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

June 8, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Jun-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 8 June 2006 Jeudi 8 juin 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO POPULATION

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

ONTARIO POPULATION

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

ONTARIO POPULATION

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MABEL READ

EVENTS IN BRAMPTON

YOUTH SERVICES

HAMILTON WATERFRONT TRAIL

ONTARIO ECONOMY

WILLIS BLAIR

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

INSURANCE RATES

HEATHER CROWE AWARD

DORIS STERLING

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIR ACCESS TO REGULATED PROFESSIONS ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'ACCÈS ÉQUITABLE AUX PROFESSIONS RÉGLEMENTÉES

VISITORS

ONTARIO LABOUR

MARKET BOARD ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA COMMISSION ONTARIENNE DU MARCHÉ DU TRAVAIL

JOB PROTECTION

COMMISSIONER ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE COMMISSAIRE

À LA PROTECTION DES EMPLOIS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS /

COMPÉTENCES DES IMMIGRANTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION /

PROGRAMMES D'ENSEIGNEMENT À

L'ENFANCE EN DIFFICULTÉ

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

EMPLOYMENT

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

EMPLOYMENT

MORE TO DISCOVER FUN PASS

WASTE DIVERSION

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

NATURAL RESOURCES

PROGRAM FUNDING

YOUTH SERVICES

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED STUDENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ADDICTION SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

ONTARIO SPCA

LABOUR UNIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

RENT REGULATION

LONG-TERM CARE

HOME CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER CITY OF TORONTO

FOR A STRONGER ONTARIO ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 CRÉANT

UN TORONTO PLUS FORT

POUR UN ONTARIO PLUS FORT

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If I were to call quorum and quorum were not achieved, would it cancel this

morning's session or would it cancel the entire day's session?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Just this morning.

Mr. Chudleigh: I think a quorum might very well be present.

ONTARIO POPULATION

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately begin to utilize more

accurate population counts when calculating its contribution to various provincial programs and funding partners; and that these population counts be determined through municipal tax rolls and

include a multiplier to account for children.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Chudleigh has moved private member's notice of motion number 15. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr.

Chudleigh, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Chudleigh: Is it number 41 or 15?

The Deputy Speaker: It's ballot item number 41, but it's notice of motion number 15.

Mr. Chudleigh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a matter of fairness. Where provincial funding is based on population, then a true population is necessary or we are shortchanging the high-growth

communities and the people who live in them. Often these funds are desperately needed by growth communities, which are building infrastructure and programs from the ground up rather than enhancing

or simply providing funds for already existing needs. A new hospital in Oakville, for instance, is a brand new facility, and this is one community that is being grossly underfunded; the expansion

of a hospital in Milton, which is more underfunded than the Oakville area. Other programs that are affected here include the gas tax distribution, the transit needs in Oakville and doctor shortages

in communities such as Halton Hills and Milton.

As an example, Milton's current population is 62,000 people; we determined this from the tax rolls. The 2001 census population indicated that there was a

population of 35,000. We've gone from 35,000 to 62,000. That's a difference of 27,000 between the census population and the current population. Those are 27,000 people living in Milton who are not

recognized as being part of provincial funding projects.

Oakville's population is currently about 159,000,

whereas the census population for 2001 put it at 140,000. That's a 19,000-person gap. Brampton's current

population is 435,000 people, while the census in 2001 concluded it was only 325,428. That's over 100,000 people who are not funded through provincial programs. Markham, Ontario's current

population is 257,000,

whereas the census put it at 208,000. That's almost 50,000 people who do not fall into the funding formula for provincial programs, when brought to municipalities.

This situation is not going to go away with the mini-census numbers, when they are released. May 16 is the point in time when these numbers will be collected.

That census won't be released for quite some time; it could be as long as a year and a half. During that time, of course, high-growth communities will continue to grow.

A census is merely a snapshot in time and, like a stopped clock, it is still correct twice each day. The census information is reasonably accurate only twice

each decade. This is not good enough for the towns and the cities and the villages of Ontario that are struggling to maintain their contributions, especially the demands for services, especially

through high-growth areas. High-growth areas exist everywhere in Ontario, from the GTA to Ottawa, and even in some areas that are very popular with retirees.

Although the household count system is used with a factor for children added when municipalities are assessed for their need for physicians -- and this system

works very well: A factor is added to the tax roll population count to account for children, and these numbers and factors are updated and checked for accuracy during the census years.

I'm also very open to suggestions on a better way to count. However, I believe the municipal tax roll system is the easiest to access, the cheapest method

available and will provide substantially accurate results. These accurate results, as I mentioned earlier, could be checked every five years, when we do a census roll, to ensure that the multiplier

effect or the tax roll system is accurate.

How accurate do we see these things that might take place? In Milton, currently we have a 77% disparity rate between the population and the census count. In

Oakville we have a disparity rate of 13.5%. In Brampton it's 34%. Markham is 23%. If we were using the tax roll system and a multiplier effect for children, I would suggest that we would be under

the 2% to 3% disparity rate. In other words, we would have an extremely accurate way in which to count the tax roll program.

What kind of an effect does this have on a town -- in a program for the corporation of the town of Milton, for instance? The Ontario fire service grant is a

grant the province gave to the municipalities based on population counts; Move Ontario is another provincial program that allocated money to municipalities based on population counts; and of course

the federal and provincial gas tax -- both of these programs were based on a combination of municipal transit riders and municipal populations.

The town of Milton, for instance, received almost $3.5 million from these three programs, not including the provincial gas tax distribution because it's got a

rather convoluted and difficult formula. That's $3.5 million that the town of Milton received from these three programs; however, if they had been using accurate population counts from the tax

rolls plus a multiplier for children, the town of Milton would have received $6.856 million. That's an increase of $3.394 million or almost 98%. In other words, Milton is being underfunded by

almost half when it comes to their programs on fire services, on Move Ontario and for municipal transportation through the federal gas tax, and there would be in the area of $120,000 to $130,000

difference in the provincial gas tax transfer.

As I pointed out, Milton is not the only town in Ontario that is suffering. There's Oakville, Burlington, Georgetown, Markham, Brampton, and many, many areas,

particularly in the 905 but also in Ottawa. There are areas of high growth in Ottawa which are not being recognized from the provincial program point of view for the monies that they are not

getting.

This discrepancy is also prevalent when you look at the costs of the CCACs, the community care access centres. Many of their programs are funded through a

population census base as opposed to the actual population in the town at the time. Those people with mental and physical handicap programs -- Erin Oak is a provider of services to these people.

Erin Oak is suffering from underfunding because of the disproportionate number of people they find they have to service, and that population is not being funded properly or fairly through the

current process of using census populations.

Mayor Rick Bonnette of Halton Hills agrees, as does the mayor of Milton, Gord Krantz. They agree very strongly that we should be looking at a different way of

funding these things and the way in which they are currently being funded is totally unfair to local municipalities. In fact, the mayor of Halton Hills supports the intent of the provincial

funding. It should be "based on the most current data available because it is the most fair and equitable way of addressing today's financial pressures being faced by" the current citizens of

Halton Hills. That's a direct quote from Rick Bonnette, mayor of Halton Hills.

"The current funding model does not recognize growing communities such as Milton, because it is based on outdated information," the town of Milton mayor, Gord

Krantz, says. "Our population has almost doubled since the 2001 census, so in areas such as gas tax and hospital funding, Milton is essentially receiving half of what it should. I believe Mr.

Chudleigh is on the right track." He goes on to say some nice things, but I won't bother the assembly with them.

The fact of the matter is, if we can look at a more fair funding formula that takes into account accurate populations, we have that material available to us. We

have that material available through tax rolls. We're already using a multiplier effect when it comes to shortage of physicians in communities. It's something that's within our purview to do. We

have the information, and it would be fair to Ontario to do it.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak briefly to the resolution moved by the member

from Halton: That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately begin to utilize more accurate population counts when calculating its contribution to various

provincial programs and funding partners; and that these population counts be determined through municipal tax rolls and include a multiplier to account for children.

I commend the member for bringing this forward, but I want to start off with a few brief comments first before I get into the resolution itself.

The first issue that comes to my mind when I see this is money. What's it going to cost to do this? These are the famous lines that the Conservatives like to use

whenever the Liberals propose something. It's, "How much will it cost? Can we afford to do it? Who's going to go and check all the municipal tax rolls? Who's going to create the multiplier for

accounting for children? How are we going to account for children who are from divorced parents? What about children who are with one parent some of the time and with the other parent the rest of

the time? There are cost issues involved and we can't afford it right now; we're running a very expensive provincial budget right now." These would be the first arguments the Conservatives would

make, that I'm sure they would love to make: that a lot of money would be spent on this. So it's interesting that in this case it's not an issue. Perhaps when the member from Halton does his

two-minute wrap-up he can explain how the issue of cost is going to be addressed.

That being put aside, I want to say that what the member is trying to do is honourable and well intentioned -- just like my private member's bill was honourable

and well intentioned. He actually spoke to my private member's bill a while back, and I remember that his opening words were that my bill was a cheap publicity stunt that I was trying to do. I

never knew that I was good at publicity. I could turn around and say the same thing, that in Milton this is a cheap publicity stunt -- but I won't say that. I was looking at a movie the other day,

and the opening line of the movie was, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave us all blind and toothless," so if I were to respond in the same way, we would all be blind. Those are

the words of Gandhi, not myself.

That being put aside, looking at the present day and at Halton, it is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in Ontario. We have a situation where Halton is

growing very rapidly and we're trying to make sure that the numbers for the current population are accurate and reliable, and I can see why the member would want that to be the case.

In my own riding of Scarborough Southwest, or in the general area of Scarborough, we have well over half a million people. When Toronto began to grow, a lot of

people moved out into Scarborough, and I don't think the province of the time -- the Bill Davis government and perhaps even the Robarts government, going back a while ago now -- really took into

account Scarborough's concerns. A lot of affordable housing and subsidized housing was dumped into Scarborough. The mayor of the day, Paul Cosgrove, complained about that to Metro council and to

the rest of the city of Toronto. We got a disproportionate amount of hospitals. We have three hospitals that serve over half a million people, yet we still manage to survive with that -- an

infrastructure that wasn't totally properly funded by the province or assisted by the province.

Scarborough was well off prior to amalgamation; Scarborough was well off back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Once the amalgamation began to occur in its first

stage back in 1958, and later on more drastically in 1997, Scarborough was left off the table and Scarborough was hurt very badly. Hundreds of thousands of people were adversely affected by what

happened at that time. I don't think that the people who decided to do the amalgamation and the people from the province who kept numbers of how many people lived in what area really knew what was

happening in Scarborough. Sometimes nowadays, some people in some areas like to take shots at Scarborough and say things about Scarborough. One of the reasons they do is because they don't fully

understand Scarborough, don't understand what it went through in the 1950s and 1960s during this amalgamation time.

