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

November 2, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L021 - Thu 2 Nov 1995 / Jeu 2 Nov 1995

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

PROPERTY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DROITS DE PROPRIÉTÉ

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

PROPERTY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DROITS DE PROPRIÉTÉ

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

LABOUR LEGISLATION

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

COURT FACILITY

FURNACE VENTING SYSTEMS

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

JACK GATECLIFF

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

REMEMBRANCE DAY / JOUR DU SOUVENIR

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

ONTARIO HYDRO

EDUCATION REFORM

INVESTMENT FUNDS

EDUCATION REFORM

ONTARIO HYDRO

INVESTMENT FUNDS

ONTARIO HYDRO

EDUCATION REFORM

INVESTMENT FUNDS

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTMENT FUNDS

JUSTICE ISSUES

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

CHILD CARE

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

RURAL POLICING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

INVESTMENT FUNDS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

HIGHWAY SAFETY

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

VEHICLE SAFETY

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE OPTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

KARLA HOMOLKA

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

CLOSURE OF CHATHAM JAIL

LABOUR LEGISLATION

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI (CONTINUED)

INVESTMENT FUNDS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Christopherson moved private member's notice of motion number 3:

Whereas it is important for the provincial government to work in partnership with communities across Ontario to provide the infrastructure and economic opportunities necessary for job creation, and

Whereas the previous New Democratic government invested in the economic future of Hamilton by committing $5 million for the creation of a cultural industry strategy, and a further $5 million for the revitalization of Barton Street; both of which would have created jobs and supported the expansion of Hamilton's important culture and arts industry, and

Whereas the saving and rehabilitation of the 71-year-old landmark "Lister Block" building would have saved an important part of Hamilton's heritage, created jobs and injected much needed economic stimulation into our downtown core, and

Whereas Hamilton's McMaster University would have become the home to North America's first United Nations University for the Environment, with a $5-million provincial investment matched by federal funds, and

Whereas Hamilton was scheduled to receive more than 1,000 units of non-profit housing, which would have created jobs and provided affordable housing for Hamilton's most vulnerable citizens, and

Whereas these economic initiatives were identified as priorities by local government and the community itself,

Therefore

be it resolved that the Progressive Conservative government admit the serious damage it has caused to Hamilton's economic future by cancelling these critical economic initiatives and that full funding be restored immediately.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Christopherson has moved ballot item number 3. The member for Hamilton Centre has 10 minutes.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am pleased today to be able to place some of Hamilton's most important economic issues at centre stage here in this Ontario Legislature.

Our government had worked very hard and in close partnership with local government and the community to ensure that throughout the recession and indeed into the future our local economy remained strong and viable and that we would be able to provide the kinds of jobs and economic growth that Hamilton needs if we're to remain the kind of community we've been for oh so very long.

One of the first projects this government cancelled was the Barton Street revitalization project, as well as the cultural industry strategy, which would have had the effect of putting $5 million into an important part of our community on Barton Street which had fallen on difficult times throughout the recession.

We took our lead from the local government's plans for revitalizing the local economy -- Vision 2020, the Renaissance project -- and we worked with the local community to identify how we could bring back the pride that the people in the Barton Street area had for that important part of our downtown, as well as investing in one of the growing areas in our local economy, and that is the cultural and arts community.

Hamilton has a very distinctive cultural and arts community, separate and apart from anything happening here in Toronto or in fact anywhere else in the country. That was identified by local leaders, and we responded to that particular initiative by working with the local community to invest in the community.

This was not giveaway money, these were not make-work projects; this was a serious investment in the future of our local economy and ensuring that Hamilton survived in the future. That was a major project for which the community was pleased to receive support from this government, because it can't do it alone. Local governments can't do it alone. Senior levels of government have an obligation to work in partnership, to assist local communities and local government in making sure that local economies survive.

That's been killed. They killed that. Not only did they kill that future project, but they reached inside and took out $1.1 million that was already in the bank. They took that out and said, "You can't have any of that, none of it." Now the people on Barton Street and those important citizens in our cultural and arts community are left out in the cold. This government has not responded to their needs or to their situation at all, and I see no indication that it's about to reach out.

The Lister Block, another major part of the heritage of our downtown core: Mayor Bob Morrow, along with Alderman Bill McCulloch, the dean of Hamilton city council, worked tirelessly with then Housing Minister Richard Allen to find a way to save that building, to preserve our heritage, but also to provide jobs and provide an opportunity for people to move into the downtown core, which has been identified as an important part of the revival of our downtown core. It is in serious trouble, much like many of the older communities across this province.

That was a project that would have created jobs, would have provided economic stimulation in our downtown and, again, would have saved an important part of our cultural heritage in Hamilton. We're very proud, as Hamiltonians, of our history. This vital project was put on the chopping block and killed. Before this Legislature even sat, the government announced and pronounced from on high that this project was gone, and it looks like we're going to lose it.

The United Nations University for the Environment: Here was a unique opportunity, not just for Hamiltonians but all Ontarians, because it would have been the very first United Nations university on the study of the environment in all of North America. Again, we worked with the community, we worked with the university, we provided $5 million and the federal government agreed to put $5 million in, to allow that United Nations university to come to this country, to come to this province and to come to my home town of Hamilton -- and they killed it.

They killed it. They said, "That's not important; the bottom line is the only thing that matters." They didn't care about the fact that the environment and dealing with the environment is one of the critical growth areas for jobs and economic stimulation.

That's the rub. All of these initiatives create jobs and they create economic stimulation. This government has replaced it with nothing -- nothing. They've just killed them and said: "They're not important enough to fund. Hamilton, you're cut adrift. You're out there on your own."

I know that the president of the university, the soon-to-be-installed president, Peter George, expressed his disappointment. People are scrambling now trying to save it, but without the provincial government being there, the federal $5 million is not going to be there, and it's very much in doubt whether or not we will have that United Nations university.

Non-profit housing: Something this government dislikes, disapproves of, bordering on hate with a passion, because it goes against their hard-line ideology of how the world ought to work. The reality is that the non-profit housing that was built in Hamilton during the recession gave hundreds, if not thousands, of construction workers jobs during the darkest days of the recession that they otherwise would not have had. It also ensured that the most vulnerable in our community had hope, had a home, had a future. We're talking about families and we're talking about children.

The investment in non-profit housing in my community of Hamilton and across Ontario has been a benefit to the people of Ontario. This government has killed all of them, all those projects.

The francophone community had worked so hard for years, volunteering their efforts to make sure they could provide the kind of housing that community needed. Harmony Non-profit Homes was affected, Brothers of the Good Shepherd, Spallacci Construction, and the list goes on and on. Paula Randazzo has worked so hard in our community to make sure that there were linkages between labour, workers who needed jobs, construction activity that was needed in our community, and the provision of non-profit housing. All of that is gone.

I note that the government now takes great pride in participating in the infrastructure announcements. I see the copies of the news releases come out with the quotes from the Tory MPPs about how proud they are to be here and participate in a partnership and provide jobs and economic stimulation. If they had been the government during the times of the negotiation with the federal government on infrastructure projects, none of that would have happened. None of that would have happened, yet they proudly go out there and cut the ribbons and take the credit for the benefit this investment provided in our community.

They would have said no to the waterfront project, a $10-million project that enhanced the quality of life of Hamiltonians. It's a wonderful feeling to go down there on a summer day and see the families and the children and the seniors and people enjoying our waterfront.

Interjections.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): Oh, come on, David. I was part of that. It did happen. Not true -- shame.

Mr Christopherson: You would not have funded that. You would have said you couldn't find the money. We did because it's important that communities be preserved and that we invest in the people of Ontario.

Mr Sampson: Oh, give your head a shake.

Mr Christopherson: The backbenchers of the government can howl and yap away, but the fact of the matter is that that's an important project, as is the GO station investment, $16 million; $64 million for the courthouse project.

This is community, and you seem to have failed to understand that, that Ontario is about communities. It's about people. It's about jobs. It's about hope. You think it's all a balance sheet. You want to make sure you can give your wealthy friends a nice tax break so you can get re-elected, and you've turned your back on communities. You've turned your back on communities and that's the wrong kind of approach. There's no vision to that.

Hamilton needs the cooperation and support and partnership of senior levels of government. We did our best to make sure those partnerships were there to provide jobs and economic stimulation, and this government has cut all those initiatives and hurt that community. Ask regional chairman Terry Cooke how much those projects have hurt. He's a Tory and he'll tell you that this is not the way to build a community for the future.

I call on the government to admit the serious damage it is doing and restore that funding immediately and give my community of Hamilton hope for the future.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I'm pleased to speak to this resolution today. I have to tell you that when I first read the resolution I was quite surprised. To let the members of this House understand my feelings on this, I'd like to take them back in history just a little bit, if you'll bear with me.

Let's go back to 1990. There was a provincial election and all six Hamilton-Wentworth members were elected from the NDP. All six members became part of that government, and in fact four of them became cabinet ministers. The very first thing they did for the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, without consultation, with no discussions, indeed not even a whisper to the community: They cancelled the funding to the major economic project in the Hamilton-Wentworth region, the project called the Red Hill Creek Expressway. They claimed it was because of environmental reasons. They claimed it would destroy the valley.

The community was stunned, the community was in disbelief, and today they still have not recovered from that decision. Some $25 million had already been spent on that project, an interchange had begun, property was purchased, development was on the horizon, but everything stopped. Nothing happened in Hamilton-Wentworth. Too bad that in 1990 the member didn't believe in the concept of partnership and consultation. It's too bad he didn't believe in sitting down with local politicians and the community to talk about that project.

But let's move forward, let's go to 1994. There's another election on the horizon. The project indeed had not died, as they wished it had. In fact, it was alive and well. So what did they decide to do? An election was on the horizon and they knew they had to do something in Hamilton-Wentworth -- they needed the votes -- so they came up with this grandiose scheme, to buy acceptance, of a new, NDP-tailored roadway. It didn't satisfy the needs of the community, but it just might provide them with enough votes for re-election.

The roadway, instead of a six-lane, became a four-lane. It had stoplights all the way along; it was no longer an expressway. It was a road similar to Bay Street or Yonge Street in Toronto. You might be able to associate that a little better than Fennell or Mohawk in Hamilton. It destroyed a residential neighbourhood. It cost far more money than the original concept cost, but they took that money from our road and they divvied it up into all these other projects: the Barton Street revitalization, $5 million; the community and cultural centre, another $5 million; the Lister Block; the UN university, for which they never really promised the money but promised the concept of the university.

