The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I presented this morning, on behalf of the government and people of Ontario, a cheque for $315,575 to the Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross to assist in the Southeast Asian refugee relief.

The cheque was presented to Mr. C. B. Patterson, president of the Ontario division of the Red Cross, who was accompanied by Mr. J. T. West, the commissioner for the Red Cross in this province, who are in the gallery with us today.

This presentation fulfils a commitment made by the Premier on behalf of the province in July, that Ontario would match, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, funds raised in the province during the national campaign run by the Canadian Red Cross.

The funds raised by the Red Cross in this campaign are being used to provide emergency relief to thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian refugees who are still living in overcrowded refugee camps in places like Hong Kong and Malaysia.

This commitment, the matching dollar-for-dollar cheque that was presented today, is in addition to the assistance being made available through the Ministry of Culture and Recreation to help establish those refugees who come to this province and have decided to settle in Ontario.

We are most pleased to join with the Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross and with the many Ontario residents and organizations who have supported this very worthwhile refugee relief campaign.

PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. Riddell: Before oral questions, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: You can try.

Mr. Riddell: Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) about a statement or statements that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) has made regarding land severances. The minister got up on a point of privilege. He indicated he was basing his statement on page 18 of the Foodland Guidelines, and indicated opposition members had supported the Foodland Guidelines. We did support it.

After the question period, a lawyer, who is currently fighting a case before the board on land severances, appeared in my office and said: “If this is a general policy statement, or an indication of government policy, then my case is as good as won.” He said there is confusion amongst the lawyers, amongst the municipalities, amongst the farm people and amongst others as to what is government policy.

I would simply like to indicate what the section does say in the Foodland Guidelines policy. It says, “Farm-related severances in areas designated agricultural may be considered under the following circumstances...” Point four says: “If a farmer who has been farming a substantial number of years and who is retiring from active working life needs to sever one lot on which to build a house in which he intends to retire, because the lot may subsequently be taken over by others and create problems for adjacent farm operations, that farmer should be encouraged to consider retirement in a nearby village or town.”

That indicates to me that municipalities are encouraged not to grant land severances for retiring farmers, farm labourers and family members. I think it is incumbent upon the minister to tell us whether this is general government policy or a change in government policy, because everyone is confused outside of the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond. Had the honourable member completed section four, he would fully understand it. “Alternatively, if a farmer wishes to retire to a relocated house on his farm, he should be permitted to do so.”

Mr. Riddell: What does a relocated house mean?

Mr. Henderson: The honourable member did not complete the full section 4. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker: As I suspected, it was another instance of not being a point of privilege. It could have been raised as a question in the question period. In future, I think I am going to have to be a little bit tougher. There is ample opportunity for members to settle differences by way of a question rather than an alleged point of privilege.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my first question to the Minister of Energy. It would appear from all accounts that the Canadian energy picture is relatively good compared to the American energy picture, and it is very hard to imagine how we could be assisted by any form of common energy market with the United States or anything of that kind. Given that, will the minister tell us what the Premier (Mr. Davis) had in mind specifically when he spoke in Chicago yesterday and suggested that there be a Canada-US commission which would pursue common energy and development opportunities, with heavy emphasis on the matter of energy needs? What possible benefit is there for Ontario and for Canada in getting into some sort of joint venture with the United States in energy matters? What did he and the government have in mind by that suggestion?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that since the Premier was addressing an American audience, he was acknowledging the sharing of the North American continent by three nations and saying that energy matters and energy policy might benefit from an exchange of information in so far as those are concerns. It is hardly necessary to go into the advantages that might flow from the exchange of information and the recognition of the importance of this issue. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition will have some opportunity to go into this in more detail when the Premier returns to the House on Monday.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I take it from the nature of the minister’s response that the Premier has come up with this trial balloon without even consulting the Minister of Energy on the matter. He is making assumptions about what the Premier may or may not have hoped to mean. Can he, as Minister of Energy, tell us whether that is how policy is made in the government of Ontario? Was the Minister of Energy not even consulted when the Premier went to the United States to suggest some Canada-US-Mexico axis that might operate in the field of energy?

Although it might be very nice to have information exchanged, postage stamps can accomplish that. Why should we want to put our energy resources into a common pool of any sort, or even suggest it, with the Americans? If the reason for it, as seems to be said in the rest of the speech, is that we would like American capital, isn’t it just repeating the errors of the last 30 years or so, only magnifying them, to suggest we will give them our energy for their capital and further domination of our industry in this area? Isn’t it time we stopped that particular way of doing things, and wouldn’t the minister like to be consulted by his own Premier sometimes?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it is a very unfortunate suggestion on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to assume there isn’t the fullest consultation with respect to the government. The Premier of Ontario is a very outstanding Canadian political leader. I would think his views before an American audience on such an important issue would be quite relevant. This is a government where there is absolutely complete consultation. I think there are some very unfortunate assumptions in the comments of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the startling similarities between the proposals the Premier made in Chicago and proposals that have been made over the past few months by Ronald Reagan, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, can we be told if there was a cabinet decision or a decision by the Premier to endorse the Ronald Reagan for President campaign, and what kind of quid pro quo the government is expecting from Mr. Reagan when the provincial election comes in 1980?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite sure the Premier of Ontario would want it quite clearly understood that he is not getting himself involved in the leadership ambitions of anyone in the United States political scene.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment, but in the minister’s absence I will approach the Deputy Premier or the government House leader with this question, depending on which one is better informed on the Mississauga situation. May I ask which minister would rather hear about it?

I will ask the Deputy Premier, inasmuch as it is to some extent an energy matter. With thousands and thousands of motor cars idling their engines and wasting precious fuel for hours on various side routes all around the northern part of the city of Mississauga, can the minister tell this House why the Queen Elizabeth Way has remained closed for the last couple of days, since, apparently, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) doesn’t seem to know and since, apparently, the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) doesn’t seem to know? It seems to have something to do with the Ministry of the Environment, but that minister didn’t report on it yesterday either.

Does the Deputy Premier know why that road is remaining closed and why so many people are being so badly inconvenienced at such expense, both from an energy and a personal point of view? When will it open? Will it open at least for the weekend so that people will be able to get in and take care of things in their homes which have been neglected because of the emergency?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that meetings have been convened as of 10 o’clock this morning to review the situation in that particular area, and we can expect to have some up-to-date announcements with respect to all the matters that are relevant here with respect to public safety.

Mr. Sargent: Who is running the store?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know the member for Grey-Bruce would be very anxious to have this information as well to take back to his constituency.

Mr. Conway: If that information is more valuable than the minister maintained.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I understand they have had some success now in draining the tank and the chlorine that is contained therein. There will be some need sometime today to make some judgement with respect to how much remains after the particular operation now in place has been completed. That will influence what will have to be done with respect to further steps in removing the tank and, therefore, the danger. I would think the people in that area could expect to hear from the Solicitor General and/or the mayor of the municipality following the outcome of those particular meetings.

[10:15]

On the particular question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, which is of some interest, and that is the movement, of traffic on the Queen Elizabeth Way, it is my understanding from information I have received with respect to that matter that the police indicated they would have some difficulty in controlling the traffic into and out of -- particularly into -- the evacuated area if the Queen Elizabeth Way had been left open. It was a matter of control mechanisms, because of side roads and other means of exit from the area, and in the judgement of the police it was necessary to close that particular roadway.

To expand on the answer, following the meetings which are currently in process it’s my understanding that the officials who have the responsibility there will be in a much better position to make some announcement with respect to a return home of those who have been evacuated and the future of the traffic flow on the Queen Elizabeth Way.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister indicates it is his opinion that the police have requested that this artery remain closed. In the Globe and Mail today there is a statement, attributed to the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Communications, that the Solicitor General rejected the idea of opening the highway except for the exit ramps, which of course could have been kept closed if one desired.

This indicates he rejected the idea because it was strongly opposed by Environment ministry officials; there is no comment here about police. The question would seem to be, is there anybody who is making the overall decisions and who has communicated to the Deputy Premier today what the basis is for these important decisions?

Can the Deputy Premier explain to us why, in a controlled-access highway, there could not have been simply the blockage of the exit ramps and entrance ramps to allow at least all the citizens who live west of Mississauga to gain access to Toronto and points east without wasting two or three hours idling their engines?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can add nothing more to the answer I gave to the first question. That’s the information I have and the reasons for the particular situation at the moment.

I would think that the Leader of the Opposition, who along with others joined with many in the House to applaud the supervision and what was happening, is quite well aware that the matter is under control and that in situations such as this, certain judgements have to be made on the basis of information we have, and our main concern is really the safety of thousands of people in the area. We feel that would be something everyone would understand. On the basis of those considerations, these are the judgement calls that are being made.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that we can now put a man on the moon, can the Deputy Premier explain why it is taking five days to drain the tank, and can the minister assure the House that all the technology we have and all the equipment we have was and is being used to alleviate that problem?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is, I would assume we’d understand every effort was being made to move into the situation as quickly as possible. I have no reason to believe those in charge did not utilize or take advantage of all the information, all of the technology, all of the skills that were known in order to address that particular problem.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the severity of the situation, the tremendous number of people who have been inconvenienced and the complexity of this entire matter, why wouldn’t the government be making a rather detailed statement at the start of proceedings today to indicate to the Legislature and to the people of Ontario just what the current status is?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I had a choice between being on the scene and getting up-to-date information with respect to the situation to make sure I was fully knowledgeable about the matter, knowing that with the modern communications media we have at our disposal to communicate with the people directly affected, or to be here making some general statements and then going back to the scene, I would be there on the scene monitoring the situation, indicating my interest in moving and making decisions as quickly as possible rather than posturing here like some of the members are now. Two or three days ago they were pounding their desks saying what a great job was being done, and now they are trying to capitalize on some of the inconvenience that may be experienced by people.

As a matter of information, and for clarification, when I was asked the question I told members I was advised. Where do members think I got my information from if not from people at the scene, including the Solicitor General?

ARSENIC EXPOSURE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning arsenic contamination at Deloro Smelting and Refining Limited in Hastings county.

Is the minister aware of the study by Dr. R. B. Sutherland in 1958, which covered workers at that plant from 1928 to 1952, and which concluded that those workers had a rate of respiratory cancer, associated with their exposure to arsenic dust and fumes in the project, which was excessive and which was eight times what would normally be expected?

Has the government taken steps to examine the health impact on the workers who were exposed at the Deloro smelting site from 1952 to 1961, when it was finally shut down, and will the government undertake to inform all workers who have worked at the Deloro plant of the health hazards to which they have been exposed?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that report. Subsequent to that, as I am sure you know, Dr. Sutherland became director of industrial hygiene in what was then the Department of Health. As a result of his efforts in the early 1960s, the criteria for workmen’s compensation awards were made much more generous. So, Dr. Sutherland, in his new post, was indeed aware of the problems and did make some efforts to correct situations that disturbed him. As a matter of fact, I am told by the board that to date there have been something in the neighbourhood of 38 or 39 claims submitted and approximately 26 or 28 cancer claims approved.

I do understand that the basic thrust of the question is whether there is any follow-up being carried out with regard to the workers at the plant. I myself have asked that question. I have been informed that the company ceased operations in the early 1960s, and that it would be very difficult to try to gather a list of the workers. In spite of that, I have asked my occupational health and safety division to endeavour to do so.

Mr. Cassidy: First, has the government done anything to examine the health hazards or what the workers have suffered who were at the plant between 1952 and 1961; that is, after Dr. Sutherland’s study? Second, is the minister aware that the criteria developed in 1966 required exposure for a minimum of 10 years and evidence of the disability within 10 years of leaving employment, and that those criteria applied only to the Deloro plant?

Is the minister not aware that current scientific opinion considers that exposure to arsenic for less than one year is enough to induce respiratory cancer and, further, that the latency period for arsenical cancer can be as long as 50 years, not just 10 years? In view of that recent scientific opinion, is the government now prepared to change the criteria relating to workmen’s compensation claims based on arsenical cancer?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows, I am not aware of the exact criteria the board has laid down for awarding claims. I will certainly ask that the board review them.

