Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BOUNDARY PROPOSALS IN THE ROBARTS, ARCHER AND MAYO REPORTS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, upon the release of the report of the royal commission on Metropolitan Toronto, the Archer report on the regional municipality of Niagara and Dr. Mayo’s report on Ottawa-Carleton, I invited the municipalities, local boards and the general public to advise me of their views and concerns about the various recommendations. Throughout the province’s review of the findings and recommendations of the reports, very close attention has been directed to the municipal and public response to the proposals. In this way, we hope to respond to the concerns of the residents of Metropolitan Toronto and the two regions in our review and decisions on the three reports.

To date, the response to the Robarts report has been substantial. At present more than 400 submissions have been sent to me from municipalities, local boards, private organizations, ratepayers’ groups and many individual residents. Most of the municipalities and local boards in Metropolitan Toronto have already submitted their briefs on the report, and I expect to hear from the remainder in the near future.

It will be a surprise to no one, I am sure, that the boundary proposals in the report appear to have received the greatest amount of scrutiny and concern, certainly from the public. More than 75 per cent of the public’s briefs have been directed to the boundary issue alone. I might add that this figure excludes more than 7,000 coupons sent to me from residents of Scarborough objecting strongly to any shift in that borough’s boundaries. From early indications, I expect that a similar expression of public concern may accompany the soon-to-be-submitted borough of North York brief.

In examining these submissions, it is apparent that little public and municipal support exists or can be anticipated in the future for the municipal boundary proposals recommended by the royal commission. It is evident to me that many residents of Metropolitan Toronto are very concerned and upset about the possible effects that the commission’s boundary proposals might have on existing local services, local taxes and community identification. With only a few exceptions almost all public submissions have objected to any major change to the present boundaries of the local municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. Only the boroughs of York and East York have expressed support for the boundary proposals in the report. Other municipalities have objected to the commission’s proposals and have either requested no change or have recommended alternative boundary arrangements.

Mr. Nixon: These are the Robarts recommendations.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Many of the arguments in opposition are persuasive. For example, major shifts in municipal boundaries can cause significant emotional and physical disruptions to the community. Our view of Mr. Robarts’ report, so far, indicates that no significant improvements to the system of representation on the Metropolitan council would necessarily occur through major municipal boundary shifts. There may be other alternatives to arriving at more equitable representation arrangements, if it is seen to be necessary. It is also evident that the proposed boundary changes alone would not provide substantial benefits to the overall financial position and servicing potential of the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto.

On the other hand, the boundary proposals in the report would have only a minor impact on the total local government spending and taxation due to the large portion of the local tax bill taken by the Metropolitan and educational levies. The analysis of the report also indicates that short-run tax shifts would be rather small -- increases or decreases in the range of $10 to $20 per household.

In response to these municipal and public concerns, I wish to announce today that it is not my intention to proceed with any major changes to the existing boundaries of the area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. In reaching this decision, I have considered very carefully the arguments and evidence both in support of and in opposition to this proposal. I am also hopeful that this decision will now permit us to concentrate our efforts on the other important proposals in the report, for example, on improving accountability, the level and allocation of responsibilities and the financial and other resource capacities of the municipalities.

Mr. Lewis: The government might even appoint a commission to look into that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I note, however, that the boundary proposal in the report would correct some of the existing minor anomalies in the boundaries between some of the area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. I have in mind, for example, the southeast section of the borough of York, extending east of Bathurst Street and along St. Clair Avenue to the Spadina Road area of the city of Toronto, affecting, as a matter of fact, the apartment building in which I live. It should probably be included in the city of Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: Conflict of interest.

Mr. Nixon: Make it a suburb of Chatham.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am hopeful that such minor refinements in municipal boundaries could be undertaken with the mutual agreement of the affected municipalities and with a minimum of disruption and cost to the communities.

As for boundaries in the regional municipality of Niagara, again the majority of responses from the public was against any change, in particular the proposal to establish the new city of Lincoln. No municipal councils supported the change. I am not convinced that this new municipal configuration would of itself protect farmland, as Mr. Archer contends. I am, therefore, of the view that the internal boundaries in Niagara should remain as at present.

Let me now turn to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Here, too, boundaries are generating a good deal of response and no little consternation. I think it is important for me to say something now about what should be done about the Ottawa-Carleton boundaries. It is my hope that this can lay to rest the speculation and while I don’t expect euphoria, I would like to get on with our analysis of what I consider to be equally, if not more important, issues of roles, responsibilities and electoral processes in local government in Ottawa-Carleton.

Conditions are different in Ottawa-Carleton than in either Metro Toronto or Niagara. For that reason, I think some boundary changes would be in order.

Mr. Roy: Like what?

Mr. Lewis: Just a personal preference, I take it, a kind of a pin on the map.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are some that I do not accept. Again it is evident to me that the residents of the areas that would be affected by boundary changes are very concerned and upset about the possible effects on existing local services, local taxes and community identification.

As in Metro, I am not convinced the changes provided substantial benefits to the overall financial position in the arrangements in Ottawa-Carleton. I wish to state today that I am not prepared then to accept the proposal that Rideau and Goulbourn be merged, nor do I accept the proposal that Russell township be included in Ottawa-Carleton.

I would, however, like to encourage the incorporation of a western city in the Kanata area much along the lines proposed. It is my view that that proposal has some general support and the urbanizing area should be within the bounds of one municipality. A shift to Arnprior of some of the northwest corner of West Carleton township makes sense as well.

One of the most controversial propositions was that Rockcliffe Park village and a part of Ottawa be joined to the city of Vanier. I cannot in all conscience propose to continue the situation in which one municipality, Rockcliffe Park, enjoys such an imbalance in the representational arrangements, which is very seriously out of line with our general goal of greater equity.

I, therefore, propose that those parts of Ottawa suggested to go to Vanier remain in Ottawa, that that part of Gloucester remain in Gloucester rather than be joined to Vanier, and that Rockcliffe Park join the city of Ottawa. There may also be some minor adjustments that the municipalities may wish to pursue to adjust boundaries, which we will be pleased to consider.

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND POLICE DISCIPLINE REVIEW BOARD

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Later this afternoon I’ll be introducing two bills to amend the Police Act.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister kidding?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: One bill will establish a new system for dealing with citizens’ complaints against the police, a subject on which I have previously addressed this House.

Mr. Roy: Don’t get carried away.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The bill would create a civilian authority at the provincial level to oversee the handling of these complaints and any consequential disciplining of police officers.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a change.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Complaints and discipline would be the special focus and responsibility of this new authority. The ministry accepts the principle that the police should not be the final arbiters in their own cause. We are, therefore, proposing the establishment of a new commissioner of citizen complaints who would be independent of the police. The complaints commissioner would be principally concerned with receiving and looking into the complaints of citizens who feel aggrieved by action taken at the local level.

Mr. Lewis: You have already appointed Phil Givens.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The complaints commissioner would have the power to order public hearings before a new body known as the citizen complaints and police discipline review board.

Mr. Lewis: This is the Vernon Singer bill, I presume.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Under the proposed system, existing local police complaint bureaus would be continued. It is felt that the local police are in the best position to respond to complaints in the first instance, that they have the expertise to conduct a proper investigation and that they have a responsibility to answer the concerns of the citizens they are sworn to protect. The new mechanism at the provincial level would apply to all police forces and would be superimposed upon existing complaint bureaus.

We are indebted to the various studies and reports recently made on this subject. The report of Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC, was of particular assistance in preparing the legislation, as were the reports of the Honourable Mr. Justice Morand and His Honour, Judge Rene Marin. Although no one system could be adopted in its totality, the proposed legislation draws extensively from these reports.

I wish also to advise that the consultation process was very successful in this instance. We are grateful to police associations, police governing bodies, chiefs of police and other interested groups for the full co-operation they have extended during the course of discussions. The points of view were, of course, many and varied, and my ministry was involved in a lengthy process of compromise and conflict resolution. I now feel, however, that the time has come for action. We must venture into this field in a highly visible way and then let the experience in action decide whether the structure created is doing the job it was intended to do.

Mr. Roy: The minister is hard to recognize on that line.

Mr. Lewis: It is called the Frank Drea syndrome.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Under the proposed system, a citizen having a complaint against a police officer might take his complaint to the police force concerned or to the commissioner of citizen complaints. Where possible, citizens would be encouraged to take their complaints to the local police complaint bureau. A police force receiving a complaint would be required to record and investigate it and to keep the commissioner of citizen complaints informed. The chief of police would have a discretion to refer more serious complaints to the complaints commissioner.

The system is designed to encourage the early and informal resolution of complaints at the local level.

[2:15]

The complaints commissioner would act as an external and independent reviewing authority and would oversee the handling of citizens’ complaints by police. His jurisdiction would be flexible. He would have a discretion to refer complaints received by him to the local police for investigation and disposition. He might also choose to investigate a complaint and would have an investigative staff for this purpose. The complaints commissioner would also, at the request of a dissatisfied citizen, investigate and review any particular complaint or the procedures followed by the police in its response. The investigatory power of the commissioner of citizens’ complaints would be similar to those of the Ombudsman.

The complaints commissioner would be empowered to direct that a public hearing be held before a citizen complaints and police discipline review board where there is evidence of misconduct by a police officer that is of a serious nature. The hearing would follow an investigation of the complaint by the complaints commissioner, either of his own motion or in response to the request of a dissatisfied citizen. The police officer would receive proper notice of any allegation of misconduct made against him. Disciplinary penalties might be applied where the misconduct is established. The bill retains existing safeguards and protections for the rights of a defendant police officer and further extends these protections.

I expect the members will wish to consider this bill in some detail in committee and reintroduction may therefore be necessary.

The second bill implements the recommendations of the McRuer royal commission inquiry into civil rights and contains other housekeeping provisions.

Mr. S. Smith: Who does the minister have in mind for the commissioner’s job?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: For example, regulations made by a board of commissioners of police would require the approval of the Ontario Police Commission and would be available for public inspection. The bill would also alter the composition of a board of commissioners of police by repealing the requirement that one member be a judge.

The bill also affects police budgets by permitting the municipal council to determine their amount. The board of commissioners of police would, however, have a right to appeal to the Ontario Police Commission and the commission might, after a hearing, order that additional moneys be provided where essential for providing and maintaining an adequate police force in accordance with the police needs of the municipality. Authority would also be provided to pay the legal costs incurred by members of a police force where a royal commission is examining the conduct of a member in the performance of his duties.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this bill will draw the support of the members and receive a speedy passage into law.

I would add that I will also be introducing a third bill to prohibit the use of radar warning devices in motor vehicles.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, today after question period, I will be introducing a bill to amend the Condominium Act.

As the hon. members know, my ministry established the residential condominium study group to review the entire area of condominium legislation. I’m sure that the members opposite also know that the government plans to revise the Condominium Act after we have had a chance to analyse the results of that study which I can now assure the House I will be able to table before the House rises for the Christmas break.

Mr. Breaugh: That will be nice.

Mr. Warner: That’s speedy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t like piecemeal legislation and would have preferred to introduce a new Act in its entirety at this time but the import of this particular issue is so critical that we felt that we had to move immediately to protect those members of the public living in or contemplating the purchase of a condominium.

Mr. Foulds: What about those who have already been hoodwinked?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This amendment is designed to relieve the difficulties which result to a residential condominium corporation when an individual unit owner is in default of his common expense payments. Under the present Act, liens for unpaid common expenses are subsequent to all other encumbrances, including mortgages. Therefore, unpaid expenses can be collected only after a sale or foreclosure and only after the payment of the outstanding mortgages.

In practice, the condominium corporation is rarely able to collect unpaid expenses. Because of the low equity in many of these units and because of falling property values, there is often little money left over to cover common expenses once the mortgages have been paid. This deficit must be made up by the remaining unit owners.

The condominium corporation should have a speedy means of recovering common expenses owing it. Therefore, this amendment will give liens for common expenses priority over all registered encumbrances with the exception of land taxes and a few other statutory liens. The effect of this will be that the condominium corporation will likely obtain payment of the arrears from the mortgagee. The mortgagee will then be able to add the amount paid for arrears to the outstanding principal due. To prevent the accumulation of unpaid expenses over long periods of time, this amendment provides the corporation must register its lien within three months and at the same time notify the mortgagees of the default of payment of the common expenses.

This amendment applies to all mortgages on residential condominiums only and it will affect unpaid common expenses occurring after January 1, 1978, or such other date as may be named. This amendment will have a number of consequences. It will not only permit a condominium corporation to recover arrears quickly but discourage default of common expenses. Mortgagees will likely collect the common expenses of a unit owner and contribute them to the condominium corporation on behalf of the unit owner. We have included a provision for this in the amendment. Mortgage lenders will likely take more stringent measures to protect their security. They may require larger equity participation by purchasers.

We also expect that they will consider common expense payments when evaluating whether a consumer can afford to purchase a unit. This may result in fewer individuals being able to qualify for mortgage finances. However, we expect that condominium buyers in the future will be much better informed as to the true cost of owning a unit.

We also anticipate that mortgage lenders will play a more active role in the management of the condominium corporation. They may, for example, request reviews of the corporation’s books before paying common expenses. This should encourage condominium directors to maintain sound financial management.

This amendment will rectify an inherent weakness in the Condominium Act. The size of common expense payments was not foreseen when the Condominium Act was proclaimed some 10 years ago. Unfortunately, default of common expenses has grown into a serious financial problem for condominium corporations. Therefore, in order to protect the hundreds of thousands of condominium owners in this province, we are introducing this bill at this time. Although I have not yet received the report of the condominium study group, I have assurance that this step is consistent with the overall aims of the group’s recommendations.

Mr. Roy: You are not thanking Darwin Kealey for some input into that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wouldn’t do that, I’m not partisan.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOUNDARY PROPOSALS

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: I want to congratulate the Treasurer for putting to rest the boundary matter in the Toronto area but I want to ask him what he now sees as the future for York and for East York in view of the repeated claims which apparently were persuasive to Mr. Robarts -- that in the long run there’s a certain problem with their ratio of assessment, residential to commercial and industrial. What kind of solutions does he see for the long term viability of those two boroughs?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this of course would depend on the decision of my colleague, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and his ultimate recommendation with respect to the future of the Metropolitan Toronto school board. At the present moment something like 80 cents on the dollar of taxes is in fact spread over the whole of Metro between the Metropolitan levy and between the Metropolitan Toronto educational levy so that if there is an advantage or disadvantage, it is really confined depending on industrial or residential assessment ratios. It is really only one-fifth of the problem that it appears to be because it only affects the local levy.

The grants reform committee report, for example, recommended the strengthening of the resource equalization grant. That’s a decision of course which I have not yet taken, but I would anticipate that as future grants are developed there will be a greater emphasis in the equalization area -- that’s just a hunch that I have at the moment -- which of course would be to the benefit of York, East York and many other municipalities throughout the province.

The question, however, I think at the moment is premature. We are not completely satisfied with Mr. Robarts’ reasoning in this area and we will be developing figures of our own.

Mr. Warner: Is the Treasurer telling us that although Mr. Robarts identified a financial problem, particularly for the boroughs of York and East York, and put forward a suggestion to correct the problem by moving boundaries, the Treasurer has discarded his suggestion and has nothing concrete to put in its place?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I pointed out in the statement that even if Mr. Robarts’ suggestions were implemented, they would work out to a tax shift of about $15 or $20 per household, which is hardly earth-shattering either one way or another, either to those who would pay more by moving or those who inevitably would pay something less. With respect to those who have written and the campaign of some in some parts of Metropolitan Toronto, I don’t think the figures prove to be as earth-shattering as some would have us believe them to be.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary to the minister’s statement in relation to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Having rejected the Mayo report’s recommendations about certain parts of Ottawa going with Vanier and certain parts of Gloucester going with Vanier and with Rockcliffe now going with Ottawa; and then turning to page six of the minister’s statement where he says, “Some boundary changes would be in order,” would the minister advise the House and allay the fears of the citizens of Vanier that what he has in mind is to have the city of Vanier join with the city of Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Elgie: In view of the fact that the borough of East York has no area of land into which it can expand to improve its industrial-commercial tax base, and in view of the fact that it has the most rapidly rising mill rate of any municipality in Metropolitan Toronto, may we then assume that the minister is going to give serious consideration to means of assisting boroughs such as this with any financial problems they may well run into in the years ahead?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When we have completed our examination of the Robarts report and are in a position to recommend changes to the Legislature, it could be that there may be specific financial recommendations, either in the municipal area or, for that matter, in the education area. Whether that is the ultimately chosen route or whether a strengthening, as I have said, of the resource equalization grant in the unconditional grants mechanism is the best route to follow, I simply don’t know at this moment.

