role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 18, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-18 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 18 October 2001 Jeudi 18 octobre 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BUSINESS

RETAIL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE

DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

SOCIAL AUDIT

RETAIL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE

DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

SOCIAL AUDIT

RETAIL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE

DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

SOCIAL AUDIT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TENANT PROTECTION

ISLAMIC ART EXHIBITION

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

PERSONS DAY

LAND MINES

HOMELESSNESS

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

SOCIAL AUDIT

DENTAL HYGIENE WEEK

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

EN HOMMAGE AUX POMPIERS

CARLEIGH AND EMILY'S LAW

(EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT -

SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCATE), 2001 /

LOI CARLEIGH ET EMILY DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(CONSEILLER À L'ENFANCE

EN DIFFICULTÉ)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH

PUBLIC SAFETY

PUBLIC HEALTH

EDUCATION FUNDING

PUBLIC HEALTH

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

TRANSIT SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

FOREST MANAGEMENT

VISITORS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

NURSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

QUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE

Thursday 18 October 2001 Jeudi 18 octobre 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BUSINESS

RETAIL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE

DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Mr Parsons moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 54,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act to provide an exemption for fire education equipment / Projet de loi 54, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de

vente au détail pour prévoir une exemption à l'égard du matériel d'enseignement des mesures anti-incendie.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Prince Edward-Hastings has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): At the time this bill was introduced in May, I think it's fair to say that I shared a weakness that

much of Ontario did, which is that we took firefighters for granted. They were there, they did their job, but we didn't pay a great deal of attention to them. I think the horrible, tragic, cowardly

act on September 11 made us realize how brave they are and what a vital part of this province they are.

Now, fire protection in Ontario is provided by both full-time firefighters and volunteer firefighters. For much of Ontario, the fire protection is from volunteer

firefighters. It's rather unique in that not only do they volunteer their time and commitment, but they are expected -- or need to -- fundraise much of their own resources for it. There are a

considerable number of fire trucks and a considerable number of vans that have been purchased because volunteers in the community came together and bought them. That's rather unique. We don't ask

our police forces to purchase their own cars and yet we have an expectation that volunteer firefighters will.

The reality is that whether they're full-time or part-time volunteers, they are of equal importance to us. For rural Ontario, we simply wouldn't have fire

protection without that. So I would like to pay tribute to the individuals who have committed their time to doing this, and indeed to their families. I've had firefighters share with me how many a

Christmas or a holiday or a birthday or something special for their families the beeper goes off and they disrupt their own personal lives to go -- so not just for firefighters but for the families

also. This province is blessed to have the commitment they have.

This bill came forward as a result of an activity in my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings. All the volunteer firefighter organizations, from both the Hastings

county side and the Prince Edward county side, went together and purchased what is called a fire safety house. This is a rather unique vehicle, and the outward appearance is that of a trailer, but

it is specially produced and equipped to provide fire education. It has facilities to replicate smoke coming into a house. They have the ability to heat the doors so that they can teach

individuals, if they're in a room in a building that's on fire, how to sense which is the best exit.

These volunteers raised $50,000, hard work, going through the community -- a special note of appreciation to a number of automobile dealers, though, who put a

considerable amount of the funding forward. But by and large, the money came from individuals out on the street. Not only do we expect our volunteer firefighters to attend at fires, attend training

on a regular basis and be on standby every minute of every day, we also have the additional expectation that they go out and fundraise to purchase fire education equipment. I applaud $50,000 out of

a relatively small rural community to do that.

They take this fire safety house around to fairs and give people an opportunity to go through it. They take it to each of the schools; children in the schools

get an opportunity to have a lesson in how to react in a house on fire.

On a personal note, we had the misfortune at one time to have a fire within our home. Although my wife and I were quite calm and clear-headed about it, our

children were more than excited when we woke them at 1 o'clock in the morning and said, "The house is on fire." When we told them that, it was obvious to us that not only were they excited; they

recalled the experience they had when volunteer firefighters came to their school to teach them what to do. I should note, these volunteers are on their own time when they go to schools to do the

training. So our children were able to respond. I read on a fairly regular basis in the newspaper where it is the children in a family in a house or building that's on fire who provide guidance to

help the family get out.

They got this money and used it to purchase the house and take it around. We owe them a deep debt of thanks but, instead, the thanks they got was a bill for

about $4,000 in sales tax. The province said it would exempt fire purpose vehicles. That's a fairly vague sort of phrase, but it is has been interpreted to mean that fire safety vehicles consist of

the trucks themselves. This trailer, in my mind, and I believe it will be in the minds of most members in this House, is a fire purpose vehicle. This is to prevent fires. Surely it is better to

prevent a fire than to fight a fire.

But instead of saying thank you, they received a bill that required them to go back out and fundraise $4,000 more. I would suggest to you that when people in the

community were donating to the firefighters, they had the expectation that their money was going to be used for fire prevention and firefighting within their community. They did not realize that

the current legislation made our volunteer firefighters into tax collectors and that they in fact were collecting the $4,000 to send off to Toronto.

They made numerous appeals that their fire safety house be classed as a fire purpose vehicle. Indeed, it has the capability, when going to a major fire, to be

used as a central command post so that there can be a coordination of the firefighters from the various halls or even from various forces.

This is one instance in one little community where I believe the current legislation provides a great disservice to the people of our community, particularly to

the volunteer firefighters. The $4,000 that they collected in taxes could have been used for fire prevention material to give out to the students and all kinds of other options that would have

served to prevent fires.

What a horrible way to thank our firefighters in my community. But then, when the bill was introduced, I realized that all across Ontario we have literally

thousands and thousands of firefighters who have been in the same boat. We are relying for police protection on forces that are funded by the province or by the municipality. In much of rural

Ontario we rely on bake sales for our fire prevention, bake sales for a service that is equal in importance to police services.

Everyone hopes they won't ever have to call the fire department, but we need to know that the maximum resources possible have gone into it. That means the money

raised in the community should be used for fire prevention. I am looking for support this morning to rectify what I believe is a grave injustice. It is a devaluation of the work of our volunteer

firefighters when we require them to serve as tax collectors and we don't funnel the money into the particular areas where it's supposed to go.

I would like to pay special thanks to an individual named Bob Pierce. Bob Pierce was a fire chief in Sidney township at one time and I believe in Thurlow

township subsequently. Bob has devoted literally hundreds of hours to our community and equal hours to fundraising to continue to fight for fire prevention. Bob, as fire chief, I know saw some

horrible cases where there were fatalities. I hesitate to name Bob, because so many others worked on it, but Bob was the sparkplug who said, "What we need to do is prevent the fires." It was Bob

who actively worked to raise this money to make this home to go around to the community.

There are another 2,000 Bob Pierces in Ontario who are devoted to a very special calling. In the last five or six weeks I think all of us have become aware of

the risk they take every time they leave. There was a horrible terrorist thing in Washington and New York, but we know that over the years individual firefighters, both full-time and volunteer,

have paid the ultimate price to protect us. These are individuals who are prepared to put their lives on the line when they leave their homes or fire stations to come and fight fires. We owe them a

better thank you than, "Go back and collect some more money, please."

I urge the members to support a bill that would allow our firefighters to concentrate on what they do best, which is to prevent fires and fight fires. I thank

you for this time and I look forward to the debate.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I just want to say that the NDP caucus will be supporting your resolution this morning. We believe it's a

good idea. We know that firefighters across the province work extremely hard in our communities, as do other professionals in emergency services, such as the EMH people, police officers and others.

We certainly saw that on September 11. The people everybody turned to were the people we recognize as the heroes of what happened on September 11, and were those emergency workers, EMH workers,

firemen, police officers, all the people who are engaged in the public service to do that, many of them as volunteers as well.

We think as well, on the whole issue of one fundraising to buy equipment that's going to be utilized for emergency services or such, that it does make sense to

exempt that from the PST. It would be a good idea because, again, it's a way the province is able to show that we want to support in a direct way the activities of our firefighters and others who

are doing those types of activities. We will support that particular legislation. We think it's the right way to go.

The other thing I want to say, which gives me an opportunity to talk about the PST, is that our caucus and our leader, Howard Hampton, have put forward a

proposal in this Legislature, and for the Premier, that a way of stimulating the economy would be to reduce the PST at a particular point before Christmas in order to encourage consumers to go out

and spend those hard-earned dollars and get the economy going. We're suggesting by way of example that the government could, if it chose to, do a partial reduction in the PST on all goods between

now and Christmas. That would give retailers across the province the opportunity to say, "Come into my store. Come and buy. There's a PST holiday," to promote their goods and their businesses. I'm

certain the retail sector would welcome it and probably participate and say, "Hey, we're prepared, as a business, to pay the GST," so there's a complete holiday for people who are trying to buy

goods before Christmas.

Because of what's happening with the economy, we're seeing that the hotel and restaurant industry is severely affected by what's happening with people's travel

plans because of the scares that are going on throughout North America right now. One of the things we could do in Ontario, because we are a safe jurisdiction for people to come and visit -- we're

not identified as a target of terrorism and we certainly hope that we will not be, and I consider we're a very safe place to come to -- is to encourage people to come by saying, "Hey, listen. We're

going to have a temporary freeze on PST altogether for restaurant meals and entertainment here in Ontario. Please come and enjoy this beautiful province that we call home and that we want to share

with you." It would certainly do a lot to stimulate people touring and utilizing the facilities of the tourism industry, from restaurants to hotels to whatever. We think that would be an

appropriate thing. So I say to Mr Parsons that I hope you will give our proposal some support in being able to stimulate the economy by saying, "Yes, we too," as either an independent member or as

a Liberal caucus, "will support Howard Hampton and the NDP when it comes to their fight to convince the government to reduce the PST for a period of time before Christmas in order to help stimulate

the economy and get things going."

We argue that the government's approach of saying, "It's only by reducing income tax that we're going to be able to stimulate the economy," is wrong-headed.

Their argument has been, and I just want to make this point very quickly, that the economy of Ontario has benefited because of the tax cut -- that's what I've heard here for six years -- and that

only because of the reduction of income tax have we seen the kind of rebound that we've had in the economy since 1993.

