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

September 28, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Sep-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 28 September 2006 Jeudi 28 septembre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL

FISCAL REVIEW

RESTORE THE DEED ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DES TITRES

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL

FISCAL REVIEW

RESTORE THE DEED ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DES TITRES

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL

FISCAL REVIEW

RESTORE THE DEED ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DES TITRES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RIGHT TO KNOW DAY

SANDBAR BUILDING IN HAMILTON

RIGHT TO KNOW DAY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

AGRICULTURE SURVEY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

MILK IN SCHOOLS

AGRICULTURE 101

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH

VISITORS

MEMBER FOR BURLINGTON

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

RADIOLOGISTS

FEDERAL SURPLUS

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

DISABILITY BENEFITS

SENIOR CITIZENS

LEGAL AID

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

RURAL EDUCATION FUNDING

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

OAK RIDGE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

WATER QUALITY

PARALEGALS

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

SCHOOL FACILITIES

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MORTGAGE BROKERAGES, LENDERS

AND ADMINISTRATORS ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES MAISONS

DE COURTAGE D'HYPOTHÈQUES,

LES PRÊTEURS HYPOTHÉCAIRES ET

LES ADMINISTRATEURS D'HYPOTHÈQUES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL

FISCAL REVIEW

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I move that, in the opinion of the House, the proposed provincial-municipal fiscal and service delivery review, which will not be completed until February 2008,

after the next provincial election, is needlessly drawn out and that a full review to balance the delivery of services with the ability to pay should be completed much more expeditiously, in order to avoid hitting Ontario taxpayers with

unsustainable property tax hikes or significant reductions in service.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Hardeman has moved private member's notice of motion number 24.

Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Hardeman, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Hardeman: This resolution addresses an urgent problem that is facing municipalities and affecting taxpayers across the province. The problem, as we all know, is that there is an increasing

gap between the cost of services that municipalities have to deliver and the provincial transfers. That gap is being passed on to taxpayers through increased property taxes and reduced services.

Municipalities urgently need the province to re-examine their relationship and balance the delivery of services with the ability to pay. The last municipal-provincial review was completed almost 10 years ago. As

many of the members in this House will remember, at the time, municipalities were struggling to cover the cost of education. Exponentially increasing school board budgets were resulting in large annual increases in the property tax bill.

Municipalities were begging the province to change the system and help them deal with education expenses. We took action and balanced the cost of services with the ability to pay.

Since then, circumstances have changed. The cost of some of the services has grown faster than others, the cost of delivering services overall has increased rapidly, and provincial transfers haven't kept pace.

The system needs to be fixed. We have some great municipal politicians in this province, and they have been doing their best, but they have no choice: They have been forced to raise property taxes or reduce services to make ends meet. Now the time

has come to again make a change to help municipalities.

The property tax hikes are not sustainable. They are causing real hardships to homeowner, especially seniors on fixed incomes. John Tory and I have been calling on the Liberal government to give municipalities

the resources to deal with increasing costs. Instead, the Liberals continue to heap more expenses on to municipalities.

AMO now estimates that there is a gap between municipal transfers and the cost of social programs of over $3 billion. If the government passes the Clean Water Act, municipal expenses are expected to increase

again. On August 26, the Toronto Star said -- and these are not my words -- "It's something every councillor and mayor across the province struggles with at budget time. The costs of the programs the province has decreed they must provide keep

going up, so either property taxes have to go up too or other city services have to take a cut."

John Tory and I have been out talking to people about the need for a municipal-provincial services solution for a long time. Finally, in August, the Premier committed to do something, but his solution is to

study the problem for 18 months, so that it goes away until after the next provincial election. This just isn't a solution. I'm glad that after three years of talking, the Premier finally stepped up and committed to have the provincial-municipal

fiscal service review, but 18 months to study this is unacceptable. It is far too long for municipalities to wait. They don't need a long-drawn-out study. What they need is help now.

On August 26 of this year, Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, said, "We need the assistance now. We can't wait until 2008." We don't need that long to study this issue. Local politicians know what the

problem is. The government ministries have all the numbers. They know what the problem is: The services that municipalities are expected to deliver cost more than they have the ability to pay. It is that simple. The North Bay Nugget said, "The

province doesn't need 18 months to study the problem. It's well documented already. What the province needs is a solution, and one before the next provincial election, not after."

You know, there have been a lot of people talking about this problem over the past few years, and the need to fix it. But in all that talking I can't find anyone, not a single person, who has asked for an

18-month review. The St. Catharines Standard said, "It appears that Dalton McGuinty's re-election strategy is to commission studies of potentially contentious issues, with them due to be delivered well into the term of the next government." I

think that is unacceptable. It's unfair to make municipalities and ratepayers wait for relief until after the provincial general election just to avoid a campaign issue. In comparison, David Crombie's Who Does What panel in 1996 took only seven

months and Anne Golden's GTA Task Force in 1995 took only 11 months. The Liberal government has already had three years to solve this problem. Instead, they have pointed fingers and whined about how difficult it is, and during that time the cost

of delivering local services has continued to increase, and the municipalities' need has grown. Now they want another 18 months.

Roger Anderson, the past president of AMO, warned the Liberal government in the pre-budget consultations, "The longer we wait, the more it will cost us in lost opportunity and investment in core municipal

responsibilities such as transit, transportation and essential water and waste water infrastructure." When the government announced the review, he said that 18 months was longer than he would have preferred, and that he would work very hard to

shorten that period. My objective here this morning with this resolution is to help Roger Anderson, the former president of AMO, in achieving that goal just to make that time line shorter.

It has been over six weeks since the announcement of the review, and we haven't even heard any news about the appointing committee. If the Liberals would stop trying to bury things until after the election and

work on it, they could have made significant progress by now. Obviously, the people cannot start work before they're appointed, and they can after they are appointed. So let's get on with the appointing and get on with the work being done.

Today, I'm calling on the Liberals to pass this resolution and take action to help municipalities and ratepayers now. I'm sure that every member of the Liberal Party will support this resolution, because it just

speaks to improving the quality of service that the province can provide, and the timing of providing that service.

Since it was announced without any firm criteria of what they were looking for, I'm sure there was not one provincial Liberal at the AMO conference, at the announcement, who knew why there was 18 months --

whether 12 would have been sufficient or whether six would have been sufficient. I'm sure that now, when they have looked at the facts, they will be happy to support this resolution, to make sure that it can be done as expeditiously as

possible.

Don't let more seniors give up their homes just because they can't afford to pay their taxes. And that literally is happening in the province of Ontario. When the tax bills go out and they see dramatic increases

that the municipalities must charge, there are seniors in this province who figure out their income and their expenses, and they have to give up their homes and move into other accommodations because they can no longer support the municipalities'

share of their homes.

Don't let our municipal infrastructure continue to deteriorate because municipalities can't afford to fix it. Again, all municipalities, when they are doing their budgets, have their needs in front of them, and

then they have to go through the process of trying to define which ones could wait another year without causing great detriment, because they can't do all that needs to be done. They need help from the province of Ontario. Don't let another

municipal budget go by without balancing the delivery of services with the ability to pay and providing real relief to municipalities and municipal taxpayers.

Finally, as I was driving into the city this morning -- and this is not about the delivery of services -- there was a story on the news that spoke to the Provincial Offences Act and the need to go before a

justice of the peace in order to have a case heard. The reason I bring up that, Mr. Speaker -- and I know you want me to speak to the topic -- is because the Provincial Offences Act revenues were part of the transition in the realignment of

services. The municipalities get that to help pay for the social services they are responsible for. Now, this morning, I hear that because of the lack of the appointing of JPs by the present government, the municipalities stand to lose up to half

a billion dollars in provincial revenues to help pay their bills. And what's more, even people who plead guilty to traffic offences under the Provincial Offences Act are in fact going to court and not worrying about it, because chances are their

case will not be heard and they won't have to pay the penalty for their infraction of the law.

I think this is so important. It is not appropriate to leave that to a review for 18 months, and no changes will be made to that problem for 18 months. I think it is just unacceptable. We don't have a time line,

but that's why I think we need to get on with getting this review done, so the problem can be solved on behalf of all taxpayers in Ontario, those who are paying too much, and also all the taxpayers who are now not going to have to pay for their

infraction of the law, and I think they should.

With that, I hope everyone in the House will vote for this, because it does deal with good government and good services to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I'm more than delighted to participate in this discussion this morning. I spent 18 years in municipal politics, between 1985 and 2003. Now, I listened very

carefully to the member from Oxford this morning, and this resolution is an attempt to rewrite history that would make Stalin blush -- really.

I was at the AMO meeting in 1998 with all of my good friends from Peterborough. I was at the back of the room when the Premier of the day, Mr. Harris, came in to announce the downloading, and I listened very

carefully. I wasn't one of the people who were part of the two standing ovations that he got that day, but I did take out my pocket calculator to start to add up the cost.

It was interesting on that morning, when the then Premier, Mr. Harris, made that announcement, how different his remarks were from the report that was prepared by David Crombie some two years earlier. Mr.

Crombie did what I thought was a very extensive review of what services should be handled at the provincial level and what services should be handled at the municipal level, and I just want to talk about one of the services. Mr. Crombie at that

time recommended that social housing remain at the provincial level. The reason David Crombie at that time suggested that social housing should remain at the provincial level was because he recalled what happened to the cost of social housing when

the Bob Rae government was in power from 1990 to 1995. The economy got soft and the need for social housing increased dramatically, and he came to the conclusion that municipalities didn't have the wherewithal to handle the social housing

issue.

But did Al Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the day, listen to Mr. Crombie? No, he did not. In fact, he turned the recommendations from the Crombie commission on their head, and as he made those

changes, it reflected the Harris speech on that sad day at AMO in 1998 when he talked about the downloading exercise. As a former municipal politician who went through all those budgets, I could certainly see the impact it was having on the

property taxpayer.

I'll cite another one that was offloaded on that sad morning in 1998: the assessment. Up to 1998, assessment was handled by the Ministry of Finance, where I always thought assessments should be handled. But they

created this new arm's-length corporation called the Municipal Property Assessment Corp., and who was left to fund 90% of that cost for MPAC? It was allocated to the municipalities in the province of Ontario, an onerous burden that they had to

face.

Land ambulance: Everybody recognizes, I believe, that land ambulance should be an integral part of the health care delivery service in Ontario. They dumped that onto the municipalities, and thank goodness we've

taken the step to upload land ambulance service in the province, a responsible thing to do.

Secondly, we've also started to upload the cost of public health in Ontario. That's another issue that we've moved forward with, a very bold initiative to put it back where it belongs, to take that burden off

municipalities in Ontario.

