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

October 19, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Oct-19 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 19 October 2006 Jeudi 19 octobre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES DROITS

ET RESPONSABILITÉS EN MATIÈRE

DE BIENS-FONDS

GROUND CURRENT

POLLUTION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA POLLUTION CAUSÉE

PAR LE COURANT TELLURIQUE

LAND RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES DROITS

ET RESPONSABILITÉS EN MATIÈRE

DE BIENS-FONDS

GROUND CURRENT

POLLUTION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA POLLUTION CAUSÉE

PAR LE COURANT TELLURIQUE

LAND RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES DROITS

ET RESPONSABILITÉS EN MATIÈRE

DE BIENS-FONDS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

GEORGE MAROOSIS

HIGHWAY 417

VETERANS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

PROPERTY TAXATION

MULTICULTURALISM

HEALTH CARE

CONSERVATIVE NOMINATION CANDIDATE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 DU MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES GOUVERNEMENTAUX SUR LA MODERNISATION DES SERVICES ET DE LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK /

SEMAINE DE RÉDUCTION DES DÉCHETS

ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS DAY

CONSUMER PROTECTION

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS DAY

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS DAY

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR L'ACCÈS À LA JUSTICE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

MINIMUM WAGE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

PROPERTY TAXATION

WATER QUALITY

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE

NORTHERN ONTARIO

AUTISM TREATMENT

WATER QUALITY

PETITIONS

PROPERTY RIGHTS

PENSION PLANS

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

WATER QUALITY

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

HIGHWAY 26

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADITIONAL CHINESE

MEDICINE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES PRATICIENNES

ET PRATICIENS EN MÉDECINE

TRADITIONNELLE CHINOISE

FAIR ACCESS TO REGULATED

PROFESSIONS ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'ACCÈS ÉQUITABLE

AUX PROFESSIONS RÉGLEMENTÉES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES DROITS

ET RESPONSABILITÉS EN MATIÈRE

DE BIENS-FONDS

Mr. Barrett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code with respect to land rights and responsibilities / Projet de loi 57, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'expropriation et le Code des droits

de la personne en ce qui a trait aux droits et responsabilités en matière de biens-fonds.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Barrett, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): It's with great pleasure that I rise in this Legislature today to speak to the proposed Land Rights and Responsibilities Act, 2006.

Years ago, my great-grandfather Theobald Butler Barrett sat on his front porch, shotgun in hand, to prevent the railway from coming through his property. He lost. He was forced to move his house back 200 feet to

make room for the tracks. My father lives in that house now.

In the 1960s, my grandfather Theobald Butler Barrett and father, Harry B., were surprised to find survey stakes -- these were one inch by one inch by three feet long -- across the front field where my wife and I

eventually built our house. For the second time, our family and our neighbours had to fight against the railway coming across our land. That time, we won. These are battles that shouldn't have to be fought, and if props were allowed, I would have

brought in those large iron survey stakes. I've been pulling them out for years when I do the fall ploughing.

If we step back and take a look at the direction of our political and judicial systems, it's clear that, in Ontario and Canada, we essentially have rights societies. Just to explain, it means that our political

and judicial systems are premised on so-called negative rights, or freedom from various incursions by either government or fellow citizens. The Charter of Rights is a prime example. It gives government a rule book. Government cannot violate our

democratic rights. It cannot violate mobility rights, legal rights, language rights, our fundamental freedom. If a government chooses to pass a law violating those rights, the courts step in and say, "With respect, you can't do that. You cannot

pass laws violating people's rights." So in that sense we can see a dialogue between the courts and Parliament.

The Canadian Bill of Rights is another example of a document that gives Canadians certain defined rights vis-à-vis government. We all recall that this was introduced by Prime Minister Diefenbaker in 1960.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a safeguard against rights intrusions by the federal government. I'd like to read a relevant passage from the Bill of Rights: "It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall

continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

"(

a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law."

That's important, in my books. What it says is that, as of 1960, Canadians had the right to enjoy property and to not be deprived of their property except by due process of law. It's something that essentially

goes back to the year 1215, when we all recall the Magna Carta was signed.

Sadly, what Diefenbaker giveth, Trudeau taketh away. For whatever reason, Trudeau took away property rights when he drafted the much more powerful Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a wrong that Prime

Minister Harper indicated during the last federal election debate he'd like to fix. To that end, Bill 57 is a start; it's a bit of a step. If passed, Bill 57 would not solve all problems facing rural property owners, but it will show the rest of

the country that Ontario is onside with land rights.

Now, Prime Minister Harper won't be able to strengthen the charter on his own. He'll need to know that provinces, Ontario included, are onside of a strong charter. By passing Bill 57, the Ontario Legislature can

initiate a conversation across Canada, a debate about the need to give landowners and tenants stronger rights. So on this journey of a thousand miles, Bill 57 is a first step.

I'd like to outline some of the new rights I'm offering to Ontarians through this bill.

Under the Expropriations Act, an inquiry officer on an inquiry is required to consider the merits of the objectives of the expropriating authority and to add, as parties to an expropriation inquiry, the owners

of all lands affected by expropriation. The decision of an approving authority is subject to judicial review.

The amendments to the Human Rights Code recognize, subject to specific limitations at law, the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's land, the moral responsibility to maintain it and the right to freedom from

search of one's property and home and from seizure of anything from it. Those rights have long been recognized at common law, as I mentioned, but are largely missing from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Among the most unfortunate components of a rights society is the perceived imbalance between rights and responsibilities. I've always believed that with rights come responsibilities, something that I felt should

be reflected in Ontario law. To that end, I propose to balance land rights with land responsibilities by adding the following text to the Human Rights Code: "In addition to whatever duties are specified by law, every person has the moral

responsibility to ensure that his or her land is maintained to a presentable standard in keeping with such factors as the legal uses to which the land is put and the character of the community in which the land is located."

As lawmakers, it's important to make laws that benefit all of Ontario. We shouldn't pick and choose whose interests we intend to champion. That's why I feel I've gone out of my way to make no distinction between

tenants and landowners when it comes to government's obligation to respect.

When it comes time to vote on Bill 57, all of us in this House will be showing where we stand on a number of important issues. By supporting Bill 57, MPPs can show that they're on the side of giving tenants the

right to peacefully enjoy their home without intrusion. By supporting Bill 57, MPPs can show their commitment to giving private landowners the right to appeal when their land is under attack. By supporting Bill 57, MPPs can show where they stand

on basic human rights. Opposing this legislation, in my view, means opposing basic rights documents like the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights.

I would like to thank the number of people whose insight and ideas were instrumental in helping me to draft this much-needed legislation. My first crack at property rights legislation in this House was 11 years

ago. At that time, I got a great deal of assistance, and continue to do, so from the Ontario Real Estate Association.

As well, I want to acknowledge the help of Jim White and Bob Fowler. They're with OPERA, the Ontario Property and Environmental Rights Alliance. They've given me a wealth of information and support over the past

11 years, as recently as a phone call last night. They're members of a group, OPERA, whose mission is "to protect and entrench in law the rights and responsibilities of private landowners against arbitrary restrictions and decisions of

government."

I'll also mention OLA, the Ontario Landowners Association. They tell us what they consider to be "the government's plan and strategy to attack rural landowners and their economy," a plan that is "taking our land

-- for their use."

Sometimes the government does need to expropriate land, and in those circumstances it should first state its case, give the landowner a fair chance to appeal, and then, if the expropriation is still deemed

worthy, buy the land.

This bill is important. Property comes in many forms. First of all, there's intellectual property, music patents and trademark. I'm not dealing with that in this legislation. I did 11 years ago, but constituents

don't come to my office with concerns about patents on music. It's more concern around greater protection against government coming onto their land or taking the land itself. Why can't an expropriating authority be asked to state its case and

explain why the land must be expropriated?

On the most basic level, we shouldn't need legislation protecting private land rights, but we do, because Ontario's landowners and many rural landowners have been poorly treated, in my view, having been in

contact with a number of these people. The best solution would be for government to respect rural landowners, to respect tenants, but until that day arrives, until the government here wakes up to the crisis in rural Ontario, we need plan B, and

plan B is the Land Rights and Responsibilities Act, 2006.

In closing, I'd like to call on all present MPPs to stand up for their constituents: Stand up for your constituents who rent their homes, stand up for your constituents who own private land and stand up for your

constituents who want us as legislators to affirm that with rights come responsibilities. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Since my time is fairly limited, I'll confine my remarks to ask the member two questions, and I hope he will respond to them.

Bill 57 before us has the effect of recognizing that land expropriation is a denial of private property rights and is grounds for discrimination in the Human Rights Code. The member's bill proposes to amend the

Human Rights Code to enshrine property rights. Normally, I support the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, because he's trying to enshrine a law that will curtail the power, especially the prying eyes, of government and maintain some sense of

independence and expand the powers of freedom for the individual. That obviously is a very noble sentiment, and I essentially agree with that sentiment.

But I have two questions that really bother me about this bill, and I will ask them. The first one is that, as it stands right now, we have Bill 107 before the Legislature, especially before committee. It's the

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006. The standing committee on justice policy is right now pursuing that legislation, and Bill 107 would significantly reform the human rights system in Ontario. During the extensive consultations on Bill 107, the

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, the need to protect private property rights was not identified by the stakeholders, who were all there, as something that required reform. That is very important to understand. My question to the member then is,

why is it that Bill 107 before the standing committee did not say it's ultimately important? Our stakeholders are saying, "Yes, what we need to do is enshrine privacy rights."

The second question I have is that the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant had proposed similar legislation, if not the same bill, in 1995. You remember that, Mr. Speaker. It was called the Property Rights

Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 11; I know you remember that one. This bill received first reading, as the member knows, on October 30, 1995, and went to second reading on November 2. At the time, it was sent to committee for review and

effectively died. Bill 11, as it was called then, was introduced by the member at a time when his own party was governing, and his bill died specifically. Also, when the governing party was operating, it performed land expropriations just like any

other government.

My questions are simply this: Why did the stakeholders on Bill 107 say it's not that important? Secondly, why is it that Bill 11, introduced by this member to this House, died and was not deemed to be

significant by his own party? Those are my questions. I'm delighted to add to my comments perhaps a bit later.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): In the three minutes I have, I do want to support my colleague and Bill 57. I think Mr. Barrett is doing us a real service in terms of trying to get the government

of Ontario involved in a discussion which needs to be had in this country. We used to have property rights. My colleague appropriately outlined that those property rights were very much entrenched in Canadian law prior to the 1982 Charter of

Rights and Freedoms that Mr. Trudeau gave us, and it's become unclear, even in case law, whether or not we have property rights.