The information the member has given is one of several opinions. I don’t question it; I just say there are a variety of views on the matter. But I am quite prepared to ask the board to review its criteria with regard to arsenic.

Mr. M. Davidson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister confirm that there is no standard for arsenic exposure in Ontario? If there is not, why is there not one, and why doesn’t the policy set for compensation cover anyone who has possibilities of getting arsenical cancer, and not just those at the Deloro plant?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that threshold limits of values do apply with regard to all arsenical compounds. As I am sure the member knows, I personally went up to some of the gold mines in northern Ontario this summer, where some directions and some agreements were reached with regard to exposure to arsenic and mercury. So I am well aware of the problem and will be continuing to follow it with interest. Arsenic is one of the substances which is on a list of priorities for review by the occupational health and safety division for further consideration.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism, who was here until a moment ago. If he is behind the pews there, I would --

Mr. Eakins: He’s gone to Europe.

Mr. Cassidy: He’s gone to Europe.

Mr. Eakins: He knew you were going to ask him a question.

Mr. Bradley: He’s gone to get the EDF regulations he was going to table in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you can find another target.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, good. Here he is now. I have heard of ministers ducking under the fiery onslaught of the opposition, but to leave the House before it even begins is --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: Given that the president of General Motors of Canada Limited said this week GM is giving Canada more than its fair share of investment through its recent announcement of $2 billion in investments in Ontario, does the Minister of Industry and Tourism think GM is giving Canada a fair share or not? Does the minister think this kind of investment will be enough to turn around the deficits in auto trade which we are now accumulating and which are now running at a record level of $2.2 billion for the first nine months of 1979?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker, obviously it won’t be enough to turn around our deficit. Secondly, I am not terribly interested in getting into a dialogue on the member’s definition or my definition or the Leader of the Opposition’s definition of what is our fair share. As far as I am concerned, I won’t be satisfied until we have a balance in terms of our balance of payments problem and our deficit in auto trade generally.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the fact that GM plans to spend some $38 billion over the first five years of the 1980s in its auto plants throughout North America, and since on a simple mathematical basis of market volume some 10 per cent of that, or close to $4 billion, should come to Canada in order for us to have a fair share, would the minister not agree that GM is falling far short of a fair share? What actions do he and the government intend to take in order to ensure that GM and the other automobile makers put a fair share of their investment in North America here in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The leader of the third party may assess fair share in terms of assessing capital investment. I am equally interested in a definition of fair share, if any is going to be made, in terms of jobs and in terms of balance of payments, and not so much in terms of how much they are investing in each particular plant.

That is what we have been talking about to General Motors, Ford and even Chrysler in the last little while, because they are building some plants that are more labour-intensive and more export-oriented than others. Those are the kinds of plants we want.

I should point out to the leader of the third party that when they make these decisions, the way those firms operate -- like it or not -- involves decisions made to build a certain type of plant. Then it is put up for tender, as it were, by their various operations. Or they may decide they need a new product, a new engine assembly operation or whatever; then several of the plants in the General Motors family may bid on that to get the right to make it in their particular plant.

One of the things that often happens is when a plant in Georgia comes along to bid into the head offices of General Motors, it is doing so with great assistance from the state involved. As the member well knows, that puts us in Ontario at a disadvantage for a plant which we might otherwise have received but for that intervention by that state.

Therefore, I say to the leader of the third party, among the things we will continue to do is be willing to have provincial government and provincial taxpayer participation, when necessary, in order to keep our fair share, however one wants to define it, of the new investment that is going on.

[10:30]

Second, we are meeting regularly with all of the automobile makers to do what we can to make sure we get our fair share of jobs, investment and export business. Third, we are actively supporting the duty-remission program and in the last few months have completed a successful trade mission overseas in Europe where we clearly moved at least one major European automobile manufacturer closer to a duty-remission scheme here in Canada which will go a long way towards offsetting our automobile trade deficit.

Finally, may I say, I have asked my ministry staff to join me in an analysis of the auto pact to see if it may not now be time to have a more intense look at some of the modifications that can be made within the confines of the auto pact to see if we can’t do somewhat better than we have done, because I’m not satisfied with what’s been done so far.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Rather than using moneys invested, would the minister consider using labour content as a decision-maker as to whether we are getting our fair share? We import goods containing or produced with a certain number of hours of labour and we export a balance -- or attempt to keep it in balance.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that’s one of the things we have to build in. Another thing we have to build in, of course, is our continuing desire to get some of their research and development facilities here. Research and development facilities in many cases are not as labour-intensive as some of the other parts of their operations. They don’t bring as many jobs, although they often bring many more capital dollars in terms of the investment here in our country.

We’re trying to work with the companies to balance things off and get whatever one defines as a fair share in terms of the total picture, rather than trying to do an oversimplification by comparing capital dollars against capital dollars because those never give a fair picture. One of the measures that does give a fair picture is whether one has a chronic deficit in that particular sector and clearly Canada, after a couple of years where that wasn’t the case, has now got what I believe to be a chronic deficit, and that’s no good.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since Ontario already did a study back in 1978 which indicated we were not getting our fair share, would the minister indicate to us the definition he must have had at that time in order to arrive at that conclusion? Since there is almost a 17 per cent unemployment rate in Windsor now with 7,500 independent parts employees out of work, perhaps the minister would agree it’s time he sat down with the major automobile producers and said to them, “You are simply not giving us our fair share and we’re not going to continue to bargain in the namby-pamby way we have in the past.”

When is he going to start demanding our fair share, not just of investment, but also of research and development, of skilled jobs -- everything that goes into the production and the sale of automobiles? When is he going to start talking in a tough way on behalf of Ontario and its workers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the honourable member that simply because we don’t talk to those companies through headlines, and simply because we don’t talk to them on the front steps of Queen’s Park, doesn’t mean we don’t have those conversations. I want to be as direct as possible. We do have those conversations.

If some of them were asked how they find us in terms of negotiations and discussions, I think they would report we are pretty difficult, and we are pretty tough. While we do everything we can to encourage investment, we do talk as firmly as possible.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why are we falling behind?

Mr. Cassidy: You’re like the captain of the Titanic.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the honourable member wants to pretend we have enormous clout which allows us to go to the table and say, “Do this or else,” I would like to hear the honourable member give me some ammunition I might use that, in his opinion, says, “Or else what?” I must say to the member we are taking a very difficult but constructive role with those companies. He can be sure we are in there making the case as strongly as possible, every bit as strongly, with respect, as the member or his leader could take if they ever were in the role to take that position.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the minister what he has done, from the aggressively prostrated position from which he bargains, to alter the production patterns in the nature of the vehicles that are here. Why are we now making all the wrong-size vehicles; and why are we now facing layoffs because they can’t sell those vehicles in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might begin by saying I have often had success bargaining from that position.

Mr. Laughren: Fantasizing again, Larry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Delusions of grandeur.

What is happening now is that all of our discussions and all of our efforts are directed towards getting the auto manufacturers to do precisely that; we do want that.

When Chrysler is in talking to us, if its people do come in to see us in the next couple of weeks, that is precisely the position from which we will operate. That’s what we want; we don’t want anything else.

With regard to the Ford V-6 engine plant, the key thing that has often been lost in the shuffle is that it wasn’t just another plant; it was the engine which will supply the lighter vehicles. As well, I guess General Motors changes, to be fair, all the new investment GM is putting in -- and I admit I would have liked more to have gone to Oshawa -- all the changes GM announced a few weeks ago, without exception --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a new tough approach; boy, they’ll cringe at that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- were the kinds of changes that will provide us with input into the newer, lighter, fuel-efficient vehicles. None of those changes will feed the more expensive, heavier, less saleable automobiles. So all of them are going in the right direction --

Mr. Breaugh: You mean the paint shop is going to paint?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and that is the beginning point for all our discussions with those companies.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services, Mr. Speaker.

In view of media reports that some 300 employees, many of them in the field of correctional services, have indicated they will be taking a strike vote within two weeks; and in view of the fact that under the labour laws of Ontario it is illegal for these people to strike; can the minister tell us what contingency plans he has to deal with this particular problem should a strike occur? Perhaps more important, what action is the minister taking to avoid a strike?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think the number is actually 3,000 guards, about 2,600 or 2,700 of whom are from the Ministry of Correctional Services; the balance comes from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Our contingency plans are basically to ensure that inmates are not released at a time a strike could possible occur. If one did occur it would be an illegal situation and we will take all steps necessary to protect the public of Ontario from any release of inmates as a result of a possible strike.

In the meantime, let me say the strike has not been taken. The strike vote is proposed for November 29. I have faith in the correctional officers of Ontario not to take an illegal action; I am sure that would not be the case. In addition, we obviously have contingent plans should something untoward develop.

With respect to the whole matter of correctional officers, the desire on the part of some of the executive members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, and in this case the individuals involved with correctional officers, is to secure some kind of separate bargaining unit. I am not exactly sure why the separate bargaining unit is desirable, other than perhaps to alter the rate of pay; the reason has not been specified.

I would have to say our approach, and my particular approach in this ministry, is to ensure that all correctional officers are treated fairly. In that respect, one could almost say a separate consideration has existed. In the last bargaining round the correctional officers received two per cent more than any others within the same category so the differential was maintained.

The only other time it was a consideration was in 1974 prior to the wage controls period, when the award was a differential of one per cent, so it was an extra plus there. The union at that time would only permit one per cent, even though the government wanted to have a four per cent differential. We have treated our correctional officers very fairly -- we have treated them separately with differentials on the two most recent occasions -- and we will continue to do so with respect to any potential strike. I would have to have faith of the correctional officers to the extent that they would not strike, that being an illegal action.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the government has treated them as a separate entity why would the cabinet -- I don’t know what the minister’s position might be on this -- so vehemently resist their request that they be treated in law or in procedure as a separate bargaining unit?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken the position that there are advantages to dealing with one bargaining unit that would be lost if there were many other separate categories. Within each area, whether it’s health workers or nurses, no matter what it is -- if there is a fragmentation of it I think that would probably lead to a lessening of the good feeling that exists between our government and its employees.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Culture and Recreation. It’s related to the Art Gallery of Ontario, which was found guilty by the Ontario Labour Relations Board on five counts of contravention against the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Representatives of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union tried on many occasions prior to lodging the complaint against the art gallery to the labour relations board to inform the minister’s office of the unfair labour practices. He, as the minister responsible, refused to meet with them on each occasion. In view of that and the fact the taxpayers of this province paid out to the AGO this year $5.9 million in operating revenue, is the minister not concerned that his refusal to meet with the union representative acted as an encouragement to the management of the AGO to break the laws of the province?

Second, does the minister think it appropriate that $30,000 of public money should have been spent by the management of the art gallery in lawyers’ fees to fight charges, to deprive workers of their legal rights?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, it is true I have not so far agreed to meet with the representatives of the union. I feel that because of the relationship of the Art Gallery of Ontario to my ministry it would have been highly inappropriate and improper for me to meet with that person.

The Art Gallery of Ontario is a separate entity. It’s a corporation; it has its own elected board. The board is elected to manage and to run the place. For that reason I felt it would have been totally inappropriate for me to be having a series of meetings with the representatives of the labour union.

Mr. Breaugh: Hear the other side of the story; it’s unfair to hear only one side.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I have taken the necessary steps to remind the management of the art gallery what their responsibilities and duties are in terms of negotiations in times like this. I have been assured by the management of the Art Gallery of Ontario that negotiations and bargaining were going on in good faith.

I do understand -- and I may be corrected on this -- that the five charges alluded to by the honourable member opposite were not charges against the management of the Art Gallery of Ontario but against certain individual employees. I think there is a subtle but very important difference there.

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s extremely subtle, almost unnoticeable.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The art gallery management and the board, certainly as far as I can tell, have been proceeding and have been bargaining in good faith on this.