We as a government, after eight years of neglect in the social housing field -- what was their response for eight years? "Well, we'll give the municipalities a very small PST rebate if they are going into the

social housing field." We made the determination as a government to come back dollar for dollar with the federal government to provide additional social housing in the province of Ontario.

I believe it is important to get it right this time and that a review of such things as infrastructure, additional areas in public health, emergency services, social services and housing, and special challenges

faced by northern communities, rural communities and urban centres needs that 18 months to get it right.

I just want to reiterate to the people who I know are watching this debate from all across Ontario, particularly municipal politicians who went through the experience of the Who Does What, that our government,

the McGuinty government, has taken major steps forward, with significant new investments in municipalities over the last three years. The provincial gas tax in 2006, $232 million to municipalities to enhance their transit opportunities, compounded

by the moves made by the federal government in the gas tax area, has allowed municipalities to enhance their transit systems, to get people out of their vehicles and into transit. The Move Ontario program that we announced in the spring of this

year, $1.2 billion; roads and bridges, $400 million; an additional investment in transit. Affordable housing in 2006, $668 million. I know in my community of Peterborough, major projects have gone forward with funding through this program. In the

municipal partnership fund which we introduced in 2006, some $763 million is allocated to municipalities across the province of Ontario to help them with their financial needs.

It's interesting. In my community of Peterborough, the county of Peterborough, under the old program that the Tories had in place, there were three municipalities that didn't get a cent of support from the

province of Ontario, and they were three of the municipalities with the lowest assessment base. One of them happens to be in the riding of my good friend the member from Victoria-Haliburton-Brock, and she will know that Galway-Cavendish and Harvey

got no money under the system that was put in place by the Tories before, and now, under this government, that municipality is getting support from the provincial government to offset their costs that occurred in the downloading during the eight

years that they were in power.

I've heard from public health agencies across the province that they're very pleased that funding from the provincial government will move from some 50% to 75% by January 2007. We've also enshrined a protocol,

through the memorandum of understanding, that we will consult with all municipalities across Ontario when things are going to be changed.

I have some supportive quotes of what we announced, our 18-month review. Vic Fedeli, the mayor of North Bay, said, "It's good news for municipalities." Gord Hume, a city of London controller, said in the London

Free Press, "I'm delighted. It's about sustainable funding and better servicing for the people of Ontario." Paul Fitzpatrick, the CAO for the city of Cornwall, said, "Obviously, the deal is a step in the direction of looking at what's the better

way of perhaps delivering those services and programs." And the person who succeeded me in my ward in Peterborough, Garry Herring, would say, "I think it's great. It's the most positive thing we've heard. One thing we learned is that we're all in

this together," and this government recognizes the needs of the municipalities across Ontario. I'm delighted to have an opportunity to make some comments on this resolution this morning.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): It's a pleasure to stand in support of my colleague and friend the member for Oxford and to provide a fact check for my Liberal colleague from Peterborough.

The municipal-provincial-federal fiscal imbalance is something that our party and our party leader, John Tory, have sought to correct for some time. We feel -- and quite rightly, I might add -- that only once these interdependent relationships are

fully assessed can we truly understand who does what and who should be paying for what.

I might add at this time that we on this side were terribly flattered when the other side took a page from Mr. Tory's book and announced at the recent AMO convention the service delivery review for

municipalities. The only problem, of course, is that their imitation was just that: a cheap knockoff of the real thing. Indeed, if the Liberals were serious about fixing the municipal-provincial-fiscal imbalance and undertaking a thorough and

effective municipal review and if they really wanted to seek the truth, then I venture to suggest they would not have postponed the conclusion of their study and subsequent release of the results until after the next provincial election, and they

most certainly would not have rushed in at the last minute with a quick fix at the AMO conference, announcing what I consider far less of a commitment than the original John Tory proposal. So you'll find it as no surprise that our municipal

affairs and housing critic, the member for Oxford, would today try to give Ontarians the genuine article, not the McGuinty knock-off.

My good friend from Oxford is fully aware that this Liberal government will say anything and they will do anything just to get and stay elected. In fact, the McGuinty Liberals only promised to undertake this

municipality review because they needed a promise that they couldn't break right away. Of course, it wasn't even initially their promise. It's more of a borrowed idea, one that they dumbed down to suit their style of government. You see, this is a

government that has made promises that it knew it couldn't keep or promises that this government never intended to keep when it was elected in 2003. With this municipal review, I can only conclude the Liberals are delaying a promise -- a promise,

might I remind you, that only came at the 11th hour at AMO and a promise that they do not care is kept, entirely for electoral gain.

If they intended to keep this promise, the 18-month review would have been far shorter, announced much earlier and would have come with some guarantees. But this review's results have been delayed. It was

announced at the 11th hour, and there are absolutely no guarantees that the province will deliver on any of the potential recommendations, including the possibility of uploading services. Have you ever seen a group on the other side complain like

the crowd across from me, on all of the downloading of previous administrations, yet for three years do nothing but blame, point fingers and hide their heads in the sand when it comes time for them to act?

In fact, this is a group who, when they sat in opposition, was proud to link themselves with the dons of the download, John Chrétien and Paul Martin, at every tea party, barbecue and picnic they could find

just for a cozy photo op. They never said a word when federal health and social transfers were virtually cut off by the federal Liberals, leaving previous administrations to come up with substantial sums of money from elsewhere. This Liberal

Party, like its federal counterpart, aided and abetted the 1994 hack and slash to our health and social transfers right across Canada, including in this province of Ontario. There was not one complaint from those on the other side who watched

federal health care funding drop from 50 cents on the dollar in 1993 to the Chrétien-Martin all-time low of 11 cents on the dollar, in favour of a billion-dollar sponsorship scandal right out of Montreal; no sir, not one complaint from the

members opposite.

Some over there were actually the architects of the biggest downloads to the provinces in Canada's history. Did they say a word to defend our province and our municipalities? No, they supported the

Chrétien-Martin balanced budgets on the backs of this province. This is a shell game. Now that there a federal Conservative government in Ottawa, they have miraculously been converted to defenders of our province and our municipalities. But

we're fortunate: For all this mishandling of the municipal-provincial-federal fiscal balance by Liberals and their backroom insiders at all levels of government, there is at least a Conservative government in Ottawa and a Conservative opposition

in Toronto prepared to get things done and right the Liberal wrongs of the past.

This Liberal government does not care about results. This Liberal government does not want to act, because then they won't be able to blame anyone anymore. Simply put, this is yet another broken promise waiting

to happen by this tired old lazy Liberal government.

In that vein, I believe it's highly responsible for my colleague the member from Oxford to put this motion forward. He knows the provincial-municipal fiscal and service delivery review does not need to be drawn

out; it should occur more expeditiously. He knows that there is a difference between saying something to get elected and being a responsible politician. He has served our province well. The member from Oxford was a successful municipal politician

before he joined a Progressive Conservative government, who not only knew what a commitment was, but, just for you folks on the other side, also knew how to keep a commitment.

Yes, sir, this promise-keeper right here has decided today to hold a group of promise-breakers to account. He knows that we need a municipal-provincial fiscal balance review. He agrees with John Tory that the

taxpayers and municipal councils across Ontario need this review to take place, and they need it to take place today. He knows that Ontarians deserve this review to be reported on before the next election, so results can start to happen. It is my

view that only our leader, John Tory, has a fundamental grasp of what Ontario municipalities actually need.

I might add at this time that even the minister's own parliamentary assistant agrees. After all, he wasn't too long hopping into the photo ops, endorsing Mr. Tory and his municipal policies in the 2003 municipal

election campaign. But I guess, in keeping with the theme, "Do anything and say anything to get elected," it might have been the best opportunity for that assistant to get elected.

John Tory is the only party leader willing to deliver results today, not when the best photo ops -- or worse, the most problematic complaints -- take place. I support Mr. Hardeman's motion today because he gets

it right. As the leading voice in this House on matters pertaining to municipal issues, Mr. Hardeman knows the difference between a Liberal and Conservative, and a promise and a follow-through. He knows that the Liberals are three years too late

and 18 months too long on this municipal review.

Today, I'd encourage my colleagues to join Mr. Hardeman and the PC caucus and support this resolution so municipalities across our great province can deliver the best possible services, so our taxpayers receive

the best possible value for money and so all of Ontario can have a timely who-does-what report that benefits us all.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): Many a fascinating speech has been delivered in this House. I don't think mine will reach quite that grade, but I hope to contribute what I can to this

debate this morning.

I believe that Mr. Hardeman is correct that this process needs to be accelerated, that there is no reason to wait until after the next election to actually deliver on a promise made in 2003. I think what we have

now is, really, a promise that is clinically dead. It's on life support. In the next election, it will be trundled out, pale, rouged up a bit at the cheeks, but clinically dead. This joins another of other promises that similarly are receiving

oxygen on a daily basis.

Interjection.

Mr. Tabuns: Yes, they could recycle them. They will compost them when the time comes.

What do we have here? Waste diversion: another crucial area where this government promised to bring in a plan that would be functioning within five years of being elected to divert 60% of the waste in Ontario.

Do we have a plan? No, we don't. We had a discussion paper in 2004 and no action. When I ask the Minister of the Environment, "Where's your plan?" I get gobbledygook, I get song and dance, I get all singing, I get all dancing, but I don't get a

plan.

When we talk about energy in this province -- I remember in the last election there were accusations that the NDP was making it up when they said that the Liberal government -- Dalton McGuinty -- was going to

build new nuclear reactors in this province. I was the recipient of an e-mail from political staff in the Premier's election machine assuring me, as a person in the environmental movement, that there was no plan to build any new nuclear reactors

and that the commitment to phase out coal was solid. Well, did that plan, did that commitment, did that promise pan out? Absolutely not. It took questioning from us, from Howard Hampton to Dwight Duncan, to finally get it out on the floor that in

fact the coal phase-out promise was being abandoned, to get it on the floor that in fact nuclear power was going to be resurrected in this province, that we were going to put $40 billion into it, contrary to promises that had been made and frankly

reflecting a total lack of commitment to action on the environment, on energy, on the need to conserve, on the need to develop 21st century sources of energy. Nothing, nothing.

So when it comes to this promise, when it comes to any commitment to actually deal in a substantial way with the financial crisis of the cities in this province, to deal with the download, what we get is a punt,

a kick of the item off the agenda until after the next election so that during the coming election it can be said, "Of course, that promise is still alive." Check the oxygen line. "Of course, it's alive and kicking." Kick the legs, make the legs

move.

