Hansard Transcript 1985-Nov-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Lincoln Alexander, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1986, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 18, 1985.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the second group of legislative pages to serve in the first session of the 33rd Parliament, 1985. They are as follows:

Benjamin Barnes, Huron-Bruce; Charles Besko, York West; Angeline Blais, Prescott-Russell; Christopher Brackley, Eglinton; Rosanna Connor, Northumberland; Julie-Ann Francis, Scarborough East; Mary-Josephine Glassco, Hamilton East; Caroline Guindon, Cornwall; Shannon Hendel, Kitchener-Wilmot; Laura House, Lincoln; Basy Koutetes, Scarborough West;

David Kruse, Oxford; Shane O'Neill, London North; Scott Robertson, Victoria-Haliburton; Allison Ryckman, Don Mills; Robert Schmidt, Parry Sound; Richard Sloan, Sault Ste. Marie; Natasha Taylor, Quinte; Monica Tory, Sarnia; Graeme Turner, Lanark; Jeffrey Wells, Durham West Lennie Wiltenburg, Kent-Elgin, and Jill Zelmanovits, York North.

Please join me in welcoming our new pages.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would also call the attention of the House to our visitor at the table: David Hamilton, Clerk of the House of the Northwest Territories, who is visiting us under the attachment program that has been initiated in the Clerk's office.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Speaker: I would like to take another moment or two of the members' time because this afternoon we begin a four-week trial of gavel-to-gavel video coverage of proceedings of the Legislature.

The purpose of this trial is to test the various components that make up a video system and to use the results of these tests in the design of a permanent electronic Hansard system.

Coverage will begin today with question period and will end when the House rises each day. There will be five cameras in operation at all times, one in each of the boxes behind the members' benches and one in the centre of the Speaker's gallery. The centre camera will remain stationary, but the location of the boxes will change during the trial period in order to test various camera angles. A temporary control room has been set up in an office behind the Speaker's gallery, where the signal coming from these five cameras will be mixed.

The trial will simulate as closely as possible the conditions under which the permanent system will operate. However, there have been no enhancements to the sound system; all cameras will be manned rather than electronically controlled. The purpose of the trial is to experiment; the output will not always necessarily be of broadcast quality. For this reason, the tapes produced will be for internal evaluation only. Ten copies of the entire coverage will be taped. Arrangements will be made by the staff for members of the House, the press gallery and other interested persons to view the output.

I would like to outline very briefly the elements of the electronic Hansard system that will be examined during this four-week period. First, we will be testing and evaluating the coverage guidelines formulated by the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions and adopted by the Board of Internal Economy and this House. We have started from the premise that the coverage should be, in the words of the committee's report, "an accurate, factual and coherent record of the proceedings of the assembly which is understandable to the viewing public." Various techniques available through modern video technology will be tested in order to determine the most effective means of meeting this goal.

Members have undoubtedly noticed that the lighting in the chamber was altered during the weekend. The bulbs in the chandeliers have been changed and four temporary brackets have been added in each corner of the chamber to provide greater levels of indirect lighting. Lighting levels will be altered throughout the trial period in order to arrive at the optimum level that balances the quality of the picture with the comfort of the members.

On your desks you will find 20 lighting evaluation forms. I would ask each member to take the time during the next month to assess the lighting on various days. These forms will be collected from your desks at the end of the trial period. We are acutely aware that the chamber is the work place of members and that the impact of the light intensity, glare and heat on the comfort of members is an extremely important factor in determining the design of the permanent lighting system.

In order to obtain further input from members during the trial period, a video monitor has been set up in each of the members' lobbies. Beside each monitor are evaluation forms that ask you to comment on the technical quality of the picture and the coverage being tested at a particular time. I would strongly urge all members to stop frequently on their way through the lobbies and evaluate the end product.

A monitor and a set of evaluation forms have also been placed in the middle section of the Speaker's gallery and in the press gallery lounge. I would similarly encourage members of the gallery to assist us in providing their expert views on both lighting levels and coverage.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I rise on this historic occasion to say to my colleague opposite, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller), who I gather is going to be officially replaced -- replaced technically but never in our hearts -- on Thursday next, a very sound thanks on behalf of the members of our party and the members of this House for his great and selfless consideration and leadership in this Legislature for many years past.

