Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORDER PAPER CORRECTION

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On today’s Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, under private members’ motions tabled on November 26, 1979, item 42 was a resolution accredited to the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith). This should have read the member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith). We ask that that be corrected.

Mr. Speaker: The correction is duly noted.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I promised this House on October 16, I would like to bring honourable members up to date on the status of the Royal Ontario Museum’s renovation and expansion program. I will keep this House informed as the renovation and expansion program progresses and as capital-funding negotiations which are now under way are completed. I am not yet in a position to present ROM’s 1980-81 operating grant.

As honourable members know, ROM’s renovation and expansion program is ambitious and visionary. It has been planned in three distinct phases.

The first phase, construction of a modern curatorial centre, is already under way. The curatorial centre is scheduled to open in the spring of 1981. It will do two important things for the museum.

First, it will provide first-class physical facilities for the museum’s celebrated collections and its community of scholars. Second, the curatorial centre will free for public use and display approximately 28,000 square feet of space in the main building that had given way over the years to pressing needs for offices and laboratories as the staff and scientific activities of the museum had grown. This represents an increase of more than 40 per cent in the space that has been accessible to the public in recent years.

The second phase, renovation of the main museum buildings, is scheduled to begin next Monday. The renovation program is to be conducted in stages of 28 months. The schedule prescribes that there will be only 15 months in which the whole of the main building will be closed to the public. Compare that with the two and a half years that the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts was closed and the five years that the Victoria Building of the National Museums in Ottawa was closed for renovations. The ROM renovations are essential for the safety of both the public and the museum’s collections. Those collections must be stored with time-taking care to ensure that they will be sustained for future generations.

When you consider all those factors, I know you will appreciate how effective ROM’s planning has been in keeping disruption of public viewing to an absolute minimum.

One last word on the main building’s closing schedule for my friend from Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and those who have a special interest in the mineralogy and geology galleries. These galleries will not close next Monday. They will be open to the public until 1981 and only then close for renovation.

During the whole renovation period, ROM will be reaching out to offer public service with travelling school cases, museum-mobiles, the “Discover the ROM” van and lectures by its specialists.

The third phase of ROM’s program, namely the construction of a new set of galleries called the Terrace Galleries, is scheduled to begin early next year. When they open, they will provide a place for vast new perspectives on our human heritage.

Financing of the third phase, the Terrace Galleries, has been uncertain, mainly because of the absence of a commitment from the federal government for financial support of the expansion and renovation program. Shortly before the May 22 election the then Secretary of State indicated that the only possible federal source of financial support might be Loto Canada. With the transfer of Loto Canada to the provinces in September, that federal source of funds also effectively disappeared.

Mr. Martel: But you have it now.

Mr. McClellan: You’ve got the money now.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I was about to say that.

Mr. Speaker, the Loto Canada transfer was a very good deal for the people of Ontario and for the Royal Ontario Museum. It allowed me to announce on September 4 that my ministry was committing an additional $11 million grant to meet the balance required to cover the $44.25 million expansion and renovation budget.

We were not, as has been cynically suggested, suckered into making this commitment. On the contrary, we made it for three sound and compelling reasons. First, the Royal Ontario Museum needs first-class exhibit space and there is a firm commitment to putting it there. Second, the construction of the Terrace Galleries in conjunction with the other two phases is the most efficient, least disruptive way to proceed. Third, in the light of the escalating construction costs, further postponement on the start of the Terrace Galleries promised to result in those galleries not being built in this century or ever.

With our further commitment of $11 million the original expenditure budget of $44.25 million was met. In the meantime, the ugly and all-pervasive reality of inflation made its impact on ROM’s renovation and expansion program, just as it has made its impact on all major building projects. The total capital cost now estimated is $49.59 million, or roughly $5 million more than the original budget.

The trustees at ROM are dealing with this situation and they are confident that they can cope with it. The board is overseeing the project management to ensure that effective cost control is maintained and that appropriate economies take place, so the museum gets the very best value for every dollar that it spends. Perhaps even more important, the trustees are waiting to hear about funding from an important and likely source, namely Metropolitan Toronto. The museum and Metro agreed some time ago to suspend negotiations until the contributions from the two senior levels of government had been ascertained.

It would be hard to believe that Metro would not make an important contribution to ROM’s renovation and expansion program. As honourable members know, Metro has generously supported the Art Gallery of Ontario and the new Massey Hall. Both institutions are important to Metro. The Royal Ontario Museum is clearly just as important. All the people of Ontario benefit from ROM, but the people of Metropolitan Toronto benefit the most. The museum provides large and diverse recreational and educational benefits to all of Metro’s citizens, particularly to the young people growing up in this area. It provides jobs and income directly. It also provides jobs and income in the tourist industry and the sectors from which it buys goods and services.

The museum expects to hear from Metro council in January 1980. Until it does, any discussion in this Legislature of these negotiations would at best be conjecture and, at worst, could be prejudicial to a favourable decision.

As the slogan for the ROM’s expansion program notes, ROM wasn’t built in a day. I would like to assure members the renovation and expansion program is proceeding. It will be brought to a successful conclusion making ROM not only the finest museum in Canada but among the very best in the world.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTEREST RATES

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I will address my question to the Treasurer.

With regard to the setting of oil prices, Ontario, although recognizing it is a federal matter, has made its position very clear. Ontario has also taken a position in general terms that the provinces should have more say with regard to economic policy in this country. Could the Treasurer, therefore, tell us what representations have been made to the federal government with regard to the high interest rate policy being followed by the federal government and the Bank of Canada? And, before he stands up to tell us he doesn’t like high interest rates, may I just remind him nobody likes high interest rates?

The question is whether the interest rates are thought to be necessary or unnecessary. What representations have been made on behalf of Ontario and what is Ontario’s policy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been asked a similar question before. I believe I explained that when I was in Ottawa to meet with the Minister of Finance some three or four weeks ago, I asked him at that time to explain what inside information he might have on this issue which led him to believe the high interest rate policy was the appropriate one to fight inflation at this time, and to maintain the value of the Canadian dollar.

He assured me then that after reviewing the alternatives it was his opinion as the minister responsible this was the proper policy.

The member may smile as much as he wishes.

Mr. S. Smith: Of course you assumed he believed he was responsible.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains, as he said at the time and as I had heard him say in public, many pundits and many other people who are not responsible feel quite free to offer all kinds of advice.

Mr. Peterson: You are not responsible. What advice did you offer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m not responsible for it; quite right. I am responsible for certain things and I have really never tried to avoid the responsibilities. I am quite pleased, however, to recognize that when somebody else has the jurisdiction, the very most I can do is offer my thoughts on that matter. I told the minister at the same time that one of the great advantages of the system is one can offer advice in confidence, which I did.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, by way of supplementary: Given the fact that oil prices are also the responsibility of the federal government and not the Ontario government and yet we didn’t feel we had to give our advice on that issue in confidence -- in fact, we shared it rather clearly, and correctly so, with all the people of Ontario and with the country -- why does the minister feel interest rates require that degree of secrecy when oil prices do not? What is different about interest rates that forces him into such an amount of secrecy he feels he cannot share Ontario’s position with this House?

[2:15]

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the analogy isn’t too bad. Once in a while the Leader of the opposition is reasonably accurate.

In the one case, the decision had been taken. In the other case, it was about to be taken; in fact, it was a matter for public debate of great importance across this country. Ontario had a very real vested interest on behalf of all of its citizens in that matter. The Premier, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and myself felt very strongly that the merits of the Ontario position, which was clear and well thought-out and one which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition accepted, should be put before the voters of the country because they were reading them one way while we read them another.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the Treasurer isn’t prepared to share with this House the views on high interest rates which he expressed to the federal government, would he at least join with me in condemning the recent announcement to their customers by banks in this province that overdraft rates are to be raised from 18 per cent to 21 per cent? Would he not contact the presidents of the major banks in this province to say that is a completely outrageous and unacceptable kind of levy on people who happen to have overdrafts and small business people in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I accept the very real problems for the small businessman and for individual home owners. There are many parts of society that can live with a high interest rate and charge it off against something. Most small businessmen cannot and most home owners cannot.

My own personal inclinations, which I gave very early in the game, as a person who has listened to arguments on both sides of the fence or on both sides of the issue, are that while inflation will be immediately created by a slightly lower interest rate, the stability of the Canadian dollar today is very good because basically it is being seen by the world as an energy-based currency and probably could sustain the attack some fear would occur if interest rates here were not quite as high as they are.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Treasurer agrees that small businesses and, while he didn’t mention it, but I am sure he agrees also, the farm sector are very much hurt by this, could I remind him that in 1973 the chartered banks in mid-May introduced a dual lending rate structure under which the base lending rate for a small business and farm loans were distinguished from the prime rates for larger loans? There was a two-lending-rate structure in 1973 following certain urgings from the Bank of Canada.

In the first place, why did the Treasurer make no representations on this subject to the Minister of Finance, and to the committee of Parliament that was looking into the interest-rate matter? It was not yet a total fait accompli. There was a committee looking at the matter. In the second place, why has the Treasurer not urged the federal government to tell the chartered banks to introduce the two-interest-rate structure again?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Interestingly enough, in the last few days we have begun to see the effects of the policy. I think it was generally reported in the press within the last day or two that the GIC rates issued by trust companies have been dropped a bit, that the total demand for mortgage moneys has dropped and that as of yesterday at least one of the banks has dropped its long-term interest rate down.

There is a short-term interest rate and a long-term interest rate. The two traditionally had some relationship, but of late there has been much more variation. I think the member’s economic critic would agree with that because one is not predicting the current levels to last very long. The fact remains that the monetarists, the people in the States who are intent on wrestling inflation to its knees or wherever one wrestles it, have decided that this is an essential part of the process whether we like it or not.

The two-rate structure is very difficult for banks to follow, as members know. In fact, they are currently paying under a free system as much as 14.25 per cent on some of their short-term money. I am looking at the Liberal critic. I don’t have any money to lend. I know he has and he could confirm very quickly what he is getting on it. I only know what one pays for it. I have traditionally not quite followed the biblical directive of neither a borrower nor a lender be. I am a borrower and he is a lender.

I can only say the banks currently are paying a fairly high rate.

Mr. Mancini: I have a supplementary question for the Treasurer. In view of the fact that the interest rates over the past few months have gone up in stages and not all at once, which, therefore, gave him the opportunity on several occasions to oppose higher interest rates, could the Treasurer tell the House if, on any one of these occasions after the interest rates have been upped by the federal government and the Bank of Canada, he made representation that the interest rates were high enough and that they should not go up any higher, and that was the view of the government of Ontario on behalf of the consumers of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I had expressed my very real concern on the effect of those interest rates on the business community. I have also taken the time to ask certain of the bankers, because I have heard of differences of opinion between the major bankers and the central bank. In the main they agree with the central bank.

Mr. S. Smith: You let the federal government know your position on oil but not on interest.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Does my friend want to see the problems resolved or not?

CONTROL ORDERS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. I won’t ask him why Ontario has to keep its position on interest rates secret. I’ll ask him a question that has to do with the environment.

Would the minister explain to us why it is that his ministry is giving yet another extension to a control order on a pulp and paper mill -- in this instance, the Abitibi mill in Sturgeon Falls? Can he also give us whatever figures are available to indicate whether he expects this extension to have a particular effect on fishing on the Sturgeon River? Would he share with the House the information upon which that is based?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the company asked for an amendment some time ago. It was one of the first occasions where we put our policy into effect that any amendment that was sought would have to be done in a public forum.

A meeting was held and I think was quite well attended. The result of that meeting was that it was known the order would comply with the federal guidelines. I believe the people of that area were quite satisfied with that result. They had the opportunity to be fully informed. The amending order complies completely with the standards set by the federal government.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since the federal guidelines, so-called, are only general and don’t necessarily apply to each body of water -- each one has to be considered on its merit -- and since those guidelines were known before, could the minister explain why it is the original control order which is now being amended calls for a limit of 50 milligrams per litre of the effluent, whereas the new guideline, in line with the federal one, is 190 milligrams per litre? How did they come up with 50 milligrams in the first place? Was it based on real information? Was it based on intelligent analysis, or was the number chosen out of a hat?

I ask that because surely the minister must understand that every time he has to stand up and tell us all his previous orders were based on misinformation or numbers which were imagined by somebody on no real basis, he weakens the credibility of the Ministry of the Environment generally and weakens the case for all of us who would like to see a more powerful ministry, with proper directives.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I guess the leader of the Liberal Party isn’t fully aware of the situation. He talked about my previous orders. There has not been a single order for which I have total, personal responsibility that has been amended. I have the policy, and the member knows it, to put on reasonable, practical orders and then enforce them. That’s become a cornerstone of the ministry and I’m pleased it has. They are practical, they’re reasonable and they’re being enforced. There’s no doubt about that.

Having done that, I can tell the leader of the Liberal Party that on this particular order 50 milligrams was the number put there. We asked the Ontario Research Foundation to tell the public whether it was possible to live up to that order. It wasn’t; the public were aware of that and the member should know that. He should have been aware of that.

If he chooses to ignore that kind of information, that’s his prerogative, but the truth of the matter is that order was placed. I don’t know how that order was placed there, on a personal basis --

Mr. S. Smith: It’s your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Of course, it’s my ministry. It was done in the hope that technology would advance. Now when it can’t be done on the basis of the Ontario Research Foundation assessing it, and then going to a public meeting, explaining that in full and complete detail; yet where it does adhere to the federal guidelines one can always make that claim. It’s an easy claim to make, but I will tell the member that the orders now are being enforced on the rationale of reasonable and practical orders, and they will continue to be so. That is the way the policy will go from now into the future.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of my final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since this is not the first time we have heard that previous control orders were impractical and unreasonable and we’re given no basis upon which those numbers were ever dreamed up in the first place, can I assume that certain people within the ministry have been fired, or re-educated with regard to how to go about doing these things? Would the minister share with this House which of the ministers he feels was responsible for these unreasonable, impractical and merely hopeful guidelines which industry presumably has been trying to live with these several years?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The leader of the Liberal Party wants us to be dramatic and as tough as we can be. We are being that. He is suggesting that when we put some orders on well in advance -- years and years in advance of technology -- somehow or other it is a mistake to put up strong objectives we would like to come to.

