party. His party, in resolution 6.2.2(3), is opposed to any further implementation of market value.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Mammoliti: I commend the member for Downsview because it was a very good speech. The member for Willowdale talks about pitting one against the other. Let me tell you something, Mr Speaker: If you were to ask me, as the member for Yorkview, where my heart lies, it's Yorkview. If you ask me who I'm here to represent, it's Yorkview.

If you ask me who my heart should bleed for, the individual on Forest Hill who owns a home of $2 million who can probably afford this time and time again or that senior the member for Parkdale talks about, that senior in Yorkview who pays $3,000 property tax, receives a fixed income of maybe $12,000 or $13,000, and some of them even live off of cat food because of it, because of the pride, they want to keep their home, where's my heart going to bleed? My heart's going to bleed for the senior who's eating cat food, not the $2-million home owner who can probably afford the increase. Where does my heart bleed? My heart bleeds for Yorkview.

My heart bleeds for the businesses on Oakdale Road and Norfinch Drive and along Finch that are going to benefit from this. And they're even having to take a compromise. This is not 100%. They're having to take 40% the first year, 10% the next, and I don't hear any of them screaming. I don't hear any of them yelling and saying, "Why is this happening?" I haven't had any rampages along Finch Avenue or down Islington saying, "Why are they doing this to me?" My heart bleeds for them.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Ms Poole: The member for Downsview made two statements which I totally agree with: first, that market value is not a fair form of taxation and, second, that the Metro plan was not a good plan.

But there are a couple of things he said that I have to correct. The first is that he has insisted that it was the city of Toronto and the city of North York that blocked reform and resisted change, that they have offered no alternative, that they've opposed any form of update. This is totally wrong. There have been several proposals made; the latest, several years ago, was unit assessment. It was a very well thought out proposal. The cities of Toronto and North York councils requested that Metro take a look at it, do a review of it, do an impact study of it. Metro refused.

It is Metro that has refused change. It is Metro that is wedded to market value assessment, even though people like the member for Downsview, the members for Eglinton and York Mills and Willowdale and Parkdale all agree that it is not a good system. It is Metro that has refused to look at the inequities between tenants and home owners. They've refused to look at the inequities between how small businesses and large businesses are taxed. They are the ones that have resisted change.

The other point he made was that the city of Toronto is undertaxed. The city of Toronto provides 20% of the revenue for the province of Ontario -- 20%. How dare you say we are undertaxed? We provide $316 million more per year out to the suburbs for education than we use for our own schools. We give that to the suburbs. We subsidize the suburbs for transportation. Fifteen per cent of the gross domestic product in Canada is south of Bloor Street. We have done very well for the suburbs and please don't forget that.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Downsview has two minutes to respond.

1710

Mr Perruzza: I'll just respond very briefly to, essentially, the three positions -- the one from Parkdale, where businesses would en masse go out of business because we lack impact studies, and the issue of "Why would you vote for it if it's not fair?" and I would disagree with that as well.

To the first, businesses, as the member for Parkdale will know, get to deduct their property taxes 100%. So, essentially, when that deduction happens, a large chunk of the business property tax increase is swallowed up by both the provincial and federal governments. Yes, some of it is picked up by the actual proprietor of the business; we all know that. But if the business is making a profit, and on an income statement that can be carried back three years and forward seven, generally most of that increase will be absorbed by a property tax deduction -- a 100% deduction, I may add, on a sheet. So, yes, businesses are going to be impacted on in some of the older neighbourhoods, but I dare say that impact is not going to be as stark as some of the members would have us believe.

Why, if this isn't the fairest system we could possibly have, am I going to support it? I'm going to support it because I respect Metro's authority in generating this compromise. They're well within their authority to do so, and I applaud them for having done it. That's why I'm going to support them in their initiative. Metro, quite frankly, has taken a very, very courageous step, a courageous decision. They've met and they've come to a compromise, a compromise I would urge every member of this Legislature to support.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: Since the creation of Metro council, there has been no other issue as divisive as market value assessment. It comes to a point even where the chairman of Metro council is under special police protection and forced to wear a bulletproof vest.

Metro council is normally reasonable and hardworking, and I speak from experience, having been on Metro council from 1978 until 1981. That reasonable lot today are accusing each other, and in this volatile mix they're calling each other fascists and communists and all kinds of names under the sun. The attacks have been so vicious and so personal that they can only be described as character assassinations, and the bickering, of course, is endless.