This is an extraordinary procedure. We know what it's costing cities in this province now to deal with this download. It's about $3 billion a year. And there are a number of elements that make up this particular

download, this imposition of an unfair burden on cities: social assistance, $1.3 billion. Now, it's interesting that during the 1930s, when cities actually provided relief -- welfare, ODSP, call it what you will -- there was huge controversy about

the fact that cities were stuck with the relief bill, and where a city offered even a little bit more than another, it would be flooded with people who were desperate to eat, desperate for some relief, and cities were put into an extraordinarily

difficult financial position. They couldn't carry the burden. There was a huge hue and cry in the 1930s for this whole question of relief, of welfare, of support for those who were unemployed and poor to be moved to higher levels of government,

because cities faced impossible burdens and impossible situations.

In fact, that was transferred, that was uploaded, and rightly so, because the property tax can't carry that kind of burden and wasn't meant to be used for income redistribution. Property taxes were meant to

cover the service costs of making an urban centre work.

So what do we have now? We have a download of the costs onto all of the cities, and on top of that, the setting of the conditions left in the hands of the province. In other words, the cities pay the tab but the

province determines what that tab is going to be. Not justifiable, not reasonable, not defensible, and yet, rather than deliver on a promise that was made three years ago -- and this is the last quarter of 2006 -- the whole thing is being put off

again until after the next election so that once again a promise can be recycled.

Social housing: Social housing makes a real difference in communities. In a previous career, I was a property manager managing housing co-ops. I knew a lot of kids from poor homes in those buildings I managed

who now, in their 20s, 30s, are working in very responsible positions. They came from very poor households. They were able to build themselves up because they had a stable foundation.

Their parents, in many cases single mothers, had the knowledge that every month they would be in a home, that they wouldn't be evicted, because they could afford to pay their rent. They knew that they were in a

place that was supportive of their families and their children, and those kids had a much better chance in school. Recently, I've been at events in my riding, seeing some of those kids who are now providing for themselves, providing for their

families, who actually were able to make a go of it.

Social housing makes a difference in a society, makes a difference in a community, but this very important social function, like ODSP, the Ontario disability support program, has been moved down to the cities,

and the cities cannot carry it. They cannot do what has to be done, and that results in some very negative things.

The first negative thing is that the buildings are deteriorating. I've been told that in Toronto, the value of deferred maintenance, deferred capital investment, is in the range of $250 million. I have to say

that in the last provincial by-election, when I was going door to door in my riding, I went to buildings, I went to homes that I had canvassed when I was a city councillor. I was staggered by how much those buildings had deteriorated. I was taken

aback: crumbling concrete, peeling paint, flooring completely frayed and past its lifespan -- all kinds of building conditions that would not have been left in that condition in the 1990s when the buildings were actually financed properly by the

provincial government.

The cities -- the city of Toronto and the other cities -- cannot afford, on the property tax base, to continue this kind of investment, and that means a demoralization of tenants. It also means profound problems

in communities, with people who may in the first place not be favourably disposed to social housing saying, "Look at this stuff. Look at this. It's crumbling. We know that if we support it, we'll get an eyesore in our neighbourhood." So people are

far more resistant to any construction than they might have been in the past. That is simply wrong. That undermines the sorts of investments that we need in this society to make it safe, to make fair for all, to make sure that every kid has a fair

chance to grow and develop.

We know that in this province there are many different engines of prosperity, many different centres of development and growth that have to be nurtured. Rural regions have to be nurtured. They have to be treated

well. They have to get the support they need to develop, to make sure they have infrastructure, to support farmers and rural industries. But we also know that cities have to have proper supports, because when we want others to come and invest in

them, when we want the people in them themselves to invest in them, they have to have some sense that there's a future. They have to have a sense that that city will be stable, will be comfortable, will be a place that they and employees will want

to live in. But when you starve cities, when you impose a $3-billion burden on them, essentially a subsidy for the province from the cities, you strangle them. You undermine one of the key pillars of prosperity and social stability in this

province.

Why would you do that? It doesn't make sense, and the reality is that we don't have to wait 18 months for a study. My recollection is that David Crombie took six months to do his study. He's a smart enough guy.

There are smart people in this province. They can be found. They can be employed. They can be given research staff. They can be put to work. We don't have to wait 18 months. We can move on this quickly. We can have this in place by next year so

that municipalities actually get what they need. By putting it off, the government is just saying, frankly, that they are not going to live up to their promise.

I think I've made my main points. I'll leave it to others to continue.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I'm going to leave some time for my colleague from Huron-Bruce to make some comments.

First of all, I want to congratulate the member from Oxford for finally seeing the light. It took eight years to destroy the relationship between municipalities and government, and now he wants to do it in six

months. Where has he been for the last 10, 12 years?

We took the initiative of the 18 months. I think we need to do it right. The fact that there has been no dialogue between municipalities and the province -- I guess I want to take the opportunity to remind the

members opposite that we're addressing the ambulance issue, which the former government refused to look at. I was on municipal council, and they didn't even want to talk to us: "Take it the way it is." Provincial gas tax, we've moved up the ladder

on that; Move Ontario for infrastructure; public health, we're uploading it from 50% to 75% by the end of next year. So we have been working with municipalities, but we want to make sure we get it right.

They engaged the services of Mr. Crombie, a fine gentleman. They had a report, yes, in six months, and what did they do with it? Absolutely nothing.

So do we want to do it right? I think we need to do it right. We talked to our municipal partners, and they are onside with us. They want to make sure that they are a part of the process, and they are going to

be part of the process. It's not another hand-me-down.

Some of the things they thought were right we don't think are right. In eastern Ontario, 40% of the highways were handed from provincial to municipal, with what? With very little compensation. I was privileged

to be part of the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus when we tried to lobby government on the needs of those rural municipalities in eastern Ontario. Well, not once were we afforded the opportunity to meet with the government of the day. I can tell

you, every time eastern Ontario wants to meet, the members of this government are listening. I know. I've been there in every meeting and so have cabinet ministers.

We want to get it right. We want to engage the municipalities, not with a hand-me-down and throw it at them, or do nothing and take it as it goes. As much as I want to support this resolution, the hasty way

this was brought out -- we need to do it right. They didn't do anything for eight years. We're going to do it right.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to leave time for my colleague from Huron-Bruce.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I'm pleased to join the debate this morning on my colleague from Oxford's motion, which I support wholeheartedly.

It's one of the most cynical in a series of cynical things that this government has done: Show up at AMO and announce that they're going to have an 18-month review of the funding relationship between

municipalities and the province. At the ministers' forum that day -- they call it a ministers' forum. I don't know why they call it that. They should have changed the name for that day, because fully 10 members of this cabinet chose not to even

show up. That's how much they care about municipalities in this province. They didn't even show up at the ministers' forum -- so cynical. And they talked about a new relationship with municipalities. They talked about and they promised, "No more

downloading." Well, they are proceeding with the biggest downloading in this province's history in Bill 43.

I heard the member from Peterborough earlier today talking and ranting. He was shown a letter at the committee hearings in Peterborough that he wrote to a constituent looking for his help so that he could

defeat Bill 43. I am looking forward to the vote on Bill 43. I expect the member for Peterborough to stand up for his constituents and vote against Bill 43, because a $7-million buyoff of Ron Bonnett is not acceptable to farmers in this province.

Farmers aren't buying it. Maybe a Liberal, Ron Bonnett, is buying it, but farmers aren't buying it in this province. This is absolutely ridiculous, a $7-million buyout of Ron Bonnett for his support on Bill 43.

They're playing politics with this issue. They're putting it under the rug for 18 months. They know this could be dealt with much, much sooner. My colleague says 120 days. That is more than sufficient. What

issues this government doesn't like, they want to put under the rug for the next 18 months and put them past the next provincial election.

You know what? People out there don't believe a single word you say anymore. Look at your pronouncements about health. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, they signed an agreement to bring in a private company to operate

the ER in Cambridge. The Minister of Health makes it up as he goes along, but people are tired of it. They don't believe a single word anymore, and they're not going to buy this 18-month hide behind the curtain while this relationship that should

be dealt with now -- in fact, at the 2005 AMO conference, our leader, John Tory, called for that review to begin then, not this year. But what does this government do? Put it off for another year so they can buy time to get beyond the next

election because they have not followed through on their commitments to municipalities in this province. "No more downloading," and they proceed with the biggest downloading in this province's history.

They have done nothing to appoint justices of the peace in this province. Municipalities are losing money from POA offences, money that would go to municipalities, because we don't have enough JPs, and the

minister has done nothing. I have in my riding several qualified people who have applied to be justices of the peace, but they don't even get a hearing because this government has failed to act on law and order, it has failed to act on health, it

has failed to act on education and it has failed to act on energy. It simply wants to put everything off until the election is over. Well, the people aren't buying it, ladies and gentlemen.

If you really want to stand up for the people of Ontario, we've got 120 days to say yes to a new relationship between the province of Ontario and municipalities. I say yes, it's time for you people to stand up

for your constituents, not buy this stuff the Premier wants to do. Stand up for your constituents and say yes to this resolution.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I have to say, I've sat through this debate this morning and I'm shaking my head trying to figure out if people have no memory at all or what exactly

people's recollections are in terms of their own responsibility for some of the mess the municipalities find themselves in.

Nonetheless, I thought it was important to bring to the table some comments from my own municipality. I wanted to quote from an

article that was in the Hamilton Spectator, dated, I believe, late March or early

April 2005. "Province Fiddles -- We Get Burned." This is an editorial from the Hamilton Spectator in 2005. That's after, in 2004, my city, the city of Hamilton, begged this province to come up with a systemic change that would deal with the fiscal

problems that, because of the downloading of the previous government, the city had been struggling through for years. No answers. Because of a by-election, some would say, the payoff came in 2004. In 2005, there were no answers coming. The city

was nervous. There were major articles in the Spectator again. Eventually, the Liberal government came through with the payoff. Again this year, they came through with the payoff. But what the

article says is this:

"Hamilton is frozen into a sort of fiscal limbo, unable to move ahead with its budget process, while it waits for an answer to Mayor Larry Di Ianni's request to the provincial government for $19.5 million to

cover Hamilton's extra costs of downloaded social services. Two budget meetings have been cancelled and there is the growing possibility of delayed tax bills, costing the city significant interest revenue.

"The province came through with $19.5 million in 2004, but there's no assurance they'll repeat this year." That was last year. "The province says -- local taxpayers can only take this at face value at this

point -- it is looking for a fairer and more sustainable way of providing assistance to municipalities for downloaded costs."