Prior to the 1982 Charter of Rights and the repatriation of the Constitution, we had, as he mentioned -- in 1215 the Magna Carta was signed. It included property rights. The right to own property was also

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." Property rights are also recognized in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights, which affirms the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except

by due process of law. Clearly then, it is arguable that our Constitution should be brought into line with these historical documents.

In the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, we also practise property rights. In response to a question one day about Highway 26, the expropriation there and the government cancelling that highway, one of

the ministers said to me, "You should have done it sooner." Well, we did it as fast as we could and also recognize the rights of over 100 landowners. Cabinet could have, of course, with a stroke of the pen, expropriated that land in about a week.

We gave them two years. We followed the full due process of property rights and we allowed people to appeal, because the first offer the government gives you may not be the best offer. We allowed people to appeal, and a handful of those more than

100 property owners did appeal. So we practise what we preach. Even though it would have been more expedient to just take the property, pave it over and get the highway done in two years, we allowed people full property rights in that process.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): This is an interesting bill, I must say. I had a bit of an opportunity to read it in some detail prior to today, but I had a chance to refresh my memory

about five minutes ago. I just want to say up front that I will be supporting this particular bill. New Democrats all believe that people have a need for property rights. But I want to talk about it from a bit of a different perspective.

First of all, what the member is trying to get at is the whole issue of expropriation. I think it's fair to say that at times, with the power of the government, what you're paid for expropriation may not

necessarily be the actual worth of the property. We need some mechanisms to make sure that there is a process by which, if it is to be expropriated, it's done at least in a fair manner. I think that's reasonable.

I know a lot of people will look at this as a right-wing issue, and that is what I want to speak to. Some people will look at this and say this is traditionally a position that the right wing of the political

spectrum will take, but I think this is an issue that both left and right can agree on, and that is that in a free and democratic society, we have the right to purchase property, and then, when we have that property, we should have some rights to

enjoy it. I want to speak a little on where I think we are deficient in this society when it comes to being able to enjoy that property.

For example, I look at what's happening with property taxes in Ontario. We have an assessment system that has basically gone crazy. We're charging assessments on values that are quite out of whack at times with

the actual value of the property. And in some cases the value might be right, but the taxation level imposed is such that the person can't afford to pay because they don't have the means.

So the first issue I look at is what's happened under MPAC with regard to a lot of the assessments in the communities I represent. We now have a system where, rather than sending an assessor to assess the actual

property to say how much it is worth, we're saying, "Let's look at a computer model of the neighbourhood to establish what the sale of houses were in that particular neighbourhood." If all of a sudden somebody got lucky and sold a house for more

than it should have sold for because the purchaser was prepared to pay, for whatever reason, everybody's building is then assessed at that value. We had situations in Moonbeam, Kapuskasing, Timmins and others where assessed property values in

those communities went up 20% and 40% when in fact there was a decrease in the housing market. It made absolutely no sense.

We all know that municipalities then use the assessed value as the means by which they charge local property tax to the property owner, so people's taxes were going through the roof and people were just wild --

rightfully so. When we talk about property rights, we need to talk about a fair property tax assessment system that takes into consideration all the factors, that not only looks at the value of the property but also to what degree the homeowner or

property owner is able to pay the tax burden. I've talked to people in my community where I'm astounded that they're paying as much as $6,000 a year for property taxes on a property that, if you were to sell it, wouldn't reflect that value. I say

to myself, put it in simple math. When a person has to pay $500 a month in property tax, there's something wrong.

If I have a larger business where I'm making revenue and I've got a large business enterprise going, I understand that I'm probably going to pay a tax higher than $500 a month. That ain't my argument. But for a

property owner to pay $500 a month on a municipal tax assessment system, I think it's out of whack. I don't know a lot of people in my community who could afford to pay that. Yet they have to, and it means that both mom and dad have to work, and

that gets to the whole issue that parents can't make choices that maybe somebody should stay home and take care of the young ones before they go to school. All of those issues are brought into play. From the perspective of being able to enjoy

one's property, we need to reform our property assessment system so it reflects that view. My good friend and colleague Michael Prue will be releasing a document this Friday on that very issue, talking about how we need to reform the property tax

system.

Another thing from the perspective of being able to enjoy one's property is the whole issue of where we're at when it comes to people being able to afford to retire, period. I want to speak to that very quickly

because it also affects the issue of being able to enjoy one's property. There are many seniors out there who retire today and don't have an adequate income for retirement. In fact, a lot of times they're not seniors; they're laid-off older

workers in their late 50s or early 60s who don't have a good pension. Fully 60% of the Ontario population doesn't have any pension at all and 80% don't have adequate pensions. They may be forced to retire because of a layoff situation in their

community. I look at Smooth Rock Falls as a good example of that, where that mill, the only employer in town, has closed down and there aren't a lot of places for the older workers to go. What do you do if you're 55, 56, 57 years old and all of a

sudden you're faced with selling your House, but there's no value because property values have gone down? Now everybody wants to sell a house and nobody wants to buy a house, so the prices go down. What does that worker do? Again, we're stuck. To

me, it speaks to this particular issue of people's property rights. The person purchased the property and, through no fault of their own, because the mill has shut down, is in the situation where they can't sell the property, can't afford to sell

the property, so they've got to hang on to it. So they either retire in their community in poverty -- or not in poverty; that's a bit strong. They retire in their community without adequate means to have a good standard of life, or they move out

of the community and have to maintain a property that they don't want to hang on to but can't sell.

Again, it speaks to the issue of property rights. We need legislation in this province where we look at the issue of pensions and say to ourselves that we need to have a system of pensions in this province that

allows all Ontarians the ability to, over a period of time, build adequate pensions so that they can retire with some dignity and comfort.

I look at some things we could do in this Legislature that would be all that simple to do and, in the long term, would make all that much difference. That is, we should make all pensions portable. It's nuts in

our society today where we know nobody works in a plant for 30 years anymore. That is the exception. We have to recognize that the workplace today is five years here, 10 years there, two months here, and you move on to different employers. You

should have the right to transfer your pension with you, no matter where you go.

There are mechanisms by which you can do that, and I don't have time in this debate to get into it, but you have to enshrine in the pension legislation the whole issue of portability, so that workers can bring

their pensions with them to various workplaces, be it a private workplace, a private employer, or a public employer, and be able to transfer those pensions over.

I argue that we should mandate pensions. Oh, that's really scary to some, but I think we need to mandate pensions. I think we have to have in Ontario a pension system that basically everybody pays into, above

and beyond what we pay for Canada pension, so that when you turn 60, with a combination of Canada pension and whatever pension plan you have through your work life, you're able to retire with a decent income. I think it would be to Ontario's net

benefit if we were to do that, because it would mean that people in their later years, mid-years, as some might want to call it, in their mid-50s, when they're faced with the situation of possibly having to retire because of circumstances that are

out of their control when it comes to the only employer in town closing -- such as what we saw in Smooth Rock Falls or Opasatika or others -- would then at least have an option and be able to say, "I can maintain my property, I can maintain my

standard of living, and I can stay within my community. I don't have to uproot and change all of my life."

I just say to people out there, think about it. You have workers in communities like Smooth Rock Falls and others who were raised in that community, who have a lifestyle that is specific to that community, and

all of a sudden, at age 50 or late 40s, are faced with turning their entire life upside down and saying, "You've got to move away and go somewhere else." If you're younger, that's a lot easier to do, but if you're older and closer to your

retirement, it's much more difficult to do. So I say it also impacts on the issue of property rights, and I think we have to have a mechanism to allow seniors to keep their homes by having a level of taxation on the municipal side that is

reasonable and reflects their income, but at the same time, we need to have on the revenue side, for seniors and older adults who retire, a pension system that allows them to do that with some dignity.

I look at the issues of the Human Rights Code which the member wants to amend in Bill 57, and I've got to take the last five minutes and go on to one of the issues that I know Mr. Barrett takes very seriously; I

certainly do, and I'm sure other members do as well. That is the issue of human rights as it affects First Nations. Listen, I just came out of a meeting this morning. I was meeting with Lawrence Baxter from Nishnawbe Aski Nation, who's the welfare

director, I guess, in charge of the community and social services side of NAN. We were talking about the poverty within those communities. Well, talk about property rights -- there's no property right on reserves. That's one of the fundamental

problems we've got.

If we have Caledonia today, it's because of that lack of will on the part of federal and provincial governments to give aboriginal people the right of property. So when they don't have that right, what do you

think they do? They go out and do what happened in Caledonia. People may be upset with the people from Six Nations for having done what they've done, but I think we need to understand the context in which it has happened. I say it is also a

fundamental issue of property rights. You are not allowed, as a First Nation citizen of this province and this country, to own property on your own reserve.

Can you imagine living in your own communities, as MPPs -- most of us own houses here, right? Imagine you lived in your community -- in my case, Timmins -- and you could not own the property on which your house

sits. How alienated would you feel? In our European concept of property rights and ownership, where much of this comes from, is the history of the development of property rights. We understand that a fundamental part of being able to own your own

home is to own the property. Well, in First Nations, we say, "You don't have that right." I think if we're going to amend the Human Rights Code, one of the things I'd like to raise in committee -- I know we can't do it in this particular debate

and it may not be a subject specifically for this bill -- is that we need to take a look at the issue of property rights for First Nations people. We have to be able to say that they too are citizens of Ontario, they too are citizens of Canada. We

need to make sure that they enjoy the basic benefits of living within our society, and one of those is the issue of property rights. Why is it that, in our modern society of Canada, a country that is seen as a leader in the world when it comes to

human rights, we allow saying to First Nations people, "You don't have property rights"? It is absurd. Then we wonder why First Nations people blockade the highway or blockade a housing development. This is one of the fundamental issues that's the

core of all of this.

I just think that in our own capacity, in our own ability as a Legislature, we need to amend our laws and then work with our federal government to force them to do the same and start recognizing that First

Nations people, no matter where they live in this country, and in our case this province, are citizens of the province and citizens of the country and should have the basic benefits. I say to those people who may be watching the debate and who

say, "Oh, yeah, but they have it so well off over there" -- I was talking to Lawrence about that this morning, the attitude of some who say, "Well, they live on reserve, they get free Ski-Doos every two years, they get a free house, they get a

cheque sent every month. Life is grand." Well, I say to all of you, go live on a reserve for a month. I'll pick a few for you. I'll pick some of the better ones. You're going to come back after a month and tell me, "My God, how did we allow this

to happen?"