But the discussion we're undertaking today takes place under one overriding fact, and that is, whatever accommodation was made when Metro was founded, it turned out to be really successful, and, in fact, the envy of urban analysts and urban planners and all those people who like to live in an urban centre, right across the globe. It attracted people from all countries to come to Toronto, and in fact Metro Toronto. Our city -- and Metro Toronto -- has won international honours and awards time and time again. For what? For a city that works. We today can be proud of that city.

The mayor of Toronto has sent a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is well prepared, and for the record I'd like to ensure that full consideration be given to that summary.

The minister's statement of November 5, 1992, to the Legislature asserted that the province will not allow Metro Toronto to implement full market value assessment in 1997. Therefore, and logically, there should be no intention to impose market value assessment in 1993.

Nevertheless, certain classes of property have been singled out for full market value tax increases. I spoke about them earlier in my two-minute remarks. These classes have been established, certainly without protective caps: residential property except apartment buildings sold in the next five years; development sites, which I spoke about, currently vacant; rail rights of way; utility corridors; and properties for which grants are paid in lieu of taxes. If, as the minister has stated, we are not moving to full market value, why should any property be treated in such a discriminatory fashion? Is this defensible?

The economic impact of full 1988 market value taxes on these properties will be felt immediately because, as you will remember, 1988 was at the height of the real estate market. Therefore, equity in residential property in this city, and some parts of area municipalities as well, is already devalued by the recession. They will be further eroded by the imposition of market value assessment at point of sale.

GO Transit's share of the railway property and those taxes will increase by $11.2 million, from $3.8 million to $15 million, annually. If this extra cost is passed through to the commuter it will add about 45 cents to the price of a trip to Toronto or an increase of about $240 a year to GO Transit commuters living outside Metro Toronto.

Hydro rights of way will attract an additional tax of approximately $30 million to $40 million. As with the increase of GO Transit fares, this will have to be offset by increases to hydro costs. Paid by whom? Of course, by the ratepayers throughout Ontario.

Vacant land slated for commercial or residential development anywhere in Metro will be taxed at the full market value rate, unless the land can be used as a car park or some other interim commercial use.

In the city of Toronto both CN, the real estate arm, and Marathon Realty Co estimate that these additional tax costs, combined with the current state of the economy, will further delay the public benefits and job creation related to new development on railway lands.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has stated that rail jobs will be lost if Metro's tax scheme is passed by the province. Because the railways have been excluded from the capping provisions of the Metro plan, the rail companies will have to pay about four and a half times more than they currently pay. The union therefore has indicated that full Metro MVA will result in a tax increase of about $45.5 million for CN and approximately $20 million for CP. The rail unions feel that these huge increases will have a direct impact on the development of the railway workers and on rail operations across the province. The Metro plan unfairly transfers its burden to the rail transportation industry in Ontario. These additional costs will also shift freight from rail to trucks, with the attendant impact on highways and the environment.

In 1992 the Parking Authority of Toronto, as I'd mentioned previously, paid $6.7 million in local taxes. Under the Metro scheme the parking authority would pay $19.4 million, an increase of $12.7 million. The Parking Authority of Toronto simply cannot shoulder this burden and will have to close its operation, putting 300 people out of work.

In the recently completed study of the impact of Metro's scheme on its lands, the Toronto harbour commission calculated that the impact of Metro's scheme will double taxes on port industrial land from $12.3 million to $25.9 million. Given that in many cases these lands are polluted and would require an extensive and costly cleanup to have any market value at all, these new values bear no relation to the current market reality. How then can these lands be leased to encourage industrial development in the city?

The implementation of this scheme was so poorly planned that Metro was unaware of many of the potentially devastating impacts of its plan. Often, it was only the city of Toronto's analysts that identified the potentially devastating economic impact on additional sectors of the economy. After overcoming Metro's initial refusal to share the assessment tapes, the city obtained them and was able to begin its own analysis.

For example, the city identified that severe loss of equity in small businesses would have resulted if market value assessment was imposed at point of sale. The huge increases that threatened to put non-profit cultural, artistic and theatrical operations out of business were identified, and now the equally serious impact of this Metro scheme on utility rates, commuter fares, job losses in the rail industry are all the result of a market value assessment plan that is fundamentally and basically flawed.

