Journal des débats 1998-nov-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): For the past 25 years, Birchwood Terrace has been a home for the aged, serving the needs of the residents of Terrace Bay, Schreiber and other communities along the north shore of Lake Superior, enabling many people to spend their golden years in or near their own community. Sadly, as a result of the restructuring of the system, Birchwood Terrace is now closing. The last resident moved out recently.

However, this does not need to mean that this beautiful facility that overlooks Lake Superior must be torn down. The townships of Schreiber and Terrace Bay, along with the McCausland Hospital, have a proposal that will revitalize the building as a health care facility for seniors, which will allow people to remain in or near their own community. This is a wonderful proposal which will keep the community alive and thriving and it certainly deserves our support.

The only problem is that the government of Ontario will only return this facility to the community at the market value cost of the facility, a price that may be substantial and impossible for the municipalities to pay.

What makes this position by the province so upsetting is that Birchwood Terrace began as a private facility and was given to the province as a gift by Kimberly-Clark, the municipality's largest taxpayer back in 1973. In fact, I have a picture here of the plaque that proudly states that this is a gift to the people and the province, and I'd like to send it, if I may, over to the Chair of Management Board to take a look at.

It's difficult to understand why the province, which has decided it has no future use for this facility, will not return this gift to the municipality so it can continue to serve the seniors who have contributed so much to the growth of the region.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Recent economic disasters have put Ontario's and Canada's farm and rural communities in a crunch. Farmers in Ontario are struggling and attempting to address the farm income disaster which is now making itself felt in Ontario's rural communities on family farms.

Just last week, Ontario farmers and farmers across Canada presented a farm income disaster program proposal that would go a long way to provide a basic level of support required by Ontario farm families. The proposal would allow the program to be made available on an all-commodity, individual farm basis. It will not undermine the value of existing farm safety net programs. It is considered green in the world trade arena. It will narrow the gap in assistance available to farmers in the United States and other competing countries like Canada. It will help the farmers in Ontario to compete. But most of all, it will protect the farm community's contribution to Ontario's economy now and in the future.

In order to work, the farm income disaster program needs a commitment of new money from the Harris government and his Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in order to preserve farm families in Ontario. The Ontario farm community and farm leaders have heard the minister's praises; they have heard praise from the Premier and from the Ontario rural caucus of the Tories. Praise is not going to help farmers when their incomes have gone through the cellar and they have been given no ideas of this government's intentions. Good intentions will not buy seed for next year's crops.

ADOPTION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I rise today to acknowledge November as Adoption Awareness Month. This is the month to celebrate families that have opened their hearts and homes to children who need a permanent and loving home in which to live and to increase awareness about adoption and children who are waiting to be adopted by a loving family.

It's a privilege to stand here today and express my gratitude to all the mothers and fathers who have adopted one, two or more children. I have seen at first hand the joys that adoption brings to a family.

One of my assistants, who has been with me for many years and who was working with me at the time she adopted her son, has told me many times that she has never regretted for a moment her decision to adopt. She has since given birth to a daughter and feels very blessed and lucky to have them both. When she looks at these children, she sees them not as her adopted son and birth daughter but rather as her son and her daughter equally - equally loved and cared for and equally wanted. She encourages everyone, anyone who loves children and wants to experience the joys of raising a child, to consider adopting. "You will never look back," she says. She knows in her heart that she did the right thing.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): As members of this House will know, we have concluded very brief public hearings on the apprenticeship legislation, Bill 55. The message to the committee members was very clear: The vast majority of participants spoke against the proposed changes, ironically even those presenters who were there at the request of Minister Johnson and the Harris government.

Here are the problems they outlined: The majority of changes to the apprenticeship system will be made in regulation by either yourself or your cabinet colleagues; you're stripping out the minimum educational requirements; you're creating a potential health and safety problem related to training standards and supervision; and you mean to undermine the employer-employee relationship that is the foundation of this system.

The presenters, employers and workers alike, also gave a clear message: This bill will not be a job creator but will in fact be a job killer. They said that you're going to make it harder for our workers to compete nationally and internationally and you're decimating the world-class apprenticeship program. The Premier heard this himself from apprentices when they toured the Air Canada Centre construction site earlier last week. They told him their concern about how this change will rip apart the system.

I hope the government will reflect on the presentations they heard at their very limited public hearings on this bill and will withdraw this bill entirely from consideration at their earliest opportunity. If they won't kill this bill, then I hope they will at least give amendments their most serious consideration, because passing this bill as is will be unacceptable to apprentices and employers and will do nothing to further the growth of skilled trades in Ontario.

1340

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to take this opportunity to report to the House what my colleague Len Wood and I found as we travelled on the James Bay coast over the past constituency break.

We found communities from Attawapiskat to Fort Albany to Kashechewan where families are forced to live in homes 30 per house. We found communities where buying the basic groceries in order to put food on the table is so expensive that people don't have that option and in fact are eating foods that are not good for healthy lifestyles. We found communities where fuel costs were exorbitant to the point that people could not afford to heat their homes. We've seen situations, such as in Fort Albany, where students are in a school that is substandard, that used to be the residential school, which we all know brings many bad memories.

We know that the federal government has dropped the ball on this issue. We know that the feds have not risen to the challenge of finding solutions for our First Nations people along the James Bay coast and other parts of Ontario to resolve many long-standing issues that need to be dealt with such as housing and other issues of importance.

I want to call on this provincial government to work with us, the NDP caucus, to go to the federal government and negotiate better agreements and better understandings on how both our levels of government are able to work with the First Nations communities to find long-term solutions to what are unique problems along the James Bay coast. We've seen that precedent in Manitoba where the Filmon government has negotiated with the feds. We ask this provincial government to work with us. Take some leadership and find solutions so those people can have hope like you and I have in the province of Ontario.

HAMILTON TIGER-CAT FOOTBALL CLUB

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I rise today with a much heavier heart than I had originally intended, but with a great deal of pride nonetheless, pride, that is, in the outstanding performance of our beloved Hamilton Tiger-Cats in the 1998 Grey Cup game played yesterday in balmy Winnipeg.

In another one of a long line of nail-biting "in search of the coveted silver bowl" classics, the Tabbies, on a heartbreaking last-play field goal, fell by a whisker to the Cowboys from Calgary 26 to 24. But this last-second letdown can in no way, shape or form detract from the on- and off-field performance of this legendary football team in 1998. You see, the Black and Yellow made the greatest one-year turnaround in Canadian football history in 1998, going from 2 and 16 in 1997 to 12, 5 and 1 in 1998.

The resurgence and resilience of this classy band of Bengals is typical of the spirit of Steeltown itself. You can knock us down all you want but we will get back up every time. Just ask the Toronto Argonauts, who have been our playful whipping boys for years.

This amazing comeback story is due in no small part to the commitment and dedication of owners George Grant and David MacDonald. They believed in Hamilton and the Tiger-Cats and the populace responded. We can look forward to an even bigger and better year in 1999. I'm certain we'll be sipping from Earl Grey's magical bowl one year from now.

Congratulations to coach Ron Lancaster and his staff, all the players, equipment people, office staff and, most of all, the fans. Make no mistake, the Cats are back. On behalf of all -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Point of order, Mr Speaker: We all appreciated the statement from the member for Hamilton Mountain, but it's the Calgary Stampeders, not the Cowboys.

MEMBERS' INTEGRITY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): What was it? Was it a private trip? Was it a business trip? The people of Ontario want to know and they have a right to know. Was taxpayers' money used for the Premier's recent trip to New York?

With questions being raised over the nature of the Premier's recent junket to New York City and to the Grey Cup game yesterday, you would think the Premier would want to listen to what the people of Ontario want and provide them with ongoing accountability.

I have repeatedly asked the Harris government to call my private member's bill entitled the Ministerial Travel Accountability Act for second and third readings so that the people of Ontario will know without a doubt that their tax dollars are not being used by the Premier and being abused by his cabinet.

We all know the stink that was raised earlier this year when the leader of the NDP Howard Hampton's private member's expenses were made public. Why, then, won't the Premier and the cabinet consent to the same kind of scrutiny? Why won't the Premier and his cabinet agree to unanimous consent to have this bill debated immediately?

Later this afternoon, after statements by ministers, I will be asking for unanimous consent to have this bill debated in the House. Will the Premier have the courage and the integrity to agree and call my bill? Will his cabinet and caucus support my request so that the tarnished image of the Tories in power will start to subside in the minds of the people of Ontario? Will he have the courage and the integrity to be accountable?

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I am grateful for the opportunity today to be able to speak on a very important issue facing residents of Ottawa-Carleton, and that is the state of their ambulance system in Ottawa-Carleton.

As you know, ambulance services are part of the downloading package that this government has passed on to the responsibility of municipalities. However, such is the incompetence of this government that not only does the Ministry of Health still run the ambulance services in Ottawa-Carleton while forcing property taxpayers to pay for it, but it runs it so badly that people are suffering, indeed even dying as a result.

Recently, an independent audit of the ambulance services in Ottawa-Carleton run by the Ministry of Health found out the response time failed to meet ministry standards. The legislative standard, according to the Ambulance Act, is nine minutes or less 90% of the time. The independent audit found that the best response times in Ottawa-Carleton were 13½ minutes 90% of the time and the worst half an hour.

As one regional councillor put it, it is faster to order pizza in some parts of Ottawa-Carleton than to get an ambulance. This is absolutely unacceptable. People's lives are at stake. Will the Minister of Health do her job and take immediate steps to ensure that the legislative standards for ambulance response time are adhered to in Ottawa-Carleton, so that lives are not needlessly lost?

PEARL GOODALL

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House today to speak of a fine lady from my constituency by the name of Pearl Goodall, who recently passed away at the age of 89.

It is most appropriate to speak of Mrs Goodall at this time of year when local Santa Claus parades are being held. In 1979, Mrs Goodall became the founder of the Lakefield Santa Claus parade.

As our local paper, the Examiner, noted, "If an event was intended to help children, and it happened in Lakefield, Pearl Goodall probably had a hand in it." Mrs Goodall was a member of the senior citizens' council, the Orange Lodge and St John the Baptist Anglican Church. She was an active volunteer at the Lakefield Fair for many years. Her good work was recognized in 1992 when she won the 125th Anniversary of Confederation of Canada Award from the Governor General. In 1977, when the Lakefield Chamber of Commerce chose their citizen of the year, the obvious choice was Mrs Goodall.

Mrs Goodall was a person who will be sadly missed by her family and the community of Lakefield, and I thank the Legislature for the opportunity to speak of this indeed fine lady.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I beg leave to represent a report from the standing committee on resources development and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 70, An Act to engage the private sector in improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, creating jobs, and stimulating economic activity through the sale of Highway 407 / Projet de loi 70, Loi visant à intéresser le secteur privé à améliorer l'infrastructure des transports, réduire la circulation engorgée, créer des emplois et stimuler l'activité économique par la vente de l'autoroute 407.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 2, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 38, An Act to revise the law relating to condominium corporations, to amend the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and to make other related amendments / Projet de loi 38, Loi révisant des lois en ce qui concerne les associations condominiales, modifiant la Loi sur le régime de garanties des logements neufs de l'Ontario et apportant d'autres modifications connexes.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

1350

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Standing order 62(a) provides that "The standing committee on estimates shall present one report with respect to all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year."

The House not having received a report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries on Thursday, November 19, 1998, as required by the standing orders of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(b) the estimates before the committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Management Board Secretariat, Cabinet Office, Ministry of Community and Social Services, and Ministry of Transportation are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAX CREDITS AND REVENUE PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET LA PROTECTION DES RECETTES

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 81, An Act to implement tax credits and revenue protection measures contained in the 1998 budget, to make amendments to other statutes and to enact a new statute / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des crédits d'impôt et des mesures de protection des recettes contenus dans le budget de 1998, à modifier d'autres lois et à en édicter une nouvelle.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): With the introduction of this bill, the government is proposing to fulfill and even exceed the commitments made in the budget last May. We have listened to the ideas and recommendations of Ontarians and made changes to improve the many budget initiatives.

If the bill is passed, the total number of tax reductions brought to individuals and businesses in Ontario by the government would be 67 so far. Tax credits in this bill will benefit working families and Ontarians with disabilities. Tax credits will make more capital available to businesses, especially small businesses, in communities throughout Ontario. Special credits will help to create well-paying jobs in the new-economy industries of digital imaging, computer animation and special effects. Tax credits will help the sound recording industry, which is the single biggest promoter of new Canadian musical talent.

Measures in this bill will help parents to get and keep jobs while ensuring their young children are well looked after, both by reimbursing parents for part of their costs and by encouraging construction and renovation of licensed child care spaces.

The legislation is a companion piece to the government's historic Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which is also being introduced today. Our bill provides positive fiscal measures to encourage and facilitate the participation of Ontarians with disabilities in the social and economic life of the province.

On the revenue protection side, this bill contains a number of provisions to improve compliance -

The Speaker: This is supposed to be a brief statement.

Hon Mr Eves: It is a brief statement. I will try to get through it as quickly as possible.

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon Mr Eves: Thank you, Mr Speaker - to improve compliance with tax legislation and to motivate individuals and corporations to meet their tax obligations.

The bill also enacts a new act to establish a tax to replace the fees charged by the province on grants of probate or administration of estates. As members are aware, these fees were recently held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Mr Sterling moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 82, An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement / Projet de loi 82, Loi visant à affermir la protection de l'environnement et les mesures d'exécution à cet égard.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Today I am pleased to introduce a new piece of legislation that would lead to more effective enforcement of the laws protecting Ontario's air, water and land. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act would clarify the rules, improve the Ministry of the Environment's ability to enforce them and increase the penalties for those who do not follow them.

The intention of these amendments is to be fair to those who comply with the law but tough on those who break it. Make no mistake: Ontario's environmental protection laws are strong, but these amendments will make them stronger, tougher on polluters, easier to enforce and fairer to the taxpayer.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES DE L'ONTARIO

Ms Bassett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 83, An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities / Projet de loi 83, Loi visant à améliorer le repérage, l'élimination et la prévention des obstacles auxquels font face les personnes handicapées.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Minister?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I'll be making a statement in ministers' statements.

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1998

Mr Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting the Corporation of the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on November 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I am pleased to advise the House that our government has today taken constructive action to address the suffering of all victims of the hepatitis C blood tragedy. At noon today, I announced details of a plan of financial assistance to provide immediate support to Ontarians infected with hepatitis C through the blood system prior to 1986 and after July 1, 1990. Today's announcement means that we are delivering on our Premier's commitment to extend compassionate financial assistance to all victims of hepatitis C.

Our plan will involve an information and outreach campaign starting this afternoon so that we can begin the process of delivering on our promise to help everyone who has contracted hepatitis C through the national blood system.

Our campaign includes a Canada-wide toll-free number, 1-877-222-4977, through which individuals will receive an information package on hepatitis C and an application form to apply for financial assistance. This line will also provide access to public health nurses in the event that a caller requires health information on hepatitis C.

1400

Upon completion of an application and confirmation of eligibility, an individual can expect to receive a cheque for $10,000. This amount is based on our estimation of Ontario's contribution to the 1986-90 assistance package and a total number of claimants of up to 20,000. Should the number of claimants be lower or should the final level of assistance for the 1986-90 claimants differ, we will review this level of support. Our main objective today, however, is to provide the money and the support to the victims. Today we are delivering on our commitment.

The province of Ontario is committed to helping individuals infected with hepatitis C through the blood system to get on with their lives. We believe that financial assistance is necessary to help these people who, through no fault of their own, now have a debilitating condition that can lead to fatigue, jaundice and even liver cancer and death.

Beyond these physical conditions there is the tragic human toll of hepatitis C. People infected with hepatitis C can find themselves unable to work, pay their bills or even put food on the family table for their families. This is the tragic human consequence of hepatitis C. We believe it is time to turn the page and provide these people with immediate financial support to help them get on with their lives.

Justice Horace Krever reminded us with his commission's final report on the blood system one year ago that governments cannot deal with the future until they deal with the past. Everyone infected with hepatitis C through the blood system needs our help and support. Ontario is doing its part to give them the support and help that they need. Today we again call on Ottawa to do the right thing and we encourage them to join us.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): The people of Ontario enjoy a high standard of environmental protection with tough laws to back it up. They deserve no less. The Ontario government will accept no less.

Ontario's environmental protection laws are strong, but the compliance and enforcement provisions always need to be updated and strengthened. We need greater ability to effectively deter and punish those who choose to operate outside the law and threaten our air, water and land.

This afternoon I am introducing a piece of legislation that would improve the Ministry of the Environment's ability to enforce the laws safeguarding our air, water and land. I might add that this includes many of the provisions that the member Bud Wildman included in his private member's bill, Bill 24. But it goes above and beyond that as well. This legislation, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, will close loopholes that have enabled polluters to continue violating the law and avoid penalties imposed upon them. The intention of this bill is to be fair to those who comply with Ontario's environmental laws and tough on those who break them.

These proposed amendments will level the playing field for the public and businesses who are innocent victims of environmental offenders. In fact, since 1985 convicted polluters have gotten away with $10 million of unpaid fines. It's all well and good for members of the previous governments to talk about the fines levied when they were in office, but the simple fact is they often weren't collected.

Ten million dollars in uncollected fines: That's an offence against the environment and our justice system. Obviously, more effective mechanisms are needed and it is our intention to deliver by ensuring our environment is protected through the most effective and efficient means possible. This legislation will enable our staff to administer a fair, more consistent and efficient system on behalf of all Ontarians.

These proposed powers will ensure that Ontario's laws are consistent with compliance and enforcement provisions in other jurisdictions across North America. This government wants to ensure our compliance and enforce-ment powers are among the toughest. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act will see to that.

These proposals would allow us to go after those who break environmental laws and punish them. The act would give the courts more authority to impose jail sentences and stiffer fines. Courts would also be able to order convicted polluters to pay restitution for environmental damage. Polluters could also be forced to forfeit property and/or equipment used to commit environmental offences. Forfeiture could also be required if they don't pay their fines.

The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act also will allow the ministry to seize licence plates and permits from vehicles used to commit environmental offences. It will allow them to streamline the process by which environmental officers issue compliance orders in the field. It will apply monetary penalties for minor environmental infractions. It will secure areas and facilities to ensure evidence is protected. It will extend provisions for control of illegal dumping and cleanup to people who broker illegal waste disposal. It will use modern investigative aids and techniques; for example, under a court order, an electronic tracking device could be fixed to a truck carrying illegal waste to monitor its location by satellite and computer.