I would not deny there are quite a few employees of the Art Gallery of Ontario who, frankly, are upset at the prospect of the place being unionized. I can understand that.

[10:45]

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister challenging the labour board?

Mr. Cassidy: Is he challenging the labour board? What is this?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Not everybody feels exactly the same way about unions as some do. Frankly, I think that in situations like this, anybody who has ever been in similar --

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is espousing the cause of the minority.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Do the members want me to continue?

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Mr. Riddell: The minister is challenging the labour board.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It’s pretty hard, Mr. Speaker, but I’ll try. There is no doubt that in a situation like this some polarization has occurred. It frequently does occur, and particularly in a situation like the Ontario Art Gallery --

Mr. MacDonald: Which pole is the minister on?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- where there is very heavy activity, substantial activity by volunteers; volunteers who may have some difficulty in understanding why the place should become unionized. I think that is understandable.

Mr. MacDonald: We should take the minister before the labour relations board.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I also feel that when we say the Ontario Art Gallery is financed by public funds, that’s quite correct. I would think that possibly the majority of the finances come from the public purse, but I do think we should always keep in mind, in dealing with an organization like the art gallery, that very substantial contributions have been made over the years, over the decades by volunteers giving up their free time, by people who have given up their art --

Mr. Makarchuk: What’s that got to do with the union?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and have made contributions in that way.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister subscribe to the Labour Relations Act or doesn’t he?

Mr. Breaugh: Dispense.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We should not simply assume that the art gallery is simply totally and entirely an organization that is funded by public monies. That is not quite correct; there is a very strong volunteer influence there.

Mr. Speaker: Time. A supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is out of order for irrelevance.

Mr. Cooke: He should be promoted to a Minister without Portfolio.

Mr. Grande: I’ll make this supplementary rather short, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister comment on that $30,000 in legal fees?

Mr. Conway: I’m glad Reuben ran for the Tories.

Mr. Grande: Would the minister make a commitment to issue some kind of directive to the other cultural institutions that receive provincial funds, that under no circumstances should the management actively involve itself in breaking the laws that this Parliament passed?

Mr. Breaugh: That sounds reasonable.

Mr. MacDonald: As the minister did in his verbal statement.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, certainly, as I have already done. I have already advised the management of the Art Gallery of Ontario -- and I’m quite prepared to remind other managements -- at the Royal Ontario Museum or any other similar institution -- that they should respect and stick to the laws passed by this government. That goes almost without saying. I don’t need that kind of admonition or reminder from across the floor.

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the honourable minister for his very crisp answer.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: On the matter of the $30,000 expended, I can check into that and see if that kind of money was spent in hiring legal counsel.

ABERFOYLE TRAILER PARK

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development regarding the trailer park development near Aberfoyle, a project with which he is very familiar.

Given the fact that the Puslinch council opposed the project of a trailer park of some 500 sites near Aberfoyle, and given the fact that the area was an environmental sensitive area, and given the fact that the principals had earlier declared personal bankruptcy, does the minister think it was proper for him to intervene in support of the developer?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, my recollection would be from about two years ago, when I was asked to obtain information, so I will have to look in my files, but I haven’t intervened in that respect.

Mr. Epp: Does the minister deny the fact he wrote a letter which stated:

“Mr. Catcher’s proposal has a lot of merit and I think the club will be good for the township.”

Secondly, since the area has still not been zoned properly, and since already 200 to 240 sites of the total 500 have had trailers up on them, what would he advise the council to do in this circumstance?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I said, it was about two years ago this matter was brought to my attention. When it comes to a trailer park or anything to do with tourism, I am entirely in support of creating more jobs. I did not interfere with any of the applications, and I would be pleased to meet with the honourable member to show him my file.

Mr. Blundy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the financial stability of the company involved is very shaky at the best, and since many of those who have already purchased lots have not yet registered on title, what advice does the minister have for those people who are in such a precarious position?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to include the member for Sarnia in meeting with the honourable member who asked me the previous question.

REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is it not true that the payment of the $315,000 which he announced this morning has little or nothing to do with providing any relief towards the present horrendous tragedy that is taking place in Cambodia, where perhaps one third or one half of the population are going to die of starvation? Is it not true that the Canadian Red Cross has requested $1 million from his government to be used in Cambodia?

Would I be right in assuming his government is deeply concerned about the degree of catastrophe there, where there are only 50 doctors to take care of the 2.5 million people? Will the minister, therefore, assure this House his government will provide the kind of assistance that has been asked for in money, supplies and personnel to minimize the human carnage that is taking place in that unfortunate country?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in answer to what were several questions, first of all, the sum of money I announced was given to the Red Cross this morning did not have anything to do with the present situation in Cambodia. It was part of the campaign the Red Cross ran a few months ago concerning the camps for Vietnamese refugees in Malaysia, Hong Kong and so forth.

The matter of support for assistance in Cambodia is still under consideration. We have just had the request from the Red Cross. I am still not completely clear as to what the federal government has done. Their involvement on behalf of all the people of Canada, which includes the people of Ontario, is of paramount interest to us, particularly since we have been providing extensive relief funds for disasters which have occurred in this province and have received no federal disaster aid. Perhaps that is the way it will be. I don’t know. We are going to continue to ask for it. In that area, our first responsibility is to assist in the relief of disasters in this province, We would hope to get federal aid but we have no assurance there.

In the Cambodian situation we support the premise the member has put forward that everything has to be done in that very unfortunate situation. We are looking at the request the Red Cross has just made, and we are trying to find out exactly what is the federal involvement on behalf of all the people of Canada in that area.

Mr. Swart: Can I impress upon the minister the urgency of this situation, which has existed for several weeks? I deplore the fact that he has made no decision on it yet. Is the minister not aware that the International Red Cross has asked for $251 million to deal with this, and that a relatively prosperous province like this should be involved in providing some assistance? Surely the minister must be aware that authorization now has been given to opening up the Mekong River so that supplies can get into those people who are suffering. Doesn’t he think these circumstances warrant a quick, major action on the part of his government to relieve the suffering?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am convinced that the fact we are considering the various financial assistances to the Red Cross is in no way holding up the great work the Red Cross is doing in moving supplies into that area.

Mr. Swart: It certainly is. They can’t hire Canadian doctors without money.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Industry and Tourism has a short answer to a question asked previously.

Mr. Bradley: Is he going to table the EDF regulations?

SHOP CANADIAN PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on October 15 the member for Hamilton-Wentworth asked me a question with regard to the shop Canadian program and one of my federal colleagues. I now have a short response which I will read. It is a letter from Flora MacDonald:

“Dear Mr. Grossman,” which was scratched out -- “Larry: It has been brought to my attention that a question was directed to you based on an article which appeared in the Toronto Star and subsequently in the Kingston Whig-Standard, claiming that I spent $4,000 on a shopping spree in London, England. I can assure you this is not only false but also impossible. I don’t have $4,000 to spend on anything, let alone clothes.”

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought Friday morning would be a good time for it.

“In the past, almost all of my clothes have been purchased in Kingston, and this will most certainly be my practice in the future. Sincerely, Flora.”

Mr. T. P. Reid: That explains something.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Would you consider a donation to clean her up for the sake of Canada?

Mr. Isaacs: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister, in his remarks just now, referred to the member for Hamilton-Wentworth. I wonder if you would ask him to correct the record. It was not the member for Wentworth, and there is no member for Hamilton-Wentworth.

BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, in the understandable absence of the Minister of the Environment, I would like to ask my question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

As the minister probably knows, the government has guaranteed up to $100,000 to the commercial company Browning-Ferris Industries in the event their application and proposal for a liquid waste plant in the township of Harwich in the county of Kent falls.

Can the minister see the justice of the government guaranteeing a commercial company up to $100,000 while at the same time offering nothing to the local municipalities that would like to investigate, research the project and defend themselves?

Second, can the minister tell us what part of the environmental act or law permits the government to guarantee a sum such as that to commercial companies?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am afraid I can’t help my friend, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to pass the question on to my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott). We will get an answer for him, but I am afraid I know nothing of the situation he has suggested. I wouldn’t attempt to quote to him the law that provides for that grant, but I am sure the authority in law is there.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister personally not agree that if there is going to be any degree of fairness and any impartial investigation, the municipality or some citizens’ group should be funded on the same basis as the company?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As a quick answer, I would say no, Mr. Speaker.

ESL PROGRAMS

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education and it is regarding the provision of English as a second language for the Vietnamese children.

Could the Minister of Education inform the House how many provincial dollars have been allocated or will be allocated to the boards of education to set up classes in English as a second language for the 6,000 Vietnamese refugee kids -- that number is according to the statement the minister made in the social development committee the other day -- who are entering Ontario schools? Ninety per cent of those children, according to the minister, do not speak any English or French.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the weighting factors within the general legislative grants will accommodate almost all of the children, since they will be distributed rather widely across the province. There will probably be a major concentration within Metropolitan Toronto, but that concentration will probably be a good deal less than we have experienced in the past with important influxes of new immigrants from other parts of the world.

[11:00]

I shall be pleased, when the general legislative grants regulations are developed, to inform the honourable member of the exact weighting factor that will be used this year but until that time I can simply tell him that we are attempting to accommodate this specific problem.

The one piece of information I could give him is that the anticipated numbers of arrivals have not as yet materialized. We anticipate that indeed they will eventually, but certainly the numbers have not reached the levels that were projected earlier on.

Mr. Grande: Supplementary: Since the legislative grants, as the minister already knows, will not come into effect, or at least the boards will not get any money as a result of the legislative grants, until February 1981, and since by that time all of the children would have been placed in schools in Ontario, does the minister not have any emergency moneys that could flow to the boards immediately to set up these classes? As far as I understand, Toronto already has 660 of these children and they require teachers and other services. Approximately $1 million would have to be spent in the city of Toronto alone and that would be over the --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have been anticipating we could meet the requirements through the funds that are available to us at this time.

ADOPTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I’ll direct my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Now that the new Child Welfare Act provides a subsidy for parents adopting severely handicapped children, and knowing that there are 25 couples anxious right now to complete adoptions with the aid of this subsidy, can the minister explain why the government, five months after passing Bill 114, still has failed to negotiate with the federal government the exemption of this subsidy from federal income tax?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ll have to take that under notice and look into it. My friend the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is constantly negotiating various matters with the federal government, and as the honourable member knows, it is going to bring down a budget soon, so perhaps there will be some announcements in a lot of areas when that budget is brought down.

Mr. Kerrio: While the minister is posing that question, he may bring this to the attention of the proper minister. In view of a constituent of mine being allowed to complete the adoption of a severely abused child through an order in council and without the aid of the Child Welfare Act, could the minister expect that the other 25 adopting couples may also proceed with an order in council so that they need not be subjected to the painfully slow provincial-federal negotiations on this section of the act? I am sure the minister would concur with me that those people who are prepared and willing to adopt severely handicapped children should not go through the painful process of waiting for this kind of negotiation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I absolutely concur with the honourable member on that and I’ll look into it.

ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS

Mr. Cooke: A question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities: I would like to ask the minister if she is aware that for the students who are receiving loans through the Ontario Student Assistance Program, their interest rates have risen from September 10 of this year from 13.5 per cent to 16 per cent. Does she understand that there are enough studies that indicate students from working-class families are already reluctant to take loans out in order to go to university? Does she not recognize that this is a further disincentive for ordinary people to get into our universities? What is she prepared to do to rectify the problem?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding that the interest rate for student loans, while it is effective once the loan is repayable, may fluctuate a great deal during the term of the loan without ever affecting the total amount that the student would have to repay. The entire area of student assistance has been a matter of concern to the council of ministers of education since the majority of the student loans provided come through the Canada student loan arrangement.

Mr. Cooke: This is the Ontario student loan program.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The Ontario student loan is provided under a supplementary loan program which is provided for students with specific problems within the province.