1720

No amount of tinkering can protect everyone from the economic impact of a tax scheme based on the volatile real estate market and the highly speculative land values of 1988. The logic of these points lead us directly to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Why not do economic impact studies before he and his party are ready to impact such a scheme on the people of Toronto?

The questions were asked before by speaker after speaker and they are simple: Where are the studies of the economic impact of this plan? Where are the studies of its impact on jobs? Where are the studies of its impact on businesses? Where are the studies of its impact on the people of Toronto? We all know, of course, what the answers are. It's simple. There are no economic impact studies. We don't know how this plan will affect every resident who of course has to increase the taxes he or she will have to pay.

I think it's easy to understand: If a vast number of people are going to be affected negatively in this way and if there will be a number of job losses and business closings, can we be prepared to support this scheme or should we open our eyes and make the necessary changes so that the impact will be mitigated to the point where people can live with the changes?

That is why we've been consistently calling for public hearings. I'm delighted to say they will now take place, and we encourage people to come and speak out against the plan that is flawed. Consequently, we would be very delighted to see those members especially attend these committee hearings who have said they will change their minds if the facts will be provided.

I believe the facts and the arguments will be reasonable and I believe even the NDP will open up the process to the point and follow the leadership provided by the Liberal Party and by the Progressive Conservative Party to open up and permit every member of this Legislature a free vote. Then we will see what the minister and the various ministers of this cabinet will have to say, because without a free vote we will never know who is hiding under which carpet.

Finally, simply let me say this: I only hope that when these public hearings take place, and they will take place very soon, those who are interested in ensuring that this city will still be in a good shape -- that we will be internationally recognized and when the Premier goes to Asia and other countries across the world, he will hear the same words, that Toronto is a special place, Metro Toronto is a special place of which we can be very proud.

But with this scheme imposed on a population unwilling to take it to heart, I'm not sure we're going to be making progress. Let me simply say that when the study was done, when the surveys came in -- and I'm referring to October 22, 1992, the most recent survey -- it is very clear what the people of Metropolitan Toronto are saying: 75% of those surveyed said they think a plan to implement market value assessment for Metro property taxation would lead to business closings and 70% said a loss of jobs would occur.

The final question I simply want to ask you today is, if indeed businesses are closing, if indeed jobs are being lost, can we sit idly by and see a city begin to rot at the core, or are we willing to make some changes and permit everyone to say: "This is a great place. Let's continue this tradition"?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments?

Ms Poole: I would certainly like to commend the member for Parkdale on his excellent speech today. He has put forward quite eloquently the position of the city of Toronto and some of the difficulties that specific businesses and specific operations have with this.

The member for Parkdale represents an area which doesn't have $2-million homes, as referred to by the member for Downsview, and quite frankly my riding of Eglinton doesn't have $2-million homes either. That's not what we're talking about protecting. We are talking about very small homes, middle-class homes, and when earlier it was suggested that they would be 1,500 to 2,000 square feet in size, I thought, oh, my goodness, that would be a palace.

But that's not what the member for Parkdale is talking about when he talks about the homes in the city of Toronto. We would be glad if they were that big. We're talking about homes with 23- to 25-foot frontages which have no room for a driveway; there are alleyways on either side of the house. We are not talking about mansions. We're talking about ordinary people with ordinary homes.

This government and the previous Liberal government and the Conservative government before that have all talked about how we wanted to encourage intensification, how we wanted to make the best use of density, and the city of Toronto was looked on as a model for using intensification. But instead what this market value plan will do is to encourage urban sprawl, because a house in Scarborough with a 100-foot lot will pay less taxes than one with a 25-foot lot in the city of Toronto. It goes the opposite direction, so I would ask these members to rethink that.

Mr Stockwell: I've heard much comment from the member for Parkdale -- I'm not certain about the member for Eglinton, but definitely from the member for Parkdale -- about this impact study. I would like you to elaborate on specifically what you mean by an impact study. I'd like to know what your terms of reference would be for this impact study and exactly how you would measure what it is you'd like to measure.

Maybe for your sake to jump ahead and assume your response, if your impact study is, is it going to affect people's taxes and whether or not they pay more, then we all assume, yes, of course, it's going to affect people's taxes and now they're going to pay more. If it's going to affect the fact of whether or not these people can afford to pay more, then of course it may well affect that as well, being called your typical impact study.