For too long the ministry has been handcuffed in dealing with many of those who flout the laws protecting Ontario's air, water and land. This new act sends polluters a message. The days of conducting operations at the expense of the environment are over. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act will take the handcuffs off the ministry and put them back where they belong - on the polluters.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Today is a milestone. It is a milestone because the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act is the first of its kind -

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's going to be a millstone, not a milestone.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: It is a milestone because the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act is the first of its kind in Canada. If approved by the Legislature, the act will require every ministry to identify, remove and prevent barriers by systematically reviewing its legislation -

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): It does nothing.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This is embarrassing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order. Members for Beaches-Woodbine and Riverdale, come to order as well please. Minister.

Hon Ms Bassett: - policies, programs, practices and services; in effect, all government activity.

This mandatory review will be part of the annual business planning process of each ministry. This will, over time, affect the thousands of government activities that directly and indirectly impact persons with disabilities.

Ministries' annual disability access plans would contain (1) a list of government activities that would be reviewed in the planning year; (2) measures to be put in place to ensure that any new government activities are assessed for their effect on access; (3) steps to be taken in the coming year to remove and prevent barriers; and (4) a report on measures the ministry has already taken.

The proposed act is accompanied by a number of initiatives that I am also pleased to announce today:

(1) The government is establishing a Committee on Employment for Persons with Disabilities. The committee will promote access to employment in the private sector and advise the government on employment access issues. It will be composed of representatives of the disability, business and labour communities.

(2) The government is establishing an information and referral service to provide a point of access for business and for broader public sector service providers who need information and resources to make their services and workplaces more accessible.

(3) My ministry will administer an $800,000 incentive fund for barrier removal projects which have broad application. Leadership projects will encourage different sectors to work together to establish best practices in priority areas such as employment, access to buildings, transportation and education and training; and community projects will encourage local partnerships that remove barriers and improve access to local business and services.

1410

Other ministries will also be working to improve access for Ontarians with disabilities. The Ministry of Transportation will enhance its community transportation action program to help communities meet the transportation needs of people with disabilities. The Ministry of Education and Training will enhance its Job Connect program to better help persons with disabilities find and keep jobs. The Ministry of Education and Training will also enhance its literary and basic skills program for persons who are deaf or persons who have a learning or psychiatric disability. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will consult with organizations representing persons with disabilities, municipalities and the home building and development industries to identify priorities for improving barrier-free design standards in the Ontario building code.

Our commitment to preventing and removing barriers for persons with disabilities is government-wide. Today's announcements follow a province-wide consultation. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all participants. While we heard a range of opinions, the goals of equal opportunity and barrier prevention and removal are clearly shared across the board. Ontarians agree that there is a need -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order. It's important to let the minister finish. The responses will follow.

Hon Ms Bassett: Ontarians agree that there is a need for better public understanding and increased awareness of the needs of persons with disabilities. Ontarians agree that government can and must foster information sharing, encourage partnerships, provide incentives for barrier removal and lead by example. This is what the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the new initiatives do.

I am confident that our proposed act, the measures I have just announced and the important initiatives this government has already put in place will improve access for persons with disabilities. This government believes that all Ontarians, and our province as a whole, stand to gain when every one of us has an equal opportunity to contribute to the social and economic well-being of our province.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): Today I rise to recognize the most important group of people to the future of our great nation and province: our children and youth.

As we all know, November 20 has been designated as National Child Day. As minister responsible for children, I am very happy to take part in this celebration.

This day marks the anniversary of the United Nations' adoption of both the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which took place on November 20, 1959, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was established 30 years later on November 20, 1989.

The convention states its goals clearly: the promotion to the fullest extent of the health, well-being and potential of all children, adolescents and youth.

This is an objective which I share. It is also an objective which our government shares and was tangibly demonstrated when Premier Harris appointed, for the first time in Ontario's history, a minister responsible for children.

Since being given that responsibility, I have toured many regions of the province, visiting a wide range of programs and facilities that assist children in need. I have listened to children, their families and community organizations that serve them. I am proud to say that this government is moving forward to enhance the lives and the futures of children.

This government believes the development of the whole child is vitally important. That is why our government is sponsoring a study into the early years of life, led by world-renowned expert Dr Fraser Mustard and child advocate and former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Can I ask the members to come to order in the opposition benches. I would like to hear the statement from the minister, and it's not easy to do.

Hon Mrs Marland: That is why our government is sponsoring a study into the early years of life, led by world-renowned expert Dr Fraser Mustard and child advocate and former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick the Honourable Margaret McCain.

This study will provide the government with options and recommendations on the best ways to prepare all of Ontario's children for success in school, in their careers and in their lives. The early years study will help us decide what we in Ontario can do to lay the basis for lifelong learning, behaviour and health of our children.

This is just one initiative our government has undertaken for children in Ontario, but it is only one of literally dozens.

For instance, more than 56,000 children across the province have also been helped through nutrition programs in partnership with the Canadian Living Foundation for Families.

We have developed the Learning, Earning and Parenting program to help single parents on welfare finish school and learn important parenting skills.

Through the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children initiative, each year all of Ontario's 150,000 newborns will be screened for risk factors and help will be provided through such services as home visits and case management.

The government has reviewed the child welfare system to see how we can better protect children. In 1997, we increased funding to allow agencies to hire 220 more staff. This year we announced an additional $170 million over the next three years to further increase staffing, improve training and revitalize foster care.

Our government has also introduced child welfare legislation to ensure that the well-being of children is always of paramount importance.

Students in Ontario will benefit from new province-wide quality standards our government has introduced to improve the education system. We have increased classroom spending by $583 million, introduced a new, rigorous curriculum, and developed new -

The Speaker: Responses? Minister, come to order.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the fact that the minister was running on 33 1/3 instead of 78 rpm, it's obvious that she needs more time to finish her statement. In light of the large number of important statements - four statements today, all of import - I would ask for unanimous consent to give the minister time to finish her statement and to increase the time for responses for each of the opposition parties from five to 10 minutes each.

The Speaker: Agreed? I heard a "no."

Responses, official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I heard a "no."

What are you up for?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'd like to speak to the -

The Speaker: You want a point of order? Point of order, government House leader.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I'm quite willing to extend the time for response. As you know, during the minister of culture's -

1420

The Speaker: All right. I want to hear your point of order.

Hon Mr Sterling: We lost about two minutes with regard to that.

The Speaker: I just want to know the point of order.

Hon Mr Sterling: I request unanimous consent to extend both the time for our speeches, the minister's statement, and by the same amount for each of the opposition parties.

The Speaker: However long it takes for the minister to finish, we will calculate that and we'll add that on to the five minutes they usually get.

Interjections.

The Speaker: No, hold it. I'm just getting that straight: to add that on to the five minutes they usually get. Agreed? Agreed. Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please. I don't know about you, but I've got places to be tonight. Minister?

Hon Mrs Marland: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have increased classroom spending by $583 million; we've introduced a new, rigorous curriculum; and we've developed new understandable report cards for the province.

We have also introduced a new early learning grant to ensure that young children benefit from either a junior kindergarten program or other early learning programs that best meet the needs of students in their local communities.

Three hundred fifty thousand children from low- and middle-income families will be helped through the Ontario child care supplement for working families. Moreover, since 1995 this government has created more than 14,500 child care spaces.

Furthermore, as many as 75,000 children will receive the speech therapy they require before they start school through the preschool speech and language services program.

As well, more than 5,000 at-risk families will receive the supports they need through the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program. This assistance will continue right through the primary school years.

This government has demonstrated its commitment to children time and time again. We have created important new initiatives for children and are putting these plans into action to help our children achieve success in school, work and throughout their lives.

This government will continue to work to improve the well-being of Ontario's most precious people: our children. By focusing on the healthy growth and development of children, we are focusing on the legacy we must leave for them. I hope we can all be a part of building that legacy for all Ontario's children.

The Speaker: For the responses, each party will be given seven minutes and 30 seconds. Responses, official opposition, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to comment briefly on the new Mike Harris billion-dollar tax that he introduced today called the estate administration tax, retroactive, amazingly, to 1950. I would have thought that a new billion-dollar tax by Mike Harris might have been worthy of some ministerial statement, but I think the public will understand a billion-dollar tax retroactive to 1950 is the new Mike Harris.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): We want to congratulate the minister for finally having dropped her opposition and agreed with the Ontario Liberal Party on compensating all hep C victims. But we also want to say that when the minister talks about turning the page, that book isn't closed until a real tracking of all the victims of hep C has been done.

There is no cheap way out of this, Minister. This is not the final word in terms of what victims are looking for. You have to make a commitment to ensure that this is going to allow each victim to be compensated matching the severity of their illness.

Minister, we'll be watching; we'll be making sure.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I read with great interest the useless platitudes in this speech and comments by the Minister of the Environment when he introduced his legislation today.

He may put this feel-good, toughing up of legislation in place. However, what he fails to tell us is that he virtually doesn't have any inspectors left in his ministry to enforce these regulations. Charges have been dropped, every year they have gone down, prosecutions have gone down, fines have gone down and his budget as minister has been cut by 30% or 40%. The reality is that he has brought in all this new, supposedly tough legislation without any staff and without any new regulations in place.

You've put the mechanism in place to try to collect fines but you've totally wiped out the regulations. It's a smokescreen, Minister; it's a joke. We're still waiting for the Drive Clean program; we're still waiting for vehicle emissions testing; we're still waiting for some real action.

What we have today, Minister, is a feel-good, last-ditch attempt to save what little shred of credibility you have left as Minister of the Environment. Frankly, you've failed once again and you've polluted this legislation with your garbage.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a response to the statement today by the minister responsible for children. I wish that this minister truly were for children. Instead of giving us fancy titles and fancy programs, we'd like to see you actually in the field working for children.

What we know is that today there are fewer services available for children who need help, via early intervention in the school system and in children's mental health agencies. More kids today need more help and that is help that this government is denying them.

I look forward to Dr Mustard's response, and we ask you, what do you think Dr Mustard will tell you? You're going to ask him about child care. What do you think he's going to tell you about child care? He is the premier advocate for child care in Ontario so we, of course, look forward to his report. I look at this as simply a delaying tactic for you to actually implement programs that would be helpful to children.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): It's with absolute sorrow that I stand to respond to the cop-out by the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the minister's announcement. She hasn't provided the opposition with the bill and it's no wonder, because the bill says absolutely nothing. It's an absolute betrayal by this government, by that minister and by that Premier of persons with disabilities in this province.

The minister's statement says that the proposed features of her act will recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to equal treatment without discrimination in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

I should tell the minister that we've had that for 10 years. We have had that. It was a Liberal government that brought that in with Human Rights Code amendments 10 years ago. What we need are mechanisms for enforcement. What we need are mechanisms that can work to ensure that persons with disabilities aren't left out of economic recovery of this province and aren't left out of the life of this province.

Minister, you've abandoned the disabled community just as you did this summer when you didn't listen to them, when you didn't give them access to your public hearings.

Then the minister goes on to say that they're going to improve access to persons with disabilities through the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to their participation in the social and economic life of the province.

Minister, those barriers are well-identified. They are identified at the municipal level, they are identified at the provincial level, they are identified in the private sector, they are identified in the broader public sector. They have been identified for a number of years.

What you've done is simply given a little bit of Pablum, a few good words that mean absolutely nothing because you have not used the resources or strength of your ministry or government to help move forward the plight of people with disabilities in this province.

Then the minister goes on to say they are going to require every minister to prepare an annual disability access plan as part of the ministry's annual planning process, setting out its measures for improving accessibility.

1430

Those were done years ago. What your government hasn't done is move the process forward. Every ministry of your government has those plans. This Legislature has those plans. This is a sorry, sorry day, where the minister has abandoned the members of her own caucus who supported a resolution in this House that would afford the disabled a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

What does that mean for people in this province? It means we don't have the same protections they have in Alabama. It means we don't have the same protections they have throughout the United States. It means this government is not prepared to do what their right-wing counterparts in the United States did a decade ago. It means that minister has no credibility on these issues. She did not listen to the disabled community. They're talking about voluntary compliance. When my resolution was passed, we discovered the Premier's office in North Bay wasn't accessible to the disabled. They had a ramp that they weren't willing to put out. That's what voluntary compliance is.

This government, that Premier and that minister have effectively abandoned the disabled community and have left it to the next government to bring in a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act. All the advertisements in the world aren't going to make up for the fact that that Premier and that minister have abandoned the disabled and misled this province in terms of the traditions we ought to be upholding. You should be ashamed.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You have to withdraw that.

Mr Duncan: I withdraw the statement "misled."

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'd like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Health. I think all of us are pleased that this government has finally moved and wish that the federal government, the federal Liberals, would move on real compensation for victims of hepatitis C.

But I must tell the minister how concerned I am about the form in which this announcement has been made. Quite frankly, what I see here is an effort to try to claim you're fulfilling your promises without in fact fulfilling the expectations of those who contracted hepatitis C in this province at all.

First of all, you have limited this compensation to $10,000; you have limited it to that and up to 20,000 claimants. That's $200 million, and it sounds like a lot, except that we know, those of us who went through estimates with your ministry, how proud you were to trumpet the fact that you had set aside $300 million to compensate hepatitis C victims. We wonder what happened to the $100 million, and we wonder what happens if more than 20,000 claimants come forward with concerns.

We also notice that missing from this is a guarantee that this $10,000 will not count towards social assistance. When we compensated those who had contracted HIV from the blood system, we were very clear that any compensation would not count towards the deductible for social assistance. There is no such guarantee in your statement. There was no such guarantee at the press conference this afternoon. Minister, I am surprised that you sound so proud of this announcement when that explicit commitment has not been made in this place.

A final word to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation: I hope you are thoroughly ashamed of this so-called Ontarians with Disabilities Act. As the parent of a disabled child and on behalf of all the disabled people in this province, this is a disgrace. Frankly, Minister, I can't imagine you being part of this boondoggle.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to reply briefly to the Minister of the Environment's statement. I appreciate his comments regarding my bill. He will know, as House leader, that Bill 24, a bill to crack down on the quick-buck artists who dump illegally across this province and pollute the province as a result, passed second reading unanimously in this House in May 1996, and it was referred to the resources committee and it has languished there since. The bill was reintroduced in May 1998 as Bill 13, and the government has just now moved with its own bill. We obviously haven't had time to analyze the bill, but I would say my colleague the member for Riverdale welcomes the improved enforcement that he promises.

I would just say this one thing in closing: that it is impossible for the minister to enforce this when his ministry enforcement branch has been gutted and his budget has been gutted. If you don't have the inspectors, you're not going to be able to make strong enforcement regulations carried out.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): First of all, to the minister responsible for children's issues, I can't count the number of times I've stood here and asked you to stand up for children in this province, and I didn't see today any results from that. Let me tell you why.

Very clearly, if we look at the children most at risk, those in poverty, your government took 22% of income from those kids, and you also have clawed back the national child benefit from the poorest children in this province. When you talk about child care, I'm shocked at your statement that you've created more than 14,000 spaces. That is an outright, bold-faced inaccuracy. You have not created one space. There may be some more private sector licences out there. You've not created one space or added one dollar to subsidies. In fact, you cancelled subsidies under Jobs Ontario programs that were there. You took away capital funding for child care from budgets from the community and social services ministry. You cancelled the capital program for child care centres in schools. The mental health system that we've talked about so often for children - where's the legislation to mandate those services that your Premier promised me we could work on together? Where is the lifting of the freeze for funding for children's rehabilitation and treatment centres?

Minister, we look forward to Fraser Mustard's report. We know what he's going to say. The question is, will your government listen?

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): May I say to the minister responsible for citizenship, the acts you introduced today - and I want to tell persons interested in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, this is two pages. The first page is a preamble. The only thing in this is a guarantee that ministries will have to do a systemic barrier review as part of their annual business plan. That is it.

For five years under our government every ministry had to do that. You cancelled that when you came into power. You fired the staff who were responsible for doing those reviews. You took away the dollars responsible for implementing the accommodation measures. You cancelled all of that. Now you're putting it in legislation. This is a betrayal of a million and a half persons with disabilities. All this act does is say, "Government, get your act together and show leadership." You should have been doing that already. What are you going to do for the private sector out there? You're going to put together a joint committee. What are you going to do for the broader public sector, municipalities? You're going to put together an information and referral service.

Committees, information, referral: This is a cruel hoax. This doesn't come close to meeting one of the demands of persons with disabilities who participated in your hoax of a consultation this past summer. You heard from people right across this province who demanded and fought their way into your hearings when you at first wouldn't let them in. You heard what they wanted. You heard the principles that had to be contained in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act to really provide access.

Minister, this will not cut it. You will hear, blazing across this province, a response from persons with disabilities. An anger and a fire will be set that you will not be able to put out unless you scrap this act, unless you bring forward a real Ontarians with Disabilities Act that meets the needs to ensure that there is barrier-free access to all goods, services, programs, facilities, businesses.

This province can be a place for all people to participate in. If you had the will and the guts to stand up to what you promised in the Common Sense Revolution, it would be. We would be on our way to that in the legislation that we'll be debating in this House. I can tell you, Minister, this will not cut it. You will not be able to perpetrate this hoax, this sham, this charade on persons with disabilities in this province. They will not stand for it.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I said earlier in my statement, I would be asking the House for unanimous consent to have second and third reading of Bill 64, An Act respecting Accountability for Ministerial Travel. There are 19 cabinet ministers in the House today -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can ask for that. You're seeking unanimous consent. Agreed? No.

1440

MEMBERS' INTEGRITY

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that pursuant to section 30 of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, I have today laid upon the table a request by the member for Rainy River to the Honourable Robert C. Rutherford, Integrity Commissioner, for an opinion on whether the member for Nipissing and the member for Willowdale have contravened the act or Ontario parliamentary convention.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I wish to welcome the 17th group of pages to serve in this 36th Parliament:

Phillip-Lee Barthelmes-Franchetto from Simcoe Centre; Kristin Burns, London Centre; Julia Chapman, Willowdale; Ryan Cookson, Riverdale; Morgan Fuller, Wellington; Amanda Galloway, Waterloo North; Brendan Greenslade, Kenora; Michael Kitchen, Kitchener; Shannon Lees, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Matthew MacDonald, Oakville South; Mariko Mackasey, York East; Lynn Mastrocola, Mississauga West; Arvin Mohindra, Durham West; Jeremey Nelson, Mississauga South; Emilio Paesano, Etobicoke West; David Parker, SDG & East Grenville; Maggie Pearson, Peterborough; Chiara Van Hooren, Windsor-Riverside; Joshua Wales, Victoria-Haliburton; and Emily Wilson, Niagara South. Welcome. I hope you enjoy your stay.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. You will know that there was unanimous and universal condemnation of your use of taxpayer dollars to fund Mike Harris's re-election campaign. We've raised that issue time and time again in this Legislature. Notwithstanding that condemnation, let's take a look at what's happened during the past two weeks.