This is an area we are looking at, at this time. I am not sure precisely what modifications will be made to the program next year but certainly the concern about the level of interest rates is one of which we are very much aware.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: What in the meantime do students do? I’m thinking of one of whom I was notified, Elizabeth Timm from Hamilton, who has had her interest rate raised from 13.5 per cent to 16 per cent. Can the minister not give us specific recommendations and plans of her own ministry that she intends to implement for next year? We already know she is going to implement a tuition increase, which is another disincentive for working-class students to go to university.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In response to the member’s last statement, we really do not have any solid information to support the thesis he is proposing. In actual fact, in terms of participation rate in post-secondary institutions, Ontario rates extremely high -- third after Japan and the United States. I would remind the honourable member that tuition rates in Japan are at least double what they are for Ontario students. Tuition rates in the United States are significantly higher in most instances than they are for Ontario students.

Indeed, in the areas in which there is no tuition fee at all, such as Sweden, the participation rate is significantly lower for students than it is in Ontario -- and similarly in Great Britain, where there is a minimal tuition fee. So the thesis the honourable member is trying to present --

Mr. Cooke: What does that have to do with the problems we’re raising here? A bunch of nonsense.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- is one that is not widely supported at this point with any factual or valid information.

Mr. Cooke: You are comparing apples and oranges.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I suggested to the honourable member that we will look at the interest rates being charged to students being assisted under the Ontario Student Loan plan and we will try to make some accommodation to minimize the burden for them.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Grande: Prior to the petitions, Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer the Minister of Education gave to my question and I would like to debate it at the proper time.

REPORT

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Riddell from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Natural Resources be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980: ministry administration program, $24,932,300; land management program, $93,829,500; outdoor recreation program, $68,387,000; resource products program, $62,876,700; resource experience program, $11,388,800.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO DRUG DISPENSING FEE ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 184, An Act respecting the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to save us all a great deal of money. It limits the number of dispensing fees that may be charged under the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan where an individual requests a dispensary to fill the same prescription over a period of time. The dispensary is limited to charging one dispensing fee in each six-month period to that individual.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the interim answers to questions 336, 337 and 355 standing on the Notice Paper.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Renwick: Before the orders of the day, I would like to advise the government House leader that the meeting of the standing committee on the administration of justice, which was supposed to take place immediately following the question period this morning and again this afternoon, has now been cancelled. I make the statement as vice-chairman of the committee, in the absence of my colleague the chairman, and after consultation with members of the committee in all three parties.

I understand the parliamentary assistant has so advised the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if the Clerk at the table would so advise the clerk of the standing administration of justice committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

On vote 801, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, at the last session we had with the minister relating to his estimates, I had raised the matter about the racetracks in Ontario, which may be running into some difficulties, and particularly the horse owners and horse breeders, whose purse winnings perhaps are not high enough.

The minister did indicate he wouldn’t be opposed to seeking some assistance for the small tracks. I hope he conveys that to the cabinet because we could be running into a serious problem here. We do generate approximately $35 million to $45 million a year from racetrack tax, and it wouldn’t hurt anybody to put a little share of that back into adding larger purses for the horse owners in Ontario. I would suggest to the minister that it is worthwhile spending perhaps $2 million to generate additional income source from the racetrack. He may lose it if some action is not taken.

Other members have spoken on the matter of the new equalization factors. Like the other members who have spoken, I am a little bit lost as to why the minister did not make any impact analysis on the related facts to the equalization factors for a number of municipalities in Ontario. I don’t know what the minister is going to do next year.

The information I have here from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) is his announcement of Friday, October 12, 1979. In his proposal then he said no municipality will have its portion of the costs of a county, region or other joint body increase or decrease by more than five per cent because of the use of new factors in 1980.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: With all due respect to the member, we are on vote 801, which has nothing to do at this time with --

Mr. Haggerty: This is right. This relates to administration policy. The question is, what policy are you going to have in the year 1981? This is only a freeze on equalization factors for the one-year period, based upon the 1978 market value. What steps is your ministry going to provide to relieve the impact in 1981, if we continue with the freeze on market value assessment?

The other matter is a policy decision to apply a tax rebate on property taxes deductible from income tax payable. Ontario Proposals for Tax Reform in Canada by the former Treasurer of Ontario, the Honourable Charles MacNaughton -- we kind of miss that gentleman around the House -- says:

[11:15]

“The Ontario government has stressed consistently that meaningful and comprehensive tax reform in Canada must take into account the heavy burden of property tax and other regressive taxes being borne by our poorest citizens and those who have not shared fully in the economic advance of recent years. We believe that revenues from income taxation could be used to offset provincial-municipal taxes, which are not related to individuals’ ability to pay, in order to achieve adequate redistribution of total tax burdens.

“As emphasized in our white paper, such comprehensive reform can best be accomplished through the income tax system. Consequently, we recommend that the revised income tax incorporate credits against income tax liability for property taxes and other taxes paid to provincial-municipal governments. Because such integration of tax burdens will be costly in the terms of revenue, we suggest that initially tax credits be available only for those who do not earn enough to pay any income tax.”

Apparently your federal counterparts have jumped on to that particular bandwagon. This extract is from Ontario Proposals for Tax Reform in Canada. So they will perhaps be bringing in some legislation to apply tax rebate on property through income tax to property owners and local municipalities.

The question arises then, is this under federal jurisdiction? Is it consistent with the principles of the British North America Act or does it now mean that the door is open and that municipalities may deal directly with federal tax-sharing programs? In the post, I believe municipalities were invited to share in viewing the process of the Edmonton commitments between the federal and provincial governments but not invited to have any voice or say in the matters. If this is the case, then I’m delighted that perhaps now municipalities can deal directly with the federal government in tax-sharing. This is long overdue.

The other question related to this is, will this have any impact on the present Ontario property tax credits? Will this still continue or will it be dropped by your ministers?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, while neither of these particular items comes under the vote we’re dealing with, I’m happy to answer the member anyway. As I’m sure he is aware, the responsibility of the Ministry of Revenue is to produce equalization factors relevant to current market value assessment. My responsibility actually stops when those factors are produced.

It then becomes the responsibility of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Ministry of Education and others that provide the grants and also deal with the apportionments between municipalities as they relate to regional, district or county costs. Therefore, the question the member has posed as to what will happen in 1981 relative to the equalization factors is one that must be answered by someone other than me. It’s a question that must be asked particularly of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells).

I can assure the member this government has no desire or intent to cause great burdens on small municipalities in Ontario. So in any policy that is developed, the problems that now exist are going to be taken into consideration. In other words, we are very much aware of the problems that have arisen because of the new factors and the government is sympathetic to those problems. I’m sure I’m not speaking out of turn when I say we, as a government, will not be bringing in policies that are going to be overly harmful to the smaller municipalities.

On the matter of income tax being used to offset property taxes and so on, I think the member is also very much aware of the Ontario tax credit system which is based on income. At this time we are using income as a means of providing taxpayers on low income, senior citizens, people on disability pensions and so on with some assistance through the Ontario tax credits. That is where the relationship is involved. It’s tied in, of course, to income.

People on low incomes are now getting the advantage of the Ontario tax credits, which I might say this year will total almost half a billion dollars; $455 million is the estimate we have that will be spent this year to assist low-income people, senior citizens and others with Ontario tax credits. We have tied that program into the income tax system. As the member is aware, application is made at the same time the applicant files his income tax return. It is tied directly to income tax.

The federal program is another matter. Certainly, it does not and will not, in my estimation at least, give the municipalities the right to deal directly with the federal government. Municipalities are there because this government has passed an act known as the Municipal Act. Municipalities in the province of Ontario are a product of the provincial government and also a partner in the governing of the municipalities.

I don’t see that as changing. The property tax credit program the federal government is introducing will certainly be sent directly to the property tax payer and not go through the municipalities. To the best of my knowledge the municipalities will have absolutely nothing to do with that program and I don’t really feel they should.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister hasn’t quite answered the last point of my question, which was, will the federal program have any effect on the tax credit program of the province of Ontario? Assuming a property tax payer will receive a tax rebate of, say, $100, is this ministry going to reduce its tax credit by $100? This is what has usually happened in the past, that one can’t get double tax credit, in a sense.

If the federal government does implement such a program to give assistance to the taxpayer, I wondered whether the government of Ontario might reduce its tax credit to those property owners.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I would advise the member -- and I am not now speaking from government policy, particularly, but from my own viewpoint and the viewpoint of the Ministry of Revenue -- whatever the property owners get in property tax credits from the federal government would be passed on; it would have no effect on the Ontario tax credit system at all.

I would remind the member that as far as the Ministry of Revenue is concerned the increases in guaranteed income supplement to senior citizens over the years, which as you know is tied to the cost-of-living index and adjusted by the federal government, quarterly I think, has always been passed on to the senior citizens. We have never at any point reduced our guaranteed annual income system program by the amount by which the federal government has increased its guaranteed income supplement program. We have always passed it on. I see no reason at this time to think the federal property tax credit program would not be passed on in the same way we have passed on the guaranteed supplement to senior citizens. I personally would favour that.

As I say, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no policy discussions in government as to what effect the federal program would have on our program. I can assure the member I would not personally be in favour of reducing the Ontario tax credit program by the amount they might receive from the federal government. I think that would be a step backward. The whole thrust of the federal government’s program is to assist property taxpayers to pay their taxes, as is ours. To give with one hand and take away with the other, to me, is creating another bureaucracy for no purpose at all.

Mr. Charlton: I assume it is appropriate to raise this under ministry administration. In my opening remarks I raised a number of points which I think the minister might not have quite understood.

In his response, he took the view that had already expressed: that we understood the Treasurer, under the present structure, was the person who was designated by the cabinet and this government to make policy decisions on taxation. We understand that.

We also understand -- and I want to make it very clear -- that the minister’s staff and probably the minister himself consult with the Treasurer and his staff at budget time. That’s not the point I was trying to make in my opening remarks at all. When I was talking about what I see as the failure of the Ministry of Revenue to speak out I was referring to those people with expertise having something to say about the things going on in the taxation field in the province.

I would like to run through some examples that might make clearer to the minister what I’m trying to say about what should be happening in the Ministry of Revenue so that perhaps he can respond in a somewhat different way.

At present we get a budget, usually every spring, from the Treasurer. It includes not only the policy statements of the government -- what they feel has to be accomplished by the budget in that year -- but also those tax changes and expenditure changes from the previous year which the government feels are necessary to accomplish those policy goals. All we ever get in the budget is the change from the last package. We debate whether or not the addition of retail sales tax on cable television is justified or not, but we debate that in isolation.

When one is making general criticisms, there have been occasions when recommendations and admissions have come out of the Ministry of Revenue. But what we would like to see coming out of the ministry is a white paper or a green paper or a red paper -- whatever you want to call it -- a complete analysis of the taxes we have in place. Then we could see their economic and social effect, whether it be positive or whether it be negative; the aspects of how changes in those taxes affect the job market and job creation, or perhaps even cause a decline in employment; some analysis from the ministry of the difficulty of enforcing all those taxes -- the difficulties of collecting all the revenues; and their relative social equity, if you like.

That’s the first thing I would like to see come out of the Ministry of Revenue -- a fairly thorough analysis of what we’ve got right now. Then not only the things the Treasury does but the things the rest of us in this Legislature get involved in would have some more relative consequence, some more relative focus, in terms of the budget itself.

Normally any move on the part of the opposition parties to change anything in the budget is treated as a motion of no confidence. On the other hand, we had an example in 1978 with the OHIP increase. Between the way the opposition parties in this House raised the issue and the public pressures that were brought to bear, we had a change in the budget without it becoming a no-confidence motion.

I firmly believe confidence is not necessary in all situations that relate to the budget, but that’s a debate we can get into a little further down the road once we’ve got some good groundwork done.

[11:30]

I’d like to give a couple of specific examples of what I was talking about and I’ll relate it to assessment.

This government and this Legislature ultimately -- because obviously there were people in both of the opposition parties in 1968 or 1969, whenever the vote was actually taken on the amendments to the Assessment Act, but at some point this government and this Legislature decided to go the market value route. We’ve all been through the debate over the delays and I won’t go through all of that again, but we had budget paper B or whatever it was, in 1976.