Therefore I would ask this second question: If you're prepared to do an impact study on market value assessment and those people who are getting increases, would you also be in favour of doing an impact study, if you don't institute market value reassessment, on those people who don't get their decreases?

It seems to be what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so would people who are hardship cases now, who are overpaying their taxes, not deserve the same equitable and fair treatment as those who are getting an increase under market value assessment?

It only makes sense to me, because it would tell you probably the same thing. If you don't get a reduction in your taxes, there's going to be hardship cases and if you get an increase in your taxes, there's going to be hardship cases.

If that's what you're looking for in the way of an impact study, it seems rather fruitless, and if it's not what you're looking for, then what exactly are you looking for?

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Mammoliti: I'm not going to be as aggressive as I was earlier. I'm going to be somewhat compassionate at this point. I understand the points people are trying to make here, and I also understand that we need some meaningful property tax reform. I've always been an advocate of meaningful property tax reform. I continue being an advocate of meaningful property tax reform. I have never agreed with the educational portion of property tax. I don't think that's the way we should be collecting it. I have been an advocate in my community and within caucus in saying that it's time for a change.

Everybody is overtaxed; I'm not saying they're not. My argument today is about who can afford it and who can't, because that's what I'm looking for in this particular agreement. The people in Yorkview can't afford to continue paying the taxes they're paying, so what other alternative do they have? This is meaningful to them for the time being.

1730

In the meantime, we have some advocates. I supported the member for Downsview last week in his bid to change the property tax structure here in Ontario. I'm going to continue doing that, and I still think there's some hope. I still think that will eventually happen. When that does happen, you're going to get, for the most part, the same people complaining out in the streets, the people who are going to have to pay a little bit more in terms of a new structure. We'll talk about that later.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant in questions and/or comments. Seeing none, the honourable member for Parkdale has two minutes in response.

Mr Ruprecht: I wanted to respond to both the member for Etobicoke West and the member for Yorkview, and I want to thank them for their questions. The member for Etobicoke West is asking, "What will these economic impact studies look like and how useful will they be and what will you examine?" He should know the answers to those questions.

The first point is that we want to examine how many jobs are being lost. What would he say if he finds that 100,000 to 150,000 jobs would be lost because of market value assessment implementation? Would he then change his mind? I think the member for Etobicoke West would be quite reasonable, once confronted with this kind of fact. He would say, "No, we cannot proceed with implementation of this plan."

What about when businesses are closing? What about that? Will he be prepared to say, "I'm changing my mind," if he finds that 50,000 to 80,000 businesses that will be directly affected and consequently will go bankrupt are hanging on by the skin of their teeth for a few more days or for a few more weeks before they are forced into bankruptcy? Will the member from Etobicoke then say, "No, the member for Parkdale is right"?

We cannot have these economic impact studies and sit by and simply let the city of Toronto be destroyed simply because the people from Etobicoke are working in the city of Toronto. The people from Etobicoke are also coming down and using the transit systems and also have some of the businesses in the city of Toronto.

His question, of course, is a good one when he asks, "What will these impact studies look like?" These studies will tell us once and for all what the impact on the economy will be and where the rot will set in. Once this gets into place, is he prepared to walk down on Yonge Street, to drive down on Queen Street West, to drive down along Danforth Avenue and see businesses closing, business after business being bankrupt? Is he prepared to do that?

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I want to say at the outset that I will be opposed to this plan. I actually wish we had spent as much time debating some of the tax issues of this government. It's interesting when I sit and listen to the members on the back bench. We had $1 billion worth of increases in taxes in the last budget. The member for Downsview sits three rows back, around 11 seats over from the Premier, and he didn't say one word to the Premier about those tax increases. Quite frankly, I wish the people who are standing up so clearly here would stand up and represent their members when they're dealing with their own Premier -- during that period of time, $1 billion.

Remember that election campaign when Bob Rae said: "Yes, you're right. Harris is right. The taxes are too high, but don't worry. I'm going to be the one to come in, and the people who are going to pay are the rich people"? That's who they pitted against. Then in the last budget, the tax increases that came in were 14% on anybody making $53,000. It's the same principle here. The same people who are talking about these taxes are the same people who said nothing.