Well, first of all, the tax cuts didn't happen until 1996, so it's beyond me how they equate the tax cut to what happened from 1993 to 1996. But the point is

this: the economy is falling and you can't have it both ways. You can't say stimulating the economy is only by way of an income tax cut, and then, when the economy is falling, still say that was

the reason the economy was climbing, because the economy is going down. So clearly income tax cuts are not the real stimulus that we need in order to be able to get the economy going. A real way to

do that would be to do a number of things, one of which we think is on the retail sales tax, because that's the tax people save.

On the income tax side, we know that for the average taxpayer out there the entire accelerated tax cut the government is now proposing amounts to $16 in one

person's pocket. That's not much of a stimulus. Certainly you will stimulate, if you reduce the PST, to a much greater degree.

So I support the member's bill, and I would suggest other members also support the resolution and proposal we have, which says we should reduce the PST over a

period of time as a tax holiday before the holidays and at the same time remove the tax from restaurants in order to help the entertainment industry.

With that, I'm sure my good friend Mr Marchese will have something to say.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, to respond to Bill 54.

Before I do that, I want to make it very clear that in light of September 11 and in general respect for firefighters, this government and I think all members of

this House just two weeks ago rose and spoke very supportively and respectfully to all of those involved in community safety: fire, police, ambulance etc.

That being said, I live in a community where there's a mixture of emergency services, and certainly I would start by saying that a week ago I spoke in the House

with respect to the opening of a newly renovated fire station at Scugog in Port Perry. I might add, for the record, that that community does a lot of work for outreach and fire prevention. Fire

Prevention Week was the week that I spoke in. That group of 50 volunteers who make up that Scugog fire services is led by Deputy Chief Rob Gonnermann and District Chief Dave Ballingall. They work

with the volunteer firefighters.

At that opening, about three different organizations within the community came forward with significant contributions toward defibrillators, again all done by

service clubs and volunteers and fundraisers, and I commend them for that action.

In the municipality of Clarington, which is a mixture of full-time and part-time, in the last few years they have also voluntarily raised a considerable amount

of money and, I might say, time and talent by the firefighters and the community to build a fire safety house, which is part of their outreach and fire prevention education. That's not something

new. It is part of the overall requirement of those services in the community to be engaging the citizens to be supportive.

I want to be on the record as saying that the Ontario retail sales tax already exempts firefighting vehicles purchased for more than $1,000 for the exclusive use

of municipalities, universities, public hospitals, local school boards or volunteer groups.

Most fire departments in Ontario already offer comprehensive fire safety education in their communities, often bringing activities, vehicles and equipment to

those events. Firefighters visit schools and talk to children, and they allow community groups such as scouts and guides to visit and tour the stations. So it's not something new.

I would only say that while the immediate impact of this special fire education equipment exemption is estimated to cost less than $1 million annually, extending

the current sales tax exemption to include fire education equipment would have a broader fiscal implication, as many other organizations also use taxable equipment in public awareness and public

education, and indeed in public safety.

The positive part of this is to respect the member on the other side for working with his community, and I commend him for it, while at the same time recognizing

that's the first time I've heard the Liberals talk about a tax cut. It's a healthy beginning for them to think that way, but also, don't deprive the volunteers and fundraisers in the community who

work tirelessly. This province, I believe, supports them and this legislation is a good first step. I'm waiting to hear what other members say about this legislation. I'll be sharing my time.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm pleased to stand in support of the member for Prince Edward-Hastings with regard to Bill 54,

An Act to amend

the Retail Sales Tax Act to provide an exemption for fire education equipment.

I would suggest to members in the House and to the people of Ontario that September 11 changed the way we think. We all have very personal stories, we all have

very sad memories, and there has been a profound effect on the people of Ontario in each of our communities with regard to the disaster of September 11. From a very personal perspective, my wife

has a cousin who is a fire captain in the New York fire department. Charlie Vella is his name. Charlie has been a pallbearer 11 times in the last month. He has lost 58 of his very close friends. No

one can imagine the impact that would have on an individual unless you have lived the experience. Our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who has been immediately affected and everyone who has

been affected in a broader spectrum.

Getting back to Bill 54, the member for Prince Edward-Hastings outlined a personal situation that it seems could have been addressed in a very simple way if the

minister would have just defined the regulation a little differently. It would have expedited the money going back to the community and there would have been no purpose in bringing Bill 54 forward.

But I guess that is the essence of this government: they don't always operate in the best interests of individual municipalities, and certainly they don't always operate in an expeditious manner

when it comes to dealing with the needs of municipalities.

We have historical evidence in Sudbury with regard to this particular exemption. In Rayside-Balfour, we're in the process now of putting forward a fire education

centre. Our community, our municipality, would certainly benefit from the exemption in the provincial retail sales tax. I urge the government to adopt the private member's bill. It is a good bill.

It is in the best interests of firefighting services and in the best interests of municipalities, because every municipality in Ontario has a fire education component attached to it.

Several years ago, about five years ago, I was fortunate enough to work in conjunction and collaboration with Fern Borque, Marc Leduc and Chris Stokes in the

preparation of a fire prevention manual. It was an education manual. We did it together because the municipality didn't have the resources necessary to put something like this together. We were

able to combine our skills and opportunities and put forth what the community has now come to believe is a very important document.

I think the responsibility is with the provincial government to maximize the opportunities that are in the best interests of individual municipalities and

individual municipal services. This is a perfect example. This is a concrete idea that will benefit every single citizen in Ontario because it will enhance fire education opportunities and programs

for individuals and municipalities collectively to make Ontario a better place, a stronger place and a safer place. It's the reason the member for Prince Edward-Hastings brought forth this private

member's bill. I urge the members on the government side to adopt his private member's bill and give it very quick passage so everyone can feel safer.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Welcome, good citizens of Ontario, to the political forum. Do you know how early it is? It's 10:27. It's

like singing opera in the morning. It really is hard to get going in this place so early in the morning, don't you find, Speaker? You've got to find the energy deep in to be able to participate in

these discussions, but here we are, happy to do so and happy to support the member for Prince Edward-Hastings. His motion is a good one.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): Oh, another taxfighter. I found one.

Mr Marchese: I'm going to distinguish between what we say, member for Mississauga Centre, versus what you say, because there are

differences.

First, I say to the member for Prince Edward-Hastings that this bill would exempt from the retail sales tax all fire education equipment over $1,000 used by

municipalities, universities, local services boards and/or volunteer groups. It's a good thing. Why is it a good thing? Because what it does is support people who work for the public good, and that

is not only good, it's just. When people who are protecting the public, such as firefighters, go and purchase some item that is used for the purpose of helping and saving lives, we tax that

equipment. It almost doesn't make sense. That's why I support the bill before us.

Is it a good measure? Yes. Is it better than an income tax cut? I say yes, it is. Here are the differences I want to wage with you, member for Mississauga

Centre.

Hon Mr Sampson: I want to hear how you're not a Liberal today.

Mr Marchese: I'm not a Liberal today because the federal Liberal Party promised to get rid of the GST, said that it would, and didn't when it

got into power. It worries me when a government makes such a big promise and reneges and still gets re-elected. Now it is true that when the New Democrats were in power, we promised to make the

auto insurance system public, quite true. We failed in that regard. We didn't do it and we got punished. But when the Liberals don't keep their promise around the GST federally, do they get

punished?

Hon Mr Sampson: No.

Mr Marchese: No, they don't. They still get re-elected. How does it work? We've got double standards in this country, and it's got to change.

But that's another problem and another level of government. We're not dealing with that today. We're dealing with a measure that I support.

But to distinguish New Democrats from the rest -- Liberals and Tories on either side -- here's what we say. We argue, as New Democrats, that the income tax

system is a fairer system. As a policy tool, a fiscal policy tool, it is a better way to collect money, because, you see, governments need money to help firefighters, to help the police, to help

every possible program the government runs to help people. We need governments, and we need money to be able to run this shop.

And so an income tax system is one of the fairest ways to collect money. And why is it fair? It's fair in this way: if you're earning a million bucks, a million

and a half, like a lot of bankers do, God bless their little souls, they pocket a whole heap of money. It goes deep into their pockets and, God bless them, they're doing OK. They buy the big homes

in Mississauga and in the Bridle Path and God knows where else there are big homes; big, big homes. I'm not just talking about homes, but what is within a home is probably more expensive than what

is outside.

So they have the money. And I say the income tax system should get to those deep pockets and bring it back and share it with the public so that we can provide

the services that we all need, little guys and the big guys. That is the system that I support, and I support a system that's fair, because there are so many of these big guys with deep pockets,

with a whole heap of money, that find the way legally, through the tax system, to squirrel money away all over the place, and they pay no taxes. God bless the system and God bless the moneyed

individuals who know how to protect it and hold it back so that governments have no way of getting at it so as to prevent the little guy from sharing in the wealth, from sharing in the fact that

you deposit your money into their banks, and they pocket big time. Good times or bad times, they pocket big time.

So the income tax system, young people watching this program today, is a better system. When your dad or mom pays income tax, it means it comes to us, and we use

it to give you a health care system, to give you and the senior citizens a break that they desperately need, to give you an educational system that you desperately need that these people are

cutting away from. We need the income tax your parents pay.

But what have they done? You folks are young enough and old enough to understand. What did these people do?

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, please.

Mr Marchese: They said, "The rich people need a tax break. Rich people like the bankers who earn one and a half million bucks get $120,000 back

because, well, they need a break. They need a little more money to invest for themselves to get richer." And the bankers on the other side say that's good, because any money they get back will be

reinvested back into their pockets, and that's OK.

So I say to you, young people and good citizens and taxpayers, what New Democrats have proposed by way of a provincial sales tax freeze for a short while, while

we are deep in the recession -- and remember, young people, these are the very people who said that the income tax cuts that they were going to give since 1995 would make this economy

recession-proof, meaning that bad times will never ever come. They said the income tax cuts will make the bad times go away. That's what these guys said.

Here are the taxfighters, the economists, those who manage the economy, who are so good at managing the economy that if their tax cuts were able to give us good

times for five years, they are now causing a recession. You can't have it both ways You can't say, "The income tax cuts have given us this great economy, but now that the times are bad, it's

somebody else's fault." They used to blame the NDP. They can't do that any more, so they've got to find another enemy. I'm not sure who the other enemy is now.