That was in April or March 2005. We in the city of Hamilton were told that the province was "looking for a fairer and more sustainable way of providing assistance to municipalities for downloaded costs." If

you were looking for it back then, how come you still have to look for it until 2008, particularly when a lot of the work has already been done by AMO, by other studies that have taken place on this very issue? It is reprehensible that this

government continues to ignore the crushing pressure on municipalities in this province.

The

article goes on to criticize the Liberal government in their lack of a systemic answer to this problem and the uncertainty that it's causing for municipalities, and ends up by saying this. I think it

reflects very clearly some of the comments of my colleague, because what he talked about is how this affects the economic stability of a community: "Hamilton's business is on hold -- and potential investors are getting the wrong message about this

city's economic renewal -- while Queen's Park, well, fiddles. They've had more than a year since Di Ianni first presented his case, but still there is nothing. Hamilton deserves better." That was a year and a half ago, and our Hamilton Spectator

was saying that there had already been a year given. The time is now, not 2008. Get to the problem.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): It's certainly my pleasure to rise. I will not be supporting this resolution put forward by the member from Oxford, but I do want to say that the member from

Oxford and myself do share a similar background. We have both come up through the municipal ranks. I know that the member was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing from 1995 to 1999, when the downloading

happened. I know that he was a very active cheerleader as the process unfolded.

I do want to bring to the attention of the people of Ontario that when the Premier made the announcement at AMO -- how was that received? He was received with a standing ovation. Our government is acknowledged

for respecting municipalities. From both parties, from across the way, their demonstration of how they conducted themselves while they were in government is clear, the patterns people understand. I must say that when I hear that the raw cynicism

and the absolutely critical way that one talks about municipalities is still very strong there, I know that in my riding people want us to get on with the job. They want to see collective discussion. They understand that this is complex. They

understand that this will take time and they are supportive of that. The other parties are supporting that this happens, so they are supporting the government. What we talk about is time, and when we talk about the time, we know where their

backgrounds come from. They are not prepared to understand or give support to the municipalities, neither party. Your history dictates what you did.

It will be a substantial review. The municipal relationships, the government -- we need to work through our responsibilities. We need to take the time. How much time was given when all the downloading

happened? How much consultation happened? People remember. A number of municipal politicians are still there. A public report will be released in the spring of 2008. Despite argument from the opposition, a review of this scale and this importance

cannot be done hastily. We have to allow the time for intergovernmental co-operation in this province to evolve. The McGuinty government will take the time that's needed to get this right.

We have demonstrated that we are listening and that we understand, and there has been significant movement in many things, when we talk about ambulances, about public health, and there are many other things

that we can talk about. We understand; we're setting a process in place. We're giving the proper time for that analysis, and it's critical analysis. There isn't anyone here who will not say that the massive downloading that was done by the

previous government has put an unsustainable pressure on the taxation of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Hardeman: Fix it.

Mrs. Mitchell: We will fix it, and you understand we'll fix it, and you support that we are beginning to fix it. But to stand up and then to talk as if people don't know where it came from

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Mitchell: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, people remember. Unlike previous administrations, which made adversaries partners, they weren't partners; the term was used loosely. If that was a

partnership, then there was none. There were lots of sayings at that time, but I think that we can just say that our government is committed to developing a very productive relationship with our Ontario municipalities, and we will continue to work

towards that.

When the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke makes the comment about cynicism, "Stand up for municipalities," we have, and we will continue to do that.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today and speak in support of the resolution brought forward by my colleague the member from Oxford to expedite the

provincial-municipal fiscal and service delivery review. The member from Huron-Bruce is saying, "We're doing it." Well, you've been in government for three years, you've got a planned study for after the next election, you were in municipal

politics before, and I'm sure you have great insight.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms. Scott: I'm sure you already had great insight before you were elected as a member of provincial Parliament on ways that we could fix this imbalance that exists. But it's disappointing to

hear that she's not going to supporting the bill.

Mrs. Mitchell: It's a resolution.

Ms. Scott: The resolution.

My colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke mentioned Bill 43, the Clean Water Act, which is a huge download onto municipalities and property owners -- we've heard that consistently -- and $7 million is a

drop in the bucket, to say it lightly. When municipalities saw that, they said, "What is the present Liberal government doing? They said they were going to help us with this imbalance." They've made all of these motions, and yet they're

downloading yet again. Two fantastic figures --

Interjection.

Ms. Scott: Actually there were no real dollar amounts. We kept asking, "Do you know how much that's going to cost?" and the government can't provide those details. They're asking the

municipalities to take the unassumed liability for the Clean Water Act, and it's just absolutely not fair. It's avoidance of a provincial responsibility.

It's been stated by my colleague from Oxford numerous times that the cost of services and programs for municipalities is increasing at a rate that they cannot keep pace with. The municipalities desperately

need to raise the funds needed. They're left with fewer alternatives other than to raise funds through the municipal tax base.

In my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, there are painful examples of rural municipalities that need dollars for infrastructure, new water systems, roads and bridges, and they're just burdened. Rural

municipalities face a much harder struggle. I'm going to leave the MPAC system for another day, but in Haliburton county alone we saw the largest, single increase in properties than anywhere else in Ontario in the last assessments.

Interjection.

Ms. Scott: But you've been in government for three years. You can fix the problem. I'm just saying let's have a little historical analysis here. I find it terrible that people in my riding,

seniors especially, are finding it hard to stay in their own homes because of all these rising costs. If they had known that before, they may not even have moved up, which is a terrible thing to say, that people would not come to the riding

because they can't afford to stay in their homes in the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

I'm saying that the gap is growing. You put 18 months to do a study. We have quotes from Roger Anderson saying, "The longer we wait, the more it will cost us in lost opportunity and investment in the core

municipal responsibilities, such as transit, transportation and essential water and wastewater infrastructure." He's saying don't do the 18 months -- the former president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. My colleague from Oxford,

who has done a great job as critic for municipal affairs and housing, has heard this.

Interjections.

Ms. Scott: Obviously the members on the other side are a little touchy, and this is why we're getting this feedback.

You've had three years to deal with the issue of transfer payments. You've chosen to partake in yet another report, putting off your responsibilities. That seems to be routine: Broken promise, broken promise;

say anything to get elected. "We'll wait till after the next election before we do anything decisive." We've seen increased indecisiveness.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Make your speaking notes sound like you actually believe them, will you?

Ms. Scott: Actually it's not even on the notes, I hate to tell you.

I want to commend the member from Oxford. I want to encourage the members on the opposite side of the Legislature to reconsider their opposition to this resolution this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Hardman, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Hardeman: I want to thank the members from Nepean-Carleton, Toronto-Danforth, Northumberland, Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Hamilton East, Huron-Bruce and Peterborough for their time and

their contributions.

From all of those who spoke, including the government side, it becomes quite clear that the promise of an 18-month review is an election issue. In fact, they want to put off the decision until after the next

provincial election.

I know the government side suggests that that's not the case, but I go to the comments of the member from Peterborough in particular, when he talked about the things that they were already doing. It would seem

to me that if the things they were already doing were, in their minds, solving the problem of the fiscal imbalance between the municipalities and the province, if that's the case, then they must know what the problem is. All they need to do is

solve the problem, and they don't need an 18-month review to do that. They just need to talk to the municipalities and decide what needs to be done, whether the service should be transferred or whether the money should be transferred from the

province to the municipalities in order to deliver that service.

He spoke about how the government was already doing it with what they called their municipal partnership fund. In fact, that was called the community reinvestment fund before they decided they had to

liberalize it and call it something different. When I say "liberalize" it, what they really did was reduce the amount of money in it, and they've reduced it each year; in fact, they have projected to reduce it down to zero. So I don't think that

that is really solving the problem. What we really need to do is get together with municipalities and expediently decide what needs to be done in order to fix the fiscal imbalance between the provincial revenues and the provincial services that

municipalities provide on behalf of the province.

I want to say to the member from Huron-Bruce, yes, I was involved with the first Who Does What panel, and I proudly stand here and say that what we did needed doing.

RESTORE THE DEED ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DES TITRES

Mr. Tascona moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Land Titles Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'enregistrement des droits immobiliers.

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

Applause.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to rise to the applause of the government whip. I believe that this issue which is in front of us today is a very serious

issue, because we have a problem in this province with respect to identity theft, which has to be addressed by this government. I believe that this bill that I have put together, with a lot consultation from the people who are in the know, is an

important step forward to bring back integrity into the registry system.

There are a number of aspects of the bill that I think are important. First of all, innocent people who own property -- whether they live in that actual property, whether it's a cottage that they own, whether

it's a house that they rent -- have the right to continue to be the owners of that property, and it shouldn't be taken away from them through identity theft, through the different means that can be done. The simplest means is by fraudulent

identity, by forged powers of attorney, taking away title from individuals. We've had some high-profile cases, unfortunately, here in the city of Toronto: Ms. Shepherd, Ms. Lawrence and Mr. Reviczky have faced very difficult circumstances, with

their title being affected and mortgages being put on their property, unbeknownst to them.

What I think is important about this bill, and what I would urge the government to look at seriously, is that identity theft, any transaction that results in the fraudulent change of title ownership, is null

and void. If there's an innocent purchaser, then that innocent purchaser should go to the land titles assurance fund for relief.

Also, dealing with innocent lenders, we believe, in this bill, the appropriate way to deal with this is to reform the land titles assurance fund where there's an innocent lender in a situation where they've

put a fraudulent mortgage on, and the problem is, in this province -- and everybody should know that -- a fraudulent mortgage, however obtained, if it's registered through the registry system, land titles system, is legitimate, even if it's

fraudulently obtained. That's what the problem is. That was a Court of Appeal decision that was finally rendered in November 2005, and it has changed fundamentally how real estate is done in this province. That decision originally came down in

2004. The unfortunate part of it is, the government has not done anything with respect to identity theft and mortgage fraud since the rendering of that particular decision back in 2004. So we're almost three years from that date and nothing has

been done by the government. That's why this bill is important to get this process rolling, and that's why it's important that this bill receives second reading today and passage.

Looking at the bill in terms of fraudulent mortgage transactions, the land titles assurance fund, as it is currently constituted, is a fund of last resort. It's a government fund, but it requires the harmed

party to go after the fraudulent character who has brought about this transaction, who could be fictitious, because a lot of it is done through fraudulent identity. So they could be chasing someone they will never get. The court system is

time-consuming. It's also expensive.