At the outset, I would like to say I wish we would spend as much time dealing with provincial taxes as we are on this matter. Let me say, the situation is very simple. Regardless of party, regardless of ideology, if your taxes are going up, you're opposed to this plan. If your taxes are going down, you support it. We've heard people on both sides: "It's fair" or "It's not fair." "We've got these people who are being hurt, we've got these people..." The crux of the matter is that if your taxes are going down, you like it, and if your taxes are going up, you do not like it. So let's not talk about fairness, let's not talk about unfairness. The fact of the matter is, people are voting along their own lines based on what's going to happen to them, with very little regard for the other person. They're only looking at it from their own special interest on both sides of the issue.

There's been a lot of talk about the people who came in here and are paying undue taxes. The fact of the matter is, each and every one of those persons knew what the taxes were when they moved in. The basic principle I have against this bill is that they changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game for the people. When I go out and buy a home with my wife, we look at all the factors, but we knew what they were and we knew there'd be gradual increases in taxes, as there always are. What we did not know in the case of market value is that the rules would be changed dramatically.

The reason I'm opposing it is that I'm concerned about some of the people who can least afford it, some of the seniors. People are acutely aware of their property values. I remember in the last election campaign going up to a house in my riding. As everyone will remember, it was a nice summer election. The lady was pruning the trees with some shears, and when I went up the driveway, she said, "If you're with the Liberals, I'm going to use these on you." The reason was because of the downloading that had happened. This nice lady, if I can remember correctly, had come over from Ireland and I think her husband had come over from another country. She said, "We had always thought we were going to have our senior years where we were going to be able to relax." They were being thrown out because of the property taxes.

With this issue I'm concerned about the seniors who are going to be hit with tax increases who did not know it when they moved in there. It's interesting when we look back, and I look at the figures. It's kind of ironic. We talk about the 1942 assessment, I guess it was, the 1940 market values, 1954. It's ironic that the vast majority, or a lot of the people in there, weren't even alive during that period of time. So you've got seniors who came in and didn't know and didn't expect these increases. That's who I'm concerned about, some of the most vulnerable people.

On the other hand, you've got other people saying, "Well, there are going to be some decreases for those people." The fact of the matter is, most of those people knew that when they moved in there. They knew what their taxes were and moved in based on a lot of those facts.

Quite frankly, I think this government did not want to deal with this whole issue. We had to force the hearings on this, because I think they wanted to sweep it under the rug. The big reason is that, in opposition, the NDP fought strongly against that. Marilyn Churley, Mr Silipo, Margery Ward, Elaine Ziemba and Zanana Akande, all these people said they were opposed to it. It will be interesting to see what happens when the vote comes up.

The problem we've got with this government is that the same principles that are happening provincially with the tax increases are happening here. It's interesting to note their resolution 6.2.2(3). The NDP adopted a resolution that said, "The NDP opposes any further introduction of market value assessment." So it's interesting that all the NDP members are now talking in support of this, saying it's the fairest way of doing it. Quite frankly, that isn't what they ran on in the last election campaign. But I shouldn't be too surprised, because the flip-flops on those issues have been dramatic in other areas as well.

I'm also concerned about some of the businesses, and there have been a lot of figures thrown back and forth, people saying this amount of business will be hurt, this amount of business will benefit. Again, the same principle is that the people who got in knew what they were paying in taxes, and the people I feel sorry for are the ones who are going to get major increases that they didn't expect.

1740

We've all received the faxes. I've received the faxes, like the rest of the members, from some of the railways, and we've heard a great deal about GO Transit and Hydro. I won't get into too many of the details because, quite frankly, if I closed my eyes and listened, both sides are arguing facts and figures, how everybody's going to be helped.

My basic principle on this is that the people who are going to benefit from this when they bought their homes or businesses knew what they were paying in taxes and they made those decisions at that time with the facts in front of them. The people who are going to be affected by this are the ones who are having the rules of the game changed midway.

The government and some of the members spoke eloquently about helping the city of Toronto. I don't know if the members realized, but the commercial concentration tax that was implemented by the previous government here takes $100 million out of Toronto. So, quite frankly, at a time when we've got the tax increases, I would suggest to some of the members who are concerned, as even the members who are supporting this are, about what's happening in Toronto, take a look at some of the other taxes, the provincial taxes, and what they are doing to the city of Toronto.

Quite frankly, the problem we've got with this whole tax increase is that governments at all levels and of all political stripes have been overtaxing, they've been overspending during the last few years and, for this particular group, there will be a tremendous effect and it will be the last straw.