However, I think the member can be assured that deciding to stay with the six borough arrangement more or less on the present boundary lines does not mean we are not aware that some boroughs have been perhaps more equal than others and some have been more advantaged than others. Certainly some mechanism will have to be considered, either generally or specifically, where possible, to adjust those inequities, if they are there and depending on how serious they may be.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask an additional supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, not at this time. We have had the original question and three supplementaries.

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Health: Is the minister now better informed, following conversations with the manager of OHIP, about police access to OHIP information? If so, can he give the House a detailed explanation of how the information is given out, what the procedure is, how the clerks who receive the calls know about it, how the calls are handled, what information is supplied and how often?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member would know, the investigation of this matter is being carried on. While my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I have had several discussions about the subject, it is by no means yet complete.

This matter arose several weeks ago, at which time I did immediately call in the general manager of OHIP and discussed it with him. I determined that we are talking about basic biographical information or, as it is sometimes referred to, tombstone data.

[2:30]

I want to, if I may, while I’m responding to the member’s question, indicate that in one of the most recent editorials in the Toronto papers the impression has been left with the people that we’re talking about medical files here. That is not the case at all. I should explain that OHIP is organized into two sections, enrolment and claims. The claims section is where one would find the files on services rendered and that information is not given out.

The numbers I don’t have yet. I would certainly be prepared, once my colleague has completed his aspect of this investigation and once we have been able to come together and finalize a review of it, to give a complete review of what we’ve looked at and what we propose to do. In the meantime, particularly in the light of a number of concerns raised with me, I have ordered that the inquiries from the police of whatever force not be answered pending the completion of this investigation and review.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Can the minister confirm that this policy of giving out so-called enrolment file data goes back to about 1960? Can he confirm that it’s given out about 10 to 12 times a year? Can he confirm that the enrolment file states the name, sex, marital status and OHIP number?

If he can confirm those points, will he tell the House two things: First of all, since the address doesn’t seem to be included in that enrolment file and since, because of the duplication of names, it’s frequently important to have the OHIP number to begin with to get the information, how does such information help in locating criminals?

Second, is this giving out of information not a violation of section 44 of the Health Insurance Act in the minister’s opinion? If not, can he table some legal opinion to back that up?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To answer the last part first, I would have to be guided on that by my colleague, the Attorney General, particularly because of that concern which has arisen in recent days, that perhaps there is some doubt in some people’s minds, from what I’ve read in the press, about legality of that section, that I’ve ordered a suspension of the answering of any such inquiries.

I believe the practice goes back to 1959. As to the numbers, offhand I can’t answer that at this point, but certainly will attempt to do so when I respond at a later date once all of this is complete.

Mr. S. Smith: What about the address? Is the address part of the data?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The address I believe is on the card.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the address part of the enrolment data?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Of the enrolment data? I believe it is.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Can the minister explain to us why he is toying with this subject this way? Why is he not prepared to indicate to the Legislature now who releases the material to the police when it is requested? Why are we forever delayed in getting access to that kind of specific detail for which there is no need for an extensive or exhaustive police investigation? How does it go out regularly when section 44 is so explicit that only the name can be given? How is it that OHIP is prepared to give material beyond that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that’s the problem. There is some disagreement among the legal types as to what section 44 does actually mean. I must tell the member that even within my own legal branch I’m getting different opinions from different lawyers. That’s something we’ve got to sort out and that’s why I’ve suspended the answering of any inquiries.

Mr. Lewis: Who gives the information?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The thing is the member could go into the Toronto regional office of OHIP to confirm his enrolment, to check the status of his enrolment --

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- at 2195 Yonge Street. I couldn’t do it for the member. He’d have to do it or he would have to designate someone as being --

Mr. Reid: Have the RCMP do it for you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, that could be arranged, I think.

Mr. Roy: Obviously you have in the past.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t divert. What about the police? Who gives it to them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The police would inquire of either the head office, the enrolment branch, or they could go --

Mr. Reid: Who authorizes it?

Mr. S. Smith: It is in the enrolment manual of OHIP.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- as has been the case, to the regional office, the local OHIP office.

Mr. Lewis: It’s great. It is like a sieve.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that the general manager of OHIP has today confirmed to us that the address is not part of the enrolment file? Under these circumstances, can the minister explain how such a file can be useful in locating possible criminals? Under these circumstances, is he satisfied that the OHIP number is not being utilized to gain access to some other medical document?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I believed it was. I will check that out.

Mr. McClellan: You are wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not in the business in this portfolio of apprehending criminals, so I would defer to people expert in that.

Mr. Foulds: You are not even in the business of finding out what is going on in your ministry.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could outline exactly what the procedure is for anyone, the police in particular, to be able to gain access to any information. I have been trying to get that now for almost two weeks. Surely there is a laid-down procedure which determines who is authorized to give out information to anyone under any circumstances.

Mr. S. Smith: It is in the enrolment manual.

Mrs. Campbell: Read it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Would the member like me to read the section of the guideline on that? I know that there is a guideline on that.

Mr. Lewis: Read it yes, by all means.

Mr. Swart: Read it.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t flip through the papers in an engaging way, read it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll try to answer the question in an engaging way, then. I think the member’s earlier questions had to do with hospital records. As I indicated to the Speaker, I certainly have an answer on that, which I did try to give to the member last week, but time ran out and I wasn’t called to give it.

But with respect to how the system is organized, what I indicated earlier was that when the Attorney General’s aspect of the investigation is complete, when he and I have had a chance to talk about it --

Mr. Lewis: The minister is afraid to read it, isn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I am about to.

Mr. Lewis: Then read it, man, read it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will decide how I will answer the question, thanks very much.

Mr. Foulds: Why are you stonewalling?

Mr. Roy: Do you know what is going on or don’t you?

Mr. Wildman: In other words you don’t want to read it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why doesn’t the member just tell me the answer he wants and I’ll decide whether I want to give it to him? That is the way it is sounding.

Mr. Lewis: I want to hear the section.

Mr. Speaker: Why doesn’t the hon. Minister of Health just answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thank you, sir, I will.

Mr. Wildman: Redirect it to the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor).

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member is going to break his neck, he is having to lean down to listen to this.

With respect to police matters, the manual says: “In situations involving police matters, the inquirer’s identity, rank and location must be established and confirmed before any information can be given concerning an OHIP subscriber.” The practice has been --

Mr. Foulds: But who does it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are losing control.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The staff in the enrolment branch. That is what I have been telling you.

Mr. Foulds: Anybody.

Mr. Warner: Everyone.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with a new question?

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to come back to this, sensing in the minister’s reticence something more than has been revealed. Could he perhaps read us the paragraph which prefaces what he just read, repeat what he just read, and the paragraph that follows? Could he do that, just as a decent sort?

Mr. Reid: Or table the whole bunch.

Mr. S. Smith: The clerk has instructions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the earlier section has to do with checking the correctness of OHIP numbers, which is for inquiries from subscribers. Just to read it again: “A subscriber’s OHIP records are to be treated as confidential and are not to be available to general inquiries. In situations involving police matters” -- as I indicated --

Mr. Lewis: Just slowly. More slowly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- “wherever possible such police inquiries should be made in writing.” And that is the practice of the enrolment section.

Mr. Lewis: “Wherever possible.”

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, no. There is no log kept.

Mr. Lewis: Do you have any indication that the police inquiries have been made in writing? Do you have a file of written police inquiries about individual OHIP enrolments?

Mr. S. Smith: No log is kept.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not available to me at this time.

Mr. Lewis: That is why you don’t read that stuff. It’s ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is nothing here to read.

Mr. Roy: You are stonewalling.

Mr. Reid: When the minister took over as Minister of Health, was he briefed by the senior officials in his ministry as to the fact that this practice in fact was going on? When did he first learn as minister that this information was being made available?

Mr. S. Smith: One week ago, Dennis. Why don’t you just say so?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This was not one of the areas that was highlighted at that time. I was not aware that it was a potential problem until recently, at which time I did --

Mr. Reid: Don’t you think you should have been?

Mr. Foulds: You really don’t have a grasp of that ministry, do you?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- bring in the staff to begin an internal investigation of what exactly is our procedure.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Does the minister remember two weeks ago in the beginning of estimates denying that the whole process took place?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the what?

Mr. Dukszta: Does the minister remember during the beginning of the Health estimates saying that this procedure did not take place and he had no knowledge of it and it could not possibly happen in the Ministry of Health?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, with respect, Mr. Speaker -- and I could be corrected, we’ll check Hansard -- I believe that had to do with the medical records. Again, I point out we are talking about the activities relating to the enrolment section which is dealing with basic biographical data, not with the claims branch which is dealing with medical records.

Mr. Lewis: Not good enough. You have nothing in writing. No laws.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: In view of the great public concern about this issue and the fact that it has been raised now for two weeks, and that the member for Don Mills is the Minister of Health, as I last recall, is he not in a position to tell us whether any of this information was furnished pursuant to any court order or to any process of the court pursuant to section 44 of the Health Insurance Act?

Mr. Lewis: Section 44(2)(e).

Mr. Roy: Can he not tell us whether any procedures at all that he is aware of were taken through the courts to get this information?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What we have been discussing here, Mr. Speaker, have been the -- if you will -- inquiries for the basic biographical data.

Mr. Roy: That might be required, if he has to go through this.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is exactly why I indicated earlier I have ordered a suspension of the answering of inquiries because certain legal minds have indicated that they have some doubt as to this situation.

Mr. Roy: The minister doesn’t know what is going on.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: So until that is cleared up and until the Attorney General and I have a chance to discuss this matter, once he has completed his part of the investigation those inquiries will not be answered.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with his final question.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it urgent?

Mr. McClellan: Yes. With respect to the minister’s answer of a few minutes ago I want to bring to your attention that on November 15 the minister said, in the estimates debate on page 655 of Hansard, as follows: “However, the information” --

Mr. Speaker: Whose privilege is being abrogated?

Mr. Lewis: Our privilege. It is misinformation.

Mr. McClellan: May I state the point and then you can decide?

Mr. Sargent: He can ask a point of privilege any time he wants to.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, I would like to state the point and then you can determine whether it is.

Mr. Speaker: I can’t hear the hon. member.

Mr. McClellan: “However, the information that I have had to date is that there is no record of any contact, certainly no authorization or any sort of thing between OHIP and the RCMP.” The minister said that on November 15.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I answered that.

Mr. Deans: Which means that someone has been misled.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I believe I answered that. I’m trying to find it; I’ve got the regular Hansard. I believe that what we were talking about was a medical record and certainly that was the overriding concern, that medical records not be released.

Mr. Lewis: Were you giving me a supplementary, a final supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, I was giving you an opportunity to place your second question.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, sir. Well, I was trying.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF POLICE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Solicitor General, in the legislation which he will introduce today is there a provision pursuant to the Pitman task force on racism that the police should study the need for psychological testing of police recruits; that is to say, that a psychological testing apparatus be put in place for the hiring of police recruits?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: In the legislation that I intend to introduce today, sir?

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, there is nothing to do with that at all in that legislation. I’m speaking from memory but it deals with citizens’ complaint procedures.

Mr. Lewis: The second bill I meant.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, the second bill has no reference to that at all. The answer is no.

Mr. Lewis: All right. By way of supplementary, if it is not covered in existing legislation and since it is a specific and provincial initiative, which could be taken as a result of Pitman’s recommendations, is the minister prepared to act on it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have asked today for a copy of that report from Mr. Pitman which as you know went to the city council. I haven’t seen that report yet but certainly the very fact that I have asked for it shows we are interested in it. I’ll take whatever those recommendations he may make in regard to racism under advisement.

[2:45]

The second bill will, I hope, go to committee and since it deals with the police legislation there may be provision at the committee stage, both on our suggestion or on your suggestion, to introduce amendments at that time. But certainly we’ll take it under advisement, sir.

USE OF INFLUENCE

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Solicitor General. I’m wondering what would cause the RCMP to launch an investigation into “alleged municipal corruption in the city of Mississauga.” And what was the nature of the strain that existed between the RCMP and provincial authorities?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I know very little about that situation, except that some time ago there was an investigation going on in Mississauga. I understood that it had come to termination, from the OPP’s point of view, when it found that the RCMP was involved. From information they had, they considered it was purely a matter of provincial jurisdiction, I think, and as far as I know there was no matter of RCMP jurisdiction at all. So it’s a matter of the RCMP looking after their matters and the OPP looking after theirs.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of whether or not there is any investigation currently under way with regard to the possibility of arson in the fire at Judge Stortini’s personal residence?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t know of any, sir, but I’ll make inquiries.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Warner: To the Minister of Health: Since it’s now evident that the nursing homes inspection branch has been reluctant to prosecute nursing homes for violations of the Act, and that a lot of pressure has been put on the tough inspectors who’ve been in the ministry, will the minister now agree that we need a full inquiry with the inspection reports being released so that we can get to the source of the problem, correct it, and by so doing protect the dignity and well-being of the residents of the nursing homes in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think we’ve been through this very well and if I may, at the conclusion of this, read from Hansard for estimates where we were talking about medical records, because my answer stands there.

But with respect, I can only repeat what I said in estimates, and that is so far as I’m concerned -- and I can only answer for myself -- the inspectors in that branch have every authority from me to be as firm as necessary where they think it is warranted, to recommend prosecution or move to revoke licences; and they will be backed up in their firmness.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since Mr. Malcolm Walker, the director of the Ontario Nursing Home Association asserts that the ministry has been, and I quote his words, “a little soft in its treatment of cases where the nursing home has violated the Nursing Homes Act,” how many more horror stories must I and my colleagues raise in this assembly before the minister will admit that we need a full inquiry into the nursing homes in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows we have 378 nursing homes in this province.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not very many.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I detailed to the committee, I guess it was last week, the thousands of inspections that are carried on every year, routine inspections and inspections in answer to complaints. I suppose, if the member wanted to take one complaint at a time, we could try every day to run through an individual complaint and try to make that an issue.

Mr. Laughren: Won’t wash.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m saying to the member that I’m satisfied first of all that my inspectors understand how firmly I feel on this. Secondly, I’m telling the member that we have reviewed the Act and the regulations, as he knows, and I’ve put forward certain recommendations; and we are certainly prepared to receive reactions to that and additional recommendations on how we might further bring the Act up to date.

Since 1972, when my predecessor Dr. Potter brought in the new Act, we have done a lot to clean up the nursing home situation. A total of 208 of the facilities which existed at that time have for one reason or another since been closed. I suggest to the member that the kind of expensive inquiry that he’s talking about would not do as much good as we are doing in trying to strengthen the Act and carry it out.

LIQUOR ADVERTISING

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of this Legislature’s concern with the minimum legal drinking age and the related question of liquor advertising, and in view of the fact that the latest edition of Maclean’s, our own unofficial national magazine, with a total of 80 pages, had an aggregate of no fewer than 21 pages on liquor advertising --

Mr. Lewis: That’s Maclean’s contribution to national unity.

Mr. Samis: Try Saturday Night.

Mr. Baetz: -- does the minister feel that it is within his mandate to ask Maclean’s at least to reduce its liquor advertising and thus practice one of its advertiser’s own exhortations that those who think of tomorrow practice moderation today?

Mr. Samis: What about free enterprise?

Mr. Lewis: Stay out of the private sector.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact my ministry, in conjunction with the Liquor Licence Board --

Mr. Laughren: Leave free enterprise alone.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is currently considering some changes which would affect the amount of advertising and put some restrictions in terms of the number of inches and the number of times in a particular issue of a magazine as to advertising to be permitted.

Mr. Makarchuk: Does the minister mean he is going to interfere with free enterprise?

Mr. Laughren: The minister wouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These things are under careful consideration. We may be bringing them forward in the near future. This is within the context of our plans to present a complete package in the spring. Either there will be something forthcoming in the near future --

Mr. Swart: Or there will not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- on this specific subject or it will be part of our spring package pursuant to the statement of the Premier (Mr. Davis) of November 10.