It's good to want to support Mr. Chudleigh and his resolution, but it's also important to realize that there are other communities, other areas of the city and

of the province that have suffered similarly from out-of-date census population and out-of-date information or just out-of-date statistics and ways of calculating needs of various communities.

We're underserviced with daycare centres. Only now, with the McGuinty government, are we beginning to catch up in some of these areas. Only now are we putting proper funding into policing and into

hospitals and into firefighters and into the things we need. Only now is a subway being properly constructed. Only now are the needs of the people of Scarborough finally being addressed, and

throughout Metro. I don't mean to be parochial; I just happen to represent the riding of Scarborough Southwest. I represent the people who are there, and I'll continue to do so as long as I sit in

this seat.

But the member from Halton wants to have a better population counter; he wants it determined through municipal tax rolls and by including a multiplier to account

for children. That's conceivably because Statistics Canada or the census may not be able to keep up with what is happening in his own area because of the fast growth there.

While his motion is aimed at identifying and rectifying problems with the out-of-date population data when a municipality is growing very rapidly, like it is in

his area, the sweep of the motion is too broad. Both census and municipal tax population data should be and are used as appropriate to the situation. To try to bring forward a new method of doing

it now, a broad sweep, the first question, a very important one, is: How much will it cost, and who will pay the price for this? While it is honourable to want to have the best system possible for

trying to do this kind of work, we have Stats Canada in place; Stats Canada is supposed to do that. And we have municipal tax roll populations that are in place; people pay property taxes. That

information is stored and kept by the cities, the municipalities, the counties and the districts of the various parts of Ontario. So why don't we improve those areas? Why don't we perhaps change

the wording of the resolution and ask Stats Canada to do a better job in keeping its numbers accurate?

Those are the areas that are of concern to me. While I know that the member is honourable and is trying to do an honourable thing for his community, I find that

his motion is just too broad. It's not a cheap publicity stunt, but it is an attempt to fix something up that perhaps can be done through other means.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I very much look forward to debating the member's bill on this very large concern in our community and

high-growth communities.

It's never more evident than in dealing with riding boundaries alone. I have had the privilege and honour to represent the community of Oshawa since 1995. Since

then, the next upcoming election will be the third time the riding boundaries have changed, and that's based on population. But the difficulty, as has been brought forward by the member's

resolution, is never more evident in that the riding boundaries are based on the census from 1999. The community of Oshawa has been listed by a number of various organizations as the largest-growth

community in Canada for the next number of years, five or seven years, and that's because of all the high growth taking place in the community, which is not taken into consideration. What's going

to happen now is that the riding boundaries are going to be rechanged without the assessment of the new growth that has been taking place for seven years. For the next federal election that comes

along, they're going to find out that the numbers have increased so substantially that they're going to have to readjust the riding boundaries again because they will be so out of whack. That's

because everything is based on the 1999 census.

When the census tour took place, we tried to give input based on the new growth figures, but they are not allowed to receive information except based on the 1999

figures. What will take place is that we have a substantial increase, I would say in the area of 1,000 new households -- just households alone -- in one small

section of the community. That's not

all of Oshawa, because there's constant growth and infilling taking place throughout the community, but in one small part of the community you're looking at that number of houses going up since

1999. Quite frankly, the detailed figures on that are probably going to show it to be even more than that.

When you look at those figures and you take into consideration the fact that Oshawa is listed as being one of the sites for a doctor shortage, what happens when

you add all these other growth figures in there? All of a sudden the shortage becomes even more substantial. Take into consideration other aspects of government operations such as education

funding. When you look at education funding, the growth formula taken and produced by the Ministry of Education does not take into consideration all that new growth. Right now, we're kind of in

flux in the community, and when I speak to the people within the education sectors, they're very concerned because they have all this huge, new growth in Oshawa. As well, I should say that it's not

Oshawa alone but the boundary communities of Whitby. My colleague the member from Whitby-Ajax would certainly know about the growth in her community, what's taking place there and how it's

affecting it. What we're going to see is that the next time a federal election takes place, they're going to realize that the numbers are out of whack and they'll have to try and adjust them

again.

Not only that, but when you look at all the growth and all these factors, we need to be able to assess exactly what's going to take place. My understanding, from

the headlines in last night's local paper, is that the community of Kingston just received four million provincial dollars for a new downtown sports complex. When we spoke to the city officials in

Kingston, it was on the understanding that they were underfunded as compared to other communities. Well, guess what? We have a brand new downtown sports complex in Oshawa, as they have in Sault

Ste. Marie and in communities like London and other areas. If you take the high growth in those communities, it hasn't been factored into a lot of communities like Oshawa to be recipients simply

because there was no program. The only way it was assessed was because of the fact that it was underfunded.

If you look at the high growth in our community and you see the sports-based funding -- and I'm not complaining: Oshawa has done very well with new interchanges,

the cancer centre, the university and other aspects. But when you look at mental health, sports complexes, the doctor shortage, the education funding that takes place and all these other aspects,

they certainly aren't given the full debate that's necessary to address the high growth.

I can understand what's going to take place. In the next election we'll see that there's going to be, all of a sudden, a 20% increase in the numbers in the

riding, and the federal government is going to say, "We're going to have to recheck these boundaries."

Some of the areas the member is trying to address are very clear and very concise, in that we need to deal with these issues on an annual basis so that we can

get funding out to be where it needs to be so that the assessments can be made for various aspects, whether it's education growth, health care growth, mental health funding -- all the other aspects

in our community.

One of the other areas I need to mention as well is the transit funding that the member spoke about. If you look at transit funding, the recent changes have

caused a bit of a flux, because in the community of Oshawa, originally capital wasn't allowed to be included for transit funding in the funding programs. But my understanding now is that with the

new funding proposal coming forward for the transit funding allocation that comes to the community, the communities will now be allowed to spend on capital expansion. With the growth in our

community and the high growth in those communities, think of all the new transit routes that will have to be put into them when you get that number of households. And it's not just one area; it's a

number of pockets of areas that are growing that are going to have to include the transit.

The difficulty in our community of Oshawa is that Oshawa allocates the transit funding to the region. However, now that capital expansion is being allowed,

they're saying, "Wait a sec. We've got all these bus stops, we've got all these other things, all this route information, all the other things that we as a community in Oshawa can utilize that

funding for, and it's going to cause a little bit of a problem." But I hope the government members are going to take into consideration how they're going to address that issue.

With that growth, simple things like transit funding, as the member mentioned, are certainly going to be impacted, as well as the routes. The cause for that: The

big thing I have concern with is, as I mentioned before, that I had the privilege and honour of serving in the community and being elected three times. The next election will be the fourth

election, and there have been three riding changes, three boundary changes, in those four elections simply because they're not taking into consideration the growth that takes place. A census from

1999 is dictating what's going to take place in the next election, whether it's provincially in 2007 or when the next federal election comes forward, and it will not have any impact on how growth

in our community is taking place. How does that affect the community? Very significantly.

I would hope the government members take a look at the considerable number of impacts that high-growth communities such as Oshawa and the region of Durham have

so that we can assess and deal with this problem. I certainly hope all members here will support the resolution so we can move forward on taking care of these problems with high-growth areas and a

lack of proper funding on an annual basis.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's certainly my pleasure to make a few comments on the member from Halton's motion that's before us

today.

First of all, I think it's important to say that I don't think we should ever be complacent in this place about the way that we do things, so having the member

bring forward a motion that asks us to review or to take a fresh look at the way we're doing something I think is a positive thing. I think that the more we take the time to examine the ways that

we do things, the more we have opportunities to make changes that could be positive, so I want to thank the member from Halton for bringing this motion forward. I think it's one that at least

deserves a bit of review from the members of this Legislature, and perhaps some action at the end of the day. We'll see how it works out when it comes time to vote on the motion.

Nonetheless, I do want to congratulate him for finding this particular concern specifically related to his own community because of the rate of growth that's

happening in his own community and determining how that can be addressed, perhaps, through re-looking at or re-examining the way we develop our formulas for funding various activities that are

happening at the municipal level.

Interestingly enough, I have a few concerns about the extent to which reliance on tax rolls will bring the result that the member is looking for. I say this

because I recently attended an event and met a wonderful gentleman who is a retired assessment officer from the old system of assessment. In fact, he worked under the current MPAC system as well.

He was quite enlightening in his description to me of the pitfalls, if you will, or the challenges or the problems that exist currently with the municipal tax rolls in terms of their lack of being

up-to-date, if you will. Apparently, his experience has been -- of course, I met him in Hamilton, but he has acted in the capacity of an assessor for the municipal level, as a provincial function,

though, for many, many years and in many, many communities. His experience was that, in fact, municipal tax rolls are often just as out of date, if not more.

When new subdivisions -- and it is dependent upon the specific municipality, because there are a number of pieces of work that need to be done by the various

city departments before all of the information flows to make sure that those properties that are being developed and new subdivisions are brought onto the municipal tax rolls. However, apparently

there are a couple of bottlenecks in the system that lead to, then, the tax rolls being significantly out of date, to the point where he said his understanding was that many municipal treasurers

were concerned about the lengthy process that it takes. "Sometimes I'm talking three and four years," he indicated to me: three or four years after a house is completely built, completely serviced,

completely occupied, part of a community, part of the municipality, and yet that property has not made it onto the tax rolls for sometimes three or four years.

So I would caution the member from Halton that there is no panacea. There has to be not only a look at what he is recommending, but also an acknowledgment that

the tax rolls, in and of themselves, may not solve the problem, because there are problems with or there are delays in getting properties onto the tax rolls. That's something that has been long

identified not only by assessors but, apparently, also by municipal treasurers. At least that's what my information was from the gentleman I was talking to who had worked in that capacity for so

long.

Having said that, though, there are another couple of issues I thought I should raise within the context of this particular motion, because the challenges, the

frustrations, the difficulties, the burdens that are felt at the municipal level are largely a result of other policy problems as well that are flowing out of this place, particularly the issues

around the downloading that was undertaken by the member who put the motion forward, by his party, when they were in government here in this House. People will recall -- and I certainly know that

people in Hamilton recall; in fact, we recall it every single year when our municipality is struggling to put together a budget -- that the Mike Harris Conservative government downloaded a

significant number of services to the municipal level. A great deal of the financial burden, the fiscal crunch that faces municipalities across the province of Ontario today, is a result of that

historic policy decision that took place under the Harris government. So, yes, I do believe that looking at how we calculate the way transfers take place between the province and the municipalities

is important and should be done; there's no reason not to do it. I still also need to be sure that it's on the record and very clear that it's only one small part of the problem that faces

municipalities here in Ontario.