What we're looking at is the system that's in New Brunswick, where this is a fund of first resort, so the innocent party or the innocent lender immediately goes to the fund, instead of the situation which is

facing Ms. Lawrence. She finds that there's a mortgage slapped on her property title and she's faced with payments with respect to a fraudulent mortgage obtained, but unfortunately on title. Obviously, the party that has loaned the money believes

they're entitled to that money. We have to change that so people aren't faced with a situation where they can be pushed out of their house because of a fraudulent mortgage where it's sought to be enforced by the innocent lender.

Unfortunately, the law -- and I don't agree that's the right law in this province -- is that a fraudulent mortgage, however obtained, if it's registered, is valid. We have to change that; we have to make sure

that it doesn't continue.

Secondly, we have to maintain the integrity of the land titles system, and the one way to do it is to restrict access to Teranet and restrict access to who can register documents manually in the land titles

system. I believe that process should be restricted to licensed real estate professionals with liability insurance to make sure that people are protected from anyone being able to register. From my understanding, if you get on the Teranet system

as a licence holder, and you can do that simply by having a fraudulent automobile insurance licence, then that would allow you, whether you've got expertise or not -- or if you're a huckster, what you do is you get on the system, you get licensed.

That licensing allows you to register documents. That's a major problem for someone who is involved in fraudulent activity. So that document, if it gets registered, as we know, is valid because it's registered. We have to not allow those people to

get access, to be licence holders in the Teranet system.

What we also have to implement is a notification system, which they have in Saskatchewan, where if someone is fooling around with your title, then you're going to get alerted to that, and if you have e-mail it

would be almost instantaneously. The system has worked in Saskatchewan with respect to bringing notice to people where their title is being scoped and there is activity with respect to their title.

Finally, we have to also look at a PIN system, where you will not be able to process a transaction with respect to either a transfer or a mortgage without the title holder's consent and without obtaining their

PIN system. That's another safeguard with respect to the integrity of the land titles system. I believe that's something that is important. Obviously, we have the technology to do that in this province.

The third major change has to do with the land titles assurance fund, which I commented on earlier. It has to be a fund of first resort, as it is in the province of New Brunswick, to make sure that we use it

in a process such that we can get speedy remedial relief for the people who need it, and that the land titles assurance fund not be run by the director of titles but run by an independent board of representatives from the industry and consumers'

groups and police groups so that we have a good understanding of what's happening out there with respect to theft, but we also have a process that will ensure speedier relief and a process that will ensure speedier relief and a process that will

ensure that government red tape doesn't bog down the relief that people are entitled to.

Another area of the bill that obviously is important, because of what happened to Mr. Reviczky and I believe Ms. Shepherd, is fraudulent power of attorney. People are saying that relatives of these individuals

are coming in with fraudulent power of attorney to transfer the title and are also going forth with mortgage transactions. The Powers of Attorney Act has to be changed to what it's like in Alberta. In Alberta, they have a process where there's an

affidavit requirement with respect to people who are swearing the power of attorney, as opposed to the kit that anyone can obtain right now, where they scribble and it's not really legitimate in terms of the power of attorney. So we need a process

that will make sure that the power of attorney is not only legible in terms of who's signing it, but also that we have independent evidence with respect to the legitimacy of the power of attorney, just because of those two high-profile cases where

people have been able to pose as next of kin and use fraudulent power of attorney to get title.

This is a serious problem. Obviously, the federal government needs to look at this also to make this a specific offence with minimum sentences, because it's important. I also would urge that the provincial

government, through the OPP, set up a task force to deal with this type of transaction. It's a serious situation that has to be addressed in a very serious manner, because it's not going away. This court decision is the law in the province. The

people need the protection now. There are situations where this is happening; I'm not going to mention them. There's a high-profile case in my riding right now involving alleged mortgage fraud, and it has to be addressed. But the law society

knows. They have a backlog with respect to lawyers who are involved in these types of transactions that they're dealing with now. So it's a very serious problem, and I encourage debate on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased to speak to the bill. New Democrats indicate very clearly that we support this bill in principle. I think it's important that it be passed today

so that it can go to committee. I commend the sponsor of the bill for putting it forward in as timely a manner as possible, to wit, at the first possible opportunity, as compared to the government, the minister of whom I'm very fond and for whom I

have high regard, but who prefers press conferences and announcements of announcements rather than coming up with the goods. Indeed, I want to state clearly now that should this bill pass today, or should this government perhaps somewhat

predictably not allow it to be put to committee for full and thorough and broad-based hearings and consultation, then the government bill, whenever it may arrive, should be put to committee after first reading.

There is an incredibly great deal of expertise out there around this whole area. Lord knows there's a whole lot of experience, because we've met some of the very innocent victims and the incredibly tragic

consequences of land titles fraud. But there are solutions out there that people with this expertise are prepared to offer up. I've spoken with some of those same people. Some of them are lawyers. Not one of them has received a call from the

government. These are some of the people who as lawyers have been intimately involved in some of the litigation and some of the in-depth research and thought that goes into preparing for that litigation.

First, let's deal with the assurance fund. It is imperative -- and in this respect we agree entirely with the proposal put forward in the bill today -- that the assurance fund be a fund of first resort. Look,

let's understand what's going on here. The state, for any number of good reasons, including the protection of people's property rights and the insurance of a system whereby there can be a market in these properties, establishes a land title

system. Indeed, the abandonment, if you will, of the land registry system and the unification of land registry in the province of Ontario under land titles, is designed to create a stable, transparent -- I say "transparent," and I hope I'll have

time to get to that in a few moments -- system that one can rely upon to safeguard their interests in land as property owners.

Remember Duddy Kravitz in Mordecai Richler's book? He's talking to his grandfather, his dedo, and the old man tells him, "A man without land is nobody." Do you remember that? The old dedo, the refugee from the

pogroms of eastern Europe, who knew what it meant to be a mere serf and not to have title to even the smallest bit of land.

The land title system is the state's guarantee to the community, to the residents of this province, that their interest in land will be assured, protected and guaranteed. That means, in my view, that when the

system fails, the state has a responsibility to ensure that those who have been failed and who suffer losses, be compensated. It's a pretty simple proposition.

What I would like to see legislation contain, as well, is a subrogation of those rights of the person defrauded to the land assurance fund, so that the land assurance fund can then actively pursue the fraud

artists, if indeed they can be found, or the persons responsible and liable. Because the liability, in my view, should extend beyond the mere scam artists, the mere grifters who perform this type of crime.

It is inevitable that from time to time lawyers -- either incompetent lawyers, careless lawyers or outright criminal lawyers -- are going to be complicitous. It's my view that lawyers, even when they display

carelessness, have to accept some of the responsibility for a fraud, once that fraud has taken place.

I have the Toronto Star

article that was indirectly referred to by Mr. Tascona -- a lawyer charged -- and of course that means nothing, because it's merely a charge. But it raises the prospect that lawyers,

either through outright criminal intent or through, as I say, carelessness and incompetence, could be parties to be this.

Let's understand. You cut the government some slack, Mr. Tascona, that I'm not prepared to. I find you today far more generous to this Liberal government than I am prepared to be, because you somehow suggest

that it was only Justice Herman's ruling in 2004 that should have rung the alarm bells. And let's be fair: The appeal wasn't heard until the spring of 2005, and then judgment rendered in the fall of 2005. Surely that Court of Appeal ruling --

because the Court of Appeal ruling in my submission to you, Speaker, merely and quite simply pointed out a conflict in two sections of the existing Land Titles Act. One is subsection 78(4) and the other is

section 155. While some have decried the

ruling as somehow being nonsensical, I think the ruling is quite sound. You will notice nobody appealed it. The ruling is quite sound.

One of the interesting observations made by Justice Armstrong was that, notwithstanding the theoretical basis of our land title system, and that is the three principles -- the mirror principle, the insurance

principle and the curtain principle -- it's the language in the act that determines what's valid and what's not.

Why I'm not prepared to be as generous as you are, Mr. Tascona, is because this doesn't date back to the litigation that commenced and upon which there was a motions court ruling in 2004. In the Court of

Appeal's own judgment, it makes reference to the ruling by the Court of Appeal in R.A. & J. Family Investment Corp. and Orzech in 1999, wherein there was a discussion about the conflict between 78(4) and

section 155. The concern about the

language in the act and the impact it has on legitimate property owners, and how a fraudulent, subsequently registered document can infect, indeed undermine, that ownership -- the alarm bells were going off back in 1999 in the Ontario Court of

Appeal.

So indeed this isn't a modest delinquency on the part of the government. The McGuinty Liberals have been downright negligent in failing to address and respond to the issue, and remain so, because, quite

frankly, it doesn't take a whole lot, in my submission to you, to correct the conflict between 155 and 78(4).

Section 155: "Subject to the provisions of this act, with respect to registered dispositions ... that, if unregistered, would be

fraudulent and void...." It seems to me that merely amending the act and eliminating "Subject to the provisions of this act," because of 78(4), which the courts say validates a document that would otherwise be a nullity pursuant to

section 155. It

seems to me that correcting the language to respond to the Court of Appeal ruling in Household Realty is not in and of itself a cumbersome or complex task.

But there's something far more fundamental here. With respect, I disagree with you, Mr. Tascona. Enhancing the penalties under the provincial statute is not going to deter fraud artists from committing fraud,

with respect.

Interjection.

Mr. Kormos: We have a Criminal Code. The Criminal Code has serious consequences for people who commit fraud. The problem, though, is that people who commit fraud, especially this type of

fraud, tend to be pretty sophisticated, pretty slippery types. They don't leave calling cards behind. They don't leave a resumé with the address and phone number of their next of kin on the doorstep of the person who's been the victim of

their fraud. It's the very nature of the beast. They're hard to find; they're hard to detect. That's what victims of fraud have discovered when they've tried to pursue them in the civil courts, which is the current prerequisite before you can

access the assurance fund.

I submit that there has to be some serious consideration to whether or not the real weakness in the system is in fact electronic registration. I put to you -- and I come from that old school where, as an

articling student, perhaps like Mr. Tascona, I attended at a land registry office and tendered documents, and the clerks in the land registry office, public sector workers, knew who the lawyers were; they knew who the law students were; they knew

who the land titles searchers were. If there was a forged signature of a lawyer commissioning a document, they knew it was a forgery. I submit to you, there has to be a thorough investigation of the structure of the land titles system, not just of

the legislation. I'm convinced that there's an inherent weakness, an inherent vulnerability in the integrity of the system, with electronic registration.

