The House resumed at 8:02 p.m.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not have any statement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I did give a statement when I introduced this bill. It’s straightforward, and I think, members will understand the import of it. It changes section 505 of the Municipal Act, which was put in to allow a phasing-in of market value reassessment to occur in an area of the province.

It has been looked upon as a vehicle to allow a municipality to phase in, if it has had a section 86 reassessment. Upon close scrutiny it does not lend itself to the desires and wishes of municipalities that have had a section 86 reassessment and may wish to bring in a bylaw to allow phasing-in. It does not have the flexibility to allow that; therefore, we are suggesting an amended version which will have that flexibility.

For those who have not had an opportunity to read the bill, perhaps I could run quickly through some of the distinct changes of this section from the section at present in the Municipal Act. First of all, it removes the responsibility of the minister to give his consent for a municipality to have a phase-in bylaw. Next, it removes the requirement, if a bylaw is to be enacted, that it must be for all the classes of property. It allows a municipality in the bylaw to define the classes of properties -- for example, single-family residential, small business, et cetera -- where the phasing-in arrangements may occur. In other words, different classes of property may be treated differently under the bylaw; there may be different minimum figures. Although the minimum figures in this piece of legislation are $50 or 10 per cent of the preceding year’s taxes on that property, whichever is greater, the municipality may change those amounts and increase them as it wishes in its bylaw. In other words, there is a greater degree of flexibility as to the kind of phasing-in bylaw that may occur.

Also under this amendment the municipality may finance the phasing-in procedure in one of two ways. It may phase in those whose taxes will go up because of the reassessment by limiting the decreases of those whose taxes would go down so they would phase in over the same number of years as the increases in taxation. Or it may allow the decreases to go to their full level in the first year and phase in the increases of those who would pay more taxes, up to a limit of a five-year period, by assessing as a general levy over the whole municipality the amount necessitated by having a phasing-in mechanism.

There is also a provision in the bill which stipulates that at least 20 per cent of the amount of the preceding year must be reduced in each year in the phasing-in process. In other words, the bylaws passed by a municipality must provide that at the end of the five-year period the increase or the decrease -- whichever plan the municipality is using -- has completely taken place. In other words, if the taxes go up $1,000, at the end of the five-year period the property so affected will be paying in the sixth year the complete increase that the section 86 reassessment brought about.

The importance of that section, of course, is that it would prevent a municipality from completely forgiving an increase for a period of years or forgiving an increase in a very small way so that the problem was still there at the end of the phase-in period. Of course, that would completely obviate the whole section 86 reassessment program and the equities it was bringing to that municipality. In fact, that would suggest to me that if that’s what a municipality wanted to do it would probably have been better advised not to get into a section 86 reassessment, or we might also say it could be shifting the responsibility to another council at some other time which would have the responsibility when the phase-in period ended.

The other section in this act is one we have removed from one of the other sections of the Municipal Act, from section 636a, which allows a municipality under special circumstances to reduce, refund or forgive the taxes for a variety of reasons under that section, also including at the present time reassessment. We have taken that reassessment provision out of section 636a of the Municipal Act and brought up into this act a provision that would allow a council by bylaw, under special circumstances for an individual property, to provide in a given year for a cancellation, refund or reduction of the taxes because of the increase attributable to reassessment that amount which exceeds $50.

The other point I could make is that this amendment makes it clear that business taxes are eligible for bylaws under this section. We believe they were under the original section 505, but some people who looked at the section interpreted it differently. This amendment makes it very clear that business taxes also can be treated in the same manner as the property tax in this section and are eligible for a phasing-in bylaw. That I think is the gist of this bill.

The principle of the bill is to allow a municipality, through a bylaw, to effect a phasing-in procedure for those taxes which have either gone up or gone down under a section 86 reassessment. There have been 14 such reassessments in this last year.

The city of Hamilton, which had a section 86 reassessment, is particularly anxious to bring in a phase-in bylaw. The quicker we can pass this bill the better it will be for Hamilton because they need the flexibility that will be afforded under this amended bill to carry out the phasing-in procedures which they have decided upon and which will be beneficial to the people of Hamilton.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to speak to Bill 115, An Act to amend the Municipal Act, which clearly deals with section 505 of that act.

I appreciate that the minister is anxious to have this bill passed. As I understand it, the city of Hamilton is losing about $6,300 a day by the delay in sending out its tax notices and thereby receiving money from its various property owners. In other words, they have to borrow this amount of money and pay interest on those funds.

Because we appreciate the urgency of the matter and agree with the principle of Bill 115 we will support it, but not without first indicating that an amendment will be made when we get into committee of the whole House.

I appreciate the fact we have before us enabling legislation. In other words Hamilton or any other municipality may or may not adopt it. Thirteen -- the minister now says 14, maybe Hamilton is the 14th municipality.

Fourteen municipalities are taking advantage of the application of section 86 of the Assessment Act which permits them to equalize assessments within classes of property owners. Six of those 14 municipalities are in my own region of Waterloo.

I agree that where major discrepancies exist, as they have in Cambridge, Kitchener, Hamilton, and other municipalities, a cognizance should be taken and remedies applied. These are what the present Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs obviously are trying to do. But they are not enough. What we now need are amendments to section 505 of the Municipal Act, and some of these amendments the minister has alluded to.

Until now, for instance, in order to have a change in assessment and he able to phase in these things a municipality had to seek permission from the minister responsible. We’re pleased to see that greater autonomy is being given to the municipalities. In other words, the minister is not only saying he intends to give greater autonomy to municipalities but in fact is doing so, as reflected in this bill by deletion of the section under which municipalities had to apply to the minister to get permission to apply section 505.

[8:15]

If increases are more than $50 they must he subsidized and the money may be obtained from the same class of property owners or from general revenue. Municipalities may even raise the taxes by more than $50 or the $50 limit or a higher figure. This increase may only qualify for assistance if it exceeds 10 per cent of the total amount. I cannot argue or disagree with this particular provision.

We particularly feel, however, that the five-year provision, which permits municipalities only five years in which to phase it in, is too short. I don’t want to argue with the fact many municipalities may want to phase it in over a one, two or three-year period. I don’t know any that has asked for anything beyond five years, but we on this side of the House, believe municipalities should have the prerogative of phasing in those increases or decreases, over a longer period than five years if they wish. We are suggesting this period be 10 years. Obviously, at some time in the future municipalities will take advantage of it if this House concurs with that amendment. Municipalities will take advantage of that particular section I’m sure.

As I indicated at the outset of my remarks, we will he supporting this bill in principle.

Hopefully, we’ll get the concurrence and support of the House in placing before it the amendment I will be introducing in committee of the whole House.

Mr. Isaacs: It’s a sad day when I rise to speak on this bill.

Mr. Pope: Oh, play the fiddle.

Mr. Isaacs: The whole matter of property tax reform has been before us for 10 years and we’ve come to this meagre bill which allows municipalities some very limited provisions to phase in a reassessment program. It is a parody of what reassessment should be all about, and a parody of what a tax system should be all about.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to remind the minister of just two sentences that were spoken in November of last year in this House by the former occupant of this seat -- I guess he didn’t occupy this seat, he occupied a seat down there, but my predecessor representing the riding of Wentworth.

Mr. Foulds: A fine representative he was, if I may say so.

Mr. Isaacs: He certainly was. That member, in a debate on November 2, 1978 said, and I quote:

“We are having, even now, a transfer of responsibility and in some measure, I suppose, a changing of the whole property tax system. The unfortunate part is that it is no more equitable when it finishes than when it was started.”

That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves today. We have a tax system which is no more equitable now for residents of the city of Hamilton, or for 13 other municipalities, than it was when the whole business of section 86 reassessments were started under the leadership, the guidance if you like, of this government.

I know the minister is very sensitive about whether it was a municipal decision or whether it was a government decision to permit this to happen. I don’t intend to go through the whole background of the promises the government has made with regard to property tax reform. They go way beyond the Blair commission. They go back way beyond the white paper. They go back way beyond the technical committees that have studied and studied this thing.

I want to remind the minister that his predecessor, the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. McKeough, promised many times that we would see an end to the joke we have now and a beginning to some kind of real property tax reform we could address ourselves to and express our views about.

The consultation the minister indicated happened in regard to section 86 reassessment and with regard to the provisions before us in the bill tonight, I also believe to be a travesty of the system.

I want to remind the minister that it’s not that long ago that I was a council member in a municipality that was also approached by representatives of the Ministry of Revenue. Those representatives consulted with the council of the town of Stoney Creek concerning a section 86 reassessment in that municipality. I suspect that consultation was very similar to the consultation that took place in the city of Hamilton when they opted for a section 86 reassessment.

I want to tell the minister that that is not consultation. To take just one example, the town of Stoney Creek has a situation where there are two different assessment bases because it was formed by the merger of two municipalities. When, as a member of that council, I asked the representatives of the Ministry of Revenue what the impact would be on the property taxpayers of the two halves of the municipality, they told me they could not and would not give me that information until the council had voted for a section 86 reassessment, a vote that is irrevocable. I want to suggest to the minister that to pretend that consultation takes place and to pretend that local councils know what they are doing when they get themselves into this situation is just not the way it is.

To return more specifically to the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure you’d be happy to have me do, there is a suggestion from the minister that it permits autonomy, or at least some degree of autonomy, to the municipalities to deal with the problems that have been brought about by a section 86 reassessment. Those problems are very serious. We have a situation in the city of Hamilton where the assessment on a multiple-family home as a percentage of market value is nearly double the assessment on a single-family home as a percentage of the same market value. To pretend that what we have has anything to do with market value assessment is really just not fair to the taxpayers of that city or of any other municipality that is involved in this program.