There have been two new ads airing on Ontario TV, one for education, one for health care. They total $4 million. Last week there was another pamphlet sent to Ontario households. Today, apparently not being satisfied with the media's interpretation of what you're doing, you put out your own paper. These two publications here cost $1 million. During the last two weeks you've spent another $5 million.

Have you no shame, Minister? Do you not get it? The public does not support this kind of expenditure.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm sure the Chair of Management Board would be delighted to answer this question.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the government has an obligation to inform the public of what's taking place in this province. There's been a lot of change in the last number of years to make up for the lack of any progress in the preceding 10 years before our government was elected.

If you compare our advertising budget to your advertising budget, all governments spend money on it. If you're talking specifically about today's supplement in the national edition of the Globe and Mail, that's intended to draw attention to Ontario's attractive investment climate and try to encourage and attract other jobs to this province. Ontario is leading the nation in job growth; 440,000 net new jobs have been created since mid-1995. That's positive news and it's a positive message that we want to spread right across Canada and around the world.

Mr McGuinty: This is an obscene expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Everybody knows that you can stand up in this Legislature and try to couch it in whatever kind of language you want, but the public understands what's going on.

To date, you are spending $47 million in taxpayer dollars to put forward your message, designed specifically to have Mike Harris re-elected as Premier of Ontario. That's all it's all about. It's very, very clear.

Maybe you can tell us, Minister; please stand up: How much more money do you intend to spend between now and the time of the beginning of the election? How many more taxpayer dollars are you going to be spending in addition to the $47 million you've already spent in an effort to have Mike Harris re-elected as Premier?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition knows that when his party was in government in 1990-91, you spent $50 million and there wasn't even a lot of change going on. In fact, some people said it was because of your lack of meeting the challenges that government should have been facing in order to have change take place over a longer period of time and more gradually that our government has had to take on some tough decisions around policy that your two governments ducked in the areas of education and health care.

In terms of advertising, you mentioned a number. There's a lot of change going on. The public have asked us to keep them informed. That's what we're doing.

Mr McGuinty: Let's just take a look at your priorities. We have the highest tuition fees in the country. We have the fewest nurses per capita in the country. We have 500,000 children growing up here in Ontario in poverty. Notwithstanding those very real and pressing challenges, what do you do? You find 47 million taxpayer dollars to invest in an effort to have Mike Harris re-elected as Premier.

Why don't you stand up, be honest, stop spending this money on an effort to re-elect Mike Harris as Premier, and call the election? Do what's right: Stop spending taxpayer dollars in this effort. Call the election. If you want to have an election, let's have an election.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think everyone's aware that the Liberals have had a long tradition of calling elections after three years, but I just need to remind the Leader of the Opposition that when you did that last time you were at 55% in the polls; today you might be at 49%, but it's only in Toronto. So I ask him to show a little patience. We have to communicate. I realize he's worried about his support. We would encourage him to communicate what the Liberal policies will be as well.

In terms of the government's advertising, we have a responsibility to inform the taxpayers of the changes that are taking place.

1450

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. Smoking is the number one cause of preventable illness and death in Ontario. Every year 12,000 Ontario adults die from smoking-related illness, and every month 3,000 Ontario children take up the habit. What's more worrisome is the fact that Ontario's children are taking up that habit at an ever-faster rate.

Apparently there's all kinds of money, in fact $47 million worth, to advance Mike Harris's re-election campaign. My question to you is very simple: When was the last time you ran an ad on Ontario TV letting Ontario's children know about the dangers of smoking?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): The Leader of the Opposition knows that we have in this province a very comprehensive tobacco prevention strategy. We are very concerned about the number of young people who continue to smoke. I am very pleased to say that we have been a leader in Canada in enforcing tobacco control legislation. We have laid over 2,800 charges and we have issued an additional 2,700 tickets for offences under the provincial Tobacco Control Act.

We continue to do everything we can. In fact, our $17 million heart health campaign that we launched earlier this year is also committed to identifying tobacco-related health issues. We have a comprehensive strategy, we continue to move forward, and I am very proud of the initiatives that we have undertaken thus far. We will continue to do more.

Mr McGuinty: We'll just see how tough the minister is prepared to get when it comes to smoking and children in Ontario. BC has introduced legislation and has launched a suit against tobacco companies. You will be aware that several US states have recently achieved a settlement in the amount of approximately $200 billion - that's "b," billion dollars.

Minister, are you prepared to join the BC suit? Are you prepared to stand up for Ontario children who, notwithstanding all of your programs that you just talked about, are taking up smoking at a rate faster than they have during the past 10 years in Ontario? Are you prepared to join the BC suit?

Hon Mrs Witmer: First, let me say that unfortunately the BC suit will not do anything to reduce smoking among people in Ontario. However, it is certainly an issue we are actively taking a look at.

What we are going to do, beginning in January 1999, is review our total Ontario tobacco strategy in order that we can consult with all the researchers and the leaders in the health community to best determine how we can eliminate young people from ever starting smoking and how we can ensure that those who have started will stop.

But I can tell you, following the lead of BC will not do anything to eliminate these people in this province who have started to smoke. That is but one component of any strategy.

Mr McGuinty: It's most telling that the minister didn't hesitate, together with her caucus colleagues, to join the Alberta suit when that province decided it was going to fight against the implementation of gun control. She has done this notwithstanding the express wishes to the contrary of Ontario police. She's acting against gun control, for the gun lobby.

Now I am asking her to act against the tobacco lobby for Ontario children in the same way that several American states have and in the same way that BC is doing at present. The Yanks have stood up for their kids, BC is standing up for their children. I'm asking this minister, is she prepared to stand up for Ontario children and join a lawsuit and get whatever we can from those tobacco companies, but especially to ensure that we can put in place much more effective prevention programs, because those in existence at present obviously aren't working.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Maybe the member didn't hear what I said, but I indicated that beginning in January 1999 we were going to totally review our tobacco strategy in order to ensure that young people not embark on smoking or to encourage them to quit.

As far as standing up for people in this province is concerned, I am proud to say that today this government stood up for the victims of hepatitis C.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Education about the government's school closures policy. Earlier this month the Premier tried to buy you some time on school closures until after the next election. You've changed the school funding formula so that you won't force schools to close until after the election, but the problem is that your funding formula was wrong then, it's still wrong, and tinkering with it won't change it.

It's still the case, isn't it, that if you determine, according to your funding formula, that a school has excess capacity, meaning it's not 100% full, the school board in question will have to close schools before they get any money for new schools? That's still the case, isn't it?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm glad the member raised the funding formula, because there's a good deal of excellent news which has been recognized by boards across Ontario.

The chair of the Toronto board, for example, says, "It appears that this is somewhat of a good-news story." Perhaps the leader of the third party doesn't consider it to be a good-news story, but the chair of the Toronto board considers it to be a good-news story.

The North Bay Nugget: "It is very good news for the Near North," says the chair of the Near North District School Board.

In Oshawa, trustee Susan Shetler has indicated that this is wonderful news that indicates the ministry is listening, and on and on it goes.

The new formula, as amended, will allow for schools with 20% below their capacity to receive operating funding as if they were at full capacity.

Mr Hampton: The question was about what happens to those boards that have a school that isn't 100% full according to your funding formula and yet elsewhere within their district they have an overcrowded situation or they need to build new schools and the funding formula is still the same. Those boards of education, according to your funding formula, and I give you Kitchener as an example, will have to close downtown schools before they get any money for schools that need to be built in the suburbs. That is still the situation, and that's why you refuse to answer the question.

Minister, you're not manufacturing widgets, you're supposed to be providing an education for our children, and there are still big problems with your funding formula. Will you commit to a review of the funding formula so that boards of education won't be forced to close downtown schools, needed community schools, in order to meet the needs of their suburbs? Will you do that, finally?

Hon David Johnson: I am proud of the funding formula, in the sense that for the first time ever in the history of Ontario money is allocated on a fair and equal basis to every student across the province. The school boards now are starting to recognize the fairness of the funding formula, indicating that this is a good-news story. For the first time, whether a child is in an urban area, a rural area, an assessment-poor area or an assessment-rich area, the funds are allocated on a fair, equal basis, so that each and every child in Ontario will get the same opportunity for school resources, for books, for teachers within the classroom; the same opportunity for a decent school, for facilities, for transportation; equal opportunity across the province. I might add that the focus is on quality.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Final supplementary.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I represent an area where the problems with your funding formula are clear. We're still waiting for the good news. The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board is a huge mix of urban, suburban and rural communities. The rural and suburban communities desperately need new schools. Forty per cent of rural and suburban students are in portables. This means that schools in the city of Ottawa, a community I represent, are still under the threat of closure if they're not operating at 100%.

Minister, why are you trying to solve the accommodation crisis in the rural and suburban communities by depriving the children in the city of Ottawa of their community schools. Why, Minister?

Hon Mr Johnson: First of all, let me congratulate the member for being now a member of the NDP caucus. I noticed there didn't seem to be too many claps from the Liberal backbenches.

In all of the rhubarb associated with the member's first question from the NDP ranks, I didn't hear all of his question, but I will say again that the funding formula directs the resources to where they are needed, directs the funding to the school boards which have the greatest need for new and permanent school space for their students, those school boards that have the greatest need, those students that have the greatest need. Within the school boards and within the schools it directs the resources to the classroom, to the teachers, to the school boards, to the other resources that go within the classroom, to the boards that need the money, to the schools that need the money.

1500

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Education again: The minister says that the objective of the funding formula is to get the money to the schools that need it and to the students who need it. No, Minister, the objective of your funding formula is to get the money out of the schools. People understand that. That was the whole idea behind school closures and it's the whole problem also with special education.

Minister, you know you've created a huge problem in the funding of special education. You know that the students who need individual support aren't getting it. In fact, you've had to set up an expert panel to review the criteria for individual funding of special education students. Can you tell us, has the expert panel you created reported and what are its recommendations with respect to special education?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The ministry has undertaken a number of initiatives with regard to special education. Number one, we have set aside over a billion dollars - it turns out it'll be about $1.2 billion in special education - and protected that money for the first time ever so that those monies must be spent on special education and nothing else in Ontario.

The expert panel is undertaking a review for the ministry. I have not received their recommendations, but I expect them in the near future. In addition to that, there have been a number of experts reviewing the submissions of the various boards for their intensive support amounts, particularly in level 2 and level 3, across Ontario. Those experts, former superintendents or current superintendents, experts in education, have been giving the ministry good advice which we have heeded in terms of increasing the funding -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): First supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The experts told you your funding formula was wrong in terms of attempting to force schools to close. The experts are also telling you that your special education formula is wrong. You must know about the case of Harry Bellemare. This case was in the newspaper. He's 11 years old, he has cerebral palsy, he uses an electric wheelchair, and he has lost the full-time special education help he used to have because of your funding formula.

Then there's Andrew MacPherson, who used to get help at school. He's 10 years old, in grade 5. Under your new funding formula he's been denied any help this year. Your funding formula says he doesn't qualify for extra help that he needs to go to the washroom or to take his medication. His mother has -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Education.

Mr Hampton: Minister, what are you going to do about these students?

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the minister.

Hon David Johnson: I know the leader of the third party is alluding to a case that is in the newspapers today. I can't be specific about the particular case other than the ministry has indicated to me that the parents, last week actually, well before the article appeared in the newspaper, did sit down with the local school board, the Limestone school board in this case, and sorted out that situation, I'm told, to the satisfaction of all concerned.

In terms of other situations, the Toronto school board, for example, on page 6 of its own brochure indicates that it needs $211 million. Guess what? With the assistance of the experts, we have provided $211.8 million.

Mr Hampton: This is a minister who always wants to talk about money but never wants to get down to addressing the real issues of the children in need. The problem is your individual support amount or ISA, as it's called, is set up to almost force children to be dependent on adult help. It doesn't allow boards to pool educational assistants.

We've heard from parents like Maureen Vance from Oakville. She found out that her daughter, who started kindergarten this fall, would not be getting an instructional assistant because of your funding changes. She says, "I would like to know how my daughter is supposed to reach her full potential when there aren't enough resources to have someone to take her to the bathroom, let alone help her with her classroom work?"

Minister, you finally listened on the funding formula when it came to closing schools. Will you listen now -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson: I'm glad there is an acknowledgement that in regard to the closing of schools issue that the boards initiated, the ministry has resolved that matter for them.

In terms of the intensive support amount, I will say to the leader opposite that this is something of deep concern for the Ministry of Education because we want to ensure that each and every student who has received and deserves to get attention within our classrooms across the province in fact gets those services. We set up a panel of 11 experts, 11 superintendents and former superintendents across the province, and they came back to us with recommendations as to what was required to support those students across the province.

I might also say that some boards have made their submissions to the ministry in terms of pooling resources, and on their behalf, I would support that sort of approach.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. In your announcement today about your non-Ontarians with Disabilities Act, you've acknowledged improving access to persons with disabilities through the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to their participation in the social and economic life of the province. Given your implicit and explicit acknowledgement of those problems, can you tell me how your so-called Ontarians with Disabilities Act will do that in light of the fact that you've addressed neither questions of enforcement nor enforcement of penalties? Can you tell the House and the province -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Minister.

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I would like to say that the proposed ODA, if you could read what it said, would mandate that all government ministries systematically review all their legislation, all their programs, all their policies and all their services with an eye to accessibility. That means that thousands of government activities that directly and indirectly affect people with disabilities across the province will be reviewed and will be improved. That I might say is far more than you did when you were in government and had five years to do it.

Mr Duncan: I'm sure the minister would like to clarify the absolute inaccuracy. You forgot to mention that you cut the funding for those very things that went on before. You forgot to mention anything about that.

There is no provision for enforcement. There is no provision for penalties for lack of compliance. There is nothing in this so-called legislation that's meaningful. What do you say to persons with disabilities whom you've abandoned yet again? Another government that's abandoned them. What do you say to them today? They're going to be here tomorrow to speak to you and they're going to want to know why, having fought themselves into your closed hearings this summer, having been ignored by you and your government, they have now been given a patronizing bit of pablum that has no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties. What are you going to say to them tomorrow? Having ignored them up to now, how are you going to convince them that there is any kind of enforcement or penalties for non-compliance with an act that really doesn't work? What are you going to say to them tomorrow?

Hon Ms Bassett: I would say there are enforcement measures in place. What you are arguing is the fact that you want a new enforcement agency other than the Ontario Human Rights Code which is in place. This government has maintained funding to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Under the thrust of this government, we have ensured that it is now hearing its cases and streamlining its complaints process. In fact, 80% of new cases sent to mediation are resolved in 90 days, and the commission's new case management system is considered a model process by other agencies that need efficient systems. This government is not going to create an expensive new agency when we have a perfectly good one working right now.

1510

POLICE STRIP SEARCHES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Over the last few weeks, a number of questions have been raised and there have been a series of highly publicized cases dealing with strip searches by the Toronto police force.

We know that strip searches may be necessary in some circumstances, but a number of very serious questions have arisen out of some of these searches and there are some real questions about visible minorities being singled out. For example, imagine if you were pulled over for a speeding ticket and then subjected to a strip search because of how you looked.

Minister, you have some responsibility here. You can pass regulations. When are you going to take on your responsibility and make sure this situation gets straightened out?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Many police services across the province do have very strict policies in regard to strip searches of suspects. I think we've seen, in respect to the recent incidents that received a significant amount of publicity, that the Toronto Police Services Board has instituted a new policy to deal with it. So I think the tools are there to deal with this policy approach to dealing with suspects in a very different and effective way. It's really in the hands of the board, and I would suggest that the member speak to the Toronto board with respect to that specific concern.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): That's a complete abdication of your responsibility. It's imperative that there be one standard across the province. You have a responsibility to act on this matter. I've got right here a letter that was sent to you by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. They point out that you have a crucial role to play in this current and ongoing controversy. They've even provided you with a very basic and practical suggestion, and that is that there have to be common standards across the province. It can't just be up to municipalities.

The public and the police call upon you to be protected by the implementation of a universal standard across the province. It's imperative that you put into place a regulation that sets out exactly when the police should and should not carry out a strip search. It's in your court very much, Minister. Why won't you show some leadership and implement a regulation that's uniform across Ontario?

Hon Mr Runciman: I meet on a rather frequent basis with the chiefs of police from across the province, the police services boards, the police associations and many public groups that have an interest in policing. If we reach a determination that a standard is appropriate in this situation, we'd be quite prepared to move in that regard. Up to this point that case has not been made, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. A number of constituents high atop majestic Hamilton Mountain are telling me they are receiving calls from telephone solicitors who seem to be working from outside Ontario. I know you've cracked down on telemarketing fraud and loan brokers operating in Ontario, but what are you doing to protect consumers from scams that originate from outside Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Ontario has been a leader in fighting against scams and various frauds. For this I believe a lot of credit should go to Staff Sergeant Barry Elliott of the OPP, who is heading up a force called Phonebusters. Since we've initiated and worked with Barry Elliott and Phonebusters, we've had a reduction of around 46% in fraud in the province since 1995.

We've learned that much of this has emanated from outside the province. As a result of that, we've taken the lead again and initiated a program called Canshare. Canshare is a program that shares information between various provinces. For example, if someone is scamming people in Ontario, we will share that information through this Canshare scheme with other provinces, thereby preventing the scam artist from going to, say, Alberta or BC and starting up the same type of scam there.

We really believe this type of program, this sharing of information, will help prevent a lot of fraud and a lot of these people from getting started.

Mr Pettit: I can see how it would be very helpful for law enforcement agencies to have advance knowledge of any criminal activity coming into their area. However, my concern is about the public. What about the people of, say, Hamilton Mountain? Will they be warned about any new scams in their community?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think warning the public in advance is an extremely important part of preventing fraud. We initiate many news releases and alerts to the public, and as a matter of courtesy many of the local newspapers carry these consumer alerts.

I'd also like to acknowledge that the MPPs have a very keen role to play in all this. I've talked recently with the member for Lambton, who advised me that they had a seniors' antifraud seminar that went on in his area and they had the OPP speaking to seniors. He alerted me as well to a recent scam. This is one where citizens will get a card that looks like it has been sent by Canada Post, by registered mail, and it indicates "Final notice to call" at the top. When they call, they find themselves talking to someone who tells them they've won a set of knives or a trip, but in order for them to collect this prize they have to see a salesman. The salesman turns out to be a vacuum salesman. So this is nothing but a scam.