We have all come to know the honourable member well during the past years. I dare say there is not a personally more popular member of this House. We respect his collegiality and courage in dealing with a situation that is not easy for anyone in political life. I want to use this opportunity to extend him congratulations. He will go with our respect. I assume he will continue to serve for a long time here and I hope he will allow me occasionally to depend on his advice.

It is a reality that when one sits in the Premier's office, one sits in a very lonely chair on occasion. Only those who have sat there themselves have some understanding of the difficulties and the pressure. Just as I rely on his predecessor from time to time for advice, I hope I can rely on him for his advice as well. For our part, we will always be here to buy a raffle ticket, when necessary.

At the same time, because I am in an expansive mood today, may I congratulate the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), for his valiant fight over the weekend. He has achieved a goal he fought long and hard for and is now charged with a responsibility. Like the honourable leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the Conservative Party and me, he will find many new experiences in store for him.

Obviously, he fought intelligently and hard over a long period of time, and we are here to say we wish him well. We all have a great responsibility to make this parliament, particularly to make a minority situation, work. I am sure the things that unite us will be far bigger than the things that divide us, as we are all determined to bring good government to the people of Ontario.

Because I enjoy political conventions -- and I enjoy leadership conventions as long as I am not in them -- may I say how much I respect the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) for their performances this weekend.

There is no question that the member for Don Mills, who made the race close and exciting, brought great definition, clarity and leadership skills to that race. He deserves to be complimented for his courage and his tenacity.

To the member for Cochrane South, who brought an innovative campaign, who brought dedication to opening up the party and the processes, and who spoke so eloquently for an area of Ontario that has been forgotten for some time, may I say I believe he distinguished himself and his party extremely well.

Let me add one other personal note. Having gone through two leadership conventions and knowing the difficulty -- both the joy of victory and the pain of defeat -- let me extend my personal congratulations to the wives who were involved in this campaign. Carole Grossman, Linda Pope and Jan Timbrell showed great courage, dignity and support for their spouses in this campaign. All of us in political life, male and female, recognize that without the support of our spouses, who give unselfishly to the political process, we would not be able to make the kind of contribution we do here. Those three women conducted themselves with great dignity and class, and were a credit not only to their families but to the political process as well.

Mr. Rae: On this expansive occasion, I certainly would like to join in. We are very happy with the proceedings that took place on the weekend. I hope we will be able to repeat this next week when the new leader is here. I find it a little hard making all these complimentary remarks about the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick when he is not in the chamber. I would much prefer that he be here to hear them, since they do not come that often or that easily. I really look forward to doing that.

Let me say, though, in all seriousness, that it was a fascinating weekend for those of us who are not members of the Conservative Party, and I think probably an even more fascinating experience for those who still are.

I want to start by saying to the member for Cochrane South, who finished third, I know exactly how he feels. I felt, as I know all the members of our caucus and our party who were watching felt, that he showed enormous courage, straightforwardness and a great vitality throughout the campaign.

Je veux féliciter le député de Cochrane Sud et, naturellement, sa femme et toute sa famille pour l'effort qu'ils ont fait, tous ensemble, the effort they made, the great drive to express the very real feelings of a number of a people not only in the Conservative Party but in all parties in northern Ontario that it is time the voice of the north was heard throughout the province. The member for Cochrane South certainly made sure that this happened.

The member for Don Mills is somebody I have known and worked with for some time both federally and provincially. He is a professional politician of enormous capability.

My own feeling for the member for Don Mills is one of respect for the kind of quality he put forward during the weekend and for the extraordinarily gracious speech he gave on Saturday evening. I do not think I have ever heard a more courageous or gracious acceptance of the verdict of a convention and will of support to the new leader. I will leave it at that. It was really a very fine time for the member for Don Mills. He showed that there is certainly no disgrace in losing an election such as the one he lost. We all know that the close ones are the hardest to lose, but he certainly showed tremendous courage.

Concerning the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, as I said, we will have our own ways and means of welcoming him in the chamber when the transition does take place formally. He is a formidable politician. As the senior leader of the opposition, I welcome him to the joys of opposition. I am sure they are joys he will share with tremendous panache.

We have crossed swords on many occasions when he was a minister and when he was not a minister, but no one who has dealt with the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick can ever underestimate his talent, his sense of the political and his sense of commitment to the public life of this province. I certainly look forward to working with him as the leader of another opposition party.