When we New Democrats said, "The reason you're doing well is because the US economy is doing well," they would laugh and say, "Ha ha, that's not true; it's our

income tax cuts, because we are so bright and so sharp economically. It's got nothing to do with the US; it's got to do with our fiscal brilliance. Income tax cuts will keep the recession at bay."

Do you see how simplistic and foolish and dumb that is, Speaker, that they could even say that publicly for years and that some people would believe it?

The other foolish thing is, a couple of months ago, they announced another tax break worth about $200 million, all gone because, disproportionately, that money

goes to the corporate sector, whose pockets are deep and, disproportionately, that money goes to rich people whose pockets are deep. The little guy gets nothing.

The PST, on the other hand, reducing the sales tax, means that when a poor little guy who makes $30,000, $35,000, goes to buy an item anywhere, he gets whacked

by 8% of provincial sales tax and 7% Liberal GST. Together, that's 15% every time you purchase anything when you go shopping. When you reduce the PST, every little guy out there who makes $20,000,

$25,000, $30,000, $35,000, saves, under our NDP plan, 3%. So he or she can afford to buy something and saves 3% on any item, big or small. That helps the majority of people, and that's what we

need.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to this private member's bill, which is

entitled

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act to provide an exemption for fire education equipment. The rationale for this, as I understand it from the letter that's put out by the member, is

that although equipment used for firefighting is currently exempt from the 8% provincial sales tax, unfortunately, equipment purchased to be used for public education related to fire safety and

prevention does not qualify for the provincial sales tax exemption. So what we're dealing with here is fire education equipment. Let's be clear about that.

I'd like to address this issue from a dollars and cents perspective. I'd like to do so because it's important to have an idea of what exempting fire education

equipment will really cost. That's something that's not in this particular bill. It's our responsibility to consider the possible implications of such a move, because when we talk about how much

something will cost, what we are really talking about is how much something will cost Ontario taxpayers.

We're being told that the immediate impact of a special fire education equipment exemption for volunteer organizations -- and the member very capably sets out

that agencies such as universities, municipalities, public hospitals, local service boards and volunteer organizations would be eligible to apply for and receive a PST exemption for each piece of

fire education equipment costing in excess of $1,000 under the provisions of the bill. So there's a monetary limit there in terms of where this exemption would apply.

Now, we're being told that the impact of a special fire education equipment exemption is estimated to cost less than $1 million. That's only the immediate

impact. Extending the current sales tax exemption to include fire education equipment could have broader fiscal implications, as many other organizations also use taxable equipment in public safety

education. So looking at the thrust of the member's bill, certainly he's trying to focus on this particular area, but there are other areas that you should look at. So my only question to the

member would be, why don't you broaden it out to cover other organizations so that we have the full picture in terms of what type of equipment that deals with public safety education should he

feels be exempt?

When we announced this year's budget, it was based on fiscal responsibility, accountability and growth. Our government must be both responsive and responsible.

Our government must also be both efficient and effective. In order for us to continue this way, we must act responsibly. That's why we should have the whole picture rather than a piecemeal approach

in terms of dealing with fire education equipment. We should look at all the areas of public safety education.

The people of Ontario need us to think ahead and exercise discipline through strong leadership and prudent management of their money. Every day families across

Ontario make responsible choices in managing their own budgets. They expect government to do the same thing, and in this instance, that's what we're doing. We don't think that in the long run, this

exemption from the retail sales tax is a fiscally responsible thing to do. Taxpayers expect and demand that the government deliver high-quality services at the lowest possible cost. They expect to

receive value for their money.

Since being elected, this government has taken many important steps to both improve the services that it delivers to the public directly and report what it is

accountable for. The process of improving accountability started in 1995 and continues to this very day. We're not about to stray from these principles by making a special exemption for fire

education equipment. We should be focusing on public safety equipment in its entirety. Some members are mentioning that the September 11 issue brings this to the fore. The September 11 issue is not

something that's related to this at all. What we're talking about is public safety education. I'd say to the member, why don't you broaden it? I would put that to the member right now. He's not

listening to me, but I would put that to him. If you want to deal with a public safety equipment exemption, put it all out there so everybody knows what we're dealing with.

We have to be responsive to the needs of the people of Ontario. All I'm saying is the member's intentions are honourable. The member is trying to accomplish

something in the fire safety area. I'm saying, why don't you broaden it so we have a look at what we can try to accomplish for the entire area? Because that's the intent of this, to deal with

public safety education equipment, not to approach this area piecemeal.

The point has to be made that the equipment used for firefighting is already exempt. It's already exempt, so that's not an issue. Let's not confuse things.

What we're talking about here is public safety education equipment. I say to the member, broaden it out; let's have the whole picture in terms of what we're trying to deal with here. Let's not deal

with a piecemeal approach to an issue.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'm going to make a recommendation. The last exchange between the NDP and the Conservatives was a little bit of a

disadvantage for us backbenchers here. Maybe I'm suggesting that we should put a mirror up there at the top so we get to see the gallery directly behind us, because I wanted to talk to the kids,

too. Nonetheless, I think that's a logical thing we should look into later down the road.

What we're talking about is exactly what the member is intending to do. The member from Prince Edward-Hastings has offered this Legislature an exceptionally

bright idea. Why? Simply because it levels the playing field. We are already exempting the PST, the provincial sales tax, for municipalities that have professional firefighters and full-time

firefighter services. They are getting that already for prevention and suppression. Suppression is the firefighting equipment that's necessary to put the fires out and be proactive. Prevention,

which has been the bent of this government's initiation through the fire marshal, is to improve circumstances so we don't need suppression as much. Quite frankly, the statistics are showing that

because of preventive measures and education, that's diminishing, that's coming down.

So the reality of the day is that the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford is blowing smoke. He's trying to say we don't want to spend $1 million. That's what

he's saying: we don't want to spend $1 million. Why? Because it's going to cost us a little bit of money for those tax cuts. We can't spend it, he says.

Why shouldn't you spend the money? We're talking about education to prevent the use of the suppression. We're being proactive. They're disadvantaged in the

small communities across Ontario. Why? Because of the volunteerism that's required to raise the money to buy the fire truck in the first place. We've got examples across the province where 100% of

the money to purchase a fire truck has come through boot drives. You know those boot drives that were created through -- whoops, wait a minute. The squeegee bill, the Safe Streets Act passed by

this government, did something to small towns in the province that they were warned it would do. They were provided with an opportunity to get out of the problem, and here's what happened: the Safe

Streets Act prevented the firefighters across Ontario from doing those boot tolls that all of you are familiar with -- except maybe in larger metropolitan areas -- where the fire department would

go out in their truck, park their truck at the side of the street, put up the cones and act in a very safe way. The OPP would co-operate, the municipal forces would co-operate and they would allow

the trucks to set up; the firefighters would stand and put the boots out and the drivers would drive by, open their wallets and put some money in. Guess what? That stopped as a result of the bill

passed by this government. It stopped.

By the way, we now have the figures. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have not been collected in the province of Ontario for charity because of that bill. That

bill has stopped charity from getting the hundreds of thousands of dollars it normally collects. So what happened? The member from Essex, my own colleague Bruce Crozier offered an amendment to the

act that exempted those boot tolls from not taking place. What did the government do? Thumbs down. Why? Because they would have had to admit they made a mistake. If they had admitted they made a

mistake, hundreds of thousands of dollars today would have been collected for the Multiple Sclerosis Society and many other charities across this province in small-town Ontario.

They don't want to admit they made a mistake, and that's exactly what the member opposite has been saying: $1 million is too expensive for education. Because

that's exactly what we're trying to do: prevent volunteers in small towns in Ontario from paying extra money that could go to education, because it takes too much effort and work to raise that

money on a volunteer basis.

I say shame on the government for standing up and pretending that they're protecting the taxpayers of Ontario. They're not protecting the citizens of Ontario,

because education is the great leveller here. The fact is that the small town in Ontario with volunteer firefighters is just as important and just as valuable as any other community in Ontario.

We've got an opportunity here to right a wrong, and the wrong is very simple. You're applying a tax that you've exempted everybody else from to a small town

that has to raise funds to even buy a fire truck. So I say shame on the government for not stepping up to the plate and not standing up and saying, "You've got a great idea. We're going to make

sure it happens."

The member from Durham, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, stands up and what's his first comment? "It's going to cost us $1 million. We

can't do it." What does the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford stand up and say? "We can't do it. It's going to cost too much money." At what cost do you say to the people of Ontario that we're not

going to educate them and provide that opportunity?

Interjection: They spend it all for newspaper ads.

Mr Levac: So we're going to spend millions of dollars on newspaper ads saying how great you are.

Stand up; be counted. I challenge you on a private member's bill. Use your hearts and your brains together and say that we're not going to allow this little

loophole not to be filled. The member on this side from Prince Edward-Hastings has found a problem that he wants to correct for the small towns in Ontario. I think it's laudable. It's the right

thing to do. What I say to you today is, I'm going to challenge the government to stand up and say it's worth $1 million to protect the people of Ontario.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to rise this morning. I welcome the young people who are in the audience seeing the debate

this morning. I want to commend the member for the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, Bill 54.

Interjections.

Mr Dunlop: I guess we've got the chirping going on again this morning. They just keep chirping away over there.

It's interesting. A couple of things I want to talk about are some comments that were made earlier, first of all, on the fire safety houses. They're great

projects made by a number of communities across our province.

I have two organizations with fire departments in my riding that have very successful fire safety houses. They mainly go to the malls and schools etc, and they

are good. They do a good job. One particular fire safety house even has a re-enactment sort of thing of a tornado in it.

The other comment I would like to make is that many fire departments are still holding fundraising events across the province. I've had numerous ones

throughout my riding, and there's been absolutely no problem. Some of them are holding them on municipal streets, some of them are holding them in parking lots and service stations, and they're

raising lots of money. I don't know where you're getting that we've shut off all the funding in the province. I think that's a mistake in saying that.

I really appreciate the comments made by the new tax-cutter over here, the member from Trinity-Spadina. It was interesting to note that he talked a little bit

about Jean Chrétien and the GST and the big promises. Remember Jean Chrétien was going to be the tax-cutter and get rid of the GST? "Well, you know, we made a mistake. We did need that

money to balance the federal deficit."