I find paragraph 6 of this resolution particularly offensive, where he says, "These economic initiatives were identified as priorities by local government and the community itself." The reality is that the Red Hill Creek Expressway has been identified for over 30 years as the most significant, important economic project in Hamilton-Wentworth, and it still is to this day.

I would love to spend $5 million on Barton Street. I'd love to spend $5 million on the arts and cultural community. I'd love to save the Lister Block and I'd love to have the United Nations university at McMaster. But the reality is that we don't have the money, and we didn't have the money then.

The previous government did not care about deficit financing and debt. They didn't care about not having the money, because guess what? They could just borrow it. Well, we do care. We care about growth and opportunity. We have the responsibility to act responsibly, we believe in partnership with communities across Ontario and we will work with the community in Hamilton-Wentworth to ensure that we sit down and talk with them about their priorities and we get the economic situation in Hamilton-Wentworth turned around with the private sector, the community and the government.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise in support of the resolution by my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre. I think when you look at the amount of damage that has been done to the region, I guess it all started probably on June 8. For the first time since 1970, Hamilton-Wentworth has not had a cabinet minister in the government of the day. When it was a Conservative government under Bill Davis, there was cabinet representation; when it was a Liberal government under David Peterson, there was cabinet representation; and when it was an NDP government under Bob Rae, there was cabinet representation.

We were neglected right from day one. The reality is that the decisions are made at the cabinet table. The reality is that there is no voice for Hamilton-Wentworth at the cabinet table. The closest we have is a junior minister from Burlington who has often shown his disdain for Hamilton-Wentworth. That is the best we can do.

I've always believed that the role of local members, yes, it's to represent their party, yes, it's to work on behalf of their party, but most of all it is to work on behalf of the community they represent. The responsibility of local members is to fight and fight and fight against any cuts, any changes that are going to hurt their local community.

I find it ironic -- and my response is not an attack on my friends from the Hamilton-Wentworth area, because on a personal level I think they're very nice, very kind individuals, and I consider them all friends. It is a question of philosophical direction. It is a question of direction, that I differ from where they're coming from as to where the region should be going. I find it ironic that my good friend the member for Hamilton West talks about the expressway with such self-righteousness. Yes, the NDP scrapped that project, yes, they devastated the region, and they paid the political price for that on June 8.

But this government, what did it do? This government decided that it wasn't going to scrap it, it was just going to delay it; $13.5 million cut out of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. The first decision they made as a government was to cut $13.5 million out of the expressway in 1995. To me, Mike Harris looks like Bob Rae in a blue suit. They cut it; you guys just delayed it. What does that say about economic development? What does that say about cutting $13.5 million out of a project that you had committed to?

Mike Harris went on and on during the campaign about how important this project was to Hamilton-Wentworth, how they were committed to it; committed until the point that you became the government of the day, and then the first thing you did was cut $13.5 million out of this year's funding for the project. Where is that commitment? Was that just pre-election rhetoric? Was that just what you wanted people to hear?

The reality is you have not delivered. You have failed miserably in delivering on the expressway. The people of Hamilton-Wentworth will be looking to see if Mr Palladini will keep his word, if the minister will reinstate the 1995 funding in 1996, as he said he would, or are we going to simply just delay the project further and further and further along?

The infrastructure programs that have been talked about, the airport link, the Highway 6 extension: another casualty of Hamilton-Wentworth, another casualty of this government; a project that had been approved, a project that would have been vital to the airport in Hamilton-Wentworth, a project that would have provided that transportation link that is needed to ensure that the Hamilton airport grows and flourishes and becomes the hub that we want it to be because it's going to create thousands of jobs.

What this government doesn't understand is that every time you cut out of a project, every time you cut out of infrastructure, you're cutting jobs -- exactly what you ran on. You committed yourself to creating jobs. This is a government that was going to create 725,000 jobs over the next four years of the life of this government.

In your first five months you have cut thousands and thousands of jobs out of projects in Hamilton-Wentworth. You don't realize that when you cut the Red Hill Creek Expressway funding, you're cutting jobs. You don't realize that when you cut the Highway 403 link, you're cutting jobs. You don't realize that when you're cutting social service agencies, you are cutting jobs.

There's a correlation there. The money doesn't just get sucked up somewhere. It goes into jobs, it goes to people's homes and mortgages, it goes to buying houses and fridges, things that you want people to do in this province.

I don't understand how a government that has four members out of six -- we have four members on the government side of the House from Hamilton-Wentworth. I challenge my friends when they get their turn to speak: What positive beneficial decisions has this government made in its first five months to benefit Hamilton-Wentworth? I'd like to see one positive decision.

Interjections.

Mr Agostino: Yes, my friends keep talking about a tax cut. The Tory backbenchers keep screaming about how there's a 30% tax cut and they keep talking about borrowed money. What you fail to understand, or you know but you don't want the people of Ontario to know, is that there's only one way you're going to finance your tax cut, and that's going to be to borrow the money. It's unheard of. You are going to borrow the money in this province to finance the 30% tax cut to benefit your rich friends, and that comes at the expense of projects like the Red Hill Creek Expressway, the 403 link, the UN university in Hamilton-Wentworth.

Where is the rationale in that? Why would you cut those kinds of projects that create jobs and then go out and borrow the money to give your rich friends who make $90,000, $100,000 or $200,000 this 30% tax cut that you promised, which we now hear may be delayed or deferred?

Agencies in Hamilton-Wentworth, social service agencies, which most of the members across the floor chuckle at, 159 cuts were made to 130 agencies in Hamilton-Wentworth last July, centres such as Good Shepherd, Martha House, Big Sister Youth Services, Chedoke, Wayside House of Hamilton, Little Red Apple Pre-School, the Women's Centre of Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Common Sense Revolution -- and I read the material well and I read the literature that my friends on the Tory side of the House had put out during the election -- didn't say anything about cutting women's shelters in Hamilton-Wentworth. It didn't talk about cutting services for abused children in Hamilton-Wentworth, unless it was hidden somewhere and I missed it. It didn't talk about cutting services to children's aid societies in Hamilton-Wentworth. Yet this government, in July, cut $6.75 million from these vital community services in Hamilton-Wentworth.

The across-the-board cuts, the blind slashing that occurred, the fact that this government did not think it was important enough to do a program-by-program assessment to determine which programs were still necessary, which programs could be cut, which programs could be reduced -- they felt that they were all the same across the board, they felt that every single program deserved that 5% hit.

The commonsense -- and you like that word -- the commonsense thing would have been to take a look at the program, look at what was in place and say, "Okay, which programs can we do better, which programs can we get rid of and which do we need?" rather than just cut across the board without knowing and realizing the impact. People in my region are paying the price every single day as a result of that.

There are more funding cuts to come, we're sure. We know that there are going to be more to come in the economic statement that the minister is going to present in November. We know Hamilton-Wentworth's going to get whacked again and we know that the direct attack on the people of Hamilton-Wentworth is going to continue.

I just do not understand why our local members are not standing up and speaking out and fighting against these cuts. I understand that there's party discipline, I understand that you have to tow the line and I understand that the whip will get all excited if you dare, but I believe that we first have to represent the people who elected us, that we have to ensure that the people who elected us, that the views of the region are heard.

Yes, the opposition can do that to some extent, but we don't have access to the cabinet table, we don't have access to the government side of the House. I very much believe that the local members must put partisan politics aside when it comes to local issues and fight hard and be out there speaking out. Yes, it's risky. Yes, there's a risk in that, because by doing that you may never end up in cabinet, by doing that you may get the parliamentary assistant position taken away from you, you may get the perks taken away from you, because that is not part of what your party whip would like you to do.

But ultimately we have to remember that we don't get elected here, we don't get elected in this room, we don't get elected in this city. We get elected in our riding by the constituents we have been there to fight for, and fight on their behalf continuously.

The neglect that has occurred in this region just cannot go on and on and on. You have campaigned on job creation.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Private sector jobs.

Mr Agostino: What program, what announcement can my friends across the floor tell me about, when they have their turn in a few minutes, that has created jobs in Hamilton-Wentworth? Funding the Red Hill expressway is not public jobs, it is private sector jobs, it is construction industry. The construction industry in Hamilton-Wentworth has over a 50% unemployment rate.

Do you not feel that money is well spent? Do you not feel that $13.5 million for projects in the biggest sector, in the construction industry -- most of that money goes to wages, it goes to paying people who are working there -- good-paying, solid jobs in the region. Does the government not understand that? Does the government not understand that every time you invest a dollar in a community, the return is threefold and fourfold?

Does the government believe very much in this trickle-down, Ronald Reagan type of governing that you're talking about, this wonderful tax cut that you're going to give and then think that people are going to sit there and spend it and so on, and all those kinds of wonderful things that were supposed to happen in the United States that never happened, do you really believe that?

Do you really believe that all of these cuts that you're making to Hamilton-Wentworth, and the average middle-class income earner may benefit by $500 or $600 a year, do you believe the price to pay is worth it? Do you believe that the price to pay for the $500 tax cut that you're going to give is worth the cut that you've done to the Red Hill expressway and to the 403 and to the UN and to Barton Street and to all of the agencies and children's aid societies and services that provide help for people who need it? Do you really believe that $400 is going to be worth it?

Do you believe that the people of Hamilton-Wentworth are going to be fooled when their taxes go up next year or their services are cut? Do you believe that the people of Hamilton-Wentworth are going to buy your tax cut when they may have to pay for garbage pickup, which they now don't pay for, or their water and sewer rates may have to go up, or their recreation centre and swimming pool and skating rink fees go up to offset the oncoming cut that you're doing, to offset the downloading that you're doing?

Where is this tax cut? Do you think you're fooling people? Do you think the people who have children who go to McMaster University in Hamilton next year and their tuition fees go up don't understand it is a result of your government's actions? Do you not understand that if they pay $400 or $500 more a year to send someone to university, send a student to university, it offsets your $400 or $500 cut? Do you think you can fool people to believe that this cut is going to benefit them?

Yes, it will benefit your rich friends across the floor who make $100,000 or $150,000. They're going to love you. They're going to think this is great. What about the average steelworker, the average factory worker in Hamilton, who's going to see a very small return on one end, if you ever come through with your cut, but on the other hand is going to pay in municipal taxes, is going to pay in tuition fees, is going to pay in other services that they're now not paying for?