I received from my colleague, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), a letter which he had received from one of his constituents, a Mr. Reizgys. In that letter the constituent writes: “I am in strong opposition to the proposal in its present form now before Hamilton city council to phase in equalized assessment. It discriminates against the less fortunate living in multiple dwellings who cannot afford single-family homes or higher rents, by giving the full benefit of any reduction to single-family homes and duplexes immediately, while reductions on multiple-unit residences larger than duplexes, on which taxes went down more than 20 per cent, are to be phased in and, undoubtedly, would result in unfair rents to tenants.”

That’s the situation we have for just one class of property dwellers in the city of Hamilton. The same thing applies in slightly different ways to residents and occupants in all classes of property. Phase-in is the only way to go to get us out of the mess we’re in in the short term. But I would hope that the minister -- and he is a relatively new minister in a portfolio that holds some promise -- will give us a commitment tonight that proper property tax reform will see the light of day and will be implemented in this province before he leaves his present post as minister, because I really think it’s that important, and he might not have too much time left.

Mr. Nixon: Time is running out.

Mr. Isaacs: Judging by the votes in Wentworth riding not too long ago in that part of the riding that is most seriously affected by property tax assessment, his party and his government don’t have too much support for the things they are doing.

The joke that is before us to permit municipalities to deal with this situation as they see fit really can’t be let stand as it is. We have in this bill a detailed proposal as to how a municipality should phase in property tax problems that are caused by section 86 reassessments. The minister may say, and probably will say, there is flexibility in the bill. In fact, by the way the guidelines are laid down and by the way the percentages are specified, particularly in the latter part of the bill, we are telling municipalities what they should do about phase-in, and yet the government is not providing them with any financial assistance to get them over this very difficult period.

The legalese, the verbiage contained in this bill to me is incredible. I particularly draw members’ attention to paragraph (b) of subsection (4) in section 1 of the bill. If the general public were to read that and try to interpret what is going on -- “greater and lesser percentages or both,” et cetera -- it really is tying down municipalities in a way I find totally unacceptable.

Because the city of Hamilton needs these provisions desperately, as the minister and my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) have indicated, we are going to support the bill on second reading. But the bill is not specifically for the city of Hamilton in 1979. It is a general bill which may remain on the books for a long time to come, If the Ministry of Revenue continues to encourage, directly or indirectly, municipalities to involve themselves in this mess, then we need a bill which doesn’t just deal with the Hamilton situation but which deals with situations that may arise a long time in the future.

We in this party believe in municipal autonomy. We believe there are certain things local government should be involved in and certain things the provincial government should be involved in. This bill blurs that distinction quite incredibly. Therefore in committee stage we are going to be moving amendments which remove the strictures this bill places on municipalities. They will say to municipalities in the clearest possible language: “Section 86 is your responsibility and phase-in of section 86 problems is your responsibility, go about it however you like.” Those four amendments I have already transmitted to the minister. In a sense they form a package, though any one of them could stand by itself.

While we will support the bill on second reading and while we will take a good look at it during committee stage, we want to assure the minister now that because of the long-term implications of this bill, because it ties down municipalities in a way we find totally unacceptable, our support of this bill on third reading will be conditional on passage of our amendments at committee stage.

We are not at all happy to be here this evening dealing with this matter. We are not at all happy the tax problems in Ontario have degenerated to this kind of thing. In addition to agreeing with our amendment, we hope we will get a commitment from the minister tonight that the phase-in programs that are implemented now by the city of Hamilton as a result of this bill, and perhaps by other municipalities, are only a temporary thing. We hope he will give a commitment that all municipalities can be promised that tax reform will be a very high priority for his ministry, and for the ministry of his colleague the Minister of Revenue, and that we can get in place a tax system for the property taxpayers in Ontario that is equitable, fair and long standing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: I am very glad the honourable member for Wentworth expressed his views on this bill, since I recall participating in some minor degree in the by-election campaign that resulted in his election.

Mr. Cooke: Your work produced this result.

Mr. Nixon: One can describe his comments with any adjective one chooses, however we have gone through the congratulations to the honourable member.

[8:30]

I do recall that the matter he referred to in his remarks just concluded were very much an issue in the by-election. The matter was raised here in the House and on the hustings in Wentworth about the commercial premises on Centennial Parkway. Some of the more glaring statistics were brought to the attention of the Minister of Revenue at the time, but not to that of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. They were certainly startling, the results of these changes would mean. I think it was the well-known Volkswagen dealer in the area who ended up by paying the largest commercial assessment for a car dealership in Canada. It was far larger, for example, than the taxes paid by a similar dealership here in Metropolitan Toronto, which brings it home to the honourable minister. I sometimes think that his interest and purview doesn’t extend much beyond the interests of the Metropolitan chairman. That may be incorrect, but his lackadaisical approach to the so-called intergovernmental problems of the municipalities sometimes makes me wonder.

However, my colleague, the member for Waterloo North, has indicated that we will support the bill in principle. He indicated that we to have an amendment, which we hope will be accepted by the House, which in many specific ways will even ease the transition more than the amendment put forward by the minister. As a matter of fact, it will just double the easing; but we’ll get to that when we’re in committee.

I do believe that it is certainly an important improvement that the decision is left to the municipalities whether or not to avail themselves of the usefulness of this amendment. I think that it should be so, rather than on application to the minister. I believe the decision should be with the municipality. I was interested in how the stretch-out of the change would be paid for. Obviously, if it’s going to be paid for locally, which I believe it will be and in fact must be, then paying for this stretch-out is simply going to mean an increase in the overall taxes of all the taxpayers. Something that concerns me under the provisions of this bill, although I haven’t discussed it in detail with my colleague who is our official spokesman in this connection, is that the municipality may in its wisdom allocate the additional costs on one class of taxpayer rather than on another.

I suppose if we have confidence in the wisdom of the elected municipal officials -- which of course we do, I’m sure everybody does -- then I suppose the justification for that change lies in that confidence.

There is a mailer that perhaps might be raised in committee, but I thought that I should raise it now. The bill will apply to all municipalities that avail themselves of a section 86 rationalization and not just Hamilton. There is a very progressive municipality in my constituency, the township of Burford, which has been undergoing a section 86 reassessment. I think it has been reasonably successful, so much so, that some rural municipalities and some mixed urban-rural municipalities in the area surrounding Burford have been watching with a great deal of interest as to how the changing taxes will be applied in Burford

In one instance, there is a matter I brought to the attention of the minister by letter. Under the postal system administered by Joe Clark it probably hasn’t reached him yet.

Mr. Ashe: It will get better soon.

Mr. Nixon: I thought I would mention it and I’m the first to mention it. It may be mentioned during, let’s say, the next 14 months until we return to normalcy.

I did want to indicate that when some of these municipalities are examining the section 86 alternatives, they feel they are not in possession of all of the facts that would assist them in making that decision. I am far from an expert in this, as well as many other subjects, but I am told that an application for section 86 reassessment should be in the hands of the ministry by the end of June for the upcoming round of reassessment. The officials in some of these municipalities, who are observing with interest the example established in the municipality of Burford, are saying that the ministry through its computer capability is prepared to deliver to these municipalities new taxation equalization factors, particularly in regionalized areas such as the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. Unfortunately, this additional information is not available until July.

It is very difficult to communicate the view of the local council by the end of June on a decision which in many respects is based on information which would not normally be available until the following month.

I say again, that I am anything but a professional in these matters. It really is more esoteric than neurosurgery or even the finer points of the law -- and we have an expert in both those areas in one large corporate body who, as he indicates with his upraised hands, is sterile in all respects.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can certainly help you get that way in a hurry.

Mr. Nixon: Not all respects, not all respects.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: An easy little operation.

Mr. Nixon: I thought it would probably be a suitable time, with your concurrence Mr. Speaker, to bring this small problem, this anomaly, to the attention of the minister. Certainly the principle, the intent of this bill, is to make the section 86 changes as palatable to the local taxpayers as possible. It would be a small extension of this principle, in my view, for the minister to at least give consideration to the problem I have tried to express to him. Along with my colleague who has spoken, and the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs), I think that the whole matter of municipal tax reform and rationalization has been chaotic since assessment was brought under the control of the provincial authorities back in 1971. We expressed our substantial opposition to that concept at the time, and I would say to you that our predictions, which I am sure the minister will recall, have been certainly borne out in the events of the subsequent years. But I agree this bill goes only a very small step toward providing a very mild amelioration to the taxpayers who are subjected to the rather wrenching changes that the application of section 86 imposed upon them.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can help me. After listening to the previous speech, which stretched from the post office to neurosurgery, I wonder if it would be in order to speak about property taxes and property tax reform in Hamilton.

Mr. Nixon: Are you criticizing the Speaker in his role of keeping the order of his House?

Mr. M. N. Davison: No, no; I just thought it was a remarkable contribution to the debate.

The need for this kind of legislation is another fine reason and another example of why the Conservatives don’t have a single seat in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, and let me tell you --

Mr. Nixon: Your presence will probably correct that in the future.

Mr. M. N. Davison: -- that Bill 115 is not going to sweep them to power in Hamilton Centre. But that is okay, don’t worry, the Liberal position is twice as bad, going from five years to 10 years.

The question that occurs to one in looking at this bill is how on earth did we ever get here. The government has been talking about property tax reform since at least 1967 in the current round; and look at the studies, look at the money they have spent on it. To name just a few of them, for the edification of people who may one day read this debate, I am sure all members recall the report of the Ontario committee on taxation, 1967, the Smith committee; the report of the select committee of the Legislature on the report of the Ontario committee on taxation, 1968, the White committee; the report of the committee on farm assessment and taxation, 1969; the report of the committee on golf course assessment and taxation, 1972; and the report of an intergovernmental working group on real property tax exemptions, 1974; not to mention the most recent report of the commission on the reform of property taxation in Ontario. The government has studied it and studied it and studied it, and still we have come to this.