There is nothing wrong with that. Of course we’re trying to set high standards and long-range goals that are desirable for this province. He shouldn’t criticize it. He should be on our side. He should say that’s the kind of example we want this ministry to put forward. That’s what his bill is supposed to be all about, but it has a lot of other nonsense in it. He is putting up those huge, idealistic goals. I say they have to be reasonable and practical. The member can’t live in a dream world.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister tell us how many control orders in Ontario that had these original tough standards that he talked about and that “his ministry hoped could be met by new technology” are now being revised because they cannot be met with new technology?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The interesting part about it, Mr. Speaker, is the members always know now whether an amendment is going to be put to a control order. They should be very thankful about that, too, if I may say it in those terms, because it is not done now other than in the public forum. I would have thought the member would have been the first to appreciate that approach and so if there are any orders -- and there are none at this time -- being proposed for amendment they would be in front of the public with the merits of the case being debated. The member will have his full opportunity to be a part of that debate. It’s a very open process where the people can join in and be a part of it.

VISITOR

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps while the Minister of Industry and Tourism is finding his place, I could draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery today of a friend and former colleague, the former member for Wentworth, my friend, Ian Deans.

AIRCRAFT CONTRACT

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In the light of the very substantial concern in the aerospace industry about the spinoffs for Canada of the $2.3 billion federal fighter contract which is to be awarded this year, could the minister say what guarantees Ontario has had from the federal government about this contract? How many jobs will be created in Ontario as a result of the contract? Is the government satisfied that the contract will guarantee sufficient Canadian content and will provide a fair deal for the electronic and the aerospace industries of this province in terms of technology and jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are satisfied, on all counts the leader of the third party mentioned, that regardless of which of the two aircraft ultimately is purchased, Ontario will get a substantial portion of the work. On literally all of the hooks the member mentioned and all of the counts he mentioned, those protections are indeed built into the government’s current intentions in terms of the contracts that are ultimately entered into.

[2:30]

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister say when the government determined it was satisfied with the results of either of the contracts now being considered in Ottawa, particularly in view of the confidential report that was leaked last month? The aerospace industry itself raised serious questions in that report about the industrial benefits the two bidders were offering.

Specifically did this government inform the federal government what Ontario expected in terms of the spinoff for jobs and technology? Have those requirements been met?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have been carrying on discussions with the federal government for well over one and a half years with regard to the spinoffs we expected out of those aerospace contracts. I can’t say 100 per cent of our requests have been accommodated but we are satisfied that as of the present time Ontario will get a very good share of the benefits flowing out of that contract. So far as we understand, it is as much as the federal government can possibly obtain in terms of the offset portions of that deal.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: As recently as the beginning of October the Air Industries Association of Canada was telling its members it saw very little substantial benefit from the spinoff from this fighter contract. Also, at the end of the month they were saying the offset offers are just a plan of potential opportunities. So can the minister say what steps Ontario intends to take in order to ensure this Canadian content is not just a potential opportunity, but that it is realized for Ontario’s manufacturers and workers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to make it clear that nothing I have seen has led me or this government to believe these are simply potential opportunities. They are only potential in the sense that the contract has not yet been awarded. These questions might more properly be put in the House of Commons, but I can assure the member everything we have heard from the federal government is that its extensive efforts over the past few years have been to ensure the offsets are there, that they are serious offsets and firm commitments. We have not had any other indication as recently as my visit to Mr. de Cotret two weeks ago today.

The member may have a press release from some people in the aerospace industry that indicates they wish there were more. Nothing in my conversations with the federal ministers involved, or any of our communications extending over all of the past few years, would lead us to believe the federal government is going to be so silly as to enter into any agreement with regard to fighter aircraft that leaves anything up in the air, or that deals only with potential benefits rather than firm, hard commitments. Everything we understand indicates the commitments are for firm undertakings for our industry, especially here in Ontario.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, can the minister be more specific on what kind of offset policies have been or are being worked out right now? As recently as October, we saw a report published by Southam Press that indicated neither company’s industrial benefits in this category are considered to make an adequate contribution to a life-cycle support capability in Canada, nor do they extend technological expertise to allow eventual Canadian industrial participation.

Is the minister talking only in terms of production and manufacturing, or is the minister talking in terms of technological knowhow for long-term policies for Canada? Can the minister be more specific and tell us if the terms have been changed since the report has been published?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can simply repeat the answer I gave to the leader of the NDP initially. He asked me, using two or three approaches to the question, whether we were satisfied employment and technology benefits would accrue to this country and specifically this province.

I can only repeat we have been satisfied on one of the two choices for a long time -- on both opportunities for a short time. We’re satisfied that under all those headings Ontario would get a very good share of the commitment, and a firm commitment.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Could the minister say what the government hoped to achieve when the Ministry of the Environment agreed to provide a site and $10 million in Peel for a major demonstration project for waste recovery? Was one of the main aims to develop waste recovery expertise among Canadian firms; and if so, why did the ministry take no steps whatsoever to try to encourage Canadian companies to bid for that particular project?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: May I say to the leader of the third party that problem in future would be better addressed to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) as he now will be dealing with matters of recovery of energy from waste. In response to the member’s question today, as I understand it, there was only one bidder on that project. A fair amount of effort was made to get other bidders, but we could not force them to do so. I am also advised that in excess of 75 per cent of that bid will, I think, be Canadian content.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the effect of the bid has been to give Grumman Ecosystems of New York a ground-floor position in a technology which could extend to as many as 12 comparable plants across this province over the course of the next few years, could the minister say what specific efforts were made in order to get Canadian bids on that part of the project? Why was the government not prepared to see to the creation of a consortium of Canadian companies to give them the edge in this new and important technology?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do know that efforts were made. It certainly is quite possible to give him chapter and verse on those efforts, and I will do so. We can’t give him those in detail at this time, but we will.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) not only professed ignorance about any such efforts but also indicated the government was only prepared to respond to any suggestions from Canadian companies, could we have an undertaking from this minister that the Ministry of the Environment is prepared to take a lead in encouraging and helping Canadian companies to develop resource recovery and waste recovery technology before this entire new area is taken over by multinational foreign companies?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) would be the first to tell the member that only this very morning we met with a company to try to promote things that will help us in our waste management. On any occasion where we can assist in developing the industry here in Canada we will do so. Of course we want it to be Canadian as much as it possibly can be. We put on a seminar to help our companies within the last eight months. It was sponsored by our ministry to develop expertise in waste management. We have done these things and we are doing the things we can to encourage Canadian companies.

As I said previously, 75 per cent of the contracts the member is talking about are now Canadian. That is a very large percentage. We can’t force Canadian companies to make a submission if they choose not to. We will encourage them. That is what we want in this province and we will do everything we can. But when we get to the bottom line, if they will not apply then we will have to insist on as much Canadian content as we can.

When there is only one bidder, we can’t insist that the company is ineligible because it is not Canadian because the importance of that program to the useful recovery of waste is just far too important to put off. It is fundamental in this province for us to have a sound management policy for waste.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Is the minister then indicating there has been some transfer of responsibility on waste recovery to the Ministry of Energy and that if the region of Halton seriously wants to pursue recovery now it should actually meet with the Minister of Energy in order to accomplish that objective?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If we are talking about energy recovery, there is no doubt the answer is yes. If we are talking about such projects as recycling of materials or a separation of the source then that’s still ours. On an individual basis, by and large the policy is that the recovery of resources, and particularly energy, is with the Minister of Energy. If the honourable member has any doubt, there is no problem at all in telling him, in a specific case, which ministry should be the lead ministry.

OTTAWA COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Premier. In view of the fact that he is, I understand, going to Ottawa tomorrow to a Conservative fund raising dinner; and as I also understand he is going to announce in Ottawa tomorrow that finally there is going to be a new courthouse complex built on Cartier Square; and in view of the fact his colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) is very anxious about that issue -- in fact last week he asked, “What the hell is going on?” -- would the Premier announce to the House today, to the assembled gathering of all representatives of Ontario, that we in Ottawa are finally going to get a new courthouse complex? That announcement merits a nonpartisan type of announcement and not one made in front of a group of Tories.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa East is quite right; I am travelling to the nation’s capital tomorrow afternoon for a number of very important reasons, including an opportunity to speak to some 600-plus people tomorrow evening, which is about 400 more than attended his leader’s dinner for the same purpose a few weeks ago.

In that the member for Ottawa East has never been reluctant to come to Tory gatherings before, I remember welcoming him on one occasion.

Mr. Roy: I’ll go myself if you will make that announcement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly, I’m inviting him, come to the dinner; as long as he pays the price he is welcome.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted a supplementary? In view of the fact that the present Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) said a few months ago, “If we get Tories in Ottawa, there will be no problems about the courthouse,” why does the Premier not make an announcement in this House today? Why does he not show some respect for the Legislature? Why does he not show some respect for the administration of justice and make the announcement? Is he or is he not going to make an announcement on the new courthouse; yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We might have contemplated making several announcements yesterday but because the honourable member was in the courts -- and I know why he was in the courts --

Mr. Roy: I was here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the courts stop at five o’clock. That’s why he was here last night: There are no courts after five o’clock.

[2:45]

One of my customs has been to try to relate government as directly to the people who are affected as I can. I think it’s really very important if there are any announcements to be made that it is only appropriate to make them in that community which is most directly affected. I must say to the member for Ottawa East, at this particular moment in time I am not exactly sure what I am going to say tomorrow night, except that I will bring his regrets to the assembled multitude because of pressure of public business back here. I will explain that to them; I will do that for him.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the courthouse is to be located in Ottawa Centre, I take it that is a tribute to the representation that riding has had since 1971. Perhaps I could ask the Premier if he would explain why the government has apparently chosen not to locate the courthouse in the Ottawa Teachers’ College building, now owned by the province, on the Cartier Square site? Why cannot the courthouse be put in renovated facilities there? Why is it intended instead, as I understand, to have a brand new building alongside of it?

Mr. Conway: Will Pierre Benoit be at the head table?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know who will be there, except with that number of people, obviously a lot of former good Liberals will be there tomorrow night; a lot of former good Liberals, as we discovered last Wednesday night. The only two I know won’t be there are John Turner and Donald Macdonald. I think the member should await whatever is said tomorrow night, and if some mention is made of the courthouse I am sure we would be delighted to discuss it here again on Thursday.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Pursuant to the disaster at Mississauga, is the minister aware of the potential for a catastrophe of tremendous proportions that exists in some of the rail yards in this province? As an example, may I bring to his attention the situation in the Canadian National Railways yard at the village of Port Robinson, which I have personally witnessed. I have photographs documenting it and I will send one over to the minister now.

Would he believe that, frequently spotted side by side, are cars of propane, cars of vinyl chloride, which is a deadly toxic material, and a car or two of picric acid, which is a powerful explosive? Has the minister made or is he making strong representation to the federal government and the Canadian Transport Commission to have laws and regulations enacted and enforced to prevent that sort of thing taking place in the rail yards?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Due to the fact that the people of the village of Port Robinson are locked in by the canal on the west -- there is no bridge and the Welland River on the south and they have no way to escape except to go to the east over the railroad tracks -- would the minister immediately contact the CNR and the CTC and insist that the flammable, the explosive and the toxic cars are always spotted at widely separated locations?

Also, would he tell us what sort of emergency plans he has to deal with the type of catastrophe that could take place when those cars are in the situation that they are?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, my response to the first question was indeed brief, because we had made those representations. By and large, I think it might have been better to redirect the member’s second question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). He does tell me, however, in response to the member’s question, that he was speaking with the Honourable Donald Mazankowski today and an interim order will be placed on the makeup of trains, I believe either today or tomorrow. I would suggest perhaps in future if the member wanted more details on that particular aspect of the problem he should direct the question to that minister.

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware that contaminated soil from the vicinity of the Mississauga train accident is being deposited in the Chinguacousy landfill site in the town of Caledon? Furthermore, why were the mayor of Caledon and the chairman of the region of Peel not advised of this action?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: yes, I was aware of that development. I am advised the region was advised of this move. By and large we think the movement of waste within the region should be their responsibility, with our approval, so I am not aware of the reason the chairman and the mayor were not advised. However, I do believe the appropriate officials in that municipality were aware of it, and perhaps they can tell us why they did not advise the chairman.

Mr. J. Johnson: Supplementary: Will the minister undertake to have officials of his ministry meet with the mayor of Caledon council, and possibly the regional chairman, to assure the people of the town of Caledon there is no safety hazard?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am quite sure the director of the region for our ministry is more than prepared to meet the mayor on any occasion. I would like to tell the members of this House that the director has informed me a great deal of thought and precaution has already gone into it.

On that particular site, there is a backup leachate collection system that will monitor the leachate. There is also a good system for monitoring the groundwater, as I understand it. We will not only ensure that those two systems are functioning properly and well, but indeed we have said we will increase the monitoring because of this movement. In other words, although we realize that such elements as styrene, toluene and certain caustic materials are going in there, we think there is an excellent system and we will be doubly sure it is being monitored.

Given that information, I can assure the member, and through the member his constituents, it is a very safe place for this waste to be deposited.

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have a response to the question raised by the honourable member for Welland-Thorold regarding usage-sensitive pricing of telephone calls. I believe the question was directed to my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch).

The government of Ontario has been aware for well over a year that Bell Canada has been carrying out studies on this method of pricing telephone service. In fact, counsel for the government of Ontario asked a number of questions on this specific issue during the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearings on Bell’s rate increase application in 1978. We have also been aware that Bell wanted to undertake an experiment to assess its studies in a real-life setting.

Contrary to what the honourable member stated in his question, Bell Canada is not contemplating special charges for all local calls on a trial basis. What has been proposed is an experiment that would substitute a system of billing based on usage by the telephone subscriber for the present flat-rate, monthly fee. The experimental system of charges would be based on the number and duration of calls rather than a set fee for an unlimited number of local calls.

As I mentioned, the issue of usage-sensitive pricing has been around for some time. If introduced across the board it would constitute a fundamental change in the pricing of telephone services. It is actually in use in many European countries and in a number of jurisdictions in the United States. The system has its opponents and its supporters.

From my own point of view, there are a number of questions I would want to have answered before taking a position for or against the widespread introduction of usage-sensitive pricing. These questions deal with the potential impact on the various classes of subscribers, such as small businesses to name only one. It is difficult to get answers to the outstanding questions without some sort of experiment in a real-life setting. For this reason, I support the idea of an experiment, but only if it is made abundantly clear it is without prejudice to the final policy decision.

Once the results of the experiment and other studies are available, the final determination should be made only after full public discussion of the approach. I am pleased that this is the approach the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has chosen to take on the issue. For our part, we will be reviewing the developments closely and will participate actively in any hearing that takes place.