Finally, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition words that I have expressed to him privately both by correspondence and in conversation. The last year has been an unusual one for him; it has been an unusual one for me. I want him to know he has the affection, the respect and -- more than just the goodwill -- the very best wishes of all the members of the New Democratic Party.

Things have been said in the course of election campaigns and elsewhere that naturally reflect the heat of debate and the deep feelings in either party about our respective parties and our respective leaderships, but I say in all sincerity to the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) that he has continually provided a quality of friendship and a quality of goodwill in this House to me and to my family for which I want to thank him.

I hope he will be around here for a very long time indeed, but if he decides not to be or if events so conspire that he is not, he will go with our best wishes. I suspect he will be here for some time and I certainly do not intend to deliver more than one eulogy; so I am going to stop there and say to the member for Muskoka that we look forward to having him with us for many years to come.

[Applause]

2:20 p.m.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I could start out by asking, where were you all when I needed you?

How lucky we are to live in a country where governments change peacefully and where leaders are interchanged peacefully. There are many parts of the world that would envy our ability to do that. Whether we like change or do not like change, thankfully it is done peacefully in this country.

I listened to the Premier's speech. He said it was not too much fun to be in these leadership races. I found it a lot easier to watch over the weekend than I did last January. I agreed with the member for Don Mills when he said it had been a remarkable year, one in which many changes had occurred.

People talked to me about the future, asking, "Could we beat the Liberals in an election with the polls being the way they were?" I said, "If you had asked" -- and I believe somebody did ask him -- the current Premier what he thought of the polls on March 25, he would have said, `They are pretty formidable,' and they would have been hard to beat." Therein lies the hope we have on this side; that polls have been proved to change relatively rapidly and could change again.

I could not help but think of the words of Tennyson:

The old order changeth, yielding place to new;

And God fulfils himself in many ways,

Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.

That is one I learned back in high school somewhere.

I am delighted to realize that the Premier has given me his public promise, on behalf of my Rotary Club, that he and all his ministers and the back-benchers will co-operate; certainly mine will. That is a commitment I have. I thank the Premier for his gracious words. The time I have to sit on this side of the House is very much in his hands and I trust it will be a reasonably long time before we face and test the polls again.

In this parliament and parliament in general, while it may seem cantankerous and at times even frivolous to those who watch us on television or in the House for one brief day and do not understand the dynamics of a parliament, truly we are only as good as the members elected on all three sides of this House. I would say in all honesty, after 14 years in my seat as back-bencher, minister and leader, that Ontario is again blessed with high-quality people standing up for the principles they believe in and running for the parties they support. We have been well served by those.

Evidence of that was seen in our leadership race over the weekend. It was pretty close -- 19 votes, 10 people. That is all that made the difference. In a democracy, one accepts the will of the extra per cent. Our party will come out of that weekend renewed, refreshed and reunited. The three members who offered themselves are an example of the bench strength we have had in this party. They are all extremely competent, hard-working people, backed by their families. Most people would not believe the hours we all put in, whether we are in government or on this side. The members are beginning to realize the demands of that side, I am sure, right across the House. We are very fortunate to have the kind of people we have on this side.

I congratulate our leader and I will do so later on this week. He is a dynamic, competent, intelligent, perceptive young man. He will bring with him an understanding of the needs and the problems of this province, and a drive and energy that is hard to equal. With him, my other two colleagues, the member for Don Mills and the member for Cochrane South, will bring the experience they have gained, through two leadership races in one case and one in the other, to sit on this side as a strength in our party, hopefully to earn the way back. Thank you.

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I wish to inform the House today of the assistance which the Ontario government will provide immediately to help families recovering from the terrible natural disasters of last week in Colombia.

Honourable members will appreciate that it will be many weeks before the full extent of this tragedy is known. At this time we are all painfully aware of the mounting death toll, estimated at 25,000, following the eruption of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano, and there are fears that more eruptions could occur at any time.

The President of Colombia, Belisario Betancor, has made a worldwide appeal for assistance; likewise, the Colombian Ambassador to Canada, Dr. Jaime Pinzon, has personally made a request for help within our country.

According to the Red Cross and the Canadian embassy in Bogota, there is no immediate need for rescue or medical teams as the emergency relief efforts seem to be under control. Needed now are donations, and it is for this reason that I want to announce that the government of Ontario will make an immediate cash grant of $250,000 to the International Red Cross through the Canadian Red Cross. This is the same amount that was recently granted to the Red Cross for Mexican earthquake emergency relief.