The downloading of services, the downloading of programs -- there's only one taxpayer, and ultimately at the municipal level those are the people, that is the level of government that is going to be forced to either dramatically cut service or dramatically increase taxes in order to make up for your perceived tax cut.

Again, your tax cut that is going to somehow benefit only the rich, your tax cut that is going to be borrowed -- and I keep forgetting that, and maybe one of the members across the floor can explain to me where the benefits of that are going to be as well, when they get up to speak, how you can justify borrowing to provide this tax cut. You're going to borrow the money at a tremendous rate, after the deficit, after the debt, in order to finance a tax cut for the very wealthy in Ontario.

There's nothing wrong with deficit reduction. There's nothing wrong with balancing the books. Fundamentally, the biggest difference between what you are trying to do and we would have done in government is that we would not try to do both at the same time. It is fiscally impossible.

There hasn't been one government in the history of this country or any jurisdiction in North America that has been able to deliver what you are talking about. Not even the Republicans, your friends in the United States -- Newt, Jesse and the rest of the boys -- not even your friends in the United States have been able to deliver what you are talking about, not even by the gutting of the services, not even by the experiments they've tried in Michigan and Louisiana and Tennessee and those other wonderful progressive states that have the best social policy in the world.

Not even in those states have they been able to do what you're talking about: deliver this massive tax cut and balance the budget at the same time.

The price to pay is too high. The price to pay for what you are trying to do is too high. It is too high across this province, it is too high across Hamilton-Wentworth, and we have paid the price already. In five months, this government has inflicted more damage in Hamilton-Wentworth than five years of NDP government. You've done that in five months.

Let me tell you, there was one difference, and I haven't seen it yet: There were members of the NDP government side of the House, and at times in the last session I didn't agree often with my colleagues on the NDP side of the House -- I didn't agree often with my friend the member for Hamilton Centre -- but, man, there were times when they had the guts to speak out, and speak out on behalf of the community they represented. That's what local representation is all about.

I urge my friends from Hamilton-Wentworth: Lose the chains. Untie yourselves from the party discipline and the whips that tell you that you must go along and agree with every single decision that is made, regardless of how damaging it is to your region. Speak out on behalf of the people you represent.

Ask your constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth if they want this $13.5-million cut to the Red Hill expressway. Ask your constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth if they believe that the 403 extension should not go ahead. Ask your constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth if you should cut the children's aid society and the shelters and the second-stage emergency housing. Ask those questions, then stand up, come into the House and speak out on behalf of the people you represent.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I am pleased to stand here today and support the resolution brought forth by my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre. It's a very good resolution and it's a good opportunity for everybody in this House to stand up and be counted and say that we are unhappy with the amount of jobs that are being lost due to cutbacks.

When I look at the resolution, they're talking about 1,000 units of non-profit housing being cancelled. Imagine the amount of construction workers that could be there working instead of collecting unemployment insurance and taking the jobs that the people on welfare would eventually get.

It's unreal to think that the Conservative government in Ontario would go ahead and make the cutbacks that it's doing to Hamilton when the local community and the local government are saying that these are the projects they need to create economic growth in the area and to help out the vulnerable people who need apartments, need places to put a roof over their heads, that it would use this method of cutting back, and all for the simple reason of wanting to give a tax break. They want to give back $5 billion to their special-interest groups out there that are already wealthy. They want to be able to give it back to them at the expense of every community.

In Cochrane North we have three non-profit housing projects that were cancelled. The need was there. The local communities decided that they had to do something for the people who needed affordable, decent housing. They had a project in Cochrane, they had a project in Hearst, they had a project in Moosonee. You're talking about 150 families that needed affordable, decent housing. The Conservative government cancelled these projects.

There are other ways of balancing budgets and raising revenue without taking the whole impact on to the poor people. My phone is ringing off the hook and saying, "How much longer are you people going to just stand there and watch the Conservatives hurt the most vulnerable people, attack them on a regular basis?"

We see the labour legislation that they brought in. Bill 7 is a job killer. It's going to kill thousands of jobs in this province because employers are not going to come and invest in this province if they're going to be encouraged by the Conservative government to bring in strikebreakers and scabs. Employers don't want that; they were happy with the legislation that the NDP government had brought in, which was creating jobs. Billions of dollars were invested in the province of Ontario. There was no reason to bring in their legislation that is legalizing scabs on the job. This is an example.

If you read the resolution, I'm sure if everybody reads the resolution, they're going to be able to support this resolution that was brought in by the member for Hamilton Centre. It says "that the Progressive Conservative government" should "admit the serious damage it has caused to Hamilton's economic future by cancelling these critical economic initiatives and that full funding be restored immediately."

Why would a government want to come in, get elected five months ago, and do so much damage that it's done in the last four or five months? It's unreal. The people of northern Ontario just can't understand why they would not want to plow the roads any more or put sanding trucks out there.

Why would they want to close nursing homes? They promised they weren't going to hurt health care, yet they're taking millions of dollars out of northern Ontario at the expense of the sick and disabled.

I could go on and on and on, but I know the member for Hamilton Centre wants more time to get his remarks on the record, looking for the support of all the people in this House on this resolution.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the honourable member for Hamilton Centre for bringing this resolution forward and giving the members of Hamilton-Wentworth region an opportunity to speak to it.

Right off the top, I'd like to address myself to the member for Hamilton East. I take exception to his self-righteous criticism of my colleague from Hamilton West. This comes from a member who himself neglected to mention how he ran municipally less than a year ago, and then some four or five months later quit to run for provincial politics and cost the city some $50,000 to $60,000. Self-righteousness.

As for the member for Hamilton Centre, I can understand the member's political motivations and the grandstanding behind them, but I still cannot find myself supporting this resolution before us today. It's pure Hollywood, and talk is very cheap when you're in opposition.

First of all, does the member not realize the financial crisis of this province, the financial crisis his government has created in the past five years? Or does he even care? Did somebody forget to tell the member for Hamilton Centre of the disastrous and looming provincial debt, and the deficits that will be a noose around the necks of Ontarians if somebody does not have the courage and foresight to bring provincial spending under control?

Deficits have increased dramatically in the 1990s: $10.6 billion in 1995. That's $10.6 billion. Ontario's indebtedness has spiralled upward. It is currently around $97.4 billion, almost a $100-billion debt.

But what is even scarier is the money we are spending to finance the interest on this public debt. Public debt interest for 1995-96, as of July, was $8.8 billion. What does that mean? Well, let's put it in perspective. Public debt interest for 1995-96 is nearly 20% of the revenues of this province.

The interest we are paying is having very negative impacts on the province. Public debt interest is crowding out funding for programs and services, programs and services that we as Ontarians and Hamiltonians want and need. Out of every dollar spent on programs and services, we are paying nearly 16 cents of this to public debt interest. Ten years ago, we were only paying less than four cents.

I'm telling you, this upward trend is a recipe for disaster, yet the member for Hamilton Centre would have us keep spending more and more and more. They are spenders by nature, spending money we do not have. Make no mistake, that is exactly what he is suggesting. This doesn't make any sense to me. Has the member not even seen these numbers? Can he not comprehend the impact on the province, given these numbers? I'm not that old, but I remember a time when both Liberals and socialists would be generous with their own money, not the public's.

Let me make myself clear: I am not, nor is this government, against the principles of the projects in question, but the reality is, we don't have the money for all these projects. We don't have the money that the former NDP government has promised. We cannot continue to borrow and spend. All communities -- I repeat, all communities -- are having to deal with some cuts. We've had to make very tough decisions in order to begin the process of improving the government's fiscal situation. However, we as Hamiltonians must do our part for the betterment of the province.

Let me make something else clear: This is not about which politician at Queen's Park can get the most for his local supporters. What is at stake is much greater. This is about fiscal responsibility and dealing with the real macroeconomic issues that, if left unattended, will bring us to a state where there will be no social and infrastructure programs.

This is about fiscal responsibility so that we can protect core services such as health care, education and police services well into the future.

This is about fiscal responsibility so that we can foster an environment that will create jobs and stimulate economic growth that will ultimately help Hamilton's and Hamilton Mountain's economic future.

This is about fiscal responsibility so that there will be a bright and prosperous future for us and our children in Hamilton.

This is not about spend, spend, spend, spend some more, even if we do not have the money. That road will bring this province to its knees. This is about fiscal responsibility. The province requires it, the people of Ontario require it, the people of Hamilton Mountain require it, and the rest of the people of Hamilton require it.

To conclude, I end with a quote, borrowing from Eldridge Cleaver, an American author and political activist: "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem." I would ask the member for Hamilton Centre to help us in our attempt, not hinder us, in bringing this province's spending crisis under control so that we can get on with the business of creating long-term employment and stability for the people of Hamilton Mountain and all Hamiltonians.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I am the representative of Wentworth East, which is one of the Hamilton-area ridings. Mine is a community that elected me as part of the Mike Harris team, a team with a mandate to change the way of the past 10 years of NDP and Liberal governments. A major part of this change includes the elimination of job-killing legislation and getting our fiscal house in order.

For the past 10 years, the people and businesses of this province have been frustrated with governments constantly meddling in their affairs. We have had over 10 years of increased taxes, 10 years of increased paperwork, 10 years of increased spending, 10 years of increased regulation, 10 years of increased intervention. With all these increases, one would have thought that perhaps unemployment would have decreased, but it didn't. It increased as well.

What's been the result of all these policies? It's been a deficit of $10.6 billion, unemployment over 9%, and one of the most uncompetitive and overtaxed jurisdictions in all of North America. This is not Alabama; it's Ontario. There is no way we should be in that situation.

I will tell all members that we cannot support this resolution, because we have other priorities rather than commitments to projects that do nothing to create long-term jobs in Hamilton-Wentworth. We need long-term jobs there and throughout the province.

If our government does not get its fiscal house in order, if we do not reduce taxes and we do not ease the regulatory burden on business, especially small and medium-size business, then that puts social and infrastructure programs entirely in jeopardy, completely in jeopardy.

It is also a question of learning to spend in a smarter fashion. With what money is available, we must re-evaluate our spending priorities.