Mr. Conway: Can the minister give us at this point in time anything specific by way of proposals he might entertain to redress the concerns so properly put by the member for Ottawa West about the serious implications that this lifestyle advertising has for this matter of public concern?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Lifestyle?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, specifically I would entertain a lot of proposals. A lot of them would relate to the numbers, as I say, of column inches that can be used in a particular issue, and the number of different pages.

Mr. Wildman: That’s not very specific.

Mr. Lewis: Baloney. You’ll have 15 per cent instead of 25 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d be happy to entertain any of those.

With regard to which ones we are entertaining, obviously the member will see what our final determination is on those things right now. It wouldn’t take a genius -- even the member for Renfrew North could figure it out -- to determine what the various alternatives are.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We could permit two in an issue or 10 or three or one in an issue. What I’ll finally decide to recommend remains to be seen.

An hon. member: Beer in the ball park.

Mr. Wildman: What does the minister carry over there -- a flask?

Mr. Makarchuk: Does this ministry or any agency of this ministry still examine each and every ad before it’s submitted to the magazines and newspapers or television?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I understand it, it examines the ads that go into these publications.

Mr. Makarchuk: So the minister is aware of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I am aware of it, though not the numbers. The advertisements themselves must be approved at the Liquor Licence Board.

Mr. Warner: Expand the Liquor Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health has the answer to a question asked previously.

USE OF MEDICAL DATA

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On November 17, the hon. member for Wentworth asked under what conditions institutions and agencies of the Ministry of Health make available the personal or medical records of patients or of citizens of Ontario to the police authorities. He further requested that the authorizing directions or guidelines be placed before the House and he requested --

Mr. Lewis: Stop mumbling.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, what’s the use? We can’t hear a word.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, the Minister of Health deliberately mumbles through with rapidity when there’s something he doesn’t want us to hear. Speak up, young man.

Mr. Breaugh: And stand up straight.

Mr. Hodgson: The member for Scarborough West should sit down. Shame.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister see the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott) and get a better set of dentures?

Mr. Speaker: It might help if the members were a little quieter. Then they’d be in a better position to hear the answer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m tempted to suggest it’s not the rate at which the answer is read, but rather the rate at which it’s comprehended that’s the problem.

Mr. Lewis: That’s all right. But for the slow comprehenders, speak very slowly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For the member’s benefit, I will speak very slowly.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: But promptly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with all due dispatch.

On November 17, the hon. member for Wentworth asked under what conditions institutions and agencies of the Ministry of Health make available the personal or medical records of patients or of citizens of Ontario to the police authorities. Are members all right so far?

Mr. Lewis: That’s very well done. Very nicely done.

Mr. Sargent: I knew he could do it.

Mr. Makarchuk: We’ll give the minister a passing grade.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He further requested that the authorizing directions or guidelines be placed before the House and he requested a determination of whether or not it is or has been standard practice in institutions to allow police to remove patients’ records from the hospital.

The regulations regarding patient records are: For public hospitals, article 48, regulation 729, the Public Hospitals Act; and for psychiatric hospitals, section 3, regulation 578, the Mental Hospitals Act. In the public hospitals, the regulation is specific. It says the board shall not permit any person to remove, inspect or receive information from a medical record unless they have a court order, which must stipulate that it is to inspect, or to inspect and remove, a record.

Mr. Martel: The Mounties don’t need that information.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In our psychiatric hospitals, the only ways in which a patient’s records are made available to the police are through the consent of the patient, a search warrant or a subpoena.

There is no log kept of this type of request. However, a copy of the document authorizing release of information is kept on the patient’s file.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: In the case where the police removed the original file, how then could the record of the subpoena be kept in that file in the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m trying to remember. I asked that same question some time ago. I believe the answer I got from the staff in that area was that in such cases we give a copy of the file and keep the original.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Will the minister order an investigation into all of the files removed from the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital during the year 1970-71, to determine whether or not there were, in fact, subpoenas presented that are now on file? Would he further investigate, with all of the staff who were then in the employ of the hospital how it could be that the original file of a patient could be removed from the premises and never returned? What became of the file?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member will give me the name which I take it he must have -- and I heard from a reporter last Friday he had a concern -- I’ll do that.

Mr. Lewis: There won’t be that many files removed, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll look into that.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have one final supplementary. The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: In view of his answer pertaining to the Public Hospitals Act and the Mental Health Act, can the minister advise whether there was any communication with the police and various hospitals in the province? Secondly, is he aware at all of any court authorizations or the disclosure of this information to the police?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Apparently there are court actions under way at all times, from people seeking to get the records out for one reason or another.

I didn’t understand the first part of the member’s question, I’m sorry. What was it in connection with?

Mr. Roy: If I may rephrase the question. From reading the minister’s estimates, I’m confused where he said there was no contact between OHIP, or people in his ministry, and the RCMP. He said twice that there was no contact. In view of that answer, and the answer that the minister is giving here today, was there contact and if there was, is he aware of any court authorizations allowing his officials, whether in hospitals or in OHIP, to release this information to the police?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member likes, I could read what was talked about in estimates into the regular Hansard and for my own purposes I’d almost like to because it does confirm what I said earlier in response to the point of privilege from the member for Bellwoods. But here we’re talking about hospital records, and there we were talking about OHIP records.

Mr. Roy: I can read.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I didn’t understand the member’s supplementary because we were talking about hospital records.

Mr. McClellan: What you said is very clear.

Mr. Roy: I appreciate that.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Van Horne: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can the minister tell us if the policy on school capital financing enunciated by him on December 18, 1975, is to be changed for the fiscal year 1978-79?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If my friend means the criteria that we enunciated at that time, the criteria will remain in effect for the next year. The amount of money that is allotted may change.

Mr. Van Horne: A supplementary: The minister may not have this information available, but I would like to know the total number of projects submitted and what percentage the ministry was able to accommodate in this present fiscal year. Does he have that information?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can get that information for my friend and I’d be happy to, Mr. Speaker. I can tell him that of the total number that were submitted, nothing like the total number were able to be accommodated. The school boards of this province still do not seem to realize that enrolment is declining and capital is very short. Many, many projects are submitted and they’re not able to be supported.

Mr. Wildman: The enrolments are going up.

[3:00]

LICENCE FEES

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: With reference to passenger vehicle registration fees in northern Ontario, for very obvious reasons many people in the north use half-ton trucks and four-wheel-drive vehicles as a means of private passenger transportation. Yet they are precluded from --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Germa: -- registering their vehicle in the normal fee structure. Will the Ministry of Transportation and Communication not give consideration to allowing these types of vehicles to be registered fur the ordinary fee, rather than the $60 fee which presently is going to apply?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was announced a week ago, Bud.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where the hon. member has been for the last two weeks. I made a statement in this House about two weeks ago, and press releases and announcements have been made on this whole matter.

Mr. Conway: Next.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know where the hon. member has been.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I remember the statement well. I was going to ask about it that day. But in the statement the minister restricted it to vehicles of 5,000 pounds or under. Would the minister consider looking at it once again, as many half-tons used in northern Ontario are in the 6,000 to 8,000 pound range?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this very carefully and I am quite confident that there is no vehicle in the 6,000 to 8,000 pound range that is necessarily in that range if it’s for personal transportation. If there is a vehicle in that range, it’s obviously a commercial vehicle used for commercial purposes.

LOT LEVIES

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Treasurer: Given the recent decisions of both the Ontario Municipal Board and divisional court to disallow lot levies in municipalities as they apply to zoning bylaw changes, proposed plans of subdivision, and lot severances, and given that there are serious problems that have developed in many of the municipalities to the extent that either they can cut off redevelopment in the municipalities or run the risk of losing many millions of dollars in lot levies, what is the Treasurer planning to do for these municipalities with respect to these court decisions?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, is this a recent decision?

Mr. Epp: Within the last few months, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sorry, I am not familiar with it. Perhaps the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) is more familiar with it than I am.

Mr. Epp: With respect, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will take the question as notice and get back to the member.

Mr. Epp: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this pertains to the Municipal Act and I understand that the Treasurer is responsible for the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: He will take it as notice.

ASSISTANCE TO PENSIONERS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services: Is it true that disabled persons who are on CPP and also on partial family benefits, either as permanently unemployable or as disabled, do not benefit from any cost of living increase in CPP payments and have their family benefit allowance reduced every time there is a cost of living increase? Is this correct?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. It is my understanding that under the Canada Assistance Plan once the levels of assistance to individuals have been agreed to, we are also required to incorporate into the calculation of the person’s income any increases which may result from increased allowances from the federal or other sources provincially or from private sources. We have no alternative in that situation but to include that in the calculation which usually results in a comparable reduction if the person is already at the maximum level of assistance under the plan.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does it not seem inequitable that people who are on GAINS as pensioners get increases in the cost of living from federal programs passed through to them, such as OAS and GIS increases, but people who are on disabled allowances get no increase in the federal cost of living increase? And has the minister made representations to the federal government that this inequity should be eliminated?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is a little more complicated than that. There is also the very real possibility of other kinds of inequities that would creep in if the proposal that the hon. member makes was put into effect. I have had this under consideration and I am concerned about some of the other complications as well.

Take, for example, two individuals whose needs might be calculated at $400 per month, for the sake of argument. If the one individual had a source of assistance from say the Canada Pension Plan as well, or from some other source privately, that person would be receiving the $400 basic plus whatever over and above that the increases might be, while a person who is in equally needy circumstances but is without the eligibility for Canada Pension Plan or other private sources, would suffer as a result of that kind of proposal the member is making.

So there are inequities that would result from her suggestion, just as much as the inequities that exist under the present system. I am not sure what the answer is.

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Health, again on the question of his OHIP records, which is turning out to be very interesting.

I take it from the various answers that the minister has attempted to give this afternoon that some of this so-called tombstone information which was given out pursuant to section 44 of the Health Insurance Act was, in fact, given out without the requirement of a subpoena or a court order?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is the problem and is why I have suspended answering such inquiries, because the practice has been to answer without subpoenas and court orders, whatever, such inquiries for basic biographical information.

Mr. Roy: Aha! Your policy is against the law.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that’s clear. The reason I have suspended it is that there is some concern expressed by some of the lawyers advising me and the government that this may not, in fact, be legal. There are as many or more who say it is, but because there is any doubt at all --

Mr. Foulds: If you don’t know, why do you do it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I have therefore suspended the answering of any such inquiries.

Mr. Bolan: Supplementary: That may be the case, but the fact still remains, does it not, that there was, in fact, tombstone information given out without the requirement of a subpoena or a court order?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have never denied that. I should say that at the time all this investigation started, and in the dealings between my colleague and the RCMP and so forth, there was no indication that it was in any way illegal. Since then other opinions have come to light among our respective staffs that indicate that it might just be. Because it just might be, therefore, it has been suspended.

Mr. Conway: No supplementaries allowed for that?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. McClellan: We have not had any supplementaries on this side of the House.

SAULT JAIL

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. In view of the statements last week by Dennis Lock, superintendent of the Sault district jail, that the facility there in the city was close to 50 per cent over-capacity, and in view of the minister’s statement during his visit to the Sault last weekend that although the jail wasn’t as crowded as he expected he was looking at ways to reduce demands for space, such as a reopening of the summer forestry camps, when does the minister expect to reply to my letter of last month requesting him to deal with overcrowding at the Sault jail, and will his solution involve the renovation and reopening of McCreight’s Camp?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I told the hon. member when I received the letter last month that I would reply to him after I visited the Sault jail. I am very pleased to reply to him today.

Mr. Bolan: What about the chain gangs?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is quite true that on the average the Sault Ste. Marie district jail is about 50 per cent over capacity. When I visited there last week the count was lower than usual. As a matter of fact, there was only one person who couldn’t be fitted into available accommodation.

The difficulty with reopening the specific work camp is that the facilities are somewhat outdated. I intend to open an equivalent operation in the area, whether it is on the road or whether it is back in the bush. I believe the type of work done in camp previously was much more beneficial than sitting around in a cell all day.

Mr. Bolan: Was that the chain gangs?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In all fairness, there are no chain gangs in North America. They’re precluded by court.

Mr. Kerrio: We’re getting there.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We have forestry gangs. I have a great many of them. I’m going to have road gangs.

Mr. Conway: Cool-Hand Frank.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Would the minister define the road gang or the bush gang? Will he define that for me, please?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You define that, Eddie. You have been on both of them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: A road gang, a forestry gang, a bush gang or a parks gang are a group that work outside of the institution under the direct supervision of a correctional officer.

Mr. Bolan: Chain gang.

Mr. Peterson: Tory gang.

Mr. Sargent: Cool-Hand Luke.

RESOURCE EQUALIZATION GRANTS

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Treasurer: Is the minister prepared to convene a meeting of the mayors of the cities adversely affected by the equalization factor used to calculate the resource equalization grant in municipalities such as St. Catharines, Burlington, Kingston and Sudbury, in order that they might present their cases for rectifying this inequity, thereby according these mayors the same opportunity as the mayors of Sarnia and Windsor?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Havrot: Brief and to the point.

Mr. S. Smith: Why not?

Mr. Bradley: It’s unfortunate that this is not the case. May I ask the minister this then: Would the minister then undertake to provide to those municipalities affected, information from his ministry clearly indicating the short-fall of grants they’ve experienced over the last few years and the adverse financial position they may expect to be in until 1979, in order that they will be able to negotiate with the ministry to gain their fair share of provincial grants?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have not supplied that information to anyone, to my recollection. The information was deduced by Windsor and Sarnia, and I assume that other municipalities have done the same thing. There’s no information, to my knowledge, that is being requested of me; nor have I been requested to either arrange a meeting or convene a meeting by the municipalities, as the member mentioned. It isn’t a question of courtesy; I have only heard from Windsor and Sarnia at this moment, to the best of my knowledge.

FACILITIES FOR RETARDED

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: May I ask the minister whether he’s prepared now to report the alternate proposal of the Metro Association for the Mentally Retarded for a number of small residential facilities located throughout the whole Metropolitan area, as a specific, realistic and achievable alternative to the 150-bed mini-institution for the mentally retarded proposed for Rexdale, or to some variation thereof; in effect a mini-institution in an industrial setting?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The report of the task force I established during the summer has now been dealt with by the district working group and has been received by the ministry. In fact it’s my understanding that sometime this afternoon there is a meeting of the resource planning committee of the responsible division of the ministry. I expect that I myself -- and I assure you for the first time -- will be receiving that report accompanied by the comments of the district working group and the comments of the planning group within my own ministry, either late today or tomorrow. I would hope that within a matter of a few days, after I’ve had an opportunity to review that material and give it some careful consideration, I will be in a position to announce what my intentions are.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Is the minister saying at this point he doesn’t have the slightest idea what the status of this mini-institution is?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have not seen the recommendations of the task force yet. They have been received by the ministry, they have not been received by me. I will be receiving them, along with the recommendations and the responses from all of the participants in the planning process. The recommendations, once received by me, will receive immediate consideration.

Mr. McClellan: In other words, you don’t know.

[3:15]

GLENDALE TRAINING CENTRE

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services: I was wondering if there is any truth in the rumour that the Glendale Training School in Simcoe might be closing?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of institutions being looked at. I haven’t come to a definitive conclusion on any of them, other than the Don which will close December 31, period.

Mr. G. I. Miller: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the staff going to be consulted on this matter or is there any warning going to be given to them?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the member is almost taking it as a fait accompli. Is he talking about that particular institution or is he talking about all the institutions? If he is talking about any institutions I plan to close, just as in the case of the Don Jail the union is fully consulted in advance.

FACILITIES FOR DISTURBED CHILDREN

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: I wonder if the minister could tell me what he is going to do to establish adequate facilities in Thunder Bay for disturbed adolescents, especially in view of the statement by Malcolm Shookner, a program analyst --

Mr. S. Smith: Disturbed adults get elected there.

Mr. Foulds: -- with the children’s services bureau in Thunder Bay? He made the statement in Thunder Bay at the end of September, “Things we take for granted in the south don’t exist here.” Especially, what steps is the minister going to take to establish a safe and adequate holding place for adolescents who opt out? There is no facility in Thunder Bay except the Donald Street lockup; or an ex-lockup in the basement of Cameron Street, which is used for the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital adult wards.