It's through these types of initiatives advising the public of these types of scams that we can prevent scams, particularly against seniors.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today we'll be debating the seventh property tax bill, and that bill still doesn't get it right. You have created chaos throughout this province.

Let's just hear what some of the mayors around the province have to say. The mayor of Niagara Falls says that if the government wants to help small business, this is not the way to go. "You've created a mess."

In Sudbury: "This is the final straw. It blows the provincial government's credibility right out of the water."

Phil Leonard, chair of the Frontenac management board, says, "Why does the province not exempt those municipalities that did use the earlier legislation?"

Hazel McCallion in Mississauga is threatening to withhold $94 million in education taxes from you. She says: "We should send up a white flag. The province really has got us into a mess."

Why didn't you listen to the clerks and treasurers last February when they said, "Whatever you're going to do, wait until 1999 to implement it"? Why are you attacking the property taxpayers -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): We are not attacking property taxpayers. If the honourable member wants to vote against an amendment that limits the amount of business tax increases in every community across the province, I welcome him to stand up and vote against it. You want increases?

While the honourable member's government was in power, if he wants to talk about tax increases, I can tell you what they were in every single municipality in those five years. Gerry Phillips is nodding his head over there, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, if he'd like to stand up and tell the Legislature and the people of Ontario why he voted for these huge tax increases.

We are limiting tax increases and we're taking the bull by the horns. We are solving an unfair tax system in the province of Ontario, which he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do.

1520

Mr Gerretsen: You have created chaos and a mess throughout this entire province. Even some of the municipalities, like Halton, that used your tools, as did other areas of this province, must now go back to the drawing board and recreate tax bills, which is an administrative nightmare and an additional cost. The four chambers of commerce support what they did in Halton, as did the four MPPs from that area.

When will you admit that you have made a mistake with all these property tax bills? When are you going to stop doing what you're doing and create reasonable, sensible government for this province rather than your constant attacks on the taxpayers of this province and the municipalities?

Hon Mr Eves: Talking about constant attacks on the taxpayers of the province, this is the first government that has come along and done something about the unfair, inequitable property taxation system in Ontario. At the same time, we have provided municipalities, yet again, from November 1997 to December 31, 1998, some 13 months, the opportunity to adapt to tools to change the system. If that doesn't work, we have limited tax increases to businesses across the province. If he and his colleagues want to vote against that, they're more than welcome to stand up.

They may well want to, seeing as how when they were in government, municipal tax increases in the city of Toronto went up 30%; in Hamilton they went up 42%. You can take any one you want. In York region they went up 36.5%; in Brant they went up 27.2%; in Haliburton they went up 73.6%; and in Kingston, where he was the mayor, they went up 50%.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. In 1990, as Chair of Management Board, I instituted a program of systemic barrier reviews, ministry by ministry. Ministries had to compile the reviews, include it as part of their annual business plan and submit it to Management Board and treasury board during their estimates. Management Board analysts reviewed those plans and provided independent comments to treasury board and Management Board as they reviewed them. There were resources allocated for the systemic barrier reviews. There was a fund to accommodate changes within the ministries. Essentially, everything that you have announced today, which your minister and your government cancelled in 1995, was being done for five years.

What isn't in your legislation is any requirement for municipalities, the broader public sector or the private sector to do a single thing to remove barriers. Surely in the consultation you heard from members of the disability community that they wanted legislative guarantees that the private sector and the broader public sector, as well as the Ontario government, must accommodate and remove barriers. Why is that not included in your legislation?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, we certainly feel that we listened very intently to 282 groups across the province. We heard what they had to say. We set out the parameters at the beginning that we weren't going to impose mandatory means.

When you ask what we are doing for the business sector, we are having a committee on employment. We listened and heard that they wanted an information and referral service. Business after business told us and me personally that they want to do things about barrier design; they don't know where to go to find out about it. We are bringing that in. We are giving an $800,000 incentive that will allow small businesses to work on projects that have a broad application, that will remove barriers. We are bringing in, in the education ministry, Job Connect program enhancements that will put people in touch with jobs, people with disabilities who have not been able to do that before. We as a government -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you. Supplementary.

Ms Lankin: Minister, you didn't listen to people. Don't say you listened intently. You ignored what person after person, group after group representing the community of the disabled came forward and told you.

Goodwill is not enough. Voluntary measures are not enough. This will not improve the situation for persons with disabilities in Ontario. All you've included in this meagre two-page bill is what was already being done in the province under the former government, the plan that you cancelled in 1995, and now in 1998 you're announcing you're going to reinstate it.

This is an abysmal failure. You have failed in your responsibility to advocate on behalf of people with disabilities. How are you going to answer to them?

Hon Ms Bassett: All I can say is that if you feel so strongly, you should have done more. You had five years in government and you did nothing. You would not even support your own member who brought forward a private member's bill, and he himself had a hearing impairment. If you feel so strongly about bringing in endless mandatory means, you had every opportunity to do it. We do have a mandatory measure requiring all government ministries to submit systemic plans.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, I know how you feel about the administration of justice at the local level, especially in areas of rural Ontario. I know you agree that because of the previous governments we've had in our province, all of our infrastructure has deteriorated, certainly our courthouse system. Could you give us an update on the progress your ministry has made in renewing our courthouse facilities in Ontario?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Chatham-Kent for the question. As you are aware, we have embarked on the most extensive courthouse redevelopment scheme in the history of this province. Over the continuing five-year period, we are spending an unprecedented $250 million to answer the promises that previous governments have made to build courthouses but didn't quite get around to doing.

We're building courthouses in Hamilton, Windsor and Welland, we're building a courthouse in Brampton and in Chatham, and we just opened the courthouse in Cornwall, all of which were courthouses that had been promised by previous governments and not built.

I give you the example of Brampton. This party planned to build the Brampton courthouse. They never got a shovel in the ground. We have kept our promises.

Mr Carroll: Minister, I had the opportunity to have you down to my community to visit what we used as a courthouse, and you agreed with me about the pitiful state it was in. You also know that because of local restructuring in our area, where we reduced from 156 local political positions to 18, we had a building come available, and you in your wisdom saw fit to provide us with the resources for a new courthouse.

We know what happened in the community of Chatham-Kent. Can you give us an update on some other specific areas of the province where you've been able to do some things to upgrade the courthouse facilities?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I was saying, we opened the courthouse in Cornwall on Friday, a promise that was made by the previous two governments. They never got around to building that courthouse. We built the courthouse facility that we opened on Friday at a cost of $7.5 million. This is one of the most modern, up-to-date courthouses in North America, technologically at the highest level for going into the 21st century. We watched the downtown deteriorate as the two previous parties formed governments. We came along and kept the promise to build the courthouse for the people in Cornwall. We've done the same thing for the people in Windsor. We're doing the same thing of the people in Chatham. We're doing the same thing for the people in Brampton.

We have made promises to upgrade court facilities. We've kept those promises, unlike the previous two governments.

1530

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week your government announced 550 beds for the Hamilton-Wentworth region with regard to long-term care. First of all, this does not even meet the need. There are over 1,000 people on waiting lists. You're going to shut down 180 chronic care beds in Hamilton-Wentworth. Clearly your announcement falls way short of the need, but beyond that, what is more disturbing is your pattern of awarding long-term contracts to the private sector and to for-profit companies simply to make a buck. In the announcement of the 550 beds, 85% of those beds went to private sector companies and only a small percentage went to LIUNA, local 837.

Clearly, this is the Americanization of health care that you're started on. This is a back-door way of awarding contracts to your friends. Minister, can you tell us why you ignored the non-profit sector with this announcement and gave all the contracts to private sector companies?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I will refer that to the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I will advise the member what I told him and his community when I was in Hamilton last week to announce the first long-term-care beds in over a decade in Hamilton. We announced 550 new long-term-care beds in that city, about a 50% increase in the total number of beds, and we still have 758 more beds.

The member gets up in this House and talks about the fact that we're not building them fast enough. It was good enough for you and your government to turn your back for five solid years on the seniors in Hamilton-Wentworth, and this government is putting in those resources, adding to its total allocation of provincial dollars. It's unbelievable, because he campaigned in the last election on the Liberal red book, and the best we were going to get out of the member from Hamilton, Mr Agostino, was that they were going to create a long-term-care coordinating committee to study long-term care. That's all you were going to do. We're building the best.

Mr Agostino: I appreciate the answer, except that I think he's reading from the wrong briefing notes.

Minister, the question refers to the awarding of the contracts. I've told you that the shortfall already doesn't come close to meeting the needs. You ignored and stabbed in the back St Peter's Centre. Your own restructuring commission recommended that St Peter's Centre be used for this type of purpose. It was praised as a leader in caring for seniors. You and your commission and your cabinet stabbed them in the back and betrayed them by not awarding them one single bed. Not one single allocation went to St Peter's Centre. That is a disgrace. It shows the lack of clout that you have in cabinet, that you cannot deliver for Hamilton-Wentworth.

Minister, can you tell again me why you chose to deliberately ignore and knife St Peter's Centre after the restructuring commission told them they should be given some beds?

Hon Mr Jackson: Just for the record, it was the Liberal government under then Minister of Health Elinor Caplan who stabbed St Peter's in the back when it decided there were going to be no more chronic care hospitals in Ontario. It was the Liberal government that decided we were going to phase out chronic care hospitals. The NDP government agreed, and this government is putting together and responding to the Health Services Restructuring Commission's report to extend and build long-term-care beds in this province, an unprecedented 20,000 beds.

If the good citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth haven't any other example of why they should be scared of the Liberal Party as they present themselves to try to be the next government of Ontario -

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Member for Hamilton East, come to order.

Hon Mr Jackson: Dalton McGuinty puts out his stand on health care. I'll tell you what the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth should be worried about: not one reference in here to seniors, not one reference to long-term care, not one reference to community care. Can the seniors of Ontario, let alone the citizens of Hamilton, really trust the Liberal Party?

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture will know that because of the Asian crisis, the price for wheat, for hogs and for many other commodities has dropped tremendously. In the United States, they're prepared to offer their farmers $16 billion in help. You know that farmers in Ontario have other challenges as well, because of the drought and because of increased input costs.

Minister, you've cut the ministry's budget; you've offloaded a whole lot of programs on to farmers. What are you prepared to do to help the farmers of Ontario now, in the midst of this crisis?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I'd like to thank my colleague. Yes, I was at the OFA meeting today and I spoke with the farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We are working with the federal government. We have the safety nets, we have the market revenue and we have the NISA program in place. We are looking very closely at what we can do. I am and will be speaking with the federal minister, the Honourable Lyle Vanclief, later this afternoon. We are working towards some degree of alleviation.

As the member knows, the cycle in agriculture always goes up and down, and we happen to be at the very low ebb of the cycle in grains and hog production. The Asian economic flu has not helped that situation at all. We know about it and we're working on it.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you would know that the national safety nets committee has presented the federal government with a proposal for a national disaster relief program. It will guarantee farmers 70% of their individual farm income average over expenses. You also know that the NISA program won't even come close to helping the average hog farmer in this province, given what has happened, the dramatic decrease in prices and things like the drought.

I hope that you would stand up and say that you are going to fight for the national safety nets committee proposal. Nothing else will do. It's clear the federal Liberals in Ottawa are dragging their feet on this. What are you prepared to do? What is Ontario prepared to do to fight for Ontario farmers and to make sure they aren't put at risk, given everything that's happening in Asia and given the fact that the federal government is dragging its feet?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We are working very closely with the federal government, with the federal bureaucrats. We are working on a national disaster program. We have some very difficult economic times in certain areas of agriculture, and I will be the first to admit that. We are working on that particular program, and it has to be a two-government initiative.

WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is for the minister with responsibility for women's issues. We all know that we're concerned about the safety of women and children in Ontario. I understand that as part of Wife Assault Prevention Month, the minister made an announcement in Sarnia on the Thursday that just passed. Minister, I was wondering if you could inform the House about this announcement.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Huron, southwest Ontario, for the question.

The safety of women and children is a priority during any month of the year for the members of this Legislative Assembly and certainly for the people of Ontario. We have a grant program that was announced last week. In southwest Ontario, there were community-based programs, in partnership with others - Mr Speaker, your area of the province as well - that received over $57,000. Across the province, we gave out almost $700,000 to more than 50 community-based agencies in partnership with others to stop the violence.

At the Sexual Assault Survivors' Centre in Sarnia, we met with Pat Brooks, Jean Brady, Diann Gougeon, Val Pitt and Gayle Douglas. They're very eager to get started on a project to put together a booklet on teens and dating, because this is a problematic area at this time in young people's lives. They will also develop a protocol right across their area in partnership with Victims Services of Sarnia-Lambton and the sexual assault treatment centre.

Partnerships work, and they should be very proud of their great accomplishments.

Mrs Johns: I know that you have introduced a number of initiatives within your ministry, Minister, and I was wondering if you would outline some of those initiatives to the House so that we can consider how we might be able to utilize them in our own constituencies.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are a number of initiatives. In fact, we had a conference in London, Ontario, on Thursday and Friday, where we were talking about ways we can stop sexual harassment in the workplace, because harassment is the beginning of violence, and it isn't funny, the joke's over, to harass your friends.

With teenagers, it's very important that they have both education and training. One of the resources that we're very proud of is called Peace Breaks. These Peace Breaks are very small vignettes that are used by classes. They were produced in partnership with TVOntario. It's a series of nine three-minute program shorts designed to stand alone or be shown as a series. The Peace Breaks are broadcast on TVO during TVO Kids, a program that many of us know about, and they've been created for youth in elementary schools.

1540

PROBATE AND ESTATE FEES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question has to do with the new Harris tax that was introduced today that I think will raise about $1 billion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Who's your question to?

Mr Phillips: It's to the Minister of Finance. It is retroactive, I gather, back 48 years, so it's a new tax introduced today going back 48 years, designed to raise $1 billion.

My question is this to the minister: I gather from your bill that the Harris government has decided that the fees that were imposed by the previous NDP government on estates are now going to be adopted by Mike Harris and that it is your plan to adapt those fees in the form of a tax, the same fees that were adapted by the NDP government in the form of a tax. Is that your intention, to impose the same fees as the previous government in the form of a tax now and for the future?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): It's the intention of the government to maintain the status quo with respect to fees surrounding probates from 1950 to now. I might point out, if the government were to pay back that money, it would amount to roughly $1.5 billion in principal, plus interest on that money.

I might also point out to him, by the way, that Management Board of Cabinet's decision to change the fee structure was made in 1988 and 1989 by the David Peterson government. I might also point out to the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt that while he was in government and sat in cabinet, his government collected over $120 million in these fees during that period of time. Surely, if he thought they were illegal or unconstitutional, (a) he wouldn't have taken part in a government that raised the fees in 1988 and 1989, and (b) he wouldn't have collected $120 million to boot.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows - very timely in St Catharines:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the hospital restructuring committee of Niagara used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition from approximately 100 people, and there are more coming, that speak against closures of many schools in Toronto, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are categorically opposed to closure, consolidation of St Raymond Catholic school or any school in the city of Toronto."

I've signed my name to this petition.

PORNOGRAPHY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Whereas children are exposed to pornography in various stores and video retail outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

I agree with this petition and I will be affixing my signature to it.

DENTAL CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas a new schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act;

"Whereas the new schedule fails to meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities, reduces services, places barriers to accessing care and creates an environment for various different dental programs across Ontario;

"Whereas the move away from an emphasis on prevention under the new dental schedule brings significant health risks for children and people with disabilities who are often least able to practise good oral hygiene;

"Whereas the new dental schedule interferes with the patients' rights to consent to treatment by requiring administrators, and not patients or substitute decision-makers, to authorize and deny dental treatment;

"Whereas there is no method for the patient to appeal a decision by a plan administrator to deny dental treatment;

"Whereas pre-authorizations, called predeterminations in the new plan, will require that a higher level of confidential patient health information be disclosed to dental plan administrators;

"Whereas the Ontario government has caused confusion among patients by introducing the plan without prior consultation and has not included any affected patient groups in consultations after releasing the new dental plan;

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

"Delay full implementation of the new dental plan until the requirement for predeterminations is removed, patient confidentiality is protected, the plan emphasizes prevention in oral health care, and the government consults directly with affected patients to ensure the new plan will meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 120 people.

"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;

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

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I present further petitions calling for the elimination of regional government, over 10,000 now. The petition is signed by Mayor Marie Trainer, Mayor Rita Kalmbach, Councillor Gary Nichols and others.

"Whereas the Haldimand-Norfolk region has downloaded a 17% tax hike on residents, without attempting to cut its own costs; and

"Whereas for the past 25 years, there have been meetings, petitions, referenda and studies calling for a restructuring of regional government; and

"Whereas 80% of the residents did not want regional government in the first place, and in recent referenda 75% of the residents of the city of Nanticoke and 60% of the residents of the town of Simcoe voted against retaining regional government; and

"Whereas residents in the region do not want and clearly cannot afford two levels of municipal government;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that provincial legislation be passed to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk, and institute a form of restructured local government in keeping with the wishes and the financial means of the local residents."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas the hospital restructuring commission established by the Mike Harris government deliberated in secret about the future of hospitals in the Niagara region and has reported in the autumn of this year;

"Whereas the St Catharines General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital, along with the Niagara rehabilitation centre, have in the past provided excellent medical care for the people of St Catharines;

"Whereas the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Port Colborne hospital and the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby have been key centres of health care in the Niagara Peninsula;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to maintain existing medical services provided at these hospitals, restore the proposed $43-million cut from operating funds for the Niagara hospitals; and

"That the Ontario Ministry of Health provide additional funding to expand health care services available in the Niagara region for residents in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

1550

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has passed Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons; and

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic of illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy other than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to repeal from Bill C-68 those provisions for a compulsory registration of all firearms."