One such priority is our government's commitment to build the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Despite what the member across the way said, there has been no cut in funding. There has been a deferral. There were deferrals in cuts right across the province of Ontario -- deferral. The money will be there. This highway has been seen for over 30 years as an integral component of opening up our region for business. This transportation corridor will not only serve residents of our community, but will also be a very attractive and integral component of the Hamilton-Wentworth business climate.

We've been honest with the people of this province. We have said, and we have been shown, that re-evaluating priorities and making changes isn't easy. We knew this before we began, and we face it every day. It isn't easy. However, altering the status quo is what we were elected to do.

The people of this great province have asked us -- well, they haven't asked us; they've demanded from us -- that we stop ignoring this problem. For too long that was the government prescription: Keep the problem going.

Let's look closely at some of the supposed job creation strategies of the previous government. First of all, there were handouts. Then there were handouts. Then there were handouts. It was like Old MacDonald's farm: a handout here, a handout there, here a handout, there a handout, everywhere a handout. That's what it was. It was stated that handouts to different groups of every kind would support the expansion of employment in Ontario. Frankly, if such programs cannot be supported by the citizens of the community, as an example, I do not believe it is the responsibility of government to pay for every ticket to ensure a full house yet be the only spectator at the event.

Economic revitalization does not occur by taxing more, spending more and reducing disposable income. We are trying, for the first time in 10 years, to create jobs by letting the average worker keep their own money and spend it themselves. Don't give it to the government: "Here, government, take our money. You spend our money. We do a lousy job of it." It's governments that do a lousy job of spending money.

The pet projects of days past are over. They're over. Today the question we must ask should be, do the people of Ontario want their taxes to go up by X amount of dollars in order to pay for these projects? The answer clearly is no. The message was clear this past election when the people of this province gave our government the mandate to control spending, reduce our deficit and create long-term private sector jobs.

Mr Christopherson: I would like to first of all thank my colleague from Cochrane North for his comments and his support and understanding for the importance of these projects to my home town.

I also want to thank my colleague from Hamilton East for his support. One thing the honourable member for Hamilton East and I agree on is the fact that the tradition in Hamilton after an election is over that aldermen, councillors, MPPs and MPs work together for our community is one we want to carry on and one that has benefited Hamilton. Quite frankly, given our proximity to Toronto and the broader Metro area, if we didn't have that kind of cooperation and work between the elected representatives at all levels and from all parties, Hamilton would never be heard. I support that tradition that he enunciated and I urge our new colleagues in the Tory caucus to follow that example.

I want to say to the government opposite that it's too bad we didn't have an opportunity to have this kind of debate around your anti-worker Bill 7, because what happens is that the people of Ontario, through the coverage on TV of these proceedings, get an opportunity to hear different visions of Ontario and to understand competing ideas. As angry as I get and as frustrated as I get, I respect the fact that there are different points of view and different ideas and different visions.

What I find unacceptable and absolutely disgusting is when a government shuts down that democratic process and does not allow the different ideas to be enunciated and share those ideas and let the people judge for themselves.

I want to say that the vision the government puts forward is not new. We've seen this before. R.B. Bennett was a Prime Minister, a Tory Prime Minister, during the Depression. Read your history, folks. His theme throughout that Depression was that balancing the budget was the most important thing -- not that it was important, on which we all agree, but that it was the most important thing. And as workers were put out of work, they went into work camps as children literally starved, as workers rode the rails trying to find work --

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: Well, listen to the Tory back benches moan and groan and laugh and do what they will. They have no comprehension of what happens to working people during a depression and during a recession and, quite frankly, they don't seem to care what happens.

R.B. Bennett rode through the Depression and said, "We can't afford to help those unemployed workers because we have to continue to balance the budget." What is his reputation in history? How is he viewed in history, in the historical context? Ultimately, the people of Canada did elect a government that said there needs to be an investment in people, in communities, and they started to recognize that if Canada were to survive, there had to be cooperation and partnership. Yes, that meant spending some money, but it put people back to work: people who pay taxes, people who could provide for their families and people who could invest themselves in a community, rather than being cut loose.

Mitch Hepburn was another example, that great Liberal Premier who attacked the labour movement and said that unions will not come into Ontario because they're some kind of evil force. Mitch Hepburn left a legacy that most people do not accept as one we want to see again, yet here's this government in the midst of the recession -- granted, we're starting to come out of it, but there are still unacceptable levels of people who are unemployed.

They talk about the debt and deficit. It's fascinating to listen to them talk about the fact that you can't invest in communities because there is a deficit and we have to borrow money to maintain the deficit, but it's okay to borrow $4 billion or $5 billion to pay for your tax cut. There's not enough money to invest in Barton Street in my community; there's not enough money to bring the United Nations university to Hamilton; there's not enough money to save Lister Block; there's not enough money to provide non-profit housing and jobs. But, oh yes, there is enough money to pay for their tax cut.

That doesn't make any sense. If there truly is a deficit and debt crisis -- and I would maintain we have a problem, not a crisis. There's a difference. We know that the Minister of Education likes to create false crisis -- he said as much -- and that, I would suggest to you, is the game plan to cover everything this government is doing.

If indeed it is as you say -- I maintain it's not -- then why in heaven's name would you take that money and put it back out to your wealthy friends rather than taking that money and putting it against the debt and deficit to bring it down? Then, when we can all afford it, provide a tax cut for everybody, a fair tax cut that will benefit everybody equally, not the one you're going to give where the very wealthy will do the best and workers, as always when Tories change tax laws, will get the least. That, I would suggest with respect, is common sense.

What we're hearing over here is blind ideology, following their Common Sense Revolution book just like Mao asked everybody to following his little red book. That's what's driving this, not the interests of the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: Listen to the cackles from the Tory back benches. But let's remember that it was Mulroney's Tories who brought in the GST. It was Mulroney's Tories who brought in the free trade agreement, which decimated the industrial sector in Ontario and particularly hurt my community of Hamilton-Wentworth. They're the ones who followed the high interest rate policy that economists acknowledge drove us into recession faster and deeper than necessary.

And all in the name of fiscal responsibility, as if Tories are the only ones in the world who can understand economics, and the poor working grunts of the world ought to just accept the fact that, "Oh, the great Tory leaders will show us how to do this." That's been rejected in the past and it will be rejected in the future.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: It's amazing how upset they get when you touch a nerve.

I also want to talk about the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Let's talk about the Red Hill Creek Expressway. First of all, the reality -- not the myth, the reality -- is that there were no jobs lost, that there was no drop in the investment in our community, because there was an agreement to switch from the north-south, because it was in dispute, and do the east-west portion first. We got the same number of jobs and the same amount of dollars invested while that project was under way and while the north-south was in dispute. The Tories never talk about that, but that is the truth and that's the reality.

Check with the regional government if you want to see the statistics, because they're there. No jobs were lost because of that.

Now let's talk about the difference of opinion on the Red Hill Creek Expressway. We said that the six-lane expressway that destroys the environment in the Red Hill Valley was not necessary in terms of the demographic shift of what had happened, in reality, in our community versus what was planned and projected 30 years ago.

There was a study done, an independent study, that said a four-lane roadway would be sufficient to meet the needs of our business and citizens for 30 years. That plan would have saved the environment. It would have enhanced the environment.

We took the $70 million that we saved and we invested that back into the very projects that I was speaking of earlier. So we would have had the transportation network, we'd have saved the environment and we'd have invested in key components of our economic future.

This government ran on a simplistic platform and said, "We're just going to stuff down that old plan, because it sounds good and we can sell it," and all the other investments in Hamilton will be gone.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Christopherson: That's all right, Mr Speaker. It's the backbenchers; one expects this from them. But as the member for Hamilton East said, if we had a cabinet minister, maybe we'd have somebody who could speak out for Hamilton, because these backbenchers don't seem to be doing it.

In the last couple of minutes that I have left, I want to talk about whom this government ought to be talking to in terms of these projects, because this is not just a resolution from me or just a resolution to be supported by the Liberal member for Hamilton East. This is a resolution that speaks to the future of my community, and I happen to think that's important. Whether the backbenchers of the Tory party think so or not, I do. I think it matters that Hamilton has a future.

Talk to Renee Johnston or Patty Beckett, who worked on the cultural and arts industry strategy. Talk to them, people who don't have elected office but who have a care and a compassion and a love for Hamilton that says they want to see it survive. They worked in concert with the local government to make sure that this project was brought to fruition.

Speak to Jude Johnson, who's a well-known, respected artist, a singer with a great reputation, who has put her reputation on the line to support this project. She's volunteered her time and her talent to make sure that this happened, and you killed it.

Talk to Stella Woock, Stella Woock who represents the community association in the Barton Street area. The community has come together in that area. The police have worked with them. There's community policing in there. We're very proud of our police service in Hamilton. That was a part of the partnership, and they killed that. Talk to Stella about how much the Barton Street project matters to the citizens in that area; not to your wealthy friends or the people you plan to sell off portions of this government to. Talk to the people, the real people and the real leaders.

Talk to Diane Dent of LACAC and find out the real importance of why Lister Block matters in our community, why that's an investment, not just, as one member said, a handout. "We've had to make tough decisions." No, you've made mean decisions. There's an ability to deal with the debt and deficit in a far more gradual way if you cared enough to look at that, and if you weren't trying to pay for your tax cut to your pals.

Go talk to Roger Paquette and all the people in cooperative housing, literally hundreds of community people. They're the ones who make up the community of Hamilton and Hamilton-Wentworth. They're the ones who led the charge on these initiatives and they're the ones whose hearts are broken that this government has decided to cut Hamilton adrift.

I urge members to support this resolution. Support my home town of Hamilton.

The Deputy Speaker: That completes debate on ballot item number 3.

PROPERTY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DROITS DE PROPRIÉTÉ

Mr Barrett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code with respect to property rights /Projet de loi 11, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'expropriation et le Code des droits de la personne relativement aux droits de propriété.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Do you have some comments?

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): The purpose of this bill is to restore property rights in Ontario. I've introduced a private member's bill titled the Property Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995, to protect our right to the peaceful enjoyment of our private property and strengthen compensation rights in the event our property is expropriated. The bill amends the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code to enhance the protection Ontario law gives to private property rights. The provisions added to the code are based on the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Quebec.

Property rights are part of our heritage. People came to Canada and to our ridings seeking the right to own and use property, something that they often did not have the opportunity to do in their home countries. Private ownership of property and the development of that property has been a key incentive for our economic growth and prosperity.