I want to make it clear to the House that this donation on behalf of the government is designed to meet the short-term needs of the families of the victims in Colombia. We will be following the situation closely and will consider further financial assistance depending upon developments in the weeks to come.

AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to make a statement on government agencies, boards and commissions.

In the past, the mandate and membership of any agency, board or commission has been in the public domain; but the absence of an accessible central listing of the vast network of ABCs has limited the availability of this information. During the election campaign, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and all of my colleagues spoke very strongly in favour of opening up the democratic process. We spoke of openness and public accountability, and we remain firmly committed to the concept of accessible government. Since this government assumed office, I believe this pledge has been honoured.

This concept, reflected in the tabling of government polls, is upheld today as I table for the first time, a consolidated, ministry-by-ministry listing of all government agencies, boards and commissions.

This public document includes the names of every member of the hundreds of ABCs currently reporting to the government. All appointees listed in the two volumes are at present serving, or are the last serving appointees to these positions. Original and expiry dates of the appointments, as well as salaries and per diem rates, are given in the listing.

Order-in-council appointments dealing with part-time positions and per diem rates are posted onside the executive council office, room 481, main legislative building -- approximately 48 hours after the order in council has been approved by cabinet and the Lieutenant Governor. Finally, a complete list of updated information on appointments to agencies, boards and commissions will be distributed once every six months.

I am confident that tabling this consolidated listing and making it available to the public through the legislative library will heighten the level of awareness of the democratic process and will honour our ongoing commitment to open government in Ontario.

LATVIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: In the gallery today are distinguished members of the Latvian National Federation in Canada who participated in the Latvian Independence Day ceremonies this weekend.

For Latvian-Canadians, November 18 has special significance. It was 67 years ago when the people of Latvia founded an independent country free from the yoke of oppression. Latvians had the right of self-determination and participated fully in structuring their own future. Latvian-Canadians, who still seek these ideals for the land of their fathers, will celebrate independence day today and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will mark this event with a special independence-day proclamation which reads:

"The province of Ontario and indeed all of Canada have developed and grown through the courage and industry of people of many nationalities who have come to this land in search of freedom and opportunity;

"Whereas we are especially grateful for the many important contributions that our citizens of Latvian ancestry have continued to make to our province since they first arrived here many years ago;

"Whereas a free, united, independent and democratic Latvian state was established 67 years ago, it is imperative for Canadians to remember that the price of our precious freedom is eternal vigilance;

"Whereas the observance of the anniversary fosters within us a deeper appreciation of freedom, liberty and democratic ideals, therefore, as Premier of the province of Ontario, I am pleased to recognize November 18, 1985, as Latvian Independence Day and commend its observance to the people of our province." It is signed by the Premier of Ontario.

Mr. Shymko: On a point of order: I just wondered whether this was a ministerial statement --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it was.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: -- or a point of order?

Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate to comment? I understand that following the traditions, namely, the statement that was made on Friday, November 8, a presentation of the proclamation was not a ministerial statement but rather was highlighting a very important anniversary, the 67th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the Latvian people in their homeland.

I want to join my colleague the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) to indicate that we on this side of the House welcome the proclamation that has been read and signed by the Premier following the example set by former Premier William Davis, who signed the first proclamation on the 66th anniversary of the independence of Latvia, a precedent that I am pleased to say is followed by the present government and will be followed by future governments in Ontario.

There is no doubt that the significance of this anniversary is very important to all of us as members of a free parliament, of a society where we are ruled by the force of law and not the law of force, and as a reminder to members that the vast majority of people cherish the principles of freedom, liberty and justice that we enjoy today. May we all wish that some day the Latvian people will enjoy peace and prosperity with freedom and with justice.

DEATH OF MEMBER'S FATHER

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I rise to express the sympathy of this House to the family of one of our members, the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz).

When tragedy occurs, such as that which took the life of the member's father this past week, we are made even more aware of how fragile life is and how mortal we are.

To the Cureatz family goes our deepest sympathy.

Mr. F. S. Miller: We in this party were shocked at the sad and unexpected death of the member's father, particularly because of the way it occurred. Our sympathy went to him; our hearts bleed for him and for his family. We all share with him a great sense of loss.