What the figures will be, quite frankly, I don't think we're going to know until afterwards. After it's done, we're going to hear how many businesses were lost and how many moved out. I'm afraid that the consequences will be disastrous for a great deal of the businesses and home owners in Toronto.

It's interesting too that the group that has been fighting this -- and everybody's talking about this whole issue. I hope that governments at all levels will take a hard look at the spending patterns that have led to these dramatic increases in taxes. Quite frankly, aside from this, in this province we're still the highest-taxed province in Canada and the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America.

The problem we've got is that when a government does decide to decrease taxes, as happened in the last federal budget, what happened is the next provincial budget that came in, the provincial government increased the exact amount that the federal government had reduced it, and what we have to remember during this whole process is that even though there are three or four levels of government, there is only one taxpayer.

So I hope that in the future in this Legislature we'll have as much time debating the principles of taxation when they deal with a provincial nature as we did on this one.

I'm looking forward to the hearings. Quite frankly, like most of the people, I spent time each night on TV watching what was going on with the various groups and hearing from the groups that were affected, by way of television. I'm looking forward to hearing from those same groups coming in and talking about their particular cases because I don't believe any of the politicians in here when they say, "Here are the figures and here's what's going to happen," and "These people are going to benefit and these people aren't going to benefit," and "Oh yes, they are," and "No, they're not." I want to hear from people on both sides of the issue and, quite frankly, I'm glad that we're going to be having the hearings, so that people can come forward on this particular issue.

In my own region in Halton, we went through this. If you think you've got difficulties here, in the region of Halton they passed the market value assessment on a region basis and the vote was tied. The vote was tied and the regional chairman broke the vote. So if you think you've got problems in Metropolitan Toronto, in Halton region, literally, the vote was broken by the chairman. In Halton a lot of people saw what was going on in the Legislature with Toronto and thought that it would come here like the Toronto one was, but it will not of course.

What has happened in this is you've got region pitted against region; you've got streets pitted against streets. I've heard debates in here about this group who lives on this street is going to benefit and this group is going to not benefit. Members are talking about other members' ridings where it's split. Quite frankly, it comes down to one principle and one principle only: Anybody who is getting a reduction likes it; anybody who is getting an increase does not like it.

I will close very quickly here because I know there are a couple of other speakers. The concern we've got on this in the communities and the divisions will linger for many years, and I wish we could have as much debate on the whole spending issue, also at the Metro level, as we do on this taxation issue.

We're going to be looking very carefully at the members on the other side. You've heard some of the other members on our side talk about it, some of the references to the divisions, but each and every one of them will be here to stand up for what they believe in. I hope the other side, the people who ran in the last election based on the promise to either defend or oppose this legislation, will do so when it comes to this Legislature.

I hope the members will have the political courage to come in and vote on it. I'm not one of the ones affected, because obviously, coming from Oakville, none of my ridings are affected like this. But I hope each and every one of the members who will be affected will listen to the hearings, listen to the members who are going to be affected in a way I think most of them will, in a comprehensive way, and make the decision based on the facts, not listen to the politicians on both sides, of all political stripes, arguing back and forth, but listen to the people and make the choice.

I will be opposing this piece of legislation, but I hope the other members will take as much time to take a look at this particular legislation and make the right choices, because a lot of lives are going to be affected by this and a lot of businesses are going to be affected by this. I hope at the end of the day the impact will not be so great that we will have destroyed one of the greatest cities in one of the greatest provinces in the greatest country in the world.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: I'm delighted to hear that the member for Oakville will be voting against this particular piece of legislation and I want to congratulate him, but also to tell him that yes, he is indeed affected by this. There are not only people in the city of Toronto affected by it; there are people across Ontario, especially the residents of Oakville, because what will happen is that the GO Transit share of railway property taxes will increase by $11.2 million. That will directly impact on the residents of Oakville because they will have to come up with 45 cents more every time they come to Toronto. There are hundreds, I might even say thousands, of people coming to Toronto from Oakville, working there and having businesses there and so on. That's an increase of $240 a year for every resident if they want to take the GO train. While I'm delighted he will be opposing this, the point is that residents will be affected everywhere.