I'll sign my name to the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris has announced its intention of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $18 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services, or both; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives `whiners' when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that Mike Harris's proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris refuses to listen to the representatives who work most closely with their constituents, that is, the municipal representatives;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Conservative government of Mike Harris to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property taxes or an unacceptable cut to important services, or both."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We've just had I believe the fifth petition made by one member in the House, and at least four or five others who have tried have not had an opportunity to do so. I wonder if you could direct me to where in the standing orders, standing order 38, it suggests that petitions should necessarily be done in party rotation and not on the basis of at least one for every member who wishes to make sure the views of their constituents are heard in this chamber, instead of one member only from a party that can't bring in more than one or two members and can't even maintain any kind of quorum. I think it is terribly unfair to those members who are being deprived. I would ask you to instead reflect on what is in standing order 38, which says nothing about rotation by party.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is a point of order, but this has been a long-established custom in this House, and until it's changed, it will remain.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have a petition signed by people in my riding to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised in the Common Sense Revolution to maintain health care spending at no less than $17.4 billion annually; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has exceeded that spending floor every year since being elected; and

"Whereas total health care spending for 1998-99 will be $18.5 billion, the highest in Ontario's history; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has achieved this despite cuts in transfer payments by the federal Liberal government of more than $2.4 billion; and

"Whereas a recent survey by the Fraser Institute proves that health care waiting lists in Ontario are the shortest anywhere in Canada; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is placing a greater emphasis on community-based health services in order to better care for an aging population; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is eliminating waste and duplication in the health care sector and reinvesting every penny found into quality services; and

"Whereas this has resulted in reinvestments of over $3 billion; and

"Whereas in Niagara region seniors will benefit from the government's $54-million investment to create 646 new long-term-care beds in the Niagara region alone; and

"Whereas $75 million is being invested over the next two years to open hospital beds during peak demand periods in order to handle emergency patients; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has pledged $24.3 million to dramatically expand breast cancer screening; and

"Whereas 140,000 additional low-income earners are eligible to receive help with their drug costs through the expansion of the Trillium drug plan; and

"Whereas over 520 prescription drugs have been added to the Ontario drug plan formulary, giving seniors and others who rely on the ODB program a wider range of products to serve their health care needs;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

I am in full agreement with this petition and will gladly sign it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Thunder Bay and district are suffering from serious deterioration in our health care system because of the closing of hospital beds before community services and long-term-care facilities are available;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make it an urgent priority to provide more long-term-care services in the home and to provide a sufficient number of long-term-care institutional beds and staff in order to restore the standards of health care to an acceptable level."

As that reflects the reality in my community, I affix my signature to join those of my constituents.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIRNESS FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES CONTRIBUABLES DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

Mr Baird, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79, An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Municipal Act, Assessment Review Board Act and Education Act in respect of property taxes / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation foncière, la Loi sur les municipalités, la Loi sur la Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'impôt foncier.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I indicate at the outset of my remarks that I will be sharing my time with the member for Durham East and the hard-working member for Huron county, Mrs Johns.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): How hardworking?

Mr Baird: Very hard-working; one of the hardest-working members around here.

I'm pleased to speak on this bill because I believe very strongly in the important role that small business plays in the province of Ontario. Small business is the backbone of Ontario's economy. I think you'd be surprised that 80% of the jobs created in the province are created by small business, those hard-working folks who operate a store or who, in my part of the province, do research and development in computer design and other networking solutions.

That's incredibly important, because we've seen more than 400,000 net new jobs created in Ontario. That's tremendously good news, and small business has led the way 80% of the time. Whether those jobs are in the banks, in the riding of the member for Fort York, or in small businesses in Nepean, they're creating jobs, and we very much support small business.

The survival of many of these valuable contributors to Ontario's economic well-being was threatened by property tax increases, increases caused by the reluctance of many municipalities to fully use the tools that the provincial government, through legislation, gave them to limit assessment-related tax increases.

1600

We listened very carefully to small business owners, and they told us. We responded by proposing mandatory measures that would guarantee protection for small business. This protection would provide small businesses with the certainty they need to make decisions about investing, about expanding and about creating jobs.

Since we began our mandate, we've cut taxes and brought tax fairness to millions of Ontarians. We are creating a positive environment where small business can grow, prosper and create jobs. For many years, Ontario used to be the economic engine of Canada. We were a magnet for jobs, investment and opportunity.

But over the years of socialist government, we became known as the mismanaged debtor of Canada: overtaxed, overregulated and overgoverned. After those five years of socialist mismanagement, the NDP got elected. The NDP got elected after those socialist years of mismanagement and they made the matter worse. It got demonstrably worse after those five years of Liberal socialist regimes, when Ontarians elected a New Democratic Party government in 1990. We tried the socialists; they didn't work. Then we tried the NDP, and they didn't work either.

This government has sought to create an environment that will encourage the private sector to create jobs. It will help small business to create jobs, because we believe and so many folks I am privileged to represent in Barrhaven and Bells Corners and Manordale and south Nepean know that government can't create jobs. Government can only create the environment where the private sector, where small business people, can create jobs.

This government believes strongly in the entrepreneurial spirit, the rugged individualism of small business people across the province of Ontario. We believe very strongly in that. It's important indeed that we recognize the important contribution that small business continues to play in our growing economy.

Let me describe how Bill 79 would ensure that municipalities do the same, bring tax fairness to business property owners. Bill 79 would guarantee that no commercial or industrial property owner would face a tax increase related to property tax reform of more than 10% in 1998, and a further 5% in each of 1999 and the year 2000, well into the next millennium.

These proposed limits would apply to the municipal and education portions of the property tax on commercial and industrial property in all municipalities across the province except Toronto, which went even further and adopted the 2.5% tax. I want to congratulate the city of Toronto for protecting their small business.

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you please check for a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Yes, I will.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Nepean.

Mr Baird: I want to thank mon cher collègue, the member for Fort York, for helping secure a larger audience for me. I greatly appreciate it, M. Marchese.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): The only member from the NDP who has chosen to come in today.

Mr Baird: He is so concerned. In fact, he is the only member of his party here to listen to this speech. I congratulate him for that.

When the Minister of Finance introduced Bill 79, he said that at the standing committee he would propose amendments that would also protect multi-residential properties under the very same formula.

Bill 79 would protect residential ratepayers. Municipalities would be required to ensure that the limit on tax increases on business properties is funded from within the commercial, industrial and multi-residential property classes.

With respect to tax increases above 10, 5 and 5, any municipal property tax increase beyond the proposed limits would be the result of decisions by municipal governments to increase spending. I want to very sincerely say to my colleague the member for Fort York, we don't want municipalities to raise taxes. It's not a helpful thing. In Nepean it's minus 2. Do you know what the minus means? It's called a tax cut. Because folks on the Nepean council, led by Councillor Jan Harder, know that cutting taxes creates jobs. Nepean is in fact one of the economic engines of Ontario. That small reduction, albeit symbolic, shows the pro-job creation mentality of the hard-working taxpayers and councillors within the city of Nepean. We should acknowledge that.

The only other reason that property could experience increases above the 10, 5, 5 limit is if there are physical changes to the property such as new construction or renovation, a change in use such as from commercial to industrial or a change in vacancy such as a vacant property becoming occupied. I'm going to tell you, there are a lot of vacant properties becoming occupied in my part of the province. The new jobs -

Mr Marchese: Prosperity.

Mr Baird: - the new prosperity, the member for Fort York said. The member for Fort York represents a constituency that's home of the big five banks. We don't have those large billion-dollar enterprises in great number in Nepean. Nepean's economy isn't like the economy of Fort York; the economy of Fort York depends on the big banks and the big investment houses to lure jobs and investment. In Nepean, we depend on small business. That's why we're bringing in Bill 79.

The 10, 5, 5 limit would not apply to farmland awaiting development or to properties subject to payments in lieu of taxes, such as properties owned by the federal or provincial government. The province is committed to paying its fair share of property tax, and we fully expect that our federal counterparts will do the same.

I want to speak to this issue with respect to the federal payments in lieu. We are working very closely with the mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, and the deputy mayor, Alkan Higdon, and folks of the region, Merv Beckstead and Bob Chiarelli, to ensure that these changes are applicable to Ottawa-Carleton and applicable in that the federal government will pay its fair share.

There has been some suggestion by members of the media that the federal government won't pay their fair share, that they will somehow try to use these amendments designed to help small business to get out of their obligations. The federal government, for the first time, was prepared to state on the record that they were going to pay every single cent that they were supposed to pay. There's some suggestion that they won't, and I'm very disappointed in that suggestion, because I believed Paul Martin when Paul Martin said the cutbacks to the municipalities and the provinces would stop.

With the changes this government introduced to the property assessment system, for the first time the federal government was going to pay the equivalent of the business occupancy tax. What we want them to do is treat Ottawa the same way they treat Hull, to pay their fair share of property taxes. That's not too much to ask. But instead there has been some suggestion that the federal government will use this opportunity to whack Ontario again.

Mr Marchese: Whack `em good.

Mr Baird: "Whack `em good," the member for Fort York said. We reject that. We sincerely hope that they'll live up to their obligations and pay their fair share. They say they want to pay taxes just like everyone else. They should start off in the same position as every other business. They've said for years that they just want to pay taxes like everyone else. But interestingly, when you look at what they pay, it actually isn't what they owe.

The assessment system will give them a valuation on a particular office building, let's say, and they only pay 80 cents or 90 cents on the dollar. How many other taxpayers in Ontario could say, "We're only going to pay 80 or 90 cents on the dollar"? When the member for Fort York gets his tax bill - probably much larger than mine, because I'm sure he lives in a much more fancy place than I live in, in Bells Corners - he doesn't have the choice to pay 80 cents on the dollar. He has to pay every cent he owes or Mel Lastman will come and shut him down.

Mr Marchese: He'll whack me good.

Mr Baird: He'll whack him good, indeed. But the federal government just refused to pay. They say they don't agree with the assessment and it's tough luck on Jim Watson or Bob Chiarelli or Mary Pitt or anyone in Ottawa-Carleton; they won't pay their fair share. We're hoping they live up to their commitment and we are certainly committed to working with the city of Ottawa, the city of Nepean, the city of Gloucester and the regional government in Ottawa-Carleton to ensure they can hold the line on taxes once again, just like they did this year.

1610

In fact, in Nepean they cut taxes this year. Do you know who's going to find out that Nepean cut taxes this year? The new member of the New Democratic Party caucus, when he runs for re-election in the part of that riding, the majority of that riding, in the city of Nepean. We certainly look forward to hosting him as the NDP candidate in one of the two Nepean ridings.

We gave a perfect number of tools to the municipalities. To achieve the 10, 5 and 5 limits, the municipalities would be able to choose from a range of tools available under the Ontario fair assessment system, the tools we urged them to use all along.

Mr Marchese: What kind of tools?

Mr Baird: Let me review these tools for you. Municipalities could choose to phase in reform-related tax increases and decreases over an eight-year period. They could use graduated tax rates to apply lower tax rates to lower-valued properties. They could adopt any and all of the optional property classes and set different tax rates for each class. Member for Fort York, they could offer rebates.

Mr Marchese: Is that a tool?

Mr Baird: They could adopt a 2.5% cap, as they did in the member for Fort York's riding, in every year: 1998, 1999 and the year 2000. If passed, Bill 79 would provide municipalities with one more tool: the 10, 5 and 5 cap, that would cap increases at 10% in 1998, a further 5% in 1999 and another 5% in the year 2000.

We provided municipalities with ample time to analyze the impacts of reassessment. In August 1997, we gave them the preliminary reassessment data and preliminary transition ratios. To help municipalities work with this data, we offered training sessions. We also provided municipalities with time to become familiar with the tools. We introduced a phase-in and tax relief for seniors in January 1997. In June 1997, we introduced graduated tax rates and rebates for charities to help those hard-working people across Ontario who work for various charities. I can recall having the director of the Ottawa Food Bank, Greg Joy, come in to see me. He made a very strong case in lobbying the government for assistance for the work of the Ottawa Food Bank, and I totally agreed. A good number of my caucus colleagues lobbied for charities in their constituencies, and the Minister of Finance certainly agreed.

We announced rebates, optional property classes and the 2.5% cap in March 1998, which was used in the city of Toronto. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing offered municipalities the on-line property tax analysis computer program. This allowed municipalities to analyze the impacts of reassessment and the effects of using various property tax tools.

To give municipalities more time, we extended the deadline to August 14, 1998, for choosing optional property classes, graduated tax rates, the 2.5% cap and to establish their tax ratios. There was no legislative deadline for municipalities to adopt phase-ins or rebates.

The tools were optional. Municipalities had the flexibility to choose a combination of tools to ensure that moving to the new system was fair to taxpayers. We relied upon them to make appropriate choices for their taxpayers. However, while some did, many municipalities failed to use the tools or they failed to use them effectively.

I can tell you, in my home community, in Ottawa-Carleton, we heard a good number of concerns from hard-working small business people, whether they were in Ottawa or Nepean or Stittsville, Greely, Manotick or Richmond. I have the Manotick Messenger from Wednesday, October 21, 1998, a story by Joe Banks. I'd like to quote from it briefly, if I may.

"In Osgoode alone, there is an average 50% hike in business property taxes with 165 business owners paying $400,000 more in taxes this year. Rideau township is facing similar increases." That was an incredibly powerful argument.

The article went on: "In his opening statement to the more than 100 people on hand for the Greely session, Osgoode Mayor Doug Thompson described as `devastating' the scale of increases the owners are seeing.

"`Changes to the business tax system must be made...to help us survive one of the most critical times in our history,' he added.

"`We implore you to work at changes to allow the business community to operate, as in the past, in a profitable manner.'"

I certainly strongly agree with the mayor of Osgoode township, Doug Thompson. He fought very hard for his small business people, as did the mayor of Stittsville and Rideau township as well. This government not only took the time to listen and reflect but to respond. A good number of members from across the province took that time as well, and we had a number of very good meetings where members from across Ontario were able to strongly represent their constituents and the needs and interests of small business, because members, certainly in my caucus, recognize the important role that small business people play in economic development and in job creation.

We listened to small business people and to local officials around the province, reflected on that and then acted to ensure that small business is protected.

As a result, municipalities issued their tax bills in August, September and October, but many businesses faced unmanageable tax increases, as I've just said. Bill 79 would give municipalities even more time, until the end of the year, to choose the tools they need to achieve the 10, 5 and 5 limit.

Adjusting 1998 rates is important too. If Bill 79 is passed, we would work with the municipalities to ensure that 1998 rates are adjusted quickly, whether by refunds, supplementary tax notices, or adjusting the 1999 interim tax bill, and we are prepared to help with the cost of doing this.

To provide immediate relief to business, under Bill 79 business property owners who have not paid already billed reform-related tax increases of more than 10% in 1998 would not have to pay interest and penalties on those amounts above 10%.

We recognize that some taxpayers expecting decreases will not get them as quickly as they had otherwise anticipated. However, we could not stand by and let the small businesses face increases, some as high as 600%. This situation was exceptionally real. Speaking to one small business owner who lives in my riding, who operates a store at the Richmond mall, apparently half the tenants at the Richmond mall were in danger of losing their business. That's why this government is acting to help small business, to ensure that we move to a fairer tax system and that the municipalities have the tools to ensure that the transition is smooth.

In the year 2001, we will continue working with municipalities and businesses to ensure that tax changes are fair and manageable when the 10, 5 and 5 limit ends in the year 2001. There will be another reassessment for the 2001 taxation year. In 2001, municipalities will have tools such as the graduated tax rates and optional property classes available. The province may also make more tools available.

By 2001, businesses and municipalities with above-average education tax rates will have benefited from three years of the education tax cuts. I did want to speak briefly to that. I think too often we forget about the terrible tax increases that have disadvantaged some businesses across the province. In this year's budget, the Minister of Finance responded to a lot of concern from right across Ontario about the distribution of commercial-industrial education tax rates by municipalities.

In the budget this year, there were some substantial tax reductions in this area. In my own home region of Ottawa-Carleton, the industrial tax rate for education will be cut by 12.7% over the next seven or eight years, and that's indeed very good news. In the city of Toronto, there was a very high rate, and taxes will be cut by some $400 million. I know that members like the member for High Park-Swansea have been complaining about those high taxes in Toronto for many years. Finally, a government has the courage to act and to cut those taxes.

I would be remiss if I didn't go over some of the other numbers: in Brant county, a 21.6% cut in the industrial taxes; in Elgin county, a 19.2% cut in industrial taxes; in Essex county, the tax cut will be 22% for industrial taxpayers; in Grey county, it'll be 26.4% for industrial taxpayers; in Hamilton-Wentworth, because of the hard work of people like Toni Skarica and Lillian Ross and Trevor Pettit and Ed Doyle, the industrial tax rate will fall by 44% over the next seven or eight years.

Those members certainly fought hard for their constituents, because that's a significant $20-million tax cut, where previous governments lacked the courage to step in and take over those cuts. In Kent county, there's a 11.2% cut. In Leeds and Grenville counties, the industrial rate will fall by 39%. In Niagara region - the member for Niagara Falls and the member for St Catharines-Brock are here - there's a 37% cut in industrial taxes; in Northumberland, 27%; in Rainy River, the home of the New Democratic Party leader, 21%; and in Renfrew county, the riding of my good friend Leo Jordan, a 35% cut. That is substantial and real. Those cuts taking place beginning this year over the next eight years are good news for industrial and commercial taxpayers, as they may be, around the province.

1620

By the year 2001, communities will have completed the restructuring and streamlining of their local services. This should make municipal tax cuts achievable in many areas. I've already said that in Nepean we cut taxes this year by 2%, and that's because of a council dedicated to protecting the taxpayer. I give credit again to hard-working councillors like Jan Harder and others.

The assessment appeal deadline and gross leases: Bill 79 proposes to extend the deadline for filing assessment appeals for 1998 to December 31 of this year. For subsequent years, the deadline will be March 31 of the taxation year.

Bill 79 also proposes to extend to December 15, 1998, the deadline for landlords with eligible gross leases to notify tenants of the obligation to pay property taxes or business improvement area charges for 1998. We are responding to the concerns of landlords who are unable to comply with the original notice deadlines due to the unique circumstances of this transitional year.

In conclusion, by ensuring fair property taxes for small business, Bill 79, the Fairness for Property Taxpayers Act, 1998, would play an important part in Ontario's positive business climate, which has made Ontario one of the best places in the world to live, work, invest and create jobs, and that's tremendously important.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege to comment on Bill 79 this afternoon. To follow the member for Nepean is rather a dubious task. He has pretty well covered all the pertinent background on this particular legislation.

I just want to say personally, at the beginning, a big thank you to the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, for listening to the backbenchers and the members of his caucus especially. We were listening to constituents and hearing the alarming news in late October of 100% and 200% tax increases for the small business operator. Clearly, they're already paying more than their fair share.

It begs the question, why should we change? I always try to look to the motive of change. This government is in a position to make changes, where necessary, and there is a need for change. Every government over the past decade has tried to deal with this issue of assessment reform and tax reform. First, in the 1970s, the province took over the assessment system to correct it. No one was prepared or had the courage to make the needed change.