We’ve had the Blair commission and we’ve had Mr. McKeough’s white paper which, I would assume, came out of Treasury and Economics in 1978. We’ve had the joint provincial-municipal committee which also reported in 1978. We had some slight differences in approach and points of view in each of those reports but they all tended in the same general direction, Unfortunately, none of them provided any answers which allowed this government, the minister, the Treasurer, this House to deal effectively with the whole question of assessment reform and property tax reform.

Unfortunately -- and this comes back to what I was saying last Friday -- all of the expertise in terms of the real minute problems in assessment, the real minute problems in market value, exists in the Ministry of Revenue. Sure, there are people in Treasury and Economics who fully understand the assessment procedure and who play around on their computers -- and perhaps even by hand, I don’t know -- with the total figures, total shifts and so on, but all of the real expertise, the minute expertise, the refining expertise exists in the Ministry of Revenue and nowhere else.

Yet, we have had no effective statement from the Ministry of Revenue on the whole question of market value. We’ve had no effective statement or analysis of what the real problems with market value are, whether or not those problems can be effectively dealt with; in other words, whether we should be proceeding to eventually go to market value or whether in fact the political, social and economic problems that are placed by market value suggest that perhaps we made a mistake in 1969 and we should now be changing direction.

What I’m suggesting, Mr. Minister, is not that you should necessarily be the one who makes the final policy decision. I don’t even think that should fall on the Treasurer. He is perhaps the one who should make the final policy recommendation, but it should be a function of that government and that cabinet to make the final policy decisions.

All I’m saying to you is it seems logical to me, to us, and I would assume to a number of people in this House -- and I think if you think seriously about it, it should seem logical to you as well -- that there should at least be coming out of the Ministry of Revenue, the place where the expertise exists, some policy recommendations in terms of market value, in terms of its implementation, or a statement that you now believe the problems with market value are insurmountable and that we should modify that in some way or perhaps go in a totally new direction. Those recommendations aren’t forthcoming.

Yes, I understand that your staff may very well be having a daily conversation with Treasury staff, Intergovernmental Affairs staff and Ministry of Education staff. I don’t doubt that at all. But what I would like to see is a package of recommendations on a function which is a function of your ministry -- recommendations and nothing more -- recommendations that the Treasurer could consider in the same way that he has considered the Blair commission report and the joint committee report, recommendations that your colleagues in your own party have considered, recommendations that the parties on this side of the House could consider and recommendations that the public could consider. But we have had nothing.

Yes, we have made some gains. I have admitted that before and I will admit it now. We have made some gains in assessment, very small though; in terms of what our goals really were, very small. We have made some gains, but we are not going to get out of the ditch in terms of the basic thrust of property tax reform unless someone gives some leadership and some directions to the whole process. It seems quite essential to me that that leadership has to come from the place where the expertise is.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter we have discussed many times. My ministry has made recommendations to the people who were authorized to proceed with property tax reform. This happened to be the Ministry of Revenue, as the honourable member well knows. The property tax reform machinery that was put into place was under the direction of the Treasurer. The Blair report, the final report that came in between from the provincial-municipal committee, was under the chairmanship of the former Treasurer, but our staff have been making recommendations internally to this government for a long time.

I have stated publicly in this Legislature and in other places that the Ministry of Revenue still favours market value assessment. If we went directly to 100 per cent market value assessment -- as the honourable member knows, we do have figures for market value assessment for 1975 -- we know what shifts would take place. We agree, I am sure, that to do that we do need some form of property tax reform.

All the information is contained within the Ministry of Revenue -- all of the information as to the changes that would take place between the assessment as we know it today and market value assessment -- and if we moved to 100 per cent market value assessment, sure we could project what is going to happen. We already did on the white paper that the former Treasurer produced. The information that was given to the Treasurer’s people comes from the Ministry of Revenue.

That information is there. The problem is how do we implement market value assessment without creating those very major shifts we all know will take place, the shifts from commercial and industrial assessment to residential?

The report from the provincial-municipal committee suggested that 50 per cent assessment on residential, 75 per cent on apartments, 100 per cent on industrial and commercial and that was the way we were going to strike that balance. It looks good when you talk about it. Province-wide, on the general average, it is great. But when you apply it to every municipality in Ontario you will find that in some of them it works fine; in others, it doesn’t work quite so well.

As all the members know, if you make up an assessment it is not the same in every municipality. It is different in every one. So I have been saying, and I hope the honourable member would agree, that if we are going to develop any kind of a property tax reform package it must be something that is flexible enough to be adjustable to each municipality, rather than a blanket policy for the whole province, because every municipality is different. Their assessment, their makeup, their tax base is different and what might work well for the city of Toronto would not work for the town of Parry Sound. What might work well for the town of Parry Sound might not work well for the city of Ottawa.

It is a very complex problem. A lot of work has gone into it; a lot of study has gone into it. Our ministry has been involved. We have not been the lead industry in property tax reform. Perhaps the member is suggesting we should be; I don’t know. That is a matter for government to decide, not just the Minister of Revenue. To this time it has been the responsibility of the Treasurer to head that particular program. That responsibility has not changed at this point.

As the Minister of Revenue I would certainly like to have more input. I agree with the member that we are the ones who have all the detail that is necessary, but I must say we have provided all of that detail to the people who are responsible for developing these programs. Our staff has worked with them, and the recommendations, while they have not been published recommendations, those recommendations have been developed by the Ministry of Revenue and given to the people who are responsible for property tax reform proposals.

I suppose the more authority I have the more I would like. I am human, but I cannot be an island unto myself. There are other ministries involved with municipalities besides the Ministry of Revenue. All of us must communicate on a matter such as this and all the municipalities themselves must communicate. The problems out there are great. There is no one in this Legislature who knows it better than the member for Hamilton Mountain because he is, or was, an assessor and he knows the problems.

I don’t know what else I can tell the member other than that I don’t disagree with what he is saying, but I think he also has to realize the whole program is set up in such way that up to this point the Treasurer has been the person designated by the province to spearhead it.

Mr. Charlton: I would like to thank the minister for doing a reasonably good job of arguing the point I was making. There is no question that Ministry of Revenue staff had some input into all the studies that have been done. There is no question that you have all the data. There is no question that data was provided to all the people who worked on all the studies, but let’s just take the last study as an example. It was a provincial-municipal joint committee on property tax reform.

Sure, the Treasury people involved on that committee had data, your ministry provided data, your ministry provided input and recommendations and we ended up with a package that looked nice, as you suggested quite clearly, but it didn’t fit across the entire province because of the differences between municipalities. That is exactly what I was talking about in terms of the minute, the refining.

Has your ministry ever been involved in sitting down and writing out a package of specific, precise recommendations in terms of how to implement market value assessment and avoid the political, social and economic tax shift problems that market value implies in the context that it has been looked at so far?

Sure, your people are making recommendations to every committee and to the Treasurer and to everybody else, but how much does the expertise your ministry has get lost in the special interests or prejudices involved in those other study committee groups?

[11:45]

The best example I can think of, again, of how you lose the specifics, how you lose the fine tuning, if you like, of a recommendation that might be flexible enough to work across this province is if your people go in and make recommendations based on totals by municipalities or totals by county, or whatever it happens to be, to the municipal and Treasury and Intergovernmental Affairs people who are assessing that data and actually writing the final recommendations in the report. How much generalization do we get? How much give and take do they have to go through because this particular area of the province, or this particular municipality or county has a representative in that group and perhaps its share of something is going to go up slightly or whatever?

The minister knows what I am getting at. He was talking about authority. I wouldn’t even mind granting him some additional authority if he would do some of the things I am talking about, but in this case I am not even talking about additional authority. I am not talking about whether he is the person who makes the final decision.

I am talking in terms of producing the best product, in terms of the ability to put together a package to implement market values and the fine tuning that is involved so that it will work right across this province, or, as I suggested earlier, perhaps at some point making the recommendation that there is no effective way to get over the political problems involved. I don’t know.

It is true I was a property assessor and it’s true that I probably have a better sense of what all of the things that have gone on mean, but I don’t have a provincial perspective, because unfortunately I didn’t work in every municipality in this province, so I don’t have all of the data. Neither does Treasury in terms of a specific defined sense, because every municipality is made up slightly differently. The minister’s people have the expertise right from the minister on down to the assessor who does the neighbourhood, and he knows the relationship to the next neighbourhood and that municipal relationship to the next municipality in the same county. The only place where all of the ability to fine tune an implementation package for property tax reform exists is with the minister.

The minister may produce a white paper like that, which includes all of the recommendations which he can fine tune right down to the last minute detail. He has the expertise to do that. That white paper may get torn apart by the Treasurer, or the Minister of Education, or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, or the Premier himself, or the opposition parties, but whether it gets torn apart or whether it ever becomes a fact in terms of implementation is not what I am talking about.

Before we’re ever going to have a reasonable chance of having before us a package that has some slim chance of being implemented in terms of property tax reform, we must have a package put together which considers all the minutest details and all the differences between municipalities; a recommendation which goes far beyond the stage we are at now and far beyond the intricate political structure that we have in this province, because to a large degree that’s what is causing the delays.

Every area, depending on its present circumstances and what its circumstance would be if we went to full market value, based on the recommendations we have seen to date, each of those areas is lobbying, quite naturally, for itself. The minister knows that. We go through that on the equalization factor. We go through that on section 86s. We’ll go through that on market value as well. That is what we have been going through.

Because of all of that process that is going on, every recommendation we’ve had -- budget paper E, the Blair commission, the white paper and the joint committee paper -- all of those papers before they are produced, before they are written, have been affected by all of that lobbying and all of those prejudices.

I am suggesting to the minister it would be quite useful -- not in terms of the final decision perhaps but in terms of everybody in this Legislature and perhaps the municipal people out there and perhaps even a fair number of the taxpayers in this province -- if we had a document that at least started out being totally unaffected by all of those prejudices and special interests, a document that was put together by the people with specific expertise in property assessment.

We know how the political process works. It may get torn to shreds and it may get modified by 100 per cent or by 50 per cent, or by 40 per cent, or by 20 per cent; or if not, it may be so fine tuned that everybody can buy it. Who knows, because it has never been done.

As I said, Mr. Minister, I am not questioning whether or not your staff have dealt with all of the committees that have worked on this, or whether they have provided information or anything else. I am talking about those who have the expertise making some specific, in-depth recommendations.

I am not talking about those recommendations in the form of that white paper necessarily becoming the final product either. We know in the political process we have to have input, especially in the case of property tax reform, from the municipalities and from this Legislature and perhaps from a committee of this Legislature and from the public. Until the day comes when we have a document which is well enough put together in specific technical terms and we have gone beyond a lot of the political problems which I feel, from my knowledge and my expertise, are resolvable, we will have them. Those problems can be resolved, but they are presently holding up the whole process. That’s what I am getting at. Until we get that kind of a report from your ministry, we will have those problems.

This is not just in the area of property assessment either. That’s what I was getting into when I talked about your ministry doing an analysis of its entire tax structure from the point of view of social and economic benefits and from the point of view of job creation or the fact the increase in a certain tax may cost jobs. It should include the whole process, the difficulty in administering and collecting the tax, and knowing when you have got it all and so on, so when a budget is presented through this Legislature to the people of Ontario we have some substantial basis on which to judge whether or not the government is heading in the right direction or the wrong direction.

That kind of a document has to come from your ministry. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a document which recommends in what direction we should go. It should be a document that’s fairly substantive in terms of its analysis of the benefits and problems of each of the taxes you administer. This document is basically an analysis of the federal government’s structure but in terms of budget and in terms of the way the budget operates, they are not all that dissimilar. The Canadian Tax Foundation made a number of recommendations for major changes in the budgetary procedure in Ottawa and I think some of them are relevant here. That’s exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Minister.