Finally, let me simply say this: I would also appreciate it if he could possibly address himself to the economic impact studies, because he has said we're living in Toronto, in a very special place, which I certainly believe and I know most members believe when they travel abroad. It's one of the best cities; it's a special place; it's a place that has no equal across the world and there are thousands of people who wish and pray they could come to Toronto to live here.

Why is that? Are we then prepared to destroy that kind of fragile economic balance that is now necessary to maintain this place, or are we ready to shift the taxes into Toronto and possibly destroy it by creating some economic rot right in the centre of this economic engine that might drive this province and this country out of economic stability? Are we willing to do that or are we willing to take a chance and make the necessary changes and say no to this particular scheme?

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Indeed, a lot of the comments that my colleague the member for Oakville South had are so apropos. One of the things he mentioned was the fact that there's only one taxpayer, and that hits home so many times.

Right here in the centre of this province, which is the highest source of revenue for the whole country, and in fact Toronto is the generator of the greatest amount of revenue for this province, we're seeing businesses going into bankruptcy every day. The suggestion is that these businesses are not paying their fair share of taxes. Hocus-pocus. The reality is that they are paying large amounts of tax but, unfortunately, you say that based upon the market value of the building, that is the tax they should be paying.

1750

Why on earth should you pay taxes based upon the value of the building, particularly if you're the tenant? What relationship is there between the value of the building and your ability to pay or your consumption of services there are? There are plenty of buildings in areas that are getting reductions where the tenants are doing exactly the same amount of business as the tenants in buildings that are getting increases.

If the increases were such that it brought it up to the level of the decreases so that you had an even playing field, I wouldn't be objecting to it, but that is not the case because of the skew you have in the value of properties based upon this 1988 bubble where certain properties went up disproportionately to others. That gives the impression that they have a higher ability to pay.

As we drive businesses out of downtown Toronto and out of Metro, we are not going to be the beneficiaries. Even the people who receive tax deductions are going to find that the economy is going to be a lot meaner and a lot leaner than they ever anticipated. That's exactly what we do by attacking these businesses during this recession with 1988 values.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Ms Poole: I was pleased to hear in the speech of the member for Oakville South that he plans to vote against this legislation. He raised a number of very valid points -- the point that when people buy a home or buy a business, they go in with the expectation that these will be the taxes and there will be the normal increases in taxes that any resident or business is subject to. But they know what they can afford when they go in. I think that's a very valid point.

The member for Parkdale, in commenting on the member for Oakville South's speech, mentioned the fact that residents in Oakville are going to have to pay that extra 45 cents for their GO Transit ticket for every trip they take. But there's going to be another impact on Oakville that I'm not sure the member for Oakville South is aware of. That's the fact that Ontario Hydro has been very hard hit. They are not capped, their lands are not capped and they will be subject to the full increase of market value assessment. Those lands in downtown Toronto are going to be very hard hit. The estimates I saw, I believe, were that Hydro was going to be hit by a $50 million per year increase.

If you look at what that means for every taxpayer and every residence of Ontario, it is going to mean an increase in their hydro rates. It's going to mean an increase right across the province to pay for Metro's plan. I don't think this is fair to Hydro. I certainly don't think it's fair to the member for Oakville South's constituents. I don't think it's fair to the member for Brantford or the member for Cochrane South. I don't think that was what was intended. I think when Metro put this in it was treating Hydro as a cash cow, and it's the constituents across Ontario who will pay for that.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Stockwell: Firstly, I didn't get the answer from the member for Parkdale for the impact studies. He went on a political assault and chose to examine just one warped-view side of the argument.

Maybe I'll put the same question to the member for Oakville South with respect to the impact studies. Are you in favour of impact studies for market value assessment? If so, are you in favour of impact studies should it be implemented, and then impact studies if it is not implemented, on those people who don't get reductions and on those businesses that don't get reductions, and whether or not they cost people their jobs?

The other issue I'd like to address and I want ask the member for Oakville South about is this unit tax. This unit tax seems to be a tax that's reared its head on a couple of occasions. On each occasion it was squashed or put down by a majority of members of council, both local and Metro.

The question that's asked is, unit tax is based on the size of your house and the size of your lot. A poll tax is based on the number of people who happen to live in your house. In my opinion, they're very similar. Size of the lot and size of house are not based at all on your ability to pay and simply location has nothing to do with the assessment value.