In every election since the early 1960s, and no doubt a long time before that, members of this House have talked about the need for property tax reform. In every municipal election I can remember, politicians of all stripes have talked about the need for property tax reform, and still the government fuddles about. It has studied it and restudied it; and then has postponed it and forced situations like the one it is trying to correct, or has to try to correct this evening with this bill. Ever since I’ve been in this House, and longer, the government has failed, on the question of property tax reform, to accept any new ideas, and the minister has lacked initiative of his own.

The member for Wentworth talked about the former member from that fine riding. I can recall, I think it was in November of last year, when Ian Deans put forward a private member’s resolution in this House that would have brought about some kind of real property tax reform in Ontario. What happened? The government members blocked it from coming to a vote so we in the Legislature could express our will on that issue.

In this particular case of the problem we are having in Hamilton, the government has tried to play both sides of the issue. The Premier (Mr. Davis) was sent off to Hamilton at the end of March, and he went on about his willingness to agree to a phase-in if only the city of Hamilton would come, cap in hand, to the provincial government. It was a phase-in without any provincial money. The city came, and then we waited and waited. Every Wednesday afternoon the citizens of Hamilton and the politicians in Hamilton sat with their ear to the radio to find out whether or not the cabinet had finally decided to let the city bring in some sort of phase-in program. Finally, they are getting Bill 115.

The problem we have in Hamilton is a very real problem; the solution the government has put forward is, frankly, anything but real. It is at best only temporary. The bill we have before us, Bill 115, must be amended tonight if it is going to deal with the problems, particularly those in Hamilton. We are going to support it because we want to see some sort of solution over the short term; ideally the best kind of solution we can find over the short term for those problems in Hamilton. With that in mind and for purposes of debate so the New Democratic Party can propose amendments that will patch this up as best we can, we are going to be supporting it so we can get into committee.

The government, though, must understand that no matter what the results of the debate and vote tonight, this issue is not going to go away. It is not going to disappear in Hamilton or in any other community in this province. The government must bring itself to institute some sort of rational property tax reform system. The government’s course is nothing short of foolhardy, and I suggest to the minister it is one he is going to have to alter in the near future.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to speak on the principle of this bill, I guess largely to echo what was said by the member for Wentworth: that this bill in itself is rather an innocuous bill; it is a bill which will slightly improve the situation which exists now. Looking at it in the whole perspective of what has taken place in the last 10 years in the assessment field and the property tax field, it is quite frankly a pitiful bill. It is a testimony, I say, to a government that has been wholly inept in this area. In fact I would go even a little further; it is a testimony to a government that has to some degree been cowardly in proceeding with necessary tax reform in this province.

In fact, this bill is almost the final link in the complete cycle. Back in 1969, when the then Treasurer -- or Municipal Affairs Minister as it was at that time -- the honourable Darcy McKeough, introduced the Assessment Act that was going to bring in market value assessment and total tax reform, he said it was part of the package that was going to provide equality in taxation in this province.

[8:45]

I would like to quote what Darcy McKeough said when he introduced that bill away back on June 25, 1969: “This particular bill constitutes the most significant revision of the Assessment Act since 1904 ... The revised Assessment Act is one of the two major steps that are essential in order to achieve a sound and thorough reform of assessment in Ontario. The other step is the transfer of the assessment function from the municipalities to the province, a changeover that is due to go into full effect next January 1. Together, these two actions are designed to establish the cornerstone of the reform of our system and structure of local government.”

Ten years later the tax reform has been killed in total, or almost in total -- I would say “in total” is not an unfair terminology. Under this bill and under the bill we had last fall, even the responsibility for the assessment system -- perhaps we could put it another way and say the blame for it -- is being turned back to the municipalities.

There is no question that there has been something of a struggle between the municipalities and the Ontario government with regard to responsibility for the assessment program. Changes in assessment have never been popular. When the government said it was taking over the assessment system in 1969, the majority of the municipalities and municipal associations said they were in support of that -- not all of them; some of them had some regrets -- because they could see that they were moving some of the responsibility and the blame on to the provincial government. They recalled reassessment programs that had taken place in their counties and municipalities and had been terribly unpopular. Half the people or the two thirds of the people who get a reduction think that’s great, but the one third or the one half who get an increase make a lot of noise about it and are very unhappy; it’s a rather unpopular thing to do.

The majority of municipalities were rather happy to see that go to the province. The province, under the Hon. Darcy McKeough, took that on with some enthusiasm. But that enthusiasm waned and, of course, the announcement was made last year that it would be abandoned. The municipalities were very unhappy about that at that time, and rightly so, because reforms were needed and proposals were being made for those reforms. Now they are finding that not only are no major tax reforms being made in the assessment system, but the blame is also being shifted back to them.

Under this bill the municipalities are going to have the responsibility of determining whether or not the assessment changes and the tax changes are going to be phased in. But the bill we had last fall determined, as does the policy of the government, that the municipality must request this or there are no changes. The total responsibility has been shifted back to the municipality. If changes are made in the assessment system now, they are only made at the request of the local municipality. Regardless of the injustices that there may be, the changes are made at the request of the local municipality and the phasing-in that goes along with it has to be made at the request of the local municipality.

I say to the government that the main reason this has been done is for political expedience; it gets the blame off the government. But it doesn’t solve the basic problem with regard to assessment and the injustices that remain. I may say that this party had some courage last fall in proposing to the government that it should proceed with the tax reform system. We expressed a willingness to work that out with the government, but the government didn’t have the courage --

Hon. Mr. Wells: After you knew for sure we wouldn’t go ahead.

Mr. Swart: We proposed that when the government was still vacillating last fall. The minister hadn’t told us at that time he was abandoning it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What’s your position today, Mel?

Mr. Swart: We will support this bill as a Band-Aid approach to do something to heal the system we have at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And you have the solution.

Mr. Swart: But to us it is a poor, weak and cowardly alternative to the kind of tax reform we need in this province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You have the solution?

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to this amendment to the Municipal Act and Bill 115.

I noted in the explanatory notes of the act this will put some of the onus on the municipalities to set their own tax rate as it relates to re-evaluation of property tax if they apply section 86 of the Assessment Act.

I remember well that when section 86 was discussed here last year I said there would be a number of difficulties that would arise in a municipality that was applying section 86 of the Assessment Act. I said the minister at the time would have to bring in other amendments to other acts to reduce the large increase in taxes on certain properties that would have increased substantially though section 86 of the Assessment Act.

I can well recall the position put forward, not only by myself but by other members, that the government is at fault for not bringing forth market value reassessment in the province much earlier. We had disapproved of the measures whereby the government had frozen the assessment for a period of almost 10 years.

I still don't think this is going to remove the inequities that exist within a municipality. Anybody who has had municipal experience will no doubt acknowledge the serious problems there are with any reassessment that takes places in a municipality. There are a certain number of inequities. It has been expressed in different reports, for instance the Smith report on taxation back in 1965, and it has continued right up until this day. There are inequities in assessment in municipalities and I don’t think this legislation changing section 505 is actually going to remove any of the inequity that is there.

The municipality may say they’ll spread it out over a period of five years so there will not be that serious an impact from the substantial increase in taxes that may amount to $100 or $150 a year. Perhaps it can be spread out over a period of 50 years. But a five-year period is when reassessment should take place again within a municipality to pick up new inequities that may come about. I’m sure anybody in the field of assessment, particularly an assessor, is well aware that this is what happens in municipality. The longer you delay reassessment in any municipality the worse the inequities become. I suggest to the minister that five years is a good average to take in this area for re-evaluation.

I don’t know how one is going to get around the difficulties that are there. There is a serious problem and it will remain even after this amendment to the Municipal Act.

It’s going to take courage by the government, or even by all members of the Legislature, to bring in some form of equity in assessment in Ontario. These half-baked measures I don’t think are going to solve the problem.

I suggest we should get on with it in almost every municipality and bring forth some measures of market value assessment.

I don’t suggest that market value assessment is having it assessed at 50 per cent of market value. Assessment on the old method used in the Niagara Peninsula was about 33 per cent of market value some 15 years ago. I suggest this is an area that the minister should be looking at.

Maybe 50 per cent of market value is a little bit too high. Perhaps he should start at about 30 per cent and then gradually phase it in with an annual two per cent increase over a period of five years, bringing it up to at least 40 per cent. I think that’s one way that we can remove the inequities that are there.

It’s difficult for any person to understand that where persons are not carrying their load in municipal taxes there is going to be a substantial increase, because that’s why you have market value reassessment. It’s for that purpose. It’s for those who are not paying their fair share of the municipal tax base. I suggest the minister should be looking at that.

There is another way we can look at a substantial increase in assessment on reassessment. Another measure is to alter the mill rate in the municipality. I don’t see this mentioned in any of the proposals for market value assessment. What is a municipality going to do in this particular area? We can have an increase in market value assessment on reassessment, but there is no commitment from the municipality that it is going to lower the mill rate. Perhaps that’s an area that the government should be looking at where there is a problem in assessment in certain municipalities.

I suppose we have to support the bill in principle, but I hope the minister will take a look at some of my comments.

Mr. Nixon: Here’s the assessor responsible for it all.

Mr. Charlton: That’s right. I’m the assessor who is responsible for it all.

I would just like to start out, Mr. Speaker, by reminding the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of something he seems to be attempting to forget completely. in this bill and with the actions that the government has taken under section 86.

In 1969 and in 1970, and a number of my colleagues have expressed it in slightly different terms, his former colleague, Mr. McKeough, said, and said quite clearly --

Mr. Haggerty: Are you talking about assessors now?

Mr. Charlton: -- the province was taking over property tax assessment because the municipalities weren’t capable of dealing with it any longer in terms of fairness, in terms of reform and in terms of uniformity. So the province took it over to achieve fairness, equity, uniformity and reform.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Remember that, Tom?

Mr. Laughren: Good point.

Mr. Charlton: Now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is saying to us through this bill and through his refusal some two weeks ago to provide any provincial moneys for phase-in --

Mr. Laughren: What a chicken heart.