What else did they do at that time? They cut money from health care. Remember that? Six billion dollars. Today in the province of Ontario, where the citizens

of Ontario pay $2 in income tax to the federal government for every dollar they pay to the provincial government, they are still $66 million behind what they were in 1994-95. We're paying $5.8

billion more, and you know it. You keep putting up with and listening to Allan Rock, that so-called Minister of Health. It makes me sick to think that man is actually the Minister of Health of this

country.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): That's unparliamentary.

Mr Dunlop: It is not unparliamentary. It's a fact of life. He's paying --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a duet or a chorus. One member has the floor. He will speak. One at a time. The member for Simcoe

North.

Mr Dunlop: That's after he destroyed the so-called gun legislation. A fact of life. I think it's $600 million or $700 million a year now.

There was a complete mess on that. He's done the same with health care, and he blames the provinces around this country.

Interjections.

Mr Dunlop: You just don't want to hear it, and none of you fight for it. That's the other thing: you won't fight for health care.

Mr Smitherman: What do you do?

Mr Dunlop: We spent $5.8 billion more. That's what we've done here.

Besides that, what we're talking about today is this particular Bill 54. Although I think in principle it's not a bad idea, it's very limited. It should be far

broader as far as its intent, because there are many organizations that provide educational assistance to organizations throughout our province and throughout our country. That would be maybe more

of an intent. But at this time you have to remember that these two parties over here voted against 166 tax cuts, which put $1,800 a year back in the pockets of a family earning $60,000. You know

what? That gives them money to contribute to things across the country: buying cars, buying houses, buying clothing for their children. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But now we've got these little nickel and dime types of bills which deal specifically with something. You're in favour of that, but you're absolutely opposed

to tax cuts. I cannot understand why.

Now, we've got these guys coming around a little bit. They're thinking a little more along the lines of provincial taxes. At this time I would compliment some

of them. But you people voted against every tax cut and now you've become the tax-cutters on this particular Bill 54.

Mr Speaker, it's been a pleasure to say a few words to you this morning, and I compliment everyone else for speaking.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's nice to have the opportunity to speak to the bill. I'm glad that my colleague Mr Parsons has brought

it forward. He obviously identifies a major concern, and that is education surrounding fire prevention and the way to deal with fires.

His own personal experience was rather revealing, the fact that his children had also learned something about how to deal with a fire at school. Even though it

is a panic situation when it does happen, that was very helpful.

The designated ways of helping municipalities or individual organizations that he has listed in his legislation are extremely helpful. We usually develop a

consensus on that in the House.

The government has chosen to give a $2.2-billion cut in taxes -- a gift, I would call it -- to the corporations of this province. We know that those

corporations contribute substantial amounts of money to the Progressive Conservative Party. There are those who would call that -- of course, I wouldn't be one of those who would necessarily make

this accusation -- payback for the legislation. When they give $2.2 billion in corporate tax cuts to those corporations, we see that they seem to fill the halls. I know in St Catharines when the

Premier comes for the Premier's dinner, it's full of the corporate elite of the Niagara Peninsula saying, "Thank you for giving us a tax cut." Well, here is a tax measure which I think is

beneficial.

The member for Scarborough Southwest, on the government side, before he was in the cabinet, advanced the case in a private member's hour for a specific tax

exemption. I thought it was designated, I thought it was specific, I thought it was helpful in achieving a specific goal. I supported it on that day, just as I would this measure, which I think can

be of immense benefit.

I want to thank Mr Parsons for bringing it forward. That's the purpose of the private member's hour. He also mentioned, as have my other colleagues, Mr Levac

and Mr Bartolucci, that there should be in the province a recognition of the significant role that firefighters play. Probably the incident which focused the greatest attention on the role that

firefighters play in our society was the unfortunate and horrific circumstances of New York City and Washington on September 11 of this year, the day of infamy, as it is often called.

We see that our firefighters put their lives on the line on a daily basis. When they go to the fire station or when they're called to the fire station, they're

going out into circumstances that are often unknown and unexpected. Their families do not really know if they are going to return home. Chances are they are, and for that we're very thankful.

Firefighters in this province and across the world play a very substantial and significant role -- in firefighting, yes; in rescue, most certainly. They are the people who often have to go to an

accident to extract people from vehicles. They see some horrific sights on a daily basis.

We need to help educate everyone in fire safety and fire education. The specific provisions of this bill from Mr Parsons will allow that to happen, and I

commend it for support to all members of this assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Response?

Mr Parsons: I would first of all like to thank the members for Timmins-James Bay, Durham, Sudbury, Trinity-Spadina, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford,

Brant, Simcoe North and St Catharines for their comments. Many of them were quite fascinating.

I was interested in hearing that this government's priorities are fiscal responsibility, accountability and growth. Public safety and security sure went off

the radar screen pretty fast after what we heard two weeks ago. The people of Ontario aren't looking for the cheapest police services, emergency services, fire services; they're looking for safety

and security.

This is a matter of priorities. I know it costs $1 million. It's strange that today $1 million is a lot of money. Last week, when the Premier ran ads in every

newspaper, $1 million wasn't a lot of money -- $6 million for education ads; $107 million in the first four years for ads. It's a matter of priorities.

Firefighters lead dangerous lives. When they leave their homes, they put themselves at risk. Surely a priority should be that they don't have to respond to a

beeper. Surely it should be that we prevent fires with equal concern as we suppress fires.

We know that the only payback for the $1 million in ads last week was some publicity for the governing party, but we also know that fire education saves lives.

That's been shown over and over. The $1-million investment is guaranteed to save lives. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it. This government has to take the priority of safety for our

individual citizens, for our children. I am astounded that we put a price tag on someone's life in this province.

The minister could have changed this by regulation. I challenge him, when this bill becomes law, to make it retroactive and return the money to the

firefighters in my riding and every other riding. The volunteer firefighters are there when we need them. We need to be there when they need us.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 25, which is second reading of Bill 54. I will place

the questions regarding this ballot item at 12 o'clock noon.

SOCIAL AUDIT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government must conduct an immediate

review of the health and well-being of any Ontarian, or their family, suspended from welfare benefits, and launch a broader social audit to assess the impact of the government's unprecedented

welfare reforms.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Gravelle has moved private member's notice of motion number 16. The member for Thunder

Bay-Superior North has 10 minutes.

Mr Gravelle: In launching this debate on my resolution to have the government conduct a comprehensive audit of its social welfare reforms, I

want to take a moment to reflect on what may well be the single greatest tragedy of these reforms, the death of Kimberly Rogers. On September 24, the chief coroner of Ontario announced that he will

be holding an inquest into the death of Ms Rogers, who died on August 9 while under house arrest for a welfare fraud conviction. While all the details surrounding Ms Rogers's death will not be

known until the coroner's inquest is complete, the government and the public do know some extraordinarily troubling details that speak to the heart of an important part of my resolution.

We do know that Ms Rogers's crime was to draw welfare while she was also receiving Ontario student loans. We also know that the government's crown prosecutors

successfully sought a penalty of a six-month house arrest and repayment of all the money. The government knew that Ms Rogers would have no means of income for at least three months of that

six-month house arrest period, and we also know that since then, the welfare ban is now considered a lifetime welfare ban by this government.

The government did know that Ms Rogers was five months pregnant at the time of her sentencing. The government also knew that Ms Rogers suffered from prolonged

medical conditions, including depression, and that her punishment would also cut off her ability to obtain needed prescription drugs.

The circumstances that the government's policies put Ms Rogers in should be a shock to all members of this House. Ms Rogers's plight did receive some media

attention at the time of her sentencing, and even more attention when she successfully sought a court injunction to force the government to continue her benefits and drug benefits as well. She was

one of the very few Ontarians who dared speak up and go public. Many suffer in silence; how many, we simply do not know.

Nonetheless, it was not until her death that most Ontarians were made aware of the horrendous circumstances surrounding the last months of her life. When the

news of her death broke, most of us expected the government to take swift action to ensure that such a tragedy would never again be allowed to happen. Instead, the Minister of Community and Social

Services said he wanted to get the facts before drawing any conclusions. Over two months later, this is still his position.

That is why the first part of my resolution would have the government review the health and well-being of any Ontarian who is presently suspended from welfare,

particularly those who are currently serving a penalty that might prevent them from obtaining an alternate job.

While no one on this side of the House believes that welfare fraud should be tolerated, surely no one on either side of this House believes the punishment for

such a crime should put one's health or life in peril. My resolution, if passed and acted on, would see to it that no one else suffers the way Kimberly Rogers was forced to.

The next part of my resolution speaks to a much broader issue: the fate of the nearly 600,000 Ontarians who have left the welfare system since October 1995,

six years ago this month. The statistic revealing the number of Ontarians who have left the welfare rolls has been a point of monthly pride for this government. Each month a body count is

prominently released to the media as evidence of more and more people evidently "breaking the cycle of welfare dependency," as this government likes to put it. Oddly, for the first time in years,

the government has not released the monthly stats for several months running, presumably because the numbers are going up and the government wants to hide that fact.

But tellingly, what the government has not released at any point are the statistics as to where those people have gone. Indeed, it has never bothered to

properly examine that issue. Unlike other provinces, including British Columbia, Alberta and New Brunswick, Ontario has never done a comprehensive study of the impact of its welfare reforms,

reforms that have been described as the most far-reaching and draconian in North America.

These reforms include the first decision this government made when they came to office, which was a 22% cut in welfare benefits in October 1995 and absolutely

no increases to reflect the cost-of-living increases since then. They've introduced a lifetime suspension for welfare recipients convicted of welfare fraud. They set up a snitch line for welfare

fraud. They've introduced mandatory workfare. They've introduced mandatory literacy tests, which just started this month in a pilot project in the province. They've got a plan to introduce

mandatory drug testing this year, which we believe is not only offensive but will not withstand human rights challenges. These are but a few of the measures this government has put in place. In

addition, the government has withdrawn completely from the construction of affordable housing while private sector rents have skyrocketed as a result of the government scrapping rent control.

Instead, the government has clung to its theory that a rising economic tide raises all boats and points to the decline in the unemployment rate as the primary

indicator of this theory. I fear they may be in great trouble now as we move to an economic downturn.

The government likes to claim that the people who are leaving welfare have moved into the jobs the robust economy in the past provided. Unfortunately, this

claim is simply not true, and it would seem that the government tacitly acknowledges that fact.