Mr. Swart: In view of the minister’s comments, of which we are aware, that this is being done in several other jurisdictions in the United States, why does the government need to let the camel’s head into the tent in Ontario? Can the minister not find out what the situation is in those other locations? Won’t he agree it will be many of those on the lower-income scale, like senior citizens, who will have to pay extra charges because of this new system? Doesn’t he agree it will be Bell Canada that is going to make the gains on this? Before he permits this, should the minister not make representation to the CRTC to have the rates reduced, in view of the huge profits Bell has made this year, which are 45 per cent higher than last year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. I think I can safely say I do not agree with any of those statements.

ENERGY EXPORTS

Mr. Sargent: I have a question for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, if you’re going to be confused by this question, which you probably will be, I know the people of Ontario are too, on this matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member need not be defensive. Just put the question.

Mr. Sargent: Will the Premier advise the House of the rationale of going to Chicago or somewhere in the United States and suggesting that Canada will be manufacturing power for export, the rationale in saying we have a 40 per cent surplus in power; the rationale in increasing rates 150 per cent in three years; the rationale of another 16 per cent coming up on January 1; and the rationale of spending $5 billion in Darlington for more surplus power; while Hydro is advertising in the papers, telling the people they should not use too many Christmas lights in order to save power?

If there is a shortage of power, and no one seems to know what we have, and if we’re going to finance this whole --

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully. You started out with a question: Can the Premier explain? Then you asked him four different things. Perhaps the Premier can explain, and then you’ll have an opportunity for a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the honourable member’s first question was why did I go to Chicago? I think that’s a very good question. It will take me several minutes to explain why I went to Chicago.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are some very obvious reasons. One reason is that my mother-in-law is there. The honourable member wasn’t here when I went through some of this the other day.

Mr. Foulds: Are you going home tonight?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said that’s why I went. Who paid?

Mr. Speaker: Meanwhile back at the ranch.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that may be a more appropriate phrase west of here than around here at the moment. Anyway, when I was in Chicago, it was not part of my prepared address to sell power to the state of Illinois power authority -- I forget what it is over there, Consolidated Edison or whatever. I did mention, however, that there was the export potential of power from Ontario, because the gentleman from Quebec was there talking about the export capacity of Baie James.

As I have explained to the House, but I want the member to understand what I said so there will be no misunderstanding, I did say Ontario was closer to Illinois than Quebec and that we would be delighted to consider the export of power but, being very realistic, the chances of selling power to Illinois are very slim.

[3:00]

I think part of the question was do we have a surplus of power here at the moment? My information is we do at this time have a modest surplus of electrical energy in this province, for which I think we should be very grateful in the light of other events.

The next question was why should Ontario Hydro be encouraging conservation? Because we do have this modest surplus doesn’t mean we should be extravagant with the use of electrical energy. That, I think, would be a reasonable position for the member to understand.

Those were the answers to three of the questions. What was the fourth?

Mr. Sargent: If we are to finance this whole crazy program with billions of dollars to give us more surplus power, could the Premier say why in the hell the people of Ontario are told not to use power but to keep on buying oil? Would it not be better to use this electric power for heat instead of oil? Does anyone know where we are going in this matter? I don’t, and the public doesn’t know, and sure as hell the Minister of Energy doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think the honourable member should presume that because he doesn’t know the Minister of Energy doesn’t know.

Mr. Roy: It’s obvious he doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t argue with that member for a moment that he himself doesn’t know.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t know, I admit it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Can I try to help? We are really very modest, but I will try to explain it to the member. First, we are not encouraging a greater use of oil; in fact we are encouraging substitution. The member understands that; we are at this time encouraging the substitution of natural gas for oil for home heating purposes in those communities where that service can be provided.

Mr. Swart: Not in your own buildings.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member wants to debate about the building here on some other occasion I would be delighted to do it.

We are discouraging the use of oil. This is one reason some of the members opposite have been mildly supportive of Ontario Hydro’s commitment to nuclear-generating capacity. Nuclear-generated electricity is a legitimate substitute for thermal or oil-generated electricity. This is one of the great pluses we have going for us. I want to compliment the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) who, with all of his eloquence, persuaded the entire New Democratic Party across Canada at their convention to understand this was a more viable approach -- over the objections of the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), I would assume.

Mr. Martel: That was a low blow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just complimenting the member. The member says that was a low blow. What I said was the truth. I thought the member for York South did very well whenever I saw him on television.

I say to the honourable member we will also be encouraging the substitution of electrical energy for some other forms of energy. I think it is a legitimate question. We are certainly going to encourage it. That is one of the reasons I think the investment in electrical generating capacity is very valid. There are areas of substitution.

If the member has a further supplementary, I will be delighted to try to help him with it.

DEATH OF FOSTER CHILD

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to the death of Shawn Lee Mandamin, an infant from the Whitedog reserve who was killed by a children’s aid society foster parent.

May I ask the minister when he first learned of this death? Second, will he table with us the results of any ministerial investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Shawn Lee Mandamin?

Third, can the minister explain to us how it is possible for a child to be killed by child abuse in a children’s aid society foster home in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure I can remember all three of those questions in proper sequence. I will do my best.

I can’t give the honourable member a precise date off the top of my head as to when I first learned of the incident, but I assure him it was very shortly after the incident occurred. With respect to the reports that I have received in the ensuing period, I would share with the honourable member at this point that there would appear on the basis of those reports to be no indication of any lack of precaution or appropriate supervision taken by the children’s aid societies. But I also would assure the honourable member I have asked my staff, following the receipt of any reports from the field, that I personally be provided with all of the available files relating to this case so that I might personally review them with some of the senior staff of the ministry in determining whether it is a situation where some further action might appropriately be taken.

I now think I have forgotten the third part.

Mr. McClellan: The third part was simply an explanation on how it could happen.

Let me ask you, by way of supplementary, in view of the decline in the number of suitable foster homes in this province, which your September paper documented; and in view of the enormity of this atrocity and the relationship between the Paquette tragedy and the inadequacy of foster home care for francophones, may I ask the minister if he will consider and undertake an independent public inquiry into the adequacy of foster home care in this province, with particular reference to the availability of adequate and suitable foster care for ethnic minorities and native people?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the honourable member is perhaps interpreting this tragic incident beyond the logical and reasonable implications of this case. I think, as he knows and as we have discussed in our estimates a short time ago, we have initiated some very significant changes in terms of foster care in the province. If he has read carefully our paper earlier this fall, he would realize that the difficulty being experienced at the moment in terms of shortage of foster care is not a general shortage. It is very easily demonstrated that about 30 per cent of the foster care homes in the province are empty at the moment and have no foster children. There are specific areas, particularly with difficult adolescents and teenagers, where there was a shortage of appropriate foster care placements. We are addressing those problems, along with some of the broader issues relating to foster care.

I would say to the honourable member that subject to a personal review of all of the files relating to this case, I see absolutely no reason at present for a public inquiry in view of the initiatives that we have taken, beginning before and subsequent to this incident, and certainly subsequent to the Paquette case.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given that the present Landlord and Tenant Act states that the amount of interest paid by landlords to tenants on rental deposits is six per cent; and given that the Residential Tenancy Act, otherwise known as Bill 163, has not had that portion proclaimed which deals with landlord and tenant matters; and given that the interest rates have risen enormously since the Residential Tenancy Act received third reading in June of this year; would the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations bring in a bill this session which would amend both the present act and the new Residential Tenancy Act and therein increase to 12 per cent the amount of interest paid to tenants on rental deposits?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will look at that when I get back the decision from the court on a referral under the Constitutional Questions Act. It would be very improper for me to begin to amend acts that are under the scrutiny of the appeal court of Ontario.

Mr. Epp: I wonder whether the minister would give a commitment that he would increase to 12 per cent the amount of interest, if the court of appeal supports the Landlord and Tenant Act. I know that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has referred it to the court of appeal.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would look at it. It depends when the decision comes down, because interest rates are fluctuating. Some of them, in the United States, began to go downwards.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the answer given by the minister mean that as of December 1 the offices will not be open to handle the landlord and tenant complaints, as set out in the legislation we passed earlier?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know there was ever a December 1 date. As a matter of fact, it seems to me I was advised by the member’s party towards the end of the debate to allow a little bit longer. In any event, I cannot begin to administer an act until there is a decision from the courts as to whether that piece of legislation is constitutional.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CULT REGULATION ACT

Mr. Sweeney moved first reading of Bill 191, An Act to Monitor and Regulate the Activities of Cults and Mind Development Groups.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism for identifying cults and mind development groups that may cause a danger to the mental health of adherents. The bill establishes the commission for the investigation of cults and mind development groups, to investigate and report on the activities of such groups.

The bill also establishes certain reporting requirements for cults and groups that are designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Where a person has suffered physical or mental illness as a result of adherence to a cult or mind development group, the bill requires that the cult or group shall reimburse the Ontario Health Insurance Plan for any amounts paid by the plan as a result of that illness.

LIFELINE ACT

Mr. Sargent moved first reading of Bill 192, An Act to provide for a Basic Residential Power Rate applicable to the Essential Energy Needs of Residential Households in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a legislative proposal to provide a low, fixed, fair price for the amount of electricity a family needs for the basics, such as lighting, refrigeration, and electrical necessities. This amount is about 500 kilowatts per month and should cost about two cents per kilowatt. A user of 500 kilowatts would have a monthly bill of less than $10.

[3:15]

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require the Minister of Health to publish in the Ontario Gazette the names of physicians and medical practitioners who have withdrawn from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. McClellan: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), Mr. Speaker, I’d like to give notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to my question from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) and desire to debate it upon the adjournment of the House this evening.

Mr. Speaker: Also, pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with an answer to a question provided by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). That matter will be dealt with first tonight.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Maeck moved second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an opening comment?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When I introduced Bill 164 for first reading on November 6, 1979, I made some explanatory comments which I would now like to reiterate as we begin to consider this bill in detail.

When the government postponed property tax reform it was apparent the freeze of assessment would have to continue until alternative tax policies were developed. Without changes in the property tax system to compensate for differentials between current assessments and market-value assessments, the introduction of market value would lead, of course, to extensive increases in taxes on residential and farm properties generally. It is to prevent these extensive shifts in taxation that it is necessary to freeze assessments at the current levels for taxation in 1980.

Since deferment in property tax reform, the ministry has undertaken to remove the assessment inequity within classes of property in 14 municipalities, and currently an additional 75 to 80 municipal and school jurisdictions have indicated a desire to proceed with section 86 reassessments for the taxation year 1980.

I have explained, on previous occasions, that the application of section 86 enables assessors to correct inequities within classes of property without allowing the shifts in the tax burden from one class of property to another.

The additional amendment proposed to section 86 gives an assurance to the municipalities that it is the government’s policy to make general reassessments under section 86 when requested to do so by council. I believe this assurance is necessary as there are three challenges now before the courts to the use of section 86 for general reassessment purposes.

This amendment will remove any doubt of the validity of the tax rolls of the 14 municipalities that have already used section 86, and it will also alleviate any concerns that municipalities now deliberating over whether to request section 86 might have. I am confident the courts in the long run would agree with the use and interpretation given by my ministry to section 86 of the act, but it is better to clarify the situation now than to wait for several years while the issue is debated in the courts.

Finally, transmission pipelines and transformer and generating stations owned by Ontario Hydro are assessed on the basis of statutory rates, the former by length and diameter, the latter on the basis of area. In parallel with the general freeze on assessed values, the rates for each type of property have remained unchanged since 1971.

While the equalization factors were frozen in 1979, the assessment on transmission pipelines and hydro properties remain at a consistent level with other properties in the municipalities. With the introduction of new equalization factors in 1979, and without the proposed amendment, the effect of these statutory assessments would have been a significant reduction in tax dollars received by any municipality with this type of property within its boundaries. The amendment permits 1970 factors to continue in use for the statutory assessment.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a few minutes on this bill, which I think is somewhat important.

Since coming to this Legislature two and a half years ago, I, and many members with much more seniority than I, have experienced a continuation of stopgap measures to try in some way to repair the assessment area of the Ministry of Revenue. We have had one piece of stopgap legislation after another. They have been trying to plug the holes here and there where problems arise as if they were holes in a dike.

Whenever we get a piece of legislation, in most cases it is a knee-jerk reaction. We were assured unequivocally last year when some changes were made that the ministry did not need the legislative power to bring in regulations concerning section 86. Yet now all of a sudden, after a number of court cases, we have legislation proposed to deal with this matter, to give the minister the power to have certain standards and certain regulations.

Obviously the ministry is not as sure of its position as the minister is trying to imply in this House. I think it is quite clear that if the ministry were that sure it would win the court cases, it would not be bringing in the legislation. In discussing this with a number of solicitors in the greater Toronto area, I am assured the ministry was told a year or more ago it was not on firm ground with respect to this situation and that the minister would have to bring in legislation to give the ministry that power.

We on this side of the House would like to see that the ministry has a total picture of what assessment is in Ontario -- the problems associated with it -- and to have some kind of corrective action dealing with the total concept rather than on a piecemeal basis.

We also know the assessors in the ministry are very frustrated. We know, for instance, there are around 1,750 to 1,850 assessors in Ontario, a proportion of the population much larger than prevails in New York state, in California, in Alberta, Quebec and many other provinces. This is a very weak and ineffective system, where the ministry continually has to send out more assessors than are necessary. If the assessment were easy to explain to the public and easily defensible, we would not have to have so many assessors going about and trying to repair the dike, trying to support the other assessors in what they do.

The other problem I want to raise has to do with the power given to the minister to have all these various standards. I don’t think the present assessment in the province is very clear to the public. Some of the rules and procedures that would be drawn up would obviously be drawn up at the instigation of the minister himself.

This House would not have any idea what the procedure is; in fact many of the regulations are kept secret within the ministry. We know, for instance, 14 municipalities applied last year for the right to impose section 86, which equalizes assessment. Mr. Speaker, I know you are very familiar with this. As a former municipal politician yourself you are aware of the hazards of assessment and so forth. We know they weren’t given the information on the impact of the new assessment on the municipality. Why not?

Only a few days ago there was an article in the Toronto Star about Etobicoke requesting this information and being denied it. We are told if they were given this information the politicians in Etobicoke as well as in North York, Parry Sound, Waterloo, Hamilton and all over, might not react in the way they should react. We are not told exactly how they should react. I suppose the suggestion is they should ask for section 86 then go ahead and impose it.

Would the minister tell this House if that is the way they operate in the Ministry of Revenue, or in Treasury or in other ministries; in other words, civil servants don’t give us the information because if we had it we might make the wrong decisions? They are virtually telling municipalities, “We won’t give you the information because you might not make the kind of decisions we want you to make.” This is a completely wrong kind of approach to what they suggest should be open government. The council shouldn’t make the decision; neither should the people know where they stand when they ask for section 86.