A big part of the problem that faces municipalities here in the province of Ontario is what they call the fiscal gap, the gap in what they should be receiving

from provincial coffers to pay for what are, in effect, provincial programs. I think we need to acknowledge that wealth redistribution programs like social services programs, like social housing

programs, and to some extent like health programs, do not belong on the property tax base. They are not programs, they are not services, that are in any way related to property. Parks, yes. Waste

water, yes. Garbage collection, yes. Local roads, yes, absolutely. But social services, no. Social housing, no. Health, no. These things do not belong on the property tax base.

Documents from AMO clearly indicate that what they call Ontario's $3-billion provincial-municipal fiscal gap is a result of a number of different envelopes. From

their perspective, the provincial program of public health is costing -- in fact, the language they use I think is interesting, that they are subsidizing the provincial provision of public health

services to the tune of $266.4 million. They are subsidizing -- "they" meaning municipalities -- the provincial government and the ambulance program. Now, I have to caution that this is from August

2005. I know there have been minor adjustments in how some of these programs are funded, so the numbers might be a little bit out of whack, but the scenario remains largely the same. Ambulance,

$312.7 million; social assistance, $1.3309 billion; senior services, services for our elderly populations, $242.5 million; child care, $193.4 million; social housing, $879.7 million, for a whopping

total of $3.2256 billion by which, collectively, municipalities subsidize provincial programs.

Coming from the municipality of Hamilton, I can tell you that this has meant significant challenges for that municipality, and I know it is consistent across the

municipalities of the province of Ontario. It is causing extreme hardship in terms of the municipalities being able to do the job they are supposed to be doing off the property tax base, things

like -- and I've already mentioned them -- roads, sewer and water, waste disposal, waste collection.

In fact, today I received an invitation to the city of Hamilton's ribbon-cutting for their new organics processing facility. Again, this is a project that the

city has worked on for several years in order to divert more organic materials out of the waste stream so that they don't end up in the landfill adding to the toxic soup that's called leachate but

rather in an organics facility where, at the end of the day, they can be churned into usable product for the growing of other organic materials.

I have to say that the problem raised by the member in terms of the way that we deal with our numbers game, if you will, in terms of the provincial transfers to

municipalities certainly is an important issue, and it's one that we look forward to at least having a look at and having a review of for the purpose of making things better. However, the reality

is that that small piece pales in comparison to the huge problem of downloading faced by municipalities. In fact, in an AMO document that was published in February 2006, they say: "Leading

academics, including Professor Harry Kitchen of Trent University, financial industry economists, public policy research institutes, selected provincial elected officials, municipal governments and

property taxpayers have argued that Ontario's unique situation of requiring municipalities to subsidize provincial programs and provincial services is not good public policy and it is not

economically sustainable. The resulting infrastructure deficit undermines the capacity of all municipalities to prosper and it limits their ability to compete internationally." That's the problem

that we need to deal with here in the province of Ontario.

The document goes on to describe Ontario's situation compared to other provinces in Canada: "Between 1988 and 1998, Ontario's per capita municipal spending

increased by almost 40%, compared to a 10% increase for the rest of Canada. Although wide variation exists in the level of per capita property taxes across Canada, Ontario remains the highest."

That's 2001 data. "For the average family of two or more persons in Ontario in 2003, municipal property taxes were 35% more than the comparable family in the rest of Canada and 15% higher than the

next highest, Saskatchewan."

The reality is that as the property taxes continue to go up, as the pressure on municipalities continues to become greater and greater, the breaking point is

very near. I know that myself and a number of other members in this House have been receiving letters pleading with the members of this assembly to make sure that we address the problem of property

tax increases that are happening at the local level. It is provincial policy that has created a great deal of the stress on the property taxpayer at the municipal level. We need to get at that

issue, and we need to solve it once and for all.

I know that the Ombudsman came up with some scathing condemnations of the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. The government has a couple of things that they

need to get done around that issue, but I have to tell you it's far too late. People are already losing their homes. I have fixed-income people in my community who are just beside themselves, who

know they cannot afford another $100 a year, another $200 a year, another $300 a year in property tax increases. They will lose their homes; they are losing their homes. Whether it's a senior

citizen who's on a fixed pension, whether it's a person with a disability who's on ODSP, these people are losing their homes because property taxes are going up, because provincial services are

inappropriately being paid for at the municipal level.

In the meanwhile, the most galling thing is that as these property taxes go up, the people paying them are watching their municipal services erode and become

reduced. So it's quite a dilemma, and it certainly is something that needs to be addressed by this current government. They talked about these kinds of issues when they were running for election,

but the McGuinty Liberals have come up short time and time again when it comes to solving the real problems facing the people of Ontario, and certainly the people of Hamilton as well.

One last thing: The member from Halton describes the situation that gave rise to his motion coming forward in regard to the rapid growth that's occurring in one

of the municipalities in the area that he represents. The city of Hamilton has recently gone through a process called the GRIDS, the growth-related infrastructure development system or something

like that. It's basically an integrated planning process that has been undertaken by the municipality with stakeholders. Notwithstanding that there's some controversy as to the efficacy of the

research that was done there and whether or not the final recommendations were unanimously supported by all of the community, the bottom line is that many municipalities, particularly in the GTA,

are facing the possibility, the likelihood, of population growth that will be significant over the next decade or two. We not only need to get a handle on the numbers game that the member from

Halton talks about in terms of how we determine the formulae for the transfers from the province to the municipalities, but we absolutely have to get those programs and services that don't belong

on the municipal tax base off of them and fix the property tax system so that people don't get assessed out of their homes.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I would like to make a few comments on the member from Halton's resolution before the House: That ... the

government of Ontario should immediately begin to utilize more accurate population counts when calculating its contribution to various provincial programs and funding partners; and that these

population counts be determined through municipal tax rolls and include a multiplier to account for children.

Interjection.

Mr. Ruprecht: I know, Mr. Kormos, but I'm not as flamboyant and able to speak as well as you do --

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Oh, Tony, you can rise to it.

Mr. Ruprecht: -- and, consequently, don't start to get me excited, because when you do, the passion will come out, and that may not be the

best idea on this specific resolution. So let me be calm and try to talk about this in a reasonable fashion so that all of us can get ahead with this specific issue.

The member from Halton raised concerns that there are out-of-date census population counts which he claims disadvantage rapidly growing municipalities in terms

of provincial funding for hospitals, roads, gas tax sharing and other projects. Let me say at the outset that while he is putting his finger on something that is fairly important, especially in

Halton and Milton, he should also realize that there are no perfect statistics. There are no perfect funding models that the province is using to determine how much should be paid, even for various

ministries and their services. So the statistics, especially Census of Canada, will always take some time to catch up to the reality.

Yes, we all agree that there has been tremendous growth in Milton, especially after the big water pipe was installed in Milton in about 2001 and consequently

opened up a whole process of new development in terms of housing, businesses and schools. This growth, of course, is very important to him, because he thinks he is being shortchanged. But let's

look at the imperfection of the system itself and the proposal he is putting forth in terms of using population statistics, especially tax rolls and the multiplier effect for children.

Let's look at Milton's population and average annual growth. There were three sources for this growth, and the funny

part is that none of them is perfect,

because not one of them checks out with the other. Let me give you an example. In 2001, Statistics Canada said there were 32,730 household dwelling units here in this specific area of population in

Milton -- 32,730. The Halton planners, the local planners, who were right there looking at each one of these developments, said there were not 32,730, there were only 31,471.

Now let's get to the tax rolls which the member from Halton wishes to introduce. Even the MPAC tax rolls gave us a different picture -- pretty close to the

planners but out in terms of Statistics Canada. They said there were only 31,428 dwelling units. Within that framework, we might say, "Well, that's not too bad." But now let's look at what happens

in Milton in 2005. Here is the big difference and here is the big surprise. Statistics Canada says their numbers are 33,784. That's a growth rate of 0.8%. I repeat: 33,784. Halton planners said --

and get this -- 53,200. Wow, Mr. Chudleigh, what a difference. The Halton planners are saying the growth rate was not 0.8% as Statistics Canada indicated, but the growth rate was a whopping 14%.

What a difference.

Yes, you might say, "You are talking to my point and I'm right," but hold on. Now let's look at MPAC. MPAC tells us a totally different story. The growth rate

for MPAC is not 0.8%; the growth rate for MPAC is 9%. What was the growth rate for the Halton planners? Fourteen per cent.

I submit to you that none of these are probably accurate, because if they were accurate, they would be much closer in terms of the population growth rate in

Milton. We have a difference between 0.8%, which is lower than 1% --

Mr. Kormos: Passion.

Mr. Ruprecht: Are you trying to cause trouble again?

Mr. Kormos is trying to egg me on to cause trouble with me, but he's leaving, so I'm glad. Why are you leaving, by the way?

Mr. Kormos: Because boredom can be a fatal experience.

Mr. Ruprecht: I guess the reason that the member is leaving is because he is bored about these statistics, because statistics don't turn him

on. But remember, for the member from Halton, Mr. Chudleigh, these statistics are of utmost importance because they speak of a difference in terms of funding.

He wants to change the funding formula for certain items such as hospitals, schools, roads and gas. Consequently, we have to look at these statistics to

determine just how accurate they are. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that they may not be as accurate as we say they are.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this resolution. I commend the member from Halton, my colleague, for

bringing it forward.

As I speak to the resolution, I am somewhat surprised to hear some of the members of the Legislature speaking against the resolution because "no population

numbers are accurate, so we might as well stay with the method we've got," which seems kind of a strange way of looking at life.

The resolution is very explicit on that issue. It says, "...begin to utilize more accurate population counts when calculating its contribution to various

provincial programs and funding partners." The resolution doesn't say that this is going to make it perfect. If you read the whole resolution, what it speaks to is the fact that that appears to be

the most accurate count of population that presently exists that could be used for these types of programs.

I really didn't come to speak to that part of it. What I really came to speak to is that I think there's another reason for going to that population count as

opposed to the census. That has to do with the population that's being served by the service that's being funded by the province. An example of that, of course, is the special program that the

Ministry of Health has that, if you have a shortage of physicians in a community, you can then get special funding to help recruit new physicians.