Mr. Laughren: What a dismal record the ministry has.

Mr. Lewis: Dreadful.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I caught all of the quotation that was read into the record from the gentleman in Thunder Bay --

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t ask him to repeat it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- but I would indicate, as I have before in the House, that there are two areas of particular priority in the establishment of improved services for children. One of those serves the children in the north, with particular focus as well on francophone and native children. I hope to be in a position to make some concrete announcements about that as soon as we are moving into our next year. I expect we will be able to move ahead with those within the next fiscal year.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for clarification: Is the minister then telling me that the current situation that exists in Thunder Bay at the present time for disturbed adolescents, referring them to the Donald Street lockup and so on, will continue at least for the next 18 months?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not saying that. I will look into the situation that the member refers to and try to respond to him more fully as soon as I have had a chance to do that.

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Resources Development secretary. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he is in possession of any consultant’s report vis-à-vis the disposition of the Edwardsburgh land assembly? If he has those consultant’s studies, is he prepared at this time to table them in this House? If not, why not? If he is about to do so, can he tell us when he might be at liberty to release that information?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that report has been made available to the local municipal authorities. I could be corrected on that. I think it is a report which will certainly be made public in due course.

Mr. Conway: In due course, Mr. Speaker, would mean roughly at what point in time?

Mr. Breithaupt: In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would think within the next few weeks.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Samis: I have a question of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker: In view of pressure by certain Yonge Street merchants to evade the retail store hour legislation on Boxing Day this year, can the minister assure the House that the laws passed by this House will be properly respected and enforced in the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have a news release going out probably tomorrow or the day after tomorrow explaining to the merchants the law as it stands for Boxing Day. I expect the police of the province will enforce it as we expect them to enforce all the laws.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Will that news release also clarify the matters with respect to January 2 which might be taken as the New Year’s Day holiday so that this whole matter about which a number of us have received letters of inquiry can be clarified?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes.

MANAGEMENT STUDY

Mrs. Campbell: My question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister at this time prepared to table in the House the management study of his ministry? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, because I have not yet received it from the consultants.

Mr. Lewis: Any other minister would have had it by now.

An hon. member: That’s right. You should resign.

Mr. Foulds: You and Timbrell.

INCO EMISSIONS

Mr. Laughren: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Would the minister bring us up to date on the state of negotiations between his ministry and Inco concerning the emissions from the super stack at Copper Cliff?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is still some consideration regarding the final year of the criteria for emissions from that stack. We still haven’t decided on a new level. We have decided that a new level is necessary. As the hon. member probably knows, the requirement I believe is 750 as of January 1, 1979, so we still have some time. But I expect that that will be settled early in the new year. And as the hon. member would realize, in the light of current events, it probably won’t be as hard to reach those criteria.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure us that the economic and unemployment problems now facing the Sudbury district will not be used as a club by the company so they do not have to enforce reasonable standards of emission?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be assured of that.

Hon. W. Newman: Boy, do you change your attitudes over there.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

The hon. member for Renfrew North has a point of privilege.

POLICE ACCESS TO OHIP DATA

Mr. Conway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel deeply concerned about a matter that relates to some of the exchange earlier in the question period. I would ask your guidance in this matter because I do feel that it relates directly to the privileges of certain members of this House, particularly those members who were involved in the Ministry of Health estimates about two weeks ago yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, at that time, and in direct reference to questions put by me to the Minister of Health, with many of his OHIP officials present, the minister responded to inquiries about possible contact between OHIP and the RCMP in the following way, and I want to read very briefly part of that record and then what appears to be a very sharp contradiction reported in this morning’s Globe and Mail -- and, quite frankly, this afternoon as well.

I shall read from the Hansard report of Ministry of Health estimates for November 15, 1977 regarding OHIP and contact with the RCMP.

“Hon. Mr. Timbrell: However, the information I have had to date is that there is no record of any contact, certainly no authorization or sort of thing between OHIP and the RCMP. I think that is correct.”

Mr. McClellan: That’s what I read.

Mr. Conway: That’s right, that was read earlier this afternoon. Then subsequently he says:

“Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, seeking information. Of course, the Act requires the general manager, who is here,” -- meaning here today in these estimates discussions -- “to keep that confidential anyway, but I am advised that he has never been contacted to seek the kind of information referred to in the recent media reports.”

In this morning’s Globe and Mail, there was the following report attributed to Mr. Lawrence Martin, and it reads -- and I will read only the first paragraph: “The general manager of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan said yesterday that the providing of enrolment data from OHIP and other medical plans to the police is a policy that originated at the political level and presumably has been known to Health ministers and Attorneys General since 1959”.

Mr. Speaker, I see in those two reports a clear and sharp contradiction, I want it cleared up at the earliest possible opportunity because of the information that was presented to us, particularly in the estimates debate about two weeks and one day ago.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be some misunderstanding among a good many members not only to what constitutes a point of privilege, but once a prima facie case has been established whose responsibility it is to clear it up. It’s certainly not the responsibility of the Speaker. It is the responsibility of the member who feels that his privileges are aggrieved to take the necessary action, it’s not the responsibility of the presiding officer; and I just wish that you’d reflect upon that. It’s not incumbent upon the presiding officer to defend you, except to the extent that I say you have a prima facie case of privilege, and that’s the end of it as far as the presiding officer is concerned. The ball is in the court of the member who feels aggrieved.

Mr. Havrot: He is just grandstanding.

REDRESS ON POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, might I perhaps ask your advice along these lines: The hon. member felt that his privileges were aggrieved, and frankly I agree with him. What can he do but bring it to the attention of the House, through you, sir? It may be that you cannot order the minister into the tower but at least you are the vehicle through which the aggrieved member can put his case to the House, and surely nothing other than that is expected?

Mr. Speaker: That’s right; as I say, I got the impression from the hon. member for Renfrew North that he expected some action from me, and there’s no action I can take.

Mr. Conway: Subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, I think I prefaced my remarks simply by saying I draw to your attention. I share entirely the comments of the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk about the degree to which we are hampered in carrying forward that kind of grievance. I simply, on that point, drew it to the attention of yourself and other members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: You’ve already done so; but I just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding in the minds of members that it was incumbent upon the presiding officer to do something. I’m sure that the Minister of Health will take notice of what you have said and perhaps he can reply to it at a later time.

INTERPRETATION OF SESSIONAL ORDER

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask for your judgement on the new sessional order 4, found on page 19 of the standing orders, where if a member is dissatisfied with an answer given to his question he should raise it at the end of question period: do you deem the end of question period is the expiration of oral questions and before the presentation of petitions or motions; is that a proper interpretation of the term “question period”?

Mr. Speaker: All that’s required is that you indicate you are dissatisfied with an answer given by a minister. You’ve already done that and it can be handled under standing order 28(a), this evening at 10:30.

REDRESS ON POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of view, which I’d like to put to you sir.

Mr. Nixon: You are getting relaxed these days.

Mr. Lewis: I’m very relaxed; yes, I’m almost soporific.

Mr. Speaker: If you want to correct the record; if you have a point of privilege or a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: I seek your wisdom, guidance and general infallibility, sir; I thought that would engender your support. I do want to ask if a member of the Legislature rises on a point of privilege to make a point akin to that of my colleague from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) or the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), is it beyond the Speaker’s prerogative to suggest to the Minister of Health that a statement of clarification or response to the point privilege might help in the Legislature? Is that going beyond your role as Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It’s not the prerogative of the Speaker to ask any minister to answer any question; a minister can simply decline. It’s up to the minister whose actions or whose words have been called into question to defend those words or actions, and there’s nothing that the Speaker can demand or require him to do. I just want to call that to the attention of members; that’s why I rose after the point of privilege raised by the member for Renfrew North. It’s not incumbent upon the Speaker to do anything.

[3:30]

Mr. Nixon: Since the matter has been raised, Mr. Speaker, and we’ve been discussing it here, I must say on the point of order that I support your position entirely; but it isn’t the first time, nor are you the first Speaker to arise to tell the members that there is nothing you can do. Surely the fact that it has been raised in the House and brought to the attention of the Speaker and every member here means that the minister would feel the pressure of the democratic system to make some kind of a comment in reply; surely that’s all we would expect.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t hold your breath.

PETITION

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I should like to direct to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). It is signed by 259 employees of the government of Ontario in the Sudbury district.

Mr. Nixon: It has to do with licences of trucks.

Mr. Germa: They petition, amongst other things, and I quote, “to bring an end to the senseless butchery of services and jobs,” and call for the adoption of a full employment strategy.

Mr. Eaton: I got that form letter too.

Mr. Lewis: Butchery; that means layoffs.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing social development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Health be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry of Health

Ministry administration and health insurance program … $1,072,532,800

Institutional health services program … 2,579,582,900

Community health services program … 118,948,500

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolutions.

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Ministry administration program … $4,599,000

Agricultural production program … 104,317,000

Rural development program … 21,995,000

Agricultural marketing program … 10,670,000

Agricultural education and research program … 23,809,000

MOTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that supplementary estimates for the Ombudsman be referred to the standing general government committee for consideration within the time already allotted to the committee for the consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of Bill 112, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make it an offence to drive on a highway a motor vehicle that is equipped with or that carries or contains a radar warning device.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Police Act.

Motion agreed to.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Police Act.

Motion agreed to.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved first reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Conway: If you reversed the order, you’d have the right minister in the right job.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill 116, An Act to amend the Election Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the amendments which I propose in this bill are in four particular areas.

First the words, “or other British subjects” are removed for qualification as a voter or candidate in a provincial election, so that all voters and candidates must now be Canadian citizens. This follows the amendments proposed by the Liberal critic for municipal affairs, my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) for the Municipal Elections Act which is now before the House.

Second, standards for access to polling places for physically handicapped persons are to be set; as well, certain provisions applying now to blind persons are changed.

Third, the political affiliation of candidates is to appear on the ballot.

Fourth, vouching for persons omitted in error from the voters’ list is extended in urban polls in the same way as it is now available in rural polls.

This bill will be brought forward for debate in private members’ business segment on December 15 next.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) having given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health earlier today concerning nursing home conditions, this matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the interim answer to question 42 standing on the notice paper. As well, I wish to table the answers to questions 38, 43 and 44 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SANDWICH, WINDSOR AND AMHERSTBURG RAILWAY ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough moved second reading of Bill 97, An Act respecting the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I just have a very brief comment on this, to the effect that this is a very reasonable name change. Anyone coming across the name Windsor, Sandwich and Amherstburg railway would expect to ride on a train; however, for quite some years now, it’s been the name of the Windsor-only bus system. So although there is some dismay on the part of some of the historically-minded people in the area over the disappearance, finally, of this grand name, which indicated first a railroad and then a partial street railroad system, this is certainly a more apt description of what the entity is involved in these days. In addition anyone new coming into the area doesn’t expect to look for the busline system under the name of the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway, so this name change is welcomed.

I might say that coincident with the use of this name, which started about four weeks ago, was a revision of the bus system and the provision of increased services in Windsor, particularly in the outlying suburban areas. This is of great interest for those who support public transportation, as I do; it is a good step forward in the provision of this service. It’s hoped that the new name and the new bus lines will bring to Windsor increased use of the bus system and increased awareness of the need and worth of public transit and a resultant saving in energy will no doubt occur.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate in this debate? If not, the member for Durham West.

Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member who represents that area has really said it. It is just a name change that has been agreed to by all.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moved second reading of Bill 91, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I noted when I introduced it at first reading, this bill provides for the continuation of the freeze on assessed values at their present level in Ontario for one more year. This move is necessitated by the complexity of the recommendations made by the Blair commission on the proposals to reform municipal taxation. The commission’s report sets out in detail a whole series of guidelines which, when implemented, establish an expanded tax base for municipalities, revised methods of apportioning shared costs, a new foundation for provincial grants and a system of reducing the regressiveness of the property tax itself. The report constitutes a rational tax reform package in which each recommendation complements the other.

It is necessary however to study all the recommendations in complete detail in order to measure the impact upon each municipality, groups of municipalities and upon particular classes of property owners. I insist that the review be objective and complete before any or all of the recommendations are put in place. I believe this is the common sense approach, since our objective must be to achieve fair and equitable municipal taxation without imposing a hardship on particular groups of property owners or on businesses.

The bill before us also makes it clear that new buildings which are completed and ready for occupancy will be assessed on the 1977 assessment rolls and subject to a full year’s taxes in 1978. New construction can be taxed for a portion of the current tax year only if occupied. The courts are extending the exemption from taxes to the next tax year if these new buildings remain vacant. The amendment proposed to section 86 will close this loophole and appease the large number of municipalities which have objected to a potential loss of tax revenue.

I am also proposing that section 97 of the Assessment Act remain operative during 1978. This section allows the Minister of Revenue to order the return of market value assessment in any municipality experiencing problems with the equity of its assessment base.

I am confident that these amendments are the proper course of action at this time. When I became the Minister of Revenue, I stated emphatically that I would proceed with the market value assessment program only when I could be assured by a complete review of all the implications that individual groups of property owners would not be hurt. Postponing the program for one year will provide me sufficient time to fulfil that promise. I urge all members to support this bill.

[3:45]

Mr. Haggerty: I wanted to add a few comments on Bill 91, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

We will support the minister’s amendment, as it is here today, although perhaps with some reservations. We feel that it has been seven or eight years since the municipalities have been promised market value assessment. I guess it is the past record of the government that after almost every election we have seen this particular legislation put into mothballs. Hopefully, the minister is not going to put it in mothballs again and we will have the dialogue that she suggested in her opening comments today. More information is required relating to the market value of assessment, more information is required as it relates to the tax reform proposals that the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has so often suggested to municipalities over the years. We are also concerned, on this side, about the Edmonton commitment.

Under those three items I have suggested to the minister we are deeply concerned about the implementation of market value assessment in Ontario. We have noticed in the past that there hasn’t been too much dialogue, particularly with municipalities, to which this matter is so vital because municipal taxes of course relate to market value assessment or any property assessment. We have information from some municipalities that there will be a shift in assessment, particularly from industrial assessment to residential assessment. Industrial assessment will be lowered while residential property will be much higher. No doubt this will have a greater impact on persons who can least afford to pay the high taxes that are already there, based upon municipal tax policies today.

For example, here is a brief submitted to the property tax reform commission as it relates to additional hospital assessments under the proposed market value assessment. Just to sum it up, it says: “The Ministry of Revenue has now provided information on current assessment values and municipal commercial tax rates for seven sample hospitals of similar size and type across Ontario. They inform us that the resultant tax calculation is approximately the same as any new tax formula budget paper E would produce.”

It goes on to list the figures that are given, and says there would be substantial increases in hospitals in St. Thomas, Elgin, McKellar/Thunder Bay, Sudbury General, Peterborough Civic, St. Mary’s/Kitchener, Chatham Public General and Queensway/Toronto.

Summing it up it says, “Assuming from this rough average of 2.5 per cent of budget values for all public hospitals in Ontario, this would mean total taxes of approximately $54.1 million, compared to the $2.4 million paid at present -- on the basis of the $50 per rated bed.”

That means there will be quite a tax increase to hospitals in the province. We have already got an impact from the Ministry of Health in the cut-back of grants to local hospitals. With the impact from this, you might as well close up all hospitals in the province if we were to accept market value assessment under these terms.

I know of other instances where the proposal is that we will be paying taxes on school property. No doubt this will have a serious impact on the separate schools which include up to grade 13; this will be an additional cost to the taxpayers in that school sector. The proposals tell us we’ll be paying taxes on public libraries. We’ll be paying taxes on fire halls. We’ll be paying taxes on municipal recreation centres and facilities of that nature and all parks. Hopefully the Treasurer is not suggesting revenue can be collected from a municipality at that level? I’ll tell you if this is the course the government is going to take, I’m sure it’s going to defeat the government when they bring in market value assessment.

As I said before, we agree there have to be some changes made in the assessment practices in the province of Ontario. There are inequities in certain municipalities. The fault lies with the Treasurer of the province of Ontario, who for a number of years had some control over municipalities related to assessment but did little to improve the quality of assessors and the quality of assessment practices throughout Ontario.