Mr. Rae: I have already been in touch with the member for Durham East. My own family has recently been faced with a similar kind of tragedy, an accident. All I can say is it changes one's whole view of the preciousness and the fragility of life. Our hearts go out to the member and to his family. We are all thinking of him at this very difficult time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

[Applause]

Mr. F. S. Miller: Save it, fellows. I have four days left.

Mr. Speaker, after all those kind remarks it is awfully hard to get back to the order of the day. I can simply say, enough of this lovemaking.

CREDIT RATING

Mr. F. S. Miller: This question is directed to the Premier. While we were having our slight recess last week, an event happened which may not have captured as much attention as it deserved: The triple-A rating was downgraded. Our Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is sitting in his seat looking a little pinker this week. I am not sure whether it is political affiliation, a trip south or embarrassment.

On this very serious matter, did the Premier take the opportunity to meet with representatives of Standard and Poor's, the rating agency, when they were in Toronto recently before the downgrading?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I find that a bit hard to accept. I can believe it, but I find it hard to accept.

I would think if one were going to talk to one's banker about whatever personal needs one had, no matter in what state one's credit rating was, one would go. It is sheer, common courtesy to do so.

I am sure the Premier has discovered that the credit rating of this province is not just a matter of balance-sheet numbers; it is very much a vision through that to the people who run the province and a confidence in them.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. F. S. Miller: May I ask the Premier whether a $300-million-a-year cost was not important enough to justify his personal attention? How does he determine which people he should see and which people he should not see? Or were they perhaps not members of the Liberal Economic Advisory Forum?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have a very elaborate system for determining whom we will see. As the member knows, we get many requests from many people. Interestingly enough, there was no request to chat with members of Standard and Poor's or Moody's, who were both here a week ago and who met with the Treasurer, who provided all the information.

I welcome the member to come to my office and look at the system we have for meeting with people, because he will find that in the course of a month I meet with thousands of people from all walks of life and I gather their opinions on all sorts of matters. I would be very happy to share my method of how we meet with people, if that is his question.

Mr. Rae: I wonder whether it would not be in the public interest for the Premier and the Treasurer to make a public statement indicating their understanding of the basis upon which this shuffling or changing of the credit rating takes place.

Can the Premier confirm that there has been a standard practice whereby the credit rating varies according to a pretty fixed percentage figure of provincial budget that goes to servicing not the debt of any one year but the debt that has accumulated over a period of many years? Would that information not be in the public interest so the public can be informed of precisely what it would have taken, for example, to retain the triple-A rating?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In response to the honourable leader's question, there have been several statements on this exact question. He will recall that last July 11, when the Treasurer dealt with this question in a very forthright way, there were no surprises to anyone here, surely -- particularly not to those people who had gone to New York a year ago August and had gone through this whole exercise with them. He will recall that the Premier of the day went down and apparently appealed the situation or gave some assurances. I am not sure what they were, because we have never had a forthcoming statement from the previous government on that matter.

Our Treasurer dealt with that matter on July 11. He dealt with it again in a statement last week, and Standard and Poor's gave their analysis of the situation publicly last week. I am sure it was not a surprise to anyone, and they were very forthcoming. If the member has any questions about their thinking on the matter, I am not sure I can answer them all; he would have to contact them directly, but I think I have some understanding of the situation. They looked at the cutbacks in the federal transfers, which they were very worried about. They said, "There have been four years of deficits," and they registered their concern in the way we anticipated.

So there are no big surprises in this matter, even though the members opposite may be surprised.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Would the Premier agree that the event he referred to, the July 11 or 12 statement by the Treasurer in this House, the recent budget which increased our cash requirements, as they said, by $800 million, up 25 per cent from the last fiscal year, and, in their own words, the lack of improvement in projected financial performance in fiscal 1985-86, were the reasons they lost confidence in the government?

Would the Premier also give us some assurance that the next budget is not going to see a further downgrading of our rating and a further increase in our deficit?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect, I do not agree with the analysis. They refer to that 25 per cent increase, which turned out to be $163 million, which was made up of the following, as members will recall:

First, it was made up of $90 million in transfer payments, obligations to transfer agencies that had never been budgeted for or put in the estimates by the member's government. It was interesting. We were handed that $90-million obligation, which we are prepared to pay because the member had legally indebted us to it, even though he did not have the courage to put it in the previous budget he had presented.