In my riding, and across Ontario, different levels of government have found it necessary in the public interest to build railways, widen streets, establish dump sites, run hydro tower corridors and protect environmentally sensitive lands from development. Governments in Ontario have neglected to provide property owners with a fair hearing to justify infringing on their inherent right to enjoy property or with appropriate compensation for their losses.

You cannot remove the value of someone's property and at the same time offer no just compensation for their loss.

There is a strong historical tradition in the western world for protecting property rights. Property rights go back to the year 1215, the Magna Carta, the foundation of our common law in Ontario and in Canada. The recognition of property rights in the Magna Carta is very straightforward, and I quote, in part:

"No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other moveable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this."

In 1689, these rights were affirmed again in the British Bill of Rights. In 1948, Canada signed the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms that no one be arbitrarily deprived of property. In 1960, the Canadian Bill of Rights also affirmed the right to the enjoyment of property.

But in 1982, the Canadian Bill of Rights was overridden by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter provides the right to life, liberty and security of the person but omits any mention of property rights. Can this be defended in a free and democratic society?

Rural Ontario, and my riding of Norfolk, contains undeveloped land that can be an issue for environmentalists who wish to freeze the use of property for reasons of conservation. Conservation is a worthy cause, but at what cost? Land owners receive no compensation and hence often get their back up over such initiatives.

Property rights are also important in urban Ontario, where, for example, provincially sanctioned basement apartments may infringe on the rights of adjacent property owners.

There are macro and micro planning considerations that influence legislation pertaining to property rights. Macro issues include the province's planning statements or guidelines or its own plan creation through, for example, the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. Micro considerations include local subdivision, site and development plans made to rationalize municipal services such as water and sewer under a provincially directed official plan.

Concern has been raised that private property rights infringed upon indirectly with official plan designations, zoning bylaws and provincial policy statements may deprive a property owner of an economically viable use of the property without any fair compensation.

There's broad consensus that property rights must be protected. Former Prime Minister Trudeau also believed, when he proposed charter entrenchment in 1981 to protect the right of the enjoyment of property, that we must respect and protect individual rights and freedoms. I would like to see us extend this belief to recognize that government should respect and protect private property rights of hardworking Ontarians.

We know that this bid for entrenchment failed, partly because of the opposition of the federal NDP. However, I would say to members of the NDP in the House that although your party has continued to pose obstacles to legislation protecting property rights, I wish to remind you that on October 15, 1991, Premier Rae had this to offer in the Legislature: "...but of course the protection of people's civil liberties, the respect for people's rights of ownership are a very important part of the Canadian tradition."

I have had a number of people ask me, "Don't we have property rights now?" The answer is a very simple no. Although we are not prohibited from buying, selling and possessing private property in Canada, we have no written protection against that right being infringed upon at some point. This causes a problem in rendering judicial decisions. Courts cannot strike down legislation that infringes on property rights as invalid because there is no statutory protection for this right in our laws.

Further, the Planning Act does not set out a process for a fair hearing to resolve any alleged infringement of property rights. Property owners must live with the uncertainty that a further means of confiscating their property indirectly through zoning changes will be done without any fair compensation being required or provided.

The Ontario Human Rights Code is Ontario's highest law. It is appropriate to begin here and protect property rights with the other civil rights that are also protected in this jurisdiction. All other laws in the province are measured against the Ontario Human Rights Code. This code protects all Ontarians from discrimination. It serves to protect those who are vulnerable in our society. We ensure by this protection that they do not have to fight legal battles that they cannot afford. Why then should we not protect those vulnerable to having their property taken, directly or indirectly, who may also not be able to fight legal battles in court?

The Ontario Human Rights Code has served to challenge all legislation, not hinder it, to ensure that it is faithful to democratic freedoms that have built our province and our country. We must extend this fundamental reality to protect property rights so that we can justify, not deny, the legislative process in Ontario.

In reference to protecting property rights for all, the Canadian Real Estate Association says such a law would protect, and I quote, "not just those with the capacity to challenge offending deprivations in the courts." Property rights protection is aimed at all Ontarians.

The Expropriations Act has no teeth and must be amended. It does provide property owners with the right, once they receive notice of intention to expropriate, to request a hearing. This hearing process is flawed, however. It is neither a judicial nor quasi-judicial process, and the decision rendered from the hearing cannot be appealed. It does not permit cases of indirect expropriation, where the extent of use and enjoyment of property has been reduced or eliminated with indirect action, to be challenged.

The hearing can only determine if the expropriation is fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority, but not to review the merits of the project.

The limits of protection under the Expropriations Act become clear when one considers that expropriation hearings are carried out only at the request of the owner of land intended for expropriation. No mechanism exists within the process for hearings from adjacent land owners who may be affected by the neighbouring expropriation.

It should nowhere be part of a government's mandate to arbitrarily expropriate property without justification and fair compensation.

The Ontario Urban Development Institute has stated, and I quote again, "a freeze of the development rights amounts to no more than expropriation without any form of compensation for the affected land owners."

Again I quote: "Canadian courts have long recognized that land use regulation is not an expropriation, primarily because zoning bylaws or other planning instruments do not generally involve a taking or transfer of the full use, title or benefit of property. Therefore, if a land owner's ability to use or develop his or her property is constrained by a properly enacted zoning bylaw, the land owner is not entitled to compensation, even if the zoning bylaw results in a diminution of property value."

Ontario is virtually alone among western jurisdictions in our failure to protect property. Protection exists in the human rights codes of the Yukon, Alberta and Quebec, the United States in the Fifth Amendment, and other jurisdictions include Germany, Italy, Finland and even Sweden.

I mentioned the Canadian Real Estate Association's support. Support comes from the Ontario Real Estate Board, Ontario Urban Development Institute, Canadian Bar Association, Ontario Taxpayers Federation and OPERA, the Ontario Property and Environmental Rights Alliance.

I ask all members to support this bill. Let's send a clear message to present and future property owners of Ontario that their interests and investments are respected and protected.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's a pleasure to rise in my place this morning to address this bill. I would like to say to the newly elected member I congratulate him for coming forward with a private member's bill. I don't know if the people out there realize, but of course we all are very anxious, as members of the Legislature, to bring forward bills of interest and resolutions of interest to our constituents and to us personally, and the member is to be congratulated, as a newly elected member, to be that quick off the mark, because it was his turn very quickly to bring in a bill.

However, what is good about this time period is that it gives every one of us an opportunity in this House to debate a private member's resolution or bill, and that is not a right or privilege given to many legislators in the Commonwealth today. So we have a great opportunity here and I know most members take advantage of that, that on Thursday mornings two bills or resolutions have the opportunity not only to be presented and debated but also to be voted on.

It's in these Thursday morning debates that we truly come together and become legislators. I don't think in much of our job we actually are legislators. We're sort of like mini-ombudsman people solving problems for our constituents, which is noble work, but this is an opportunity we have to bring forward, as we see fit, legislation or amendments to existing legislation, and I welcome this opportunity to address this bill this morning.

This type of amendment to the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code has been around for many, many years. I can understand people having a sense of the collective needs of society from time to time maybe coming to the excess that maybe the property owner is losing his or her rights in society. But I think we have to be mindful of the very tenuous balance we have in society between private property rights and the collective rights of society.

I have a farm. I live on a farm and started to homestead that farm and develop it into a commercial operation 24 years ago. I understand being on the land and working on the land and so have a very strong sense of my property and being on that land and what it represents to me. Until I got this job, my land represented my income. It represented my vocation. So I have a very strong sense of self related to the land that I live on and work on as a farmer.

But I also understand that I'm just merely a tenant on that property also, that I am entrusted with the stewardship of that land, as any property owner is, whether you live in a Mississauga suburb or downtown Toronto or in rural Ontario, and as stewards of the land we must take care of it. We must obey the laws of the land that mandate us to take care of our property, because we are only temporary stewards of that land. We move on and other generations come before us. So we have to always be careful about those collective responsibilities that society has to the stewardship of land.

From time to time governments will bring in very proactive types of legislation that will either forbid us to do things on our own property or promote us to be doing things on our property.

One of those ideas I can think of that I was partly responsible for when I was Minister of Agriculture in 1989 and 1990 was the Ontario land stewardship program, where we knew that Ontario farmers at that time could do a better job of stewardship on their land, and instead of using the stick we decided to use the carrot and we offered an incentive program to seed down farm land that wasn't as productive into green crops in order to stop soil erosion, to set aside areas of our land near waterways and ditches and sloughs on our land so that we wouldn't get erosion there and protect our waterways.

Sometimes it is necessary, as we as a society learn more and more about the proper stewardship of our land, to even mandate programs such as that. I know when I first went to my farm in 1972, in Timiskaming, where I still live today, one of the first things I did was to get into the cattle business. I felt I was so blessed because my house fronts on a river and the back fields front also on a creek. I thought it was really great that I didn't have to supply some sort of pumping system in order to water my animals that were in pasture.

So I let them go down to the river bank and muddy that up, and it being the case, the clay soils that we have in the Timiskaming clay belt really did get mucked up and the rivers, the Wabi Creek, the Blanche River and the Wright Creek, are really heavily polluted. In those days farmers allowed their cattle just to go down because, "It's my property and that water is there and why not let the cattle go down."

We understand now that's not what we should be doing. We should not be treating our land that way. In fact, there certainly should be laws against that. So, even though it's my property and you would think, "Well, it's my right to be able to water my cattle any way I would see fit on my land," it really isn't. It really shouldn't be, for a farmer, the right for instance to spread manure on frozen soil during the spring or winter and you might get a rainstorm and basically that manure washes away into the waterways, eventually leading into our watershed and into our rivers.

So there always has to be a balance between property rights and the collective rights of society and what's good for the environment. As I said, a lot of it isn't the way we'd manage our land done out of malice, but sometimes just out of ignorance, because we're always learning. There was an example that I just gave where I learned how to start to be a better steward of my land, and we all can be doing that. Whether we compost in our suburban lots in the GTA or wherever we live, taking care of our land is a good thing.

I know the member talks about the Expropriations Act, and I do agree with him that obviously proper compensation must be given by the state when the state decides that it is in the common interest to expropriate. Many times -- and it is unfortunate when these conflicts come between property owners and the state -- these conflicts do arise that either a new highway needs to be put through or maybe there's a sewage plant, or some sort of public capital enterprise needs to be established in order to better the community in which we live.