It’s not good enough to say we’re going to criticize this particular group of employees. They are good, they are conscientious personnel who want to do a good job and we ought to be thankful this particular group has provided measures to improve the quality of assessment practices themselves, with little help from the government of Ontario.

Perhaps this is an area in which the government has fallen or lagged behind in bringing equity and equality in assessment to the province of Ontario. This responsibility rests directly with the ministry, particularly the Treasurer.

He has not moved in a direction to see that all municipalities follow the same assessment manual. That’s all that’s required if we want market value assessment; each assessor, each municipality or region, must use the same assessment manual, which will apply some uniformity across the province of Ontario. If I were to stand here today, Mr. Speaker, and say I was all for market value assessment in 1978, I’m afraid there wouldn’t be many taxpayers in my area who would be too happy with my performance here in the Legislature. As example of the only information I’ve been able to obtain from the Treasurer and his assessment report relates to present assessed values and market value assessment for the town of Fort Erie. It says residential, based on residential public, is about $20 million now in the town of Fort Erie. Under market value assessment this would mean $147 million in separate schools. The present assessment is about $5.5 million, and under the new assessment practice it would be $42 million. You can see a substantial increase there.

What bothers me most is when we come to the area of recreational dwellings. Under the present assessment at which all property is being assessed, it amounts to about $5.5 million. It will increase, under market value, if I can follow the line, to $36.5 million; a substantial increase. Recreational land is presently being assessed at about $589,000. Under market value assessment, it will move up to $7.3 million. The provincial government will have some increase there. It will increase about twice, I guess, or 200 per cent. When we come back and look at the conservation authority, and then education; under the present public school system the assessment is $2.1 million. Under market value this will go up to $4.5 million.

It just goes to show you the shift in taxation that will occur if we accept the implementation of market value under these terms before we bring in tax reform policies. While I strongly object to the method of market value assessment, it is rather difficult under today’s terms to actually come to a firm conclusion on the effect of market value assessment. It is hard to define it under the present terms. I know the old assessment practice was based upon a willing buyer. You can look at about three areas you want to discuss when a piece of property is put on the market for sale. You can look at the market data, or sales approach; and this is what they are using now. Of course if you have a shortage of housing in the province of Ontario, as exists today, and there is a big demand for it, then certainly that is going to put up the price of housing.

You have the income approach, which relates to the rental factor. Again, if you have a shortage of housing in the province of Ontario, particularly in relation to rental units, that is going to increase the price of market value.

Finally, there is the cost approach. I don’t have to tell you about the cost approach today because that is also high. One of the reasons is there is a demand for housing.

There is no consideration, I think, from the information I have, of the inflationary costs of market value assessment. That is an area I hope your group of persons knowledgeable in assessment will take into consideration when they do bring in market value of assessment.

Again, I can relate it to the cost of serviced lots. I can relate to an instance in the town of Fort Erie where a housing development was going to take place. The prices of the lots after it was subdivided were going to be about $10,000 for a 50-foot lot. The developer would get about four and a half lots per acre, which would no doubt bring him a good source of income; but they were going to go into partnership with the Ontario Housing Corporation, and the minute they made their agreement with the Ontario Housing Corporation the land values increased; and the cost increased, to the person buying that land, by $3,300. I can tell you this, the assessors were in that area already reassessing all the property in that community because of the involvement of the government. They thought they could make another $3,300 on property too.

So, again, I look at the matter of market value assessment. I think we need to have a close look at it. We need to have the involvement of concerned citizens. They are going to be affected more by this type of legislation than anybody. Above all, municipalities should be well informed. Perhaps all the information they are going to get is just what I’ve read into the records here; block information, I guess the minister would call it, from one municipality to another.

But in reviewing the three assessments for the different municipalities, the town of Fort Erie, the township of Wainfleet and the city of Port Colborne, I find the average assessment will increase from the present assessment about eight and a half to 10 times what it was under the old rate of assessment. I suppose, when I look at it again, you say under the present suggestions the property tax market value assessment will be based at 50 per cent of the market value. That already gives about a 15 per cent increase over the previous assessment. Under the old assessment practices it was assessed at about one-third of the actual value of the selling price of the property back in 1969 or 1970.

[4:00]

It was always a good practice to use that principle; about 33⅓ per cent. It always gave guidelines, for a person who wanted to buy property, to relate to the assessment and multiply three or four times. That way you could pretty well come to what the value of the property was. But under these terms, when you say “a willing buyer,” there are about three areas you can relate it to. You can have a buyer; or you can have a person who wants to sell a piece of property, at his price. You can also have a property owner who says he’ll sell because he wants to move out because he has lost his job, he’ll sell it wherever he can get the best deal. Then you get another person who has to sell; he has no other choice, either he sells or he loses his investment. All these things should be taken into consideration.

I know from my own personal property what the replacement cost would be and it’s way out of proportion. That forces one to carry fire insurance for that risk, because I don’t know what the market value of lumber will be from one year to another.

Again, we relate our price of lumber to what it’s worth on the American market. Everything we seem to do here in Ontario is related to what a product will sell for in the United States. For some unknown reason, when it comes to buying a piece of property in Buffalo, you can buy property over there for less than you can in the province of Ontario. Whether that has any bearing on market assessment here or not, it does for replacement cost. Our products bought for homes is based upon what Americans will pay. Why the cost should be much higher in Ontario I don’t know. That is something the assessing department should perhaps be looking into.

Mr. Laughren: The Tories all speculate on land.

Mr. Haggerty: I think I covered where the provincial government was in the matter of land speculation. Again, I don’t want to get into that. We discussed that during the minister’s estimates.

But I can’t stand up in the House, and I don’t think my party would either, to support the implementation of market value assessment under these present terms unless we have a clear understanding what tax reform proposals are coming from the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs for the province of Ontario.

I think we have to take into consideration what the Edmonton commitment is going to be. You can rest assured if we were to accept market value assessment today, I don’t think there would be a property owner in Ontario who could afford to pay the taxes; it would be more than a regressive form of taxation.

I have an amendment from the NDP -- I don’t know if the member is going to put that forward today or not.

Mr. Swart: If we get into committee.

Mr. Haggerty: If it gets into committee. If the hon. member for Welland-Thorold moves that amendment we will not be supporting that amendment.

Mr. Warner: Too progressive.

Mr. Haggerty: I don’t have to tell the minister why but --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. member that the amendment is not before the House.

Mr. Laughren: Talk about your own alternative, Ray.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, I don’t know if it is coming forward or not, I don’t know that; but I was interested in the comments of the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk), I believe it is, the revenue critic for the NDP, I was interested in what he had to say about market value assessment. The member for London South (Mr. Walker) asked him: “Do you support market value assessment now”? The member for Brantford said, “Yes I do, as a matter of fact, but not as organized right now”. I don’t know what he meant by that comment, but he goes on to tell about the discrepancies that will take place in a municipality if market value assessment is implemented in 1978. He goes on to say there will be a shift and people with less income will be paying higher taxes because industry and corporations will begin getting a break. So if they bring forth that amendment, I can’t see why they would ever bring an amendment in like that when from their comments it is pretty well on record that they feel it is not the time, actually, to bring in market value assessment based upon all the problems there are under the existing proposals.

Even the member for Welland-Thorold suggested that last year in one of the debates. He is all in favour of market value assessment but not under the present terms. I leave the thought with the minister that they have some strong reservations about it. They give it to you in detail, and it can be found on page G-370 of the minister’s estimates debates on November 9.

Mr. Warner: You read it but don’t understand it.

Mr. Haggerty: We perfectly well understand it. We know what’s going on. You’re playing games with it, that’s what you’re doing; and political games at that.

Mr. Makarchuk: I am gratified to hear that you read my preface.

Mr. Haggerty: I’m afraid that if the member for Welland-Thorold had to go back into the Peninsula and tell the people, “I’m all for market value assessment and we want to implement it next year,” and then went on to say, “but we don’t agree with all these things here,” he would think twice about that amendment that he’s putting forward.

Mr. Laughren: Imagine being political in here.

Mr. Haggerty: I suppose I can when I get cross questioning from the members to my left.

If I can go back to the brief they submitted to the Blair commission and its sixth proposal dealing with taxation on public property: “Public property is to be subject to fair taxation. A good principle. We agree with the Treasurer when he asserts that ‘inclusion of all local property on the property tax base, means that local governments will be taxing their own facilities, such as schools and parks; but since the property tax is levied for upper tier and school board purposes as well as local municipal purposes, this broadened tax base will permit a fairer distribution of cost of revenues among local government units.’”

Well it’s pretty hard to go back and tell a municipality like Wainfleet, or some other rural municipality that had to close up its schools, for example, because some of them have moved into larger school areas, such as the cities or larger urban areas, and say, “We’re going to be taxing you for educating your children in that school.” That’s what he’s suggesting.

Mr. Laughren: Did Alf Stong write that speech?

Mr. Haggerty: I don’t think it is the proper area for taxation on municipal property at all, as it relates to municipal property. There are other areas that should be opened up for tax reform, and I think the municipalities should have a broader tax reform. Perhaps they should be looking for more levels of support through transitional grants from the provincial government, and in fact from the federal government when we relate to our comments to the Edmonton commitment.

Mr. Laughren: When are we getting the Liberal alternative?

Mr. Makarchuk: What’s your answer for it, Ray? What’s your solution?

Mr. Haggerty: You read my remarks in the minister’s estimates, it’s all there.

Mr. Makarchuk: All you talked about is some girl who couldn’t tell the difference between a nail or a screw or something.

Mr. Haggerty: No, it was a common nail and a finishing nail.

Mr. Makarchuk: I stand to be corrected.

Mr. Haggerty: I said the assessors have come very well forward today with good forms and a good quality of assessor for assessing property. I suggest to the minister that we do support the amendment and will look forward to market value assessment with full consultation and after a full dialogue with local municipalities and concerned citizens. I think that’s the most important thing. They’re not aware of what’s taking place and it would be an injustice to bring in market value assessment in 1978 under the existing proposals and with little knowledge of the actual tax reform policies the government wants to pass on to communities. That’s all the comments that I have, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swart: Until the member for Erie spoke, I had thought this bill was a rather simple and straightforward, and that my amendment fitted into that category; but I guess he has misunderstood the intent of what we are intending to do with this bill.

Mr. Laughren: You ask him what time it is, he tells you how to make a watch.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, of course the purpose of this bill, as the minister has correctly interpreted, is to freeze the present assessment system for another year; with one exception, and that of course is the change to provide that buildings which are built and not occupied will be eligible for assessment if they are over the $2,500 limit. I understand that the $2,500 applies to market value, not to the relatively low assessment under the present Assessment Act. I had hoped, perhaps, that the minister would assure us of that when she rose to speak on the bill.

There is no doubt, I’m sure, that the presentation of this bill is a very real embarrassment for the minister. It’s just another step in the commitment-postponement cycle. The Assessment Act clearly shows this. If we turn to section 86, we will see there the year-by-year postponement. The first is under section 86(a), where in 1974 the assessment was to be for real property as set forth in the assessment roll return for the year 1970. That wasn’t section 86(a) at that time, that was just all of section 86. Then they decided to postpone it again, and section 86(b) was put into the Act. Then they decided again to postpone it, so section 86(c) was put in the Act. Now we have section 86(d) proposed here in Bill 91. I suggest there’s a real possibility we may run out of the alphabet before we ever get to implementing a new form and a fairer form of assessment.

I say that that section of the Act, section 86, is a visual, chronological testimonial to the ineptness, the indecision and the waffling of this government.

Mr. Makarchuk: A bunch of wafflers.

Mr. Swart: Plus, I have to say that it’s not the minister’s fault. I realize that it is the Treasurer who makes these decisions, not this minister. In fact, I guess he makes the decisions pretty well for all the ministers on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: There is little doubt that these postponements have been at least partly, perhaps mainly, for political reasons. The first postponement was actually decided upon back in 1974. The minister at that time, who was the father of the present Consumer and Commercial Relations minister, said on October 18, 1973, in the House: “We anticipated completion of the valuation work by early 1973 for tax study purposes. The assessors would then update their assessment for introduction in the fall of 1974. It was estimated that up to 18 months would be required to study, develop and seek the approval of this House on meaningful property tax reform -- before local authorities set 1975 mill rates based upon the new 1974 assessments.”

I’m sure everyone in this House knows, not least of all the government, that when you bring in a new assessment program there are many changes. Many people pay more; some may pay less in their property taxes. But the government certainly decided at that time, with an election due in 1975, that it shouldn’t proceed with those changes. So they were postponed, actually until 1976. That was supposed to be a year after the government got its majority. Well of course it didn’t get re-elected with a majority, so in 1976 it brought in another postponement. In 1977 it is also bringing in another postponement. We certainly won’t have any change in the assessment system before 1978.

Mr. Makarchuk: Not before the next election, anyway.

[4:15]

Mr. Swart: Yes, there won’t be one then, you’re absolutely right. There will not be any change, I’m going to be mentioning that in just a moment or two.

First of all, though, I want to point out this delay makes a mockery of the restraint program. Back in 1969, the present Treasurer, and I’m right on this one, made the comment, when the province was taking over the assessment system, that the number of assessors would be increased by 50 per cent to bring assessment to what we consider the proper level, and would be maintained. Municipalities, at that time, were spending $15 million on assessment and by some rather simple computations we can determine that the actual cost of reassessment up to this date has been somewhere up to $50 million and $100 million; in fact it may be $100 million. I would ask the minister, in her comments, to tell us what the reassessment program has cost in the eight years since that time?

The Blair commission also made reference to the cost and the waste if there was further postponement when they said, and I’m quoting from the Blair report: “Market value data as of 1975 on every property in the province will be available for use in 1977 assessment rolls and therefore for tax application in 1978. A further postponement would obviously render the 1975 data of little value and much of the effort expended would have been in vain, a waste of the taxpayers’ money, by this postponement.”

The second point I want to make is the postponements, year after year, have damaged morale among the assessment commissioners and the assessors. I suggest in this House that if anybody has a doubt about this they should talk to the assessment commissioners throughout this province. The first thing they’d say when you ask them what they thought of a further postponement of the assessment would be, “Oh my God, another one.” Their morale has been very substantially lowered by this continual postponement of bringing in a new assessment system. Even Blair, in his report, commented on that. I would like to quote:

“These postponements must, we believe, have a seriously detrimental effect on the morale of the assessors. As was stated in our remarks on assessment, the professional competency he brings to bear, a dispassionate approach to his task, is all-important to the proper operation of a property tax system. It must be realized that the government must now keep assessment values up to date simultaneously for two assessment systems; the current one and market value. When seen in the light of some 3.5 million assessable properties, this is a mammoth task indeed.”

So we have Blair making the comment the morale of the assessors is being damaged by these continual postponements of something the government had assured them was very good, and perhaps almost perfect.

There is no doubt, too, the postponements continue inequities, first of all between properties in municipalities. I think my colleague from Waterloo will be giving information on his area which shows there is at least a 25 per cent differential on the taxes paid by property owners with identical homes, within one municipality now but which of course was amalgamated from four or five others.

Mr. Meen stated when he gave a speech to the Golden Mile Kiwanis Club back on October 20, 1976, on the subject of why we need market value assessment: “Of course, with the introduction of market value assessment all the inequities will be ironed out.”

Well that’s nonsense, of course. Sometimes we have some doubts as to whether there will be any fewer inequities under the system being proposed by this government than there are under the present system. Surely no one, Mr. Speaker, who had any knowledge at all of what is taking place would state all inequities would be ironed out.

The second continuation of inequities is between municipalities, because the government has frozen the system for eight years. We have had statements in this House to show at least one municipality is losing in the neighborhood of $8.5 million in grants because of the unequal assessment, or the unfair assessment, in their area and the refusal of this government to make a change in that assessment. I am going to go into what we propose in this bill in just a little more detail.

We will support this bill on second reading, because quite frankly there is no alternative. The policies and the machinery are not in place to make any changes. If we brought in market value, per se, without any percentages of assessments on residential properties, particularly single-family dwelling units, the inequities would be many times greater than they are at the present time. Because the government hasn’t done the job, there is no alternative but to postpone. In fact, the assessment roll has to be turned in, I think I am correct in saying on the third Tuesday in December. It’s perfectly obvious no major changes can be made ahead of that time. So we are forced into supporting this bill.