In my community, the town of Tillsonburg is right at the bottom end of the riding in the county of Oxford. The physicians serve areas in Elgin county, in the

former county of Norfolk and, of course, in Oxford county -- all the way; the whole south end of Oxford county. When you looked at the community of Tillsonburg being 15,000 people, with the number

of physicians in that community, of course we didn't have a shortage of physicians. What it took was, we could look at the population being served and getting the numbers from each municipality as

to how many people lived in that area being served by those physicians. We came out that indeed it was a very underserviced community, and we got provincial funding to help deal with that.

I think it's very important that we use those types of numbers for programs that are being funded beyond municipal boundaries. With the census and the funding

as it presently is, it seems ironic that the money just goes out to communities based on their population with no relationship to the services that are needed.

A couple of examples that I would just point out in Oxford where that has happened: In the city of Woodstock, we have an organization that helps youth: Oxford

Child and Youth Centre. They expanded to provide services in other parts of the county, but because it's being funded based on the Woodstock population as opposed to the Oxford county population,

then per capita of the service area they are not getting their fair share of provincial funding, and there are other ones like that.

Community Living in Tillsonburg has exactly the same problem. Incidentally, when we have Community Living Day here in Toronto, the largest delegation in the

last number of years has been from Tillsonburg Community Living, yet they get funded based on the area they are serving, which is the Tillsonburg area as opposed to a broader area. We need to get

funding put in where we can look at the municipal data as to where people live and how many live there, so we can get fair and equitable funding.

The gas tax is another area that's the same problem. Again, as was mentioned earlier, the gas tax is being divvied up in the province partly based on

population and partly based on ridership, but if a community that is growing needs to put in a transit system and presently doesn't have one, what are their chances of getting some support through

the gas tax to build that infrastructure? Of course, the answer is nil because they don't already have the service, and then all of a sudden the population doesn't seem to count. The other issue,

of course: We keep hearing about gas tax. It's not the gas tax, it's just from general revenue. In fact, where the gas is sold has no relationship to where the gas tax is going.

I have another colleague who would like to speak to this resolution. Again, I strongly support it and ask everyone in the House to do similar because I think

it's a good first start.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to support my colleague and friend the member from Halton. We've always said that Halton and Durham are

like the bookends for the greater Toronto area, and I have worked with him and he has worked with me. In fact, he was in my riding just a few weeks ago. I do want to put that on the record. In

fact, he pays very close attention to the current economics, as our critic in that area, and he has always been fair-minded. This is the one thing that stands out most importantly.

Why I think most members should support this rather non-partisan resolution is because all it's saying theoretically is that in calculating the contributions

to similar provincial programs so that there's universal fairness in all of the decisions, they should look at current, more accurate population numbers.

I can tell you that in Port Perry in my riding of Durham this was an issue a couple of years ago. The mayor at the time was Doug Moffat, a very nice fellow, a

great guy. He came to me respecting a couple of things he was concerned about. In fact, at that time we were the government. The civil service -- whoever makes these decisions -- didn't respond

positively. They didn't want to adjust to the numbers they felt because of the growth. The same thing with Mayor Mutton in Clarington, which is in the south part of the riding: They wanted to

change the signs on the highways to more accurately reflect a larger number.

How it really shows up in the final analysis is, for years there's been a certain definition of underfunding. That's how this is important and why I wanted to

put on the record, on behalf of my constituents, the effect on hospital funding, children's treatment centre funding and transit funding and the sharing of the gas tax, as the member from Oxford

has just stated, so I won't go into that.

For instance, the GTA/905 Healthcare Alliance estimates that hospitals in Durham, Halton, Peel and York are underfunded to the tune of $187 per person living

in each region. For us, this gap represents $762 million last year alone. This simply is not tolerable. It's a similar kind of explanation of what's going on in children's treatment centres, if

it's any relationship to their catchment area. The funding on a per capita basis is simply just not fair. Exacerbating the problem are high needs in high-growth areas, which are quite often

exceptional to the needs of more stable population-based areas.

I would urge members, in an attitude of fairness in this private members' hour, to support Mr. Chudleigh on this resolution. It's calling for fairness in the

province of Ontario in funding of provincial programs based on more accurate population estimates and counts, so that the taxes we all pay for common-good services are shared equitably across the

province. I commend the member for bringing this resolution forward.

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

Mr. Chudleigh: I'd like to thank the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, who was concerned about the costs, and I appreciate this. He

must be one of the few members of the Liberal Party who are concerned about costs, although there would be no additional cost to this because this system is already in place. It's already being

used when determining doctor shortages or the proportion of doctors in a riding. This is not about added cost; this is about the redistribution of money that is going into programs. So instead of

dividing it up in the way it's currently being done, it would be divided up on a per capita basis, on a much more accurate level regarding the number of people who are actually in that

population.

Member from Hamilton East, thank you very much for your kind remarks. Can we do it better? What a great concept. We've been doing it this way for many, many

years. There are better ways around. These systems are being used within our system. Is there a better way to attack this? As I mentioned in my original presentation, I'm open to other suggestions;

I'm open to other ways to do this. Is there a better way? What I'm saying is that when we get 100% deviation -- in the case of the Milton experience, receiving $3.5 million instead of $7 million

for the funding process -- is there a better way? Is there a fairer way?

The member for Davenport mentioned that the statistics all give different answers. But the statistics that we use today are the least accurate. There are other

systems that we could use, a different set of statistics that would be far more accurate, to within 1% or 2%, I would suggest to the member for Davenport. He seemed to want to stay with the system

that creates a 98% divergence.

I'd like to thank the members from Oxford and Durham for their kind remarks as well.

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr. Prue moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 120,

An Act to require the Building Code and the Fire Code to provide for fire detectors, interconnected fire alarms and non-combustible fire

escapes / Projet de loi 120, Loi exigeant que le code du bâtiment et le code de prévention des incendies prévoient des détecteurs d'incendie, des systèmes d'alerte

d'incendie interconnectés et des sorties de secours incombustibles.

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

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): This is a reintroduction of a bill which was unanimously passed by the members present in this House in

private members' business on April 21, 2005. Unfortunately, like so many private members' bills, although they receive the approval of the House, they often do not go anywhere on the order paper,

they do not make it to committee and they do not subsequently become law. So this is the reintroduction of a bill that my colleagues unanimously agreed was a good bill a little over a year ago.

I'd like to preface my remarks today to thank four individuals, although there were a great many who were involved in this. The first is Fire Chief Bill

Stewart of the city of Toronto, who provided technical expertise, who came and gave information and spoke at a press conference that was held last year.

I would like to thank Chris Bardecki of the Toronto firefighters, who is here today again in support of this bill. The firefighters of Toronto feel that this

is a bill that will help to save lives and, potentially, to also save firefighters' lives.

I would like to thank the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations who have come on board because they recognize and realize that with the passage of this

bill, tenants, particularly those who are vulnerable tenants -- those living in older units, in older apartment buildings -- will have a much safer environment.

Last but not least, and certainly not least, I would like to thank an individual, Tom Steers. Tom Steers was the fiancé of one of two people who were

killed in a tragic accident on Queen Street in 1999. He attended literally all of the coroner's jury deliberations and recommendations into that tragic event. He has met subsequently with

politicians at all levels and of all stripes, trying to get them to understand the recommendations of the coroner's jury and how they would impact upon the safety of individuals in Ontario. He was

instrumental in the preparation of the bill last year and, subsequently, in having it reintroduced today. He encouraged me to reintroduce it, notwithstanding the fate of the last occasion, and I

have agreed. He is right; this is a bill whose time has come. This is an idea that must be pushed forward until it is passed.

I would also like to thank my colleague Gilles Bisson for agreeing to change places. Through an order of this House, we changed the order so that my bill,

which was scheduled to be held much later this year, is being done today and he has taken my later spot.

At 3 a.m. on January 14, 1999, a fire broke out at 2362 Queen Street East. That fire spread quickly. No one activated the manual pull stations that are common

in so many apartment buildings in this city and in this province. The woman in whose apartment the fire started awoke, tried to put the fire out, was unsuccessful, went downstairs to get the

superintendent, brought the superintendent upstairs, and the superintendent and she were unable to control the fire. The woman called her daughter and said, "Come and get me. My apartment is on

fire," and the daughter came. The superintendent packed up some of the belongings and got the pets out of the apartment and they all went outside. No one pulled the fire alarm. That may seem

bizarre to people, but you have to understand that when people are in a panic mode with a fire going on, they don't know what to do. Instead of calling 911, instead of pulling the fire alarm, they

did, in a panic, what some people would likely do, and probably a lot would do: They gathered up their belongings and they went outside. There was no attempt to alert the other residents of the

building. By the time the residents knew there was a fire, it was triggered not by anyone pulling the manual alarm but because it got so hot that the wires actually fried in the alarm system and

that set it off. It actually evaporated the wires and that set off the alarm. By then it was too late. By then, the building was engulfed in flames and two people died. The fire marshal found that

there were multiple violations of the act in the actions of the tenant. But the coroner's jury made two key recommendations, neither of which has ever been acted upon in this province. The first is

that interconnected fire alarms should be made mandatory in rental buildings, and the second is that fire escapes must be made of non-flammable materials.

You can understand the confusion of that night. You can understand that no one pulled the manual alarms. You can understand the fear they had and that they

thought somebody else would have pulled it; they left that to others. An interconnected fire alarm would quite simply notify all residents in a building when there was a major fire or when there

was smoke. The bill asks simply that it be mandatory in common areas of buildings and not in each apartment. I can understand that there was some comment the last time, would this set it off if

someone was cooking toast and burnt it? We know that fire alarms will go off in our own houses or our own apartments if we're burning toast or if we overheat cooking oil. That's not what this is

about. This is to put it in all the common areas so that by the time the smoke spills out into the hall, by the time it spills out into the common areas and activates the fire alarm, it will set

off the fire alarms in other common areas throughout the building so that people will know that there is a real fire. This is something which I think is routine or should be routine. It will not

cost a great deal of money.

The second issue involves wooden fire escapes. You know, Linda Elderkin, one of the persons who lost their lives, and Paul Benson, who lost his life at the

same time, knew about the fire and were at the top of the fire escape, but they couldn't get down the fire escape because it was completely engulfed in flames. They could not get out. The

firefighters could see them at the top screaming and yelling as the panic must have set in, but they could not get up the fire escape because it was burning too heavily, too hard.

One of the firefighters who was there was Scott Marks. He is presently the president of the Toronto firefighters. He has recounted to me, on the last occasion

and on subsequent occasions, about the sinking, horrible feeling of a firefighter who wants to do his duty but can't. Because the fire escape was made totally out of wood -- in compliance with the

laws of the province of Ontario, I might add -- it was totally engulfed in flames, and he had to watch two people die on the scene, two people who could have been rescued and would have been

rescued had the fire escape been made out of non-combustible material.