I say to all of us, let's give our collective heads a shake and start to recognize that an injustice to one is an injustice to all. The quicker we realize that First Nations people have been left behind far too

often in our society when it comes to mainstream decisions around rights -- we have left First Nations people behind, and then we wonder why they're out protesting on the highway or the property development. I say it's because we've left them

behind far too long.

Also in regard to this particular bill, there is the concept of allowing -- I forget the term he uses -- a mechanism by which we're able to object to a decision of expropriation. I support wholly that concept. I

accept on the one side that society, in other words government, needs to expropriate property from time to time for the greater good of society or for a development that is needed -- a water plant has to be built or whatever it might be. But

certainly we need to say that if a person's property is going to be expropriated, there needs to be a mechanism so that property owners are able to defend themselves, make the points as to why he or she feels that the property should not be

expropriated and block the expropriation if need be, and/or if it is going to be expropriated for reasons of the common good, there's adequate compensation to the individual who's being affected by the expropriation. I take it that's what the

member is trying to get at when he talks in regard to this particular bill -- I think it's under

section 3 of the Expropriation Act. First of all, there's a judicial review to review the process -- I forget what it's called. There's some sort of a

body in there that you'd be able to appeal to, and I think that makes ultimate sense.

I just want to say that we support, as New Democrats, the concept. We understand that there are issues. We don't believe that society doesn't have a certain right, but we certainly have to give people a fair

process in that process.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Indeed, this is an interesting discussion on Bill 57, but I think we must review the historical context somewhat. During the 1982 constitutional discussions, the

Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau, did in fact offer to make property rights part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At that particular time, that offer by Prime Minister Trudeau was rejected by Premiers Davis, Lougheed and Blakeney, and

the most vociferous opponent of enshrining property rights in 1982 was Premier Sterling Lyon of Manitoba. Why were they opposed to property rights being enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982? Well, it was done because they raised

the issue of provincial jurisdiction in terms of expropriation, dealing with hydro corridors, which was particularly of interest to the government of Manitoba; the building of provincial highways, which was of interest to all four Premiers; and

other projects of provincial interest.

In fact, municipalities also had concerns about enshrining property rights in 1982. The best example I can give you is something that's fairly simple in nature: the acquisition of daylight radii when one

improves an intersection within a community to enhance safety for both pedestrians and vehicular movement. That indeed was something that was brought to the table and rejected. Then what happened in 1982, of course, was that in order for the Prime

Minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau, to get his Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Premiers insisted that a notwithstanding clause be put into the Constitution.

Indeed these are the issues. I happen to view it from the position that if you want to enshrine property rights, there should be an amendment made to the Constitution of Canada, along with the elimination of the

Senate, which I also believe in. I think it's at that level of the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Harper, and the current crop of provincial Premiers, if they're insistent that property rights should be enshrined, that it should be done properly

in the Canadian Constitution.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): I'm very happy to support my colleague Toby Barrett today with Bill 57. I also want to compliment him, and I want to compliment his assistant, Josh Deming,

who's been working very hard on this. He's over in the gallery right now. They've done a tremendous job, and I'm very happy to have worked with their office on numerous occasions. This is a very important issue in rural Ottawa, Nepean-Carleton,

Carleton-Mississippi Mills, some of those key constituencies where farmers and landowners are always worried about the intrusion of government.

I talked to people like Tom and Marlene Black, Jack McLaren, J. P. Dory and Roger Graves. They all talked to me about the issues regarding property and its protection and the responsibilities that come with it.

I'm happy that Toby Barrett's office has been such a great resource to me. I support his proposed legislation because he understands one indelible and inherent fact: that we in Ontario should have the right to enjoy our land and our homes.

Never before has it been so important for us in this Legislative Assembly to discuss issues on land rights and the responsibilities that come them with the passage of the Clean Water Act just this week, as well

as the continued crafting, drafting and passing by this Liberal government of several other pieces of legislation that have and will continue to diminish the rights of landowners across Ontario. Mr. Barrett's legislation is both timely and

sound.

While preparing for today's debate, I came across an old Edmonton Journal

article from October 2003, written by a well-known columnist, Lorne Gunter. He simply states in his

article why the time for land right

protection is now. He says in 2003:

"Both of the following statements were made within the past three months. One is from Canada, the other from Communist China. Which is which?

"(a) `The government has the right to expropriate property, even without compensation, if it has made its intention clear.'

"(b) `We should protect all kinds of property ownership -- including private ownership.'"

With the quote now closed, I can tell you it was a trick question. The government that has the right to expropriate even without compensation is Canada, not Communist China. He says:

"If, indeed, the businesses and farm plots of China's entrepreneurs and landowners are now constitutionally protected, the Chinese have one up on Canadian ... landowners. In Canada, there are no constitutional

safeguards for private property, and increasingly few common law protections, either."

Can you imagine this? Communist China actually affords greater land right protection than Canada does.

That's in some jurisdictions anyway, and I want to correct what my good friend from Peterborough said. Some provinces in Canada have enacted land right protection in the absence of federal property rights. In

fact, during the constitutional debates that were led by his hero Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the repatriation of our Constitution, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed told Lorne Gunter in this same

article, "`This [property rights] was a very short, 10-minute bargaining session.'"

So his province, along with Quebec and the Yukon, has statutory protection on property rights in place to remedy Pierre Trudeau's wrongs, which begs the question: Why would Canada's economic engine, Canada's

most diverse province and Canada's most populous jurisdiction not enshrine similar statutory protections?

With this piece of legislation, we will be taking an important first step today. Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code with respect to land rights and responsibilities,

finally recognizes the need in Ontario and Canada to provide landowners with a public hearing for compensation when their land is unfairly expropriated. Bill 57 will finally make it difficult for this Legislature to take property and not pay

compensation, and Bill 57, if you can believe it, finally puts Ontario on an equal footing with Communist China with respect to land rights.

Right now there's a very important distinction --

Interjection: It's laughable.

Ms. MacLeod: It is laughable, actually.

Right now there's a very important distinction between legislative or constitutional protection of lands and how land rights are dealt with in common law. In this place, we can find certain circumstances to

ensure our Liberal colleagues' will of protection in one-off pieces of legislation and in common law, but in 2001 Karen Selick wrote about the current predicament we are in in Canada and Ontario. She says: "If the Legislature decides that it wants

to take your property and not pay compensation, then there's nothing" -- absolutely nothing -- "to stop it from enacting legislation which explicitly disentitles you to compensation. The courts have said only that compensation must be paid if the

statute is silent."

It is increasingly important that this piece of legislation passes so that farmers in my community, who are farming on the Jock River or on provincially designated wetlands in Goulbourn, won't ever have to

worry again whether or not their lands will be expropriated and their livelihoods destroyed by this government. Once and for all, under Bill 57 there would be, in this province of Ontario, a guarantee that this Legislature could not expropriate

without a view to compensate. For this reason I support my colleague Toby Barrett and I support Bill 57.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I think in a lot of ways most of us in our initial responses would support property rights. But as I look at that particular bill, I'm not sure

what's happening, and as I listen to the debate, I'm even more unsure of what's happening here. I hear them talking about farmland rights, how this will impact on farmers and that there's a crisis out there, and I'm not sure how this is supposed

to work. I see farmland and the ability of farmers to have property rights over their farmland as very important, but I also see it as important in terms of the whole community. When you have an opportunity to exercise certain farm rights or

farmland rights and you can do with your property as you see fit, there's also the potential for conflict and negative impacts upon your neighbours.

When I look at my own farm situation, I worry about the fact that maybe my neighbour can take his farmland and turn it into something that isn't farmland. I don't understand how we can get around the issues of

zoning. How do we get around the issues of land use that we have out there currently? In terms of things such as expropriation -- and I've seen expropriation in areas, in my own community. When Highway 402 was put through, there was a process for

the farmers who had expropriation through their properties for that highway.

The Expropriations Act gives those rights to those farmers. The authority that wants to expropriate the property first of all has to give notice. They have to notify each of the registered landowners. Then the

owners have the opportunity to request a hearing at which they can justify their reasons for not wanting to have an expropriation. There's the opportunity for an inquiry, and that inquiry then reports back to the approving authority. The approving

authority of course has the option to make a decision of its own. It does not have to take the inquiry's recommendations. Nevertheless, when they do that, they still have to give written reason for why they've done that, so at that point the

written reasons are there. If the authority still proceeds and they decide that they're going to expropriate, they have to register that plan with the land registry office, they have to serve notice to the owners of that expropriation and they

have to start negotiating compensation. They have to not only negotiate compensation with the owner of the land; they have to negotiate it with the tenant as well.

We all know that sometimes negotiations don't go well, so there are appeal mechanisms available to those landowners. They can, first of all, ask for a board of negotiation, which is appointed by cabinet, or

they can go to arbitration, which is through the Ontario Municipal Board. If all else fails and the landowner is still not satisfied with what happens, they can go to Divisional Court. That exists currently in the Expropriations Act. They have all

kinds of opportunities to appeal, and there are time limits on all of those situations in all parts of that process. It isn't as if somebody can just drag it out forever.

But when I look at this bill, as much as I want to support it -- and I certainly understand the member for Timmins-James Bay's issue around First Nations and aboriginal rights to property; I absolutely agree

with you -- I still have concerns about what this will do. I think we're opening the door here to a lot of potential for conflict if we allow people to be able to simply exercise property rights. We're talking about expropriation, but property

rights are more than just the ability to fight expropriation. They're the ability to do with your property anything that you feel is fit. It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to agree with what your neighbours like. I'm very uncomfortable with

this, so at this point I have to say that I'm really not able to support this.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It's a pleasure to join the discussion and debate this morning on Bill 57 on behalf of my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Mr. Barrett,

who has been a tireless defender of property rights in this Legislature and outside of it for some time. I certainly have to agree with and support his bill and his position on the right to own property.

Notwithstanding what the government members have been saying about the concerns and everything, this was something that we actually had in this country until Pierre Trudeau and the repatriation of the

Constitution in 1982. So it's something that we had that was taken away. I didn't notice that the country had fallen apart prior to 1982 with the right to own that property. That fearmongering on the part of the government is exactly what they do

and a way they tend to try to wedge rural Ontario and urban Ontario, which they've done in a number of bills in this Legislature.