AMO has been on record calling for reform to the assessment system for many, many years. I can also tell you that in the region of Durham they have been on the record calling for changes to the assessment system. I want to read into the record from their report just issued here in 1998, referred to as F-76:

"The region of Durham is on record as fully supporting provincial government initiatives to reform the system of property taxation in Ontario. The region of Durham worked diligently to bring long overdue reform to the system of property taxation in Durham, using those legislative tools which proved most effective in easing the transition to the new system. The new tax structure was designed in full consultation with local municipalities and with input from a number of affected groups."

It's clear that all publicly elected people - even in my term on local and regional council, during four of which I chaired municipal finance for our municipality. I can tell you, this whole issue has been overstudied for the last decade, and I'm going to cover that in my comments this afternoon.

The assessment system was broken and everyone knew it. No one would do anything about it, however. The Liberals backed away. I could document that for you, but they had an opportunity, addressed it, and backed away from it. The NDP - you remember when people lined up in the streets and were protesting? - backed away from it. They didn't have the courage to make the changes. Only this government has the proven track record and the commitment to doing the right thing. That's really what this whole discussion is about this afternoon: having trust in the government to do the right thing.

The other part of the equation of assessment reform, of course, is municipal tax reform. Again, this has been discussed for the last 10 years and more. Let me just give you some of the background.

There has been study after study, and no decisions. You may recall the historical documents. The disentanglement report was all about the same issue. What did they do with it? They filed it. Under the previous government, the Fair Tax Commission went around the province and listened to people on, how do we disentangle? Who pays for what? Of course, we came in with the Crombie commission, which was called the WDW, the Who Does What commission, looking for solutions to making it clear to the taxpayer who pays for what.

We've always had a position that there's only one taxpayer.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You didn't do what you said with social services.

Mr O'Toole: I will say in response to the member for Kingston and The Islands that there is a Liberal policy, and it's well known. It's tax and spend. That's their policy. Don't ever forget it. Their record, if you want to look back to what their solution was, was to spend more money to solve the problem. They never, ever went to the root of the problem; they spent more money. They had the highest years of revenue in this province and also the revenue was spent; not readjusted or redirected, as was the call.

At least the NDP had a plan, or at least it appeared they had a plan. The first attempt was called the expenditure reduction plan. This was when I was in local government. They backed away from it. None of the municipalities would agree with them. Respectfully, we have many municipalities that are working against us.

They also had another plan, the unfortunate, now famous social contract, which was really an attempt to control municipal or public spending. Unfortunately, their legacy is that they doubled the deficit and they doubled the debt. That will never be forgotten, and that's why the people of Ontario were fed up and that's why they voted for Mike Harris, the Taxfighter, and Ernie Eves, the finance minister, who was able to carry this inordinate task of trying to get it right.

What's the difference between the Liberals and the NDP and this government? Well, I'll tell you: They had 65 tax increases and we've had 66 tax decreases. That's the fundamental difference. We're committed to reducing the tax load on the hard-working taxpayers of Ontario.

So that's some of the background.

Arguably, change is difficult. Everyone here knows that. Certainly members of this caucus have had to be sensitive and listen to their constituents' concerns and try to explain and give them the bigger picture, that we were spending a million dollars an hour more than we were taking in in revenue. Everybody, once they see the bigger picture, understands that change was important.

Perhaps some municipalities don't want this to work. Don't leave it for me to say this, but I think there may be another agenda to try and balk this government long enough so that the plan won't work. Arguably, the opposition has a duty to oppose, but now they've backed away from it. The president of AMO at the time, Mundell, tried to get agreement. There were so many municipalities that were so used to this spend mentality that they never re-examined elimination of duplication and waste. Remember, there's only one taxpayer.

With the old, complicated, unfair system of assessment, combined with the old, complicated system of mill rates and a complicated system of shared funding arrangements between the province and municipal responsibilities, it's about time we did disentangle or sort this out. We called it Who Does What - very, very important that we sort it out.

The taxpayers that I talk to in the street every day - this weekend I was in downtown Bowmanville, and somebody said: "You know, this is the first time in years that I've really paid attention to my tax bill. You've really got people thinking about it." That's probably the strongest outcome from all this outrage and debate in the papers: People are really paying attention. They're going to hold publicly elected people responsible for the taxpaying decisions they make. They're fed up with politicians pointing fingers - federally, provincially, municipally. They just want this system fixed. I believe that we clearly have the government in place now that will fix it. We have always staked out the position that there's only one taxpayer.

1630

Getting into the substance of the bill, I want to admit very clearly at this point that there have been a number of bills dealing with the assessment and taxation changes. I'll cover that to some extent later, but I just want to put on the record that I am aware there have been a number of bills to try to get this right.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Seven.

Mr O'Toole: The member opposite says there have only been seven. I think the right response to that is that if it takes 10 to get it right, then there are two more bills.

It's a very complex system. Mr Phillips, you would know it's a complicated system. You've said it all along. What you should try to do is bring forward positive suggestions. Criticism is not exactly in order today. The taxpayer is fed up with this pointing of fingers. Whether it's health care or taxpayers, are you telling them the truth? That's the question. Are you telling them exactly your plan and policies? I haven't heard them in this House. I've heard lots of criticism.

Generally, local taxpayers should pay for local services. I think that's fairly understandable. Local taxpayers should pay for parks, recreation, animal control, fire service, tax collection, bylaw enforcement and a series of other planning and public works issues.

If you look through the different levels of what the taxpayer is paying for, at the upper-tier level, those taxpayers should be paying for those services. They should understand what the level of service is and why their taxes are going up. It should be right in the tax bill: "Policing costs more; here's what it is going to cost you." Promise this; it costs that. Tell the people what you're going to do. Be upfront about it. Police services is an upper-tier responsibility, social services delivery, planning and public works and public health.

If you go through the list here and move up the layers, the province ideally should pay for health care, education, welfare, MTO, Attorney General, all the other ministries, their responsibilities.

Let's finish the equation here. To complete the equation, your tax dollars to the federal government pay for our higher level of services like our military, public defence, foreign affairs, the courts system, and other federal responsibilities.

Yes, our changes are challenging, and yes, we have had some six or seven pieces of legislation. In my opinion, if it takes more legislation to get it right, then you can count on us to do it. The people of Ontario know there is only one government with the courage to keep their promises.

I can tell you that after the region of Durham and the local councillors delivered the tax bills in October, my phone was ringing off the hook. Small business operators were stopping me in Blackstock, Orono, Hampton, Port Perry, Prince Albert, Bowmanville, throughout my riding of Durham East. Car dealers were really hard hit, hardware stores, small restaurants, a rental business - I have one particular rental business where his taxes were going up by some 300%. He came to me; he released the information on his assessment, and with his tax increase, he told me he was going out of business.

That wasn't acceptable to me, and I thank our Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves, for listening not only to me but to other members of caucus who brought forward specific examples to demonstrate to him what this change, the way it was implemented at the municipal level, was doing to small business. I know it's been repeated by the member for Nepean that small business creates 80% of the jobs in this province, and certainly given that infrastructure and the jobs people want, we have to work with them. Of course, that is exactly what this bill is about. Bill 79 is about that.

We introduced a set of tools very early on, in one of the second amendment bills, and those tools I think were brought forward by the new Toronto city council, Mayor Lastman. I'd like to review some of the tools here that are already in place. Then I look at the tax policies and measures within the various municipalities around, and many of them did not use the tools. They've dumped the whole load of this thing on to commercial-industrial.

We allowed tools to mitigate these changes. Going back to the fundamentals, everyone here - I believe the member for Scarborough-Agincourt agrees as well that you would have to go on record as saying this assessment system change has been requested. No question about that; it's not even in dispute here. But we did recognize that there would need to be a transitional period.

Tax relief for low-income and seniors with disabilities: That was one of the tools that some of the municipalities chose to use; some did not.

Rebates to charities or similar kinds of organizations, where they were operating out of commercial buildings, was an option for municipalities.

Phasing-in was always an option. In fact, my municipality of Clarington and Durham region chose to use the phase-in tool.

Capping: Metro Toronto brought in the 2.5% cap. We heard all the people in the streets. They came together with a plan. I believe they sat down with Finance Minister Ernie Eves.

Toronto's been quiet. There hasn't been any outrage in Toronto. Why? Because they used the tax measures and they treated people fairly. That's all we have to do. Don't hide it from the residential taxpayer and dump it on the commercial. Spread it fairly. The changes have to be managed fairly.

Tax ratios and rates: There are seven property tax classes. They were allowed to use subclasses, like large commercial, medium commercial, small commercial, like a shopping plaza, a strip mall, and a pizza store. That would be large, medium and small - pizza. But they are also able to use subclasses in industrial as well. Again, many of the municipalities didn't use the tools.

You have to ask yourself, why didn't they use the tools? Is this not sort of a conspiracy to embarrass the Harris government, to make this as onerous as possible? I'm convinced, without much empirical evidence except the outrage it caused - and yet there were tools used in Toronto that worked. Why did some municipalities choose not to use them, while others did? The question begs to be answered: Was it pure politics at the municipal level?

I think it's quite tragic. If that's the case, I believe there probably is municipal support for a Liberal government, because they won't be straightforward with the people. This is clearly hard medicine. There is no one on this side avoiding that issue. We are making a fundamental change to a fair assessment system so that everyone pays their fair share, and we're providing transitional tools to get to the system or the Utopia, the ideal, that our finance minister has brought forward.

Rebates for business were available as well. There were a series of other tools, and this bill introduces, a little more strongly, I might add, some of the tools. This is quite a small bill, a bit technical, but it's important to recognize that our finance minister has listened. On November 5, he introduced the intention to make some significant changes, to more or less require municipalities to spread the load within the property class. Those getting a huge tax break - we all heard them saying in Toronto that the bank towers were going to get a big tax break and the small pizza store was going to get a big tax increase, a whack. We've changed that. We've said clearly that's not acceptable, and we have changed it, because within each property class, this whole functional change has to be revenue-neutral, whether it's industrial, commercial or multi-residential. This legislation covers those particular sectors, the property classes.

Bill 79, introduced on November 5 by Finance Minister Ernie Eves - I'm going to take a couple of more minutes. I know the member for Huron is waiting anxiously. The bill amends the Assessment Act, the Municipal Act, the Assessment Review Board Act and the Education Act in relation to property taxes. The following are the significant changes, and I think it's important. It is a rather technical bill, but we're trying to make taxes a transparent issue: "I pay these taxes for these services." No more of this complicated mill rate. No more of this shared funding situation. "I should pay; these are the services."

It doesn't necessarily mandate municipalities to provide a higher level of service. Those are popular decisions made at the grassroots, where the decisions should be made. They shouldn't come to provincial or federal partners and say: "Where's the money for the new arena? Where's the money for the new skateboard rink?" Clearly, they should ask their taxpayers: "If you want this service, it's going to cost you, at a household level, this much money."

I think this transparency is long overdue. We're prepared to take the hard medicine and have a transitional plan to get us there, to where everyone understands what they are paying for and what they're getting.

1640

In my municipality, Madam Speaker, you would know that it's small, mainly rural and the farmers were for years worried about the farm tax rebate. With the federation of agriculture, all the people have been lobbying for years for us to sort this out. We paid these huge taxes upfront on the farm property and the business and then got the farm tax rebate, but it was never in legislation. It was always handled like a grant, but they had to pay it to get the rebate. We've solved that problem. We've looked at the property and the use of the property, the issues with respect to value-added activities on farms, like apple storage, that would have to pay a commercial rate for a portion.

We're prepared to make the changes to make the system work. All I ask the opposition and third party to do is to be reasonable and bring forward some positive suggestions. Don't go on another rant that's -

Mr Gerretsen: We have.

Mr O'Toole: We've had the time to do that and it's time to get on and fix this problem, and our minister is, I believe, doing it. We're going to make the system work for the people of Ontario.

There are a few things that should be drawn to your attention. The bill will make a number of changes with respect to such powers including ensuring that a number of them can be used within 1998. So people who have already gotten their tax bill - arguably late; I admit that it's late - have spent half the money. I admit that. No one is perfect. What they're saying is that the changes can still be made, and people who haven't paid the last instalment on their taxes will not be penalized. The member for Nepean has explained that in some detail.

Opting into the optional property classes: That is still available. Setting tax ratios for different property classes: That tool is still available. Delegating the power to set tax ratios: That's available. Phasing in 1998 assessment-related tax changes - remember, this is assessment-related. For instance, if I had a small business or, for that matter, an apartment building that I did improvements on, of course the assessment would go up; obviously your assessment and your complementary taxation would go up. But if things stayed the same year over year, you should be paying 10% more than you were in 1997. That's the whole deal here.

Another very important part of it that may get missed in this whole dialogue is about small business. Small business operators in my riding came to me and pointed out to me - I didn't know until they pointed it out - that they were owners of four, five and six apartment buildings. Generally, they were retired people. Their investment was to buy a seven-plex or an eight-plex apartment, two or three of them. What they found out was that these property classes of multi-residential were getting clobbered. They couldn't possibly pass those huge increases on to their tenants. Arguably, this is going to help tenants. They're no longer going to get a huge whack in taxes. The building next door, I believe a six-plex, wasn't classed as multi-residential, therefore they were paying the same tax rate as residential. The building next door, an eight-unit building, would be paying the multi-residential rate.

You say, "What's the difference?" There's quite a difference. If you look at the multi-residential rate, it was 3.40 in our municipality. That's 3.4 times your assessment. I look at the residential rate and it's 1.54. So just think of those two buildings. Think of who's actually paying it. Not the landlord - the landlord was talking to me - it's the tenants. The people who can't afford to buy homes were getting whacked, and whom were they getting whacked by? Basically, a municipal decision of who pays what share of the load. How much of the tax burden is raised on commercial, industrial, multi-residential and residential?

What I saw happening was that they knew the residential taxpayer was just waiting for this tax problem. They were reluctant to pass five cents of this redistribution on to the residential portion, who really, arguably consume. They're the ones who go to the parks, go to the libraries and use the services, but they pass it on to the business. Clearly, that's what they did, because a small working business - a pizza store, a small restaurant, a hardware store - those people pay for the library and the fire service at home.

But what was the commercial rate? I'm going to tell you the commercial rate. The commercial rate was 3.72. What does a small pizza store actually consume in terms of municipal services? What's he paying for? He's already paying for the library at home. He's paying for the fire truck at home on his residential tax. But for years, because there are fewer commercial property owners, they've been carrying an inordinate share of the tax load for years. When you get to the corporate level, the industrial tax, many of them are absentee landlords. There, if I look at the large industrial units, 8.84 is the tax rate. Imagine what that does. We're wondering how we can subsidize business to create jobs. Take the load off.

Local taxes should pay for local services. There's not a person in this chamber this afternoon who wouldn't want more services for their constituents, whether they're municipal, provincial or, for that matter, federal. We'd like a better army, we'd like a better navy, we'd like a better ice arena for our children to play hockey on and a nicer library for our children to avail themselves of its service. Now we've straightened this out. Local taxes should pay for local services.

When the Liberal mayor comes around and says to you, "I promise you a skateboard park," the next question the educated, informed taxpayer is going to ask is: "How are you going to pay for it? I'm already paying enough taxes." You ask the taxpayers in this province, ask them. Not one of them would deny the United Way or a women's shelter or anything in the charitable sense, but to have a bureaucrat, the tax man come in and say, "This is what you're going to pay," that's where we've gone overboard. We pay the highest taxes. I've got a report here that shows that we're clearly the highest-taxed jurisdiction in our municipal taxes and in our business sector.

Mr Gerretsen: You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr O'Toole: I would challenge the member for Kingston and The Islands, who says I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll tell you, I'm waiting for your comments to find out - you ran in Kingston as the mayor. I know a number of people from Kingston who would question whether or not you left them in good shape, and here you have the audacity to say that I don't know. I can certainly tell you that I talk to the small taxpayers, my constituents; I listen to them. I told them, "It's not easy, but we're promising you one thing: We're not going to increase your taxes." They believed Premier Harris. They know this Conservative government is committed to freezing taxes and spending. Every Liberal I've ever talked to, including you and the health critic, Mr Kennedy, their solution is to spend more money. That's exactly what you'll do. The people have to know this.

I challenge the people of Ontario to ask, in the next year or 18 months, "What are their policies?" I have the red book. What did they promise in health care? They promised to spend $17 billion. We're spending almost $19 billion, and they're still whining. They probably would have been spending, what? They would have broken their promise. The thing we haven't done is break our promise.

Mr Gerretsen: The people are whining. They're not getting services.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr O'Toole: I have managed to get off topic a small bit on this important bill. I'm looking forward to the member for Huron speaking, if she's interested in taking over. But I just want to conclude that I believe these changes were necessary. I believe it demonstrates that our minister and our Premier listened. This legislation addresses an inordinate burden that was being transferred to the shoulders of small business, which creates all the jobs in Ontario. We need to be there to support them, not just as a government. All members in this House, I would expect, would support this particular bill in principle alone; if you don't, then it's a vote against small business. I'm going to be requesting a recorded vote.

During the coming election, I want the numbers. You haven't voted for a tax cut yet, not one. So pay attention, voters. That's who I'm talking to. My constituents, pay attention. When they come knocking on the door, ask them what they're going to do. That's what that whole ad business on television is about, what this particular one here is on about. We want to know what your plan is. All of the people of Ontario deserve to know. Ask Minister Young from Ottawa, ask some of the federal members what their plans are, and you'll get the same message: They're out of the country.

Anyway, it has been my pleasure to share my thoughts on Bill 79 this afternoon. I'll be supporting this legislation. You can count on it.

1650

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): It's my pleasure to talk for a few minutes about this bill because I, like my colleagues who have spoken before me, am concerned about small business also. In Huron county, and I'm going to give a little bit of the rural perspective to this, the jobs that are created in my riding are created by small businesses. There's no question about that. We need to ensure that small businesses stay viable, that they're able to grow, they're able to create jobs in our communities.

What has happened in my riding is that I've taken a number of calls about this whole tax assessment deal over the last six to eight weeks. I think it's important to share some of the issues with some of the people who are at home.

I want to first say that one of the things that I thought was very important for the listeners in Huron county and rural Ontario was what my colleague from Durham was talking about when he was talking about the agricultural community and the farm tax rebate. For years and years we were concerned about farm tax rebate: Would it be there? How much would be it be? This has alleviated that problem. You don't have the cheques coming back and forth, where the farmers are financing the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture. This is a better process from that side.