Secondly, the section with regard to picking up the additional assessments of completed buildings is something the assessors want, something which is legitimate and something which we support. I should say some assessors throughout the province, as the minister is likely aware, have picked up that extra assessment under the last clause of section 86, which provides for fairness in the assessment system. However, it is my understanding that in some areas they have not and so it is wise to have this section included.

It’s our considered opinion this is not the last postponement. As my colleague from Brantford has stated, this government is not going to have the courage to go ahead and bring in a new type of assessment before the next election is over. So we are going to have to postpone this again next year, because I don’t think the government is apt, again, to call an election to try to get a majority in the near future.

Under the bill as it stands at the present time the new assessment can be introduced, as perhaps is needed in the case of Waterloo; that option is open to the minister under section 97. I believe the minister mentioned in her introductory remarks they have the power to introduce the new assessment system in a locality or in a municipality. I suggest they should use that section to correct situations where there is a real injustice at the present time.

We think the extension of the present freeze can be made much more palatable, much more acceptable and much fairer, by an amendment which would permit section 71 to be operative. That is a section which requires the government to make an equalization.

I assume from the remarks of the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) that he feels that equalization would be based on the market value assessment, and therefore that he is opposed to it for that reason.

The section reads as follows: “The ministry shall examine the amounts of the assessments of rateable property in each municipality and locality on the last revised assessment role of each municipality and locality and determine as nearly as may be what the total amount of the assessment of such rateable property should be, so that costs may be apportioned and grants provided on a basis which is just and equitable as between municipalities and localities.”

I suggest to our colleagues on the right that that is a pretty broad statement. The government of this province, if that is made operative, would be able to set up regulations for some form of equalization which is not necessarily based on the new market value assessment. It could be based on almost any formula which they wanted, and would provide, as it states, “that costs may be apportioned and grants provided on a basis which is just and equitable as between municipalities and localities.”

I suggest that his is a perfectly reasonable amendment. The equalization factor has now been frozen for eight years. Everyone knows of the inequalities in the amount of grants municipalities receive and the proportion they pay to education costs, and to regional government or counties and other authorities which overlap municipal boundaries. I suggest that if we can make that clause once again operative, then we can make this freeze palatable and acceptable for another year, or another two years, or another three years, until whatever time there is a change made in the system.

We feel that before the final decision is made on changes in the Assessment Act or the white paper on the Blair commission, that there should be an all-party committee of the Legislature to deal with it. I don’t think it is unfair to say that on this issue it is not a matter of political policy as pertains to economics, as it is in many things we look at in this Legislature. I think there could be real value in having an all-party committee dealing with the recommendation of the Blair commission.

We say that because we think the logical and sensible steps haven’t been taken, that the government hasn’t had the courage to proceed, and probably will not have the courage to proceed in another year or another two years; and that we should take this step to try to make the present Act workable. We think it will be workable if the amendment we propose is accepted by this House.

Mr. Mancini: This is the third time you have repeated yourself.

Mr. Swart: I say very sincerely to our friends on the right, give serious consideration to it.

Mr. Blundy: I rise to support Bill 91, An Act to amend the Assessment Act. I do so because I believe that many people in the province are worried about what will happen when market value assessment is brought in. I meant to say in my remarks, but they have already been said by the member for Welland-Thorold, something about the unusual circumstances of the postponements on bringing in of the Act as they related to the elections that have been held in this province. Obviously the members of the government share the uncertainty and the indecision about market value assessment that I do and many other people in the province do.

[4:30]

There is one thing that I want to say: The hon. minister, in her initial remarks on this bill, repeated several times something to the effect that the government wanted to ensure that no group of taxpayers in the province of Ontario would suffer. She wanted to make sure there would be equality among the taxpayers of Ontario. If only those sentiments expressed by the minister were shared by the Treasurer of Ontario; I am living proof of what is happening, because I am being hurt by what is going on now.

We in the city of Sarnia, because we were forward-looking enough a number of years ago to update our assessment and bring it up to standards of that time, just prior to the takeover by the province of the Assessment Act, are now suffering. I might mention for the edification of the hon. minister that we are not alone in the problems that are now upon us. The city of Windsor is losing $8.5 million in 1977 grants from the province, that is under the equalization resource grants. The city of Sarnia is losing $1.9 million; the city of St. Catharines, $1.2 million; the city of Burlington, $1.2 million; the city of Sudbury, $1.2 million; the city of Kingston, $45,000; Woodstock, $323,000; Kitchener, $600,000.

The lack of transitional grants to these municipalities, in my case is going to put me in the position that I will be paying -- on the average the homeowners in the city of Sarnia will be paying -- $58 extra in 1978.

As I have said, we are very uncertain about what market value assessment is going to do. We are wary of it, but we who are willing to wait are somewhat in the position of hostages of the government. We are being held as a hostage in the hope that we will raise so much furor and trouble and complaint against the government that they will institute market value assessment right away and blame it on us.

We are not going to take the blame for it. It is the government that will have to take the blame for it when it comes. God knows if it doesn’t have a tax reform accompanying it we’ll all be in great difficulty. But there is no reason in the world why the province, through the Treasurer, could not make transitional grants to these municipalities that are being so seriously hurt.

I would like to read a very short paragraph that I think has a lot going for it. Just four weeks ago, the Treasurer of Ontario said; “A working partnership with local government, to weather what will be a very tough year ahead, is absolutely necessary.” I buy that statement. All I ask is he does look at us as partners on behalf of the people of Ontario whom we are all serving.

How can the minister say, as he has said in this House in reply to questions put to him, that there would be no relief to the municipalities who are so sorely hurt for 1977? When the question was put, “What about 1978?” he said it was too early to commit himself on that matter.

There is no question, the government is certainly being very unfair to my municipality and several other municipalities I have mentioned; and in the amounts I have mentioned in the case of each one. We know there is going to have to be tax reform. We know it is going to have to go hand in hand with market value assessment. We don’t want to be here today to demand market value assessment. I am here to demand relief until such time as the government is in a position to truly equalize the opportunities and the taxes of the people of this province.

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer reluctant support on the issue before us today. I say reluctant, because I, for one, do not feel the tax reform in the province of Ontario should be delayed any longer, even though I am aware of some of the problems that could develop with the implementation of market value assessment.

I offer my reluctant support because I am trying to get a trade-off with the minister. I happen to represent one of those cities in the region of Waterloo which is, in fact, trying to get market value assessment established immediately for the year 1978.

The reasons for doing so are well known to the minister, but for the benefit of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and for the benefit of others in this House, I would like to go back a little bit and relate why the municipalities in the region of Waterloo, and particularly the city of Cambridge, are trying to get market value assessment implemented as of 1978.

In 1973 the area was regionalized and became the regional municipality of Waterloo. At the same time the city of Galt, the town of Hespeler, the town of Preston, part of the township of North Dumfries and part of the township of Waterloo, were amalgamated to form what is now known as the city of Cambridge. One of the problems that occurred at that time was that though they realized they were going to amalgamate these communities and form a city, they did not take the time to equalize the tax structure in the various areas in order to assure that once it became a city that the taxes throughout the city would be equal. As a result, we found in the year 1976 approximately 1,800 homes, most of them in the area that had formerly been in the township of Waterloo, were overlevied for taxes. Approximately 300 of these homes were overlevied by anywhere from 20 per cent to 40 per cent. I would like to give you an example. There are two comparable residences located on the same court. One is levied for taxes on the basis of the old Hespeler assessment and the other on the basis of the township of Waterloo assessment. The 1976 taxes for 16 Tamarack Court were $755.80; 22 Tamarack Court, a comparable home, was taxed at $613.24, giving a differential of 24 per cent. The only difference between those two places was an imaginary line that happened to run between these two homes: the one home being in the former town of Hespeler, the other being in the former township of Waterloo.

The situation is so bad that the city of Cambridge treasurer, Mr. John McIntyre indicated that the entire tax system in the city of Cambridge was nothing but a mess. I’m sure the minister has been through the documentation on this because I understand she was presented with a brief by the Cambridge North Ratepayers Association, which outlines explicitly the problems that exist in the area.

I wrote to the minister on September 23, 1977, requesting that she take some action. This was following up the proposal put forward by the Cambridge North Ratepayers Association at a meeting that they had with the minister. I followed up action which the city of Cambridge, through their council, had attempted to initiate. I felt that by writing her a letter I could also add my support to try to get some of the injustices straightened out in that area.

I hadn’t received an answer by October 7, so I wrote the minister another letter. I indicated to her that some of the problems were probably greater than had been anticipated; that we were now finding people who were paying taxes from around $1,089 a year to approximately $2,000. I have not received an answer to that letter either.

The problem got so great that the people started posting on their front lawns the amount of taxes that were being paid on the various homes in the area. They were told that they were violating the law, either provincial or municipal; that they couldn’t post their taxes in front of their houses; that the only thing they could post were for sale signs and various other election signs and things like that. So being the imaginative group that they are, they went out and got for sale signs and they put up, “Will you care to buy this home? The taxes are only so much per year.” What they were trying to do was to draw attention to the fact that in their area they were being highly overtaxed.

Some action started to take place. In a letter sent out by the chairman of the region, Mr. Jack Young, to the mayors of the various communities, he pointed out that he had met the minister, along with the mayors, and he wanted this letter to go before the councils. Apparently the minister had told him, and I think it was very nice of her to do so, that if the region could present substantial unanimity on the part of all the area councils and regional councils that she would go to bat for us with the cabinet. Now that’s the way Mr. Young has put it in his letter. I understand the minister has gone to bat; I am not at all sure whether she hit a home run or not, but I would like to think so.

Mr. Foulds: A foul bunt down the third base line.

Mr. Epp: She struck out with Darcy.

Mr. Davidson: The people up there certainly are in dire straits when it comes to the form of taxation that they have; so much so that unanimity was achieved.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to read all of these, but with your indulgence, I would like to put on the record a letter from Mr. Jack Young, the chairman of the region, to the minister. It says: “I enclose an extract of regional council minutes of November 10, 1977, which will confirm the support of council for the unanimous stance taken by our area municipalities with respect to the above mentioned proposals.” That is from the regional council.

We have a letter dated October 31, 1977 from the corporation of the city of Cambridge, under the name of A. L. Habermehl, the city clerk; a letter dated November 8, 1977, from the city of Kitchener under the name of R. W. Pritchard, city clerk; a letter of November 8, 1977 from the township of North Dumfries, a Mr. Jim Butt, clerk-treasurer; a letter from Waterloo, Ontario, under the name of L. J. Ayers, deputy city clerk; a letter from the corporation of the township of Wellesley, under the name of Gordon Ludington the clerk-treasurer; the corporation of the township of Wilmot, under the name of Grant Swartzentruber, the clerk-administrator; and a letter from the township of Woolwich, under the name of Gordon Cooper, the clerk-administrator; all of which request the Minister of Revenue to implement market value assessment in the year 1978.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to support the bill before us, because it seems rather strange that I’m supporting a bill saving we should extend the freeze on the implementation of market value assessment, and at the same time am urging the minister to heed the requests of municipalities within the region of Waterloo and, if you’re able, introduce market value assessment as of 1978.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt just for a second, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, P. M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1978, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 29, 1977.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to become involved on second reading debate?

Mr. Epp: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As indicated earlier by several speakers what Bill 91 does is postpone market value assessment for another year. There have been a number of postponements. Both my colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy), have alluded to this postponement. It’s quite obvious the government really doesn’t know what it’s doing about the whole matter.

We’ve had three full reviews since 1944-45 or a little later, since Mr. Frost became Premier. Thirty years or so, and every time there are postponements despite the fact that during most of the years the government has had a majority government. They’ve always shied away from serious reform. Obviously, as indicated earlier, they are shying away from it again. They really don’t want to bite the bullet.

One of the things the government hasn’t done formally, but has done continually over the last 34 years, is have a ministry of procrastination. They haven’t formed that ministry, but they certainly practice its art a great deal. This is evident again today with the postponement of market value assessment. It’s probably good for the municipalities that they have decided to postpone it, because as is obvious to everyone they certainly haven’t given the municipalities the data they’ve requested, which they very much should have received.

For instance, the minister has indicated and acknowledged the fact they have some computerized data that would break down, block by block, the kind of assessment contemplated. If this were given to the municipalities, they could evaluate what market value assessment would do in a more intelligent manner. Some of the municipalities have this broad data; others haven’t received it. It’s very cumbersome for them to come here and to receive it, to go down to the Ministry of Revenue and copy it out. The minister has indicated it’s not valuable to them; but a number of municipalities which have it feel it is valuable, therefore why should a decision be made here it’s not valuable to municipalities? Why should this decision be made here when in fact those who have received it feel it is valuable?

The other point I’d like to make is that some regional municipalities, as the member for Cambridge indicated, have requested market value assessment. I’m afraid one of the reasons they’ve requested it is they don’t have all the data. I’m not so sure if they had the data they would be as keen to request it. The reason they’ve asked for it is because a number of problems have developed in the region over the last five years and those problems only became evident after regionalization came in 1973. There was no demand, there was no request for market value assessment prior to introduction of regional government in 1973.

As indicated by my colleague, Sarnia, Windsor, St. Catharines, Burlington and many other municipalities feel they have been short-changed through the resource equalization grant; and as also indicated earlier, they feel somewhat like hostages, like Mr. Marion from Quebec who was a hostage for some 81 days or something. In the case of municipalities, it’s been since about 1973; they’ve been held hostage for hundreds of days by the present government which chooses to ignore their pleas for additional money.

This could be resolved easily by the government if they chose to give them transitional grants. They could do that if they chose to do so. Instead, they’ve chosen to permit the municipalities to lose millions of dollars, and let other municipalities which are getting the resource equalization grants subsidize them. Now we notice, of course, that some of the municipalities have gained a great deal from the resource equalization grant, cities such as London. I don’t know whether there’s any coincidence between that and some of the other political factors evident in the province -- representatives from London have had a considerable amount of influence on the government in the past -- or whether it’s strictly accidental. I guess I’ll let the public decide.

It’s obvious the minister has condoned the delay in letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing. Some kind of reform is going to have to be brought in, some property tax reform, and after much procrastination the government is going to have to come to grips with this. One of the aspects that hasn’t been touched on today is the fact a lot of municipalities want to have an interim payment early in January. I was told this morning by one municipality that due to this delay in bringing in this bill and letting the municipalities know what is going to happen, whether or not they’re going to have market value assessment, they’re going to lose thousands of dollars next year because they won’t be able to bring in their interim payment as quickly as they originally did. Last year they brought it in, I think, on January 10. They were able to gain the interim tax levies from the taxpayers at an earlier date than will be possible this year. This is a municipality of about 50,000. If this applies to all the municipalities which get their money early through interim payments in taxes, and to cities the size of Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Ottawa and others, they can save the taxpayers thousands of dollars. They can save this money if they’re very conscious of the money they get early and invest it in short-term investments and also use it to make their day to day payments. By bringing this bill in at this late date thousands of dollars will be lost by the municipalities of Ontario. The municipalities must start organizing at this point to get their interim payments. The bill isn’t through yet and we don’t know how much longer it will take to get the bill through. I don’t think this is fair.

I wish the minister, in her comments, would address herself to why there has been this delay in bringing in Bill 91 and why there has been a delay in letting the municipalities know what is happening. I wish she would also address herself to the point raised by myself and others with respect to bringing in transitional payments to municipalities such as Windsor, which is losing millions of dollars this year, Sarnia and other municipalities in the province.

I wish she would also address herself to the point I raised on at least one previous occasion: Municipalities would like the raw computerized data with respect to market value assessment. I for one, and this party, and the people of Ontario, can’t make an intelligent, rational decision on how market value will affect them until this data is disseminated to all the 835 municipalities in Ontario.

Ms. Bryden: As previous speakers have pointed out, this bill is the third postponement of market value assessment. One wonders if the government will ever find the right time, politically speaking, to bring in the reform of our assessment base.

In addition to the cost of the various assessments carried out, and the various deadlines which have been attempted and missed, there is also the cost of a number of tax appeals which various taxpayers have been able to win successfully against the government due to the present inadequate assessment system. I don’t know whether the minister can give any estimate of how much has been lost through that avenue during the period of uncertainty about the revision which has not come into effect.