When that happens it's important that for sure the state, after proving its case, give due and proper compensation to the property owner. I certainly agree with the member presenting this bill here today that's very, very important that this happens.

I would just say to the member that I understand the frustration that property owners have when they run into these situations. Whether it's hydro line rights of way, other types of easement for water lines, pipelines, there are many cases where, for the common good, it is necessary for our property to be intruded upon. I know that sometimes it's very difficult to fight that, to mount a campaign to try to stop that or to ameliorate some of the potential harm that could happen when that sort of action is contemplated. I know it's difficult and I know that when I'm in a particular situation I don't want that to happen.

I will give the member a very interesting case that's currently before Ontario, and that is the desire of Metropolitan Toronto to bring its waste to an abandoned iron ore open-pit mine in an unorganized township just south of Kirkland Lake. The people there are very, very upset about this action. As property owners they're very concerned that having this absolute mega-dump by their properties is going to be lowering their property values, and I heard somebody say something about a referendum. That's exactly what I've been asking for, that the people in that area should have a referendum and should have a say.

It would be very important for that to happen --

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): They had a referendum.

Mr Ramsay: The member says, "They had a referendum," and that's true. In 1991 the people had a referendum whether they wanted to proceed with an environmental assessment, but at that time the mayor had said that if they did proceed with environmental assessment, the people, once they have all the facts, can then go back to a referendum and have a final say whether they want the project or not.

When it comes to that sort of concern about property rights and people's right to live in a type of neighbourhood that had the land use basically established, if not through zoning bylaws and official plans, which this particular area would not have because it's an unorganized township, but have land use established through tradition, through culture, through the way the land has been settled in that area, it's very important that people have the right to have a say when land use is going to be changed in a radical way.

That's why we have zoning and that's why we have official plans in our organized townships: in a sense, to protect people. On my farm, if somebody next door wanted to go ahead and had complete freedom to bring in some factory or some other operation that would disrupt my way of life and what I'm doing on my land, that would be wrong.

There never should be absolute property rights given to property owners, as much as we would feel by instinct that, "Gee, I should be able to do as much as I can on my own property." That should never happen and so we try, through our legislation and through the laws that we pass here, to find that balance, to find a balance between what's there for the common good while at the same time trying to do our very, very best to protect the rights of the individual property owner.

I would say to the member that I applaud you for bringing this forward. It's something that really should always be debated, because we always should be testing our legislation, because from time to time we have gone over too far to collective rights and ignored individual rights and I think we need to bring that back into balance. But I would say in this case, when it comes to individual property rights, I think the balance we have today is not bad and I would say, let's keep it the way it is.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm very pleased also to be able to participate in this debate and would congratulate the member on his ability to bring forward a bill so quickly. I understand how very hotly debated this issue of property rights has been over a long period of time, so it's good for this Legislature to have an opportunity to discuss the merits of the suggestions that the member is making and to talk about some of the concerns.

I'm pleased that the member for Timiskaming was able to talk in so clear a way about the responsibility that we have to temper the individual freedoms and rights of people with the common good, because it is extremely important for us to keep in mind, as the member suggested, that we are the stewards of the land for only the time being and that we know very well that because we have the advantage of looking back over a long history of the world, our vision of property now may be different in the future, certainly was different in the past, and that the view of property by different cultures and different civilizations has been different.

We have a very good example of that, where the first nations of this country have a very different concept of property than we do. Their concept of property is that property is held in trust by the community to future generations, that no individual owns property and that the responsibility of the community is to protect and preserve that property for the generations that are to come. So it's an issue that is fraught with a lot of different visions.

I would suggest to the member that in many ways, the suggestions that he's making about changes particularly I think to the Human Rights Code are a bit redundant, and I know he's had this suggestion before. He points out that Quebec, in its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, has sections which are similar to the sections he is suggesting for the Ontario Human Rights Code, but the member does not take into account that civil justice in Quebec is very different from the civil justice system here in Ontario.

In Quebec's civil justice system, based on the Napoleonic Code, there are no precedents. It is not based in common law. The Ontario common-law tradition and system recognizes as a principle the right to own property and many, many, many precedents line up behind that principle.

In fact, probably one of the clearest and most succinct statements is a Supreme Court of Canada hearing in Harrison v Carswell, which indicated very clearly -- it's relied on very strongly by lawyers in arguing about property issues:

"Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law."

No Ontario or federal act explicitly sets out the right of one's property, although that was certainly argued very thoroughly at the time that the Constitution was repatriated in 1982. Certainly

section 26 leaves the door open, and from time to time various parties -- and one certainly hears from the Reform Party that this resolution echoes the need to include that in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would suggest to the member that given that we rely very heavily on a precedential system of law and that this precedent has clearly been set, it's unnecessary for us to enshrine property, because the disputes over property reside in the civil courts and that right has already been guaranteed by decisions of the Supreme Court, whose precedents obviously now are the ones we rely on on

interpretation of rights. The member should also remember that Canada has signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that

article 17 of that declaration protects property ownership from arbitrary deprivation.

The key here, as I think the member has clearly shown in the suggestions that he's bringing forward in terms of an inquiry, in terms of judicial review, in terms of full and fair hearings, is this issue of due process. I understand quite clearly that the member is concerned that due process is not strongly enough in favour of the person who may be deprived of the use and the enjoyment of their property.

I think that is something we should all be concerned about from day to day because we all, I think, in this House would uniformly agree that arbitrary deprivation of property is something that none of us could condone, that the arbitrariness of that is a fundamental issue in a democracy where we believe in the rule of law. So unless there is due process and unless that due process ensures that the deprivation of property is not arbitrary, I think the member would not find any disagreement in this House that we can't allow that.

I suppose the disagreement comes in the

interpretation of what is arbitrary, and I think what the member is trying to do is to say, particularly with respect to the Expropriations Act, that it is arbitrary, that in fact there is not an opportunity under that act for an individual to challenge the right of the state to take over property.

I would suggest to the member that may be a valid concern. Certainly it is one that does get expressed from time to time and certainly it is the cause of great grief. I mean, we have only to look at the very large fight that took place between the residents of Pickering and the federal government over a proposed airport, a very good example, a very lengthy example of people fighting the right of government to take on property, losing that fight, then of course finding that property not used as an airport and then finding all sorts of suggestions coming forward for them to take back that property. I think those examples raise in our minds the same concern that the member has raised.

I would say to the member that it would be very interesting to see if he could get his Minister of Justice to bring forward some changes to the Expropriations Act. I think the member who, with all his party, understands the mantra of cost and that we must save costs no matter whom we hurt as a result will recognize that the sections he has put in under the Expropriations Act are extremely expensive.

The issue of having an inquiry, having a full hearing for each issue, having the possibility of judicial review of each of these expropriation issues -- it will be very interesting to hear whether the government of the day takes seriously enough the issues that the member has raised and understands those as a priority to take on that kind of cost and that kind of burden to the courts.

I would say to the member it is an enormous cost to the individual as well as to the government, and I would suggest to you that your government, like every other government, has made a determination that it is not necessarily in the best public interest that there not be a process whereby, if it is judged by the government of the day to be in the public interest, the process is streamlined, if you like.

I suggest to the member he might want to make representations to his caucus and to his cabinet and see what the response is in terms of the cost of what he is proposing and in terms of the clumsiness and the length of time it takes when governments often need to work rather quickly in the best public interest.

Having said all that, one of the real issues, and one of the issues that arose during the constitutional talks around property, is that the member is referring to property as real, tangible property -- a piece of land, a house -- property in that sense, and certainly he's right. That's the tradition in our society.

In fact, it was well expressed in the House of Lords in 1765 -- again a passage that's often referred to when we talk about this -- where the statement was made, "The great end, for which men entered into society, was to preserve their property." That certainly is very much a part of British-North American tradition, and the member is quite right about that, that the preservation of property, real, tangible property, is very much in our history.

But I would suggest, and I know it's hard for a government that tends to get stuck in the past, we've moved a little way from 1765 in our definition of "property," and our laws in Ontario take into account that property is much, much more than a piece of tangible property or a home. We've worked over many years, under many governments, to redefine "property" to include all assets, and in fact that's a very important aspect of many of the things that the members opposite are supporting with respect to some of the changes in our social systems.

Property now is expanded to mean assets that are not tangible in the sense of being a piece of property. I'll give you the example where in family law the courts have found that the asset of a professional degree or the asset of the goodwill of a business is part of the assets of a family partnership when the division of property comes up.

I would suggest to the member that it's extremely important for us to know that we have moved farther along the spectrum in terms of understanding that for many people they will not necessarily have the asset of a tangible piece of property, but there will be other assets they may have that are interpreted, and have been interpreted over many years by the court, to be assets.

I would suggest to the member that giving inviolable rights to property would certainly mean great difficulty for a government that wanted to look at assets such as service contracts or benefits or licences or any of the other assets that people may have when you are determining the worth of someone.

I know that in the human rights part of this you're clearly talking about people's homes and people's properties, but the problem is that when we make

definitions we very often narrow the meaning of a word or a piece of legislation in a way that we would not very often do. I think it is very important for us to keep that in mind.

The last thing I would say is that I'm very interested in the changes to the Human Rights Code in sections 9.2 and 9.3.

Section 9.2 in this bill reads simply, "A person's home is inviolable," and

section 9.3, "No one may enter on another person's property or take anything from it without the person's express or implied consent."

That has grave implications for our criminal law. Unlike the

section before, where the member has excepted to the extent provided by law, he does not make that exception in these two sections. I can assure the member that he would not find his own administration or any other government willing to make a blunt statement like that, given the need that our policing forces often have to intervene for the safety of others, as is the question in domestic assault, or to intervene in terms of the carrying on of criminal activities from a piece of private property.

It is extremely important for us all to recognize that if there were to be any enshrinement of private property in the Human Rights Code, both of these sections would as well have to include to the extent provided by law, particularly in a country where the criminal law is made by the federal government and it is the duty and obligation of the provincial government to enforce it.

If we were to put this blunt statement into our Human Rights Code, it would make it impossible for the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of the province to ensure that their obligation to enforce and prosecute criminal law in this province could happen.