The law today:

Section 3.4.7.13(3) of the Ontario fire code reads, "Fire escapes shall be of metal or concrete ... except that wooden fire escapes may be used

on buildings of combustible" material. This is strange. If the building can be burnt down, so can the fire escape. If the building can't be burnt down, then you have to have a metal or concrete

one. " ... if all posts and brackets are at least 89 mm in their least dimension and all other woodwork is ... 38 mm in its least dimension." Those are two-by-fours. That's what we're going to

build it out of. This is weak and inadequate.

After the last reading of this bill, April 21, 2005, the news went through CP across Canada. It was front page news in the city of Vancouver, and no wonder:

They outlawed this years ago. They have interconnected provisions, and they also have no wooden fire escapes. In 2003, there were no fire deaths in the city of Vancouver because of those two

provisions and the sprinkler provision. There were 110 deaths that same year in Ontario. This is incredible.

I want to tell you that what we have here in Ontario has been abandoned in literally every other province of Canada. We need to do much more. We need to

emulate Vancouver. We need to work in order to save the people of this province. I would ask the members present to do what you did all those many months ago: Pass this bill again and send it to

committee. We need to save lives in Ontario.

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I'm pleased today to speak to Bill 120, the Fire Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006. I'd like to

congratulate the member from Beaches-East York for his vision. I remember the first time this bill was introduced -- the predecessor bill, Bill 184 -- in 2005. I'm delighted to support all fire

protection legislation designed to save lives.

Fire kills nearly 100 Ontarians each and every year and injures many more, the overwhelming number at home. Despite mandatory smoke alarms and improved

building construction, there has not been a substantial reduction in this number in over a decade. The cost to the Ontario economy in health care expenses, property loss and personal impact is in

the hundreds of millions of dollars. Smoke alarms are simply not enough.

There is, however, a proven and cost-effective solution that can save lives: residential fire sprinklers. The Ontario building code already requires fire

sprinklers in places where we work, shop, dine and learn, to name a few. It is unfortunate that in the place where we should feel the safest, our home, we actually have the least protection.

My private member's bill, the Home Fire Sprinkler Act, is awaiting public hearings. It is imperative that we begin a dialogue on Bill 2. It would require new

homes, town homes, apartments and condominiums to have residential sprinklers installed. Over 220 jurisdictions in North America have passed similar legislation, including Vancouver, which has

required residential fire sprinklers for over 15 years. During this time, there has not been a single accidental fire-related fatality where a properly installed and functioning residential fire

sprinkler was present.

Residential fire sprinklers are a proven, reliable technology that will respond quickly in a fire, thereby offering seniors, the disabled and our children

additional time to escape. Sprinklers save lives. They reduce property loss and they can cut homeowners' insurance premiums. For more than 25 years, nearly a dozen coroners' juries and inquests

have recommended changes to the Ontario building code to include residential fire sprinklers.

Bill 120 has the support of the firefighting community, the fire safety industry, many large and small municipalities, contractors, seniors' organizations, the

insurance industry and Ontarians right across this province.

Fatal residential fires most often occur between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., when the victims are asleep. Victims are also disproportionately children

and the elderly, who are vulnerable because they're physically less capable of escaping.

There's no single solution to the fire deaths in this province. Rather, for Ontarians to be effectively protecting themselves from fire, we need to use a

number of strategies. Simply having a smoke alarm is not enough.

A report by a CBC Marketplace broadcast in June 1990 reported that one third of smoke alarms fail to go off in an emergency. People just don't maintain them.

In fact, Canada has one of the highest rates of fire deaths in the world, and almost 80% of them happen at night. Many people think the smell of smoke will wake them up. Fire alarms cannot protect

you from fire, and often a fire is out of control by the time people in a residence are warned by a fire alarm. By the time a parent realizes that their house is on fire, it's too late to save the

children. By the time you realize there's a fire, it may be too late to save an elderly parent.

The age group of 65-plus constitutes 25% to 30% of fire fatalities in Ontario every year. This demographic is getting older and they're having more difficulty

hearing working smoke alarms. As well, their reaction time is likely slower. The installation of residential sprinklers would allow seniors to remain in their homes longer and enhance their quality

of life.

I recently read a frightening

article written by Jen Horsey of the Canadian Press. She wrote:

"A recent surge in concern over the way children react to smoke alarms has the key Canadian standard setter considering changing the rules that govern the

devices.

"`Children don't necessarily hear the smoke detectors,' Gina MacArthur, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Hearing Society, said ... after a meeting with experts

and Underwriters Laboratories ... the group that sets standards for smoke alarms in Canada. There are few scientific studies into children's responses to smoke detectors, but experts agree that

kids may be less responsive than adults when an alarm sounds.

"Fire officials universally cite horror stories of frightened children crawling into closets" or under beds "to hide from smoke and the noise of the

alarm....

"Fire prevention officer Derrick Ethridge investigated the issue after children in his eastern Ontario community of Loyalist township suggested the alarms

wouldn't wake them.

"He teamed up with Queen's University ... and sent 222 questionnaires to grade 6 students asking their parents to conduct night fire drills and record their

responses....

"Thirty-two per cent ... didn't wake to the initial sound of the alarm at all, ... 53% didn't wake during the crucial first minute.

"Smoke alarms are required to sound at a standardized level of 85 decibels at a distance of three metres -- roughly equivalent to the volume of a garbage

disposal at close range.

"But even alarms that meet that standard failed to wake some children....

"Sleep experts suggest the poor response could be due in part to the way kids sleep..... Dr. Shelley Weiss, a pediatric sleep expert at the Toronto Hospital

for Sick Children," notes that "[c]hildren spend more time in the deep, dreamless phase of sleep, so even a blaring smoke alarm won't always wake them."

This study should frighten every parent. Parents need to realize that children won't necessarily hear the smoke alarm, and if they do, they won't necessarily

respond to it appropriately. In other words, if you rely entirely on a smoke alarm to wake your sleeping child, you may be making a fatal error.

Smoke alarms certainly help save lives, but the number of smoke alarms that have not been maintained properly is staggering. Sprinklers are an automatic

device, a technology that requires no human intervention or reaction. Sprinklers are like having a firefighter in your home 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's a proven technology, like

airbags, that doesn't rely on changed human behaviour to prevent an accident or loss of life. Installing both smoke alarms and a fire sprinkler system reduces the risk of a fire death in a home by

82% in comparison to having neither, which is why I introduced my private member's bill.

I agree with the member from Beaches-East York that this is important legislation. I'm happy to support Bill 120, the Fire Protection Statute Law Amendment

Act, 2006, and I believe the time is right to make Ontario a national leader in home fire safety.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm happy to rise and speak in support of this Bill 120 put forward by the member from Beaches-East York. First

of all, I want to say, as the member mentioned in his presentation, that this is not the first time this bill has appeared before us. It was here previously and in fact supported unanimously by all

those present that morning in private members' business. The reason I bring this up is that I think that is one of the challenges we have here. It would seem strange to me that the House would

unanimously be in support of an important initiative like this for the safety of our population, it goes forward, and no one seems to think it's important to bring that back for third reading and

actually have it become the law of the land.

In the process, we would all recognize -- particularly you, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure every member of the House -- that when the bill has second reading and

goes to committee, the committee can have hearings on it, but at that point it must be the government that calls it back for third and final reading. I think it's so important that the member

brought this back, so maybe this will impress the powers that be, and the House leaders of all three parties will see fit that, once this goes back to committee -- if, as I expect, it will be

passed today -- it would be brought back for third reading to make it the law of the land. As a 25-year firefighter, I can tell you that many times one looks at the results after a fire has been

put out and says, "If only someone had noticed it sooner, it could have been a much different situation."

As we look at this law, it really is about making sure that, if there is a problem in the building, if it's in the public area where there is no one present at

the time, someone will be notified that it's happening so they can take the action that's needed in order to facilitate the escape and of course the extinguishment as quickly as possible.

It isn't so much the problem that it's a different law for the people in multi-residential. In fact, a couple of months ago it became the law in the province

that every residential unit must have these fire alarms on every floor. As I said, I was a 25-year firefighter, but I wasn't sure that where I had my smoke detectors placed was appropriate to meet

the rules as they now apply. I did have a quick meeting with our local fire official, the chief of the department, and said, "This is where I have the smoke detectors in my house. Will it suffice?"

I have a three-storey house. I had three smoke detectors in the house. So I thought, the way they were placed, everything was fine. He said to me, "All are okay except the one that's in your

basement. If you have a bedroom in the basement, it should be close enough to that bedroom so if anything happens in that basement, the bedroom would hear that noise as soon as possible in order to

facilitate the removal of oneself from that room."

I had made the assumption that the best place to put it was in the furnace room, where the opportunity for a fire to start would be most likely. When I told

the fire chief that, he said, "That's great. We now have a smoke alarm going off full blast in your basement and no one in the house can hear it." So obviously it is going to be a useless

exercise.

The reason I mentioned that is that that relates to this bill before us. Where there is no one present, you have to be able to get the message out that there's

a problem there to the people who will be affected by the end result of this fire. That's what this bill does. It speaks to, in the absence of people, having a smoke alarm go off and having it set

up so that the people who would be living in those apartments would, in fact, hear the alarm and could make their decision based on that.

Recognizing, as I mentioned, about the smoke alarms in the house, that law also applies to the units referred to in this bill. They already must have those in

their apartments, but there is nothing presently in the law that requires the landlord, or someone, to put the detecting device in the area where there would most likely be no one present; that is,

between the danger that's there and the people who live in the rest of the building. So I strongly support that.

There are a couple of other issues, but one I was intrigued by in the bill was the issue, and the member spoke to it, about fire escapes, and the fact that

they should be built of non-combustible material so that they can be used in case of an emergency. I strongly agree with that. It seems ironic that if it's a wooden building, it's not as important

that people escape or that someone can get up it as if it were a stone building. I think the people who wrote that part of the building code could think back on it and say, "Yes, I think maybe we

made a mistake there and we're awfully happy that the member from Beaches-East York brought this forward so we could correct that before we run into this problem and have to admit how bad a mistake

we made." I very much agree with making sure that all fire escapes are made out of material that is non-combustible so that they will be there to be used.

The one problem I have with the bill, and I'm sure as it goes to committee it will get corrected, is in that section:

"1.

(2.2) Regulations made under subsections (1) and (2) shall require that fire escapes, where permitted, are constructed of non-combustible material."