Consider the following: the only information the government has ever bothered to gather on those who have left social assistance are two incredibly inadequate

phone surveys of those former welfare recipients it was able to track down by phone. The fact is, it couldn't find a large number of the people, so the survey only indicated people they were able

to reach. The methodology of these surveys was so shoddy that nobody accepted them as having any validity at all. Everyone knows the government essentially tried to cook the books to hide the

truth, that people on the streets were increasing, homelessness was increasing and poverty was increasing. Perhaps this explains why the government has not bothered to even try to conduct such a

survey for over three years.

I suspect that some of these surveys may be part of the speaking notes of the government members. I hope they do not try to distort the facts.

It's alarming that a government that prides itself on measuring results and outcomes, be it student and teacher testing, hospital report cards, municipal

performance measures or the constant flood of economic and fiscal analyses, has never conducted an audit of the outcome of its welfare policies. It is even more alarming that the government has

never studied the impact of its reforms when you consider that it has paid Accenture, formerly Andersen Consulting, a staggering $200 million to implement these reforms, which is essentially a

$200-million boondoggle that we are going to continue to track down.

The question here is, where is the accountability? The social audit I envision would set in motion a process to determine how the government's Ontario Works

policies are impacting on low-income children and families by putting real measurements against real outcomes. It would evaluate the impacts of the government's social welfare changes with a

determination to make improvements so as to improve the well-being, employability and economic security of individuals and families in need.

I want to conclude this portion of my remarks by going back to the comments of Minister Baird after the death of Ms Rogers, when he said he needed the facts

before he wanted to draw any conclusions. I agree with the minister. We do need the facts, and that's exactly why we need a social audit. We need the facts, and that's what that will provide us. I

would trust that the members on the other side of the House would support that call.

We know that our poorest citizens have become poorer since this government took office. We know that child poverty has doubled since 1989. We know that

homelessness in our province has never been worse, and we know that food bank use is at its highest level ever. We know that the grocery bill for the very cynical Tsubouchi diet back in October

1995, when the government immediately slashed welfare at that time by 22%, is now 25% higher than it was then and that housing costs have risen dramatically since this government took office.

These are issues the Ontario Liberal Party would deal with by being committed to raising the cost-of-living factor in terms of the people on social assistance

and people on the Ontario disability support program.

Interjection: Hear, hear.

Mr Gravelle: Absolutely.

We know there are tears in our province's social safety net, and we believe these tears are related to this government's social policies and welfare reforms. I

am calling on all members of the House to do the responsible thing as elected representatives with the responsibility to ensure the health and well-being of all its citizens. I ask all members to

support my resolution and conduct a comprehensive social audit so that we as legislators can be certain that our social policy strategies are as effective as they can be.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I listened attentively to the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North, and I want to say to him this morning

that I appreciate his bringing forward his resolution. I appreciate his call for a social audit. I think it is absolutely needed in this province. I don't suggest for a second that we don't have

enough evidence now on the table after five or six years to in fact begin to ask this government to take some specific and immediate action. But it is really important, as we move forward, however,

I believe, in the spirit of and looking at the intent of this resolution, to connect the dots, to paint the fuller picture, to understand how the system works as a whole and to understand how the

programs of this government for those who are most vulnerable and most at risk in our community have been affected in a negative way, diminished, torn apart and in fact, in many instances, just

plain don't exist any more.

So I say to the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North that we in this caucus will certainly be supporting your resolution, and we're hoping that the

government, in all good conscience, responding from a moral and ethical position where these issues are concerned, will find it possible to support this resolution as well.

There is no greater responsibility that government has, there is nothing more fundamental to what a government is called to do when it gets elected, than to

look after those in its jurisdiction who are most vulnerable and most at risk. It's with that in mind that the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North and I, and others of right conscience in this

place, found it so astounding and so offensive when the first thing this government did in coming to power was not action on the economy, not action working with the business community, not action

in terms of how we correct some shortcomings perhaps in the health care or education systems -- although we have a lot to say about that too. The first thing they did, just like the bully who walks

into the schoolyard, wanting to make an impression, wanting to send the message out to everybody as to who is in charge, they picked out the smallest and the weakest and the most vulnerable and

they laid a beating on them.

Think about it: almost 25% of your income disappears overnight; you're already living on a meagre subsistence allowance to look after yourself and your

children, to pay for your rent, to clothe your family, to feed yourself; and you're told by a government in a jurisdiction that's the richest in this country, one of the richest jurisdictions in

all of the world, that we can no longer afford to give you the money you need to look after yourself and your children. What else can you say in terms of understanding the approach that this

government takes, where the most vulnerable and the at-risk are concerned in this province?

Today I'm calling on this government to respond to the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North's call to carry out a social audit. But I'm also asking the

Liberals and the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North to join me in calling on this government to take some immediate action now, because there are people out there today, there are families out

there today, who are at risk. We have to look no further than the Kimberly Rogers case in Sudbury to understand just how at risk these people are, to begin to take some action. They have it within

their power, they have it within their purview to make decisions right now, this minute. The Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr Baird, if he wanted to, as he has done on so many

occasions in bringing in some of the initiatives that have pounded and battered and abused those who are in need of assistance, could, as simply and as easily, call a press conference this

afternoon and say that he is actually going to take some action to relieve the pressure on those in our province who are experiencing the most difficulty at this particular point in time in their

lives.

One of the things I've put forward, which I suggest we could all support in this place if we had the political will and the moral fortitude to do so, is to

stop the clawback of the child tax benefit supplement. That would be close to $100 a month to every poor family for each child, to go to feeding, clothing and housing those children in a way that

speaks to the inherent dignity that exists in every human being who calls Ontario home. They could do that. Other provinces have done it. They could do it today. They could make that announcement

today.

As a matter of fact, I announced this morning at a press conference that I will be tabling this afternoon in this place over 7,000 signatures on a petition

that I carried across this province for the last six months, telling people -- shocking people, in some instances, because they didn't know -- that this government was in fact clawing back from the

very poorest of our families, on average, $100 a month per child that the federal government gives them that they could be using to feed themselves, to clothe themselves, to house themselves, and

to stop doing that.

I'm asking the Liberals to join me in asking the government to stop that clawback. Please do that today, because that would go a long way in relieving some of

the pressure that many of our really poor families are having to deal with out there.

Another thing they could do is join me on Monday when I bring before this House a bill that would ask the government to increase the pension that goes to

people on the Ontario disability support program in this province, the disabled. They haven't had an increase in their allowance for six years, members of the government and members of the public

out there. We've had inflation of some 12% over that time. They haven't had an increase, so they've lost purchasing power; they've lost the power to look after themselves by some 12%, never mind

not getting an increase.

I will be tabling a bill in this place on Monday asking the government to increase the allowance given to people with disabilities and to tie that increase, a

regular increase on an annual basis -- not dissimilar to what they've just introduced, by way of the Integrity Commissioner, for ourselves, the members of this place -- to the Ontario cost of

living, which would automatically go to those who are disabled in this province so they could look after themselves and their children and their families in a way that speaks to their need to

participate in their communities, live with some dignity and be able to afford the very basics that we all need if we're going to get on with our lives.

The other thing I would ask the Liberals and the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North, as we support him in his call for a social audit, to join us in asking

the government for would be to raise the minimum wage. We know from listening to members of the government that they brag on a regular basis. I've heard about this across the province as I

travelled since last December. Many of you will remember the dramatic statement I made by stepping down from my position as Deputy Speaker and setting up the People's Parliament on Poverty, an

alternate venue for people to come and speak about poverty because we can't, except for the odd occasion like this morning, get that topic on to the table of this place in any significant way.

They're telling me that, as a result of this government pushing so many people off assistance across this province and into the workplace, all of those people are still living in poverty, because

the minimum wage, $6.85 an hour, doesn't produce the kind of income they need to cover the ever-increasing cost of, for example, housing -- rent.

This government has done away with the Rent Control Act and has brought in a Tenant Protection Act that doesn't protect tenants. What it does is it allows

landlords to increase rent without any increase in minimum wage or income for people on assistance to deal with that changing circumstance in any important and significant way so that they have

money that they need left over after they've paid the bills to actually buy the food they need to feed their children.

I'm asking all of you people in the House here today to support us in giving those people who, yes, have left the welfare rolls in this province, have gone and

taken the jobs that were or are available and are working for minimum wage, an increase in that minimum wage so they can afford to pay the rent, buy the food, clothe themselves and their children.

Because as I said of the instance of the disabled, it is the same for those who live in poverty.

Everybody that this government brags that they've pushed off the welfare rolls find themselves, if they're able to get a job -- many of them have simply given

up. They can't handle the hassle any more. They cannot deal with the pressure. They're finding other innovative and interesting ways to look after themselves. But many of them, yes, have gone out

to take jobs that pay minimum wage and are finding it very difficult.

As a matter of fact, I was listening to the member from Beaches-East York last night on the Michael Coren show. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of

Community and Social Services was there as well. He said to her, and to the listening people out there across Ontario, that in fact there are some 3,000 people living in shelters in Toronto today

and another 1,000 or so living, as he said, rough on the streets. He said something I found interesting. Most of those people in fact are working, but they can't afford a place to live or they

can't find a place to live that they can afford. That's the Ontario that is evolving out of the programs and initiatives of this government. The evidence is there. To do a social audit wouldn't be

a huge challenge. It's all in front of you.

As I travelled the province over the last six to nine months, listening to people in places like Huntsville, Sault Ste Marie, Ottawa, Toronto and Elliot Lake,

they told me stories, that brought me to tears, of the efforts they're making to look after themselves given the meagre assistance and support they get from their government, given the challenge

they face every day that they wake up and another announcement is made, trying to figure out how they deal with this, the latest attack on their dignity, on their lifestyle, on their ability to

look after themselves and their children.

In Huntsville people are sharing rooms in hotels in the off-season because that's the only thing they can afford. I don't know what they do during the

on-season, but mostly it is summertime. I guess they're in tents or they're finding part-time work so they can afford some perhaps more suitable accommodation during that period of the year. But

during the toughest and harshest weather of the year in our province, these people in that area which is, I believe by statistics, one of the lowest-paying areas in the province, are living in

hotel rooms, two and three together; sometimes two families together.