Mr. Barrett's bill, let's be perfectly clear here, does not give unfettered rights to the property owner. It is balanced with the responsibility to care for and treat that land in a proper fashion with regard

to the character of the community, the legal use, the environment and all of those kinds of concerns. That responsibility balances against the rights of that property owner, but it also places the burden on the government to make a case if that

property is in a situation where the government feels that it is necessary to expropriate or acquire that property through expropriation for the public good, for the good of society. That is a key component that is missing today. The government

doesn't have to make that case because those property rights are not there. So if it chooses, the right of the property owner to appeal doesn't exist.

This is something that has caused a great deal of consternation with rural landowners in this province. Rural landowners in my riding -- the Renfrew County Private Landowners Association and the Ontario

Landowners Association, Renfrew county

chapter -- are very concerned with the fact that they see government as having unfettered ability to dictate to landowners, many of those people whose land has been in the family for generations, whose land

has been in the family since long before Canada was a country. Those people are very concerned that for no reason whatsoever, just because the government decides, they now have the right to do as they wish with that person's property, without

proper compensation. This is a big issue in Bill 43, the Clean Water Act, where rural landowners could have their rights simply taken away because the government and the conservation authority or the protection authority decides that must be done.

So that is a huge concern for rural landowners. What Mr. Barrett is saying today is, Bill 57 will give protection to those landowners, those great stewards of the land, who have been here for generations. Those people have a right to be given fair

opportunity to appeal government decisions that affect the ownership of that property.

Ms. MacLeod spoke earlier about there being stronger property rights in China than there is in Canada. I do want to acknowledge that this was something first brought to my attention by my colleague from Oak

Ridges, Frank Klees, who's also been, as everyone knows, a strong defender of property rights. I was flabbergasted when he first brought that to my attention, that we in Canada enjoy less property rights than the people of China. That's something

this bill could remedy, and would I suggest that members of this House support Mr. Barrett in his very worthwhile piece of legislation.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I rise today to speak to Bill 57, the bill that was brought forward by the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. This bill aims to amend the Human Rights Code

to protect the rights of property owners in Ontario. I'm not one to cast doubts on someone for occasionally challenging the fairness and equality of legislation in order to duly represent the collective needs of society, but I feel that with this

bill, this member is attempting to overstep the boundaries of what the Human Rights Code ultimately is accountable for. The member must also keep in mind the very delicate balance that exists between private property rights and the collective

rights of society.

I just want to talk for a minute about the foundation that we begin on. When people buy property, they have an understanding of the permitted uses of that property. There are many things in place municipally,

and we talk about what the uses are, not only for their properties but for the neighbouring properties as well. The reason we have done this is so that our communities have the tools they need to move forward. There has to be a strong linkage in

planning to ensure that our communities, be they rural or urban, have everything they need to move forward. That's what the McGuinty government is about: building strong communities.

I know that when the previous government talked about infrastructure and talked about building strong communities, there was no linkage. The rural communities were left to wither on the vine. When I look at

our bridges, our roads, our water and our sewage, all of that goes forward with planning that is acceptable to move our communities forward. These things aren't done in isolation. I understand that expropriation is something that is entirely the

last thing one does, but if we do not have something like this in place, how, then, do we represent the public good -- "public" meaning what is in the best interest of the overall public?

We talk about bridges, we talk about transmission lines, we talk about roads and we talk about environmental issues. We have to keep in mind what is reflected for the public good as well. There must be a tool

in place to meet those needs. I hear from the opposite side the split between urban and rural. This isn't about urban and rural. This is about respecting personal property while moving forward what our province needs to make sure that the overall

good of the province is recognized, with the tools in place to also recognize that if expropriation is the only thing that can move forward, there is adequate and fair compensation.

I know that many of you know I come from a municipal background. When I was warden of the counties for a couple of years, expropriation is something that did come up when we were put putting in a major road.

We were able to negotiate that, which is often the case. But if that tool is not there, how, then, does one move the public good forward?

Clearly, we all understand, and I know the member does as well, that it's not in the political interest. What is in the political interest is fearmongering. It's about taking a lack of understanding of what

our rural communities need and then bringing forward pieces of legislation like this that you can go out and talk about and increase that fearmongering perspective. But one thing I say to you is that you needed to do that when you were in

government to make sure we had the infrastructure in place.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning in support of my colleague Mr. Barrett from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant on his private member's

bill, Bill 57. He has brought it forward because we on this side of the House are listening to our rural communities. It's the McGuinty Liberals who are not listening to what the rural communities need. It's you who are not doing it, and it was

seen all over Bill 43, the Clean Water Act. Those people came out. We didn't make it up; real people came out and told their real stories.

I'd like to commend the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. He's done a great job on his articulation of land rights. He's been a great critic for agriculture and bringing forward their needs, highlighting

what this government has not done.

But it brings forward some essential concepts for the people in Ontario who own or rent property. I appreciate that he has brought this piece of legislation forward. It's a right to own property or rent

property; it's a responsibility to maintain one's property. What is not presently within Ontario law is rights and responsibilities for those who rent, and Bill 57 presents this also. I say, from the members here, that certainly the PC Party -- no

question -- supports property rights. That is what is essential to our economic prosperity and our political freedom. It's what our forefathers came with, when there were property rights, and they've slowly been taken away by governments. When

they pass legislation and diminish our property rights, it affects all of us.

OREA, the Ontario Real Estate Association -- they have 34,000 members -- wrote in support of Bill 57, saying, "Most Ontarians do not realize there is no guaranteed right to own private property in Canada," and

it's correctly pointed out in Bill 57. OREA says, "While we agree that a balance must be struck between the public good and private right, we also agree that a society which diminishes the rights of property owners should be prepared to compensate

them for that loss."

Heard again and again through Bill 43 -- heard constantly: "What? Expropriation without compensation?" People by the busload came from all over Ontario -- property owners, business owners, the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce -- telling us that this legislation would drive people out of Ontario, would drive businesses out of Ontario. You threw the responsibility of source water protection onto the

backs of landowners and Ontario municipalities, especially the rural communities, because you're downloading onto the --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms. Scott: Anyway, I support my colleague's bill, Bill 57.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Barrett, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Barrett: I wish to thank the speakers in the House. As well, I want to recognize Lynne Moore, a dairy farmer from Terra Cotta, John Tory's riding, who is here to sit in on the debate this

morning. I think he'll be -- stay tuned for tingle voltage. That's coming up next.

Member for Davenport, we had a chat a few days ago and I appreciate your reminding the House of Bill 11, which I introduced 11 years ago, on property rights. You raised some important questions as well on the

Human Rights Code deliberations.

The member for Simcoe-Grey gave us a good history lesson, going back to the year 1215. The member from Timmins-James Bay identified a lack of adequate compensation arising from expropriation in many cases, and

also reminded us that there are not property rights on native territory. This private member's bill, by the way, doesn't have the capacity to deal with aboriginal land claims, let alone negotiations. It's a very important issue and very

timely.

I noticed that the member for Peterborough's comments were refuted by the member from Nepean-Carleton. It's important for her to remind us that communist China does have property rights; Canada does not, North

Korea does not, Cuba does not.

The member for Huron Bruce: I just heard her spout off and make mention of fearmongering. That's fine. We're very clear on your opposition to property rights.

Of course, the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke knows of what he speaks, and I also wish to thank Laurie for anchoring the debate. It is important to strike a balance and, to date, there are, as Laurie

mentioned, serial violators of land rights. We see this in some of the comments from the benches opposite.

GROUND CURRENT

POLLUTION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA POLLUTION CAUSÉE

PAR LE COURANT TELLURIQUE

Mrs. Van Bommel moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 143,

An Act respecting ground current pollution in Ontario / Projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la pollution causée par le courant tellurique en Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Van Bommel has moved second reading of Bill 143. Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Private members' time is set aside for MPPs to address issues that are of particular interest to themselves and to their constituents. My

private member's bill is intended to advance the understanding of ground current pollution and to establish a time frame and process for remediation.

As a farmer, I've been long aware of this issue for probably well over 30 years, but it wasn't until I met a constituent whose life was completely changed and affected by ground current pollution that I

started to really understand the impact that it has on all Ontarians. Should the Ontario Legislative Assembly pass this private member's bill, it is my hope that we will see a special focus on the state of our electrical infrastructure and the

important role that it plays in the overall delivery of safe energy to our homes and to our businesses.

We are not the only jurisdiction to experience this type of pollution. The hazards resulting from ground currents have been recognized as a problem in both Canada and the United States and, as a matter of

fact, right across the world. New York State spent $100 million in one year to clean up electrical pollution.

To understand the problem, it is important to appreciate what ground current pollution is and its impact on humans and animals. Many people refer to this phenomenon as stray voltage, transient voltage or

tingle voltage. Regardless of what we call it, the impact on farms, manufacturing and humans is demonstrable.

In the past, electrical equipment consisted primarily of lights, motors and tube-type electronic equipment. Our infrastructure was developed to supply usage for a relatively small use, and transients were not

really a great problem at that time. With increasing use of solid-state computers and microprocessors, increasing electrification and automation of farms and businesses, and ever-increasing demand and load on our distribution lines, the problems

of ground current pollution are also increasing.

Stray voltage is man-made electromagnetic energy. The laws of electric engineering require that electrons flowing from a substation transformer must return to that transformer in order to complete the circuit.

This is done by the use of neutral wire that exists on the distribution and transmission systems. With less than perfect grounding, however, this current gives rise to stray voltage. Because of increased load on these neutral wires, more and more

of the current is now completing the circuit via other routes, including the earth and equipment.

Much of the increase in stray voltage over the past 30 years is due to an aging distribution system, heavy loads on existing systems and an increasing reliance on the earth as a conductor of that power. The

transmission and distribution system in many areas cannot return such a high voltage impulse to the substation on a neutral wire. Unfortunately, the path of least resistance which it is prone to take is not always the straightest path. As a

result, it takes a path back to the substation via the ground, in streams, on metal plumbing pipes, as well as through animals and people.

It is hard for most of us to understand something that we can't see, and for many people it has been a long battle to prove that this problem even exists. Although humans are sensitive to electric current,

animals such as cows, pigs and horses are probably the best examples of how the body reacts to this current. All of us have experienced an electrical shock just by touching something that is a conductor of electricity. Imagine going through every

day getting a number of shocks every time you try to accomplish something as simple as drinking and eating.

Cows are the most susceptible animals and therefore are often the first to show signs of problems with ground current pollution. Cows take quick drinks of water because the water bowl gives them a shock every

time they go to drink, or they get a shock from leaning against the metal stanchions or from the milking equipment.