I really wonder at the need for the wording "where permitted," because it would seem to me appropriate to say, regardless of whether they were permitted to be

there or whether they weren't, that wherever fire escapes are, we don't have wooden fire escapes. I have some concern that if you leave the words "where permitted" in, if it's not saying that they

have to be there, where it's not mandated, municipalities could put in that they don't allow fire escapes and then you could put wooden ones there. I think it's somewhat irrelevant as to whether

they're permitted or not. That's another issue. Any fire escape built anywhere should be of non-combustible material.

I think it's very important in the implementation that they not only have smoke detectors, but that they be installed in such a way that everyone in the

building -- that if it's a two-unit building, there are two places where the alarm will go off; that if it's a six-unit building, every unit has access to and will have the alarm go off in their

unit, so that a fire that starts in the public area is in fact announced to everyone in the building so proper decisions and evacuations can be conducted and the fire brought under control as

quickly as possible.

With that, I want to share my time with my colleague, but I want to commend the member for bringing this forward and I suggest we will be supporting it to make

sure this becomes the law of the land.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Thank you to the member from Beaches-East York for introducing his private member's bill, Bill 120, the Fire

Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006. He has already indicated that Mr. Chris Bardecki is here from the Toronto firefighters. I know that if Chris is in support of this 100%, and I'm looking

at him right now, it must be a good piece of legislation.

But I have two questions for the member for Beaches-East York. The first one is this: The Ontario building code currently requires that smoke alarms be

installed in all residential buildings, even single-family homes, and smoke alarms must be interconnected where more than one is installed in a dwelling. My question goes back to the fire that he

described -- in January 1999, I think -- where two people died in Beaches-East York, whether in fact this was the case or this was illegal.

Second, regarding the requirement for fire detectors in the proposed legislation, both the building code and fire code refer to a fire detector as a device

that detects a fire condition and can automatically initiate an alarm signal. It is unclear, therefore, what is meant in the proposed legislation, since a fire detector can include heat detectors

and smoke detectors. I hope the member from Beaches-East York is going to clear that part up.

Going back to the coroner's inquest and the recommendations the coroner's jury made in terms of the fire in 1999 that the member for Beaches-East York speaks

about, I would agree with at least the coroner's jury recommendation that said, "Let's require each tenant and landlord, when they write a tenancy agreement, to get together and require the

landlord to say to the lessee, `Here is the existing fire alarm pull station. Here is the existing fire alarm system in the house,'" and sign off that the landlord has told the tenant.

That is a very good recommendation, because looking at some of these units in Toronto, what we find is that when the toast is burned and the burning material

reaches the smoke detector, which is in the present law, the smoke detector would go off, there's no doubt, if the battery is there. As the law says here, these smoke detectors are supposed to be

interconnected, so it isn't simply a question of being in a basement and nobody hears them. If the fire alarm goes off because it activates the smoke alarm system in the basement, and if they're

interconnected, as the law stipulates, then the alarms would go off when any one of these smoke detectors is activated. Consequently, interconnectedness of smoke alarm systems is in this

legislation. I would ask the member from Beaches-East York to clarify this a bit.

I have one more point to make: Some of the tenants, if the alarm goes off, remove the battery or simply tape over the intake hole. That's something we have to

discuss but my time, unfortunately, is over.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased today to stand in support of Bill 120,

an act to amend the building code, brought

forward by my colleague the member from Beaches-East York. There's certainly nothing more devastating than losing a loved one and then discovering that the tragedy was preventable. This bill gives

us all here in the Legislature the opportunity to prevent the tragedy from striking other families. So often, what we do here in the Legislature gradually does impact the lives of Ontarians. Bill

120 holds the possibility of a very tangible impact: saving lives. It's not only our responsibility, I think it is our duty, when faced with legislation that could save lives, to support this bill

in a non-partisan way.

I congratulate the member from Beaches-East York for his perseverance with this legislation. It's been brought up many times -- this is not the first time it's

been introduced -- so I encourage the government members to prioritize some of the things that could make a difference. They certainly have the ability to do that, because they are the

government.

Bill 120 amends the building code: "Every residential building with two or more dwelling units is equipped with fire detectors in all public corridors and

common areas of the building and interconnected fire alarms that are audible throughout the building.... Every fire escape is constructed of non-combustible material."

The member from Beaches-East York brought to our attention what's currently in the fire code. I think it's shocking that there are still fire escapes that are

made out of wood. It's incredible to think about that. The last time he introduced the bill he brought up that it was picked up in BC, the fact that Ontario is the only province that doesn't have a

rule outlawing wooden fire escapes. So I think it should be a priority; we should recognize that. I encourage the government to move forward on that. They can do this with their agenda. The member

from Beaches-East York is doing a good job of prompting them again and again. Hopefully, we can see this into legislation, because we do support this and it is going to save lives. He used the

example of the people in his riding, the terrible occurrence with Linda Elderkin and Paul Benson. If their fire escape had been constructed out of metal, they would be here with us now. Their

deaths were preventable. It really is difficult to accept that that has occurred.

I know that I have a lot of single detached dwellings and houses in my riding, but we have to think of who lives in the dwellings with wooden fire escapes.

Most of us in the room would be surprised that we do know people who live in a building with a wooden fire escape. Students who go to university and college from my riding who are here live in

houses, because that's just where students live while they are getting that education. Students are packed into these buildings. We never want anything to happen, but we should plan for the worst.

This is what this legislation is bringing forward: the fact that we need to give people a chance if such a situation does occur. The interconnecting smoke alarms would certainly notify the

household that the retrofitted garage and dormitory was on fire for these kids. As a nurse, I witnessed the many devastating effects that fire and smoke inhalation itself have on patients and their

chances of survival. The longer people have to hunt around thick, black smoke for an exit -- it can be too late. They are overcome, and their chance of survival is less.

We've seen some gruesome images recently of panic and hysteria of people when they're caught in a fire. You can only imagine how you would feel not being able

to breathe, not being able to see where you're going. I was shocked and saddened to see on the news the German woman who dropped her child over the balcony and then threw herself over to escape her

burning apartment. Those are the types of images that send shivers down your spine. Knowing that your options are to jump or stay in and be overcome by fire is really unthinkable.

We have the chance to make a difference here today. We should institute interconnecting smoke alarms in multi-residential buildings. We have a duty to

safeguard the people, to protect people and our firefighters. If we do our part to institute early warning systems and mandate fire-retardant fire escapes, then these courageous firemen and women

will not have to endanger their lives unnecessarily. There are certainly circumstances where they must go into dangerous situations, but if we can reduce that number through simple actions, I

believe it's incumbent upon us to do so.

The Toronto Professional Firefighters' Association is in support of this legislation. They've taken the time to work with the member from Beaches-East York to

ensure that the legislation protects our communities and protects their members. I know that some private members' bills can get lost in the shuffle -- we're all busy dealing with issues -- but, as

I said, this should get everyone's support; this should be brought forward. It is our responsibility to protect the citizens of Ontario, and we do that by what we do here.

I want to commend the member from Beaches-East York for his diligence and his commitment to this cause. We need to support him. He's stuck with it; he believes

in it; he speaks passionately about it. We need to set our party politics aside and demonstrate to Ontarians that this is good policy, no matter who brings it forward. Contrary to the popular

belief that we can't work together in the House, I think we can show that, in matters of importance, we can all work together in the House. I hope all members in the Legislature will join me and

support the member from Beaches-East York with the passage of Bill 120 today.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It is definitely my pleasure to rise this morning and make some remarks about Bill 120, a bill that was

brought forward by my friend and colleague from Beaches-East York, Michael Prue.

I have to start by saying how much we all, I think, take for granted in some way our firefighters in our communities. We take for granted that when we hear a

siren going down the street it's because people are rushing to a place where there's going to be danger, where there is going to be possible injury for those workers who are rushing into that

situation, where there is a possibility, unfortunately, of death. It's someone who's going in to a situation where everyone else near that situation is running away. That's what firefighters do in

our communities. I think that sometimes we take for granted the fact that those men and women are serving communities across the province day in and day out.

So it seems to me absolutely astonishing, completely perplexing, that we don't have some of the basic laws in place in this province that would protect those

workers from exacerbation of the dangers that face them every day in their work. I speak particularly about the portion of the bill that addresses the external -- I guess they're all external.

I think of fire escapes, where firefighters are approaching a burning structure and see the unbelievable situation that gave rise to the coroner's inquest that

took place in that riding of the member for Beaches-East York, when firefighters attend a scene and actually see people becoming victims of the fire. And they are left powerless to save them,

powerless to get them out of that fire, because the very apparatus that is currently required under Ontario law to assist firefighters and individuals escaping a burning building is made out of

combustible material, is made out of wood, is not even able to function in the capacity that it was intended to function when it was required, under the current building code, to be put in

place.

It's absolutely unbelievable that wooden fire escapes are still allowed, that they are still in place in this province and that we have done nothing to make

sure that they have been upgraded, changed. You know what says it all to me, when it really became clear in terms of this one small change? Bill 120, by the way, for people who are watching, has

got to be one of the smallest bills I've ever seen. Really, it is small in terms of words, but it is huge in terms of impact. There are only really two sections of this bill: One

section that deals

with the sprinkler system issue and one

section that deals with the wooden fire escape issue. But for a bill that's this small, to imagine that we have been indifferent in this Legislature to this

issue, that it has now come a second time for second reading debate, that it still has not gone to committee, that it still has not been implemented in the province of Ontario, is unthinkable; it's

absolutely unthinkable. It's horrifying to imagine what firefighters face every day already. It's horrifying to imagine the situations that they put themselves in every day. But for me, what's even

more horrifying is that a simple change, two simple clauses in the bill, not including the two that talk about when it comes into effect and that kind of thing -- I guess, technically, there are

four sections to the bill. But the bottom line is, two small changes could make quite a difference.

I was starting to say that it all became very clear about how important this is, not only through the fact that the coroner's office did the investigation

finally, after so much pressure by the fiancé of one of the victims of that fateful day back in 1999, but also -- and that those recommendations included what was in this bill is extremely

important -- we need to acknowledge that when we ask that coroners' investigations take place, when we ask that recommendations come forward, we then have an obligation, an extremely important

obligation, to implement the recommendations of these coroners' investigations; otherwise, why would we bother having them? So there's a problem there in terms of making sure that we are seized

with the recommendations that come out of these coroners' investigations and that we actually implement the changes that are being recommended.

When the member from Beaches-East York indicated that in 2003 there were zero -- none -- fire deaths in Vancouver, while in the same year in Toronto there were

110 fire deaths --

Mr. Prue: Ontario.