In Wawa they're couch-surfing. They're living and sleeping on each other's couches as they try to deal with the reality of this government's initiatives and

programs that are out there to be taken advantage of.

In Ottawa we heard some people whose mental health is very delicate say to us that sometimes, with the ever-changing circumstances they confront as they wake

up every morning, the most important decision they make now is whether to live or not. They have to ask themselves every morning when they wake up, "Is it worth the effort to go through another

day?" What a terrible circumstance to be put into, and all driven in significant and important ways by the initiatives of this government.

And so I say to the members of this House, we should all be supporting a social audit. We should all be trying to get to the bottom of how all of these

initiatives that this government -- and the member from Thunder Bay-Superior North laid a few of them out for you. Every other month, it seems, there's a new initiative slamming the poor, because

it's a hot-button issue, I guess; it's politically expedient or correct.

I'm asking this government to act out of their moral and ethical centre and do something different. Support the audit, but also support us in our call for

immediate action now to help people who are in desperate need across this province.

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I am pleased to take the opportunity today to speak about the resolution put forward by the member from

Thunder Bay-Superior North.

This resolution is another indication that the Liberals on the opposition side of this House will never agree to the reforms that we have made in welfare and

that have helped hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario. Since we took office, we have turned welfare around to make sure that it's a hand up, not a handout.

In 1995, when our government was elected, we were given a strong mandate by the people of Ontario. We had the highest per capita caseload in the country. Over

a million Ontarians were trapped on welfare. No doubt this was a result of the lost decade of the Liberals and the NDP. We cut welfare rates in 1995 because our welfare rates were out of control.

More and more people were trapped in the cycle of welfare dependency. Voters in 1995 knew that the country club welfare policies that existed during the Liberal and NDP governments were

unacceptable and had the province in dire straits. People were actually paid to stay home, and many of them were not even required to look for a job.

The good news is that our government's reforms are working. Ontario Works is getting people off welfare and back into the workforce.

I had the opportunity to visit a home for the mentally and physically challenged, and the head of the volunteer organization in that location told me that

she's losing volunteers because they are finding jobs. There are volunteers coming into the centre through Ontario Works, and they are moving their way into jobs. That's what Ontario Works is. When

this happens, everyone wins: the government wins, the taxpayers win, but most importantly, the person who was on welfare and finds a job is the biggest winner.

We are proud to stand behind our record. Let me give some indications of what that record is.

With Ontario Works, we have helped close to 70,000 throughout Ontario find work placements. We have helped 3,628 in starting their own business, giving

themselves and their families a solid footing to the future. Through our basic education and job skills training, we have helped 104,548 Ontarians by improving their ability to compete for jobs.

Through structured job search, which helps people find a job, we have helped 134,482 people in Ontario feel proud when someone calls them to say, "You got the job." Our earnfare program, working to

earn the difference between the old rates and the new rates, is helping over 52,000 people. Through our Learning, Earning and Parenting program, we provide help to 3,000 young single mothers so

that they can finish school.

This resolution that is put before the House today is just another ploy to stop or delay, through studies, the good work that this government is doing. We need

strong leadership and strong action to help all of those who are still on welfare, not more reports and studies that sit on the shelves and gather dust.

I want to spend a moment talking about the case in Sudbury the member alluded to as part of this resolution. It's important to get all the facts on the table.

The coroner has called an inquest into this tragedy and the member quoted parts of that inquiry. We, as a government, will provide our full co-operation, but let's be careful not to use this

tragedy to make political points, as those on the other side of this House have been so quick to do, especially when all the facts are not yet in.

I think the Sudbury Star editorial from August 18 of this year speaks volumes on this issue. I want to quote from that article:

"Rather than follow their respective political agendas ... politicians and social activists should hold off drawing conclusions without evidence -- which will

take time to gather....

"In the meantime, opposition politicians and local activists should allow Rogers's family the peace to grieve her loss and allow the coroner's office to

conduct its investigation.

"Railing against changes to the social assistance program and linking those changes to Rogers's death ... does both Rogers and their cause a disservice."

I invite the members opposite to ponder the very useful insights of that editorial before they start using this tragedy for political ends.

The Liberals have constantly shown both in office and in opposition that they're just not up to the job on welfare reform. They don't have any idea what it

takes to help people get off welfare. This evidence is clear. Our welfare reforms are working for all the people of Ontario.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I'm very honoured to have a chance to join this debate in support of the resolution by my

colleague and in defence of the people I represent. Too many of the people in my riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale are poor and have been subjected for going on seven years now to the kind of

stigma and stereotyping that member just participated in.

When she talks about Ontario's country club welfare system, she is appealing to the lowest common denominator among people this government has worked to

narrowcast, a government that does not see its responsibility to work on behalf of all, but in favour only of those who choose to vote for it. I say to that member, I look forward to the day when

the coin drops and you understand that time has passed your rhetoric by. Your six-minute speech that you just gave on this thoughtful resolution of my colleague shows just how out of touch you are

with the economic circumstances that confront Ontario today, with the challenges that are presented as a result of September 11, and with the utter reality of the circumstances in which poor people

find themselves in our province.

I wish I could offer my time today to some of the people who are in the galleries here, like Josephine Grey, who has been a courageous leader on this issue,

who works for Low Income Families Together, and Kira from the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, people who work every single day, who confront the kind of challenges you could not imagine and whom

you subject to the kind of stigma you've been a participant in for too many years.

This government uses the rhetoric of, "We want to give people a hand up." The only hand that too many poor people have seen from this government is the back of

the hand, from a government that uses phrases like "country club welfare recipients."

I encourage you over the lunch hour or at any time convenient to you to come for a walk with me through the streets of downtown Toronto to meet the people you

have been a participant in stereotyping.

We want to build people up, but this is a government that at the same time it cut welfare rates also cut the crucial, critical supports for people who are

living with challenges that many of us could not imagine. We stopped building housing -- talk about creating opportunities.

But I want to know, and this audit would get at it, the most important thing. Last night I had an opportunity to be at the Ontario chamber dinner, which was

the Premier reporting back to his core constituency on all he had done to make them richer. He talked about the reduction in welfare rolls. I want to be part of a governmental institution that

celebrates a reduction in people on welfare, but I also want to be a participant in the celebration of people leaving poverty, and that is the missing link here. Yes, of course, through all these

government actions and through a more buoyant economy, fewer people are on welfare, but if we look at children, as an example, and at child poverty rates, children have not left poverty.

In my inner-city riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale, the forced cuts of this government to the Toronto District School Board have meant that the crucial

programs in our inner-city schools that were designed to do what your rhetoric talks about, which is to lift people up out of the circumstances into which they have been born, have been cut.

We talk about excellence in education. There used to be a gifted program at Winchester school, which serves the most multicultural community perhaps in Canada,

St James Town. It's gone. That's a result of your government and your cut.

This is one of those days when I'm saddened by the fact that I have to sit here and take that, but you fuel me, Ms Molinari, member for Thornhill, to work even

harder to make sure that the people in your riding and the people of the province come to understand that we can no longer take a very significant portion of our people and simply throw them on the

scrap heap of life, because that's what the actions of your government have the net effect of doing.

What has the member from Thunder Bay presented? This is not some rhetorical flourish. This is a thoughtful suggestion that maybe we ought to look a little

beyond the rhetoric and do some statistical analysis, an audit, and determine the extent to which people are still living in poverty, and see what we might do about that as a province.

I ask any member on the opposite side, any member of the government who doesn't believe what I say, to come for a walk with me. No media. We'll go anywhere you

want, at whatever hour you want. Come for a walk with me and meet the people I represent, the people you have been a participant in stereotyping, and find out what it's like to carry the burden of

poverty every single day, find out about the harmful effect of the words you use.

I want to say just one more thing: I want to see a leader of this province where parents can say to their children, "This is someone I want you to meet." On

November 17 Nelson Mandela is coming to Regent Park and he will be welcomed there as a great man. But if Mike Harris were taken to Regent Park, parents would not be grabbing their children and

saying, "I want you to meet this man, this Premier of Ontario." I think that, at the end of six years of that kind of rhetoric and stigmatization, is a very sad commentary.

The Deputy Speaker: Stop the clock. I want to draw members' attention to René Fontaine, the former member for Cochrane North and a former

Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines.

Further debate?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's a pleasure to stand and join the debate on this issue, especially after listening to some of the stuff

said across the floor. It's very interesting how, after six years of successful welfare reform in Ontario, the parties opposite can continually stand up and say that 600,000 people off the

dependence of welfare is a bad thing. They want to go back to the years between 1985 and 1995 when 12% of the population of this province was collecting welfare. It is tragic that they want to take

that step backwards. I continue to be astounded.

Over one million people between 1985 and 1995 were on welfare. We came in after the election of 1995 with a clear path: bringing in workfare, moderating

welfare rates, and a whole host of programs to get people from the dependency of welfare into the workplace. As I said, 600,000 people today are off the dependency of welfare. We know that about

800,000 new jobs have been created since 1995. We actually did two studies on this, and most of those people who left welfare went to jobs.

What are some of the other things we've been doing to help people, aside from workfare placements, which have been a tremendous success? Some of the other

things we are doing is providing help for folks to find a job, providing basic education and training, providing job skills training, providing supports for teen mothers on welfare to finish school

and providing incentives to find paid work.

One of the members opposite just got up and talked about the rate cut. Well, let me tell you something, to the member opposite: you better figure out what your

party's policy is on this. They do flip-flop, that's true, but the member opposite clearly doesn't understand that his own leader said in a Liberal news release in December 1998, "I fear I may have

left the impression that it was my intent to fully restore the 22% welfare cuts to our recipients. That is not my intention." The member opposite complained about the rate cut; his own leader is

not in favour of reinstating that rate cut. Not only that, but you should realize that right now Ontario still has the highest welfare rates in Canada, more than 10% above the average that is paid

in the other provinces.

On workfare, which has been a great success -- and I'm going to read you a lot of quotes because, as I said, we've done two exit studies to find out where

people were going when they moved from welfare to work. We've also worked on a constant basis with, mostly, regional governments, upper-tier-level governments that deliver welfare. We've got a

constant dialogue between those people who are on the front lines delivering the welfare services, the social assistance services and the workfare programs, and they continually tell us that people

are moving from welfare to work.

What was the Liberal position on workfare? They saw that the public in Ontario thought workfare was a good program. So what did they decide to run on in 1995?