Such was the case for one of my constituents, Lee Montgomery of Dover Centre. Mr. Montgomery had already been awarded the distinction of being Canada's youngest master breeder in 1971 for the quality and

productivity of his herd's lineage. But by the mid-1970s, Mr. Montgomery started to experience production and breeding issues in his prize dairy herd. Herd problems are often difficult to diagnose, so he proceeded with the slow process of

eliminating possible causes, including checks on his feed quality and testing the water samples. He had his veterinarian visit, and of course he used very expensive medications in an attempt to remedy something that no one seemed to be able to

identify. These were all part of the process that this farmer used to determine what was happening to his superior herd, because he was now experiencing lower milk production, unusually nervous behaviour, a high abortion rate in the herd and

increased illnesses such as mastitis.

Today, there exists a great deal of science to support what farmers like Lee Montgomery have learned by hard experience. Now veterinarians, professors, electrical engineers and researchers all recognize the

existence of ground current pollution. Specialized equipment is now available to detect the existence of ground current. In 1992, a Cornell study assessed the impact of stray voltage on milk yield and its composition. Research is also being done

into this problem in Ontario by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs through its many colleges and its university. Alberta Agriculture determined that 21% of dairy herds in that province had to be monitored routinely for excess

levels of stray voltage. But for Mr. Montgomery, all this comes too late. He had already been forced out of the business in 1992 because he was unable to identify the problem.

No one solution works for all stray voltage issues. The first step is to solve the problem, including having your electrician examine the system at your home or in your business. But for many, the problem

comes from outside their property, from the distribution and transmission system. Therein is the frustration that has been experienced by many farmers in Ontario. There is an impact on humans as well. More and more people are recognizing a

condition called electromagnetic hypersensitivity, a biological disorder that results from regular exposure to electromagnetic fields. Dr. Havas of Trent University is currently doing research into this.

Hospitals have long understood the impact of ground current and have now got equipment that has built-in filters to eliminate the problem. Manufacturing plants also contribute to the problem, and some of them

have done extensive work to reduce the impact of stray voltage on the performance and efficiencies of their equipment by again using special filters.

That is the purpose of this bill: Firstly to define objectionable current flow and to establish a timeframe for power providers to respond to complaints by consumers, including investigation and remediation of

the problem. A consumer who feels they are subject to ground current pollution must make their complaint in writing. The electricity provider is required to make the initial response within 10 days. An investigation must be completed within 30

days, and they must take whatever action is necessary to remedy the problem within six months of receiving that complaint.

This bill will make it an offence to not remedy the problem in a timely manner by imposing a fine of $1,000 per day after the first six months. Finally, the bill will also require the Ministry of Government

Services to develop and implement a plan to eliminate ground current pollution in this province within 10 years.

The problem can be solved. The rules are already in place, established by an international body that governs electrical engineers around the world. This bill brings a serious problem to light and requires that

electricity providers respond quickly to fix the problem and remove current from the ground and put it back on the wire, where it belongs. The rules are there. They just simply need to be enforced.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It's a pleasure to speak to Bill 143,

An Act respecting ground current pollution in Ontario.

I want to commend the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Ms. Van Bommel, for bringing this issue to the Legislature's attention. She talked about it not being that well understood and not being that well

known. I think Ms. Van Bommel may have been there when we had committee hearings this year. There was a group that brought this issue to the attention of the committee with regard to our hearings with Hydro One. I'm not sure if the honourable

member was there on that day, but it was something I myself certainly found intriguing.

There's no question that stray voltage exists. That much we do know. I think she has identified the problem, and that is the problem in identifying it and being able to determine its source and the ability to

mitigate it.

It would appear that in Wisconsin they've enacted a bill to deal what they call "objectionable flows of electric current." It looks like that was enacted in 2004 in the Wisconsin Legislature. So it's clearly

something that doesn't simply exist here; it exists everywhere that there is power being produced and distributed to those who need it.

I did talk to a couple of people in the agriculture business. I talked to a dairy farmer in my riding, Dick Straathof. He and his wife, Debra, have a dairy operation near Arnprior. I asked him about his

experience and he, quite frankly, hadn't had any problems, but he has a fairly new barn, built in some protective measures and has not had any problems. But he did give me the name of another fellow near Port Perry by the name of Michael Kersten

who has had significant problems with stray voltage. I see folks in the gallery nodding, so they're probably aware of that situation. He talked to me about issues with regard to low production of cattle, cattle that died, and autopsies that were

inconclusive but where the veterinarian had made comments like this cow, that had died the day before, looking like it had been dead for some time, and those kinds of things. While I don't understand, and don't pretend to understand, the effects

of these kinds of things, clearly there is a significant effect there.

The science is somewhat divided on it too. I also talked to some professors who don't necessarily see the problem as being one of the utility but as being a problem of the installation itself. I'm not in a

position to comment on that, but I can tell you what I can comment on. Mr. Kersten had to buy a neutral line isolator, and the utility installed it up near the transformer, and that reduced -- he was getting a little under 0.5 volts, and that was

what caused those kinds of issues and problems on his farm. This neutral line isolator has reduced that to about 10% of that, one-tenth of that, which is still not where he believes he should be with regard to proper production and everything

else, but it has improved it and taken it away -- for the most part.

It does raise the question: If that's what can happen with less than 0.5 volts, how can we possibly have a limit of 10 volts? I apologize if I'm repeating things that Ms. Van Bommel said, but it was explained

to me that the effects of the voltage are exponential, based on the mass of the animal or human who is being subjected to them. A 50-pound child at X number of volts would be feeling one quarter of the effect of a 200-pound man. Then you've got to

take that man and multiply him by eight to look at a 1,600-pound cow, and you can understand the effect and the infliction of discomfort and even pain and damage to an animal that size.

I think what we need to do here is get this bill to committee so we can get some real input from people who understand it far better than I can possibly understand it over the course of the couple of days I

was given to look into this issue and speak to it today. Again, it's impossible to have a really solid handle on it. I have all kinds of paperwork and everything here, but we're not going to read that into the record because we don't have that

kind of time.

I was also told something about one of the problems being that the lines themselves -- I'm going to say "can be" because I don't have the ability to make those kinds of determinations -- can be part of the

problem because they are not capacitated to deal with what we are dealing with today. We have to look at our infrastructure system. If that is a problem, then perhaps the onus needs to be on us, who are delivering the electricity, to ensure that

we're not creating a detrimental situation for people. If it means special equipment, I'm not suggesting for a moment that we have the capacity financially, in this province, to simply rebuild our transmission system, because that's not necessary

for the purpose for which it's used. But if it is causing undue problems for farmers, maybe we do have to look at whether or not we can be putting on those mitigating devices that will reduce and/or eliminate the causes of this kind of stray

voltage to farmers.

When you talk about a barn that has a huge cement floor, the conductivity of this is quite different from that of a single person walking down the street -- or a married person. I wasn't picking on the

marrieds, there; could be either one.

Interjection.

Mr. Yakabuski: I just wanted to see if you were awake, Jeff.

I think it is something we do need to get to committee. I do not want to monopolize the time, because I do have other speakers here. Hopefully, with the passage of this today we can get further or deeper into

this issue so we can understand it better, and then perhaps we can register a knowledgeable verdict on it at another reading. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): This is quite an interesting issue, one I wasn't aware of in the past. I would like to commend the honourable member Mrs. Van Bommel for bringing this to

this Legislature. If in fact we are having to deal with a problem of electrical pollution of our ground and it's having an effect on humans and livestock, it seems entirely reasonable to me that we take action on it.

I have to say, Mrs. Van Bommel, that one of the problems with your bill is that it seems eminently sensible, so the question is: Why would you spend a lot of time debating it? Nonetheless, we do get an

opportunity to speak to it, and I will.

I would say that the steps that you've laid out requiring investigation, requiring speedy assessment and then correction are entirely proper. We have an electrical system that is causing a problem for people.

There are a number of ways of getting at this, obviously. You talk about the capacity of the neutral wire. One other thing that I might suggest to you is that if, in fact, in this province we had a concerted investment in energy efficiency so that

electrical demand was reduced, that also would tend to push down the incidence of this problem, deal with situations where the infrastructure itself was being pushed beyond its design capacity.

In my previous life as a city councillor here in the city of Toronto in the 1990s, we were faced with an issue of replacing all of the street lighting in the city of Toronto. It was reaching the end of its

design life. It was very expensive to maintain. We actually looked at lighting that used about half the power of the lights that we currently had in place and required far less maintenance. We were able to re-lamp the whole of the city of Toronto

and have the savings from the cost of electricity and reduced maintenance pay for that complete re-lamping of the city over about four or five years.

So obviously in a farm or rural environment, assisting farmers to cut their electrical use by providing more efficient motors may be one way of dealing with this that has multiple benefits. It reduces the

demand on the electrical system as a whole and, at the same time, allows farmers to cut their operating costs.

You talked to farmers in this province. You know they're facing difficult financial times. In the course of my experience going out for the public hearings on Bill 43, the Clean Water Act, we had farmers

coming and speaking to us. The member, Mr. Leal, was there for the hearings in Peterborough. It was very clear that farmers were facing a crunch in income. Global subsidies, particularly in the European Union and the United States, which drove

down the price for farm-produced goods, were creating an income crisis in rural Ontario. The depopulation of rural Ontario destabilized that society. To the extent that we can look for opportunities to actually increase economic activity in rural

areas by providing work to increase efficiency, to the extent that we can cut farm operating costs, I think we should look at that opportunity. I know it's not in your bill, but it's something that the government could in regulations or in

directing Hydro One or local distribution utilities say, "Yes, you can look at a variety of ways of reducing this tingle voltage." One of the ways is investing in beefed-up transmission systems. The other thing to do is invest in reducing the

amount of power that's used.

I don't know how hot water is provided in an awful lot of farms. My guess is people don't have Consumers' Gas or Enbridge or Union Gas running gas lines down rural roads all over southern Ontario or northern

Ontario. Probably a lot of people rely on electric hot water heaters. Solar hot water heaters are currently -- sorry for the pun. At this point, solar hot water heaters are economically viable on a commercial basis to displace electrical hot water

heaters and, at the very least, can supplement those electric hot water heaters and substantially reduce the amount of current that they'll draw.

In the document that was produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, it's noted that the most significant problems are most often observed between 6 and 9 in the morning, and then in the

evening, when you've got heaviest draw on local power. To the extent that we're able to cut power demand, we reduce risk for livestock and for people.