The other power this act gives to the minister is to create new classes. There has been talk of the city of Toronto having about 37 different classes of assessments. The problem we see here is a continual application of new classes would develop. All of a sudden, where five or six or seven properties are slightly different from some other properties in a municipality, you create a new class. The minister would have this power.

I am not sure the ministry should have that power. I think there should be a number of questions answered with respect to the number of classes created within a municipality and the authority of the minister to create these new classes.

Under section 90 of the Assessment Act a court can decide whether assessments should be lowered or increased based on similar properties. We would suggest the section that should be used is section 27, which has to do with market value.

One of the reasons section 90 appears so inequitable is because it is very difficult for a person to appeal that particular section. If you go before a judge or before a particular court, the long list of lawyers representing the ministry -- costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars every year; in fact, the amount of money we are spending in assessments and on legal fees is running into millions of dollars -- the legal support for the ministry, can suggest that based on similar properties your assessment should be X or Y.

The problem with that assumption is they then make the suggestion to the judge that the person representing the property owner can’t in turn investigate various similar properties; in other words, when you have similar cases and they propose that it be based on similar cases, the defence, in this case the legal support for the person putting in the appeal, should be able to investigate the similar properties because they in turn might have been created on some erroneous information. They can’t do that.

[3:30]

This party is very much concerned with the problems associated with the ministry. For instance, if you look at section 2(1)(c)(f), the second page, it says:

“subject to subsection 2, the assessment roll of a municipality to be returned in the year 1979 shall be the assessment of all real property as set forth in the assessment roll returned for the year 1978 for taxation in the year 1979 as amended, added to or otherwise altered up to the date when the assessment roll for taxation in the year 1980 is returned,

“provided that where the assessor is of the opinion that an assessment to be shown on the assessment roll to be returned for the year 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978 or 1979 is inequitable with respect to the assessment of similar real property in the vicinity, the assessor may alter the value of the assessment to the extent necessary to make the assessment equitable with the assessment of such similar real property.”

I am told that there have been a number of court cases dealing with the word “vicinity.” In other words, some assessors may suggest that the vicinity may only be within a square mile. Other assessors suggest it might be a number of miles away in another municipality. We have had no suggestion by the ministry to correct this particular problem, yet it’s continually giving rise to new court cases.

I don’t know why the ministry wouldn’t suggest “assessment of similar real property in the municipality” which would then clear up that matter. I know in my own municipality there was one large industry which appealed their assessment. They brought in similar properties which were about a mile and a half away but in another municipality, the municipality of Kitchener, and because it wasn’t in the same municipality or within a block or two of it, the judge in that case ruled that it wasn’t in the vicinity. Other judges are ruling that it can be within two, three, four or five miles. So I think if this bill were corrected it should be “within the municipality” rather than “in the vicinity,” because it’s such a broad term, as you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side of the House believe that the minister is giving himself too much power to create classes and is constantly trying to plug the holes. As a result of this I want clearly to indicate that we also think the ministry is getting deeper and deeper into a tremendous schemozzle of problems without a clear explanation to the public of Ontario.

We therefore would recommend that this bill go to committee. We think there are a lot of questions to be answered and the public deserves an explanation and therefore the best place to do that is not in the House here but in committee, where we can call on a number of experts in the field to give a clear indication as to what the problems are and how they can be resolved. There is a lot of expertise out there. I think the public deserves an explanation and I think the members of this House would like to get some answers. The best forum in which to do that is to have it done in a committee.

Mr. Charlton: Through you to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to say here we are again. It bothers me greatly that we are doing this again. The member for Waterloo North, who was just speaking, is all upset about section 86 and whether or not this amendment is giving the minister additional powers under section 86 to create new classes and so on. I would like to assure him that the present definitions in the Assessment Act of classes and what like properties really are are loose enough that anything is already a class under the Assessment Act and policy is what sets the classes in reality, and always has under the act.

Going back to the minister and back to the postponement of market value, or property tax reform at least, which is what we should be talking more carefully about, I would like to ask the minister to hearken back a little bit. I know he wasn’t the minister at the time, but I would assume these words came from his present staff, most of whom are still there.

The then minister said in 1971, when we were debating the same bill, minus a couple of sections: “I am confident that these amendments are the proper course of action at this time. When I became the Minister of Revenue, I stated emphatically that I would proceed with a market-value assessment program only when I could be assured by a complete review of all the implications that the individual groups of property owners would not be hurt. Postponing the program for one year will provide me sufficient time to fulfil that promise.”

As I suggest, it would seem to me that those words were stated in care in 1977 by the former minister. They came from her staff with assurances we could solve the problem within one year. This is two years down the road. Everybody, for whatever reason, seems to be totally afraid and totally confused by the implementation of property tax reform and the political consequences of implementation. That should say something to all of us about the whole program of market-value reassessment. It says something very serious to me.

I say to the minister it should be quite obvious from the debate today that even the legislators in this House don’t fully understand what the reassessment is about, what the consequences really are and what the consequences are of a further postponement. That statement should also be familiar to the minister. That was a statement I made during the debate on this bill in 1977. I made the same statement during the estimates in 1978, on the bill in 1978, in the estimates this year and I will make them again today.

We are no further ahead. We haven’t come any closer. The present minister last year said there is a great deal of inequity in some areas of the province as far as assessment is concerned. We have to bite the bullet, as the saying goes. That’s going to have to come from all the members of this Legislature and not just from the government, because we need the support of the members across the way if we are going to try to correct this situation. I hope we can come up with something that will be reasonably acceptable to all members of the House so that we can straighten out the problems we have as far as assessment is concerned.

We are no closer. It’s the story we got in 1976, in 1977, and last year. That’s the story we are getting again this year. The members on this side of the House are not aware of any proposal. The last proposal we saw was from the joint committee in the spring of 1978, the proposal which was canned by the Treasurer in June 1978. How can the Minister of Revenue expect to get agreement from the members on this side of the House on property tax reform, whether it be market value or whether it be some other system? How can the Minister of Revenue expect to get support from the members on this side of the House when we don’t know where they are heading? We don’t know what they are proposing. We don’t even know if they are thinking of anything at this point except perhaps section 86, the program they are in, and we went through a rather lengthy debate on section 86 during the estimates.

This bill deals with better definition of section 86, and better clarifies powers which I agree with the minister he already had, anyway. But this bill does not deal with the debate we have been having for 10 years now about the need for property tax reform. It doesn’t deal with it at all.

I would like again to raise the attention of the minister for a moment. Last year I spoke to the minister about some of the problems that were developing in the property tax sector, some of the problems that had been developing gradually over the last 10 years. In response to some of the concerns I raised with the minister, he said: “I agree, as I said before, with the urgency of the situation. First of all, I want to have the government finish their review of the report” -- this was during the estimates last year, by the way -- “from the provincial and local government committee, whether it should be refined, adopted, or what; the recommendation has to go before cabinet. Whether the government will adopt that or not it is too early to tell.

“I have discussed it with the Treasurer and have expressed to him the urgency of something being done. If we have to look at other means” -- this goes into something I suggested to the minister last year, something I suggested during the debate in 1977, that the only way we were ever going to come to consensus on property tax reform in this House, whether it be market value as it is presently defined in the act, or whether we decide that we can’t overcome the problems in market value and go to something else that is more equitable -- regardless, I suggested the only way we were ever going to come to a consensus was to put something on the table, whether it be something as vague as the question of property tax reform, or something as specific as a government proposal, where we could sit down in this House or in one of the committees of this House and discuss it and amend it, and kick it around.

Since 1969 we have never had a proposal in this House to deal with in any way, shape, or form. It has all been done by floating balloons to see the reaction. We have never been presented with a package that we could in effect deal with. The only thing we have been presented with is postponements. I have suggested to the government, from my point of view and from our point of view on this side of the House, that we thought perhaps the matter should be referred to a committee of the whole House.

The minister responded, and this is in early 1978, before the last postponement, “We have to look at other means. I am sure the government would. It is not a matter for me to decide actually, but the government may look at a committee structure of some kind if that became a last resort. Of course, that would delay things again and I believe whatever we are going to do should be done before the end of June.”

It is long past the end of June, long past by a year and a half. We are no closer to any solution and we are going to see another postponement bill next year, or we are going to see some significant changes in the government’s approach to the present system but we are not going to see implementation of market value and we still have no proposal to deal with.

[3:45]

Yes, the minister was correct in the spring of 1978. A committee may have spent some considerable time wrestling with the problem and the committee may not have been able to come to any conclusions, either. But if nothing else had come out of a committee of this House, at least there would be a number of members of this House more familiar with the problems that confront us in property tax reform. They would be more familiar with the hurdles we still have to get over in order to provide fair and more equitable property taxation across Ontario.

At least we still wouldn’t be in the boat where there are only four or five members in this House who have any understanding at all of what it is we’re talking about.

I don’t want to hear from the minister that things the opposition does delay the process, or that there hasn’t been any agreement on or understanding of the government’s position from this side of the House, because we’ve suggested just about everything we possibly can to assist in the process and to become a part of the process. None of those suggestions have been taken by the minister. We’re here again, with a bill postponing property tax reform, at least in part, because of the misunderstandings that exist.

During the debate on this bill last fall, only a year ago, we attempted to point out to the minister that on that basis, in addition to the rationale that already existed for finding a more equitable system of assessment, just to postpone the reassessment once again for one year, unless we were going to be prepared to come back this year in a very positive way to discuss legislation and implement assessment reform wasn’t even worth really discussing.

The minister assured us as best he could last year that the year between last fall and this fall would not be wasted. We’re still no further ahead and it’s time the Minister of Revenue, the Treasurer, and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs decided this problem is one that has to be dealt with publicly, up front with the members of this Legislature, with municipal people from across the province and with the public of this province.

I don’t happen to have one with me but I can recall a pamphlet the assessment division put out -- I guess that was actually before the division was in the Ministry of Revenue -- but it was a pamphlet we put out in 1970 and 1971 when we were going to homes the first time around on market value reassessments. It was a pamphlet that laid out very carefully for the taxpayers of this province what we were trying to do in terms of a uniform system which could provide fairness and equity at market value across Ontario. It laid out as carefully as it could be in a short leaflet the inequities that existed in the current system -- inequities which I point out are far greater in 1979 in the current assessment rolls than they were in 1970 and 1971. It very carefully laid out those inequities and gave to the people of this province a sense of some of the things that were wrong and also a sense of where some of the solutions lay, but also it obviously gave them a fairly false sense that something was being done to correct that.

It was almost 10 years ago when they read that pamphlet and they’re still waiting. We’re still not talking in this House about anything specific to change any of that. That has to come to an end. I’m suggesting that to the minister and I hope he’ll discuss it with his colleagues, especially his colleague who is supposed to be responsible for policy in this area, the Treasurer. We’ve been told so many times that the Minister of Revenue doesn’t set policies, he just brings in the bills. The Treasurer is not even here, so we can’t even relate any of this directly to him.

Perhaps the minister can suggest that the Treasurer have a look at Hansard and seriously consider this along with his colleagues in the other portfolios that are affected. It is time that we, as legislators in this House, were all apprised of the problems specifically so we can sit down together and resolve them. Although this bill does a number of things the minister wants it to do in terms of section 86, which the minister discussed very carefully, it only provides a very limited range of improvements in the property tax system in this province.

It doesn’t deal with the overall questions and I understand we cannot proceed with market value assessment until we have a whole package in place. We are not going to get a package as long as we are not discussing a package. And we are not. Nobody is. We gave that up in 1978 and nothing has been discussed, proposed or even carefully looked at since then, except in total secret.

It is time to go beyond that and it is time we reached the stage where we can do what the minister suggested last year, support a proposal for property tax reform in the province.

Mr. Nixon: I appreciate hearing the views of the member for Waterloo North who, as members well know, has been mayor of a major municipality, and those of the member for Hamilton Mountain, who has been, and perhaps will be again, a professional assessor. I particularly appreciate their frank expression that they don’t --

Ms. Gigantes: Maybe he’ll do a professional assessment of you.

Mr. Philip: In your case you only fill half of the criteria.

Mr. Nixon: Yes. There may be some significance to this interjection. I will read it in Hansard. It will probably bowl me over.

When the member for Hamilton Mountain says there are probably only five people in the House who understand the principles of assessment, I really believe he is being entirely too generous as I don’t believe any of us do. I have said repeatedly, I am a good friend of the minister and an admirer of him on a personal basis, but I do not think he does either.

I think when the full story of the provincial problems of assessment is told -- and it will be a very boring story; nobody will ever bother looking at it. In fact, it will be one of the most horrendous stories of the subversion of good intention that really can be written about anything that is done here.

It seems to me, if the honourable minister is even half aware of the problems that the decisions of the government, taken on certain advice, are causing, he would just about as soon be on a motorcycle back in the cold weather of Parry Sound than he would be sitting here as a minister. I called it a fiasco before and I don’t suppose there is a better descriptive word.

I wish, frankly, that I could vote against this bill. I cannot, of course, because it simply postpones for another year the application of market value assessment while we attempt to find procedures whereby it can be made acceptable and fair, as well as recognize the political problems associated with it. The rest of the bill I really believe should be rejected out of hand. I have discussed it with my colleague, our critic in this area, who has had the advantage of some good advice.

Some of these people refer to assessment as black magic and I must say that for me, in many respects, it is. I suppose, coming from a rural municipality where the assessor was a kindly gentleman sitting in the back room of the local council office, where one could go and talk to him and he knew your farm and he knew the business property, assessment was quite simple. There was a certain standard approach. I can’t recall a farmer giving me the impression that he felt his assessment was unfair compared to that of his neighbour. If it was, he could go down and see our mutual friend, Frank, in the assessment office, or better still, he would be out standing in the barn talking about it with him.

I realize one can’t really do that with the Bank of Nova Scotia or the Bank of Montreal, but if some of the principles, the straightforward, upfront principles that were a part of what could be called old-fashioned assessment were used when dealing with some of the minister’s commercial clients and their high-priced lawyers, we would be far better off.

There are all sorts of stories going around the political grapevine of the pressures that are used, perhaps not by the minister, but by the people who are advising him; of coming in with extraordinarily high assessments expecting them to be reduced by revision somewhere down to where they think they might be fair, of using new assessments in a punitive manner, when some taxpayers, whether it be a large corporation or not, have the temerity to challenge the wisdom of the assessor who comes in and makes some sort of an evaluation. I can’t directly blame the minister for this. But he and his four or five predecessors have been completely impotent in controlling either the policy or the administration of this concept of centralized assessment.

I believe many people, including members of the Legislature, have simply thrown these bills over their shoulders and relied upon the effectiveness and the good motives and experience and study of one or two members of the Legislature to deal with it.