When the move to market value assessment was first proposed, the NDP urged the government to make sure an adequate study was done of the likely effect on different classes of taxpayers, in order to determine whether there was going to be a shift of substance of the tax burden from business and commercial taxpayers to residential taxpayers. We urged the government to study methods of offsetting any such substantial shifts.

They do not appear to have produced a satisfactory solution to this problem. They appear to be floundering in their efforts to find such a solution and prevent such substantial shifts. So, since this has not been done there is very little we can do but support this postponement. I would hope the government would use the next year to produce a more detailed plan for preventing radical shifts between business and commercial taxpayers and residential taxpayers and between groups of residential taxpayers, some of whom are more affected by inflation than others.

[5:00]

I want to speak to section 1, subsection 2, which declares that any erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement to property costing in excess of $2,500 in value shall be subject to assessment and taxation next year, which, as the minister pointed out, closes a loophole. I suggest that in bringing in this clause, the minister might consider an amendment which would add an exception to this clause, stating that any home modification made to enable a handicapped person to lead an independent life in his own home should be exempt from assessment and taxation next year and for all future years.

Many handicapped people have to be institutionalized at a cost of $15,000 to $20,000 a year to the province, if they are not assisted with the cost of home modifications to enable them to stay in their own home. Just by way of example, I would like to draw the minister’s attention to a family in my own riding. The Van Santen family has an average size home, quite adequate for the four members if they were all fully mobile, but 15-year-old Chris has cerebral palsy and must operate from a wheelchair. He cannot go up or down stairs and his father can no longer carry him.

Recently the family spent $20,000 to add a ground floor bedroom for Chris. It has a special bathroom attached, with the door wide enough for a wheelchair, and a shower and basin designed for Chris’s special needs. In addition they installed a back porch with a lift built on to it, so that Chris can move from his room to the street and the outdoor world on his own.

The family has appealed to provincial and municipal officials for exemption from extra assessment based on the modifications. They argue that families with a handicapped member have extra heavy expenses which others do not have. Moreover, they contend that the changes in the house may not add anything to the market value of the house since the special equipment is not likely to be needed by very many purchasers. So far they have received no promise of relief, although the government puts advertisements in the newspapers boasting about all the services it is providing for the handicapped. But, when one reads the fine print, one finds that home modifications --

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind the hon. member, that while she makes a good point she is talking about something that isn’t in the bill rather than a principle that is in the bill. Perhaps it may be more appropriate if she pursued this in clause by clause by way of amendment, rather than dealing with something that actually isn’t a part of the bill.

Ms. Bryden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was just suggesting an amendment the minister might bring in herself if I could persuade her. However, your point is well taken. I think it is a question of assessment of changes in the value of property which is covered by the section that I cite. I would just like to say that the minister can make a real contribution towards enabling handicapped people to escape from dependency, and to operate on their own, if she would consider an amendment of this sort.

Mr. Mancini: I rise to support Bill 91. The postponements of this market value assessment are starting to become a joke here at Queen’s Park and in many council chambers across this province. We all know why the minister, and why the government across the floor, have decided not to proceed with market value assessment. It doesn’t have anything to do with the effect it will have on the taxpayers of this province. The only reason we have this bill before us is because the government has 58 members instead of 64.

We also know why the ministry and the government do not want to proceed with market value assessment, because they have informed us of the kind of tax reform they would like to initiate after they have had market value assessment forced on the people of the province. We know they are considering taxing all public buildings, charitable institutions, golf courses and many other things I could name now.

We have brought this subject up in debates previous to this and I wonder, when my colleague, the member for Waterloo North, asks questions concerning factual information his municipalities or other municipalities across the province would like concerning market value assessment, why the information has not been given? I have been here, I have listened to the answers of the minister, yet everyone is in a state of confusion.

Many of the people finding it very difficult to pay their property taxes now are worried. The senior citizens are worried because they might be forced to sell their homes, which they worked all their lives to buy and maintain. And when is the minister going to stop these postponements? When is she going to try to initiate tax reform without market value assessment? When is she going to take steps to help cities like Windsor and its surrounding area, places like Sarnia, which have been detrimentally affected by her government’s policy?

These are straightforward questions I put to the minister and I hope she addresses herself to them in her response.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise reluctantly to support this bill. Reluctantly, I suppose, because for the past four years I have been a part of that declining morale in the assessment division, to which my colleague from Welland-Thorold referred. I do though understand the government’s need to postpone this market value reassessment yet again. They have not come fully to terms with the recommendations of the Blair commission and as a result are not prepared, or have not laid the base on which the reassessment will be implemented.

I would like to say though simply postponing the reassessment once again is not good enough. For us in this House -- the government side, the party to my right, and my own party -- it is not good enough to say the government, for political reasons, has postponed the reassessment a number of times. It is probably very true the political reasons, the minority government situation, played a large part in the government’s decision. By the same token, both parties on this side of the House are here today supporting the postponement as well.

Everybody, for whatever reason, seems to be afraid of the implementation of this reassessment and the political consequences. That should say something to all of us about the whole program of market value reassessment. It says something very serious to me, and I say to the minister it should be quite obvious from the debate today even the legislators in this House don’t fully understand what the reassessment is about, don’t understand what the consequences of its implementation will be and don’t understand what the consequences of its postponement are. If it’s not clear that the legislators here in this House understand those things, municipal politicians right across this province are in the same boat, they don’t understand -- it isn’t clear to them what the consequences are, either way.

Even more so the public most certainly doesn’t fully understand. Members of the public who have complained about their assessments under the current system over the past seven or eight years have been told, with some degree of accuracy, by assessors: “We’re sorry about the inequities you feel are in your current assessment, but there is nothing we can do about those inequities at present. But we feel honestly, that your problem will be resolved under the market value reassessment.” Some of those people are looking forward to that market value reassessment, but they still don’t understand it.

Even with that, the large majority of the public are afraid of the consequences. They’re already upset about the level of property taxes they pay. They don’t understand how market value reassessment is going to affect their relationship with their neighbours and other neighbourhoods in their community and the rest of the region, if they happen to live in a region. If all of these things aren’t very clear to the minister, they’re certainly clear to the members of her staff who work in the assessment function and who I see here today.

In 1970 this government took over the assessment function for the entire province. It embarked upon a province-wide uniform market value reassessment. The reasons why the government took on this project were obvious and well stated. The current assessment system was found to be riddled with inequities, within a municipality, between properties, between neighbourhoods and between municipalities.

The assessment levels in municipalities ranged from very low percentages of actual market value to almost full market value, in some instances. This caused problems in the grant structure in amalgamated municipalities and in regions. The trends in the real estate market over the past 20 years had caused considerable disparity between the residential, commercial, industrial and farm sectors. The lack of consideration in the current assessment system of the age and condition of older homes over the years with each new home that was built caused a considerable disparity between old homes and new homes.

All these factors and many, many more led the government to decide that the problems of inequities, inequalities and imbalances in the assessment system could only be dealt with through a complete province-wide uniform market value reassessment. Those were all serious problems in 1969. The government’s initiative to deal with those problems was an admirable one.

At the outset of this program, the current assessments were frozen province-wide and the inequities were all locked in. Unfortunately, they were only locked in from downward mobility. With each year that’s passed since 1970, the inequities in the current system have grown. They didn’t freeze them from becoming worse.

The situation has become so bad in a number of municipalities across this province that we have seen, and we are seeing, municipality after municipality demanding that the market value reassessment be implemented -- demanded in many cases, by citizens and by councils who don’t fully understand the import and the consequences in terms of the tax shifts, hardships and so on the reassessment could cause in their area. They are demanding this implementation because of what has become in their area, their municipality, or their location, a situation under the current assessment system which is so ridiculous, and so outrageous they can’t put up with it any longer.

[5:15]

Market value reassessment was begun in 1970 with the intention of implementing it in 1974 for taxes in 1975. The province was reassessed at a 1972 market value level in a fairly uniform fashion, although there were some minor differences in practice and application of ministry policies across the province. I think it’s fair to say however to a large degree the reassessment at 1972 market value was done in a fairly uniform fashion at a reasonably acceptable variance from actual market value.

The subsequent postponements meant that eventually the assessment branch had to update 1972 market value to 1975 market value. To accomplish this a number of different methods were used. In the case of residential properties the assessments were updated from 1972 to 1975 by a market factor. That means some of the individuality of the assessment done for the 1972 market value was lost.

At this point the problem isn’t severe, but it is a factor. I think in the majority of cases commercial properties were reassessed at 1975 market value, based on income. I think, although I didn’t work on any of it, some industrial properties were as well. For the most part industrial properties were updated from 1972 cost values to 1975 cost values. In the case of farms, the buildings were updated by a factor, and the land was reassessed at 1975 market value.

Although it is not severe and is still acceptable at this point, we’ve got creeping into this new system, this market value system, a number of small inequities before we have even had a chance to try it.

My colleague from Welland-Thorold read the minister a quote earlier from the report of the Blair commission saying if those 1975 market values weren’t implemented virtually immediately they would have no value. I don’t think it’s quite as bad as the Blair commission has stated but it is almost a unanimous consensus throughout the assessment branch that if the market value reassessment is delayed beyond 1979 those values will be useless and the entire job will have to be redone from scratch. All of the past 10 years will go down the drain and the frustration will be much greater in the division itself, I suppose.

None of us even know at this point what the reassessment will mean in terms of overall equity and tax shifts. No one is quite sure at this point whether the market value assessment approach is the answer to the problems in the property tax sector. Even in its best form market value assessment has not been fully explained to the public. Already we have postponed it long enough so those inequities are starting to creep into the system.

As a result of all of this, I feel a number of things have to happen in addition to this postponement. This government has to be prepared to do something now to deal with the problems faced in the municipalities with the just horrendous number of inequities that exist in the current assessment system. My colleague from Welland-Thorold talked about some of them. The members to my right have talked about others. But there are literally hundreds and thousands of them that have to be dealt with. If the government is not going to take responsibility for implementing tax reform, then the government is going to have to be prepared to deal now with the problems the municipalities and the taxpayers in those municipalities are facing.

We’ve heard a lot of talk here today about this whole question of the public’s view of market value reassessment and the fact the government and, generally speaking, this Legislature have shied away from implementing it because of political reasons. After 10 years there is no point in running away any longer. There is no point in this postponement if we’re not going to be in a better position next year than we are this year.

This Legislature should be very clear, and the minister should understand fully, unless the public, the municipal politicians, and the members of this Legislature are far, far better acquainted with market value assessment and the Blair commission, or whatever other tax recommendations are going to be implemented by this government, we’ll be going through the same thing next year. Everybody will be reluctant and it’s quite possible we’ll go through the same thing next year anyway, because of the election or lack of it.

The Ministry of Revenue assessment division should be getting out the market value data to the municipalities and to the taxpayers, property by property, with both the old and new assessment on them. It’s easy to say, and I’ve heard the comment from assessors, assessment commissioners and even some of the minister’s senior staff, if the ministry puts the market value data out to everybody they’ll scream. Obviously if it goes out it’s got to go out in conjunction with a campaign on the part of the ministry to discuss it with the people in this province. But there is no sense in letting the whole project go down the drain because the minister has to postpone it again next year.

Put out the market value data. Let the municipalities establish what the 1978 mill rate would have to be to cover them based on the market value assessment. Let them apply that mill rate against individual assessments. Let the homeowners have a look at the taxes they would have had to pay. Let everybody get involved in the discussion and let the ministry play a positive role in terms of talking to the people of this province about what that reform means.

Let us use that method to decide now whether we should scrap this project altogether and start looking for other alternatives or whether we should go ahead with this project. But let us not keep our heads in the sand. Let us not push this project off and off and off, at the same time ignoring all inequities in the current system and allowing them to go undealt with because we’re promising everybody they’ll be dealt with when we do a reassessment.

It has gone on long enough. It’s time we and the ministry did something positive to see the public and everyone concerned in this whole process is apprised exactly in hard facts and dollars and cents, what this reassessment is all about, so we can finally come to some conclusion.

There’s no point in having to go through another five or six years of another reassessment if we’re going to end up going through this same process again.

Mr. Foulds: Very good. Very fine speech.

Mr. Ruston: I suppose a person could talk for an hour on assessment, but since we’re dealing with only the delaying of market value assessment in Bill 91 I’ll try not to wander off the bill.

There are a number of things involved in market value assessment and are the reason many people are concerned. In one of the townships in which I was involved, putting in market value assessment probably would be a major catastrophe, because it has about 17 warehouses of Hiram Walker and, of course, stores liquid refreshments that many people buy. I suppose the market value of one of those warehouses is not necessarily that great to many willing buyers and willing sellers. What could be in that case, is the tax structure could really increase in the residential and farming area.

Just a few years ago the Treasurer lowered the assessment for liquor industry, where the business assessment was 150 per cent, to 140 per cent. In that township alone it meant $24,000 more spread out over the residential taxes and farm taxes. That is alleviated to some extent in the farming area, of course, because of the province’s 50 per cent of grant for farm purposes.

But I wanted to speak with regard to the equalization resource grant in the city of Windsor, since it neighbours on my riding. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman), who cannot be here today, I’m sure would want to speak on this matter, because he has been involved in it for some time. From the reports we see in the paper, and from the people in Windsor and their officials who have done a study on this, it would appear that they are about $8 million short of provincial grants for the city of Windsor. That is really a major catastrophe. Windsor tried to keep up on its assessment a number of years ago.

Essex was one of the first counties in Ontario to go on a county-wide assessment and then, of course, it wasn’t long after that the province took over the whole thing. But we did have inequities, probably much more so when we had each municipality doing their own assessing. We felt that when the county took over, it did right some of the wrongs that previously had been there.

But before we bring in market-value assessment, there has to be a reassessment of costs, programs and provincial government sharing programs with the municipalities. Probably there should be a real look at whether education taxes should be on the municipal taxes at all, or whether there should be a step to have them removed from the municipal tax burden. Over the past 10 years our party, of course, has recommended that at least 80 per cent of the cost of education be borne by the province.

Mr. Foulds: Are we on the principle of this bill Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Ruston: Of course that varies in some areas even today, because of certain assessment rates and so forth.

The whole structure of paying for services to people, services to property is something that should be given a thorough examination before we can bring in market value assessment. One has to consider all of them in the total package. It’s going to have to be done because otherwise it could be a real major problem in many municipalities.

Mr. Bounsall: I rise specifically to talk about that area of the bill which most detrimentally affects the city of Windsor. They really started several years ago to realize that the resource equalization formula was working to the strict disadvantage of Windsor. They’ve lost considerable amounts of tax money. Now, having in the last several months done their calculations very carefully, it amounts to $8 million.

Just a short time ago it occurred to them there may be other communities in the same situation as Windsor. They reached out to the nearest one of any industrial size, Sarnia, and found in fact Sarnia was in the same position. Since then they have found 18 other communities in the province of Ontario, none nearly as badly off as the city of Windsor in total amounts of money lost, that are disadvantaged because of the continued freezing of section 71 of this Act.

[5:30]

This section has been frozen now for eight years, and its effect upon Windsor is now quite profound. I hope the representatives from all of those 20 municipalities affected by this continued freezing of section 71, of which Windsor is the most affected, would take careful notice of the amendment that will be introduced by the member for Welland-Thorold. This is on section 3 of this bill, referring to section 71 of the Act, which deals with the equalization factors and proposes to have that, “ ... be not in force and remains inoperative until the 1st day of January, 1979.” This amendment would change 1979 to 1978, and require the ministry to cause resource equalization to take place. We’re not talking about market value assessment equalization by that amendment causing section 71 to become operative.

The problem that Windsor and 19 other communities are facing would be met starting this January. It’s become very critical for the city of Windsor, the taxpayers of Windsor, that that type of equalization take place now. I’m sure the member for Sarnia now appreciates the amendment will be put forward by the member for Welland-Thorold. We will receive support on that amendment to ensure that equalization allowed for -- it’s quite a broad section, under section 71 of the Act -- now starts to take effect as of this coming January. Thus the $8 million worth of inequity, as it affects Windsor, and the other inequities in 19 other communities across this province, must be dealt with starting January 1978.