Mr. Charlton: -- that this government is not responsible for what happened in Hamilton, the municipality made the choice. And yet in 1970 that’s exactly what the government said the city of Hamilton was not capable of doing -- or any other municipality in this province for that matter.

Mr. Laughren: Exactly.

Mr. Charlton: It’s absolutely disgusting to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have to be here tonight dealing with this bill. The province said the municipalities didn’t have the responsibility, the know-how, or the wherewithal to properly do what Hamilton is presently attempting to do to clean up the mess in property taxation. The province said that quite clearly; McKeough said that quite clearly. Now this Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is telling us that this is something that Hamilton has done; they made that choice on their own.

I might even point out to the minister that although it wasn’t he himself who responded to a press statement which I and my colleague from Wentworth made some two weeks ago -- it was the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) who responded-the Treasurer responded that the municipalities had had it made out to them quite clearly what this assessment equalization would mean. That’s balderdash, Mr. Speaker. It’s just a lot of garbage.

[9:00]

Those municipalities that went for the equalization last summer, and those municipalities that were approached and did not go, like the sister municipality in Wentworth, Stoney Creek, were not informed accurately at the time last summer when they were first approached what equalization would mean. In fact, they were given estimates of what kinds of properties would go up and what kinds of properties would go down and they were given estimates of the average change. They were in no way fully informed of what the extremes would be. Even after the job was finished this March and before the notices went out, the documentation that was presented to Hamilton city council did not indicate in any way, shape or form -- and I have been through it quite carefully -- what the extreme shifts would be and what were the real problems that were being created. That didn’t become apparent until after the assessment notices were in the hands of the taxpayers in the city of Hamilton.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What has the government got against Hamilton?

Mr. Charlton: We have this government presenting us with this kind of a bill and refusing to put up provincial money to phase it in; totally shirking its responsibility, a responsibility which it took in total, 100 per cent, 10 years ago.

Mr. Laughren: It was a power grab.

Mr. Charlton: It is total avoidance of responsibility. The minister has before us a bill which in a number of instances mentions classes. How are we going effectively to deal with classes of property, in any municipality in this province, when they are not properly defined anywhere? This provincial government has the responsibility for assessment, I think that’s quite clear; but there is no provincial definition of the classes it is talking about anywhere in legislation or in regulation.

The definitions that are in effect in the Hamilton instance are definitions that were sold to Hamilton city council by the assessment commissioner for the Hamilton-Wentworth region. The assessment commissioner in the city of Toronto is preparing a similar proposal for the city of Toronto to equalize under section 86, but his definition of classes of property are totally different from those definitions used in the city of Hamilton. His classes are much more specific and much smaller. What it boils down to is that they are broken down into different classes altogether.

The effect of this bill at some point in the future will be totally different in its application in the city of Toronto from what it will be in the city of Hamilton. I know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can’t answer this question for me, but at some point perhaps he can ask his colleague -- the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck), who it was who set the definitions for the classes. Who was it decided that in the case of multiple-residential apartments a different factor would be used because the shift would be enormous if it was not, but in the case of developed and serviced residential property, and in the case of undeveloped, unserviced residential property, the same factor would be used for both even though the same criteria for making a difference existed between single-family residences and multiple residences?

Who made that determination? Who decided what the classes would be? Who sold the bill of goods to the Hamilton city council? I think I know the answer. It was the Hamilton-Wentworth assessment office. Where is there a provincial policy that defines what this piece of legislation will cover? There isn’t one anywhere. Let me tell the minister that the problems of equalization in Hamilton and the problems of phasing in the tax increases that result from equalization would be nowhere near as great as they are if the classes used in the city of Hamilton, the classes the minister refers to in this bill, had been defined somewhat differently so that unserviced land could be dealt with in a category of its own, in the same that multiple-residential properties and commercial properties are dealt with in a category of their own, while industrial properties are dealt with in several different categories, depending on whether it involves heavy, light, strip, industrial park, and so on.

It seems to me we are into a situation in this bill where, although 10 years ago the province said it was the only institution in Ontario that had the wisdom to deal equitably and uniformly with assessment reform, today the government is saying the municipalities have to take that responsibility upon themselves, but at the same time this bill will tell the municipalities what they can and cannot do in terms of dealing with the problems created by equalization.

That is just a ridiculous situation for us to be in. Either the municipalities have the responsibility and have the wherewithal to deal with assessment reform or they don’t. If they don’t, this government should be taking total responsibility for that reform, and they are not. If they do, which is what the minister is now telling us, if they are the only ones who will have the right to deal with assessment reform, then those municipalities should also have the right, the open right, the complete right, to decide how they are going to deal with whatever problems evolve as a result of that equalization.

They should have the total right, the completely free right, to decide how they wish to deal with phasing in excessive increases or excessive decreases as the case may be. Certainly they shouldn’t have the province telling them on the one hand if they want to fix up the assessment problems in their municipality they have to decide how they are going to do it, but they can’t decide how they are going to deal with whatever problems or excessive increases result from that. This bill should be opened up.

I would much prefer to see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs refer back to the responsibility this province took for property tax reform and assessment reform and think seriously about the statements made in the past; think seriously about where this government’s responsibility should be now in the financial crunch. That responsibility is to come up with the money to do the phase-in so the people in Hamilton, who have been overtaxed for the last 10 or 15 years, don’t also have to get their decreases phased in, so they can get the total and full effect of their decrease now, whether they be in a residential home, an apartment or commercial and industrial property, so they can receive the full impact of that decrease now and are not further penalized after having been penalized for a full 10 or 15 years already.

The provincial government is the institution in this province which has failed to live up to its promises of property tax reform. The provincial government is the institution in this province which should be taking responsibility for the consequences of a program which this government’s Ministry of Revenue is actively selling in municipality after municipality across this province today.

It is not as if the Kitchener-Waterloo region or the city of Hamilton came to the province with particular schemes which they implemented or dreamed up in their own heads. There are very few municipal councils who understand the intricacies of property tax assessment. The schemes those municipalities implement were schemes recommended and sold to them by assessment officers, assessment officers of the assessment division of the Ministry of Revenue. They didn’t go out and dream up these schemes; they were packages put together by this government. This government should have the guts to deal in a responsible way with the consequences of the package they put together and implemented.

Mr. Laughren: As usual, I will be extremely brief. I always notice when we talk about a bill dealing with property tax reform in general, or assessment in particular, that when the member for Hamilton Mountain gets up to speak there is a collective quivering among the Conservative members over there, because he has more knowledge about assessment and property tax reform than all of them combined, including a couple of the ministers responsible for the subject area.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It wasn’t quivering, it was snoring.

Mr. Laughren: If that is not true, I want to hear the minister’s response to the particular questions raised by the member for Hamilton Mountain. I would like to hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs respond to the particular questions he raised.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am going to answer.

Mr. Laughren: I will bet you, Mr. Speaker, the minister won’t even have the answers to these fundamental questions raised by the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let alone the frivolous ones.

Mr. Laughren: Let me be specific. The member for Hamilton Mountain said to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, through you, Mr. Speaker, that more than 10 years ago the government said to the municipalities of Ontario, “You can’t administer the assessment of the province of Ontario in an equitable fashion, therefore we’re going to put you out of your misery. We’re going to take assessment off your hands and we’re going to put it into the Ministry of Revenue.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What was your party policy then?

Mr. Laughren: Well, I want to tell the minister what our policy is right now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I want to know about them. What was your party’s policy then? I know you’ve got a different one now.

Mr. Laughren: No, no, last fall in 1978 --

Mr. Ashe: How about 1971?

Mr. Laughren: -- this party laid before the government our proposals for property tax reform. That’s what we did. And the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says, “Oh well, you did it after we’d taken a position.” What a lot of nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, you know that is true.

Mr. Laughren: The minister --

Mr. Pope: What was your position in 1970?

Mr. Laughren: Are there any time limits on the introduction of government legislation? I don’t think so.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why did you change your policy?

Mr. Laughren: The minister can introduce legislation dealing with property tax reform any time he wants. He knows we were at least direct and honest enough to put before the government what we would accept in the way of property tax reform, which is more than the Liberal Party did. There were guarantees in there for residential property owners and for the small business community, but beyond that there was no reason why this government could not have accepted our proposals for property tax reform.

That was in the fall of 1978. We have not changed our position on our demands for property tax reform. There’s no reason.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For one whole year you have not changed your position. Not a bad record. Better than the Liberals but still pretty bad.

Mr. Laughren: Well this government has changed its position. A year ago the Conservative government promised the province of Ontario property tax reform in the form of market value assessment. It was in the budget speech of 1978 and the Minister of Industry and Tourism has the nerve to say that we haven’t changed our position in over a year. Well, what has his government done with the position of property tax reform?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Twelve months is pretty good, Floyd. Twelve months is pretty good.

Mr. Laughren: He has totally and deliberately misled the people of the province of Ontario. That is what he has done.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t say that, it will have to be withdrawn. Don’t say that.

Mr. Laughren: The former Treasurer said to the people of Ontario, “It’s gone on long enough, we’ve had 10 years and we’ve spent millions of dollars on the reassessment program in Ontario. It’s time we got down to it and brought in property tax reform.” What did the government do? Why is the former Treasurer not here today. He’s not here today because that caucus told the Treasurer at that time, “We will not accept your proposals for market value assessment.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why isn’t Ian Deans here today?

Mr. Laughren: That’s exactly why Darcy McKeough doesn’t sit in the front bench today. That’s why he sits on the board of directors of Noranda Mines, rather than in the cabinet of the Tory party in Ontario.

Hon Mr. Grossman: Where are Ian and Stephen?

Mr. Laughren: Well, it was not because of revolt within this caucus --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it was because of your leader.

Mr. Laughren: -- like it was with Darcy McKeough.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Your leader lost the support of his caucus.