It doesn’t happen to be a subject that is very interesting to most people -- not until it gets to the point where it would probably back the problems of the Minister of the Environment and of the Treasurer off the map if the truth were known. Assessment problems are horrendous and getting worse by the month and nobody from the minister on down knows what to do about it.

I have the feeling many of his staff members have simply thrown up their hands, walked off the job, gone into tax consultancy, probably -- which is a pretty smart thing to do -- and left him with two or three people. These somehow have to make the responsible decisions and proffer what they consider to be the appropriate amendments. But the idea of this bill leaving even more to the discretion of the minister and the people who advise him does not attract me. I have respect for the honourable minister’s integrity and his basic good judgement. But I think he’s caught up in a machine that is not of his making, and he can’t even find the stop button.

The proposal, I suppose as a last resort, that the matter be thrown into the lap of the Legislature is a good one. I don’t think this bill contains by any means the blueprint for any final solution, if I may use that phrase in this connection. But I do believe it should not be amended without a good deal of study. I don’t think it has to be that time-consuming, explaining the implications of the appropriate amendments which are going to satisfy the people who feel these amendments are going to give the minister powers which are unfair, which will remove the real appeal possibilities from the taxpayers, corporate or individual.

The member for Waterloo North has said quite strongly to the members of the House, particularly to the minister, that we do want this to go, not to the committee of the whole but to a standing committee for such a review.

If the minister really thinks the assessment rolls next year are going to return market value assessment across the province, we don’t believe him any more. This bill simply postpones it for one year. Even if he wants to stick with what may be a resolve to do that, I would think we should have a committee review of the bill. It need not be lengthy but it must have the advantage of hearing from people outside the Legislature involved in this, either in a process of some litigation or with some experience. They would have a chance to express their views, and we, as members of the House would have a chance to put forward amendments.

My colleague the member for Waterloo North has prepared rather elaborate amendments on which he has worked hard and on which he has had good advice. I’ve had a look at them and I believe they would be effective. But I don’t think it is sufficient to throw them into the mill here, with four or five people interesting themselves in it. The matter really should be dealt with by one of the standing committees so we can look at the proposed amendments and see the Band-Aid is going to be an effective one, until such time as we, in the collective sense, can bring some order out of a matter that is certainly chaotic.

I consider assessment is, in the words of somebody else, black magic. There’s no way I can order my brain to have any kind of an understanding, other than in its simplest form, the way it used to be applied, in an upfront, straightforward way.

I really do believe the collective wisdom and the good intentions of the members of this House, meeting in committee, with the assistance of the minister’s advisers and with impartial advisers, can give us the kind of advice that will at least alleviate some of these problems for the coming year.

[4:00]

I can’t say any more than I said during the minister’s estimates as to how dissatisfied we are, both with the work he’s done and, frankly, with the work his staff and advisers have done in assessment. Perhaps there was a bit of light at the end of the tunnel when the policy man was a Treasurer who interested himself in this and was taking initiatives, who knew where he was going and everybody sensed he did, too. He was quite prepared to ride roughshod over many objections, political and otherwise, to accomplish something he thought was right. In the understanding of responsible government the opposition can object to it, offer alternatives, vote against it and campaign in the hustings against it. But this way we’re not getting anywhere. The direction has been lost and the chaos is deepening. I would like to vote against the bill except that under the explanatory notes it says, “The purpose of the bill is to postpone to December 1980 the return of assessment at market value.” On that basis I believe that principle of the bill has to be supported. The rest of it leaves me in grave doubt. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it must be reviewed by a standing committee.

Mr. Isaacs: Some of the previous speakers have commented on the past history of the assessment problem we now face. I want to look forward for a few moments because I think it’s important, that when we review a bill in this House we consider the impact the bill will have on the people of Ontario. Hopefully that impact will be a positive one and the bill will bring great benefits to the people of Ontario. But this bill fails abysmally on that count.

I’m sure that the minister had difficulty even bringing the bill into the House at all. I’m sure he finds it impossible to bring it in with a great sense of pride. I imagine if he had the opportunity he would like to hide under his desk while we’re dealing with this bill. If he wouldn’t then he should, because this bill does absolutely nothing for the benefit of the people of Ontario. It continues a system that is almost a provincial disgrace; a system that none of us can be proud of; a system that gets a little bit worse every year when we apply these Band-Aid solutions to prevent a real catastrophe, but does nothing to solve the real problem that every municipality and every property taxpayer faces in this province.

On Thursday of this week a delegation from the county of Frontenac will be meeting with myself and some of my caucus colleagues. Those people will be explaining to us their concern about exactly the kind of thing this bill addresses. We will be telling them, as we tell the minister and the government now, that it’s not the equalization factors and not the content of this particular bill that is the cause of the problem.

We can’t solve the problem by playing around in this Mickey Mouse fashion. The entire principle of property taxes, as they are presently levied in this province, has to be looked at anew -- I nearly said “reassessed,” Mr. Speaker. I think that’s a pretty bad word in this particular context, because the last thing we need is yet another reassessment. Section 86 is already causing a great deal of problems.

This bill postpones the implementation of market value assessment for another 12 months. I cannot accept the minister brings that to us in good faith. Indeed, he has already indicated to us that before the next 12 months expire a new system for assessment of properties and for charging of municipal taxes will be in place for 1981.

The minister is shaking his head. I don’t understand that because it was certainly my understanding from the minister’s previous comments and from previous comments of his colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), that we would be seeing something new and different for 1981 and, therefore, prior to the deadline which this bill puts in place for market value assessment.

I don’t accept -- and I assume the minister’s previous comments were made in good faith -- this bill stands to be implemented on December 1, 1980, to bring market value to us, because I don’t believe that’s what the minister intends. I have to say there seems to be an element of bad faith there; that we’re doing something that we know we don’t want to happen but we are doing it simply because it is expedient and it gets us out of a terrible mess.

The planning with regard to market value assessment and property tax reform has been absolutely abysmal and the administration of the system that is in place now -- not the day-to-day administration performed by the officials, but the administration as represented by section 86, as represented by the kind of things contained in this bill which are ways of dealing on an ad hoc basis with problems that arise in certain municipalities -- that administration has been a real disaster. We have to look forward to what the bill says about 1981 and what will happen when market value comes, if this bill is allowed to proceed to its natural conclusion. I have to say the real muddle we have now -- and that is probably a good word, although I have a feeling some days that it is closer to chaos -- is something that is not going to be solved by the kind of approach the minister and his colleagues have been taking in past years. We can’t do it with commissions; we can’t do it with recommendations from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and from the constituent organizations of that body. I am not convinced we can do it by waiting for a recommendation from the government any more.

That is why some of those whose opinions I respect most highly and some of my colleagues from this House will be meeting this weekend to talk about the property tax system. We will not be dealing with the kind of patchwork approach that is contained in this bill and has been contained in previous bills that my colleague from Hamilton Mountain mentioned earlier. We will be starting right back at square one and we will be saying, “If there was nothing, what kind of municipal tax structure should be in place in this province to provide the kind of municipal revenue that we need to get the day-today work of our local councils done?”

That kind of approach has to be taken, because this kind of bill and the other measures the minister has introduced always result in some people paying more while other people pay less on a system that was working and which everybody assumed to be fair, even though it was totally and utterly unfair. As soon as you start shifting the tax burden from one group of people to another group of people and assuming the shift is distributed fairly evenly across the population, then you will have 50 per cent of the people unhappy.

That is what we see under section 86, and that is what we see under the kind of things this bill puts in place. There are no principles of who pays what. There are no principles as to exactly how an individual or a partnership or a corporation should contribute to municipal revenue, or contribute indirectly through property taxes to the province, because that in a way is what property taxes have become and that is pretty unfortunate.

The principles are not there, the problems are with us every day and the public is getting more and more irate.

We support the bill because we know it is necessary; we know what would have been put in place were it not for this bill would be even more unacceptable than the mess we have now, but it is no solution. I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), we cannot see sending this bill to committee, because if this bill is not passed by the end of this week, market value assessment will be in place as of next Monday. We cannot go along with market value assessment being postponed in this bill. It is very unfortunate, but that is a fact.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of clarification, may I ask the member a question?

Mr. Speaker: If he accepts it.

Mr. Isaacs: I will accept a question from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: The honourable member has indicated if the bill is not in place by the end of this week, then market value assessment is established. As I read the Assessment Act, it is by the third Tuesday after December 1 that the rolls must be returned. That would surely give us a week or 10 days to deal with it. If the member is right, then we would have to consider this, but the Assessment Act says clearly the third Tuesday after December 1. It is now November 27.

Mr. Isaacs: I am not an expert on the exact timing, but I do know the rolls cannot be returned overnight. A tremendous amount of preparatory work has to be done to get the rolls returned on the day on which they have to be returned.

Mr. Epp: And none of that work has been done yet. Is that right?

Mr. Isaacs: I suggest if the day is not Monday of next week, then it is within a couple of days thereafter. Given the committee schedule we have at the moment and given the importance of the various matters that are before those committees, I still have very great difficulty in accepting anything that might postpone this because it is imposing an additional burden and additional difficulty on our municipal colleagues and on those who work in the assessment offices who have to deal with the returning of the rolls. Those people are already facing a pretty tough burden.

Mr. Philip: It is good practice for after the next election.

Mr. Isaacs: My colleague, the member for Etobicoke, refers to after the next election. I was going to make a comment about what would happen when we come near the deadline of this bill and how municipalities are still going to find themselves in difficulty because the lead time that is being provided by a one-year postponement and by the new measures we are so looking forward to, though I don’t know where they are going to come from, is totally inadequate for municipalities to do their planning, their budgeting and all the work that will be necessary for the raising of taxes in 1981. The comment reminded me that by the time we get there, then my colleague from Hamilton Mountain may well be in the situation where he has to bring in a bill to postpone the implementation of market value assessment just to get us over the problem created by the present government’s lack of action so the new government formed by this party can deal with the matter in a much more proper way.

That is a slight digression from the principle of the bill. There is a problem in terms of the one-year postponement. There is a problem in the way the municipalities will again not have the proper planning, the proper guidelines or the proper information by which to plan their revenue for 1981.

We support the bill, knowing it does nothing for the people of the province except to ensure an already disastrous situation doesn’t get even worse. I really don’t think it is something the minister can be proud of.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to Bill 164, An Act to amend the Assessment Act. In the explanatory notes, the minister has indicated the purpose of the bill is to postpone to December 1980 the return of the assessment at market value. It seems to be a general policy of the government to year after year introduce an amendment to the Assessment Act to postpone market value assessment.

Perhaps what bothers me most is I don’t think the minister can have it both ways. We have seen the implementation just about a month ago of the new equalization factors for municipal purposes which related particularly to market value assessment. That has caused serious difficulties throughout a number of municipalities in the province.

[4:15]

I question the minister’s postponing for another year market value assessment when we are using market value assessment now for what one might call tax purposes or tax reform. To use these two particular areas for their own benefit I don’t think is correct or justified by the ministry or by the government.

Previous speakers have talked about the standardization of assessment. We on this side are looking and I think every municipality is looking for the government to bring in some perspective in the area of assessment, equalized assessment or market value assessment for reevaluation of assessment in Ontario.

This has been kicked about for 10 years, 1969 to 1979. It will be postponed again to 1980. I don’t know when we expect to see market value assessment.

I think it is misleading to use another section of the act to bring in a form of market value. I suppose if I look at it closely enough, this particular section 86 of the Assessment Act is voluntary; it isn’t mandatory that every municipality may enter into this program. I don’t know. The minister said last year he had about 50 or 60 municipalities interested in it, but only about 14 have carried out the program. I don’t know if it has removed any inequity in assessment. I don’t think it has. I don’t think this particular section does permit a removing of inequities in assessment practices in municipalities or from one municipality to another.

Last year we were debating this particular section again -- section 86. I did go into some detail of well-documented history as to the reasons why the government had failed to bring forward market value assessment. Again, I have a letter. I must read it into the record. It is addressed to the Premier of Ontario, William C. Davis. It says:

“Re market value assessment:

“In a regular session November 15, 1979, the council of the regional municipality of Niagara approved and adopted the attached resolution urging the government of Ontario to move towards the implementation of market value assessment, and property tax reform for the year 1981.

“Our council respectfully requests your consideration and support for our petition.”

This is from the clerk of the municipality, W. J. Dawson. There is attached a resolution moved by Councillor Huffman and seconded by Councillor Pettit:

“Whereas the province of Ontario has announced a method implementing new equalization factors in 1980” -- that again is on an ad hoc basis -- “whereas the province of Ontario has not indicated what action will be taken in 1981; whereas the 1980 proposals can be viewed purely as a stopgap measure; whereas there is little doubt that the long-term solution is the introduction of market value assessment and property tax reform;

“Therefore, the regional municipality of Niagara urges the province of Ontario to move towards the implementation of market value assessment and property tax reform for 1981 and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the ministers of Treasury and Economies, Intergovernmental Affairs, Revenue and local members of the provincial parliament, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario, and all regions and cities in Ontario and all area municipalities of this region.”

So they are deeply concerned. As I have said, I have documented their past documents and briefs submitted to the government. Last year it was an analysis of market value assessment and the effect it would have within the region.

Well, we’ve seen the ad hoc measures, particularly in the Niagara region, where the introduction of new equalization factors had caused almost complete chaos in a number of smaller communities and in particular the rural municipalities in the peninsula.

I can well recall the amendment put forward by the member for Hamilton Mountain on the matter of the introduction of new equalization factors. He said it would not cause any problems. We on this side and I think even the government side said it would cause chaos in a great number of communities. Well, it certainly did. I have to give credit to the government. They did bring in amendments to say they cannot increase more than five or 10 per cent above any increase in certain municipalities. It will give some relief for a one-year period, but what happens the year after that? Year after year in the House we are going to get back into the same debate, which will take up the valuable time of this Legislature. I just can’t understand why I do, in a sense -- it is the matter of where they get the revenue.

I think the government is going to have to set their priorities in this particular area because I don’t think municipalities can function properly under those terms. They don’t know what they are going to receive in equalization grants and apportionment grants. It has an effect on them in the Niagara region and the mover of this resolution, Councillor Pettit, the mayor of Wainfleet, is deeply concerned and I can see why.

If I can find the literature I had here anyway, it related to the recent article in the Financial Post of October 13, 1979, and it’s entitled “The Cost of Housing Across Canada.” I am just going to pick out two particular areas to illustrate. One is Niagara Falls, which is in the regional municipality of Niagara. There, the cost of a home in 1979 was $78,500. In the area of the city of St. Catharines, perhaps one of the highest-income municipalities across Canada, the homes are valued at $73,500. There is a $5,000 difference there.