This document talks about it. I won’t get into trying to read the whole thing into the record, but it gets into talking about tax packages and subcommittees of this Legislature looking at tax packages. It gets into talking about public input on tax changes in the budget. Certainly, before any of those kinds of parliamentary changes can ever be effective, before we can even get into talking about that land of a structure, we have first of all to have some good working knowledge of what it is we are working from. What’s the base we already have? Nobody in this Legislature has a really good sense of that, in the same way very few in this Legislature have a good sense of what the whole property tax reform question is all about and what, in specific terms, the complications really mean and how they might possibly be dealt with.

The same is true of almost every tax. There are individuals in here who have a good working knowledge of specific taxes, and the minister and I have talked about that. There are individuals who perhaps are somewhat more expert on the corporation taxes, but somewhat less in terms of their knowledge in the area of retail sales tax or land transfer tax or whatever it happens to be.

Very few people have a good working knowledge of the base we are working from. What does the tax package we already have really mean in terms of benefit and disbenefit? What do unit changes in each of those taxes mean, either up or down? What economic and social changes can be effected by a one per cent increase in income tax or a one per cent increase in retail sales tax, or a decrease in either of those?

We have no good working knowledge and no way of comparing in an effective way what is going on in the budget and in the tax realm. That is true for every tax we have; it is true for the total tax package we have. It is true in the case of municipal property assessments, even though the province doesn’t do the collecting on those assessments.

The minister and I have talked a number of times, not only about the problems he has in trying to sell property tax reform to his own party and his own caucus and cabinet and so on, but also about the problems of selling it to individuals in my caucus or the Liberal caucus. We know those problems exist. They are going to exist as long as we can’t get beyond the kinds of general province-wide projections we have had in all of the reports to date, which don’t take into consideration the specifics or the differences of this fairly diverse province.

My feeling is the only place the expertise to produce that kind of document exists is in this ministry. Therefore, I am saying the minister should be taking the leadership. Yes, I am saying that. I don’t care whether the minister makes the final decision, whether -- because of cabinet changes and government policy changes -- that leadership role is ever given to him officially, or whether the decision is ever given to him to make from that point on. That is not what is important. What is important is that the ministry with the expertise should be providing leadership in order that we can get past the kind of general stage we are at, the rut we are in, because we are not effectively progressing. We are making some small gains, we have put some bandages on, but they are not essentially what we are after.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I can’t add very much to what I have already said in my response to the previous statement and questions by the member, but I must reiterate that we have and have had recommendations produced by the Ministry of Revenue; they have been internal recommendations to the ministry in charge of the property tax reform package.

To this point there has been no change by government in the responsibility in this regard. I suppose we could, on our own, produce a white paper but I don’t think I have the power. I don’t think I can go outside of my government policy and produce a white paper, unless I produce it and present it to the Treasurer, who is responsible.

Mr. Charlton: That is what I am suggesting the minister should do.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We have been giving that kind of information to the Treasurer over the years. We can’t give him something he hasn’t already received from our ministry. All of those details, all of the suggestions we have, have already been given to the Treasurer.

Mr. Charlton: The minister may, in his white paper, be able to produce these things.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: But for me to produce a public document and assume the responsibility of property tax reform that has been assigned to someone else within the government would be stretching my position as a minister of the crown a little far, and I really am no --

Mr. Mancini: It hasn’t stopped anybody else.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I tell the honourable member, I don’t think the ministers of the crown in most cases tramp on other ministers’ toes any more than they can help. When one minister or one ministry has been assigned a certain responsibility, we try to co-operate with that ministry and give it all the information we have, all the expertise we have, and we have done so. But to develop a white paper as the member suggests, I’m sure he realizes I would have to present it to the person who’s responsible for property taxes, not to the public.

[12:00]

Mr. Charlton: Present it to the Treasurer; present it to the House.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: As to the matter of information regarding taxes and the matter of assessing the social impact of taxes, the problems related to collection of taxes and so on are examined and developed within my ministry now. That kind of information is produced for the benefit of the Treasury. They also have their own staff. But we have input to Treasury all the time as to what’s happening out there with our tax system.

Mr. Charlton: Produce a total package and table it in the House.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I think that’s a question the member should be asking of the Treasurer, not the Minister of Revenue. We supply the information we have and the studies to the Treasurer so he can make the decisions that are necessary for him to make when he is bringing down a budget.

It’s the way the system is set up and I think it’s the proper way. Two or three ministers cannot be responsible for a fiscal policy in this province. One must accept the final responsibility. There’s nothing wrong with the Ministry of Revenue or the minister discussing all these matters with the Treasurer. There’s nothing wrong with our ministry producing some results as to what is happening out there with taxes and providing it to the Treasurer. But the Treasurer must take all that information and then make his decisions. He must bear that responsibility.

Mr. Charlton: There’s nothing wrong with the Minister of Revenue discussing it with the members of this House either.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I would suggest to the member that those kinds of questions should be directed to the Treasurer when his estimates are on. They are the ones who make the final decisions, based on the information they have at hand.

As I’m sure all members are aware, before the Treasurer brings down his budget he speaks to many groups in the private and public sector to get information about tax policies -- what will happen if he does this, that, or the other thing. He asks what they suggest should happen. This is done on a regular basis by all Treasurers since I’ve been around here. And it is in addition to the information he receives from our ministry and from his own staff.

The questions the member is posing I think are the kind of questions that should be asked -- and I’m talking now about the taxation side of this thing -- of the Treasurer in his estimates. I think that’s where the member will get the answers he’s looking for. I’m trying to say to the member the government as a whole is doing the very things he’s suggesting. But the final responsibility in all of these matters does rest with the Treasurer -- and rightly so.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are we going to be allowed to speak on subjects of a general nature? This is the first vote and main item for this ministry, It has been the case in all the estimates I have been able to attend that the chairman has allowed members to discuss a wide range of subjects on the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: Are you asking to speak to matters of a general nature? That’s what has been the custom under the main office. I’m not sure it’s the most satisfactory way of doing it, but under the main office you can bring in just about anything. That’s what you wish to do now?

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairman: You have the floor.

Mr. Mancini: I’d like to speak to the Minister of Revenue about a matter that I’m sure has been brought to his attention. That is that most homeowners in the province feel penalized, when they make home improvements, through increases in their property taxes. I find this to be a very significant problem in our society. I firmly believe that for people to be proud of their province, proud of their country, to feel they are part of this great province and that they own something and have a stake in the future of the province, something they may be able to pass on to their children, for most that means owning a home.

None of us need go into the details of the many difficulties the ordinary citizen faces today in home ownership, with the tremendously high interest rates and costs of energy and upkeep. Then we see homeowners upgrading their homes -- adding garages and sidewalks, and so on -- being penalized by increased taxes. I think that is a fundamental error. I have spoken with many of my constituents on this matter, which is one of the reasons I draw it to the attention of the Legislature, of the minister and of his assistants under the gallery, on whom I know he depends for advice in all matters.

Surely, Mr. Minister, we must give this problem some attention. We must not penalize people who have been willing to save, who have denied themselves trips to Florida and dinners at fancy restaurants, for the purpose of upgrading their homes or property. However, once this work is done, they are penalized through higher property taxes.

I know this deals with the fundamental problem of raising revenues through property taxes; I realize that. I know it is a difficult problem and I don’t want to offer simplistic solutions. But I think the problem is sufficiently severe that it needs to be brought up in the Legislature and it needs the sincere attention of the Minister of Revenue.

Since my election in 1975 I have come to know the Minister of Revenue and to respect him. I know that with his background he would be sympathetic to this problem. Since his appointment he has not become pompous; he has kept a fairly level head and I know he would deal sincerely with this problem. That is why I have no hesitation whatever in bringing this matter to his attention.

As I travel through my constituency, from one town to another, from one township to another, this matter is continually mentioned to me. I believe my constituents are absolutely right when they say they are penalized for improving their homes, for making their homes a better place for their children, for improving their own municipality aesthetically, when after all this is done and the new tax bills come out, they find they are penalized for doing things we would all want them to do and which we all ask them to do.

I know some people are not financially able to spend as much as they would want to improve their homes. We do not in any way want to be critical of those people. As I mentioned earlier, the task of owning and maintaining a home today is very difficult indeed.

When I see people sacrificing many luxuries, trips and things like that, for the sole purpose of improving their home and then being penalized for it, I think we are doing an injustice to those people and an injustice to our society.

I don’t expect the Minister of Revenue to rattle off a bunch of answers today, but I do expect the minister will concede that this is a very serious problem -- indeed, an injustice -- and that he will assure me and the Legislature the problem is going to be given serious consideration and it’s going to be looked into, hopefully with the idea of some resolve.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I am not without sympathy for what the member for Essex South is talking about but I think the member has to realize that if we were to ignore that assessment it means other people would have to pick up the tab.

Mr. Haggerty: Not necessarily.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Our property tax system is based on assessment and value of property. If one is not valued at the proper amount it means he’s not going to pay --

Mr. Haggerty: Which is the land value.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That’s not the policy of the government at the present time, as the member for Erie very well knows.

Mr. Haggerty: I know that. That’s what you should consider.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: At the moment we’re talking about value and we’re talking about market value or a portion of market value and how much a property would gain on the market.

At the present time, repairs or modifications up to $2,500 are not picked up by assessment. You can make up to $2,500 worth of repairs or modifications to your home without being assessed for them. If you get beyond that, then to be equitable with other residences it must be added to the assessment. I’m not unsympathetic. I think what the member is saying is let’s provide these people with an incentive to fix up their homes. They make sacrifices in other areas in order to beautify their homes or make them look better or to improve them. I’m not unsympathetic to that, but to be equitable I don’t know how we could go any further than we have.

As I say, we have put on a limit of $2,500. If somebody decides to build a $5,000 swimming pool in the backyard or something like that, if they have the kind of money to do that -- I don’t have, personally -- surely they can then afford to pay the taxes the extra assessment would generate.

I don’t want to seem unsympathetic about it, but I think if we went beyond where we’ve gone, what we would be doing really, basically, would be asking someone else to pay the taxes those people would not be paying if they were not assessed. That would eventually create another problem in assessment down the road.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I have a few points which I would like to raise. One is in relation to the whole situation which has been raised by the member from the Liberal Party. It includes this widespread problem affecting a lot of people when they are modifying or repairing their houses.

I share the position of the minister when he is talking about swimming pools, but when he is talking about concrete and simple repairs of people’s houses I have to disagree with him. It all depends what people are going to modify or to repair in their own house.

I think it is a widespread problem and I would like to echo the concern which has been raised by the Liberal member. If you take a look in Metropolitan Toronto, not too many swimming pools are going to be built in backyards in the area of Dovercourt, which is heavily populated by immigrants.

[12:15]

Following your analysis, what you are doing is penalizing immigrants who are forced to buy older houses because they cannot afford to buy new ones. When they have to make repairs or changes within the structure of the house, such as a veranda, a garage, or like improving the external and internal structural parts of the house, they face the same type of penalty. When the new assessment is done, they see their property taxes increasing.

As I stated before, I would like to echo this concern because it affects a lot of people. I would like you to take seriously a new formula which should be applied in order that such a penalty process won’t take place.

By the way, if you take a look at the positive aspects of such repairs going on across Ontario and in particular in Metropolitan Toronto where you have to deal with all the houses, I think it’s good for the economy. It’s an improvement for the economy because the industries have to sell products to people to make such repairs. So those people make a double contribution to the improvement of the economy but, at the same time, they are faced with the penalty of an assessment increase when they have to deal with property taxes. I don’t think it’s fair to penalize them.

Actually, you have to appreciate what they are doing because the state of the economy is going to be improved and, at the same time, the local environment in which the house is located is also improved, so, I don’t think the position which you have been taking is the right one.

As I stated, I agree with you when you talk about installations like swimming pools, or like building another floor on to a louse. That’s fine, but when you make modifications with the structure of the house such as improving rooms, or adding a veranda or garage, I don’t think people should be penalized. I’m urging you, Mr. Minister, to apply a different method of assessment to eliminate any increase when a member of the public is using his only vehicle to improve his house, not for luxury, but to make the house look much better for his own personal environment.