Mr. Laughren: Darcy McKeough at least knew there had to be property tax reform. He knew it was a bitter pill, but he knew he had to grasp the nettle and bring in property tax reform and when that bunch of chicken, lily-livered Tories said, “We will not accept that because it will cost us votes in Metropolitan Toronto,” Darcy McKeough said, “Yes, you either accept my proposals or I am out.” Guess what? He was out.

Mr. Laughren: I am oversimplifying it, but nevertheless, that really was his scenario, a year ago. That was the scenario and that government over there has not had the courage to implement property tax reform which they have been promising for 10 years. They haven’t done it and it really is dishonest to have, 10 years ago --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Careful, Floyd. Careful.

Mr. Laughren: It’s dishonest. It’s plain and simply dishonest for the government to have taken away from municipalities the responsibility for assessment under the guise that they couldn’t administer it equitably and then simply abandon the cause themselves.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If Evelyn were here I’d make you withdraw that.

Mr. Laughren: The government has a tough job to justify what it has done. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the mess continues in property taxes in Ontario and if the members over there had the courage of their convictions -- if they had convictions -- they would be the first to say --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do your members have a lot of convictions? How about Renwick?

Mr. Laughren: -- they would be the first to say, “We’ll sit and we’ll wait for the amendments that are going to come to this bill.” While we are supporting it on second reading to get on with the amendments, they would say, “Well in that case we will look seriously at the amendments and we will accept them as you bring them forward on the merit of the amendment”; in which case the minister would accept them all.

[9:15]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting evening. I have listened to a lot of fairy tales and interesting suppositions from the other side of the House.

I want to deal first with the comments from my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who I think made some valid comments on this bill. I just want to indicate to the member before he leaves that I think the point he made about the Ministry of Revenue asking for requests to be in by June -- and of course, the new equalization factors will be out in July -- is a very valid one, and I am going to discuss it with my colleague. I do not know whether municipalities got all the information they wanted last year when they undertook section 86 reassessments, but they should have all the information. We will do everything possible to make sure they have that this year. More than 100 have already applied for section 86

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Guess what? You are dead wrong. reassessments next year; they should have the information, and we will do everything possible to make sure that they have it.

Let’s talk a little about some of the things that the members opposite have talked about. Everybody over there, in both opposition parties, breathed a sigh of relief when we decided not to go ahead with market value assessment. They all breathed a sigh of relief and said, “Thank goodness, they are not going ahead with market value assessment right now.”

After they had a chance to take a couple of deep breaths, they brought in a resolution suggesting that we should go ahead with some form of abbreviated and altered property tax reform, knowing full well that we would not vote for it and we would probably veto it and they were on safe ground. They got what they really wanted, and they could do as they always do, be on both sides of every issue.

I remember the most dramatic example of that was away back when we had the legislation to end the Toronto teachers’ strike. They wanted to be on both sides of that issue. They want to be on both sides of every issue. But they cannot be on both sides of every issue.

I want to remind members opposite that this government is committed to property tax reform in a progressive manner, and we will move ahead with property tax reform. We are moving ahead with section 86 reassessments. We are introducing new equalization factors this July.

Mr. Charlton: Thanks to us.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not at all thanks to the members opposite. It is thanks to this government’s belief that there is a progressive, evolutionary way to bring in section 86 reassessments. I do not believe that the members opposite had any effect on the fact that we are bringing in new equalization factors. As we bring in the new equalization factors, we are going to guarantee that no municipality will get less grants in 1980 than it got in 1979 because of the equalization factors.

What I want to do is deal specifically with Hamilton because, although this amendment we are bringing in is general legislation and will assist those who undertake section 86 reassessments, it is being brought in particularly because Hamilton, having undertaken one, now wants to have the necessary flexible legislation to bring in a phasing-in procedure.

I want to deal with a couple of things. First, my friend from Hamilton Mountain said something about municipal councillors not knowing anything about this, anyway; that they are really pretty ignorant about it. He said they do not understand. I want to tell him that section 86 reassessment came in because in Hamilton, Mayor MacDonald, Controllers Morrow, Stout and Valeriano, and Aldermen McCulloch, Ford, Hinkley, Lawrence, Lombardo, Stowe, Ritchie, McMeekin, Edge and MacDonald -- 14 of them -- voted to go ahead. Is my friend saying they did not know where they wanted to go?

Mr. Charlton: After they were sold the package by the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They were elected by the people, and of their own free will they decided to ask for a section 86 reassessment. Mr. M. N. Davison: They couldn't wait for you for ever.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They asked, and I suspect that among that list there are some members of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Charlton: That’s right; because they are trying to take on your responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They asked for a section 86 reassessment, and that’s why we have had a section 86 reassessment in Hamilton.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It’s because they couldn’t wait any longer for you to move.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s not a bad idea, that the municipalities themselves ask for a section 86 reassessment. I don’t consider myself bound by anything that was said here 10 years ago, I don’t care who said it.

Mr. Laughren: I guess not.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t consider myself bound by that. I believe it is just and right today that by their own vote a municipality should ask for this kind of reassessment.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Under your legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: So a section 86 reassessment took place in Hamilton; and it also took place in 13 other areas in this province.

Mr. Charlton: Under your legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let’s take a look at what happened. We listen to all this doom and gloom, but let’s take a look at what actually happened. Excluding the city of Kanata, in the 13 areas that were reassessed 54,429 single-family homes had an increased assessment. Of those, 28,556 had an increase of under $100. In other words, half of those that were increased had an increase of under $100, but 85,699 single-family homes had their assessment decreased in the 13 areas across this province where a section 86 reassessment took place. So 85,699 had a decrease; 28,556 had an increase of less than $100, the remaining 20,000-odd had a large increase; that’s the desperate problem that we have?

Mr. Charlton: But don’t forget that under your legislation those decreased won’t necessarily get it all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, let’s look at the city of Hamilton where 43.5 per cent of the single-family homes had an increase in taxes. For 34.2 per cent of the single-family homes in the reassessment area the increase was less than $100; for 9.3 per cent it was more than $100 in Hamilton; and 56.5 per cent of the homes in Hamilton had a decrease. Only 9.3 per cent of those homes in reassessment had an increase of over $100. Is that the desperate situation we’re talking about?

Mr. Charlton: Those are the classes your people screwed up.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This is part of property tax reform, and what a bunch of nonsense to suggest that it isn’t. Section 86 can be a useful tool, and it has been.

Let’s look at small business in Hamilton. Sure, 2,288 had an increase in their assessments.

An hon. member: Let’s look at Centennial Volkswagen; okay?

Hon. Mr. Wells: But 21,028 had a decrease and many of the increases were not significant. Let’s bring some of those figures out; let’s talk about those when we’re talking about what’s really happening.

Section 86 reassessment, I suggest to members, have on balance been a step forward. The city of Hamilton, knowing they have some problems in a small percentage of the areas -- small business probably being one of the biggest areas -- has a program for phasing in, which they have asked for and which we are giving them the right to implement under this legislation. There is nothing wrong with that. I suggest this is a good amendment and it will mesh in with the kind of program the city of Hamilton has undertaken.

Mr. Charlton: It’s a second-choice program.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is not a second-choice program.

Mr. Charlton: Sure it is. Their first choice was for you to say where the responsibility lies.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You’d do a lot better if you put your money where your mouth is.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Those members from Hamilton are woefully ignorant, even of the things that are happening over in their own municipality. First of all they try to paint this picture of doom and gloom.

I’m glad we have some spectators in the galleries today, the executive of the Progressive Conservative Association from Wilson Heights riding. That, of course, is the riding represented by my parliamentary assistant. They are a very hard-working group, and they get their member elected; that’s what counts. I know they are very interested in sitting here and watching the kind of wishy-washy material that is coming from the third party in this province on this matter of property tax reform.

I don’t think the members from Hamilton who sit over there in that third party even know we made a special grant to the city of Hamilton; they probably don’t even know that. They don’t even know we made that special grant to the city of Hamilton to assist all the taxpayers. They probably don’t know Hamilton has already got its phase-in program ready, It’s ready to phase it in. It’s going to cost about 0.4 mills on this year’s mill rate, but they feel it’s an equitable program, and I think it’s just and right that they be the ones to decide to institute it.

On balance, this is a good set of amendments; I think it has balance within it. It should move forward quickly so the city of Hamilton can get its plan in progress.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 505(1)(b) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “five” in the third line and substituting in lieu thereof “10”.

Mr Epp further moves that section 505(3) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “20” in the fifth line and substituting “10” in lieu thereof.

Mr. Epp further moves that section 505(4)(a) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “five” in the third line and substituting in lieu thereof “10”.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, as I alluded earlier, we believe the municipality should have the flexibility to go beyond the five-year period. We do not believe there would be any need to go beyond the 10-year period, but we do think sometimes these increases are substantial. They could sometimes run into thousands of dollars. I know in one case in the municipality of Waterloo the increase was in the neighbourhood of 11,000 per cent, and the increase went up from under $100 to over $5,000.

We believe in that case, as well as in other eases, there should be some flexibility, that flexibility is warranted. Although the ministry is well intentioned in trying to get five years there, we think that does not give enough flexibility to the municipalities and therefore, we’re recommending 10 years.

Mr. Isaacs: I think the amendment is certainly a move in the right direction in that it gives municipalities the flexibility to select a period up to 10 years, but I want to ask both the member for Waterloo North and the minister why we have to put restrictions on local government at all when we’re dealing with this kind of thing.

[9:30]

In his introductory remarks when he brought the bill into the Legislature last Thursday, the minister said the act is designed to provide sufficient flexibility to a municipality which has implemented a section 86 reassessment to phase in over a period of up to five years the effects of the reassessment.

We talked a great deal earlier this afternoon and yesterday, when dealing with the estimates for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, about autonomy for municipalities. It seems to me if we believe that municipalities have certain rights and certain powers, then we should allow them to proceed with those powers according to their own wishes and we should allow the voters of the municipality to decide whether their council is doing the right thing or not when they go to the ballot box every two years. By putting these restrictions in this bill we are confusing the issue of who is responsible for a phase-in.