I don’t know how the assessor in that area has responded to that. I don’t think he has. If I look at St. Catharines and Niagara Falls and then come to the township of Wainfleet, perhaps the same home will be selling at a price of $10,000 to $12,000 or maybe $15,000 less, but on market value assessment related to the equalization factors, they will be paying more into the region for enforcement costs and even for the county schools.

I suggest the members are right; it’s time the taxpayer had access to the methodology or the procedures the assessors are carrying out. I think it’s time they were subject to their peers.

I suggest to the minister that if he looks at the bill, he will see it doesn’t do anything in that area. All it does is give him more power to regulate certain classes of property. If he looks at section 90 of the Assessment Act in regard to appeals, every time he seems to get into a problem or somebody is appealing an assessment, he can pull this particular section out and say, “We have considered it and you are being treated all alike.” You can take five or 10 properties in a municipality and say, “You are all assessed at the same level.” But it could be they are over-assessed and because the assessors have over-assessed a certain particular piece of property it doesn’t mean the other five or 10 property owners should have to suffer the consequences.

I suggest that’s about what the bill does. It gives the minister more authority in this area and I think it’s wrong. For 10 years municipalities and taxpayers have been concerned about this. As I said, the regional municipality of Niagara wants market value assessment with tax reform. I think this is what we are all looking forward to, some method of bringing about equality in assessment practices in the province, but section 86 doesn’t give us that. All it does is say the ministry can revalue a property to no more than the highest in the area. It can’t go beyond that level.

There’s no change in the assessment for that municipality, but it does not remove the inequities within that system -- there is no doubt that there are property owners who are not paying their fair share -- and it doesn’t resolve the matter of market value assessment. We have seen the tax shift from industrial-commercial to residential. It can be seen when one uses market value in the equalization factors, based on the 1978 sales. It is one hell of a mess.

The member for Hamilton Mountain spoke of the return of the rolls. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was right; I think the assessment rolls are to be returned to the municipality by the third Tuesday after December 1.

I have made some inquiries and some municipalities, particularly in the Niagara region, are really concerned about this area because the ministry can offer no guarantee that the tapes or rolls will be returned so they may apply section 43 for additional assessment purposes. There is no guarantee of that, even for next year.

He says here that apparently, it may be due to a computer breakdown. Nevertheless, the assessment division claims that, hopefully, the municipalities will have their tapes by January 10, 1980. But there is no guarantee on that. From the information I have, some municipalities may not get them until the middle of February.

This says, “This is generally done by December 18 of any given year, with notices sent out by December 3.” A year ago, all their notices were done by this time. I believe then there was a commitment from the ministry’s assessment division that there would be some corrective measures made to speed up the return of the assessment rolls. That was promised, I believe, back in 1977.

To date, it hasn’t improved any; it has got worse. The municipalities have a tax billing to do. If they receive the tapes by January 10, they will probably be all right, but since there is no guarantee of that, municipalities will be left in the dark until they actually receive their tapes.

Regardless of whether or not this bill is referred to the standing committee of justice -- and perhaps it is relevant that we do send it there -- we need open discussion and open debate on the matter of the procedures and practices used by the assessors in Ontario. I question if they are using the same assessment practice in that region, from one area to another. It may be close, but not that close.

I don’t know what rental factor they are using. Maybe they apply it just to St. Catharines and Niagara Falls, which would differ from Port Colborne, Wainfleet or Fort Erie, even taking the sales to a willing buyer from one municipality to the other. I can see the injustices done on the equalization factors based upon market value and I can’t justify saying that little people or small urban areas should carry a bigger share of the tax burden for apportionment costs for regional government or even for the school boards. I suggest it is time the assessors were subjected to their peers -- let’s put it that way -- that the taxpayers have a right to know just what they are doing.

When the time comes that a person must appeal his assessment, he should have full knowledge of what the practices are and what methodology is being used in assessment. At the present time, I just can’t see that.

A few years ago, before we got into the matter of the proposed tax reform and market value assessment, the taxpayers in the regional municipality of Niagara, and I think that takes in Lincoln and Welland county, had the opportunity to appear before an assessment review court to appeal their assessment. They didn’t have to go through the expensive route they have to now to appeal their assessment because members were appointed from within the region or within the municipality or within the county to hear the thing. It didn’t become an adversary system, which is what it has become now. Anyone who wants to make an appeal today can’t take the normal route to appear on their own behalf before a court of appeal. They have to go out and hire expert help to fight it because there is just no way they can get the information. Even the experts in this particular area do not have the information to make a reasonable appeal on their assessment.

[4:30]

There are many areas we should be looking at and I support my colleague in suggesting that this bill be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature, perhaps the justice committee. I think it’s time all the facts were brought out. Other segments of the public should have some input to the decision-making process. It’s time the minister set a goal and brought in market value assessment, perhaps phasing it in over a period of five years. I don’t know what it should be.

I know a few years ago the assessment was based on about 33 per cent of market value, back in 1965 and 1962. There’s no reason market value assessment can’t be brought in with tax reform -- not at 50 per cent, but go to 30 per cent or 32 per cent or 37 per cent. Phase it in until you hit that level of 50 per cent. It can be done.

The problem is not going to be resolved by postponing it year after year because it is compounding problems at the municipal level. It has caused serious difficulties in municipalities because they don’t know where they’re at from one year to another, what method they’re going to have to look at for grant purposes and market value assessment. It’s being used now for certain purposes. Why doesn’t the minister go all the way and bring in the property tax reform that is required?

I support the resolution from the regional municipality of Niagara. They can see the inequities in the present system within that region and they want to correct it, but they can’t correct it as long as the minister is going to postpone this. Section 86 means nothing to a region unless they all get into section 86. I don’t think that’s going to resolve the problem either until property tax reform based on market value assessment is brought in.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take a minute or two of the House on this bill. I feel very uneasy about the position we in this caucus are forced to take to support the bill. I feel very much that for the first time the whole problem of market assessment has had its initiative in the government. It has borne the responsibility for all the stages of the investigation of the concept and the way in which it’s going to be applied, presumably because it wanted to take responsibility for the introduction of a better system of real property assessment in Ontario.

For the first time, this minister and this government is trying to involve our colleagues on the right and ourselves in this overall problem the government is now faced with. That’s a real conundrum for us, because the minister is trying to have us share in some way this interim measure -- if it is an interim measure, and no one will ever know now -- by which there is going to be some element of equalization in varying parts of the province, depending on where the wheel squeaks the most. I have a very real concern about us being involved at all in it. As my colleague the member for Wentworth has said, we don’t have very much choice about it. It’s a kind of Catch-22, 10 years later, of the government’s inability to come to grips with the question of market value assessment, solve the problems involved in it and introduce it, or discard the concept and start afresh.

Instead, we’ve had the minister -- and I think it was my colleague from Cambridge (Mr. M. Davidson) who first blew the whistle on the minister with respect to the use of section 86 -- using section 86 as a kind of stopgap measure to produce some form of equalization in those areas where there were serious inequities in the assessment.

I’m not particularly enamoured of the suggestion of our colleagues on the right that the bill should go out to a standing committee in the last couple of weeks of this session of the assembly. I don’t think that is going to accomplish very much. I don’t think it can do other than embroil all of us in an inextricable problem for which no solution is going to be found in two weeks. However, if my friends on the right decide to do so, they can stand 20 members in their place, as I understand it under the rules, and put the bill out to the standing committee. It doesn’t really matter to us here because nothing will be accomplished in that period of time. All that we can do is either vote against the bill or vote for the bill.

We have come down in a very difficult situation to support the bill -- or could I say not oppose the second reading of it. I would much sooner put it that way than have anybody indicate that we have supported it. Perhaps non-opposition is an accurate statement of the position we are in.

I have some very basic objections to what the government is proposing and what the minister is saying in the bill. First of all, we are now being asked in a kind of retrospective way, and I suppose in a real sense retroactively, to validate what has been done in the past by the minister under section 86 since he started to use this particular device to solve the problem with which he was faced by those municipalities where there were serious inequities, so serious that the municipal councils asked the minister to take some steps in connection with it.

I always have problems when we are asked to fill a vacuum about the legality of what has been done. The minister said in his opening statement that section 86 is being amended to provide a procedure which would not be subject to attack. I will leave it to those who are more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the kind of procedure the minister proposes to say it is not subject to attack.

I want to point out a couple of things that bother me about the proposed amendment to section 86 and the additional procedures to be provided. It is a strange way for the government to draft that particular provision. It has been the opinion of the minister that the inequity exists, but even if in his opinion the inequity exists he cannot do anything unless he is asked to do it by the municipal council.

I think it is a strange position for a minister of the crown to be in where he can say, “I believe there are significant and real inequities in the assessments within these various classes, but I, as the minister, cannot do anything about it until the municipal council decides that I can do so. Then it is in my discretion to make the adjustment which is involved.”

It is relatively elementary that any tax and the base for any tax should be very clear. When you introduce a discretionary element for the minister to make the decision, even if it is at the request of the particular municipality, you immediately destabilize that certainty of the base of the assessment which everyone is entitled to rely on so that he knows the base on which his taxes are going to be assessed.

I think there is a very serious flaw in traditional taxing principles. I am not suggesting for a moment it is necessarily illegal. Presumably we in the assembly can do what we want about the method by which the taxing system is imposed in the province. I was worried, as my colleagues in this caucus were, about the OHIP premium changes being done by regulation propounded by the government in the sense that those OHIP premiums were taxes and taxes should be imposed by this Legislative Assembly by act of the assembly and not by the decision of the government by way of regulation.

We took legal opinion on the matter because we felt very strongly about it. We found, of course, that it was our fault. It was our fault here in the assembly that we had allowed that method of taxation to be adopted by the government because the constitution of Canada provides that the constitution of this province, except the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, is entirely in the hands of this assembly. If we passed an act saying we would delegate to the executive the power to change taxes in this province it was our own fault. We were the ones who had departed from the traditional principle that taxes shall be imposed by act of the assembly and not by the executive branch of the crown.

In a funny way, we’re being asked -- and the analogy is not all that farfetched -- to do the same thing. We’re being asked now to extend or to regularize whatever the procedures were under section 86. They had not really been used all that often so as to be a matter of great concern to us, but we are now being asked to regularize them in such a way that they can be used in any number of situations. To the extent that we grant the minister or the crown the ability to exercise discretion with respect to the assessment base, to that extent we are granting to the government the ability to vary the taxes of people, because the mill rate, when set by the local municipality, applies to the assessment base as it will be determined by the minister.

I think it’s a serious problem for this assembly. I feel concerned and upset and I sense, regardless of the way in which it was expressed by each of the members who have spoken, that members share the disquiet or the sense of anxiety about what the government is trying to do to us over here.

We’re being involved in the process. With the lack of clarity by the government about what their intentions are with respect to fair market value assessment, we will have put into the statute and delegated something which may be there for all time. By the time, a year from now, fair market value assessment takes its place, that will be the government’s decision; we’ll be back where we started and the error of our ways will not exist to catch us out. But if, as I suspect, a year from now we are in the very same position and if we are asked to extend it again, then we are in a funny way grounding in this statute a provision which allows the minister in his discretion, for what were specific, very limited purposes, to extend a section which will then have very broad application in the province. That causes me immense concern.

I think if I had my druthers on the matter I would simply say to the minister, “No, you’re now stuck with fair market value assessment. You’ve had plenty of time; you’ve done all your studies. You make it work, and you take the consequences for it.” In our caucus we’re never as tough on the government as we should be in matters such as this; we decided on this occasion, reluctantly, not to oppose the bill.

May I perhaps speak to my colleagues in the assembly, in all parties? I know my friend, in a moment of being carried away with his rhetoric about the bill, indicated that if we were the government we could solve it. The problem is that I don’t think any party forming the government of this province is going to really be able to come to grips with a revision of the assessment procedures in the province and the basis on which the procedures will be adopted that can satisfy a sufficient number of people to avoid the immense political threat which is there for every political party in touching the assessments.

I had some minor experience on a street on which I once lived. I took it upon myself to organize a few of our neighbours in order to try to get an equalization of assessment just on that street. Fortunately, there were more people who were equalized down than up, so I ended up with a marginal number of more friends on the street than enemies. That’s the same reality in politics about this whole system. I know of no way in which it can be devised.

I think, after 10 years, we ought to face up to that problem in this assembly and say that if there are fundamental inequities in the assessment system in the province, it’s the obligation of this assembly, rather than dragging us in by the back door to this kind of an amendment giving discretionary power to the minister, to say: Let this assembly look at the question of assessment in this province in the light of the work which has been done on fair market assessment and the information which has been garnered, not only about it but about contrasting systems. Let us try to sort it out and let the assembly come up with a report as to how we will deal with assessment of real property in this province. If one wants to put it in crass, political terms, then we can all share the glory, or the opposite of the glory, of establishing the system.

[4:45]

I don’t think any significant change will come out of sending it to some standing committee. I recognize the municipal expertise of those who have spoken on this bill, particularly the experience of the member for Waterloo North who, I understand, has a number of amendments to introduce to us, but it does seem to me that it should not be beyond the wit and wisdom of the House leaders of the three parties to at least consider this.

The House leader for the government undoubtedly will consult the government as to whether or not a committee of the assembly should be established to review and recommend an acceptable assessment scheme for real property so we don’t bedevil each other with this problem over the next many months. If our caucus is the same as the other caucuses we have all spent an immense amount of time preoccupied with trying to work out some method by which real property assessment would be acceptable to us.

Ours has generally tended to be the best of all possible worlds; no one’s assessment will be increased and some will be decreased. That seems to have been the only solution we could come to and we have many elaborate propositions to support the rationale for it. But frankly it has been very difficult for any of us to fully understand the knowledge brought to the table by my colleagues the members for Hamilton Mountain, Wentworth and Welland-Thorold and by others very knowledgeable in the field.

Then, of course, we have very special problems in the city of Toronto, in the area which I represent in this assembly.

The last thing I am is one of the five people in this House who are knowledgeable about municipal taxes or assessments. But in a political sense I simply resent the fact that we are being asked to deal with this problem, in this way, 10 years after the government announced it was going to go to a fair market-value assessment.

I would hope the proposal, the suggestion I made, might find some favour and perhaps the three House leaders and the government House leader, consulting with the government, might decide all should share the blame and all should share the glory and have a committee of the assembly. Let it report what the bases are to be for the assessment of real property in Ontario. I emphasize the plural, “bases,” because to tell me that one can attribute the same fair market value to the east tower of the Canadian Bank of Commerce is an exercise in which we’re not prepared to engage in this party.