I would suggest to the member that it is good for us always to discuss these issues and to recognize how very important they are to individuals, but to be very aware that they may seem like a simple matter, to enshrine property rights. I would suggest to the member that it's far from a simple matter and that we need far more discussion.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I too would like to congratulate the member for Norfolk in bringing this issue forward at this particular time. It's an issue that has been debated across this province and across this country for quite some time, of course, the debates as to our absolute right towards property versus the right for a government to do certain things with respect to individuals' property.

Our home is our castle. I think we all believe that and we are all concerned with governments or government agencies infringing upon our rights to hold property. We need to protect our rights and we need to ensure that governments and government agencies act responsibly with respect to any actions with respect to our property.

This debate has gone on for some time, and I must say that this particular piece of legislation that is before us is certainly a radical change to expropriation law with respect to this province or indeed any other province around the country. The Expropriations Act for the province of Ontario allows some governmental authorities to take people's land without their consents: municipalities, the provincial and federal governments, Ontario Hydro. There are about 100 expropriation proceedings, as I understand it, going on around the province of Ontario, whether it be for sewers, roads, widening of highways; there are all kinds of things.

I must say I agree with the member for London Centre that this piece of legislation, if it were passed in the form that it is -- I support the member in his honest belief that we need to protect our homes, our properties. I don't want to repeat the member for London Centre, who put it very well, but I agree with her comments with respect to

section 9.2: "A person's home is inviolable"; it's sacred. If that

section were followed with respect to our laws today, it would probably mean that for a government or a government agency, whether it be for the widening of highways, creating a new road or a sewer, it would make it legally impossible to do those sorts of things.

I don't think that's the intent of the member's bill, and it may well be that further studies should be done with respect to expropriation. Expropriation has been considered by the British Columbia Law Reform Commission in 1971. It was considered by the Canada Law Reform Commission in 1976. The Ontario Law Reform Commission has never studied it, and it may well be that the member's raising it this time would be a suggestion to our government to recommend that it be studied.

But the law today provides that land cannot be expropriated without fair compensation. That compensation can be determined by the Ontario Municipal Board after a fair hearing. The owner of a target property can bring experts to be represented by counsel. I will say that the equal balance that has been mentioned by the previous two speakers, in my view, will be broken with respect to this law.

The first provision in the bill certainly is a radical change to expropriation law. At present, the control over expropriating for an improper purpose is political; that is, public debate and eventual re-election or not. In other words, if something happens -- the IWA is a prime example. The NDP government was thrown out in those areas for its actions with respect to attempting expropriation.

The whole issue of costs and the whole issue of fair hearing: If what is being suggested by this bill was followed through with this bill, the cost would be unbelievable, the cost of lawyers, the cost of legal proceedings and quite frankly the whole decision of decisions being made by the courts. Many of us are concerned with the decisions that are made by the courts with respect to charter decisions. We wonder, "Good heavens, what are these decisions that are being made?"

So the whole radical change needs to be reviewed. Although I applaud the member for Norfolk in bringing this forward at this time, I think it would be more appropriate, as the member for London Centre has stated, to study in more detail some of the implications that he has put forward.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I would like to congratulate the member for Norfolk for bringing to our attention this very important bill. I would like to ask him to give me more details, especially on the Expropriations Act. I've been involved in -- what? -- five different expropriations in the province of Ontario in my own municipality when I was mayor, and I want to tell you that it's a very costly process.

I would like your bill, or your motion, to bring about a more accessible process for the simple reason that, as was mentioned before, people who are being expropriated of their property do have an opportunity to go before the Ontario Municipal Board and have their expertise given to the OMB -- and also their lawyers.

I'm sure the member will agree with me that this is the most expensive process, and people are very concerned about the Expropriations Act and also about the OMB. As you know, municipalities are forever challenging the OMB, and people are forever challenging the OMB. But some people and some municipalities are simply shying away from challenging the OMB or challenging municipalities because it's a very costly process.

You talk about full and fair hearings and compensation. I agree with you that people should be fairly compensated, because after all it is your property, and you should be compensated justly.

part I.1, "Property Rights," of your bill,

section 9.3:

"Respect for private property

"9.3 No one may enter on another person's property or take anything from it without the person's express or implied consent."

I had the opportunity to sit on the standing committee on general government last year when we considered Bill 120, which we referred to as the basement apartment bill. I want to remind you that building inspectors, fire prevention people and especially municipalities wanted free access to your basement apartment so that we could -- or have the government which introduced the bill -- have access to these apartments and make them safer. But the government's bill was a little different than we expected. They wanted people automatically with basement apartments to be considered as legal apartments. This is why we opposed the bill.

I want to ask the member, before I stand and vote for your bill, could you amplify or give me more information on

section 9.3 of the property rights part of your bill and also tell me how the Expropriations Act can be amended to make it more accessible to every citizen in the province of Ontario?

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It's with great pleasure that I rise in the House today in support of the member for Norfolk's Bill 11. The need for such a bill has never been more apparent with the advent of legislation such as Bill 163. Unfortunately, under the current system the rights of property owners are in jeopardy.

Although I am a firm believer in protecting our environment, I also believe that this protection must be balanced with the rights of property owners to peacefully enjoy their property or to be compensated fairly for it.

In my riding, the issue of property rights is close to the hearts of many of my constituents. Largely this riding is a rural one, and the land that is owned is the means by which many make their living. Over the years the rights of property owners have been at risk. The concern that I have is that if left unchecked, the frequency of these incidents will increase.

It can be argued that Bill 163 has provided for the expansion of provincial interests in areas of land use planning. This stems from the new requirements the law prescribes that municipalities shall adopt planning policies consistent with provincial policy statements. As a result, substantial restrictions are placed on municipalities when developing their official plans. This, in turn, affects the individual property owners, who under the current system have little recourse when they feel that their rights are being infringed.

One of many examples of provincial policy statements that impact a property owner is known as areas of natural and scientific interest, or ANSIs. This term is used by the Ministry of Natural Resources to describe areas, both public and private, that it deems to contain important natural landscapes.

The ANSI program is not covered under any ministry legislation, nor is it mentioned in the Planning Act. Instead, MNR developed a policy plan that has a substantial impact on both municipalities and property owners but is not entrenched in legislation.

This is not to say that conservation programs do not have merit. I do believe, however, that if policies such as the ANSI program are to continue, there must also be a definitive method by which those who are being affected can state their case.

I know that many of my constituents are frustrated with the current system or lack thereof. Living in this great province, enjoying the many freedoms that we do, it would seem obvious that the property rights of law-abiding citizens would be firmly protected. This, however, is not the case.

There is no statute in this province that protects what many believe is a fundamental right. By amending the Human Rights Code and the Expropriations Act, what Bill 11 strives to do is secure protection of private property rights and ensure that objections and compensation issues can be fairly dealt with.

I believe that the time for this kind of legislation is long overdue. In rural Ontario and across this province, the Ontario government has a key role to play in protecting the property rights of its citizens. Bill 11 will help to ensure that this happens.

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington): I would certainly like to take this brief opportunity to congratulate the member for Norfolk on his support for the right of our people to the peaceful enjoyment of private property and compensation in case of expropriation.

There is certainly a fine line between individual rights versus the collective good in our communities. As an example, I just want to state that property rights are really a part of our heritage, especially along the Loyalist Parkway just west of Kingston. Our Loyalist ancestors were granted land in 1784, after adhering to the loyalty of the crown at the time of the American Revolution.

I find it frustrating that both provincially and federally Ontarians lack solid protection when it comes to the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property. It is in keeping with the spirit of our party that we protect the individual by upholding his or her right to the full enjoyment and usage of property.

A case in point relates to one of my constituents, who was interested in severing his land for sale to a potential buyer. When attempting to fill out the application for severance, this citizen, needless to say, was shocked and outraged when he discovered that the land was designated, without his prior knowledge, as an area of natural and scientific interest. We don't even know if this was an official ANSI designation or the work of some bureaucrat at the local level who just felt it should have been categorized as such.

Here we have a situation where an individual's rights have been obstructed in trying to profit from an economically viable use of his private property, not to mention the inconvenience of the potential buyer.

In the riding of Frontenac-Addington, many of my constituents earn their livelihood and living from the land that their ancestors have worked for generations. The land has belonged to their families for several decades, some going back as far as the 1700s and early 1800s. The land represents to those people what Canada is all about: freedom and an opportunity and the chance to savour the fruits of one's labour.

This form of private property can also be affected by laws that favour the government's agenda instead of individual rights. If part of a property has been set aside by the Ministry of Natural Resources as a wetland or as an area of natural scientific interest without their knowledge or an opportunity to appeal, which I feel is very, very important, then an individual's right to enjoy and prosper from this property has been severely infringed.

Further to the agricultural interests in my riding, constituents are also quite concerned with the uses of abandoned railway rights of way. Many of these abandoned stretches of land cut through the private property of many agricultural and individual land owners. The majority feel their private property should be protected by having the land in question offered to them first when it is put up for sale. Certainly the land is offered to all levels of government first, before adjacent land owners have an opportunity to make an offer.

Giving the land owners first opportunity to buy would give them a chance to ensure that trespassing, vandalism and littering would be non-existent. Also, the land owner can protect the integrity of his or her land through drainage, fencing and such things as weed control.

Another area encompassed by the issue of private or personal property is the issue of gun control. Through federal legislation, Bill C-68, hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners will be forced to open their homes, their private property, to police inspection. If there is a minor infraction of the convoluted storage laws, for example, the inspection can be turned into a virtual ransacking of that private home. Under the bill, a gun can also be confiscated on the death of an owner. Current laws seem to promote unwarranted entry into the private dwellings of law-abiding citizens and confiscation of their private property.

Surely this cannot be supported in a democracy such as ours here in this province, in this country today. Private property is not as fully protected under current laws as we would like to see them. This is why this bill today is so important, that we have an opportunity to further the fundamental cornerstone of our society. It is a part of what makes this country great, what has attracted people from all corners of the world to this province and to this great country. Giving the protection it deserves under the law is very important, and I look forward to supporting this bill and the principles it entails.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Norfolk, who has two minutes.

Mr Barrett: I would like to thank the honourable members from both sides of the House for their valuable input. I appreciate the comments of the Liberal member for Timiskaming and the NDP member for London Centre.

I agree, we must be stewards of the land we own. I also have a creek on my clay loam farm, and in my view, enhanced property rights will better enable me to deal with farmers upstream.