I hope you take this task seriously, because if you take a look at a number of ridings in Metropolitan Toronto, not just my riding of Dovercourt, which are heavily populated by immigrants, you will see they are forced to buy older houses. If you penalize them when they move into their houses and make these repairs by raising their assessment the next year, that’s completely wrong. You also have to appreciate the benefits which go into the economy as a result of this improvement. From listening to your position I’m sure you share this concern, but sharing the concern is not enough and some type of action should be taken in co-operation with municipalities, especially here in Metropolitan Toronto.

That is the first point I wanted to raise.

The second point is this: My colleague has been talking about the leadership he would like to see in your ministry. He talked about new programs and new projects. I would like to brief the minister about a case I raised in 1978 which involved the retail sales tax between the provinces. The case I brought to the attention of the minister was in relation to double taxation between Ontario and Quebec and I am particularly concerned to find out if some sort of reciprocal agreement has been reached between the two provinces.

When people move from Quebec, they purchase goods which subsequently are brought to Ontario. They pay provincial tax in Quebec and when they come back to Ontario they are faced with another taxation.

If the minister remembers, I attached a letter which I received on June 13, 1978, from a constituent of mine who moved to Quebec because he had found a job opportunity there. He bought a car and when he came back to Toronto, he found out that he had to pay double taxation; paid in Quebec and then in Ontario as well. He was particularly concerned that he paid an eight per cent Quebec sales tax and, according to a letter which he received from the Quebec government, they don’t reimburse the eight per cent tax he had paid when he subsequently moved to Ontario.

The minister showed some particular concern about this case and I would refer to a letter he wrote to me on October 6, 1978, where he said that since my constituent, and I will quote from this letter, Mr. Chairman, “purchased the vehicle less than 30 days prior to registration in Ontario, retail sales tax became due here as soon as the automobile entered Ontario under provisions of section 2(9) of the Retail Sales Tax Act.”

The point which the minister emphasized in the letter, and I would like to quote again: “Most of the provinces refund tax when goods are removed from their jurisdiction within a specified time, for permanent use in another province. For example, Ontario will refund tax paid on goods purchased in this province, if the goods are permanently removed from Ontario within 30 days of purchase. It is indeed regrettable...” and that is why I think the minister agrees that this particular problem or loophole exists between Ontario and Quebec, because no agreement has been reached as yet. I would like to know the stage of such negotiations if this matter was being negotiated by the minister at the time when he sent me such a letter.

“It is indeed regrettable” -- and I am quoting from the same letter from the minister -- “that the province of Quebec does not, at present, see its way clear to refunding the tax collected on the purchase of any item immediately removed from their jurisdiction.

“I can assure you, however, that the kind of situation that” -- I don’t want to mention the name of my claimant -- “finds himself in has already been raised with Quebec, and continues to be the subject of discussion between the tax administrators of both provinces. Should Quebec choose to make any changes in this area, it is uncertain at this point whether the change would be retroactive and would allow...” your claimant... “to claim a refund of the Quebec sales tax paid.

“I sincerely regret that I am unable to provide you with a more favourable reply.”

I don’t want to read all of the letter, Mr. Chairman. I guess the Minister of Revenue gave me the impression in that letter that he is greatly concerned about this problem, that he will initiate negotiations with the province of Quebec to solve such cases as my constituent is in -- and I am sure a lot of other people are involved in the same situation -- and that a compromise is going to be found in order that people won’t face this double-taxation process from two provinces.

The point that arises is that Quebec was not willing, at the time I received the letter, to engage itself in initiating a reciprocal agreement with Ontario.

There are two questions I would like to address to the minister. First, is there any way to find out the stage of the negotiation process? There was one initiated by the Minister of Revenue. The second point which emerges from this situation is that if Quebec is not willing at this time to initiate the reciprocal agreement, it is the duty of this minister to protect the consumers of this province and to refund or eliminate for some period of time the provincial taxes they are supposed to pay to the province until such agreement is reached.

I hope the minister will take the position that a retroactive clause should be incorporated into the agreement so that positive steps will be taken between the Minister of Revenue for Ontario and the Minister of Revenue for Quebec.

To conclude, I see the whole situation up there. I don’t think the consumer is supposed to pay double taxes. I don’t have a magic formula, but the formula expressed by the minister was to initiate a reciprocal agreement between the two provinces to solve the problem. Maybe his is the right formula, but I would like to know what is going on in this field.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The first remarks made by the honourable member had to deal with the same problem the member for Essex South indicated. I don’t know whether he heard my response or not, but I would advise him up to $2,500 in repairs is not picked up by the assessor, so they can put a new roof on. They can repair their veranda and they can repair their garage if it is under $2,500 and in a lot of cases it probably is. So there is a policy in place. We recognize there is a problem there and we want to help them.

Mr. Lupusella: Maybe you can increase the ceiling.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That is something to be considered. Again, I would have to say if we are going to relate assessment to value, when you increase the value of the house then the assessment goes up. We have brought in a $2,500 figure to encourage people at least to do some repairs and not get caught.

Mr. Mancini: It should be $5,000.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I dislike the word “penalized.” I don’t think that is fair. I don’t think people are being penalized; I think they are being asked to pay taxes on the value of their property, which is a different thing to saying we are going to penalize you if you do something to your house.

Mr. Mancini: And they are penalized.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: What we are saying is you are increasing the value of your house.

To give you an example, let’s say if you own a house worth $50,000 and you spend $10,000 on it, then you compare it with another house that is worth $60,000. It now becomes worth $60,000, if you put $10,000 worth of repairs on it.

Mr. B. Newman: Not necessarily.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Should you have the right to pay less in taxes than the other person who also owns a $60,000 house? That’s the other side of the coin.

Mr. Lupusella: Well, what do you expect -- the house is going to fall apart?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, I am not suggesting that at all. What I am saying to the members, if they would listen for a moment, is if you have a $50,000 house and you invest $10,000 in that house -- I am talking about things that can be seen that would increase the value -- it then becomes worth $60,000. Shouldn’t you then pay the same taxes as someone else down the street who has a $60,000 home?

[12:30]

Mr. Haggerty: You’re not considering the depreciation there at all. I know it would depreciate --

Hon. Mr. Maeck: But depreciation --

Mr. Haggerty: We don’t know what methodology the assessors are using; they should be accountable.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Of course we know what methodology. The fact is we’re talking about market value or a percentage thereof. The honourable member knows and I know that on every residential property in this province the assessment is based on market value or a percentage of value. It is the only way it can be assessed.

While I have sympathy, I would encourage people to upgrade their houses and so on. I really think we have indicated that by the fact that we do not pick anything under $2,500. This does give them the opportunity to do some repairs without having to pay any additional taxes. I don’t know how much further we can go without being unfair to other taxpayers; that’s the point I am trying to make.

The other matter that was discussed was the matter of double taxation between Ontario and Quebec. I don’t have a copy of the letter the member read, but as I recall it was a motor vehicle that was purchased in Quebec. They paid sales tax there, then brought it into Ontario and were taxed again. At the present time, an Ontario resident may go into Quebec and buy a motor vehicle without paying the tax. He then pays the tax in Ontario. So we have avoided some of that double taxation.

It is not as satisfactory as I would like to see it, but at least we have a movement in that direction. Ontario residents can go into Quebec, buy a vehicle tax-free -- he doesn’t buy a Quebec licence, obviously, and that’s how they control it. He buys a transit sticker or whatever the Quebec government requires for them to move it into Ontario. When the licence is purchased in Ontario, the Quebec government would then be notified the tax was paid in Ontario. So we have moved a little bit in the direction of alleviating that situation. Unfortunately it’s not retroactive and won’t cover the situation the honourable member indicated.

I would have some reservations about us, as the member suggested, not collecting the tax if it was collected in Quebec. I don’t think that’s fair to the taxpayers in Ontario who have to raise the dollars we don’t collect through loss of taxation.

Mr. Lupusella: I made such reference in relation to the agreements which should be reached.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We have been negotiating. Perhaps members will remember that we signed an agreement with Quebec some six months ago for exchanges of information and other matters of a technical nature. We are getting more and more co-operation from them, so I am hopeful that most of these situations will be ironed out as we move along, and we are continuing to do that.

Regarding the problem the honourable member had written to me about, I believe if the situation arose today the person could buy the vehicle and not pay the sales tax there and pay it in Ontario when he returned. Quebec is assured, by the fact he didn’t buy the licence, that the vehicle is coming into Ontario. So that matter has been resolved at least to a reasonable degree.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add a few comments to the member who previously spoke about the matter of replacing or renovating an older home. There is the $2,500 figure that is not included in the assessment, but I suppose if one looks at the equalization factors based upon market value assessment, that is included in it. It has to be.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: If it’s not included in the assessment, it doesn’t show up in the figure.

Mr. Haggerty: If it is based upon current values, it should be included then. The minister now tells me it’s not.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That isn’t what I said; I’ll explain it to the member after.

Mr. Haggerty: It must be included in there, if they change the value of the property.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: It is only included if you add the additional amount.

Mr. Haggerty: If the assessors are out there today, assessing at market value, and your equalization factors are based upon the 1978 factor, that is value, then I am sure it’s current value. That’s right, so that would be included in there if they used that today for municipal taxation; so it’s actually frozen for that period of time, for about 10 years. Eventually, it will catch up with them; but the members do make a point. It does add to the economy when a person is out spending money to upgrade his home. Sometimes I question the matter of assessment procedures to generate revenue for the municipality.

Maybe we should be looking at personal income to generate municipal taxation -- it has been considered in other localities, even in the United States. As the members here have suggested before, a person could save everything he has and put it into his home. The next person could be renting, or he could be living in a home that’s not up to standard, and he has put his money into cars or other amenities of life. By this method, a person who keeps a beautiful home is being penalized for it, so maybe you should be looking at that. If I am not mistaken, some of the states in the United States have accepted a method in re-evaluation or market value assessment, where the improvements to a person’s home are not included for assessment purposes. They somehow change the land values. It is the land that is most important, not the construction of the building itself.

I am sure if the minister were to build a new home today, he would find that the materials going into some of these homes today are not of the value that they were 10 or 15 years ago. When they talk about putting in four or five inches of insulation into some of these newly constructed homes, I don’t know how they are going to get in there with about a three-and-a-half-inch or three-and-three-quarter-inch two-by-four studding.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: It would be hard.

Mr. Haggerty: It would be hard. That’s right, and you can find that out if you look at the roof construction of new homes today; instead of being three-quarter in wood, there is three-eighth or five-sixteenth. They don’t put the value into the new homes any more. It is made out of the cheapest material available, and that is poplar plywood. The least little bit of moisture in there and two years from now they will be able to stick their finger through it. You tell me that that is value in a home. It may have a cosmetic value, but the actual value is not there.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You are talking about replacement value, eh?

Mr. Haggerty: No, I am not talking about replacement. I am talking about values of new homes. In other words, on market value assessment, actually the person who owns a home for 10 years or more is being penalized by market value assessment. He doesn’t sell his home every two or three years, but he is being penalized and charged more if he keeps that home. He has no intention of selling it.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: It has increased in value on the market.

Mr. Haggerty: When you talk about a selling property, there is its fair value and a willing buyer; there are three different ways you can look at it. You can have a willing buyer, and you can have a person who says, “I will sell it at my price.” You can have somebody who says, “I will sell it, because I have to sell and get out of it.” I can tell you that today there are many properties throughout Ontario that are being sold that way, because they can’t continue paying the high interest rates. That’s the point I want to come to. You mentioned the small business development corporation and you have a fund I believe of $1.5 million investment in this particular area. That could mean you have about six applications that have been accepted by your ministry based upon $250,000 --

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Eighteen. I’ll give you the detail later; I’ll give you an update.