Mandatory opportunity. What was that? No one knew what it was, including the Liberals. They could never really define it. What did Dalton McGuinty say in 1996 about this? He said, "I don't believe

in workfare but I do believe there is one exception. I don't think we can accept that anybody under the age of 30 can simply stay at home and collect welfare." I guess he believes that if you're

under 30 and on welfare, workfare is OK for you, but if you're 31 or 32, somehow workfare is not OK for you. I don't understand the Liberals' position on that either.

As I said, we deal a lot with the municipalities and the upper-tier levels of government that deliver welfare. We've had a constant dialogue. Minister Baird is

constantly in the offices, meeting with the front-line staff at social service agencies across the province. What do they have to say? Some of the members opposite should pay attention to some of

these quotes because these are quotes from people on the front lines, delivering social services in their ridings.

Let me start off. Eddie Alton, the chief administrative officer, district of Timiskaming, says, "We do have a lot of people going off social assistance who are

finding employment, and considering that we haven't had any major employers move into the area to take a lump sum of them, it is impressive. Some of our placements have been very successful. In

doing placements for about two to three months, they get a current resumé and then they are able to get a job." That's someone talking about how successful workfare has been in his area in

Timiskaming.

Here's another one, from Chatham-Kent. Lucy Brown, manager of social services and children's services for Chatham-Kent, says, "It's a win-win situation.

Non-profit housing groups can get things done that are not being done now, while the placements can develop references and get a more recent work background.

Paul Beaton, who is the manager of Ontario Works in Woodstock, says, "The province's 1997 act is giving people the opportunity to actively get involved in

something that will increase their employability rather than just collecting a cheque. Ontario Works helps people get off welfare by expanding the opportunities that we know help people

succeed."

Again, members opposite should pay attention to what's being seen by the front-line caseworkers all around the province.

Here's another one from Woodstock. Listen to this, Speaker. This is from a front-line social assistance deliverer in Woodstock: "The idea that they are driven

off the system into despair and homelessness is not accurate." That's someone on the front lines.

Do we need to go out and do more and more studies, to follow individuals and find out where they are? Well, we've done it twice. As I said, we have this

constant dialogue with people on the front lines.

The director of Grey county social services, David Hughes, says, "I can tell you that we've got more individuals leaving the system for employment than we've

had in a long, long while. We've had more individuals going into education and training programs."

Carmene Cousineau from Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, another gentleman on the front lines of delivering welfare: "It's making a real difference in their

self-esteem. They're learning that people want them while they are developing these skills. Many of them who were reluctant in the beginning to participate have come back to thank us." I've heard

that all over the province. I was the parliamentary assistant to Minister Baird at community and social services for a little over a year. The minister, I'll tell you now, has binders in his office

of letters from people who were on welfare, who were hesitant to participate in workfare, participated in workfare and now are working. He has binders and binders of letters of people explaining

their situations and how their life has dramatically improved.

Members opposite just want to put that aside. "Let's go back to the old days when we had over a million people on welfare in this province." It's a tragic

position that they take and one that they continually flip-flop over, as I told you before.

Here's another quote, from Neil Seaman: "Prior to workfare, the percentage of welfare recipients who partook meaningfully in any working activities was

negligible. Whatever you may think of workfare, it is plainly an incentive for poor people to seek jobs."

I can't resist this. I'm going to be in trouble, because I think Minister Baird would really like to use this quote, but I can't resist the opportunity to use

it. There used to be a gentleman on the other side of the aisle, a Liberal member from Ottawa. He's now the mayor of Ottawa. On his very own Web site, he takes pride in the welfare changes of the

province of Ontario. He expresses pride in workfare placements and the process of getting people off welfare and into work in Ontario. Here's what his Web site says: Bob Chiarelli, the current

mayor, the Liberal member opposite prior to leaving. It says, "The number of social assistance recipients in Ottawa-Carleton has declined by more than 31%. That represents an average of 850 people

who leave welfare for paying jobs every single month -- more than 30,600 people since Bob was elected.... Taxpayers saved more than $51 million," this year. That is a former Liberal member, a

current mayor in Ottawa, bragging about our welfare reforms.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have some very special guests in the House today.

There are some students from École secondaire Sainte-Famille up in the gallery. I want to welcome them. You can't applaud -- don't get in trouble -- but I certainly want to welcome you

here.

The Deputy Speaker: As the minister knows, that is not a point of order, and we welcome you.

Further debate?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm glad these secondary school students are here in the audience today, listening to what the government is

saying.

I stand in support of the resolution by the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North. Indeed, what he asks for is what the people of Ontario want.

Thomas Fuller once said, "Rigid justice is the greatest injustice." This is the fear that's been expressed by the people of Sudbury and all Ontarians regarding

the death of Kimberly Rogers: that in the name of justice, this government's definition of justice, Kimberly suffered a grave injustice. The death of Kimberly Rogers has resonated throughout our

community, throughout our province, by virtue of the shocking circumstances as we know them, the profound questions that remain unanswered, and quite simply the sudden and sheer sadness of the

events.

The members opposite can quote anyone they want to quote, but when government policy can lead to the death of one or more individuals, then that government

policy is wrong. We are mandated by the honour that is placed within us by our constituents to ensure that bad policy is gotten rid of as quickly as possible. The reality is, the member for Thunder

Bay-Superior North wants to ensure that there is not another Kimberly Rogers event out there. That's all he's asking for. It's not government rhetoric; it's not a cute ploy used in private members'

hour. It is a serious request for a social audit, something that has been asked for by many different groups across this province. Our critic, Michael Gravelle, is responding to their desire to

have a social audit. The government is mandated, by the power it is given through the electorate, to ensure that that social audit takes place.

Throughout this province, many groups have come together to question the government's policies regarding and surrounding the death of Kimberly Rogers. For

example, today in Sudbury, the Ontario Common Front will be gathering in front of the courthouse to discuss the tragic death of Kimberly Rogers, raising questions about provincial welfare policy,

access to post-secondary education and the administration of justice, all very important items to be discussed. Next Monday, October 22 at the Steelworkers Hall, the committee to remember Kimberly

Rogers will be coming together in an open forum. The government could attend it if they had the courage. They could attend it and give their side of their policy with regard to treating people like

Kimberly Rogers.

I suggest to you that human beings not only have natural rights, but the very purpose of government is to protect them. Laws that subordinate life, liberty and

safety are wrong. I challenge this government to do a social audit.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I am proud to stand in support of the resolution of my colleague from Thunder Bay-Superior North. I guess

I shouldn't be shocked, after six years of sitting in this place, about the arrogance and lack of understanding that this government shows toward poor people in this province. It feels that it was

given a mandate in 1995 to punish people who are poor in the province of Ontario.

I represent the riding of Hamilton East, a riding that has many people who are struggling. I have been in the homes of single moms in the middle of the month

when they have no money and the fridge is empty and the shelves are empty and they've got to go to the food bank to try and scrape by. I've been in those homes in the middle of winter where the

single mom cannot afford to buy boots for her kids or a winter coat. Let me tell you, much of that is a result of the policies of this government. They have continued to exploit poor people in

Ontario; they have continued to exploit those who cannot get by in the way this government wants them to get by. The reason is that many of these folks never met or talked to a welfare recipient in

their lives.

This government has been brutal toward welfare recipients in this province. It's a hot button that you've pushed for political exploitation and gain, and you

don't give a damn who you hurt in this province if you can score cheap political points.

I remember what I think is the most disgraceful performance by a cabinet minister that I have seen, when the Minister of Community and Social Services

announced drug testing for welfare recipients and held a press conference with a backdrop of someone injecting a needle into his arm, and then opened up the press conference by throwing out on the

desk a box of syringes. What a disgraceful performance. What an exploitation of people on welfare. That man should not be the social services minister in Ontario. That kind of performance is an

embarrassment to every single Ontarian.

But that typifies this government's approach toward people on welfare. They claim to have great numbers, but they can't tell us where these people have gone.

Check with any food bank. Check with any shelter and see where their numbers have gone in the last five or six years in this province. Look at the number of homeless people in Ontario. Look at the

number of poor people.

How do we have this tremendous contradiction, where you sit there and claim such tremendous success when it comes to welfare reform and then every social

indicator of how people have been affected shows the opposite? You have had an opportunity through good economic times to make some real meaningful change to welfare reform by supplying more

affordable daycare, increasing the cap on what someone can work and earn and putting in some meaningful programs that get people into meaningful jobs. Instead, you've blown a tremendous

opportunity.

And they sit and accuse us of somehow pandering to people on welfare. Let me tell you, I will never, ever, ever apologize to anyone for sticking up and

fighting for those in our society who need our help-the poor, the single moms, those on welfare. We cannot continue to play hot-button politics of exploitation the way this government has continued

to do with welfare recipients.

You just don't really understand. That's the problem. They really don't understand how difficult it is for people who are trying to get by. They don't

understand how you can struggle. They think that a single person living on $500 a month in downtown Toronto is somehow living high off the hog. They don't understand the reality that people

face.

What this resolution is saying is, let's get an audit here. Let us understand what is really happening to these folks. Let us ensure that the tragedy that

occurred will never occur again. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with trying to get real understanding of where these folks have gone who are supposedly off the welfare rolls?

But you know what? They're not going to support it, because it would not serve their propaganda war against the poor. It would not fit into their hot-button

Republican approach to governing in Ontario.

I say to you, it is an injustice that has been committed against hundreds of thousands of Ontarians. It is an injustice that started in 1995 and it's an

injustice that continues. I can tell you, I hope these folks sleep well at night knowing in their heart of hearts what they've done to hurt and punish the most vulnerable Ontarians. It is

disgraceful.

The Deputy Speaker: Response?

Mr Gravelle: I certainly want to thank my colleagues from Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Sudbury, Hamilton East and Sault Ste Marie in particular

for their support of this resolution. I certainly want to address some of the comments made by the government members, the member from Thornhill, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of

Community and Social Services, and the member for Niagara Falls. I find their approach to this quite appalling. They're the ones who in fact turned this into a political issue. The fact is that

what we are asking for today, which we think is very reasonable, is: can we not at least look at those people who are suffering as a result of your policies? Can we not at least do an assessment of

your policies? If you're so sure that your policies have been positive, you would think you'd be very proud to do so.