I agree that at first blush it seemed like the way to go. But its frailties, its weaknesses, have been revealed, I put to you, by virtue of the outstanding work by journalists, people like Levy with the

Toronto Star, who have done exhaustive exposés of how this fraud is committed. I think there has to be a focus on ensuring that we have land titles offices adequately staffed with adequately trained staff, with adequately experienced staff

who physically manage the flow in and out of hard documents.

I want to express gratitude to a dear and long-time friend, John Stephens. He's a lawyer here in the city of Toronto. He wrote me with respect to this issue, and I hope he doesn't mind me referring to this. He

says: "A very long time ago when electronic legislation was being instituted, we discussed the topic and I mentioned that some day someone would sell the First Canadian Place in New York by simply pushing a few buttons." Now John is a very astute

and experienced lawyer, and appreciates that there is now a bit of hyperbole here, but how many more weaknesses do we have to witness in high-priced computer programs or, dare I mention, the integrated justice system? Do folks remember that

boondoggle and the inherent flaws in that? Mr. Stevens's observations are not quite as extreme as they would appear upon first reading them.

I think there has to be a broader debate than just the appropriate and necessary amendments to the Land Titles Act to address the conflict between

section 155 and subsection 78(4). There has to be the adoption

of the principle that the assurance fund is the remedy of first resort for victims. That fund should also have the entitlement to pursue, by any means it can, collection of those funds that were paid out on behalf of a victim from perpetrators of

the fraud. I think there has to be a very active role on the part of the law society in terms of ensuring that lawyers are held to high standards in terms of how they commission and notarize documents, in terms of how they prepare documents, and

addressing the tendency of so many lawyers to let law clerks, legal assistants and title searchers do the heavy lifting when it comes to a real estate transaction, notwithstanding that some of those same lawyers do the heavy charging when it comes

to sending out an invoice or an account.

I say to the government, this has got to go to committee. One of the solutions is ensuring that our land titles offices are fully staffed with experienced, trained people. These are the people who are going to

monitor and detect fraudulent documents, including forged documents. These are the strongest safeguard we could ever develop for ensuring and maintaining the integrity of a land title system which has fallen into disrepute.

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): It's a pleasure to speak on Bill 136,

an Act to amend the Land Titles Act. I want to start by saying I'll be sharing my time with the member from

Davenport.

First of all, I have to commend Minister Gerry Phillips and his former parliamentary assistant, my predecessor Mrs. Liz Sandals, for the fine work that they have done. I know that the people in my riding of

Brampton West-Mississauga, and all the people in the province, for that matter, work hard to make a house into a home, which usually is their only real asset. At the minimum, they deserve to know that their property is safe.

First of all, I want to tell you what our government has done so far to protect people's investments. Since the spring, our government has brought together police, financial institutions, lawyers, surveyors

and real estate professionals to develop tactics to combat real estate fraud. We initiated a program through the Ministry of Transportation to make drivers' licences more secure and much more difficult to counterfeit.

Currently, homeowners in Ontario enjoy considerable protection from real estate fraud. The electronic land registration system enhanced the security of land registry by imposing increased identification

requirements. The land titles assurance fund was created to compensate consumers for errors in the system and fraud, which raises some questions, and I have some concerns about the bill that has been introduced by the member from

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.

If the fund were changed to a fund of first resort, significant investigatory and legal resources would be required in order to pursue any person responsible for the fraud. The onus of litigation and

resolution falls on the fund, meaning that the public pays. Our government will be proposing our own amendments to the ministry's land statutes to address fraud very soon. Our proposed legislation will 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. We will raise existing

fines for real estate fraud-related offences from $1,000 to $50,000.

I can assure you that we will continue to build on these proposals, because even one case of fraud is too many. While the government has brought forward many initiatives and implemented new strategies in the

area, the federal government also has a role to play. We will work with the federal government to seek amendments to the Criminal Code to make real estate fraud a separate offence and to establish a national database of real estate fraud cases to

properly combat the cross-border element of this crime.

In closing, Bill 136 contains a number of elements that Mr. Phillips has already announced and will be included in our legislation that will be introduced shortly. The real estate fraud working group created

by our government has been discussing all other key issues mentioned in Bill 136, such as access to the land registry system, notices, the land titles assurance fund and the power of attorney with the real estate fraud working group.

I look forward to the continuing debate. Now I'm going to pass on the debate to my colleague Mr. Ruprecht from Davenport.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Whitby-Ajax.

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): I'm very pleased to be able to join this debate on the bill to amend the Land Titles Act, known as the Restore the Deed Act. My colleague the member from

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford is to be commended for bringing forward this bill to deal with one of the most important consumer issues facing Ontarians today. While this Liberal government is telling us that they are committed to dealing with the issues

of title theft and mortgage fraud, all that we've heard to date are statements and announcements with no substance. The commencement of this session of the Legislature was heralded with the announcement that the government was going to deal with

the very important consumer issue of the expiry date of gift cards. I can tell you, I have not heard one single complaint about gift cards and their attendant problems in my riding office, but everywhere I go in my community of Whitby-Ajax and

around this province, people are really concerned with the issues that are dealt with in this bill. This is an issue that affects consumers in a very fundamental way in the province of Ontario, and we in the Progressive Conservative Party are

prepared to deal with it immediately, rather than making an announcement about intending to deal with it and then focusing on electioneering.

The principle of home ownership and property ownership is fundamental in our society. The most significant asset that most people will ever have in their lives is ownership of their home and property. They

rely on the integrity of the land registration system in Ontario to protect their title, and rightfully so. The land title system of registration was originally brought to Ontario to replace the older registry system, which was simply a register

of documents. The registry system simply received the documents but did not guarantee title. The land title system provided a guaranteed system of land registration, such that in the province of Ontario we're in the process of converting all of

the old registry properties into the land title system for this reason.

If we have such a foolproof system of land registration in Ontario, why are property owners like Susan Lawrence, Elizabeth Shepherd and Paul Reviczky losing their interest in their properties? The answer, of

course, is fraud. There are fraud artists out in all of our communities across this province who are determined to steal properties away from their legitimate registered owners -- owners like Susan Lawrence, who lost the title to her 100-year-old

Victorian home of 30 years and who now is being forced to go to court to defend her title; owners like Elizabeth Shepherd, who lost her Leslieville home after tenants took her title; and owners like Paul Reviczky, an 89-year-old man who rented his

North York bungalow to fraud artists who then used a fraudulent power of attorney to take away title to his property.

How can this be happening in Ontario? There are several significant reasons. First of all, there is the growing sophistication of identity theft. Fraudulent identification is more easily available and much

more difficult to detect. The second reason is that access to property records is easily obtained. While we've always had an open system of land registration in the province of Ontario, the introduction of the Teranet system of open, electronic

registration in the late 1990s has opened up the system even more and has allowed fraud artists to get into the system and to wreak the havoc they are doing in our system. While we endorse the principle that registrations of titles should be open

and accessible, we also recognize there is a need that registrations of titles should and need to be protected.

A report entitled Mortgage Fraud, March 24, 2005, prepared by the Law Society of Upper Canada, states that the problems have arisen in part from the anonymization and depersonalization of the process for

buying a house. This includes access to lenders without the requirement of meeting anyone in person or having an established business relationship, the electronic transfer of funds and title documents, and appraisals of properties based on

abstract computer models.

I should say that the Law Society of Upper Canada has been extremely proactive in dealing with this issue and has several lawyers who have been working with law enforcement agencies, title insurance and

mortgage lenders for a number of years now. Some of the results of their work have been very helpful in terms of proceeding with this process.

But now, faced with these significant problems, what can the Restore the Deed Act do?

First of all, the act will ensure that the rightful owners of the property retain their ownership regardless of the fraud. In situations where there is an innocent purchaser or innocent lender, they will be

able to seek compensation from the land titles assurance fund.

Secondly, the act will further limit the categories of persons or organizations entitled to register documents under the land titles system. There will also be a requirement that the existing landowner be

notified of any dealings with the property, and establishing a system of "no dealings," whereby property owners can mark their title, which can only be removed by them using a PIN, or personal identification number, before the property can be sold

or mortgaged.

Access to the land titles assurance fund will become a first-resort rather than a last-resort measure. This will become a significant advantage to landowners because they will no longer be required to resort

to the courts before they apply to the fund. There are obvious legal and financial benefits accruing to this change.

Finally, the bill provides that any landowners affected by fraud prior to the passage of the bill will also be entitled to apply for compensation under the land titles assurance fund.

In conclusion, it is time that property owners in Ontario be given the protection they deserve and expect from their government. We are prepared to vigorously defend their rights, and my colleague the member

from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has prepared, with the assistance of knowledgeable and experienced real estate counsel, a substantive and comprehensive bill to deal with these significant issues. I urge all of the members of this Legislature to

support this bill, and thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Let me say at the outset that I will be supporting Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Land Titles Act. The purpose of it is to curb the growing problem of title theft

and mortgage fraud. The reason I will support this bill is because I think any discussion that will educate the public to the idea of identity theft is very important indeed. I urge all of us to speak to as many people as we can about identity

theft in our own ridings, because there is apparently, as the RCMP tells us, an overwhelming desire by thousands of people on the Internet to defraud consumers.

The problem here, however, is that Mr. Tascona knows Minister Phillips is in the process of preparing a government bill to combat real estate fraud. In fact, he says quite unabashedly -- that's the word from

the Toronto Star, I think -- that he's drafting this bill in a bid to prod the government to take action, which is fine, which is okay. We're here for that purpose, in fact: to try to protect consumers.

Let me simply begin by saying that yes, it is clear that dishonest operators found loopholes in the land registry system. But as you know, not only are there loopholes in the land registry system, there are

loopholes in terms of identity theft in a lot of other places. In fact, I would say that there are not just a number of loopholes, there are a number of holes in the dike of consumer protection.

The whole area of identity theft must be looked at with much greater caution, and with the idea of protecting the consumer. After all, identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in North America. Many of us

too have been subjected to identity theft. I give you one example. I have a bill here from MBNA Canada. It says that I have a credit card. I never activated this credit card, I don't know anything about the credit card, and yet there's a bill here

addressed to me that I owe $866.10 for items I was supposed to have purchased -- clothing and a computer -- in Texas. Of course, if this happens to me, it must happen to many other people. In fact, we do know by reading in the paper on a daily

basis that identity theft is indeed growing. The RCMP tells us that it is the largest-growing crime in our country.

It is clear that if there is a loophole or a hole in this dike of consumer protection, and we certainly have proof on our -- by the way, let me just give you one more example of consumer fraud and identify

theft. Right here, I have another letter from RBC and indeed another one from the Bank of Montreal. The Royal Bank says here:

"Dear ... Customer,

"In order to maintain the safety and integrity of our RBC Financial Group, we have issued the following warning. It came to our attention that your account may be suspected of fraud. We ask our users with

exposed accounts to confirm their identity with RBC every once in a while, in order to upkeep the safety of our environment."