Motors themselves are a significant draw of power and in this country we tend to have a very large stock of motors that are not up to highest efficiency standards. This past year, there was an international

conference held in Europe on electrical motors and the potential contribution that could be made to reducing world demand for energy by upgrading all of the existing old motor stock to the newest, most highly efficient motors. If you've got a

milking operation or if you have other machinery on a farm that's drawing on current, assisting those farmers to replace those motors with the highest efficiency would not only cut their operating costs but, again, would reduce the risk we have of

this tingle voltage for farmers, their livestock, their operations.

I think that this bill, as written, is very useful. It makes sense to me, and I think we should proceed with it, but I'd like to suggest to the member that as she moves forward, and hopefully when there are

hearings on this, that amendments to the bill might include a recommendation to the utilities that they provide an option to farmers for low-cost financing for upgrading the efficiency of their equipment or in fact, in some instances, if you're

going to spend a lot of money on putting in a new neutral wire, using that money instead to reduce the electrical load on that farm and take advantage of an investment that might not otherwise be made.

One of the questions I have for the member who has proposed the bill is that I understand that in Ontario the voltage limit on tingle current is around 10 volts,

whereas in Vermont and Wisconsin it's around

0.5 volts and in Alberta it's one, and I don't quite understand why we here in Ontario haven't adopted a much more stringent standard for current flowing through the ground, flowing through water when, in fact, other jurisdictions with climates

comparable to our ours, perhaps more severe than ours, have taken these steps, recognizing that they've got a problem with electrical pollution. It would be useful for me to hear from the member as to how she sees addressing that issue in the

course of this bill moving forward.

It's my hope that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which has identified this as a problem as well, will be quite vocal on this matter. I see no reason why there wouldn't be support around the House for

this bill to go forward, because why would anyone support a reduction in agricultural productivity? Why would anyone support increased risk for humans and livestock? It makes no sense.

You've identified a problem that, quite disturbingly, wasn't identified for a long time. You told the story about a farmer who went out of business in 1992 because of declining production for reasons that he

wasn't able to identify. Why would we not take action to ensure that no one else ever faces that problem? I'm sure you know much better than me, because you represent a rural area and I represent an urban area. Why impose any greater burden on the

farmers in this province? Why not act quickly?

I'm going to pass, come back to the rest of my time later in this period, and look forward to hearing the responses from the proponent of the bill.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I'm pleased today to speak on Bill 143, which my colleague the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex has brought forward. This bill addresses a

very important issue to many rural Ontarians, and I strongly commend my friend Ms. Van Bommel for bringing this issue to the Legislature.

I believe this issue has a solid purpose: to prohibit situations of undesirable ground current pollution that can harm Ontario's livestock. In the event that situations of harmful current flow occur, this bill

requires that the complaints be investigated and that the ground current pollution that is harmful to animals be eliminated.

According to a report that I received from the University of Guelph, Alfred campus, there were over 45 different research seminars and consultations done on stray voltage, and we have not yet received a

positive solution. Looking at some of the reports that I received, there's the University of Guelph; the report I have here from Minneapolis; one from the Canada Plan Service, written by R. G. Winfield and J. A. Munroe; one from Wisconsin Public

Service Corp.; and another one from Alberta Dairy Management.

This issue of ground current pollution or stray voltage is a serious problem for many of our farmers. It is often caused by either the electrical utility commission or faulty wiring. Stray voltage can occur

when livestock come in contact with metal equipment that has a different electrical potential than the surface the animal is standing on. Current may then travel through the animal to the earth in order to return to its source. Most animals have a

lower electrical resistance than humans. These occurrences of ground current pollution are harmful to animals and affect the ability of farmers to remain competitive in their production.

Some of the most common symptoms resulting from ground current pollution are excessive or unusual nervousness, reluctance to enter or eagerness to leave the milking parlour, reluctance to drink water,

miscarriages and lowered milk production. These symptoms all point to the fact that something must be done to prevent livestock from being subject to harmful ground current pollution. This bill is taking steps in a positive direction.

The presence of ground current pollution is a real problem for farmers in rural Ontario and has led to high financial losses. In Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the issue of ground current pollution has affected

many, many of the family farms. I have here Merton Albright, whose family in St. Eugène lost 60 cows. The Leroue family, egg producers, have lost much production. The Marjerrison family of Apple Hill have dealt with the devastating effect of

stray voltage in their dairy herd. Each time the cows tried to urinate, up to 40 volts of current surge backed up through the animal. This led to major decreases in milk production and decreases in the overall health of the herds. The family ended

up spending over $70,000 on lawyers' fees and expert witnesses to prove their farm's decline in output was the result of ground pollution. According to a report that I got here from Robert Irwin, the family were successful in claims totalling over

$766,000.

Bill 143 would allow for the investigation into these types of cases. If proven to be at fault, the onus would be put on the electricity provider to fix the ground current pollution. According to a report put

out by Robert Irwin, of which I have a copy, the Marjerrison family were successful in five claims totalling over $766,000. In many of these cases, the root cause and responsibility for the presence of ground current pollution is put on the

farmers themselves.

Just late last week, I received a call from another farmer in my riding. After the 1998 ice storm, François Cayer of St. Albert started to notice symptoms in his livestock that were associated with stray

voltage: nervousness and decreased milk production. His vet, medicine and artificial insemination costs rose from about $3,000 a year to $28,000 a year. Between 1989 and 1994, he has sent 176 cows to the slaughterhouse. Mr. Cayer's case is

representative of many Ontario farmers for whom, over a decade later, the negative effects of stray voltage still have very real consequences.

This bill would require investigation into a complaint that the power quality on a farm was suspect. This bill is a step in the right direction toward protecting Ontario's livestock and supporting farmers.

This issue of stray voltage has affected farmers in Ontario for many years. I would like to congratulate my esteemed colleague for bringing this bill forward.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It's a pleasure to have a chance to speak to Bill 143,

An Act respecting ground current pollution in Ontario, brought forward by the member from

Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. I have to admit that I did not know much about stray voltage, transient voltage or tingle voltage before the member did the introduction of this bill.

"Electrical current that returns to the transmitting substation via the earth's surface rather than the proper path, that is, the neutral wire provided by the electrical distribution and transmission system,

is ground current pollution." I wanted to read that into the record because a lot of people won't know what stray voltage is and how it occurs. Like the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock has a huge

agriculture business and farm base and is huge into the livestock industry, which has been the emphasis of this bill, especially the dairy industry. So I'm certainly glad that she's brought the concerns forward.

I have been reading some of the studies that have been undertaken by various groups with respect to the stray voltage and electromagnetic fields. The Canadian Cancer Society has suggested that there very well

could be a link between the electromagnetic fields and the increase in childhood leukemia. That's reason enough already to acknowledge the need for this issue to be discussed and addressed.

We live in a world that's comprised of increasing and advancing technologies. I acknowledge the importance of this, but with this increased technology, it is also even more important that its potentially

harmful effects are considered.

There's intense pressure to form alternative solutions to electricity generation and transmission. We see that we've got infrastructure, transmission lines, that need updating. We see that especially in rural

Ontario; we see a lot of it.

This bill is going to bring attention to this matter. I look toward to it going to committee. I look forward, like the member from Toronto-Danforth said, to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and all other

stakeholders who are involved to be able to have comment on this.

I know my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant would like to speak to this bill so, in conclusion, we're certain that this issue is worth studying. I thank the member for bringing this forward.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Indeed, it's a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak on Bill 143, as presented by my colleague the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. She provided me

with a copy of an

article that was produced by the Farm and Country News, talking about the serious problem that the Marjerrison family of Apple Hill in eastern Ontario had with their dairy herd.

Doing a little bit of research, I know there is an interesting individual, a consulting engineer, Alex Furo, from Wallaceburg, Ontario. On numerous occasions Mr. Furo has been called upon to provide expert

testimony on this particular issue. Indeed, between October 1994 and June 1995, the Department of Public Utility Control in Connecticut had hearings on the investigation into stray voltage on dairy farms during the period of time that I just

identified. Perhaps I will just read into the record what Mr. Furo testified at that time.

"Mr. Furo testified that `[s]tray voltage is manmade electromagnetic energy that directly affects livestock' and that `[m]ost of it is associated with the electrical power distribution system.' He explained

that much of the increase in stray voltage over the past 30 years is due to the aging distribution systems, heavy loads on existing systems, and increasing reliance on the earth as a conductor for neutral return currents. While the electrical

industry admits that stray voltage can reach animals through conduction, such as through a two-point contact with a metal stanchion that is carrying the current from the earth, Mr. Furo explained that stray voltage can also reach animals through a

single-point contact, such as through induction, capacitive coupling or electromagnetic energy, even when the traditional utility protocol of using a meter connected between the stanchion and a wetted spot on earth records nothing.... Thus, a

barnyard animal can still receive a shock even though a utility's conventional circuit theory protocol does not record anything. Mr. Furo then briefly described a demonstration on how this shock can occur," using data on a number of dairy herds

throughout several jurisdictions in North America.

Also, the state of Vermont has attempted to bring forward legislation to deal with this particular issue. In fact, I have a copy of a bill that was put through Vermont during the 1993-94 legislative session.

I'll read into the record some of the provisions of this particular act in the state of Vermont. It is

an act, of course, relating to stray voltage. It says, in the statement of purpose:

"The general assembly finds that stray electrical voltages can have serious economic impacts on the residents of the state of Vermont. Electrical users, utilities and state regulatory agencies must co-operate

to resolve stray voltage issues in a way that minimizes financial and other burdens on the electrical customer."

This was seen as such a serious issue, particularly in the farm area of Vermont, that they indeed established a task force to look into it. The duties of the task force:

"The task force should develop a uniform service policy relating to the elimination of stray voltage. Issues considered by the task force shall include:

"

(1) The designation of maximum allowable levels of stray voltage. Stray voltage shall be considered eliminated when reduced to or below these thresholds.

"

(2) The creation of a uniform procedure for investigating the source or sources of stray voltage.

"

(3) Requiring utilities to eliminate stray voltage or relieve its effects when the source of that voltage is found to be in that utility's distribution system or related to that utility's distribution

system.

"

(4) Providing technical information to customers to assist them in eliminating stray voltage or relieve its effects when the source is found to be in the customer's wiring or equipment.

"

(5) The creation of a system for resolving disputes between electrical utilities and customers related to the elimination of stray voltage."