Let’s see whether or not we can come up with some kind of classification of property, tests to be applied to particular properties which will in some way, even if it were to take two or three years for such a committee to report, lead to a resolution of this problem on a collective basis within the assembly. We could then all take whatever blows or accolades we might deserve because of it.

I would hope the minister might pursue some solutions to the problem, which is evident in the anxiety and concern expressed by all members on this side of the House, regardless of party, who have spoken on this bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate in the debate? If not, the honourable minister.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, very simply, I am here with an amendment to the Assessment Act, which deals with two major amendments and a couple of minor ones. I am not bringing something new to this Legislature. There has been a freeze on assessment since 1970 and there is no change in that.

The section 86 program has been operated under the regulations. The assessment program enforced in the 14 municipalities we have done up to this point has been done under regulation and under authority of section 2 of the Assessment Act; that regulation was passed. The problem, simply, is this: three major corporations have started court actions against the ministry and the municipalities in which the assessment was involved, saying they doubt I have the authority as the Minister of Revenue under section 2 of the act to pass the regulation.

The reason for bringing this particular amendment into the Legislature is to confirm that this is the intent of the government; this is the program with which this government is prepared to proceed. None of the things I am proposing here is new. I don’t know why the members feel I am assuming more authority than I had before. I have used the authority under section 2 to pass regulations which are almost word for word what is in the amendment under section 86 here, which have been challenged.

This is the right, of course, with any regulation or law. People have the right to apply to the courts to challenge the regulation. My people inform me, and insist at this point, that I do not have the authority to pass the regulations. But the fact remains it may take two or three years to resolve, through the courts, whether or not that is the case. In the final analysis, the courts will decide whether or not I have the authority to pass the regulation.

In the meantime, certain municipalities are sitting in left field. At this point they don’t know in which direction to turn. There are three municipalities involved in this particular matter because three different corporations in three different locations have started court action.

Very simply, then, I am saying to the members that the amendments to the act, as proposed, are consistent with what is taking place in the ministry up to this point. As well, 107 municipalities have requested an impact study on section 86. Somewhere between 75 and 80 municipalities have now passed resolutions, having looked at the impact study asking this ministry to implement a section 86 program.

If the amendment does not carry, all the municipalities will be left in a position where they really don’t know where to go. They would then have to wait for a court decision before they would know finally whether or not the Minister of Revenue has the authority to pass the regulation.

I refer to the remarks of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), referring to the third Tuesday of December to carry out the necessary functions that must take place within the Ministry of Revenue. That refers to sending out the rolls to the municipalities, which is quite true. The assessment notices themselves under the act must be sent out by December 4. This is a much shorter period of time.

I am personally not going to recommend that this go to committee. I see the members of the opposition are in place. If they so desire that this go to committee, then so be it.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the minister for clarification on some of the matters he has raised, because I think it is important with respect to this piece of legislation. I wonder if he has intentions to refer the matter to a committee some time in the future, because I think it is very important this matter be discussed or that there is a special debate on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Under the standing order, on second reading when the minister has finished talking, that ends the debate. I have no authority to alter that.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we want it to go to the standing general government committee, if that is the appropriate standing committee.

Mr. Speaker: Twenty members having risen, under standing order 56(c) the bill will be sent either to a standing or a select committee. What is the minister’s wish on that? Standing general government committee?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: At the discretion of the House, I would say whichever committee is able to handle it. I don’t want to direct it to a committee that is so busy it can’t look into the situation. I would prefer standing general government.

Ordered for standing general government committee.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Maeck moved second reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I have a few short remarks. As part of the introductory remarks on the second reading of this bill I would like to refer the honourable members to my statement in the House on November 6, which dealt extensively with the contents of the bill. In view of those previous remarks, I will only summarize the main features of this particular bill.

To begin, repeal of the statutory liens provision of the Corporations Act, 1972, is a direct result of my ministry’s commitment to tax simplification and deregulation. The current statutory lien protects provincial revenues by encumbering all corporate assets. However, after careful review, it became clear it was not necessary to interfere with all corporations in order to protect revenues from a few that may have abused the tax system.

Our studies indicated that removal of this broad and generally disruptive approach to collections and the redirection of efforts to known collection problems would preserve revenue yields, while at the same time easing the work loads of corporations and their representatives. This thinking is reinforced by our experience following repeal of similar statutory lien provisions in Ontario’s commodity and sales tax statutes.

Given that the vast majority of provincial corporations posed neither collections nor payment problems, removing the direct interest my ministry has taken in corporate capital assets transfers should present a substantial direct benefit to the province’s corporate tax filers.

Members will recall from my previous statement that currently application for a lien clearance must be made for every transfer to ensure that assets are not encumbered for purposes of the Corporations Tax Act, 1972. Passage of this amendment will mean that a registered lien will be required only if it becomes necessary to encumber corporate assets to collect taxes.

[5:00]

This amendment will reduce a costly, and in this instance unnecessary, government involvement in this province’s corporate business activities. At the same time through the redeployment of those resources presently required to administer the statutory lien, it will be possible to preserve Ontario’s corporations tax revenues through effective and timely collection action.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the amendments proposed in this bill represent yet another achievement of this government’s total commitment to deregulation and tax simplification. Passage of these amendments will protect the interests of the province but will not impede the day-to-day business pursuits of the corporate communities.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting the bill this afternoon. The amendment proposes to improve the taxpayers’ services and reduce government red tape. I think we all agree it is time the government moved in a direction of deregulation and simplification of some of the tax legislation that is already on the books.

I want to discuss the proposed lien provision. It will be effective only if the corporation tax branch chooses to register a notice of a lien against the property of the corporation which owes taxes. The provisions will be used when the branch has experienced or expects to experience some difficulties in collecting tax arrears.

If I interpret it correctly the amendment covers two areas -- the property lien itself and other liens that may be considered taxable by the minister. I would like to have a further explanation of just what this area means.

The minister has indicated revenues can be protected without the need for impeding the corporate taxpayer. He says, “More effective collection methods, concentrating on delinquent payments and non-compliance with the statutory requirements, has enabled us to protect revenues where the statutory lien provisions has been repealed to date.” What measures does he have to enforce the present regulations where there is a corporation that has reneged in payment of corporation taxes?

I think we can accept the principle that they will have to register a lien on the filing of an affidavit, or whatever it may be, with the registry office. So could the minister say what measure he has to protect his ministry so that he will be able to collect delinquent taxes?

Reading further into the details of the proposed change: “The Minister of Revenue may apply a lien on real property in Ontario if the corporation owes taxes, interest, penalties, costs, et cetera, under the act. A notice of the lien is registered in the proper land registry office.”

The legislation is only permissive. It isn’t that the minister “shall” apply a lien; it is a matter that he “may” in his judgement apply the lien. I was wondering if it wouldn’t be too permissive, so there would be more delinquent payment of corporation taxes to the government.

With those few comments, this party will support the amendment to the Corporation Tax Act. Hopefully it will reduce some of the red tape and speed up the process of corporations in exchange or purchasing of property or selling of property. I think it has been a costly expenditure for corporations. I think it is a move in the right direction that we do see some simplification in tax policies by the Ministry of Revenue. Those are the questions that perhaps the minister can give me some information on. What protective measures are there for delinquent taxpayers? Is there a penalty clause under the regulations in the amendment of this particular section?

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say through you to the minister that we are going to support the bill on second reading.

In a discussion I had with the minister very shortly after the introduction of this bill for first reading, the minister suggested to me that I should talk to my colleagues the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) about the bill. He assured me they would say quite clearly to me that this was a good move on the part of the Ministry of Revenue. The minister was correct. They concurred that getting rid of the statutory liens provision was a good move. However, they also raised a number of concerns with regard to subsections 1 and 3 of section 167 of the act which is laid out in section 1 of this bill, areas with which, unfortunately, I guess, I wasn’t familiar enough. They were concerns, as the member for Erie has expressed, about the lack of obligation on the part of the minister under the new section to register a lien under any circumstances and, in subsection 3, the section dealing with the discharge presently existing on registered liens, that there is absolutely no comment about any situation where those liens had to be registered under this new section.

These concerns were expressed to me and we sat down and discussed them and consulted legal counsel and, as the minister is aware, I am going to be proposing amendments to these sections in committee of the whole House. We are in support of the proposal to get rid of the statutory liens, but we think there’s a very decided need for some clearer definition in this bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this particular legislation.

I recall some years ago in the practice of law it was a commonplace that every real estate transaction had a letter which went out to the Ministry of Revenue to inquire whether there was corporate tax clearance or not. There surely must have been a tremendous amount of time spent for what was otherwise a routine circumstance. I don’t recall in a dozen years of practice more than one or two that came back with any positive claim that had to be accommodated but there certainly was this requirement of having to have a clearance. It was a valid requisition on title and, as a result, it took time and effort and very often had really no validity in trying to sort out provincial tax obligations. Certainly it’s best to have a claim known, but the best way to have that claim known is to have it clearly registered on title if in fact it does exist.

I welcome this change because it will put the onus on the ministry to give clear indication to anyone searching a title that there is a claim which can then be attended to as any other obligation on title might have to be dealt with. I welcome this amendment because I think it will save a lot of time, a lot of wasted effort, and I certainly look forward to having it passed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has mentioned the conflict that my colleague the member for Lakeshore and I had about the bill. As my colleague has stated, we are satisfied with the removal of the statutory lien but we do not want to leave it entirely to the discretion of the minister whether he does or does not register a lien.

We have proposed in an amendment to put in two tests, that is, in arrears for a year and in excess of $1,000. The amendment has been distributed.

I just want to make the point that the two tests aren’t necessarily etched in stone. If the principle of the amendment can be accepted or considered by the government, then we would be prepared to accept some different tests about the obligation on the minister.

The other point we were very concerned about is that there must be a significant number of corporations at the present time that are in arrears, that will have the benefit of the removal of the statutory lien, but will not be subject to having that lien continued until such time as the arrears are cleared up. It is that kind of problem we are attempting to address in the amendment which my colleague will be proposing when the bill goes into committee of the whole House, because there may be a little bit of time until that happy event occurs.

We also were concerned that the words “real property” are the only definitive words with respect to the kind of lien that can be registered in the appropriate land registration offices. We wanted to make certain that it perhaps be extended to include the term “leasehold” because of the problems involved with deciding whether a leasehold interest in land is real property or not. The amendment which, as I say, my colleague has distributed includes that point as well. Subject to moving the amendment in committee, as has been stated, we support the bill on second reading.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Very briefly, the member for Erie wanted to know what other means we had of collecting the taxes owing. There are many, actually. A few of them are such things as taking security bonds, mortgages, warrants of execution, garnishments, personal guarantees and bank letters of credit. Those are some of the various ways and means we can secure money that is owing, besides placing a lien at the local registry office. There are fairly ample means of ensuring that the taxpayers or the province receive their just taxes.

With reference to the amendments that are being proposed, I have had my staff look at these amendments. I got them only at noon. There are some we can accept. There was one we have some concerns about. However, perhaps it would be better to discuss it in detail in committee.

I can assure the member for Riverdale we are more than prepared to include the clause he wanted included, which was leasehold interests in real property. My staff sees no problem with accepting that amendment. We have perhaps a little different way of proposing the amendment. I will send him a copy of what we are proposing.

We have really no problem with the 60-day amendment that is being proposed either, other than we would prefer to see it proceed in such a way that we would be talking about a date rather than the 60 days. But we do have some concerns about the other amendment and we will probably get into detail on it in clause by clause.

In the meantime, I will send members copies of the other two amendments which we would propose to replace some of theirs.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

[5:15]

House in committee of the whole.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Securities Act, 1978.

On section 1:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I see absolutely no reason for this amendment being introduced into the bill. I can well understand that those who are engaged day by day -- the lawyers and the accountants -- are very concerned about the clear statement we have in the present bill that states, “Misrepresentation means an untrue statement of material fact or an omission to state a material fact.”

That is quite a clear statement of what the fundamental provision of disclosure in this bill is about. I see no reason to provide the kind of legalistic amendment which has been proposed to subclause ii of that definition of misrepresentation to add the words “that is required to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in the light of the circumstances in which it was made.” That’s the kind of lawyer’s hair-splitting that gives them the opportunity to get off the hook with respect to the question of misrepresentation.

Perhaps I need not reiterate to this assembly that the gut provision of the securities law of this province, which is time-honoured, is “A proposal shall provide full, true and plain disclosure of all material facts relating to the securities issued or proposed to be distributed and shall comply with the requirements of this act and the regulations.”

That is in section 55 of the Securities Act. We are talking about a misrepresentation about the material facts which are required to be disclosed. I’m opposed to the amendment to section 1 of the bill. Provided I have enough of my colleagues in the House, if necessary, we’ll stand and oppose that particular amendment.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Renwick: I don’t really mind being defeated on that part of the bill, as I expected to be defeated. We would have been defeated on the amendment when it was put in the House. As long as we’ve registered our objection, I think time will tell that was the most unwise amendment to have been carried into the Securities Act of this province.

On section 2 of the bill, will the minister please tell us -- it’s commonly known, but I think the record should clearly show -- the precise circumstances which led to the necessity of the commission’s sitting outside Ontario and being able to sit in conjunction with any other body anywhere else in the world that may be engaged in the regulation of the securities industry?

I don’t have any particular objection to it, but my innate caution indicates to me the minister had a specific situation in mind, whereas I understand the commission met with the complementary commission in Quebec with respect to a very basic problem. As a result of that, the ministry has now introduced an omnibus provision which says the commission can sit outside Ontario with any other body with respect to the regulation of the securities industry.

I wondered why the government decided it must go that broad when after all these years this was the single situation where it was required.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I think the honourable member knows about the Simpsons merger. There was a joint hearing conducted with the province of Quebec. There were technical objections raised as to the validity of the hearing and because of those technical objections being filed it was decided for the future, whether or not a similar matter ever arises, to include this section. It clarifies the right of the commission to hold these hearings.

There have been joint investigations before with other commissions, but since those objections were raised at the time, we felt it necessary to clarify it at the first opportunity -- and this is the first opportunity.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t know why the assembly is asked to consider a worldwide extension of the provision because of that particular requirement.

I would ask the minister to speak to a couple of other questions in relation to that section. I am concerned about the exercise by the commission outside the province of the powers and authorities given to it. In other words, the commission has a number of quasi-judicial authorities and administrative powers it can exercise. When I read this proposed subsection, I tried to think the ministry had thought about that aspect of it and that it was carefully limited to holding hearings outside. In other words it was limited to holding hearings and receiving, in a passive sense, the required information for its decision-making purposes. It could consult with any other body during the course of a hearing, but it was a very real limitation of the power of the commission sitting outside the province so we can be certain that the effective exercise of the decision-making authorities -- whether administrative or quasi-judicial decision-making authorities or any other powers granted to the commission under the statute -- takes place by the commission in Ontario, although they use the information which they have received at hearings held outside and they may consult outside with respect to that information.