I am not therefore surprised that people have the idea that, in terms of safety and in terms of protection of our identity, our system is really not good enough; it is failing us. In fact, if we look south to

the United States and New York, we have Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer says, "Our system of protecting people's identity is virtually nonexistent in this country." I'm therefore not surprised that we have identities stolen, that last year alone

over 10 million consumers in North America had their identity stolen. This would involve billions of dollars; the estimate here is that it would involve $5 billion last year alone. These are big sums of money.

Consequently, I've talked to the RCMP about this, and they're telling me that as we speak now there are between 2,000 and 3,000 people -- that's the estimate -- looking at the computer right now, on the

Internet, looking to steal our identity for illegitimate purposes. But it gets worse: In Canada alone, there are six identified Internet sites where thieves are swapping and buying personal information -- yours and mine. They're swapping social

insurance numbers, they're swapping names, they're swapping addresses, they're swapping credit card information -- and they are buying and selling it as well -- on six identified Internet sites in Canada alone.

To put our finger in this dike is not good enough. We have to act and we have to ensure consumers in Canada that their identities are protected. That's why we as a government keep saying that if your identity

has been compromised, if your identity has been stolen, it's up to consumer credit bureaus or to whoever keeps your identity safe, supposedly safe, to inform you, just like RBC and the Bank of Montreal have informed me. It must be up to them by

law to inform you so you can protect yourself better.

The problem is that Ann Cavoukian, our Privacy Commissioner, is actually saying -- guess what? I didn't know this before and I'm sure that some of you may not know this either -- that out of 10 consumer fraud

cases in terms of stealing your identity, seven you could have done nothing about. Our message, of course, to our residents has to be: Protect your identity, whether it's a social security number or whether it is your credit card number or your

address and your birth date. Protect that. Now Ann Cavoukian is saying to us that seven out of 10 have nothing to do with me, and I could have done absolutely zilch to protect my identity, because it came and it was stolen through consumer credit

bureaus and the banking sector, and that was done through unscrupulous persons who are working in that sector -- seven out of 10. I certainly want to make sure that my identity is protected.

Let's just get back to Bill 136, with a few items that might be improved and that we have a problem with on this side of government.

First, there's

section 2.1, limited access to the land registration system. The bill proposes to limit access for the purpose of registration to certain classes of people such as lawyers, real estate brokers

etc. It does not include individuals and parties that are legitimately involved in real estate transactions who are currently allowed to register, such as document preparation companies and title insurance companies, among others. This may create

issues for numerous companies such as law firms who do much of the land registry work.

Second, on Bill 136, notifications,

section 2.2: When the land registrar registers most documents -- that is, transfer of mortgage, discharge of mortgage -- he or she must send notification to the former

registered owner in the case of a transfer, and the current registered owner in the case of a new mortgage. Problem: The mechanism for notification is not provided for. Discharges of mortgages are not addressed.

Third problem: a registrar's power,

section 2.3 in Bill 136. This

section provides the registrar with the power to balance and to place caution on title or to refuse to register a document. That's

section 2.3.

Similar measures already exist in the Land Titles Act and do not have to be addressed here. Problem: How would this

section work in an electronic system? Most registrations are now received electronically. Land registrars do not see documents

prior to receipt in an electronic system and, as a result, have no ability to refuse their receipt.

Fourth, personal identification numbers in Bill 136,

section 2.4: The bill provides for personal identification numbers to be provided to the registered owners and registered mortgagees and also provides the

land registrar with the power to require use of PINs if such use may prevent fraud. The intent appears to be that the owner would have to provide the PIN to the registrar in order for a transaction to occur. Problem: It is unclear what is being

proposed in Bill 136. Does each person get a PIN for each parcel of land they own, or does each person get a PIN that is attached to all the parcels of land that she owns?

So there are more problems here, but I'm sure that Mr. Tascona will address them when he speaks to this bill. I thank you very much for listening to this point.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to join in the support of the Restore the Deed Act that my colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has brought forward, and

forward-thinking legislation. I think it's good for most Ontarians. There's been some healthy debate here this morning to understand the dynamics of this bill and why this bill needs to be brought forward and why it needs to be brought forward now

and not waiting for the government to just keep doing press conferences and no action.

I think most of us can understand the excitement of going and picking up the keys for that first home that you've bought and the importance of owning a piece of property, as the member from Niagara Centre has

said. They work hard, they save the best ways they can, and they make sure their mortgage, home insurance and taxes are all paid up. They are responsible citizens. Some even go so far as to further invest in properties and cottages, hopefully in

my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. But that's why this legislation is so important. My colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford brought forward legislation that goes to the very heart of what we representatives need to do. We need to provide the

type of protection that keeps Ontarians safe from crime, from fraud, from criminals who don't have the desire or the interest in working for what they own.

Unfortunately, it isn't that difficult for a motivated person with poor intentions to obtain false identification. The land titles and registry system is very open and easily accessed. A few minutes of time

and most people can have a look at the records of almost any property just by stopping by the land titles office. This is highly convenient and user-friendly, with good intentions, but equally so for those with not-so-good intentions.

There are reasons for this, especially in today's world of convenience and online banking and registering, which was alluded to earlier.

First, the theft process is sophisticated. There is no doubt about it.

Secondly, long ago are the days when people like my parents walked into the bank and they knew the bank manager, they knew who was involved, they knew the lawyers etc. That personal touch is moving out of

institutions, and people today are looking for quick access, for convenience. They want to do their finances online, stopping at ATM machines. Institutions have responded well to these modern-day needs, but it leaves out the face-to-face,

name-and-handshake concept of only a few years ago.

Thirdly, electronic registration of land titles, mortgages, lines of credit and finances has opened up a virtual door to those who wish to hack into the system. I can't imagine what it would be like for

someone who has spent years and years paying off his or her home only to be handed a notice of mortgage for hundreds of thousands of dollars one afternoon because someone so easily forged their identification and accessed their information. I know

that several cases have been mentioned here today in the Legislature.

That leads me to another problem in Ontario: that the folks across the way, as I said earlier and many other members have said, have refused to address this problem. Yesterday in the House, my colleague from

Nepean-Carleton stated that it took her 18 months to obtain a birth certificate for her child. This McGuinty Liberal government allowed her child to be one and a half years old before getting her the proper birth certificate, and yet, on the other

hand, criminals are walking around with wallets full of false identification -- easily, easily done, and we need to correct it now.

The Liberal government services minister, whom I have the utmost respect for, says, "Well, we'll take our time. Maybe in two or three weeks we'll introduce something on mortgage fraud. But in the meantime,

let's do a press conference. Let's do a bunch of repeat announcements, talk about how we think it's a good idea. Let's convince people that we care." We need action. We need action now. We need to protect the innocent people in our society who

open up to criminals, taking their identity, putting mortgages on their houses, taking their houses.

I know that the lawyers and the legal system, the financial institutions and the registry offices are all practising due diligence, but with modern-day technologies such as Internet banking and electronic

registering, there comes a requirement for up-to-date legislation to protect consumers from those who are hacking into that system. This legislation which my colleague has brought forward provides the direction that protects those consumers, and I

hope all members of the House will see fit to support this legislation and move it forward now.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I am pleased to rise to speak about the save-the-deed act, a very clever and creative name coming from my colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, and certainly

very descriptive of the terrible and real tragedy faced by far too many individuals who have had their homes taken out from beneath them through no fault of their own. After taking every precaution in all likelihood possible, they wake up one day

to find out that they have had their deed registered to someone else or have to pay for a phony mortgage.

I want to commend the outstanding research and hard work that my friend from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has put into his bill, a powerful piece of legislation. I know Alan Silverstein as well, the renowned lawyer

and consumer advocate, has given some outstanding advice to the member in crafting his bill. I hope the research that has been done and the support from individuals like Mr. Silverstein will convince the minister and the government to cross the

floor -- not necessarily to bring their own bill forward, but why not actually do something that happens too rarely in this Legislature, and support Mr. Tascona's bill? If the government has some concerns about it, surely we could use committee

time to amend the bill where appropriate. I know Mr. Tascona would be a very reasonable individual. I'm sure he would want to see this become law. So I hope that the Minister of Government Services will work closely with Mr. Tascona and move this

through. I think it would be tremendous to see a private member's bill get to that stage, supported by all three parties in the House. I see no reason why this wouldn't be the case. I have heard no criticism of this bill from the minister. In

fact, I thought he responded quite positively to it by indicating that he would look at this bill and see what he could use to combat this terrible situation.

I also wanted to commend the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford on what I hope will be, either through his bill or, if the government chooses to do their own, part of a government's bill, to retroactively give

access to the land titles assurance fund to those individuals who have been scammed out of ownership of their property. To date, the government's response to those particular individuals detailed in the media has been lacklustre, to say the best

about their response. Their real tragedies have been largely ignored. I fear that if the government brings forward its own bill, it will not address those individuals, who truly have been impacted largely out of government inaction. It dates back

to 2004, when the most recent court case came forward, which allowed a fraudulent transaction on one transfer of ownership to be recognized by the courts. So an individual would lose title to his or her home if there is an innocent purchaser

involved.

So now for two years, almost -- at least a year and a half -- this has been the reality, but the government has been awfully slow to address this issue. In fact, the earliest government responses were tepid at

best, either not recognizing the nature of this problem or a very laborious response in terms of getting legislation before the House. The government now says it will bring forward legislation this fall. I commend my colleague for putting pressure

on the government to bring something forward. But given the tremendous amount of work that Mr. Tascona, the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, has put into this bill, and that he has listened to strong consumer advocates like Mr. Silverstein,

among others, I say to my colleagues across the way, why not support this bill, send it to committee? I know my colleague would be more than willing to work with Minister Phillips and others interested to make the best possible bill supported by

all three parties.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Tascona, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Tascona: I'm very pleased to respond. I appreciate the comments of all of my colleagues here this morning. They recognize that this is a serious problem. I would urge the government to

take a very careful look at this bill and perhaps even read it, to understand that it is much broader than what the minister is proposing and was reported in the paper. There are fundamental differences from what is being proposed in this bill,

which is to make the land titles assurance fund a fund of first resort, changes to the Powers of Attorney Act, also with respect to putting in integrity and restrictions and curbing access to fraudulent activity to the registry system, which I

think is very important, and to deal with making sure that fraudulent title transactions are dealt with and that the public is protected.