Ms. Horwath: Oh, Ontario. Sorry. In the entire province of Ontario, not just Toronto, there were 110 fire deaths. That, to me, is a very clear

indication. What's different? Well, the difference is that in Vancouver they already have in place the requirements that Bill 120 would put in place if it gets approved, if it gets supported by the

members of this Legislature and implemented in the province of Ontario. It's the biggest difference. They actually have the system of fire alarm notification that is described in Bill 120. They

have a ban on or they don't allow wooden fire escapes to be used on buildings in the city of Vancouver. So it seems to me that the indifference that we've had to this issue has to end, and it has

to end today. I think that all members would agree that these two small changes, if they save one life, if they save one firefighter from injury, if they save one firefighter's life, then it's good

enough; it has done its job. I would put to you that if we put this legislation into place, if we go through the committee process and we implement the two clauses, the two initiatives that are

described in the two clauses in this bill, then we will have gone a very long way to catch up to other communities and other jurisdictions in Canada and what they're doing to make sure that we

reduce the number of fire deaths that are occurring in our province.

It's unbelievable to me that we still rely on manual systems of pulling a fire alarm. It's interesting, because many of the members today have spoken about the

anxiety, the adrenaline that gets going if you're in a fire or if you're in a building that has got a fire, even just hearing a fire alarm. I know for myself, just hearing a fire alarm, you don't

know what to do. Your immediate reaction is usually, unfortunately, "Oh, there goes the fire alarm again. Somebody must have been fooling around." That's a problem. There's no doubt that that's a

problem. But really, when you get the sense that there is actually an emergency occurring and there may, in fact, be a fire in the building that you are in, it is the scariest, scariest experience.

You freeze up. You really don't know what to do. You don't know where to turn.

An interesting story was related to me by a very good friend of mine in Hamilton. She's about my age and she has a couple of children who are kind of young

adults, in their late teens. She had gone out for a couple of hours one night and came back, and her daughter looked a little nervous, a little kind of guilty. Her mom -- the woman's name is Sandy

Shaw -- Sandy said to her daughter, "What did you guys do while I was gone? You're looking awfully guilty." The daughter said, "Well, it wasn't me, it was my brother." There was a little incident,

a bit of a fire on the couch downstairs. They had moved the couch around, turned on the gas fireplace, and the heat just kept building and building and the couch caught on fire. So the kids had

tried to cover it up. It didn't catch on fire in a big way, I mean, it didn't go up in major flames, but a portion of the couch was burned. So the kids sprayed and they tried to get rid of any

evidence of a problem having occurred.

But, of course, when mom came home they had to fess up. So Sandy, at that time, apparently said to the kids, "You know, I'm just glad everybody's safe. It's

good that you took care of everything, but bottom line is it still stinks in here, so let's take the couch and let's put it outside, because until we get rid of this burnt, charred little piece on

the couch -- we have to get rid of the whole couch anyway. Let's just take it outside." Fine, they took it outside. Everybody went to bed. The next morning, she went out to take out her recycling,

and she looked on the little patio where they had put the couch. She couldn't figure out what was there. She's looking at the patio and there's this -- she's describing it as this bit of a mess on

the patio. She's trying to think what the heck could that be? Then it dawns on her -- that's where they had put the couch. The fire wasn't out and the couch had continued to burn all night long. By

morning, the couch was really just a pile of ashes on their patio. That's a situation that could have turned out much, much worse. I raise this story, I share the story because I think people

assume that they know all about what can cause a fire and they know all about how to handle a situation where there is a fire, how to handle an occurrence of that nature. This is a person who is a

very educated and very responsible person. The only reason she took the couch outside was because it was stinking up the house, not because she had any idea that in fact there were still burning

embers inside the couch that ended up literally burning it to the ground on the patio.

Incidents of fires occur. Incidents of fires are something that are not easily dealt with by people. When there's a fire in a building, people lose their

ability to be rational. I firmly believe that. Building in systems that take out the requirement for people to think rationally and do the right thing, to take the right step, to be able to call

for help through the pulling of a manual fire alarm, taking out that step and assuring ourselves that every building in Ontario is equipped with something that will automatically start the process

of bringing the emergency services, bringing the firefighters in particular to the scene to deal with the fire, is almost a no-brainer.

It's just unbelievable that we don't have it in place yet. I know the member has tried very hard to bring this legislation forward a couple of times now. I'm

extremely hopeful that the members of this Legislature will unanimously support this initiative, and I'm extremely hopeful that we can have quick work at committee, but not ineffective or

inefficient work, not short shrift by any means, because there are some issues.

After the member first raised this issue, I went back to my community and heard from a couple of owners of residential care facilities who were operating

facilities that were older buildings, in our downtown in particular, and they were concerned about the cost, whether they would be able to afford to replace their wooden fire escapes with metal or

concrete structures. I think we need to put an eye to whether there are ways to assist organizations that are providing services to vulnerable people in our community, to assist them with the cost

of retrofitting their buildings, not only to deal with the fire escapes but also to deal with the alarm systems.

I think there are things we need to do to make sure that, instead of avoiding the implementation of these new requirements, people will embrace them and

implement them wholeheartedly, because it's a matter of saving lives in the province. It's a matter of making sure that firefighters are in a situation where they don't have to worry about running

up a fire escape because it might be falling apart under their feet, because it is vulnerable to burning as well, being made of a combustible material.

The bottom line for me is that this legislation needs to go forward quickly. We have been dilatory, by my reading, in not bringing this legislation forward

earlier. We need to make sure that we get it through to committee. We need to make sure we make any changes that need to be made to keep it as strong as possible. We also need to consider ways we

might be able to assist in the implementation phase, so that we don't have people avoiding the legislation or avoiding responsibilities to upgrade their buildings.

Finally, I want to say that the member from Beaches-East York has done an excellent job. He not only continued to stay in contact with the people who were

affected by this fire, particularly the fiancé of the woman who passed away in the fire, Mr. Benson, I guess it was. Is it Mr. Benson? No.

Mr. Prue: Tom Steers.

Ms. Horwath: Tom Steers. Right. It was Linda and Paul Benson who passed away, and Linda was the fiancé of Tom. He kept in touch with them

and continues to push this through. I'll be very proud to be voting in favour of it.

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I'm pleased to speak to this bill today that the member for Beaches-East York has brought forward. I don't

think any of us in this House has been untouched by some kind of tragedy or fire. This week, a family in Eldee just outside of my community lost their home to fire. Thankfully, everyone was safe,

but I certainly know that we all know of circumstances where fire has affected families and friends in our communities.

I just recently met with Chief Ted McCullough, who's the fire chief in North Bay. I was speaking to him about the bill that was presented by my colleague from

Brampton Centre. I know that the firefighters in my community under the leadership of Chief Ted McCullough are doing a fabulous job. I want to join with my colleagues who have all taken the

opportunity to commend our firefighters who are doing such great services in all of our communities across the province.

I had a few technical concerns about the bill today that I just want to raise and perhaps have the member for Beaches-East York respond to. Under the Ontario

building code, we presently have requirements that smoke alarms be installed in all residential buildings, even single-family homes, and that smoke alarms be interconnected where more than one is

installed in a dwelling. We generally require that fire escapes be constructed of metal or concrete, and we have requirements to protect fire escapes from fire.

As the member for Beaches-East York is aware, the Building Code Act falls under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Fire Protection and

Prevention Act falls under the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. However, the technical requirements that he is addressing in his bill fall under the building code and the

fire code, which are in fact regulations under each of those acts. So I would hope, regardless of where we come to today with this bill, that he will continue to work with those two ministers, as

I'm sure they are open to working with him, to make those amendments where they are most effective, which is in fact in the building code, which is a regulation under the Building Code Act, and in

the fire code, which is a regulation under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Putting these technical kinds of amendments in the act itself changes the nature of the act. As you know,

legislation is a complicated process, as I well know these days. We just want to make sure we get these things in the right places.

As well, I'd like a technical clarification. In the bill as presented, the member for Beaches-East York has talked about fire detectors. In the building code,

we talk about smoke detectors or heat detectors. I just wondered how you define fire detectors, or what specifically --

Mr. Prue: Both.

Ms. Smith: Both? Okay. Thank you. Again, in legal drafting they are always very particular about the wordings that we use, so we want to make

sure we're talking about the same things.

One last point I'd like to make today is just on the basic need for education. I found it interesting that the member for Oxford, I believe it was, was talking

about his experiences with smoke detectors in his home. I believe he said that he'd been in the fire service for a number of years, and he wasn't clear on or aware of where he should place his fire

detectors in his home. That, for me, raised major concerns. If he, who has been out in the field, was not clear on where we should have these placed in our homes, then I believe that Joe Q. Public

in Ontario is probably in the same boat. I think there is a need for further education by our fire services, locally and perhaps provincially, on how we best should place these fire detection

devices in our homes.

I just want to commend the member for his piece of legislation, ask for those few clarifications, and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity

to speak this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Beaches-East York has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Prue: I thank all of the members who spoke.

Just to answer a few questions: To the member for Oxford, the word "permitted" means having received a permit. It's under the building code. It's not that it's

a permitted use; it's because they have received a permit. I hope that clarifies that.

The member for Davenport raised the issue about smoke alarms being interconnected within the apartment. That's not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the

bill is to interconnect the alarms in all of the common areas: not within individual apartments or between apartments, but from one floor to another, from one

section of a common area to another,

so that all tenants, if smoke spills out into the halls, will be notified. That's the purpose.

The member from Nipissing raised the issue of the two ministers. Yes, thank you. We were well aware that there are two ministers; there are two separate acts.

The intent of the legislation is to change both of those. We recognize the complexity. I have met with the ministers or the ministers' staff on both of these, and it is doable.

The final thing that I want to raise is the issue -- and the member from Hamilton East raised this -- about firefighters. They are involved in one of the most

dangerous businesses that you can possibly know. Not only is it the danger of rushing to the fire, not only is it the danger of fighting the fire, but it is also the danger -- that might occur

years and years later -- of breathing in the smoke with the carcinogens that are involved and the high rates of cancer that firefighters have. If we can do anything to lessen the incidence of

fires, if we can do anything to lessen the severity of the fires so as to not put their lives at risk as well, then I think that we have to do that.

The bill intends to save lives. I know that it's going to cost money, but there are government programs that will allow for people to recoup some of those

costs and, in the end, if we save lives, it will be worth every penny.

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

ONTARIO POPULATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 41, standing in the name of Mr. Chudleigh. Mr. Chudleigh

has moved private member's notice of motion number 15. 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 defer this until after the next ballot item.