I've stated property rights are an inherent right, a fundamental right that dates back in written law to the Magna Carta of 1215, the cornerstone of our common law. In 1960, the Canadian Bill of Rights also affirmed the right to the enjoyment of property, but in 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms omitted any mention of property rights.

Ontarians do not now have sound protection for their right to peacefully use and enjoy their private property. This has serious implications for both urban and rural ridings, such as mine in Norfolk.

Under

section 92 of the British North America Act, each province has the exclusive powers to make laws in relation to property and civil rights in the province. The protection of our inherent property rights in a free and democratic society must ensure that we are not deprived of those rights without legal, fair and just compensation.

In seeking support for private member's Bill 11, the Property Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995, I would pose one question to the members at this time: Do you believe on a fundamental level that a society has an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens to use and enjoy their private property within the limits prescribed by law?

I truly believe, as former Prime Minister Trudeau did, that we must respect and protect individual rights and freedoms, and I ask that this belief be extended.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Christopherson has moved private member's notice of motion number 3.

Are there any members opposed to taking a vote at this time?

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

PROPERTY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DROITS DE PROPRIÉTÉ

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Barrett has moved second reading of Bill 11, ballot item number 4.

Are there any members opposed to voting at this time?

Shall the motion carry?

Those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the vote carried.

This bill is ordered to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Mr Speaker, I request the consent of the House that this bill be passed to the standing committee on justice.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? So ordered.

It being past 12, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1205 to 1331.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The Lieutenant Governor submits supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1996 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to alert this House to the serious health risk to the people of my riding from the recommendations about the Scarborough General Hospital made by the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council.

It is proposing to close all 34 inpatient beds at the hospital and transfer specialized newborn care to regional centres.

Scarborough General Hospital currently treats 20,000 children each year through its emergency department, and 2,600 of those children require admission each year. Close those paediatric beds and those families with sick babies and children who need admission will have to travel to another centre far away.

Scarborough General Hospital is centrally located in an area of high need for paediatric services. Many of those families rely on public transportation. Can you imagine a mother caring for a young child having to trek long distances, waiting for a bus in the cold in the dead of winter? Without a special-care nursery, how will the hospital offer services to pregnant women and the 2,600 babies born there every year? And who will serve the growing number of new Canadians whose children receive care at Scarborough General? The hospital has a special ethnocultural patient service and is uniquely set up to offer sensitive care to my diverse community.

Finally, the recommendations ignore the fact that Scarborough General is a cost-effective hospital. It is one of the top three hospitals in Metro, based on performance measures. It has always balanced its budget. If the objective of restructuring was to save money, the DHC has chosen the wrong hospital and the wrong population to impact.

We must stop this proposal before the health of the people of Scarborough is endangered.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): In a single day, the government has pushed its labour bill through the Legislature. The government's amendments were kept from members until the last possible moment and even government members had to vote on this legislation without knowing what was in it.

Over the next few months, we will see the disastrous consequences of Bill 7 on the wages and job security of thousands of Ontario cleaners and security guards. Under this bill, when a company switches cleaning or security contractors, the new contractor can hire back the staff at lower wages. Government members can now consider what great policy objective will be achieved by lowering the wages of the people who clean their offices every morning.

I'm told that many of the security guards voted for the present government. For many, their reward will be a pay cut. That is the one key plank of the Common Sense Revolution that the government does not talk about: driving down wages.

This week, security guards and cleaners had a good look at that agenda. It does not seem to matter that lowering the pay of a private sector security guard or cleaner does not reduce the deficit by one penny or that lower incomes mean lower domestic demand. Reducing wages is the order of the day. The government's attack on wages and its haste on all fronts may lead us to something unprecedented in our history: a made-in-Ontario recession.

As for the cleaners and guards who spoke at the press conference we had today, they work hard for very modest wages. They deserve better than what is now coming their way.

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training and as the member for Wentworth North, I rise in the House today to convey my ministry's endorsement and support of Take Our Kids To Work Day on November 8.

Support and encouragement of partnerships is a key principle of this government. Take Our Kids To Work Day is a wonderful example of a successful partnership between the world of business and the world of education, between adults and adolescents and between parents and their children.

I hope that some of my colleagues in the House will be host to a grade 9 student next Wednesday, as thousands of students across the province spend a working day with a parent, guardian, relative or friend. At the Ministry of Education and Training, about 35 students from two high schools near Queen's Park will be matched with a mentor at the ministry. Staff will show the students many aspects of their daily work, from how mail gets distributed to the use of the Internet.

Take Our Kids To Work Day is an event initiated and sponsored by the Learning Partnership, formed by representatives of the business and broader community. It is a partnership that can help students clarify and reach their goals and dreams. Together, government and business and our whole communities can create more opportunities for our young people and for ourselves, and continue to build a healthy and prosperous economy now and for the future of our children.

COURT FACILITY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to speak to the further cuts and delays in the Hamilton courthouse. Hamilton's new $64-million courthouse is falling victim once again to Conservative government spending cuts. This project has been frozen as the result of a province-wide review of all capital projects.

Hamilton already has felt the cutbacks through the delay of the promised Red Hill expressway. The cut to the $5-million cultural industry strategy, the cut to the $5 million for Barton Street, the elimination of funding for the United Nations school at McMaster, which would have been the first UN school in North America, the broken promise of 1,000 non-profit housing units, which would have provided housing for the most vulnerable citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth -- each one of these initiatives would have created jobs and would have stimulated growth in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

The courthouse is another initiative which would create jobs and inspire progress in the Hamilton area, squashed by Mike Harris and the Conservative government. It was an initiative commenced by the previous government, by the NDP, and I'm pleased to tell the Premier that I supported the initiative as one of the few good things the previous government did in Hamilton-Wentworth. It minimized a little bit of what was done about the expressway, but truly we appreciated the courthouse project and the work by the previous government initiating that.

This government has now moved to delay this project. Some $10 million have already been spent on this new courthouse, not to mention the years of planning. With the delay, we now have an 80-year-old building in danger of deteriorating as a result of this government. I ask very clearly the members across the House, when is this Conservative government going to stop the blatant disregard of Hamilton-Wentworth and give us some of the initiatives we deserve?

FURNACE VENTING SYSTEMS

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Last month, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations issued a director's safety order regarding high-temperature plastic vents on mid-efficiency furnaces. In response to this order, many of my constituents in Lake Nipigon contacted the local gas company, only to find out that indeed their furnaces were unsafe. In some cases, these furnaces were less than two years old.

The venting system installed on these furnaces was pre-approved by the ministry. Now the ministry refuses to accept its responsibility. The manufacturer is not to blame; after all, the vents were government-approved. The installer isn't to blame; after all, the vents were, one more time, government-approved.

What are the people in Lake Nipigon supposed to do? They're simply asking for recourse, that the government take its own responsibility and express that responsibility by way of a cheque in the mail to compensate the people of Lake Nipigon.

WASTE REDUCTION WEEK

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It gives me great pleasure today to advise you and our fellow members that next week, November 6 to 12, is Ontario's 11th Waste Reduction Week. This event, coordinated by the Recycling Council of Ontario, raises awareness of the three Rs -- reduce, reuse and recycle -- and encourages all people to reduce waste.

Hundreds of communities and schools across the province are planning special activities to recognize this important week. Here are some examples: a contest between Ajax and Pickering to send the least waste to the landfill; Sudbury's Perfect Blue Box contest; and the collection of sports equipment by Brewers Retail stores across the province.

I hope all members will support and participate in the events being held in their ridings in this coming week. Let us all join together and offer our congratulations and appreciation to the Recycling Council of Ontario, and particularly to the hundreds and hundreds of volunteers working to make Waste Reduction Week a success.

JACK GATECLIFF

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On November 20 of this year, an outstanding citizen of St Catharines will receive an honour he has well deserved. On that occasion, Jack Gatecliff will be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Although Jack has always been deeply involved in our community and its sports life, he is well known beyond the borders of St Catharines for his reporting on sports of all varieties.

Gate, as he is known to friends around the sports circuit, has been a journalist with the St Catharines Standard since May 1947 and has enjoyed sharing his observations on the sport of hockey, from the games of the youngest tykes to the top professionals in the business. His style has been described by fellow Standard writer Dave Feschuk as "honest without being vicious, insightful without betraying locker room trusts."

Not only is Jack Gatecliff to be among the distinguished individuals elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame, but he is also an esteemed member of the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame, soon to be located adjacent to our museum complex in St Catharines.

Although Jack was an above-average player with the St Catharines Falcons Junior A hockey team and played some competitive hockey in Scotland, his elevation to the hall of fame came as a result of his contribution to the sport of hockey as a journalist.

Jack's colleagues at the Standard, his friends, his acquaintances and the many with whom he has associated through sports will be delighted to see him as a hall-of-famer, but none will be as proud as his wife, Alice, and his son, John.

Congratulations to a friend of sports and a great guy.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Yesterday, the leader of my party again raised the topic of the minister responsible for women's issues' alleged threats during a meeting with advocates for battered women and asked for a legislative committee to investigate these very serious claims.

The minister replied, "I don't think the taxpayers should be spending money on irrelevant situations where you have no proof except one person and a few women."

I had expected that the issue of women being persons had long ago been settled, and indeed back on October 18 the minister spoke at some length about the importance of Persons Day, so you can imagine my surprise in hearing the minister differentiating between women and persons.

I would also suggest that given this government's low tolerance for dissent and established hostility towards anyone who disagrees with its agenda, a minister making threats to vulnerable communities is hardly an irrelevant issue. These are matters of fundamental democratic rights that deserve a more careful response than we got from the minister.

Finally, about the minister's remark about lack of proof, we have a majority of the women -- persons -- who were in the room that day saying that she did indeed make these comments. If the minister is as concerned with establishing the truth as she would have us believe, then she ought to quickly agree to a process to investigate these issues and clear up exactly what she said and what she did mean in that meeting.

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to announce that next week is Crime Prevention Week in Ontario. While crime prevention is a year-round activity, this designated week is an opportunity for heightened participation by everyone towards creating safer and more secure communities throughout Ontario.

Crime prevention is an individual as well as a community responsibility. This year's theme of police and community working together reflects the fact that partnerships between all segments of society and their local police services go a long way to ensuring the safety and security of all.

It would take far too long to go through some of the examples, but I will share a couple: seminars by community policing officers on topics such as telemarketing fraud, abuse, Crime Stoppers, and stranger a