Would the minister please let me know whether or not that is a correct limitation on the power of the commission if we grant this section?

Hon. Mr. Drea: These are extraordinary cases -- to have the joint hearing in another jurisdiction. You are really asking for the commission to sit there, receive all the information and then embark for Ontario, where it will make the decision. At least that is how I understood you. What is the point? They are surely in a position to render a decision in the securities field, of all fields. The promptness of the decision is most vital.

I could understand if the member was going to oppose the right of the commission to hold joint hearings in another jurisdiction. I wouldn’t agree with it but I could understand it. But by the same token, to tell him he can hold a joint hearing in another jurisdiction, but must pack up his information and come back within the territorial limits of Ontario before issuing a decision is drawing a very fine point.

Mr. Breithaupt: It might be more helpful if the minister were able to give us an example of the kind of expectation he has. I can understand the need to work in conjunction perhaps with the Quebec securities commission or that of the state of New York, or possibly even with the securities commission in Washington. If we had an example of the kind of event that would call this procedure into practical use, we would have an idea of the practical use to which this section may be put.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think the best example, and the one that brought this into the act, was the Simpsons-Bay takeover. There were different proposals emanating from different jurisdictions. Therefore, the only way to really make an effective decision, particularly on the insider thing, was to hold that joint hearing.

I’m sure the honourable member can understand the difficulty when we weren’t allowed to have that type of hearing, particularly with such a very large takeover. We’re constantly assured in this House that there are going to be more and more takeovers of the dimensions of the Simpsons-Bay takeover -- I suppose that’s debatable. If there are offers emanating from another jurisdiction, the commission would be in a very difficult situation if it couldn’t engage in a joint hearing.

Bear in mind the commission did go to Quebec on that one and did hold a joint hearing. Then technical objections arose with the commission and I think properly so. The concern really revolved around the commission’s authority to hold a joint hearing, and at its first opportunity, it wanted that right clarified. I don’t think we want a limitation that because something that will affect the securities market in this province emanates from another jurisdiction it is really beyond the scope of the commission. I think we’re going to find more and more of that.

The days when the financial centre of the country was in Ontario are over, by popular assumption. There are other places in the country where matters such as that particular type of takeover bid can arise.

We’ve held joint investigations with the Manitoba exchange. It never came to a hearing, but joint investigations were held. To say we can understand the logic of holding a joint hearing but assemble all the information and get back within the territory is drawing a very fine line.

Either the commission has the right to enter into joint hearings with another jurisdiction in that jurisdiction, or it doesn’t.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does the minister expect other states or provinces to follow this approach providing for extra-territorial meetings? Is this becoming a natural development in securities commission organization? Would this benefit be possible for other commissions?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Bearing in mind that Canada’s very fragmented securities legislation is provincial, not federal, this is an obvious step. It’s been said quite often in this House that the Ontario Securities Act, with all its ramifications, is really a national securities act; others model themselves after it because the bulk of the business is done here. I think that’s a very logical step.

[5:30]

It’s really up to the individual province whether it wants to follow along, but on the basis of being able to hold a joint hearing here in Ontario on a matter that has arisen in Ontario but which is of concern to another province, this indeed improves the flexibility and the scope of the commission in the other provinces. It’s not just a turnover to the Ontario Securities Commission in the hopes that the Ontario Securities Commission alone will unravel the thing and make the decision here.

Mr. Renwick: This is getting argumentative rather than discussive and I don’t think any point can be served by making it argumentative.

The principle that a commission of this province affecting the rights of people within this province would make decisions outside the province is wrong. I don’t mind them going out to hear whatever information they want to hear, but I am opposed to a commission of this province making decisions outside the province about matters affecting people within this province. The best paternal will in the world doesn’t permit a commission such as this to exercise its authorities outside the province.

I have no problem with it. You’re going to do it anyway. The commission rides high, wide and handsome over everybody. All we can rely on is that somebody, somewhere, will object to the extraterritorial decision-making power of this commission so that it can go to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision as to whether or not a creature like this body can make decisions outside the province which affect the rights of people in the province. I think it’s a very real question, but I’m sure the fees will justify the decision to take it to court at some point.

My recollection is that the commission can sit with only one person. Can one person go out and be the commission for the purpose of these hearings?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Two.

Mr. Renwick: Two people must go. Is it the intention, or do you know of any circumstances now where the commission will be going abroad?

Hon. Mr. Drea: None that we are aware of. I should point out too that, in addition to two going, there has to be notice given that they are going.

Mr. Renwick: Everyone knows that in a country of this size it is a significant disadvantage to be told the commission is going to Washington to hold a hearing where decisions may be made affecting people in Ontario. If the commission decides to go, say, to London, England, or Switzerland or Germany to hold a meeting in conjunction with another securities body to make decisions out there, everyone knows that notification has to be given.

It seems rather strange to me that with all of the abilities at the disposal of the commission you couldn’t, perhaps, have so phrased this particular amendment to the bill to have limited its authority for the specific purposes for which it is required. I just happen to believe that commission should be required to make its decisions, with the wide authority which is granted, within Ontario without impairing in any way its ability to travel wheresoever it may wish to go. Meting outside raises a very serious problem for me, particularly when, presumably, it can make a joint decision outside the province with some other commission and not a separate, responsible decision, even though it may be identical with the decision made by the body with which it is meeting.

Those are probably legalistic points, but there will be other days when this particular commission will finally come to the point where there will be some basis by which it will be accountable not only to the minister, who is as ill-informed about these matters as this assembly is, but maybe some day, as I said on second reading, we’ll have an accountable body in this House which will see to it that the proper thought and attention is given to the scope of the amendments which are introduced into this assembly.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point. In fairness to the commission, this minister is massively well informed by the commission.

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments on any other sections?

Mr. Renwick: No comments.

Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, both the chairman of the commission and the minister, at various times when they have been speaking about the new provisions in section 62 with respect to short forms of prospectus and summary statements, have limited the application of those to particular forms of securities to be issued. However, I want to point out to the assembly there is no such limitation with respect to the use of the short form or of the summary statement to the two particular instances to which both the chairman of the commission and the minister have referred.

As far as I recall, they have spoken about the summary statement being used with respect to mutual funds and they have spoken about the short form of prospectus being used for junior mining securities. They have indicated that those are the initial areas where they intend to use them, but I think the assembly should be quite clear that the reading of those statements does not indicate as clearly as it should that this is now the introduction of an omnibus provision, permitting the use of short forms of prospectus and summary statements.

Again, it is a kind of gradual encroachment on the question of full, true and plain disclosure, disguised as, “Well, nobody wants to read all that elaborate information in there and so on and so forth, and in this day and age, we can clearly convey to people what is required to be conveyed so there be full, true and plain disclosure.”

When you read the strange language of the proposed section you have this provision: “and any such prospectus” -- that is, the short form of prospectus -- “that complies with the regulations applicable thereto” -- that is the governing phrase, “complies with the regulations applicable thereto” -- “shall, for the purposes of section 55” -- the gut section of the Securities Act; those are my words, that is not in the bill -- “be considered to provide sufficient disclosure of all material facts relating to the securities issued or proposed to be distributed under the prospectus.”

There is this unusual situation, of course, that the short form of prospectus, provided it complies with the regulation, will not be subject to attack as failing to comply with the act. The regulations can cut down on the very gut provision of the statute which says that “A prospectus shall provide full true and plain disclosure of all material facts relating to securities issued or proposed to be distributed and shall comply with the requirements of this act and the regulations.”

If it is used in this way, that the short form prospectus must comply with this act and the regulations, then I could understand it, but as I said at the beginning, disguised as simply a more convenient way to convey information of an essential nature to proposed investors, particularly in junior mining securities, which is the example used, we find that as long as it meets the requirements of the regulations, it will be deemed to be compliant with section 55 of the act.

They are lawyers’ games and that is the way the game is being played. Who expects the public to be fully informed about junior mining issues? We had that trouble in this assembly a few years ago. Windfall Mines is a good example of it. We tried to close a number of the gaps with respect to it. Now, for very good reason, there is an endeavour to provide incentives for junior mining securities. I am not objecting to that. What I am objecting to is the way in which this act is drafted, which I think permits the regulations to cut down on the operative, fundamental nature of section 55 of the act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite as pessimistic as the member for Riverdale about the hope that the new section 62 will be a benefit to the junior mining community. I recall the comments which I made during the estimates, encouraging some incentive and direction from the ministry which would be clearly seen in the securities market as an attempt to support the need for new junior mining prospects. At that time, the minister said there were commitments he was prepared to enter into and that the new legislation would be coming forward which would, hopefully, stimulate this area of development.

We are well aware there have been some difficulties in the past. The member for Riverdale referred particularly to the Windfall situation, of which anyone involved in the securities field would be knowledgeable. I realize we are trying to stimulate in a way that is going to have, hopefully, the best results for the public with the least interference or drag on the legitimate development of a prospective mining circumstance, which these junior mines usually are. It is a balance which is difficult to strike.

If we have this section now in the bill, we have at least the opportunity to encourage the development of junior mines, where there has not been any development at all I can recall in these last several years. This may not prove to be a perfect section. It may well be that within six months the minister may be back with certain changes that have to reflect the quick way in which the securities market can change.

I think it is still worth while for us to attempt to deal with this matter and encourage them by the use of this section. If there have to be changes or if the regulatory procedure that results from this proves to be less than satisfactory, then surely the ministry can tell us about that at that time. For the moment, I am prepared to give this section a try.

Section 7 agreed to. Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Renwick: In section 10 of the bill, which provides for rulings by the commission, would the minister advise us specifically and categorically whether all such rulings are made in writing and are available to the public?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, on both.

Mr. Renwick: Would the minister advise us what are the ingredients of the decision making process by which they decide it will not be prejudicial to the public interest?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, guidelines are published. Second, if it is a routine order, there is an informal procedure. If it is a very involved matter, then there is a full hearing.

Mr. Renwick: I take it, so far as the commission is concerned, the minister has said the decisions are public, are in writing and are available to anybody who wants to take the trouble to go and read them. Also they give the reasons on the basis of which they decide it is not prejudicial to the public interest.

[5:45]

Hon. Mr. Drea: As a matter of fact they are all published in the weekly summary, so it’s not even a question of having to search them out.

Mr. Renwick: I have seen no reasons of any significance in the weekly summary or in the published monthly summary.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am advised that in this week’s weekly summary there are some reasons published. In last week’s there were reasons published.

Mr. Renwick: I guess I haven’t seen this week’s.

Section 10 agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

On section 12:

Hon. Mr. Drea: On section 12 there is a typographical error.

Mr. Renwick: I wanted to be able to say that I had, over these many months, got one amendment into the new securities law; this will be the first one.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 88(2)(d) of the act, as set out in section 12(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out “offeree” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof “offeror.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I think a matter of this gravity should be fully and carefully explained by the person who has made the amendment. I look forward to the explanation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, we have the offeror and on the other hand we have the offeree. The minister in drafting the bill got his hands mixed up. We have to reverse the hands.

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13 agreed to.

On section 14:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Drea moves that section 14(1) of the bill be deleted.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the minister, in his discussions with me earlier, had stated there were reasons to change this proposed legislation, particularly because some of the details apparently weren’t going to work out in the system. Perhaps the minister could let us know what he foresees as a frame in which some changes can be accommodated, so that we would expect an amendment that will deal with the notice of variation we are not going to have in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I mentioned this on second reading last spring. We are very confident we could have proceeded with this section -- that it did meet the tests of the technical objection -- but rather than waiting to see whether it did or not, we decided we would delete it at this time and get a full comment over the winter months and bring in an amendment that does categorically meet the tests.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have that on the record at this point while we were in committee.

Mr. Chairman: If there are no further comments, shall Mr. Drea’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further sections for discussion?

Mr. Renwick: I am satisfied with section 16, Mr. Chairman. I have no comment. I have one question on section 17.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Renwick: My only question on section 17 is the extension of the director’s power to include making allocations. Is this just an administrative convenience for the cabinet? Is it a routine matter that’s not of any great importance?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this codifies what is happening now. There are a number of forms available as to the type of prospectus. The flexibility exists now and all this does is codify the matter.

Mr. Renwick: I do not think the minister understands my point. The power to make regulations now vested in the Lieutenant Governor in Council includes prescribing categories for persons and companies and the manner of allocating persons and companies to categories, including permitting the director to make such allocations.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It gives the director the right to say, for instance, that this is a natural resource company, that is a mutual fund company. That’s happening right now. This just codifies that particular selection process. If there is disagreement as to whether the company is a natural resource firm for purposes of the prospectus, this gives the director the right to specify which one it will be.

Mr. Renwick: The practice has been that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has not been doing this and the director is now going to be given the delegated authority. The cabinet has overlooked the performance of this important responsibility. That sounds like a real election issue.

Section 17 agreed to.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

Bill 156, as amended, reported.

COMPULSORY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to provide for Compulsory Automobile Insurance.

Mr. M. N. Davison: We were informed some short time ago by the Clerk of the House that the order in committee would be to go back to Bill 165, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, before proceeding with Bill 160. Is there some reason for this switch?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, it was my mistake.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of Bill 165? The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, we were informed by the minister that he was going to move some amendments. It may be better if he moved his amendments first so we can sort out ours. We have one amendment that covers the whole of section 1 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, do you have an amendment?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Maeck moves that section 167(3) of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out “the first day of December, 1979,” and inserting in lieu thereof “the 31st day of January, 1980.”

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being proposed in lieu of the proposed amendment by the NDP in which they suggested a 60-day period. We have taken into account 60 days, but we would like to see it noted by date rather than just 60 days because people reading the bill eventually will want to know on what date this takes place. If it is referring to 60 days after the bill has been approved or passed, then they have to know when the bill was passed. It is a matter of simplification on this particular item.

Mr. Charlton: We are prepared to accept the minister’s version of our amendment of 60 days to subsection 3. We still intend to move an additional amendment, adding a subsection 3(a), but we are prepared to accept this amendment on the 60 days.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Maeck moves that section 167 of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by adding subsection 5. “In this section ‘real property’ includes any interest of the corporation as lessee of real property.”

Mr. Charlton: We are also prepared to accept this amendment and I am glad the minister decided to take the suggestion of my colleague.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are also prepared to accept the amendment. It is most worth while, Mr. Chairman.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.