If we don't have location tax and we just simply go with unit tax, are you in favour then of a unit tax, as opposed to market value assessment, or are you in favour of a poll tax? The question that needs to be asked to all members in the House who don't support market value assessment, don't support market value reassessment, is, what exactly do you support? Do you support a poll tax, a unit tax or some other form of tax that has proven to be inherently unfair and unacceptable to the vast majority of taxpayers in practically every region of this country?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oakville South now has two minutes in response.

Mr Carr: I'll be very brief. I guess the entire issue comes down to one thing, and I will say to the member for Etobicoke West what I said is that I didn't believe any politician on either side of the issue on this. I heard in the debates politicians saying X number is going to be hurt. I heard the other side saying, no, it's X number that is going to be helped by this.

That's the problem with this entire debate. If you closed your eyes and listened to it, you'd think you were talking to two different debates. The figures are being bandied about by groups, and some people are saying, put the studies together. The studies that are put together said X amount of commercial businesses will be hurt and X amount of individuals will be hurt. The other side says, no, they won't.

The principle I went by in what I said in my speech is that the fact of the matter is that when people bought their homes, they knew what it was. If the tax was high at the time, they bought that house knowing the tax was higher than it was in Scarborough or whatever. Everybody going into it knew what the taxes were.

What this does is change it dramatically in favour of one group over the other. When people made a decision to move to Scarborough or to Toronto, they factored a lot in. They factored taxes and they factored the cost of transportation, which, as the member suggests, may be affected by this. What I said in this whole issue is that I'm opposed to changing taxes dramatically on people in the middle of the game.

There are some who will argue they're going to get benefits. I say to those people that they were surviving. They were not only surviving, most of them were prospering, they knew that when they came in, and you do not change the rules of the game dramatically. That's the reason I'm opposed to it, and I hope during the hearings what we will have is some debate where we deal with the facts, rather than politicians throwing facts and figures about on all sides of this House.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I wish to join the debate today on market value assessment. I believe it's an important issue. It's important to the people of my riding, the people from Bennington Heights, the people in Leaside, and the people in ward 2 and ward 3 and ward 4 of the borough of East York. This is an important issue and we want to recognize it.

I join with those people in the struggle on fair tax reform and in a fair and just system and I want to participate with the people of my riding for the improvement in a fairer tax system. I join with those people, and I am totally against full market value assessment.

Historically speaking, MVA is the system of course that we have, based on the 1940s for here in Metro, and the values were actually implemented from the 1940s. The last time they had an update was in 1953, and I believe it's a very unfair tax system. It's grown over the years, and there's been a lot of squabbling happening between communities and the province and the various other entanglement issues that have come up.

We have an overlap of taxes, and it's a system which is very convoluted and impacts mostly on working people and on groups of people who are unable to pay the system they are suffering with now, those groups being of course small businesses, which are tremendously hurt by increases in taxes, and also senior citizens.

I have a high percentage of seniors in my riding, second only to Victoria, British Columbia. I fear very much that they're already just barely managing to keep their homes and this will place a further burden on the tax increases on their properties. I hate to see many of these senior citizens having to lose their homes or leave the riding because they're unable to meet their tax bills. It's very painful to see so many houses for sale in my riding.

We have a beautiful home and a beautiful community and a beautiful quality of life in East York, and I'm sorry to see that it might be impacted. I have many single parents and many working people who are just making it now, many middle-class families, many young people just starting out who are going to be unable to afford this increase in tax.

It's a real burden and it's a real concern. I'm concerned that Metro has had no social or economic impact studies on the economic factors for single parents or senior citizens, for poor and middle-class families and the small businesses of my riding. This clearly, I believe, is an unfair system that is being proposed.

Our government has at least taken the leadership to share some of the responsibility with the municipalities, the federal government and our provincial counterparts, to develop a fair tax system, in terms of education and finance reform and the Fair Tax Commission, developing ways that are fair for everyone, the goal being, of course, to develop a system that's fair to the people who pay taxes.

I want to join in the struggle and join with the people of my riding. I'm totally against the implementation of full market value assessment and I believe the time is now and the time is right for government to react in a way that's fair and just for everybody. Let's not have any more people blaming different levels of government; that's unacceptable.

I think the time is now for us to have a non-partisan approach and work together for an accountable, fair system; develop something that's for the people, a system where we have cooperation among all levels of government. That's what our government is trying to bring into this, which is social and economic justice for the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 26, at 10 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1802.