I think that provides a good overview of what other jurisdictions are looking at. I encourage everyone today to support Bill 143.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Bill 143,

An Act respecting ground current pollution in Ontario, represents one of the few times that Liberal members opposite have come forward

with legislation dealing with a farming issue, and I'm heartened to see that. I guess I'm heartened to see that maybe it takes an election year for those opposite to admit that rural Ontario is on the provincial map. A challenge has been offered.

I'm looking forward to the committee hearings on this, and I hope hearings are held in rural Ontario. So we'll see what happens with that.

This term "ground current pollution" is a new term for me. I know it as stray voltage or tingle voltage. I've certainly read about it over the years in the farm media. It's obviously an ongoing issue in

Ontario and, as we've heard today, in states across this continent. Different approaches have been taken to address the issue.

According to the OFA, tingle voltage is a low electrical current between grounded equipment and the earth. This current, which usually travels along neutral wires provided by the usual electrical distribution

and transmission systems, is forced to use the earth's surface when those wires aren't there or are inadequate, hence the stray voltage or the tingle through farm buildings and, regrettably, through large animals -- cattle, obviously, horses and

hogs.

This morning, Toronto radio seemed to be dominated by discussions of squirrels being electrocuted. Squirrels nest in transformers; maybe it's the warmth up there. They indicated about 50 a month get wiped out.

I don't think that people are necessarily worried about the death of squirrels; it's the interruption of the electrical supply in the city of Toronto. Again, I use that example just to reiterate how difficult it is to get rural issues on the radar

screen at times, and we now will have to educate people on just what ground current pollution stands for. As far as the squirrels, there are too many in Toronto. We either need more coyotes or more squirrel hunters in this city.

Regrettably, though, we know that dairy cattle are susceptible to tingle voltage, reportedly, I've read, 50 times more sensitive than we are. Some US states have adopted a maximum allowable standard of 0.5

volts, Alberta has one volt as the acceptable limit, and Ontario has a less formal standard of 10 volts. Again, farmers are susceptible to electricity pricing. We're looking at some skyrocketing electricity bills, and smart meters don't

necessarily work in the dairy industry. You really can't bring them in at 3 in the morning to get a lower rate.

We do know on this issue, as has been indicated, that it is believed to be responsible for hormonal changes, behavioural changes, resulting in decreased milk production and reports of death. But again, there's

no official industry standard for stray voltage. Ontario Hydro considers 10 volts a maximum safe level. The OFA board lobbied the provincial government to establish a maximum allowable level of 0.5 volts, and that's where my concern lies. We have

to know what this standard will be. We need a benchmark if we're to go forward with this, and because much of this is so vague, it makes it very difficult to know where the government will go with this.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I had a different opening, but I just have to change it because the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant brought to this place -- everyone in this place knows how sincere

I am about private members' time. This is private members' time. This is to fill the holes that exist in all governments and all legislation. Unfortunately, he takes an absolutely silly whack at the government, saying, "Where are you now?" because

it's election time. What an unfortunate opportunity.

I'm going to get right straight to the point here. All of the information has been given to us. We know what the problem is. We now know that we've got an opportunity to fix it, so let's just fix it. In the

gallery today are people from Loyola Catholic school in Mississauga. I know that they know -- I really want to sincerely say this -- that milk doesn't come from a plastic bag. They know that we have rural Ontario and they know that our farmers

need their support. So I'm going to encourage them to take this information that they've learned and go back.

The story the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell gave us was an interesting one. Let's take the cow out of the urination problem that was described and put a human being in it. Watch how fast Hydro would

change that.

I'm going to challenge each and every one of us. This bill is the right thing to do. It's been studied for 30 years. Why did it take 30 years for us to correct it? I saw in my articles -- and there's a tonne

of them here. I've got about 18 from the United States and Canada that are telling us the information. Why do we have to sit back and start poking political holes in this? Let's fill in the information with the science that's already there -- 30

years' worth. Why are we not correcting this? I challenge each and every one of us to understand this.

I read a story where a farm went from 15% higher production in their milk than the provincial average, and with this problem of tingle voltage, transient voltage, stray voltage, tension parasites, stress

voltage, objectionable current flow and ground current pollution -- whatever you want to call it -- they went down to 15% below the average, the same farm. They went from 15% above the average down to 15% below the average. You know what that is?

That's our economic engine grinding to a halt. The second-highest producer in our economy is the farmer. Let's get real here.

This is a private member's point that has been brought and I thank the member. Let's get on with this. Let's get this to committee. Put the little tweaks and twacks you want to put in the bill, but get it

passed so that from now on we stop this problem.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? Mrs. Van Bommel. You have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Van Bommel: First of all, I want to thank all my colleagues who spoke in support of my private member's bill: the members for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Toronto-Danforth,

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Peterborough, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, and the member for Brant.

I also want to thank the people who helped to develop this bill. They include Christopher Wernham, who is the legislative counsel; Barry Fraser, who is a professional agrologist; Dr. Magda Havas at Trent

University; Lee Montgomery, the farmer I spoke about; Ted Cowan, who is a researcher at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; Lynn Girty, who is a farmer; Dr. Jim Morris, who is a professional agrologist and a retired instructor at Ridgetown

College; and Dave Stetzer, of Wisconsin. Most of all I want to thank my staff person, Maureen Brown, who has been instrumental in getting things organized for me here.

There were a number of issues brought up. One of them was the quantity of the voltage, and certainly I would entertain an amendment to deal with that. One of the reasons I didn't specify a quantity in my

definitions was because of issues such as weight and body type and that sort of thing. I'm going to leave that more to the science than to try to set that out. So I want to leave it that way.

The member for Toronto-Danforth talked about equipment and reducing the use of electricity on our farms, and we certainly are doing that. Our modernization is allowing us to do that, but there is also the cost

of doing that. When you are in difficult times with finances, it's hard to do that particular thing.

I want to also clarify the issue of Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery knew what was going on on his farm; he just couldn't get acknowledgement from the utility to deal with it, and that was very important. The

recognition that this may be associated with cancer is very much out there too.

I want to encourage everyone to come to room 228, because we have a demonstration of how this works, and I want everyone to be able to see how this happens.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mrs. Van Bommel.

The time provided for private members' public business has not yet expired; therefore, we will suspend proceedings until 12 of the clock, at which time we will have the votes.

Just by way of explanation, this doesn't happen very often, but private members' public business is just that, where individual members speak and vote and bring issues, and it's expected by most members that

votes won't be taken until noon. Therefore, we will suspend the proceedings until that time.

The House suspended proceedings from 1153 to 1200.

LAND RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES DROITS

ET RESPONSABILITÉS EN MATIÈRE

DE BIENS-FONDS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item number 53, standing in the name of Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Barrett has moved second reading of Bill 57. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will have a division on this after we've dealt with the next ballot item.

GROUND CURRENT

POLLUTION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA POLLUTION CAUSÉE

PAR LE COURANT TELLURIQUE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 54, standing in the name of Mrs. Van Bommel. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. It's carried.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I would like to refer this bill to the standing committee on justice policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Van Bommel has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy. Agreed? Agreed.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

LAND RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES DROITS

ET RESPONSABILITÉS EN MATIÈRE

DE BIENS-FONDS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Barrett has moved second reading of Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code with respect to land rights and

responsibilities.

All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

DiNovo, Cheri

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

MacLeod, Lisa

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Hoy, Pat

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Patten, Richard

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 17; the nays are 27.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today on behalf of John Tory and the PC caucus in recognition of Waste Reduction Week. It's a great opportunity to acknowledge the 25th

anniversary of the blue box program in Ontario.

I'd also like to let the members of this House know that it is Thursday of Waste Reduction Week and we have not heard one word from the Minister of the Environment on her government's record on waste

reduction. Although I will acknowledge that she was there for the ever-important photo opportunity this morning, except for the photo op, where has the minister been?

Is the minister afraid to address Waste Reduction Week because there is no amazing plan for waste diversion despite what we've been told by the McGuinty Liberals? Surely the minister must be concerned with the

fact that they have clearly broken their promise on 60% waste diversion. Surely she's approached the Premier and said, "We need a plan for this, sir. We promised." Surely she's approached her cabinet colleagues and told them that Ontarians have

the right to know what their knee-jerk policies are going to cost them.

Apparently that's not the case, and we're still waiting for the cost of the proposed LCBO recycling program, despite repeated questions to the minister, to the Premier and to the Minister of Public

Infrastructure Renewal.

When it comes to breaking promises and saying anything to get elected, the McGuinty Liberals really are amazing. In fact, when it comes to breaking promises, the McGuinty Liberals are at the top of their

game.

GEORGE MAROOSIS

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): On November 13, we will see the end of an era in North Bay. On that day, George Maroosis will retire from North Bay city council after 24 years of service to

our community.

George Maroosis has run a small business, K. Bros. Arcadian Art Shoppe and Gallery, at the corner of Algonquin and Main in downtown North Bay for 30 years. George is one of the few municipal representatives

whose career reaches as far back as the Merle "The Pearl" Dickerson era. Some in this chamber will recognize his name, as he entered the provincial political realm a few times. But it was at the municipal level where he really made a

difference.

Over the years, he was involved in numerous great projects that have changed the face of North Bay. In a recent interview, Maroosis outlined some of those of which he was very proud. He discussed the

waterfront. He was very involved in the purchase of our rail lands, which form the basis of our waterfront development and which he sees as a lasting legacy for our community. He served as the founding chair of the District of Nipissing Social

Services Administration Board, Casselholme and the crisis centre.

To all his work he brought a sense of compassion and social justice. He's been an ardent supporter of the Low Income People Involvement group, or LIPI. He is a straight talker who rarely hesitates to give his

opinion, but he also wasn't one to talk just for the sake of talking or hearing himself.

George and I both sought the same nomination at one point, and although I was successful, I have to say he has been nothing but supportive, helpful and encouraging.

George was a true community builder, and, on behalf of our entire community, I want to wish him a happy retirement and to thank him for all the great work for Nipissing and North Bay.

HIGHWAY 417

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Modern highways are the economic lifelines of communities across Ontario and crucial to the growth of its economy. For years, the Minister of

Transportation has been dealing with the planning and design of the extension of Highway 417. The previous Conservative government followed through with their commitment to extend Highway 417 to Arnprior. Unfortunately, the current Liberal

government has not yet seen fit to continue that project to Renfrew and beyond.