I want to say that while this bill is, unfortunately, necessary, and while I recognize that some of the minister’s comments about continuing to bring in property tax reform are encouraging, it’s my guess we will not see proper property tax reform in this province for quite a number of years. There will be a substantial number of section 86 assessments this year. Next year the minister, or his colleague the Minister of Revenue, will ensure through some mechanism that all municipalities are brought into section 86 and then all municipalities are going to need to take advantage of these provisions. I doubt that the minister has studied the effect of this bill on every municipality in the province.

I suggest that that responsibility should be in the hands of those who know the local problems best, that is, the local municipality. Therefore, we will be opposing this particular amendment and, after it’s defeated, we will be introducing an amendment of our own which allows municipalities to choose the period of time over which these adjustments are phased in.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, let me deal with the amendment that has been proposed. First of all, dealing with the proposition that municipalities should have a fair degree of autonomy in this particular area, I do not disagree with the idea of autonomy for municipalities. I think that’s valid. I certainly have been one to believe that as far as possible we should achieve more autonomy for municipalities with less provincial direction and control. However, at certain times it becomes necessary to insert in legislation a certain regulatory standard within which that autonomy can operate.

The way I see this situation operating is that the municipality of its own volition decides to have a section 86 reassessment. That is decided by themselves. There’s no direction from this government or any ministry that they must do that, but if they wish to do it they decide to undertake that. They then move to this amended bill. Having undertaken a section 86 reassessment, if they find there are problems with the phasing-in procedures in some way, we provide a vehicle by which they may pass a bylaw to allow for some form of phase-in procedure. They don’t have to ask us for it any more. They go ahead and pass that bylaw.

However, having made the decision to have a section 86 reassessment because there were certain benefits to the municipalities -- in other words, assessment within classes would be equalized -- we believe that they then should not have any other vehicle in legislation whereby they could negate the whole process.

I would submit that leaving the time limit completely open would allow a municipality to devise a phase-in program that could in effect obviate the section 86 reassessment or pass it on to successive councils with them taking very little action on the increases at the same time the decrease is going into effect completely.

For the same reason, I think that 10 years is too long. This is a phased-in program to get over certain injustices but a prolonged phased-in period would only prolong the degree of injustice to other people in the area. In other words, the justice comes about when the equalization has occurred and those taxes which must go up have increased and those which should go down have decreased. As I have pointed out already, most of the people’s taxes will go down and of those that will go up, a large percentage of those taxes will go up by only $100 or less, so to allow a long phased-in period or an unlimited opportunity for a phase-in could completely obviate the whole program which had been sought and decided of theft own volition by a council. Therefore, I believe the parameters we’ve set out here are necessary in the legislation and I regret I cannot accept the amendment of my friend to change the five to 10 years.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I understand the attempt that is being made in the amendments moved by the member for Waterloo North. I’m not going to dump them, even though in some cases they may not be in the best interests of the constituents whom I represent in this assembly.

I would suggest that the series of amendments to be proposed by the member for Wentworth are probably better, and I think the minister should reconsider his position on this, because what we’re trying to do is get the municipality out of this bloody awful situation they’ve been put into by the provincial government.

The people in Hamilton, unlike the people in some other communities, have no way of further punishing the provincial Conservative government. It has no seats there to lose. So if they don’t like what the provincial government is doing, they can’t protest by defeating provincial Tory members. I suppose, though, it’s possible to argue that they can, at least, have some impact on their local council.

Now that we’ve dumped the matter back on the municipalities, at least give them the full autonomy, or a better chance to try and work out the best possible solution for this problem. I think if the minister looks at the amendment, which I understand is a good and positive attempt to try and deal with it, and looks at the amendments I to be placed by the member for Wentworth, I think he could agree that these would give the local council the best chance to come up with a good and workable solution.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on the amendment?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I just have a very brief comment. I regret, of course, that the minister does not see the wisdom of the amendment. He obviously doesn’t understand it.

Mr. Ashe: You can’t stretch things out forever.

Mr. Epp: I hope, of course, that he reconsiders. I would provide him with that opportunity.

I know he quoted earlier from some statistics. I’m just wondering whether he would be so kind to share those statistics with me.

I don’t want to quote them right now, but I would like to take a look at them because I think they may be helpful to study and use on some future occasion. I would like to appeal again to the minister to reconsider and accept our amendment, because we obviously feel it’s a good one. We’ve given considerable thought to it, and what he has in the bill is just a continuation of what was in the previous act. We don’t feel that’s good enough. We feel there should be some reconsideration given to that 10-year period, recognizing the large discrepancies that have been evident across the province in some of the reassessed municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t reconsider my friend’s amendment but I will be happy to share with him the statistics I have. I thought they had been shared and were public information. I think we got them from the city of Hamilton or someone who did some compiling there. We’ll get him a copy.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments or questions on the amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Conway: Democracy is defeated again.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Isaacs moves that section 505(1)(b) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by deleting the words “not exceeding five years” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “to be set out in the bylaw.”

Mr. Isaacs: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for sorting out the sections, subsections and clauses for me. This bill certainly has a plethora of those. As I indicated in my remarks earlier, we believe in municipal autonomy in those areas for which municipalities should have responsibility. The minister has indicated, and we agree, that in this unfortunate circumstance it is incumbent upon the municipalities to deal with the situation before them. It is unfortunate that the minister and his colleagues are not prepared to help those municipalities. Given that circumstance, we have to find the second-best way.

I am assuming that the minister’s comments may be similar to those he made on the previous amendment, though I hope very much that they are not. I hope he will consider supporting the municipal autonomy that we are proposing. He indicated previously that he did not wish to give the municipalities the right to negate the whole process. To me that suggests the minister is agreeing that the whole process is a trap into which municipalities fall and if, having fallen into the trap, they decide they don’t like it, he is going to make very sure they don’t have a way out.

I think that’s inappropriate. Municipalities should be able to phase in the property tax increases that result from an assessment equalization program in whatever way best suits their municipality. I remind the minister that we are not talking just about the city of Hamilton, but we could be talking about all municipalities in this province.

The minister also suggested that he felt that the bill helped municipalities to get over the injustices. I suggest to him that he is phasing in the injustices that have resulted from making adjustments to another set of injustices. I really don’t understand how the problems that have arisen as the result of a section 86 reassessment can be described as an injustice. They are just improper. They are situations that should not have occurred. The phase-in proposal that is before us now may, if the minister and his colleagues cooperate, give us an opportunity to bring in a proper system of property tax reform before the phase-in periods that are chosen by municipalities expire, if our amendment carries.

I hope that the minister will agree with us that municipalities should be allowed to deal with these problems in whatever way they see fit.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I very clearly indicated my feeling on this in the response to the first amendment. I thought that the suggestion that the five years be removed and that there be an unlimited time limit for a phase-in process would not be a good amendment, that it would perpetuate injustices, and that it could have the effect in a negative way of negating the section 86 process.

When I say in a negative way, what I mean is that what happens is that where you have a section 86 reassessment among classes you have achieved some degree of equity presumably. As I indicated in the Hamilton situation, most single-family homes decreased in value; and justice, for them, is not to have that decrease in assessment and the consequent decrease in taxation. The equity, to a large degree, would be for those whose assessment increased to assume the extra burden of taxes that would be caused by the increase in assessment.

Under the flexibility provided by this legislation, to allow an unlimited phasing in, or an unlimited forgiving -- if you group together all the amendments of my friends from the third part, if you take this plus their other amendments -- you could have a prolonged period of never really touching in any significant way those people whose assessment went up. The injustices would remain for those people whose assessment went down, because they would be paying an increased mill rate for those whose taxes never went up as they should have when the decreases occurred. To my mind, that would be perpetuating an injustice over a prolonged period.

Therefore we feel there should be a five-year period for the whole program, because we believe there is fairness in a phase-in, even though that will to some degree put some added burden, for a time on those whose taxes have decreased because their assessment has decreased. We think there should be a limit, and that five years is an equitable time.

I am sure my friend knows the city of Hamilton plans to do this in a three-year period. Therefore I can’t accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Charlton: It seems to me the minister is again neglecting a number of things that are real in this province.

First of all, this amendment to the Municipal Act, although it may have resulted specifically from the Hamilton situation, and the specifics of the amendment parallel quite closely what Hamilton proposed in the way of phase-in, the same situation may not exist in every municipality that gets into this situation; the same set of specific guidelines Hamilton found acceptable may not in fact apply elsewhere.

The second thing I think the minister is missing or overlooking -- and I can’t speak for my entire caucus on this, but I speak for myself at this point; although we have been critical of some of the things which have gone on over the last few months, I personally am a supporter of what Hamilton city council did, even though I don’t believe, from my discussions with a number of members of Hamilton city council, that they were fully aware of what they were doing; or perhaps they were aware of what they were doing but they weren’t aware of the extremes involved on both sides of the question.

I am a supporter of the courage it took Hamilton city council to do what they did, because even though they perhaps didn’t understand the extremes, they understood --

[9:45]

specifically some of the aldermen you mentioned knew -- their wards were going to be the wards where the bulk of the ineseases occurred; one such is Mr. McMeekin in ward seven, who is a personal friend of mine and to whom I have spoken on a number of occasions about this. I admire the courage they displayed in making this move.

I have said to the minister before I felt it should have been the province’s responsibility to pay for the phase-in. That is obviously not possible now. What we would like to see is not only Hamilton covered in a situation where because of the action they have taken they can be in the best and most flexible position to respond to the people in the city of Hamilton over this whole issue.

For example, Mr. Minister, we are aware of what Hamilton council has chosen to do in their proposal; we have talked to them quite extensively about it. One of the complaints evolving amongst taxpayers in Hamilton right now, is that in one class, as you mention in your bill, a class I think was ill-defined in the first place; but that is again beside the point, it is a fact now -- in one class they are going to do the phase-in by allowing all of the decreases, the total amount of the decreases, to become effective immediately, but they are going to phase in the increases and pay for that by a mill rate increase. In other classes though, the other option of the bill is going to be taken where the increases and the decreases are going to be phased in so those who have paid too much for far too long already, will be penalized somewhat further.