This is what this is all about: consumer protection. For many people, their home is their most valuable and expensive asset, something that we all work towards having. To have it taken away from them by a

system that everybody relies on, that should have integrity, or to have a lien or a mortgage put against it when they have no knowledge of that, is something that people in this province need protection from. It's a serious issue; there have been

some people seriously taken advantage of with respect to these types of transactions. I believe it's in the government's best interests. This bill, I think, is very comprehensive and deals with a lot of the issues that have to be taken. But it is

a policy decision in terms of what has to be done, and I believe the government should be looking at it in that manner.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL

FISCAL REVIEW

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will first deal with private member's notice of motion number 24, standing in the name of Mr. Hardeman.

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.

We will call in the members, and there will be a vote.

RESTORE THE DEED ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DES TITRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with second reading of Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Land Titles Act, standing in the name of Mr. Tascona.

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.

We'll have a vote on this as well. Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL

FISCAL REVIEW

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Hardeman has moved that, in the opinion of this House, the proposed provincial-municipal fiscal and service delivery review, which will not be

completed until February 2008, after the next provincial election, is needlessly drawn out and that a full review to balance the delivery of services with the ability to pay should be completed much more expeditiously, in order to avoid hitting

Ontario taxpayers with unsustainable property tax hikes or significant reductions in service.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Chudleigh, Ted

DiNovo, Cheri

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Kormos, Peter

MacLeod, Lisa

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

Nays

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Van Bommel, Maria

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 17; the nays are 14.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

RESTORE THE DEED ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DES TITRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 48, standing in the name of Mr. Tascona. We'll open the door for 30 seconds.

Mr. Tascona has moved second reading of Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.

All those in favour, please stand and be counted.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

DiNovo, Cheri

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilson, Jim

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

Nays

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Hoy, Pat

Rinaldi, Lou

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 28; the nays are 4.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Mr. Speaker, I request that the bill be referred to the committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, the House is adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RIGHT TO KNOW DAY

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): It's my pleasure to address this Legislature today and acknowledge that today is a great day: It's international Right To Know Day. On September 28, 2002,

freedom-of-information organizations from countries around the globe met in Sofia, Bulgaria, created a network of freedom-of-information advocates, and agreed to collaborate in the promotion of open government. How fitting, because my bosses, the

fine people of Nepean-Carleton -- in fact, all the taxpayers of Ontario -- have a right to know the truth, the truth about the actual cost related to the trillium logo boondoggle that is happening in government services.

Ontarians have heard that the McGuinty Liberals have paid yet another Liberal-friendly ad firm, Bensimon Byrne, $219,000 to redesign a logo that did not need a redesign. Neither the Premier nor any of his

cabinet ministers have been able to answer the real questions the people of Ontario have: How much will it cost us, and why did you needlessly change a logo that has endured 40 years, seven governments and three major political parties? Surely the

Premier does not think he is above Ontario's institutions.

It was Bensimon Byrne who made the 2003 election ads for the Ontario Liberal Party. You remember those ads: "I won't raise your taxes." He promised he wouldn't raise our taxes and ironically turned around and

handed us the single largest tax increase in Ontario's history. This same Liberal ad firm, Bensimon Byrne, who made those Liberal ads, just happened to walk off with our tax dollars so they could unnecessarily change one of our institutions.

Ontarians --

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

SANDBAR BUILDING IN HAMILTON

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I rise in the House today to applaud the Attorney General, Michael Bryant, for his support of the city of Hamilton as we encourage a safer and prosperous

community. On April 4 of this year, I rose in this House to thank the Attorney General for his courage and leadership in allowing the province to foreclose on the owners of a building which had a notorious reputation as a crack house and had also

been the scene of two cocaine-related murders. This building, known locally as the Sandbar, at 193 King Street East, is closed, thanks to Attorney General Michael Bryant.

This morning, I had the pleasure of joining the Attorney General in Hamilton as he handed over the deed and the keys of the former Sandbar property to the city of Hamilton under the Civil Remedies Act. The

Attorney General considered all options and engaged the city of Hamilton and Mr. Brian Mullan, chief of police, and the local business improvement associations to seek their ideas and preferences. The closure of this crack house was important to

Hamilton because it signals the revitalization of our downtown core.

I want to commend Mayor Di Ianni, city hall, and especially the downtown renewal department for beginning this initiative and promoting Hamilton's downtown core after many years of challenge. The citizens and

business people of Hamilton were victims of the unlawful activity that surrounded this horrible crack house. The Attorney General is transferring this property to the city of Hamilton to allow Hamilton to decide on the fate of this property and

its future. This opportunity gives the city planners the chance --

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

RIGHT TO KNOW DAY

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Members well know from my colleague that today is international Right to Know Day, and today is also day 213 of the crisis in Caledonia. The people of Caledonia,

Six Nations and across Ontario have a right to know what exactly is going to be the cost of Dalton McGuinty's weak leadership. Taxpayers across the province of Ontario have a right to know how much the ongoing and heavy Ontario Provincial Police

presence is going to cost taxpayers. The people of Niagara, Haldimand and Hamilton have a right to know the value of the 250 acres of agricultural land already handed over as a result of the occupation. The people of Caledonia and Six Nations have

a right to know why the McGuinty government is continuing to send electricity to the site of the occupation and how much that is going to cost Ontario taxpayers. The people of the area want to know why the McGuinty government continues to send

water to the occupied site and how much that is going to cost local taxpayers.

The people have a right to know what direction was given by the McGuinty government to the Ontario Provincial Police in the handling of this situation. And residents of Caledonia, Six Nations and

Hamilton-Niagara have a right to know exactly what they mean when they say that great progress has taken place at the table, because at day 213, that's not evident.

We have a right to know the cost of McGuinty's weak leadership.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Manufacturing jobs are the bedrock of our economy. These are good-paying jobs that allow people to build their homes and pay for them, to raise their kids,

to send their kids on to college and university, and to try to plan for a somewhat modest but decent retirement.

We have a crisis now in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, a jobs crisis. In the course of the last two years we've lost over 118,000 manufacturing jobs. That's over 10% of the total amount of jobs. In the years to

come we risk losing hundreds of thousands more. All the while, we have a Liberal government that simply stands on the sidelines doing nothing, twiddling its thumbs, and in fact, all the more significantly, aggravating this scenario by pursuing a

dreadfully dangerous and job-destroying higher and higher electricity rate and privatization electricity policy.

That's why the New Democrats have proposed the establishment of a job protection commissioner, something the Liberals have shown no interest in and shown no concern for. A job protection commissioner would be

there at the beginning, before the jobs are lost, to help employers, workers and communities plan when jobs are being put at risk as a result of this government's policies and to try to develop a plan to save those jobs rather than simply bidding

them adieu and waving them goodbye, as Dalton McGuinty and his Minister of Economic Development do with thousands upon thousands of jobs -- most recently, good Ford jobs like those down in Windsor, Ontario.

AGRICULTURE SURVEY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): This summer, I sent a householder to my constituents in the riding of Huron-Bruce and the focus was Ontario's agriculture sector, especially as it relates to

my riding. The newsletter also contained a comprehensive questionnaire on agriculture and food. The response to this questionnaire was very strong. This will allow for a better understanding of the concerns of those both directly and indirectly

affected by agricultural issues in my riding. Some of the issues raised by the questionnaire include a definition of the family farm, income management, and food quality and safety.

In addition to the survey, I held three public forums to discuss the results. Of those results, perhaps the most alarming is the large number of farmers -- 74% -- who are over the age of 46. This could

potentially lead to problems if the number of new farmers coming into the industry does not meet the rapid rate of those retiring.

An overwhelming number of people, both urban and rural, expressed that the Foodland Ontario label has a positive, reassuring meaning in their food purchasing decisions. Some 73% of the respondents also said

that they would support the extension of the Foodland labelling program to red meats. The results of this survey, as well as a number of the issues addressed at the forums, were addressed in letters to the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture as

well as to the Premier.

Our government recently announced $110 million in agricultural funding for income stabilization, $75 million for rural infrastructure, and $7 million for the Clean Water Act: important measures the McGuinty

government supports --

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

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to state once again that hard-working Ontarians have the right to know if the McGuinty Liberals are going to come clean with Ontario

on their mismanagement of waste. Ontarians have the right to know why you broke your promise of 60% waste diversion. Ontarians have the right to know why you said you have an amazing plan and have never presented one.

The member for London West is on record suggesting that he is surprised by the city of Toronto's purchase of the Green Lane landfill site, saying municipalities should deal with their waste at home without

going elsewhere.

Minister Bentley, your constituents have the right to know that you are representing them and not simply spewing out McGuinty Liberal rhetoric. Minister Bentley, as I said to Minister Peters yesterday, if you

are as driven as you claim to be in protecting your constituents, put the rhetoric aside, step away from the comforts of cabinet, stop toeing the McGuinty Liberal party line and do the job of representing your constituents.

It's time the McGuinty Liberals come clean with the people of London and the surrounding communities. It's time for the Liberal members to stop saying anything to get elected. Ontarians have the right to know

why true McGuinty Liberal policy is to say one thing before the election and say something completely different after the election. Despite what Minister Bentley, Minister Peters and the rest of the McGuinty Liberals feel they are entitled to,

hard-working Ontarians have the right to know.

MILK IN SCHOOLS

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): The McGuinty government's active healthy schools plan encourages healthy lifestyles for our students. We've banned junk food in vending machines and

we've added 20 minutes of daily physical activity in our schools. But we're not the only ones concerned about healthy kids. Yesterday, the United Nations celebrated the seventh annual World School Milk Day, which was established to highlight the

importance of milk as part of a child's diet.

Studies show that students eating a healthy lunch which includes milk products are more likely to be successful. In Ontario, schools participate in the elementary school milk program supported by the Dairy

Farmers of Ontario and a team of volunteers at each school. In my riding of London North Centre, children at many elementary schools can receive fresh, cold milk every day they attend classes thanks to this program. Indeed, this province-wide

school milk program delivers over 26 million cartons of milk each year, reaching over 70% of elementary schools.

Let us all take this opportunity to applaud the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and all the volunteers who support them for providing this important service to enhance the health of Ontario's elementary school

children.

AGRICULTURE 101

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Effectively representing the concerns of my rural riding to my urban and suburban colleagues is one of my most important jobs here at Queen's Park. That's

why on August 18, I was pleased once again to co-host with the Perth Federation of Agriculture and our new Minister of Education, Kathleen Wynne, our third annual Agriculture 101 event.

Thirteen of my urban, suburban and rural caucus colleagues from across Ontario, which included fiv