What I found quite alarming, particularly about the remarks made by the member from Niagara Falls, was what he was really saying to us was, "It doesn't matter

how we get people off welfare; we just want to get them off welfare. It doesn't matter if children are not getting food to eat every day. It doesn't matter. We just want to get our numbers fixed

up. It doesn't matter that one in three people on welfare is a child."

We want to assess the value of that. We want to know what's happened with them, and I think that's a reasonable, fair thing to do. In that sense, this was not

the least bit of a political speech. We've looked at this and we've tried to find a way to get something the government could actually agree to.

In terms of the issue related to Kimberly Rogers, there is no question that the tragic circumstances surrounding her death should be something we should all be

concerned with. What we are saying is, surely the government's responsibility at least can be to ensure that other people who have been suspended from welfare -- how are they doing? Can the

government not make some effort to find out how they're doing?

It doesn't seem to matter. All that seems to matter is that they want to be able to say, "We've kicked more people off welfare," and they'll continue to bring

forward their policies and not do anything to assess their impact or value. That is all we are asking. We think it's about time this government started caring about people in this province.

I'll tell you, it's not about going back to the past; it's going back to a time when we treated people with dignity and respect. All people in our province

should be treated that way.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 26.

RETAIL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE

DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 25. Mr Parsons has moved second reading of Bill 54,

An Act

to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act to provide an exemption for fire education equipment.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will hold the vote following my putting the question of ballot item number 26.

SOCIAL AUDIT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 26.

Mr Gravelle has moved private member's notice of motion number 16, that in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government must conduct an immediate review

of the health and well-being of any Ontarian, or their family, suspended from welfare benefits, and launch a broader social audit to assess the impact of the government's unprecedented welfare

reforms. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will first deal with ballot item number 25.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

RETAIL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE

DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Parsons has moved second reading of Bill 54. All those in favour will please stand and remain

standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Dunlop, Garfield

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Deputy Speaker: Those opposed will please stand and remaining standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Gill, Raminder

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Witmer, Elizabeth

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 21.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee

on economic and affairs committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? All those in favour of the member's request that this bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and

economic affairs will please stand.

Please be seated.

All those opposed will please stand.

Please be seated.

A majority is not in favour. Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

We will now open the doors for 30 seconds.

SOCIAL AUDIT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Gravelle has moved private member's notice of motion number 16.

All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 43.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1214 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Once again the Harris government is making it harder and harder for tenants to defend themselves at the

Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. On September 10 this year, the tribunal quietly issued a memo to its stakeholders to tell them that once again there would be a further consolidation of filing

centres in Ontario. To you or me here in Toronto, this is not an urgent matter, but let's look at what these decisions mean to other parts of Ontario.

Before you started closing these centres, someone in Bancroft could attend a local place to file their papers. They didn't have to have a fax machine or a

credit card; they could just show up and file the papers to help them stay in their homes. Now let's look at what's happened. Two years ago you closed the document filing centre in Bancroft and

moved it to Napanee. Now you've closed the centre in Napanee and moved the service to a government information centre in Belleville. This is probably close to a three-hour drive each way, and

that's if the weather is good. In Belleville, the people on staff will not be trained in any landlord and tenant issues.

By the way, if you're fortunate enough to be able to pay monies to the tribunal itself, you have to travel to Kingston. This isn't limited to people in

Bancroft. Now if you don't have access to a fax machine and don't have a credit card and you live in Brantford, you have to travel to Kitchener to file documents. If you live in Port Elgin, you

have to travel to Owen Sound instead of being able to stay near your home. Doesn't the government have any concern for tenants without cars who have to attempt to file papers in locations one to

three hours away just to stay in their apartments?

This government has removed most tenant protections. The minimal opportunities that exist to access justice are being diminished by the actions in this regard.

Why is the government making it harder? It's time to stop the assault on tenants and reconsider the closures they have already made. The tenants of Ontario deserve it.

ISLAMIC ART EXHIBITION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): On Saturday, October 13, I had the honour to attend an exhibition of Islamic art and science at the

Scarborough Civic Centre. The exhibit was to showcase works of cultural, social and Islamic spiritual significant in the arts. It gave adults and youth alike the opportunity to learn about Islam,

and the Muslim community and their place in Canada, and it was to promote a cultural understanding and tolerance.

I also had the opportunity to speak to this group about its values, culture and heritage and how, with a large Muslim community in Scarborough, it has been a

pleasure to participate in the many community events throughout the years. I expressed my appreciation to this community and the appreciation that this community has made a significant contribution

both in Ontario and to Canada.

I quoted Premier Mike Harris in my speech. I said, "I want all to know that Ontario will not harbour prejudice. Ontario will not allow hate crimes. Ontario

will not allow racism to dim the light of hope, which so many of you are helping to burn brighter."

I want to extend congratulations to Musa Rasa and his organizing team of tremendous volunteers for organizing such a successful exhibition. The seventh annual

exhibition runs from October 13 to November 3 at 150 Borough Drive, Scarborough Civic Centre, Scarborough, Ontario.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have here a government press release recognizing this week as School Bus Safety Week in Ontario. It is a

self-serving litany of measures that are supposed to protect children. It speaks of doubling fines. What a joke. There is no conviction mechanism because the government refuses to implement my

bill. Today I am reintroducing my bill that would use vehicle liability to convict drivers who endanger innocent children. If you over there are so eager to get tough on crime, give the law teeth

to catch reckless drivers.

This release says MTO is working with school bus operators, the Ontario School Bus Association, school boards, educators, parents, students, public health and

police services to promote school bus safety. But these are the exact same groups who support my bill that the government refuses to pass.

I also have a School Bus Safety Week release from the Ontario School Bus Association issued just this Monday. It says the government's funding model is

strangling the school bus system. Since 1995, $32 million has been cut, placing bus transportation and safety in jeopardy. Bus funding is stuck at pre-1996 levels, but costs have just skyrocketed.

Yet the government has the gall to release this self-congratulatory drivel. Shame on you. Funding must be restored; the law must have teeth.

I presented 30,000 petitions demanding that my bill be passed. Turn off your spin cycle over there and get serious about protecting innocent children from

guilty drivers. Lives are at stake. Pass vehicle liability for our children now.

PERSONS DAY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I would like to take time today to recognize an important day in the history of our country, Persons Day.

October 18, 1929, was an historic day for the women of Canada. That was the day that women in this country were legally recognized by the highest court in the land as persons under the law. And it

all happened because of the determination of five women, the Famous Five: Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Nellie McClung.

These five women started a legal challenge to enable women to become senators, and they became a symbol of the right of women to participate fully in society,

including public life.

It is especially important that we recognize this day, because it falls during Women's History Month, which began 10 years ago in honour of this milestone for

women.

Thanks to the legacy of the Famous Five and other trailblazing Canadian women, we can point to a stunning record of women's contributions to this province.

Today, we all owe a great deal to the Famous Five. They brought the principle of equality between men and women to the public's attention and opened the door of political opportunity to those women

who would take the challenge.

I salute these great women. May their struggles and achievements be remembered by future generations.

LAND MINES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Land mines are among the cruellest of all weapons because they don't recognize the difference

between a soldier and a child. They kill and maim long after the warring soldiers have left the battlegrounds. They are not only a weapon of terror but also an impediment to social recovery.

At this moment there are between 50 million to 100 million land mines in 70 countries, lying in wait to kill innocent people.

Last week, each member of this Legislature received information from Frank O'Dea, the president of the Canadian Land Mine Foundation. He is calling on all of

us to host a dinner on Friday, November 30, for our friends and neighbours to raise awareness and funds. People from all walks of life in countries all over the world will join in this massive

event, which is being called the Night of a Thousand Dinners.

Since the tragic events of September 11, we have all asked, "How can I contribute to fight terrorism?" In response, I would suggest holding a dinner.

Terrorists need tools like land mines to create their havoc. By having a dinner in your home on November 30, Canadians can directly contribute to the worldwide de-mining operation.

Let's all work to create a world where children can walk and play without fear, confident that the earth below their feet is clear of land mines.

The funds raised at each dinner will be matched by the Canadian International Development Agency in Canada. Proceeds raised will go directly to clearing mines

in the most heavily mine-affected countries in the world.

I would encourage all members and their constituents to host a dinner on November 30 and join individuals like Adrienne Clarkson, Colin Powel and Sir Paul

McCartney in hosting a dinner as well.

I would ask that you visit the Web site at www.1000dinners.com and sign up or call toll-free at 1-866-611-7669.

Every step we take makes a difference.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise today to bring attention to the government of the ongoing crisis with regard to homelessness

and housing as it relates to Ontario, and in Hamilton specifically.

In today's Hamilton Spectator there's an

article headed up, "Homelessness Growing." It speaks about Brother Richard MacPhee announcing that the Brothers of the

Good Shepherd are having their harvest gala fundraiser on October 24.

Last week, on Wednesday, October 10, I attended an annual meeting of Freedom House at the Hamilton Association for Community Living. That meeting was called

and chaired by Mary Sinclair. Some of those in attendance were Colin Gage of Victoria Park Community Homes; Gay Walton, president of United Disabled Consumers; and John Smith of the March of

Dimes.

At that meeting, the issue of homelessness and the absolutely critical need for affordable housing in Hamilton came through loud and clear. In fact, I want to

bring to the government's attention that as of August of this year there were 3,290 Hamiltonians on the waiting list for affordable housing. If you are a parent with children, in desperate need of

affordable housing in this province and in the city of Hamilton, you are going to wait years before you have access.

This government is attending a federal-provincial ministers' meeting in November in Quebec City. It's time for this government to get off the spot and sign the

matching funds agreement so we can build badly needed affordable housing in this province.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise today to recognize the supportive comments offered by many prominent Ontarians upon learning that

our Premier, Mike Harris, will be stepping down after more than a decade as our party's leader. The dignity and diplomacy of these people, including harsh critics of the government, does not go

unnoticed.

Former Liberal leader and Premier David Peterson offered that, "Mike Harris came with a very tough agenda and he did what he said he would do, and I admire him

for that."

Our Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, said Mike Harris "served his province well and he had strong convictions that he tried to apply."

Earl Manners, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, sincerely wished "the Premier well in his personal decision to retire from

politics."

But there are sti