I’m not saying that since you’ve thrown the responsibility to the city of Hamilton it’s necessarily your responsibility to dictate which of the options the city should take or which of the options any municipality should take, or in fact if there should be any options. You have said and you’ve said as clearly as you could, the section 86 things in the long run are a good thing, but you’ve also said you think it’s good and right that the municipalities should make the choice.

Well, I can’t see for the life of me why, if the municipalities are the ones that are going to make the choice and if they find they have made a mistake, at least in the case of the extremes they wouldn’t have discretion. This is what we are talking about, Mr. Minister. We’re not talking about any municipality not allowing any of the increases to occur. We’re talking about the extremes, because that is what we are going to phase in. We’re not going to phase in the three, five, seven, eight, 10, 12, and 14 per cent increases I myself had. We’re not going to phase those in. We’re talking about phasing in the extreme increases. We’re talking about dealing with and helping those people who when they bought their property, regardless of what its current value is, bought that property based on a number of economic assumptions. Those economic assumptions were first, and obviously, the cost of the property; and second, the mortgage rate they would have to pay on the mortgage they would have to take to cover that cost. Obviously, the third major economic consideration they made was the taxation on that property. What we are trying to deal with by a phase-in is the extreme increases, and you’ve mentioned that yourself. These are the increases over $50 or over $100. In some cases they will actually amount to considerably more than that.

We’re talking about the extremes. We’re talking about the small percentages, as the minister has also very carefully pointed out. The very few cases are 9.7 per cent, I think he said. We’re not talking, by having an open-ended phase-in, about negating the section 86 process in the city of Hamilton or in any other municipality. Perhaps at some time you should sit down and talk to Mr. Gillis, who is the executive director of the assessment division, and talk to some of his staff.

When a municipality calls the local assessment offices and says, “Tell us what will happen if we go for this section 86 program,” the assessment office has not done the equalization. They don’t have the facts and they can’t present anything except an estimation. The member for Wentworth, who sat on the Stoney Creek council when the assessors came from the Hamilton-Wentworth assessment office to make the same proposal to Stoney Creek Counsel, can attest to that.

The assessment office does not do the equalization, does not come up with the numbers until after the municipality requests the equalization. That is because they don’t want to expand the man-hours and the overtime involved. Perhaps in some instances, it has even meant bringing in assessors from outside regions. They don’t want to expend all of that effort until the municipality has actually made the request for the equalization. Once the municipality has done that and the machinery is in motion, it appears it’s too late to back out.

We’re in a situation where nobody before the fact can clearly define the extremes. Once the municipality is into the process, then they have to deal with those extremes. We’re not asking the minister to allow a municipality to make a decision to go the section 86 route and then totally negate it. We’re asking that the municipality have the discretion, because we have no idea what the extremes might be. We know what some of the extremes are in Hamilton now, the ones that have been personally brought to our attention. We have no idea whatsoever to what extent those extremes might occur somewhere else.

Again, we’re talking about the extremes and we’re talking about once the municipality gets to the stage where the notices go out and they are now fully aware of what those extremes are and what kind of people are being hit with those extremes. We are talking about the municipality’s ability to respond to that in as flexible a fashion as possible. I am not afraid to suggest, and I don’t think any of my colleagues are either, that perhaps the municipality should have the right to totally negate the full effect of some of those extremes until such time as the province can go forward with complete province-wide property tax reform.

That is not to say, Mr. Minister, we want to negate the section 86 process. We want to negate some of the extreme excesses of that process, some of those things that the minister called injustices. We want to be able to deal with them in the most effective and the fairest fashion. We want the municipalities to be able to deal with something of which perhaps they didn’t fully understand the extent.

That is what we are really talking about here, Mr. Minister. We are talking about the extremes, we are talking about those properties which a phase-in really applies to -- the 9.7 per cent, or whatever it was you quoted earlier. That is not a very great number of properties but, regardless of the number, the effect the excesses can have on the people involved is extreme. The municipality’s ability to respond flexibly to that is going to be very important in a lot of municipalities across the province, as we go through this ad hoc process. You might admit, Mr. Minister, that it is an ad hoc approach to property tax reform.

I support it because it is dealing with some injustices. Some people have been paying too much for 10 or 15 years. There is no question about that, and those people deserve consideration. I applaud the city of Hamilton and the other 12 areas of this province which took on that problem on their own initiative, but if we are going to ask the municipalities to take on the problems, then I we also have to give them the power to deal as flexibly as possible with the extremes they are talking about having to phase in.

I repeat, Mr. Minister, we are talking about the extremes, not the whole program. The way your response came out it seemed to indicate they could negate the whole program, and I don’t see that. I see us talking about the small percentage, as you pointed out in your response in the second reading debate. We are talking about a small percentage, we are talking about excesses, we are talking about people’s ability to deal with those excesses. The municipality should have the ability to deal with the situations that specifically exist in their municipality.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman: Frankly, I am not terribly surprised by the minister’s out-of-hand rejection of the very useful amendment put forward by my colleague from Wentworth. I didn’t really expect him to support it. I think the minister’s positions are totally in line and completely consistent with his government’s approach of ignoring all good new ideas that come before him on the matter of property taxes. It accurately reflects the government’s inflexibility and rigidity when it comes to important and useful new initiatives on the matter of property taxes.

What I would like to know, though, and what I think would be useful, would be to find out where the Liberal Party stands on this amendment, which will hopefully help alleviate the problems in Hamilton. I wonder if perhaps the Liberal critic would be so kind as to put before the House his party’s position on this issue, in the absence of his colleagues from Hamilton.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, the member for Hamilton Centre is soliciting our opinion on it, and I don’t mind giving it. I believe he should have the benefit of it.

We believe that to not have a limit included in this regard would not be a very wise step. We believe many municipalities have exercised thee and four years in the past. My reading of my contacts with municipalities on this matter and others is that they would prefer to have some limit there as a guide.

[10:00]

We would very much appreciate having a 10-year limit. Unfortunately, that was not possible today due to the lack of support from both the government and the members of the third party. So we will oppose this amendment as we would prefer not to see the time period left open to the municipalities.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would like to thank the member for Waterloo North for putting forward the Liberal Party’s position on the question of local autonomy. It is nice to know where they stand. I can understand why the member who represents the riding of Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) and the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) are not participating in this debate tonight to help the problem in Hamilton.

Mr. Haggerty: It is the first time the member for Hamilton Centre has been in the House for a month.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would like to comment on what the member for Hamilton Mountain said. I thought he had some excellent comments about the process and what happened. I appreciated his comment that he supported what Hamilton council had done. I support what they have done. I think that section 86 reassessment will in the long run be helpful. It may not be the ultimate of what he wants, but I think it will be helpful to Hamilton council.

I may have put my words wrongly in suggesting that it would negate the whole process. What I was trying to suggest was that by a prolonged phasing-in, albeit for extreme cases and for a small percentage, to some degree the whole idea of equity would be frustrated, as there would be increases in tax because of that on all those other people who got decreases. That’s really what I was suggesting.

Notwithstanding the eloquent words put forward in support of this proposition, I still believe there should be a time limit and I am happy that my friends in the official opposition also feel that way. We feel that five years is adequate at this time. Therefore, I can’t accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Isaacs’ amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Isaacs moves that section 502(2) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended to read as follows:

“A provision limiting the amount of any increase or reducing the amount of a decrease tinder subsection 1 shall, in the first year of operation of the bylaw, limit or reduce only the amount of the increase or decrease, as the case may be, that exceeds $50 or such greater amount as may be prescribed by the bylaw.”

Mr. Isaacs: Notwithstanding that we are now stuck, it appears from the previous vote, with a five-year period for phase-in, we still believe it should be up to the council of the municipality to decide how the phase-in should be operated, given that it is aware of all the local circumstances.

The present subsection 2 requires that the first annual increase be at least 10 per cent of the increase faced by individual property taxpayers. In his remarks on previous sections, the minister has repeated a number of times that the majority of taxpayers are facing lower property taxes as a result of the section 86 reassessment in Hamilton.

I want to suggest to the minister and to the party on my right that this party cares about minorities. If there were only one taxpayer in the city of Hamilton who was suffering gross inequity as a result of section 86 reassessment, then we would be fighting on behalf of that property taxpayer. It’s because the local people are the people who are in touch with the situation that we’re bringing forward this amendment tonight.

Interjections.

Mr. Isaacs: If they see fit to give an individual or a group of individuals an increase of $50 a year for the first year, then why should they not be permitted to do that? There are property taxpayers in the city of Hamilton whose taxes have increased by 300 and 400 per cent -- and that is not 300 and 400 per cent of one dollar, but 300 and 400 per cent of many hundreds of dollars.

And those taxpayers are faced with that increase in taxes without any advance warning at all. They receive their notice of reassessment in the year in which the taxes are to be paid. In fact they have not yet received a tax bill that reflects their new assessment, because the preliminary tax bills, as the minister is undoubtedly aware, were based on last year’s assessment.

Mr. Sterling: The bill allows 10 per cent the first year.

Mr. Isaacs: So there are taxpayers who, within a few weeks from the passage of this bill, are going to receive a tax bill that requires them to pay in the last six months of this year the whole of the increase imposed upon them because of the section 86 reassessment, subject to whatever adjustment the local council decides -- not 10 per cent, but whatever the local council decides.

Mr. Sterling: The council has a voice.