I'd also like to say that in Bill 16 - and the opposition will no doubt talk in a few minutes about how many times we've come into this bill and what we've tried to change about this bill - we set out tools that would be able to smooth the flow. We knew there would be many changes as we progress through. We did give mitigation tools but what we did was we said, "Please take the opportunity to use these mitigation tools," and now we're saying, "Use these mitigation tools."

It's not acceptable for small businesses to face a 40% tax increase in their businesses. If that happens in Huron county, I'll have businesses going out of business and I'll have people losing jobs as a result of that. That's why we felt there was a need to do something about this.

I had a call from a man in Seaforth. I'd like to say that I haven't cleared names, so I'm just going to talk about numbers. I should have done that; with a little more time, I might have. Because we had gone to market value assessment in the last 10 years, I didn't have the changes in assessment that people might have had in Toronto. What happened in this particular case was that the man had an assessment change of less than 5%. His assessment went up by less than 5%, yet his taxes payable increased by 45%. So what we had was a difference in taxes of $12,000 payable in 1997 and $17,500 in 1998. Even the best manager of a business can't deal with a change that happens over a year that is that substantial.

I want you to realize that it wasn't as a result of the tax assessment, so it had to be the taxes payable. What should have happened there was the tools should have been used to mitigate that. If this same business owner had been in Toronto, he would have faced a 2.5% increase over the years. We have to do something for a business owner who is in that situation.

I also had a business association from one of the small communities call me and they were frustrated with the system and with the businesses that got a substantial increase. They advised me that the municipalities didn't know how to handle the legislation. They didn't know how to implement the changes, they didn't know what tools they should take into consideration. Being at the lower level, there was a certain amount of miscommunication between the upper tier and the lower tier about how they could handle those issues.

Once again, they have another stab at going back to this and making it such that businesses on our local main streets in rural Ontario have an ability to go forward without having huge expenditures that weren't calculated when they were working on their budgets at the end of the year.

I had a particularly sad case in Exeter, which is where I live, of course, and raise my family. We had some rental units and their taxes went up substantially. This family was in a difficult situation because they had had a lot of illness in the family and they couldn't react quickly enough to it. Once again, this will allow this small business to be able to continue on. It will allow them over a three- or a four-year period to even lift their revenues so that they can charge for that, if that's the way they have to go in the future. But they need to be able to have time to plan. By taking in effect these mitigation tools, then we'll have small businesses be able to plan in the future and as they get that opportunity, we'll be able to move through that.

I've heard the Premier say a number of times that over a three- or four-year period, as some of the great new policies of the Progressive Conservatives are set into fact, we should see the taxes in municipalities come down. In fact, he has promised to look every year at the education tax to see if there's not a way to reduce that and for the province to carry the burden through some other method so we can help in the property tax area.

I think it's important to recognize that everything needs time. Businesses need time to react. As people who know me here will know, I worked in small business for a number of years before I came here, in the financial side of it, and I know that people, especially in my area, are running at a very tight level. They don't have dollars to just all of sudden come out for different expenditures, especially in the retail side, which is the major part of what happens in my small communities. We need to give them the opportunity to exist as a small business, to plan as a small business and to move forward. The future of small businesses cannot be threatened.

I would like to say from the side of the municipalities that it must have been difficult to digest the changes that were happening as a result of the change in taxes. We all know it was unfair, it was inequitable and things had to be done. But in small communities - and I have 26 municipalities, each with a clerk-treasurer maybe dealing with a few commercial properties - it's difficult to ascertain how best to use these mitigation tools, because they might not have understood as they went through the process what the outcome would be. As we offer these tools one more time, I think we'll see municipalities be happy to take them into consideration and move forward. I think we'll see our businesses happier with our municipalities, our municipalities happier with the provincial government, and it will be a better process for all involved.

We're going to hear in a few minutes about how we've worked on this bill and we've come through a number of different changes. As I said earlier, I come from business, and the crime in small business is to do nothing, to not react, to not look and see how you can move forward, how you can capture more market share, how you can keep your business alive, how you can do those kinds of things - that's the crime. In politics - and I've only been here for three short years - it seems to me that the crime people on that side think of is if you do something and you have to go back and change it. This is the only business I've ever been in where the crime is to more forward and try and make Ontario a better place. We're going to hear this for the next two hours as we proceed through the talk of the opposition parties.

I think the crime is to have an inequitable tax system where everybody is paying at different assessed values, people are contributing at different levels. As we proceed through this system, it may require more changes, but what's happening is that the end result is a benefit to the people of Ontario. I'm pleased that we've come forward with this today.

One of the things I've been most touched by in the last few weeks has been the Premier saying that we came to fix government, not to be government and not to take on the government thing. Once again, by putting this bill forward we're fixing things that we've found aren't working.

I speak highly of the involvement of the minister and the parliamentary assistant, John Baird, who has done so much to move this process forward. I know it's a difficult concept, and I know that the members opposite tried for a number of terms to look at how they could better bring a system into place. It took a great deal of courage to bring this forward today.

I'd like to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): We should have questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker: I know. There were three or four seconds left; I'm being fair here. Everybody calm down. Now, questions and comments?

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Madam Speaker; you're doing a fine job.

Just to comment briefly on some of the remarks made, one of the major impediments to change in the past was Mike Harris. I happen to carry around a couple of the campaign brochures. The city of Toronto was looking at changing its system of assessment, and Mike Harris fought it tooth and nail. In fact, this what Al Leach said: "My party and I will never support the imposition of market value assessment in Metro Toronto." Ms Bassett said, "The policy of the PC Party has always been that we will never impose market value assessment in Toronto."

The point I'm making here is that we now have market value assessment imposed by the province on the city of Toronto. I happen to be a supporter of market value assessment, but the cabinet ministers fought it tooth and nail. It is, as they say, a bit passing strange that Mike Harris now would say, "It's taken me some courage to get this," when all his courage was fighting it tooth and nail. The Chair will know it, because her government at the time was attempting to move the assessment system up in the city of Toronto, and Harris said, "I'll never impose it, never."

1700

I would say also, when the members say the opposition is not being helpful, that the first day we began debate on this issue we said, "You are going to take taxes up on small businesses and down on big businesses, particularly on the banks."

Mr Gerretsen: It was 10 months ago.

Mr Phillips: It was more than that. It was back last year in April. We said it was a mistake. We said, "Issue the impact studies so that the municipalities will know what this is going to do to them." You refused to do that. We said that people should have a right to appeal their assessments, not after they get their assessment notices, but after they get their tax bills. You voted that down. I can guarantee the public that we have moved amendment after amendment, every single one defeated by the government.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): This is really getting to be painful. I have in front of me the orders of the day, and it says "Property tax assessment: second reading of Bill 79." Not two, three, four, five, nor six; it's the seventh bill dealing with property taxation. If they keep doing it, then every bill is to correct the one before it. I guess if you can't get it, you try and try again and eventually you will get it right.

Both opposition parties told them at the beginning: "You're endeavouring a little too much, in fact a lot too much. First, you're breaking your promise," in the course of their recent campaign, when the writs had been issued and members opposite professed to walk on water. It's right in the book. They say, "We will not have market value assessment."

You know what they did? They changed two words: "current value." If we were elsewhere, it could be construed as the height of hypocrisy. It's in the dictionary of synonyms: actual value, current value, market value. Call your broker, call the real estate agent and ask, "What is the current value of the property?" and he'll say a given amount of money: say $300,000. Call him two minutes later and ask, "What is the actual value?" It'll be the same price. Call him again another five minutes later and ask, "What is the market value of that property?"

You should come here, speaker after speaker, and apologize for the confusion and the mess that you have systematically and deliberately created. You're not hurting but killing some of the small business people. You're not going to get away with it.

Mr Gerretsen: It's difficult to know where to start, but let me just make two points very quickly in the two minutes I have.

One of the members talked about the fact we're going to a system where you actually pay for what you're using. This clearly indicates that the member doesn't know what market value or current value assessment is all about. Market value assessment clearly states that if my house is worth twice as much as your house, I pay twice as much in taxes as you do. It's got nothing to do with whether I use more or fewer services in that municipality. I would strongly suggest to that particular member that he know what the system is that he's trying to implement here. He doesn't.

The other thing he mentioned is that there is some large conspiracy theory - that's using his terminology - going on among the municipalities in this province to make Mike Harris look bad. That's what he said. Isn't it ironic? Does he really expect the people of Ontario to believe, with the fact that two thirds of the municipalities in this province have felt it necessary this year to increase their taxes by 5% or more, that they all got together and said, "Let's make Mike Harris look bad by increasing the taxes this year by more than 5%"? That is the greatest absurdity that I've heard here yet.

Dealing very quickly with the member for Huron, she never did say why for those particular commercial property owners the taxes went up 50% when the assessment only went up 5%. Maybe it's got something to do with the amount of education dollars that are now being taken on the basis of regulation by the Minister of Finance out of your municipality.

Mr Silipo: This bill is a perfect example of what happens when a government goes down the road to reforming a particular area of public policy in a way that says that they know best, that they are not going to listen to anybody, that they know what will make most sense and what has to be done.

They do that despite the warnings that come from all sources, not just the opposition parties, but the people out there who actually have to live with the consequences of all of this, the people who have to implement these changes, whether it's the bureaucrats locally or the local politicians or the groups themselves, small business groups being but one significant one of those groups. They said to this government: "Don't do this. If you're going to do this, certainly don't do this market value assessment introduction in the way in which you are going about doing it, because it will continue, it will create havoc and it will put many small businesses in jeopardy of surviving."

What happened? The government, in their traditional and usual fashion, persisted, pursued, went ahead, did what they wanted to do, oblivious to all that good advice. Then they had to come back - not apologetically, because they don't know how to do that - they came back time after time after time with one bill after another bill after another. This is now number seven in that sequence, trying to fix the problems that if they'd only listened - I don't say to us in the opposition, but if they'd only listened to those groups out there, the small business sector being but one, who had told them, "Don't do this, but if you're going to do it, don't do it in this way," they wouldn't have had to come back with Bill 7.

As it is, we're now here trying to fix the problem. In fixing that problem, we're now dealing with the incredible situation where some people have gotten actually reasonable decreases and now they're going to have to give some of the money back as a direct result of the actions that the Mike Harris government has put together.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean.

Mr Baird: I listened to the last comments of the member for Dovercourt which said some people have got reasonable decreases and the government wants to take it back. I suggest that's the centrepiece of his own economic policy as the finance critic of the New Democratic Party, where the New Democratic Party wants to go back and take back the tax cut from everyone who makes more than $80,000 a year.

It's funny that MPPs make $78,000 and they've set the line. "We're going to keep the tax cut for ourselves, but everyone else will have to give theirs back." We wondered how they came across with the number. I've discovered it.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, quickly.

Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Let's set the facts straight here. There isn't one member of that sorry lot who doesn't make at least $80,000 a year. Shame on you. Tell the truth.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. Take your seat, please. Member for Nepean.

Mr Baird: There in fact are. I do say, the one member of the New Democratic Party who took exception to that comment is probably the one member who would have to give back a substantial part of his tax cut, from the comments.

I want to thank the members for Scarborough-Agincourt, Lake Nipigon, Kingston and The Islands and Dovercourt. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt talked at great length about his party's position on taxes. We know they voted against the income tax cut, they voted against the small business corporate tax cut, they voted against the employer health tax elimination for small business, they voted against the commercial and industrial education tax cuts, $500 million of tax cuts. They voted against that too, so we know what they're against, but we don't know what they're for.

The member for Lake Nipigon talked of the seven tax bills that deal with this. I guess the member for Lake Nipigon wants us to bring in more omnibus bills. Rather than saying, "Here is the Ontario fair assessment system, here is the education tax bill and here is the bill that dealt with the assessment corporation," we should have lumped it all together and not listened on the second issue to small business people.

We're not prepared to do that. We want to help small business people and ensure they continue to create jobs.

1710

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to join the debate on Bill 79. I think any objective analysis will show this has been the most botched piece of public policy we've ever seen here. This is the seventh bill since May of last year, and confusion continues to reign. I guarantee you that the bill we've got before us, Bill 79 - actually, to show you how amazingly incompetent the government is, when the bill was introduced by the minister, and normally that's when they've just finished getting it ready, in his introductory speech he announced another amendment to the bill. It was breathtaking.

My point is, there have been seven property tax bills. There's mass confusion out there. Frankly, in most municipalities they are going to end up with not a tax policy, not a policy that has any basis in principle, but just simply, "Whatever you were paying last year, you will pay a percentage higher or a percentage lower." It has nothing to do with whether that's fair or equitable or whether you have been substantially underpaying or substantially overpaying. It's just a Band-Aid put on the issue. If there were any principle involved in it, then we could have a sensible, principled debate, but now it's simply a series of Band-Aids, all designed, I must say, to try and get the government through the election next year, in six or seven months, and then we'll pull the Band-Aid off and we'll see the substantial problems.

I want to go over a series of problems in Bill 79. One is that the way the bill is written, municipalities will be unable to send out their 1999 property tax bills until they go through all of these changes that the government is imposing on them. By the way, this bill will probably pass in two or three weeks. We'll be into December. They will have a few weeks before the end of the calendar year. But before they can send out any tax bills for 1999, they've got to deal with this mess created by the provincial government. I guarantee you there will be substantial cash-flow problems for our municipalities.

In addition, by the way, I might add that there is a substantial amount of extra cost that the province has cost our municipalities, everything from being months late on getting the assessment completed so that the tax bills went out very late in Ontario - it cost municipalities about $1 million a day in late payments going out, probably cost municipalities about $100 million in extra interest costs as a result of the bungling of the province of Ontario.

Moving on to a small but significant point in the bill, the government of Ontario continues to impose its censorship on our municipalities. I have a lot of respect for our mayors and our councils and our regional chairs and our reeves and our wardens across the province. But the province says, "No, we are going to tell you exactly what you can or cannot say when you send your tax bills out." In Bill 79, the bill we're debating today, it says the Minister of Finance will prescribe the "information that must or that may be included on notices...and prohibiting other information from being included on the notice without the express authorization of the Minister of Finance."

The point I'm making is that for a government that purports to have confidence in locally duly elected councils to say, "Any notice you send out we will write for you, and if you want to change one word in it, you must get the express authority and permission of the Minister of Finance," is bizarre to me, bizarre.

On the third point, in terms of small business, I can guarantee you that if you go back and look at Hansard, the recording of the debates that take place around here, when Mr Eves came before our finance and economic committee with the first of the property tax bills - by the way, that was Bill 106. Then there was Bill 149, Bill 160, Bill 164. Then we head into another year: Bill 16, Bill 61, Bill 79.

But when he started, which was back, as I say, with Bill 106, if you were to check the debate that began then, we said - my colleague from Lake Nipigon made the same point - that the way this is structured is bound to increase taxes on small business. The reason for that is that something called the business occupancy tax, BOT, was eliminated. But the business occupancy tax tended to be paid at a much lower rate on small business than on large business. The analogy we used here in the city of Toronto was that each of the downtown bank towers will see their property taxes go down by $5 million, and that's going to be picked up by - guess who? - small business. There's a temporary three-year cap on that now because small business, quite rightly, raised enough of a concern that the government was forced to react and the city of Toronto imposed that. But nothing is changed down the road.

It should have come as no surprise to the government that taxes were going up on small business, because you designed the bill to achieve that. As a matter of fact, there is strong indication that in terms of Bill 79, the bill we're dealing with today, rather than benefiting small business broadly there is the distinct possibility that it will hurt small business. As we've looked at this particular bill, we've found that for many small businesses expecting a decrease, they're not going to get the decrease now. I can't find it very quickly, Madam Speaker, but I'll return to that in a few moments. It has to do with many small businesses expecting a decrease that now, I think, when the bill is finally passed, they won't see.

The fourth point I want to make on the bill has to do with appealing assessments. I think now there's probably about 600,000 people who have appealed their assessments across the province, and there is in this bill something that is of significant concern to me. It looks like the government's trying to sneak through a little change that will make it far more difficult for people to have an assessment appeal. Here's the language it uses. The Assessment Review Board Act is amended to permit the board to dismiss appeals that fail to "disclose any apparent statutory ground" for appeal. It looks to me like the government is using legalistic language to say to a bunch of people who have appealed their assessment, "Sorry, we've thrown you out because you didn't comply with the statutory requirements." I will raise that caution, because the people who are awaiting an opportunity for their appeals - I think this is a way that many of them are going to be thrown out.

While I'm on that point, in one of the very first amendments we proposed to the government, we said: "Listen, in 1998, when people get their assessment, they'll get a number. It says, `Your property is valued at $128,000.' They'll have no idea of what that impact will be on their taxes. You should give people a significant amount of time after they get their final tax bill to appeal their assessment."

I can remember the debate here. The government members said: "No, no, no. We're not going to do that. People will be given a certain amount of time after they get their assessment notice, not after they get their final tax bill." Well, guess what? We were right. The government finally recognized that they made a huge mistake here and this bill finally recognizes it and allows people to appeal up until December 31. That was something we proposed literally more than a year ago and finally the government has come to accept that recommendation.

1720

I want to say as well that much of this property tax bill gives the government an enormous amount of authority to set policy by what's called regulation. The public may wonder what that means. It means that rather than setting taxes here in the Legislature in a public debate, they're set down the hall in the cabinet room, by regulation. The public may be interested that today, in quite an amazing coincidence, we had the government introducing a brand-new tax bill. It was quite an interesting day, for us, at least. Premier Harris introduced, for the first time ever, something called the Estate Administration Tax Act. It is a brand-new tax, never before in the province of Ontario. It is designed to raise about a billion and a half dollars. By the way, it is retroactive to May 15, 1950. This is the Estate Administration Tax Act. The effect of this act is to impose a tax from May 15, 1950.

The reason Mike Harris was forced to bring in this tax - and it must be very embarrassing to have to bring in, for the first time ever, a brand-new tax, to not only have to bring it in but to make it retroactive. I guess Mike was probably only three years old when this is retroactive to. Further, Mike Harris is implementing a Bob Rae policy that at the time Mike didn't much like. But we have this bill today, this piece of legislation called the Estate Administration Tax Act.

Why did it come in? It came in because probate fees or estate fees were being levied by regulation and the Supreme Court of Canada said that's a tax and that should be done in the Legislature as a tax act. It can't be done through regulation. It was a historic decision. As I say, here in the province of Ontario alone it's a $1.5-billion decision, extremely important because the Supreme Court of Canada said people who are going to be taxed have a right for that decision to be made in public.