The members for Welland-Thorold and Hamilton Mountain certainly did a fine job in their remarks in dealing with the bill in total but this is the section which is very critical to the city of Windsor. This is the amendment which will remove that inequity and allow that resource equalization to take place, where we’re no longer disadvantaged. This section is absolutely key in this bill and I recommend to all members of the House that they support the amendment to change the date from 1979 to 1978 so equalization and equality must take place across this province and that no community be in this severely disadvantaged situation.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, I would hope that the House would join me in welcoming the former member for Algoma, Mr. Bernt Gilbertson, who is in the gallery.

Mr. Warner: I think we deserve some explanation from the Minister of Revenue, particularly in the light of the statement made by the Treasurer today regarding the boundary changes for Metro Toronto that flow from the Robarts commission report. The minister is well aware that much of the thrust of that report hinged upon the market value assessment; it hinged upon the Blair commission recommendations. Are we now to just pitch the whole report; put it on a shelf somewhere; forget the $1.1 million spent on that exercise? What the minister has created with this delaying tactic is a great deal of confusion for two and a half million people in Metro Toronto.

The Treasurer stood today in the House and said the government of Ontario was not going to change the boundaries of the area municipalities in Metro Toronto. Fair enough. There are certainly lots of logical reasons why the boundaries should not be changed. But he doesn’t have anything to put in its place. That of course was the most serious part of the whole Robarts report. It identified the economic problems and said that a way to handle the problems was to change the boundaries. The Treasurer says we are not going to change the boundaries but we don’t have anything else to put in its place.

The report at the same time said that not all of the answers to the economic problems could be found until we knew what the province was going to do with market value assessment. I think the minister owes -- not just to myself obviously, but to the two and a half million people in Metro Toronto -- some answer to the confusion she’s a part of now. The Treasurer began the confusion this afternoon and she’s now adding to it.

I think we need some answers, and pretty fast, because otherwise it would appear that we are not going to salvage the good parts from the Robarts report -- and there are a lot of good parts to that report. But the thing is that report is just going to sit on the shelf and collect dust unless we get some clear answers both from the Minister of Revenue on market value assessment and from the Treasurer as to his alternatives to not moving boundaries around. Because those small boroughs of York and East York in particular are desperate for some answers to the financial problems and at this point neither the Treasurer nor the Minister of Revenue is supplying the answers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other member who wishes to participate in this debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank members for their full participation in the debate of this important bill. I appreciate the concerns they have expressed to me today. I want to reassure them they have been duly noted and will be considered during the deliberations of the government as to the future directions and policies concerning the introduction of market value assessment.

I would also like to reassure members that there will be the fullest consultation and dialogue over the introduction of market value assessment. It will be very much a part of the introduction of this important adjustment and improvement to our municipal system. This dialogue will be carried very directly to the individual taxpayers who will have an opportunity to bring up their questions and discuss their requirements and their tax bills with experts who will be on the scene to serve them.

I detect what I can only describe as a morbid fascination by the members as to the introduction of market value assessment. It’s as if they are in the position of the spectators who are watching a man on a high wire, wondering whether or not he may fall or whether he’ll make it. I suspect that there’s a similar fascination with the progress of market value assessment as it proceeds through the hands of this government.

I would like to reassure members that there is no doubt in my mind as to the outcome.

Mr. Reid: We are watching a woman on a tightrope, not a man.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: That may be even more interesting.

As to the remarks from the various members, I certainly appreciated the remarks from the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) who reviewed and expressed his concern about possible tax shifts from industrial assessment to residential, and noted what he thought might be an impact upon hospitals and separate schools under market value assessment.

He did note that the differences in interpretation of assessment manuals were the Treasurer’s responsibility. I think though that this is the whole point and the whole thrust of market value assessment -- that we are going to get a uniform application.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) touched on a couple of things. In the first instance, I want to confirm to that member that assessment values placed upon new construction most definitely come under market value.

I still noted that he didn’t declare whether or not he would bring in his amendment, but he did say he supported the bill on second reading. I thank him for that.

Mr. Haggerty: He is going to.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: The member for Cambridge (Mr. Davidson) gave us a lengthy description of the Cambridge experience. His description, as I understand it, is factual. I think he has caught the fact that I have been as concerned as the members in that area for what is happening to that municipality. I have been most deeply involved with the development of the local municipal policy and expect to be able to respond to it in due course.

Concerning the remarks of the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), I would remind that member that a considerable amount of data has already been provided to the municipalities. Really and truly there is no point in providing block by block computer data to the municipalities without having it refined to a very considerable degree -- unless it is just that members want to satisfy their own personal curiosity about individual assessments on residences. That can be provided if the member is concerned.

Mr. Epp: Toronto got it, and they appreciate having it.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: No, they did not. You are confusing what it is that the city of Toronto asked for and received.

On his remarks concerning delay on putting out interim bills in January, in all fairness I have to say to the member that had this bill been debated last Tuesday, as we wished, there wouldn’t even be a possibility -- it wouldn’t even be part of his remarks today. But his own House leader indicated that his party was not prepared to proceed at that time.

However, I would reassure the member that any municipality which has put out an interim tax bill in the past can certainly proceed to put out an interim tax bill as soon as 1978 is with us for at least 50 per cent of the previous year’s tax bill. There is nothing to prevent a municipality from raising money in that way.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) departed just a little bit from the principle of the bill when she called for “a special assessment or relief for persons who require modifications to their dwellings to accommodate handicapped persons.” She raised this matter with me during the estimates debate for the Ministry of Revenue and I indicated to her at that time my comprehension and sympathy for the point that she was making.

As Minister of Government Services I was responsible for a great many of the modifications now used by handicapped persons in public buildings in this province and in this Queen’s Park complex. I heard her very well during the debate on estimates, and I heard her again today, and I will remember.

[5:45]

The member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) stressed a lack of comprehension by legislators, municipalities, the public. I have to say I don’t concur. I believe a great group of people in the public sector do understand market assessment very well and understand its implications and its impact. They have taken the time and trouble to inform themselves and know full well what is involved with the introduction of market value assessment.

Mr. Warner: He worked there. He knows more about this.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I simply can’t concur with his statement and I would suggest the very fact some of his own statements were equivocal may be a reflection of his own confusion.

Mr. Swart: He knows more about this than anyone else in this House by far.

Mr. Warner: Forgot more than you could learn.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, to conclude, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) referred to the fact I had said earlier no group of taxpayers in Ontario would suffer. I would reiterate in my closing remarks I will not introduce market value assessment in Ontario until I am satisfied it will not work a hardship on the taxpayers of Ontario --

Mr. Blundy: What about the hardships now?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: -- and will not create a disruption to local municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved the order be discharged and Bill 49, An Act respecting Municipal Elections, be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, would it not be in order at this time to ask for an explanation for the reason of the withdrawal? Or can we anticipate there will be a statement by the Treasurer in the House?

Mr. Ashe: If I may, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening, I’m sorry to have awakened him, the eighth order was the calling of Bill 49 which, as I’m sure the hon. member is quite aware, the government replaced with Bill 98.

Mr. Ruston: My gosh, wake up, Mel.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moved second reading of Bill 88, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I doubt I’ll finish it by 6 o’clock.

This bill, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, is the first legislative step in this phase of our tax simplification program. I say this phase because tax simplification is by its nature an ongoing, revolutionary process.

The basic objective of the tax simplification program is to make compliance with and administration of the statutes as straightforward a process as possible. If we, as a Ministry of Revenue, expect taxpayers and tax agents to comply with requests for returns, remittances and highly confidential information as we do then the onus is on the ministry to provide a sufficient level of service so the taxpayer knows and readily understands his rights and obligations. There are several steps in the provision of this service.

The first step in giving effective service is to provide sufficient information so the taxpayer knows his obligations and his rights. This information must be clear, concise and easily understood. The vast majority of our taxpayers are not experts in law or finance and have no access to that kind of expertise other than through my ministry. We are, in effect, the basic tax advisory service for 75 per cent of the business in Ontario.

The second requirement of good service is accessibility. If a taxpayer has a question or a complaint, he needs to contact the right person at the time he has the problem. He should not be subjected to the old runaround, being shunted from office to office or being told to fill out yet another form. He needs and has a right to receive an answer immediately.

A similar situation should prevail when our assessments are being questioned. Tax disputes should be resolved quickly and fairly. One cannot offer to listen to a taxpayer and then make it impossible for him to be heard through the din of bureaucratic machinations.

The third element is the elimination of as much red tape as possible. Tax administration should not revolve around the processing of paper, it has to revolve around the taxpayer. However, I am well aware some such processing cannot be avoided, given the complexities of most legislation as well as of human nature. Nevertheless, I believe paper should be kept to a minimum, forms should be simple and clear, and the bulk of the work should be placed upon us rather than upon the taxpayer.

Mindful of the elements of good service, and the needs of those with whom we do business, Mr. Speaker, my ministry has taken action on three main fronts. First of all, we have completely reorganized our tax bulletin program. We have adopted a new format which is easier to read, with an emphasis on clarity of language, timeliness and facts. Every attempt has been made to eliminate jargon without losing the substance of the message.

In the case of the corporations tax, we have changed to a series of bulletins which cover general information, technical interpretations and procedures. The new format of our bulletins appears to have been well received, judging by letters and comments which have come into our office.

Our next development on this front has been the provision of a binding advance ruling service for corporate taxpayers. Since April, information on how to obtain a binding advance ruling from my ministry on a specific transaction has been available to corporations. This new service is designed to deal primarily with cases in which Ontario’s tax differs from Ottawa’s.

I am pleased that in setting this new procedure in place we have managed to hold red tape to a minimum. In formulating the advance ruling service, my ministry was assisted for the first time by our new tax advisory committee. As I have already reported to this House, Mr. Speaker, the contribution of the committee and its individual members has been enormous and I look forward to further fruitful consultation with its members.

Much has been said recently concerning the need for tax simplification. For example, it has become a major issue for the United States federal administration. I would like to take this opportunity to recommit my ministry to the objective of tax simplification.

We have taken major steps on the procedural front, as I have already pointed out. However, there are limits as to how much can be achieved through procedural change. Eventually, the statutes themselves must be examined. This is necessarily a slow and deliberate process for a number of reasons.

Governments in general, including the government of Ontario, are relying increasingly on various tax policies as a way of achieving social and economic policy objectives.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, with regressive taxes.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: These goals are achieved in a number of ways -- differentiated rates, inclusions in the tax base, exclusions from the base --

Mr. Laughren: Reverse.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: -- write-offs at various rates, and special allowances for actions within a certain time frame. But all of these, by their very definition, add complexity to the statute involved.

Procedural change is one solution to the problem of tax simplification, and I have already outlined some of our steps in that direction. The other is legislative overhaul.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Corporation Tax Act closely follows the Income Tax Act of Canada. The exceptions relate to matters concerning the tax policy of the Ontario government.

Since 1972, there have been at least five major amendment bills by the federal government to the Income Tax Act. Even though Ontario paralleled more than 95 per cent of these changes as they affected corporations, it was still necessary for Ontario to produce large amendment bills to give effect to the parallels. You will gain some idea of the extent of the changes when I tell you since 1972 these various amendment bills have given effect to over 1,000 amendments.

As was pointed out at the recent conference of the Canadian Tax Foundation here in Toronto, constant changes in the statutes, particularly the Income Tax Act of Canada, are a source of continuing problems for the taxpaying community. Similar volumes of change in the Ontario Corporations Tax Act only serve to aggravate the situation.

The bill we have before us today contains, among other items, provisions to correct this situation. In the future Ontario will automatically tie into the Income Tax Act of Canada unless the government chooses to differ.

There are several benefits to this approach. First, there is certainty. Taxpayers will know that where the law is supposed to be the same, it will be the same. Second, all intended differences between provincial and federal law will be highlighted. Thirdly, the number of legislative amendments required should be drastically reduced.

The end result will be a reduction in bulk in the statute and an increased comprehension of the statute. Consequently, I think a significant increase in ease of compliance with, and administration of, the statute will follow.

This bill contains two other major amendments to the Act, aside from the general simplification procedures.

This bill contains provisions to give effect to the tax aspects concerning venture investment corporations. Venture investment corporations, or VICs, were first proposed in 1974 as a means of encouraging the accumulation of venture capital to finance high risk or emerging small businesses.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for the individual entrepreneur is access to adequate reasonable cost financing. By offering a tax deferral we hope to encourage the large corporations to finance smaller ones, while at the same time ensuring that the large corporations do not control the small ones.

Briefly a venture investment corporation is one registered under the Venture Investment Corporation Registration Act, which was approved by this Legislature in the last session. This Act provides the terms under which a company may be registered as a VIC. Some of the characteristics of a VIC are as follows:

A majority of the directors must be resident Canadians;

The objects of the corporation must require that its sole purpose is to assist small business development through the provision of financing and business and managerial expertise;

Within the first two years of operation the VIC must have 80 per cent of its assets invested in small business;

Ninety per cent of the assets of the small business must be in Ontario;

The VIC cannot hold more than 40 per cent of the equity shares of the small business.

All investments by a VIC must be at arm’s length of its shareholders, officers and directors.

Originally it was our hope that the federal government would join Ontario in this effort to assist small business. While it is sympathetic, the federal government is not prepared to join the proposal, therefore Ontario must provide the necessary tax incentives alone. This bill provides the tax provisions necessary to make the VIC concept operate.

Under the provisions of this bill, a corporation investing in a registered venture investment corporation will be permitted to deduct 250 per cent of its investment from its taxable income, with provision to carry any unused deduction forward against future income. I hasten to point out that this method operates as a tax deferral, not a permanent deduction.

When the shares of the VIC are sold, or the VIC ceases operation for any other reason, 250 per cent of the proceeds of the sale must be included in the investor’s income in that year. Any profit on the original investment will be taxed in the hands of the corporate investor as capital gains. Capital losses will not be allowed, since the total original tax deferral will not be recovered in a lost situation. Venture investment corporations themselves will be subject to the Corporations Tax Act at regular rates, as well as the paid up capital tax.

In this way we hope to encourage the formation of venture capital pools to assist our small business community, a community which forms a vital thread in the social and economic fabric of Ontario.

This bill also contains several significant administrative changes to the Corporations Tax Act, which are in tune with the general theme of tax simplification. These are designed to reduce pointless duplication of effort by the taxpayer and to remove certain rigidities in the appeal procedure.

In line with the proposal to tie-in with federal income tax provisions wherever possible, corporations may settle their objections to Ontario reassessments, based on federal reassessment at the same time and on the same basis as they settle their federal objections. This new procedure will eliminate the filing of duplicate tax forms and will reduce time spent in negotiating with each of two tax jurisdictions on the same issues.

In addition, extensions of time for filing notices of objections and notices of appeals will be available in extenuating circumstances. Some corporations have previously lost their right to object to or appeal Ontario reassessments because, due to circumstances beyond their control, they have missed the deadline for filing formal notices of their intention to object or to appeal --

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister find an appropriate place to interrupt her remarks? You have a page and a half?

Mr. Laughren: It is too late now.

Mr. Foulds: Carry on.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed that she be allowed to complete it?

Agreed.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Thank you.

And, in future, corporations will no longer be required to post security for the cost of appeal.

Mr. Roy: Great stuff for your dinner.

Mr. Foulds: It may be indigestible afterwards.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Finally, Mr. Speaker, the period for which lien clearances must be obtained where real estate is being sold will be reduced to five years. This period will remain constant in the future so the need to periodically update this provision will be eliminated.

This bill is the first legislative step in our tax simplification program. Indeed, it is the first undertaking of its kind in any tax jurisdiction in Canada. As such, it is the product of months of research, review and consultation.

I think it is gratifying to know that this bill has been very well received in the tax community, both as a desirable administrative policy and as a technically sound bill. Indications are that the federal government has already received the bill positively, and is satisfied as to the technicalities of the bill.

I hope to be able to apply a similar approach to other complex statutes; specifically, I believe we should simplify the Succession Duty Act and the Retail Sales Tax Act.

In conclusion, I believe that this Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972, represents a significant step forward in the tax simplification process. It will make it easier for both the administration and, more importantly, the taxpayer to fulfil our respective obligations. I am sure that all members of this Legislature will wish to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t push your luck.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House for unanimous consent to revert to motions -- a short motion?

Agreed.

MOTION

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moved that the supplementary estimates of the Office of the Assembly be referred to the standing general government committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The first speaker at 8 o’clock will be the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.