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll deal with ballot item number 42. Mr. Prue has moved second reading of Bill 120. 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 to vote on these two ballot items. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

ONTARIO POPULATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Chudleigh has moved private member's notice of motion number 15.

All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Tabuns, Peter

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

Nays

McMeekin, Ted

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 31; the nays are 1.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds before the next vote.

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Prue has moved second reading of Bill 120.

All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Tabuns, Peter

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Prue?

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I move that this be sent to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Prue has asked consent that this bill be sent to the standing committee on general government. Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MABEL READ

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd like to take this opportunity to rise to highlight an extraordinary event that took place in my riding

recognizing an outstanding citizen, Mabel Read.

On Monday, I had the honour of attending Mabel Read's 100th birthday celebration at Parkview Place, along with family, friends, and numerous honoured guests

paying tribute and wishing her well.

Mabel Read was born in Ottawa on June 5, 1906, where she was the third child in a family which included three sisters and two brothers. Mabel came to Toronto

from Ottawa by horse and cutter when she was only four years old, and she has vivid memories of the adventure, especially travelling in the snow with her mother, who was expecting her next child at

that time.

During the war, Mabel worked the night shift, gunning rivets on Lancaster planes in a hangar in the west end of Toronto. She was enthusiastically involved in

bowling and music, and spent many rewarding hours playing flute and accordion in a band. Mabel was married, but unfortunately her husband passed away after only 10 years of marriage. Mabel and her

sister Frances travelled extensively together, and rumour has it that Mabel still likes to ride the bus, especially if it's going to a casino. She has been an active member of the Oshawa seniors'

centre, and over the years one of her joys has been modelling in the seniors' centre fashion show and entertaining the residents.

It is indeed a privilege to rise today to recognize one of our community's outstanding citizens and to congratulate her on this unforgettable occasion. I am

honoured to have had the opportunity to meet and speak with her, and I'd like to ask all to join me in congratulating Mabel Read on her 100 years young.

EVENTS IN BRAMPTON

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I'm delighted today to speak about two exciting events in the Brampton community that are only weeks

away.

Brampton's multicultural festival, Carabram, is in its 24th year. The event will run through July 7, 8 and 9. Carabram provides an opportunity for families to

tour the world and experience the rich culture, foods, crafts and entertainment of ethnic groups in Brampton. This year's pavilions will represent the Caribbean, Germany, Hawaii, India, Ireland,

Italy, Macedonia, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland and the Ukraine. Previously, Carabram has attracted over 60,000 visitors from around the world. In addition, the Lieutenant Governor will be hosting

Carabram at a reception in the Legislature next week.

The second event is Brampton's seventh annual Classic Cars and Legendary Stars. Organized by the Brampton Downtown Business Association, the event features hot

cars and cool music. Running from July 13 through 15, the festival showcases live entertainment, from bands to tribute artists. I know first-hand that Gage Park becomes the centre of great food,

drink and company. The "show and shine" on Saturday will be a show-stopping parade of classic and antique cars. There will be more than 100 cars on display, including real antique cars from the

1920s through the 1970s.

We've ordered good weather, and I hope members will take the opportunity to visit Brampton for these exciting summer events.

YOUTH SERVICES

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): This morning, I attended a press conference given by Family Service Ontario where they called on the government

to save the Families and Schools Together program. This program works to prevent family violence and breakdown, child abuse and neglect, school failure, and juvenile violence and delinquency.

This vital program is funded by the Early Years challenge fund established by our PC government. These grants are ending and the Liberal government refuses to

renew or replace them.

Parents and family members this morning told us that more than 1,000 at-risk families may lose access to this program. The Families and Schools Together

program has received numerous awards and is endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, amongst others. Not only is their funding in jeopardy, but the Minister of Children and Youth

Services refuses to even meet with them. Parents and staff had to come and hold a press conference at Queen's Park to get the minister's attention.

I call on the minister today to meet with the staff and families of this program. Listen to them. Find out about the good work the program does, and then keep

funding them to do the good work they do.

HAMILTON WATERFRONT TRAIL

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): We in Hamilton are creating our city's new vision for the future one step at a time, and the literal

expression of this statement took place recently with the opening of the Hamilton waterfront trail extension.

Twenty years ago, very few people would have believed we would be celebrating Hamilton's magnificent waterfront. However, the province has invested $1.3

million in this initiative and I was honoured to be part of the celebration.

Not long ago, Hamilton harbour was mainly industrial, with only 5% of it accessible to the public. Today more than two thirds of the shoreline is open to the

public. Walking trails, panoramic views, the gorgeous Canada Marine Discovery Centre, the Haida, the HMCS Star and our own Hamilton boat cruise are but a few examples.

We take pride in the forged partnerships that have worked to create this lasting legacy of great natural beauty, and this project would not have been possible

without the dedication of many volunteers and tireless workers such as Werner Plessel, executive director of the waterfront trust; Marilyn Baxter, executive director of the Bay Area Restoration

Council; Chad Collins, councillor for the city of Hamilton and chair of the waterfront trust; Keith Robson, CEO of the Hamilton Port Authority; Alice Willems, manager of the Marine Discovery Centre

and the Haida for Parks Canada; John Dolbec, executive director of the chamber of commerce; HMCS Star personnel; and our own Brian Henley, a local historian.

This official opening showcased the expansion of Williams Coffee Pub, the inaugural tour of the Hamilton waterfront trolley and the opening of Waterfront

Scoops. That's ice cream, for the uninitiated.

We welcome everyone to Hamilton this summer. Come and walk a mile in our historic shoes.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): It's with sadness that I stand today and express my concern for Ontario's lagging investment climate, which has

fallen behind Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, and we are expected to be overtaken by Manitoba. It should come as no surprise that Ontario's worsening investment climate

can be attributed to a growing list of the McGuinty Liberals' broken promises and misguided policies.

To remind you: the infamous promise of not raising taxes, followed by the largest tax increase in Ontario's history; increasing corporate taxes; increasing

taxes to small business; increasing capital taxes; and every year, the McGuinty Liberals manufacture deficits and go on massive spending sprees, breaking their promise to balance the budget.

Ontario's tax system discourages growth and investment compared to other jurisdictions in Canada. A C.D. Howe Institute report states, "If Ontario were an

independent country, its effective tax rate would be close to China's 45. 8% ... rate on capital, hence ... the highest of all jurisdictions surveyed." This government doesn't seem to realize that

it is severely damaging Ontario's ability to compete on both the national and international levels. It doesn't seem to realize that it is driving business away through its archaic tax-and-spend

policies. It doesn't seem to realize that Ontario needs the private sector, and the private sector needs safe, secure and affordable power.

When will this government stop the deterioration of Ontario's competitive advantage? Ontarians deserve better.

WILLIS BLAIR

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): On May 26 this year, people from East York, east Toronto and Scarborough got together to host and roast

at the Toronto Hunt a certain Willis Lincoln Blair. Members of this place may know Mr. Blair. Mr. Blair is probably best known around East York as a former alderman and mayor of East York, where he

served from 1959 to 1976. He was also on Metro council, from 1967 to 1976, when he retired and went to the Ontario Municipal Board, and then on from that to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario,

where he served, again with distinction, from 1981 to 1986.

People gathered at the Toronto Hunt a couple of weeks ago to remember what Willis Blair did for Toronto East General Hospital; that's what we were there for.

He was on the board of directors for more than 20 years. He contributed in ways that truly made our hospital a great community institution. He was and continues to be an honorary member of the

foundation and continues to do good work around that hospital.

If that wasn't enough for a lifetime, he was also and continues to be an active member of the Kiwanis Club of East York, where he has been recognized as a Mel

Osborne fellow. He is still a participant in the Empire Club of Canada. He is still one of the leading people in his local church, Westview Presbyterian Church in East York.

The people who gathered that night remember and applaud Willis Blair for his decades of service to our community.

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I rise in the House today with great pride to mark Portugal Day here in the province of Ontario. This

year is the fifth anniversary of Portuguese Heritage and History Month in Ontario.

Every year, during the month of June, Luso-Canadians -- those who speak Portuguese -- come together to celebrate our unique heritage and culture, and have so

much to celebrate. Portuguese Canadians have made a vast contribution to Canadian society and culture. We contributed to the building of this country's roads, bridges, houses and skyscrapers. We

excel in the arts, music and theatre. We have made contributions in academics, athletics, business and politics. Portuguese Canadians can be found succeeding in every field and discipline.

In celebration of Portugal Day, a large group of prominent Portuguese Canadians will be hosted by myself and my colleague Tony Ruprecht, as well as Mike Colle,

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, for the official raising of the Portuguese flag at Queen's Park tomorrow afternoon.

Remarks in Portuguese.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the continuous contributions made by individuals of Portuguese heritage in Ontario. I would also like to

encourage members of this Legislature to join us tomorrow and also to take

part in Portuguese festivities in their ridings this month.

Portugal Month offers an excellent opportunity to learn more about one segment of the cultural fabric that makes up this great province of Ontario.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Two months ago, I and hundreds of homeowners received a letter from Allstate Insurance Co. telling us to expect

an increase in rate based on our credit score. The letter reads:

"One of the sources is TransUnion who provides us with aspects of a consumer's credit history which we use to establish a score. Canadian insurers have found

these specific characteristics, when used together, are very predictive of future insurance losses. Based on your score," Mr. Ruprecht, "with respect to your property insurance coverage, your

premium reflects an increase from this factor."

This is wrong. Why should I pay more for my home insurance because my credit score has dropped a few points?

I've stood in this House time and again pointing out that every adult should check their credit score. Why? Because even errors or mistakes on your credit

report drop your credit score, and thus you pay more for insurance, your loans, and finally, you may not even get a loan.

Insurance companies and consumers of this province should know that linking home insurance rates to a person's credit score is highly unfair and completely

unacceptable.

Finally, I wish to thank the Insurance Brokers of Ontario for their support and sharing the same view on this subject as I do.

HEATHER CROWE AWARD

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Today, I rise to announce and celebrate five recipients of the newly established

Heather Crowe Award.

First, Pat Vaeriano, former controller in the city of Hamilton: In 1978, he launched a valiant and successful campaign to put a bylaw in place to protect the

public against the effects of second-hand smoke. He was not only ahead of his time, but a mentor to all who were to follow him.

Next, Marvin Caplan, former chair of the Hamilton-Wentworth region's community services and public health committee. Marvin was a tireless advocate for broad

public health issues. He fought to put the issue to a vote in Hamilton and, in so doing, clearly established that 87% of Hamiltonians wanted a smoke-free bylaw in place.

Third, Dr. Barbara Gowitzke, lifelong advocate for healthy lifestyles and a smoke-fre