Mr. Haggerty: Eighteen? In this investment venture -- I hope it is going to be better than what you had in the previous VIC program, because that wasn’t too successful -- when you are lending back out this money for investment purpose, what is the interest rate on that? Could the minister tell me that? I would like to know that now, and then I will continue.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The money that is put into the SBDCs, Mr. Chairman, is not lent. They invest; they buy shares in small businesses. They must invest 70 per cent of it in shares, not in loans; so they gamble. If the company that they invest in makes money, then they get a return on their investment, but it is a gamble on their part.

The remaining 30 per cent can be left in the bank to draw interest or can be put in mortgages to draw interest, but they do not loan directly. I presume they would take a mortgage at the current interest rate. That is up to them to decide. The whole thrust of this program is that they invest in shares in the small business rather than loaning the money.

Mr. Haggerty: But there is a possibility they will get 30 per cent return on their money. That is what it is. You invest 70 per cent; you get 30 per cent back.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: What happens is simply this: if you invest $100 in a small business development corporation -- I am not talking about investment in a small business now; I’m talking about investing in an SBDC -- the Ministry of Revenue will send you a cheque for $30; 30 per cent, You will get a 30 per cent grant or return on your money. In other words, you will have a $100 investment that cost you $70.

If you happen to be a corporation and want to invest some funds in an SBDC, then you will get no grants, but you will get tax exemptions or tax rebates or tax credits from your corporations tax when you pay it.

Mr. Haggerty: It is 30 per cent return on investment; that is what you are telling me. I suppose there would eventually be a capital gains tax on that in the long run?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: If there is a profit, if they sell the shares for more than they have invested, obviously there is capital tax on that, yes.

Mr. Haggerty: The point is you could make as high as 30 per cent and then there is a gamble that you would be paying a capital gains tax on it. You wonder if such a program couldn’t be available perhaps even to home builders in Ontario, persons who are investing large sums of money. Perhaps it would be the biggest investment in their lifetime, purchasing of a home. You charge them the provincial sales tax and the federal sales tax.

There is very little benefit given to them in return, yet that person building a new home is actually building the economy. Look at what goes into it in material -- it could be metal, it could be plastics, it could be anything -- and then the furniture and the appliances. Look at the sales tax generated by a new home.

Mr. Lupusella: You should say thanks.

Mr. Haggerty: You offer that person, the small property owner, nothing in return for the investment he makes. He is really investing in the country itself. We seem to go out and just twist it in more and more, and he pays taxes on almost everything.

My son is building a home today, and this is the reason I am interested. I have seen what material goes into it. He went out to rent a transit at $20 a day and he had to pay sales tax on top of that. This government does not miss a trick.

I was quoting from a 1970 book on government tax reform by MacNaughton, the former Treasurer of this province. He said in that -- and this government hasn’t followed it -- “The government shouldn’t be taxing persons to death,” and that is what you are doing.

The economy is at its lowest ebb in years, except for the oil industry, which is reaping huge profits with little taxes paid. They are given almost everything, but the average home owner who has to build a home today is being taken by all these taxes and there is very little given back to him. I suggest he is going to get caught by this market value assessment, because he is going to be paying through the nose when it comes about.

This is what you have achieved with market value assessment. After 10 years of delaying the implementation of it, you have finally brought it in through the back door, and that’s what is wrong with your system. You have not provided the taxpayer, the property owner, a right to appeal. There is no right to appeal under the present assessment if you base it upon market value.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Of course there is a right.

Mr. Haggerty: No. You show me where there is a right to appeal.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You can appeal any time.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes. The municipality can appeal.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No. You can.

[12:45]

Mr. Haggerty: No, I can’t. I can’t even get that information to know what my neighbours --

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I don’t say you can win it, but you can appeal it.

Mr. Haggerty: No, I can’t even get the market value assessment on my property itself. It can be had by blocks in communities but one can’t get it individually. I’ve tried to obtain it because I wanted to know what my property is worth. In fact, I wanted to know the other day so I could use it for looking at my fire insurance to see if it needs upgrading. It’s hard to get that. You can get the old factor but you can’t get the market value assessment.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Well, you can’t get that.

Mr. Haggerty: No. That’s the point. I’m saying, how can you appeal on this equalization factor if the municipality can appeal but the property owner can’t, and yet it’s going to affect his property. I suggest it’s time the assessors should be accountable to their peers -- who are the property owners.

If the minister is applying market value assessment and equalization factors, then he should open those books. The taxpayer should know --

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We are not applying it.

Mr. Haggerty: You are applying it; it was implemented through the back door. We’re going to find this out later on when you bring in your amendment to section 86 of the Assessment Act.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We haven’t amended it.

Mr. Haggerty: No, but you’ll be bringing it forward. We now know the court proceedings for appealing it don’t relate to market value assessment in a sense. In one sense it does, and it doesn’t because there’s an opinion of comparison and of equal value or something like that. Nobody knows what the assessor means by it.

I think it’s time these books were opened. Let the taxpayers and the municipalities see what effect this will have on their communities, because nobody knows. They’ve been writing me letters and they’ve been writing everybody here letters saying, “We approve of market value,” not knowing what effect it will have on them until property tax reform is brought in. That’s been promised for 10 years. If the minister is going to kick it around for another two years, we know full well there’s going to be an election within a year or so.

We have seen the mothballing of it again. This matter of this five per cent factor that’s used now, or equalization factor, will not increase any more than five per cent to municipalities. That’s only good for another year. The minister can rest assured, if you fellows come back into power with a majority, we’ll have market value assessment without property tax reform. Although the minister shakes his head “no,” he’s heading that way right now.

I suggest to the minister, it’s time the books were opened.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We are heading that way because you people wanted it.

Mr. Haggerty: No, we don’t want it. No, no. We were promised that the minister was not going to see any injustices done through it, but we can see it now.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You were told what injustice would happen before you supported the --

Mr. Haggerty: No, we were told about that $400 million you were supposed to get someplace to carry out tax reform that you haven’t got yet.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, we never promised that.

Mr. Mancini: Let’s not confuse the facts.

Mr. Haggerty: Those are the facts. I suggest to you that I think it’s time you started opening the books so the property owner can see his assessment based upon market value, because you are using part of that figure for the benefit of the equalization factors.

I can’t understand the equalization factors or how you can arrive at a figure of 0.89 to a 100 factor. I don’t know the methodology you use for it. I don’t think anybody knows just what the minister is using. I know you are going to say it’s not your ministry; it’s the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs or the Treasury. Among the three, we can’t pin anything down and that’s where the confusion is. There’s no direction or leadership in this particular area.

I think Mr. McKeough had the right idea, but the rest of you over there wouldn’t go along with him. That’s one reason he’s gone. He couldn’t get along with you. He wanted to bring about market value assessment. The minister saw the inequities in the system. I recognize that, as do other members. It’s a tough task to bring it forward, but as long as it sits there now, there’s not going to be equity in the system.

He bases it upon market value of the sale of homes, but how many times has industry been sold here? How many times can an assessor go in and put a value on industry itself? Let’s take General Motors as an example. Despite the profits made in their industry, they might have an old building. You tell me there is no value to that building and you reduce the assessment. That is what you have done in market value assessment. You have shifted it from commercial-industrial to residential. That is what has happened here. You can’t sell an industrial building every day. How many times does one sell Inco? Look at the value in the ground there.

I just want to bring to the minister’s attention that he has got to do something in this area; the government can’t year after year bring in amendments to the Assessment Act. Section 86 isn’t going to be the cure-all. The minister knows that, just as I and others do. It may be a catch-all for one or two municipalities. But if a municipality, such as Welland or Thorold or some other community, wanted to go to section 86 of the Assessment Act, it wouldn’t be right for me to move in this direction unless all municipalities in a region or county do so.

It would not remove all the inequities there. It may equalize in the sense there would not be a serious impact in that community. But, eventually, when market value comes, it is going to be there and it is going to hit them hard. I suggest the minister is going to have to look at other areas of tax-revenue sharing with his federal counterparts. Get back to the Edmonton commitment and see that additional revenue comes back to the municipalities where it should be, not to the provincial or federal government, but back to where it is needed and back to the property taxpayers of this province.

That is what the former Treasurer of this province said. That is where tax-sharing has to be considered -- at the property taxpayer level in Ontario. They can’t bear any more costs. This is one of the most regressive forms of taxation in Canada. Even the Carter commission report suggested that.

So the government has a problem there among the three ministers. Someone is eventually going to have to get on the ball and solve it. If the fellows over there can’t do it, I think the people of Ontario will look to a party that can. We are ready to go to that side and do something for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Most of the things the member said, he has said before. I just can’t agree with the sort of philosophy he is presenting here. Some of it borders on the ridiculous. I know he knows better. He knows very well there must be a means of assessing property fairly and equally. He also knows very well we are not going to get equity in this province unless there are some shifts.

If there aren’t to be any shifts, that means we are all taxed equitably right now and we don’t need any program. It is all very well for everyone to say, “When are you going to bring some equity into the system?” The minute we move under section 86, by equalization factors or any other way, then the people affected, the ones who will have to pay more taxes on an equitable basis, are against it.

Everybody is saying to the Minister of Revenue: “Get it all straightened out, but don’t change anybody’s taxes. Don’t let there be any shifts from one property class to another. Don’t let any of that happen, but make it all equitable.” I ask you, how does one do it? It is impossible. Any program we bring in, if we admit there are inequities out there now, will involve shifts. If we are not going to have any shifts, then we might as well shelve the whole thing and forget about it; we are apparently satisfied with the way things are.

We have to be prepared, all of us. If we are going to bring equity into any program -- assessment or whatever it is -- if there are inequities and if we make it equitable, there have to be some shifts. There can’t help but be shifts.

Are we going to say to the taxpayers of Ontario: “You own a $60,000 house. Your fair share of taxes is X dollars. You are now paying only Y dollars, so you’re going to have to pay $100 more to be equitable with your neighbour. That’s equity”? Are we going to say that or are we going to say: “Yes, we want equity, but you don’t pay any more than you ever did. You keep on paying more than your share”? Then everybody is happy: I don’t get any complaints, nobody comes into my constituency office and the municipalities are not complaining, because there has been no change. That, in my estimation, is not equity.

If we’re going to talk about equitable programs, we have to understand that some municipalities are going to get less in grants than they used to and some are going to get more; some householders are going to pay more in taxes than they did before and some are going to pay less. If those inequities are not out there, then we’ve wasted a lot of time over the past 10 years talking about them. But I can tell you they’re there; and I can tell you that any program we bring in is going to create some shifts, whether it be in grants, whether it be in apportionments, whether it be on property taxes. If we’re going to have any equity at all, those shifts are going to take place.

There is no use in our standing in this Legislature and saying: “Let’s do something about it, but let’s not disturb anybody.” It can’t be done. We’re either going to do something about it and disturb a few people, or we’re going to leave things as they are and continue on with the inequities that are out there -- let some people pay more than their share and others pay less than their share, and let it go on and on.

That’s why I brought in section 86. That’s why we’re using that program. The member is suggesting we’re using market value assessment. We are merely using a percentage of market value assessment in those areas where we have implemented section 86, in the 14 municipalities. It’s based on a percentage of the 1975 market value; that’s true. The equalization factors are based on a sampling of 1978 market values. No question about that. But how do you change the equalization factors?

The member for Windsor-Walkerville is undoubtedly going to talk about the fact that his municipality hasn’t been getting a fair share of grants because of the freeze on equalization factors. That’s what he’s going to tell me -- and rightly so. But if he’s going to bring things up to date, he must use up-to-date figures. He’s going to have 1978 figures, and that’s exactly what we used. But it has nothing to do with the individual taxpayer. It has to do with the amount the municipality pays in apportionments, the amount it gets in grants, which then affects the taxpayers.

Mr. Haggerty: Based upon his assessment.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: But the individual taxpayer’s property is not assessed on 1978 market value as far as his property taxes are concerned. That’s the point I was trying to make.

I agree it does reflect in the property taxes if a municipality’s apportionments go up. Because of the new factor, it obviously reflects on everybody’s property taxes. But still their own taxes are not based on 1975 market value assessment, unless we’ve had a section 86 program.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.