If these lines sound familiar to you, it is because, since my election three years ago, I have repeatedly tried to impress upon the Ministers of Finance and Transportation the importance of four-laning Highway

17 to Renfrew and beyond. Many times I've delivered petitions from my constituents, asked House questions and made member's statements, trying to make this government understand just how important this upgrading is to the economy throughout the

county of Renfrew and indeed the entire Ottawa Valley.

We continually get ministry notices that they are preparing for this project, but all of those communiqués end the same way; that is, subject to the availability of funding.

The government holds the purse strings here. Make that funding available. It may sound like the same old song, but I would like the words to be so familiar to the Minister of Transportation that she actually

hears them in her sleep. It goes like this: Highways, roads and bridges are the public transportation system in rural Ontario.

Minister, until I get that highway, I'm gonna keep on singing.

VETERANS

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Ontarians across the province take time during the first part of November to honour our veterans, who fought for our country and our freedom during the wars and

conflicts at various times and in various places around the world. For many, the most visible way to remember our veterans is to wear a poppy. I ask all of us to support the poppy program run by our local service clubs.

But there are other ways in which we can express our thanks. In my own riding of Brant, I have been honoured over the last nine years to be one of the coordinators of the annual Thank-A-Vet luncheon. The

luncheon, to be held this year on Saturday, November 4, is a small token to express our appreciation to the veterans of Brantford, Brant and Six Nations.

This is the largest event of its kind in Canada and sees the attendance of over 700 veterans, their spouses and widows, who come for a complimentary lunch and a chance to renew friendships and share their

memories. The event continues to be a huge success, thanks every year to the efforts of the Thank-A-Vet committee and the many volunteers and patrons who donate their time, energy, money and sponsorship of this wonderful event.

I encourage all members of this House, and indeed the people of Ontario, to take time to thank a vet. We will remember, and we thank them for their sacrifices.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): The Premier continues to defend his multi-million dollar partisan ads that tell Ontarians that there are more nurses and more doctors, and that

patients spend less time waiting. He praises the accuracy of the information on the new wait time website.

Well, Premier, Ontarians are not impressed. They don't want government propaganda. They don't want you to misuse their tax dollars. They want health services, and they want the truth.

Your highly touted website says that, in my community, an average wait for an MRI is less than two months. In reality, I've just heard from two constituents who tell me something quite different. The father of

an eight-year-old girl was told his daughter would have to wait four months for an MRI, and Gary McGregor's son-in-law was told he must wait seven months. This is a far cry from two months.

As well, as for your claim regarding new doctors, according to the 2005 CIHI physician supply report, when you account for population growth, we had 3% fewer doctors per 100,000 people in 2005 than we did in

2001. In fact, the only real improvement is as a result of the initiatives we introduced: the increase in medical spaces and more foreign-trained doctors. Furthermore, while our government brought in more than 82 doctors to this province in 2001,

under your rule you have lost 14 more than you gained. Stop wasting our money on ads.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Last November 17, Howard Hampton, leader of the New Democratic Party, set up a task force and asked that task force to report on property tax evaluations.

He asked me to chair it. He provided me with a wonderful group of people -- Ethel Birkett-LaValley, a former reeve in small-town Ontario; Jeff Atkinson, who works with the Canadian Labour Congress; Chris Charlton, who is now a member of Parliament

representing Hamilton Mountain; Alex Cullen, a former MPP in this House, who is now a councillor with the city of Ottawa and chair of that city's task force on property assessment; and last but not least, Tam Goossen, former trustee -- to try to

come to grips with the property tax assessment crisis that has been gripping this province.

We have not been afraid to consult. In fact, we have had meetings across Ontario -- Toronto, Hamilton, London, Sudbury, Ottawa, Timmins, Fort Erie, Peterborough -- and we've met with literally hundreds and

hundreds of people. We set up a website and got nearly 500 people writing to us on how property taxes can be improved.

We are not afraid to report -- not like this government, that's going to do it in 18 months. We will be releasing our report this coming weekend to the party. We are not content, in our report, that seniors

are forced out of their homes, that the property tax system has no element of stability. We want to end the volatility, and we want to make sure that provincially mandated programs paid by the municipal property taxpayer are ended.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I rise today to speak about education in my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. It's a wonderful and diverse riding that truly

represents our cultural mosaic and is one of the fastest-growing areas of Canada. I feel quite fortunate to have a culturally rich and diverse riding. About half of our population is comprised of visible minorities; nearly half come from outside

Diwali.

As you know, rather than celebrating just one faith in our public schools, educators now take the opportunity to help children learn about all cultures and all faiths. Better yet, many times it's the children

teaching other children.

Last year alone, approximately 140,000 newcomers settled in Ontario. That's more than the population of PEI. As a result, the McGuinty government is changing with the times. For the first time in a number of

In my riding, we now have more specialist teachers, more student success teachers and more primary teachers since the Liberals --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I rise in the House today to discuss the issue of health care in the region of Peel.

I want to correct the record and speak to the recent Tory release that addresses the health care system in the region of Peel. I'm glad the honourable member has brought up the topic, although, clearly, he

doesn't know what he's talking about. Our government has made investments of over $45 million in the William Osler Health Centre. The new state-of-the-art hospital will be opening later this year. This is the hospital Premier Davis spoke about 25

years ago. Our government is delivering. Brampton has a new community health centre, a new satellite community health centre, so that more people have access to doctors.

The members of the Conservative Party have developed amnesia, and they hope that the good people of Brampton and Ontario will also forget that health care suffered during those eight long years of Tory rule.

The Minister of Health during the previous Conservative government was from Brampton. He neglected his own community for years, and now he's the federal Minister of Health. His legacy in Peel needs to be fixed, and that's what this government is

doing. We were elected because we're different. We've invested in health care. We've increased funding to hospitals by over $2.47 billion since being elected. This government stands up for public health care. We understand how important it is, not

only to my community of Brampton, but for all of Ontario.

CONSERVATIVE NOMINATION CANDIDATE

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): Racism has no place in Ontario, and it certainly should not have any place in political parties and those who seek to be leaders.

Last week, I received a copy of a letter from Jim Schembri, a candidate for the Conservative nomination from the riding of Brampton West. In that letter, this Conservative nomination candidate says that

demographics were the most deciding factor in motivating him to run as a Conservative. I want to quote directly from his letter.

"Unlike the previous riding, new boundaries that include Peel Village means 60.85% of Brampton West were born right here in Canada." And one more: "Unlike the previous riding, 69.58% of those in Brampton West

considered themselves to be of the Christian faith compared to just 10.42% Sikh."

That's what he's implying. What he's implying is that, as an immigrant, I cannot represent those born in Canada. Let me tell Mr. Schembri and his leader, John Tory, that I'm proud to be an immigrant, I'm proud

to be a Sikh Canadian and I'm proud to be a representative for Brampton.

I'm proud to be raising my children in Ontario. I'm proud to live in a province where it doesn't matter what the colour of your skin is or where you come from. It's a province where there's opportunity for

all.

I'm disgusted with the Conservatives, I'm disgusted with this politics of division and I'm disgusted with John Tory, who is sitting on his hands and is not doing something about these offensive and racist

comments.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption:

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 65,

An Act respecting mortgage brokerages, lenders and administrators / Projet de loi 65, Loi concernant les maisons de courtage d'hypothèques, les prêteurs hypothécaires et les

administrateurs d'hypothèques.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 DU MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES GOUVERNEMENTAUX SUR LA MODERNISATION DES SERVICES ET DE LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR

Mr. Phillips moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 152,

An Act to modernize various Acts administered by or affecting the Ministry of Government Services / Projet de loi 152, Loi visant à moderniser diverses lois qui relèvent du

ministère des Services gouvernementaux ou qui le touchent.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Does the minister wish to make a brief statement?

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): In ministerial statements.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private

members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public business: Mr. Kormos, Ms. Martel and Mr. Tabuns

exchange places in the order of precedence, such that Mr. Kormos assumes ballot item number 74, Ms. Martel assumes ballot item number 59 and Mr. Tabuns assumes ballot item number 64.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): Today I'm introducing for first reading the Ministry of Government Services Consumer Protection and Service Modernization Act. The act

provides important protection for all people of the province, our government once again proving we're on the side of Ontario families.

If passed, the legislation I've introduced will strengthen consumer protection, modernize government practices and enhance the government's ability to deliver service to the people of the province. This

proposed legislation I've introduced today builds on the Consumer Protection Act that we enacted last year, which was a significant step forward for consumers and made Ontario a leader in consumer protection.

While we can be proud of the work we've done so far, we cannot rest on our laurels. Today we continue our work and move forward on several key areas. One of these important areas is an issue of real concern to

property owners across the province: real estate fraud. The people of this province work hard to make a house into a home. They deserve to know that their property is secure. This legislation will ensure that property owners do not lose their home

as a result of real estate fraud or become responsible for fraudulent mortgages. If passed, this legislation would ensure that ownership of a property cannot be lost as a result of the registration of a falsified mortgage, fraudulent sale or a

counterfeit power of attorney. Instead, an innocent homeowner's title will be restored to them and the fraudulent document will be nullified.

The legislation will also introduce new safeguards for suspending and revoking the accounts of suspected fraudsters so they cannot register documents. It will raise existing fines for real-estate-fraud-related

offences from $1,000 to $50,000 and will strengthen our authority to allow for notification of property owners about any change to their title in our land registration system.

In addition to the steps announced, we are also working on four key areas. We are looking to: strengthen the land titles assurance funds so they're more responsive and more transparent to victims of fraud;

actively question who should be able to register documents in the land registration system and what requirements they need to meet regulation authority; consider a notification system that notifies property owners when certain dealings are

registered against their property.

Finally, we're also continuing to discuss changes on how powers of attorney are used in real estate transactions. Real estate fraud is an important issue for Ontarians. We are committed to continually taking

steps to address this issue, because even one case of fraud is too many.

Recently, there has been explosion in popularity for gift cards, to the point where it is now a multi-billion dollar industry. If passed, this legislation will give the government regulatory powers to ban

expiry dates on gift cards. The people of Ontario purchased these cards in good faith and they rightly expect that their purchase will retain its full value until it's redeemed. We want to ensure that Ontario consumers purchasing gift cards get

what they pay for. We've heard their complaints about expired cards and this legislation will give us the power to work with the retail industry to put an end to this practice.

Another piece of the proposed legislation will introduce reforms to Ontario's liquor laws. This is part of our ongoing effort to ensure our liquor laws are updated and continue to reflect current realities by

prov