Mr. Isaacs: We are suggesting the local council should be given complete flexibility to set the phase-in timetable as it sees fit -- and this amendment is a very crucial part of that -- so the first year’s adjustments can be made according to local circumstances, not only in Hamilton but in every other municipality that is going to be facing this difficulty in the future.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, this amendment really changes the intent of what we had. It leaves in the $50 requirement but it takes out the 10 per cent. I am afraid I must disagree with my friend. In looking at it in one light it could mean, I suppose, if the situation was so -- and I am using this purely as a hypothetical example -- that if the Dofasco taxes were increased anything over $50 would be eligible for a phase-in, although I think he would probably agree that perhaps a minimum of 10 per cent would be equitable in that particular situation.

Mr. Isaacs: That’s for city council to decide.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think the amendment we have tends to make things a little more equal and also shifts the burden in a balanced way over the total population who are getting the phasing-in process, rather than to some degree benefiting the large taxpayer who perhaps could bear a little greater burden than some of the others.

We feel that this section of the bill should stay as it is written.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Isaacs’ amendment will please say aye.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of new comments relating to this section which I think are very important. I’ll certainly be happy to dispense with the reading of the amendment if it’s acceptable to the other members. The minister and the critic for the Liberal Party do have copies, as does the chairman. May I proceed with the points I wish to make?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The amendment must be put by you if you wish the committee to consider it. You should proceed with it. Mr. Isaacs moves that section 505(3) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended to read: “The amount of an increase or decrease that may be limited or reduced in the second and each subsequent year of operation of the bylaw shall be an amount less than the amount of that increase or decrease that was limited or reduced in the next preceding year.”

Mr. Isaacs: I suggest that the comments that the minister has made indicate that he has no trust in local councils to respond to the needs of the electorate and of the taxpayers in those municipalities. To suggest that Hamilton city council or any other municipal council would decide to phase-in tax increases for Dofasco at $50 a year suggests that the minister treats local government with contempt.

I think the inflexibility that the minister is displaying with regard to the whole bill is completely unacceptable. I want to ask the minister what background work his ministry has done in presenting this bill to us, particularly as, when he introduced the bill in the Legislature last Thursday, he said: “The legislation limits sufficiently the taxes that can be relieved to ensure that provincial interests are not abused.”

I want to ask the minister what those provincial interests are, and whether his ministry has done an economic impact study on this bill, as we were promised would be done on every bill being introduced by the government.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the point the member makes that this legislation is designed for all municipalities, and indeed it is. I think it will be helpful to all municipalities. But he asks what kind of background did we go through in the developing of this legislation.

We went through about 15 meetings with the treasurer of the city of Hamilton and some meetings with the mayor in order to develop a piece of legislation that would assist Hamilton in its particular problem at the present time. In other words, we’ve talked to the city of Hamilton many, many times and tried to develop a piece of legislation that would allow them to come at the problem they see at the present time.

As the member has so eloquently stated, the government party has no members from Hamilton. The opposition parties represent the city of Hamilton and speak for their constituents in Hamilton. But I think the member should know that the municipality of Hamilton helped us greatly in developing this legislation. We value the expertise they have and we were happy to have that expertise as we developed this legislation.

If, in the future, it doesn’t suit the needs of all those other municipalities of the province -- in other words, if the value judgement of the people from Hamilton and their work with our people in developing it doesn’t suit the needs of all the municipalities in the province -- I’m sure we’ll be back here with amendments to make the legislation do the job we believe it can do in its present form. Therefore, I can’t accept this amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the proposed amendment?

We’re dealing with an amendment to section 1 of the bill referring to the proposed section 505(3).

All those in favour of Mr. Isaacs’ amendment will please say “aye”.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

[10:15]

Mr. Conway: The member for Mississauga East is cracking the whip over there tonight.

Mr. Isaacs: I have a final amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Isaacs moves that section 505(4)(a) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by deleting the words “not exceeding five years.”

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Isaacs: I suggest to the minister that this is his final opportunity to indicate who in this House stands for local autonomy. He has indicated to us that he has held 15 meetings with representatives of the city of Hamilton, and I don’t dispute that for one moment. If this bill said somewhere in it, “This bill applies to the city of Hamilton,” then we would be supporting it tonight. But I am raising these amendments because this bill could be in place for a long time to come and it could affect almost every municipality in Ontario.

He has suggested that the amendments I’m proposing, the amendment that’s before us now, could mean that the property tax equalization system his ministry invented is never phased in. If a local council wants to take the gamble, and I would suggest to the minister that the odds are very good, that by not phasing it in for two or three years there will be a change of government in this province and we will be taking over and introducing real property tax reform that municipalities can live with, that the taxpayers can live with and that will treat everybody fairly, then I suggest that they might be making a good bet by never phasing in a section 86 reassessment.

Mr. Breithaupt: They can’t even have five members here.

Mr. Isaacs: I want to say to the minister I hope he will consider once more this matter of the phasing-in period, this is his last opportunity to do so in this bill and if we are not granted this amendment, such that municipalities can introduce the phase-in over whatever period of time they see fit, then this party is committed to opposing the bill on third reading.

Mr. Breithaupt: How threatened do you feel?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to not accept this amendment because it would be inconsistent, this House having rejected the amendments to change the five years in the first part of the bill, to tamper with this particular section now would not be consistent. For the same reasons that I indicated for refusal of the first amendment, I would have to refuse this one.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You’re such a dogmatic fellow, Tom Wells.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: We’re again dealing with section 1 of the bill referring to section 505(4) of the act.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there anything further on the bill?

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 115 reported.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the committee rise and report.

On motion by Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

THIRD READING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved third reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of third reading of Bill 115 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, at this hour it would not appear to be wise to call another item. But I understand there is to be a late show.

Mr. Speaker: There is a late show that involves the member for Oakwood. Could he be found within the precincts?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Oakwood, wherever you are, we are ready.

An hon. member: Maybe the member for Armourdale could give us a speech.

Mr. Speaker: We could have the table officers do a little buck and wing.

An hon. member: A little what?

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) has his riding executive here in the gallery tonight, and they seem to be the only people here, perhaps with the unanimous consent of this House we could call upon the good member for Wilson Heights to make one of his eloquent speeches in this chamber. I believe he has yet to make his maiden speech, and I would offer him this opportunity, from this side of the House at least.

Mr. Speaker: As much as that may be desirable, I think it might establish a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wilson Heights just got back from Quebec City, where he attended the Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting. I wonder whether in capsule form -- about five words or less -- he could give us a report on the convention.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In accordance with our announcement this afternoon I now deem the motion to adjourn to have been made.

The member for Oakwood has up to five minutes.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, as you know, during the question period I asked a question of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) to explain the announcement she made on May 15, 1979, about the school boards in Ontario getting 100 per cent, total funding. I would not say the information which the Minister of Education has provided in this House is misleading but, at best, the calculations are not correct.

The Minister of Education owes it to the different communities around this province to tell them exactly what she means by total funding. The Metropolitan Separate School Board in Toronto certainly would love to find out how the minister has decided that that board received more money last year than it will receive in this particular year, as of September 1979.

As you know, in February, as a result of the legislative grants, the heritage languages program was cut back by 50 per cent. The Minister of Education did not deny that. As a result, on March 15 four of the school boards, such as the Metropolitan Separate School Board and the Toronto Board of Education, which, as the minister very well knows, are right now on the floor -- and the minister should understand that expression “on the floor”; it means that any legislative changes or any grants the ministry might provide will not benefit those particular school boards. That means in effect, for 68 per cent of the children in this province who are right now taking the heritage languages program, that the minister’s change of May 15 has made not one ounce of difference.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Your mathematics are absolutely dreadful.

Mr. Grande: Well, the minister will have a chance to explain herself.

Let her explain to us very briefly how the separate school board in Metropolitan Toronto was making a profit out of the classes, as she stated; and let her explain to us briefly how the Toronto school board is going to receive more money as a result of her May 15 memorandum that wipes out, as she was saying, the memorandum under which it was to have been in the legislative grants.

These are the questions that need to be answered, and I hope the Minister of Education will be very clear and will answer, not to me in this Legislature but to the Metropolitan Separate School Board, the Toronto School Board and the school boards in Ottawa and Kapuskasing, because as I understand it those are the boards that right now have the floor provision. I repeat, that means whatever grants she might increase, these particular boards will not be able to benefit from those increased grants.

With that, I will sit in my chair and wait anxiously for the minister to explain what she is talking about.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is obvious the honourable member has not understood the clarity of the memorandum presented on May 15. What I stated on that day was instead of funding at the rate of grant or in any way which is constrained or constricted by the usual delivery of GLG, the funding for the heritage languages program would be at 100 per cent of the cost of providing the course for 25 students at the rate of $21 per instructional hour for that number of students -- growing, actually, from the provision for 10 students to a maximum of $21 for 25 or more.

Mr. Grande: Explain it, don’t repeat it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That funding is coming 100 per cent from the government. There is no constraint upon the local boards to provide additional funding for the program. The program will be funded at 100 per cent at $21 per instructional hour for all the school boards in the province, whether they have a floor, a ceiling or sidewalls. I don’t know where the honourable member got his information. What I would like to read into the record right now is a letter dated June 5 from Mr. Bruno Suppa, the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board. I have no idea where the honourable member has managed to extricate all of these petitions he is bringing in because all of them, I believe, predate the May 15 statement.

Mr. Pope: He works at it.

Mr. Grande: They don’t predate your February announcement.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Sir, I would like to read this letter from Mr. Suppa:

Dear Dr. Stephenson:

“I would like to express the appreciation of the Metropolitan Separate School Board for the improvement in legislative grants for heritage language programs.

“As we explained to you during our meeting on March 21, the cuts proposed in the original regulations for the 1979 legislative grants would have affected seriously the program as it had been established in our schools.

Although the increase as announced by you on May 24 was not as much as we asked, it will allow us” -- Mr. Suppa continues -- “to continue to offer an effective program to the 32,000 children registered in these classes.

“May I thank you for meeting with us, for considering our problems, and for making the necessary financial adjustments which will allow the heritage language programs operated by this board to continue.”

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.