The reason it's important is that we have, on the property tax issue, Mike Harris setting property tax rates by regulation. That allows Mike Harris to set about $5.5 billion of property taxes. We will never debate it here. We will not have a chance to say, "That's a sensible, reasonable rate," or it isn't.

As a matter of fact, for all the businesses in Ontario, as you listen to this debate about caps and what not, realize that 55% to 60% of your property tax bill goes to education. Take a look at it. Every business person, take a look at your property tax bill. Depending on the municipality, it's 55% to 60% going to education.

The point I'm making is that tax rate is set by Mike Harris in private by regulation. We'll never get a chance to debate it here. It will just be done through regulation and that's the way it's going to be done in the future.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Or until the courts rule on it.

Mr Phillips: My colleague said, "Until the courts rule on it," and that's true.

In my opinion, and we've made the point here in the Legislature, having faced the embarrassment of having to bring in a tax today retroactive to 1950 because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled you can't be setting taxes by regulation, surely a sensible government would have taken advantage of the opportunity to say, "This bill should require that annually, when we set the property tax rate for education, we will do it here in the Legislature; we won't do it by regulation."

I think they're making a huge mistake. We might as well send an invitation to the legal community to get to court, because, as I say, it's a $1.5-billion revenue.

Mr Caplan: A lawyer's dream.

Mr Phillips: A lawyer's dream, as my colleague said.

First, as a matter of policy, I've always felt that no government should have the right to set property taxes, $5.5 billion worth, without an incredibly huge debate here and without the public having an opportunity for some input into it.

As I say to my business friends, would you ever let your local council, behind closed doors, without ever telling you that they're going to do it - because the way the regulation works, no one knows it's being done. It's just done at a cabinet meeting and then published in something called the Gazette, and that's the first time the public is aware of what they're doing.

The reason I dwelt on that is just because of the coincidence that on the day we are beginning debate on the next property tax bill, when we have an opportunity to fix what I think is both a legal and a policy mistake, the government has refused to take advantage of that. I think this was the opportunity, and I can virtually guarantee this will end up in court and the courts will make their own decision on it. We have already this probate decision that has forced this government - and I think with a fair red face. I can't imagine anything quite as embarrassing to Mike Harris as, first, bringing in a new tax and, second, making it retroactive to 1950 - as someone said, the only things certain are taxes and death and Harris has combined both in this one bill - and having to implement a policy that he fundamentally disagreed with.

As I say, that is one of the missing elements in Bill 79 that, in my opinion, is a significant missed opportunity.

I think if you talk, as I do a fair bit, to the local councils and particularly, by the way, the senior financial officials at the municipal level - it after all is these people, our senior municipal finance people, who are put in the position of trying to implement this stuff. There's an organization called the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario.

Mr Caplan: Great group.

Mr Phillips: They are. They're all our senior municipal civil servants. They took the unprecedented step - they'd never done it before. They came down here to Queen's Park and had a press conference and begged the government on the last bill, I guess it was Bill 160 - no, it was probably Bill 16. It's tough to remember, there are so many of these bills. But they came down and said: "This thing is screwed up. You're making a big mistake."

Now we've got Bill 79 and there's been, to my knowledge, virtually no consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and their senior staff or with the clerks and treasurers. It's stupid, frankly, to bring in tax policy and not pick the brains of the people who actually know how to make it work and are going to have to make it work. That's why you see around the province right now municipalities in a state of confusion, not because they're not competent and not because they don't understand these issues. Believe me, each successive bill has added to the complexity of the previous bill.

I gather there will be an opportunity with this Bill 79 to take it to committee. As a matter of fact, we're going to be forced to take it to committee because that's the only way the minister can implement the amendment he announced at the time he was introducing the bill. I think we'll hear there in some detail of the enormous problems created with this latest property tax bill.

Our municipal officials have pointed out that much of what's in this bill is retroactive. That is always difficult. All the municipalities have sent their property tax bills out and now people who had been expecting a tax decrease - and by the way, the way it was explained to the people getting a tax decrease was: "You've been overpaying all these years. Finally you're going to get a fair bill." That's how it was positioned to them. Most of the business people I've talked to said, "Well, will I get some of my back taxes owing to me, then, if I've been overpaying all these years?" "No, we can't do that, but at least finally you're going to get a fair break." Now, of course, many of the municipalities are going to have to go back to them and say: "I'm sorry, we made a mistake. We want some of that back."

1730

Mr Gerretsen: Mike Harris made a mistake.

Mr Phillips: Mike Harris made a mistake.

As a matter of fact I've heard from some of the municipal officials that the reality is that under this bill small business may have to pay more taxes. Prior to Bill 79, small business experienced a decrease in property taxes by a significant rate. With the implementation of Bill 79, most small businesses will have to make up the tax-share difference.

Once again we're being asked to approve a bill - and by the way, I'm pleased to say that we voted against each of these property tax bills because of the mess it's created. I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to put our signature on something that we think is so fundamentally, constantly flawed. Certainly the senior municipal financial officials are telling us that this Bill 79 - and it was produced in some considerable haste, as we know. As I travelled around the province and talked to the mayors, the councils, the regional chairs and the reeves and wardens, they told me that it's just compounding the confusion.

I want to just touch again on a couple of my significant concerns on this. There is a major concern on cash flow here, that municipalities have got to get their 1999 interim tax bills out, because they rely on that cash coming in to run the municipalities. There is a real, and I think legitimate, fear that by the time this bill gets passed - as I say, it has to go to committee, so it's going to take some time - it is going to substantially delay the ability of municipalities to send out their tax bills for 1999 and is going to cause more problems for municipalities.

I wish the government had listened to many of the amendments we proposed over the period of these bills. We proposed, as I said earlier, that the assessment appeal date be substantially later than it was. The government has finally recognized that.

We pointed out - actually, the day this bill was introduced in the Legislature, out in the hall - the problems of gross leases; that is, leases where the landlord was unable to pass on substantial tax increases. I can remember Mr Eves in the hall the day the bill was introduced saying, "Well, that's just a small number, and it won't be a problem." Of course, it turned into a huge problem.

We actually moved several motions, including something called a private member's resolution, asking the government to release impact studies so municipalities could understand the impact on their taxpayers of these property tax changes. That single thing, if the government had agreed to that, would have avoided an enormous number of the problems we've had here. But Hansard will show that the government members all voted against doing that.

We proposed an amendment that said property tax rates should be set not through regulation but through legislation. To me, that's one of the fundamental flaws in these bills. I think it's frankly obscene that $5.5 billion of taxes can be set not through any debate, not through any opportunity for the business community to come down and say, "No, if you set that rate, that's going to create an enormous problem for us," not through any opportunity for any of the opposition or, dare I say, any of the backbench members of the Conservatives to have any input into this thing. It's all done behind closed doors, down the hall, by regulation.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Since the member for Scarborough-Agincourt makes such eminent good sense, and hopefully with the idea of influencing the government members to come to their senses, I don't believe we have a quorum right now. There ought to be more members here to listen to this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: In earlier debate on Bill 79, one of the government members made a point about how the government had made some decisions on what things would go on property taxes and what things should be handled by the province.

I just want to point out that Mr Harris personally appointed a 14-person Who Does What committee. They're all handpicked by him, headed up by David Crombie, a well-regarded individual. It was their job, this Who Does What committee, to determine what things should be put on property taxes and what things should be handled by the province. It's a worthwhile exercise to have a group like that of well-regarded people to make recommendations.

Here's what that panel said when the government finally made its recommendations. It said that if the province moves as it will, it will "undo much of the work accomplished by the disentangling proposals such as moving health and welfare back down to the property tax. The panel strongly opposes such a move. We are unanimous in the view that" there was a mistake.

The point I'm making is that I was surprised that one of the government members continued to say that the Who Does What panel recommendations were adopted by the government. In fact, they were ignored by the government. I remember it so clearly. Dave Crombie called a press conference. It was a press conference that the government only allowed him to have the day before New Year's. I can remember it very well. It was at 3:30 in the afternoon, the day before New Year's. Crombie said, "Listen, Harris appointed us to do all this study and now he's completely ignoring it and putting things on the property tax, that" - to use their language - "the panel strongly opposes such a move...unanimous in the view" that it's a mistake.

The reason I raise that is that here we are now with the seventh property tax bill. I guarantee you that rather than simplifying things, it's adding confusion. Rather than getting at the problems of small business - for many of our small businesses it's going to have the opposite effect - it is another Band-Aid to a problem that should have been anticipated.

1740

The member for Huron, I think, said that her background is small business. My background is small business as well. You'd never run a business like this. You would never, ever fundamentally change something with no idea how it's going to end up. I guess I can understand one of the problems because I always carry this around with me. Mike Harris said he'd never support market value assessment.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: This is what you do in opposition. You carry these things around.

I'm just saying that Mike Harris said, "I'd never do it." Somebody said, "It's not market value; it's current value."

Let me tell you, Mr Baird, the member for Nepean, go look in the act. Look in the old act under "market value assessment," in the new act under "current value assessment"; they are word for word the same. They are identical. There's no word different other than "current" and "market." They are identical.

You may think that's going to be helpful to Al when he says, "I didn't introduce market value, I did current value," and you say, "Yes, but Al, the definitions are identical." "Well, yes, but I'm calling it something different." I don't think it's going to fly.

The reason I raise that is because one of the members earlier in the debate said, "Somebody has got to have the courage to do this." I remember the city of Toronto was moving on it, but Al, "No, no, I'll never support that." Actually, my friend Ms Bassett also has the same thing.

I happen to think market value assessment, of all the systems I've seen, is the best. Some of you members - you have your little briefing books on the Phillips file; pull it out - say, "You support market value." That's true, but I did it before the election and I did it after the election. But before the election Al said one thing and something different after the election.

I would have hoped Bill 79 would clarify things. Believe me, you're going to find that rather than it being helpful, it is adding to the confusion out there. We'll see that as the debate continues and as our senior financial officials have an opportunity to let us know how this thing is actually going to work in practice.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm very pleased to join this debate and to make a comment with respect to one of the earlier interventions from the member for Huron.

She gave us a situation, an example, and I've got many in my own riding as well, where a commercial property taxpayer's taxes went up from $12,000 to $17,000. She stated that the assessment only went up 5% over what the assessment was previously and that the other 45% of the increase was due to some other factors.

The people of Ontario should clearly understand that the only rollback in this act is with respect to increases in assessments that are more than 10%. The example she gave, where an increase in assessment is only 5% and yet the property taxes went up from $12,000 to $17,000, that particular taxpayer, and I know there are many in this province, is not going to be helped one iota by this bill.

To somehow have the people of Ontario believe, if your taxes went up 50%, that this bill is going to roll it back down to a 10% increase is erroneous, it's not correct, it's wrong. This bill only deals with increases over 10% that are a result of assessment increases.

I've had this discussion with a number of small business owners in the Kingston area as well, who somehow feel that this bill is going to limit their increase to only 10% in those situations where the property taxes on their commercial properties increased by more than 10%. What I'm saying right here and now is that this is not the case. It is only in situations where the increases are a result of assessment increases.

The other point I wanted to make some reference to is this whole conspiracy theory that was mentioned by the member for Durham East earlier today. He somehow likes the people of Ontario to believe that the municipal councillors in the province of Ontario decided they were going to get even with Mike Harris and they were all going to increase the taxes in one given year. This is his terminology. He called it a conspiracy theory. The Treasurer himself admitted here one day that over two thirds of the municipalities in Ontario have increased their taxes this year by 5% or more. That was as a direct result of a question that was asked of him in this House. I would hope that the people of Ontario clearly know and get the idea, as a result of this debate, as a result of the comments that have been made in the media, that the property tax increases in the province by and large this year are not as a result of any actions by the local municipalities but are a result of the downloading that has taken place in this province, the downloading of services that the provincial government used to pay for that are now paid for by the local and municipal governments.

Isn't it strange that for the last four or five years, the tax increases in most municipalities in Ontario were minimal, if there were any at all. Many municipalities have had no increases at all. Yet the government would like the people of Ontario to believe that these municipalities all got together this year and decided to increase their taxes by at least 5% or more - because that's actually what happened across the province. I'm saying that's not so. It's directly as a result of what Mike Harris has done. Yes, Mike Harris has given an income tax cut to the people of Ontario, from which the well-off are basically going to benefit, and he has downloaded a whole bunch of services on the local municipalities. That's why property taxes are increasing, and that's why the user fees are increasing in the local municipalities as well.

The other issue I wanted to address very briefly is this whole notion of market value assessment. The comment was made here earlier that that's the system we want for Ontario because it's a fair system. I don't think anybody ought to be under the impression that by implementing this bill and the previous bill, somehow there is going to be a pure market value system in Ontario. There is not. People have to understand that there are different tax ratios for different classes of properties. So if you own a multi-unit apartment building that has exactly the same value as a single-family home has, that multi-unit apartment building is going to pay much higher taxes, because the tax ratio that has been set for multi-unit dwellings is going to be much higher than it is for single-family residences.

There are, I believe, about eight to 10 different classes of properties, and if you include the subclasses under those properties, there are about 80 different ratios for different kinds of property out there. To leave the people of Ontario with the impression that if we implement this system, the market value assessment system, all the property taxpayers are going to be dealt with in exactly the same way in the province is simply not correct. It is a modified market value system being implemented, but it is surely not a pure market value system.

Another comment made earlier is that under the market value assessment system - I heard the member for Durham East mention this - homeowners are going to pay for the actual services they will be getting from their local municipalities. Nothing could be further from the truth under a market value system. If you own a house worth twice as much as your neighbour's house, under a market value system you're going to be paying twice the property taxes, yet you could be using far fewer municipal services than your neighbour. It is not a user-pay system where you pay for the actual services you get from a municipality but a system that is theoretically based on the market value of the various properties, so the comment made earlier was totally incorrect.

1750

Another interesting aspect is the lack of understanding of this bill, Bill 79, and the six other bills my colleague has already referred to. Nobody seems to know what's happening. In my own municipality our local council was involved in a heavy debate last Tuesday because the treasury department felt it was necessary to hire a consultant to work out the mess that the province has created here. It isn't because the person or his department weren't knowledgeable, but it is such a complicated system that has been created by this province that to call it anything like a market value system is absolutely absurd.

Obviously, the hope here - and you can hear it on a day-to-day basis; we've heard it here for the last six months or so - is that the province is trying to blame to the local councils. They're really the bad guys in this whole situation. They're the people to blame for any tax increases. We know differently here.

I just reread this note again, because I think we somehow got away from it. Under the old business occupancy tax, the larger property owners or occupiers, like banks and large retailers, were paying a much higher percent of business occupancy tax than the smaller businesses. By doing away with the business occupancy tax and going to this modified market value system that you're talking about, what in effect you have done is that you have taken, according to our calculations, at least $300 million in property taxes across the province from the larger businesses out there and put them on the smaller businesses.

Don't take my word for it; talk to your association of clerks and treasurers, the professional civil servants in this province who deal with these problems on a day-to-day basis. Talk to them and you'll find out that what you have really done in this collection of bills is shift the tax burden from the larger retailers, the larger banks etc on to the smaller businesses clear across the province. How else do you explain the situation, as the member for Huron talked about earlier, where she had a business that went up 50% in taxes and yet the assessment only went up 5%? I'm sure she is not trying to suggest that the local council raised the taxes there 45%. The local council didn't raise the taxes by anything like 45%.

Another ingredient is how much the province is taking out of each municipality to fund the education taxes that they have taken off the property tax roll as far as residential buildings are concerned. In my own municipality, we've had people looking into that - we've had the clerks and treasurers looking into that - and they are convinced that what the province is charging back in education tax dollars to the local municipalities in our part of the province is more than the education tax dollars that used to be collected and charged by the local boards of education. I've had many situations where even residential property taxpayers, whose assessment went down and who were guaranteed an increase of no more than a 3% increase this year, for some reason end up with a tax bill that is 20% or 25% higher. One of the reasons may very well be the education tax ratios that are being charged back to the municipalities.

When you put all this together, you can well imagine how to the average taxpayer, whether they are residential, small business, even large business, it is almost an impossible situation to comprehend and to iron out and to determine who is really to blame here. The blame should squarely rest with the government that caused this chaos in the first place.

Why didn't they, a year and a half ago, when the association of clerks and treasurers and the organization that represents the CAOs and the city managers came to them and said: "Yes, maybe we want to do something about the system. It's going to take time to implement it. It's going to take time to get the right system going. Why don't we work with you?" - they even set up an expert panel to do that and, as far as I know, these people still haven't been called in for any consultation. "Why don't you work with us so that we can come up with a system that is manageable?"

They didn't do that. The government knew better and they've created absolutely nothing but chaos. They didn't listen and their ultimate hope, of course, is that somehow the local councils will be blamed for tax increases because, after all, Mike Harris didn't increase the taxes. The local councils did it. That's the kind of propaganda that they hope to saddle the local councils with.

Look at the comments from some of the mayors that have been in the media just recently. We have the mayor of Niagara Falls saying: "If the government wants to help small business, this surely is not the way to go. They've created a real mess." How about in Sudbury where the council said: "This is the final straw. The introduction of this bill blows the provincial government's credibility right out of the water."

What people have to understand is that even if you're going to be one of the fortunate small businesses that's going to benefit from this 10% maximum increase due as a result of assessment changes, that money that is now lost to the local municipality that they would have gotten if the increase had been higher than 10%, if they had been allowed to implement the full total increase, that lack of money is going to be made up from the people who were the so-called winners before.

Can you imagine the position that you put a local tax collector in, a clerk-treasurer, when the commercial property owner receives that tax bill and let's say the person was paying $5,000 before and now is going to be paying $4,000. They're now going to get a bill sometime between now and the end of the year in which in effect the municipality's going to have to say: "I'm sorry. Because of the fact that we've got a limit on the increases of 10% to the people whose taxes went up as a result of assessment changes and increases, we can no longer get you to pay $1,000 less than you paid before. You have to pay another $500, so your taxes really didn't go down from $5,000 to $4,000, it's more like $4,500." Can you imagine the chaos that has been created in the local municipalities as a result of that?

The other thing that the clerks and treasurers have to do, and I know we're getting close to 6 of the clock and I'll wind up with this final thought, is they have to determine how much of the tax increase is a result of the assessment changes as opposed to downloading changes. That, by itself, is going to be a tremendous and humongous task.

With that, I will leave it for today and hopefully revisit this issue when we next talk about it.

The Acting Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock this evening.

The House adjourned at 1800.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

23 novembre 1998