2:40 p.m.

In addition, he will recall that between May 2 and June 26 he committed about $181 million of expenditures that had not been part of any fiscal plan and was not budgeted for. That was the kind of pressure they were talking about in those circumstances. The sound and tough-minded way the Treasurer approached the accounts of this province by writing off the bad assets and by taking a realistic view of the situation was very much admired.

This situation was not unexpected. We all knew that at the time. The forthright manner in which the Treasurer dealt with the province also was admired. He did not continue to cook the books.

Mr. F. S. Miller: With great respect, that is becoming known by the press as standard answer 1.

HYUNDAI PLANT

Mr. F. S. Miller: During the month of September, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology made a number of vows in respect to the proposed Hyundai plant and investment in Canada. He promised to sell Ontario. He said he would be on planes, in boardrooms, in plants, on sites to get the plant. But we did not get the plant. How come? Why did it go to Quebec?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am very pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller) has noticed I have been out travelling around the country, not only in Ontario but in other parts, to make sure we are getting investments. When I was in Korea, they told me it had been 10 years since they had seen a minister from this province. That shows how hard the previous government worked.

We would have liked to think differently but it was obvious from the beginning, on looking at such things as a press release dated August 29, which read, "Hyundai motor company of South Korea will build a $200-million car assembly plant in central Canada with Quebec the preferred location, industry minister Sinclair Stevens said." Another one on the same date read, "At the request of Hyundai, we are now focusing on several specific locations in Quebec."

It is obvious that the federal government has a distinct interest, for its own reasons, in seeing Quebec as the plant site. The fact the announcement was made in Quebec during an election campaign, with the approval of the Conservative federal government, speaks for itself.

Mr. F. S. Miller: With great respect, that is as much an apology as I have ever heard from any minister for industry and trade in this House. Perhaps a word of advice to the Premier (Mr. Peterson): Keep him home. One trip to Korea and he lost the deal.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplementary, I hope.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have a question coming but it needs a bit of background. Volkswagen had exactly the same kind of pressure put on it by the federal government and the previous government got the plant into Ontario. Will the minister admit to this House that he did not take them seriously? Three weeks ago he said he did not have a single request for anything specific. We are told the Premier did not meet with them officially. That seems to be the rule of the day these days.

Interjection.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have asked the question, Mr. Speaker. It is already there.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I guess it shows how misinformed the member is. As late as this morning I was called by the Hyundai people and was told they have not given the specifics of their deal to anyone as yet. The federal government and the province of Quebec have promised them 400 acres of free land, worth $1.5 million, reduced hydro rates, and up to $23 million or $24 million in training grants. They may be offering as high as $120 million in interest payments and many other things.

It would appear we are not looking at an investment. What has happened is the federal government and Quebec have bought a factory, not helped an investment.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: It is hard to get in to see the Premier when there is a tariff involved.

The Hyundai decision was, in all the glare of publicity last week, made in Quebec. Other decisions are going to be made in the future. What steps are the minister and the Premier taking to ensure that Ontario, the birthplace of the automobile industry in Canada, continues to get its fair share of offshore investment? That is what Ontario needs and deserves. What is the minister going to do to make sure it happens in the future?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I thank the member for the comment. It is a very good one. To attract investment to Ontario, in the words of some of the federal people, one has to work on a level playing-field. What has the opposition party done? What have its members done?

Mr. Bennett: That is the minister's job now.

Mr. Gillies: The minister cannot ask us questions here; it does not work that way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Again, an apology rather than action. Volkswagen had all those pressures. The federal government's job is to get them to Canada. The provincial job is to get them here. We have all the natural advantages in this province and the minister knows it. We got its parts plant when we were the government. Did the minister make any offer? Does he admit his government is not as skilled a negotiator as this government has been in the past?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I say again how misinformed the Leader of the Opposition is. I am told that when Hyundai brought its first plant to Ontario it never contacted the Ontario government and no one from the Ontario government contacted it; not one person. The government had nothing to do with its first plant here.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Again apology rather than an answer.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It is not an apology. I would like to quote from someone quite close to Mr. Mulroney. He was asked, "Which would you prefer to support, the Parti Québécois or the Liberal government as it affects your party?" He said, "We would rather prop up the PQ government." That is exactly what the members are doing.

2:50 p.m.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the very serious problems that have been evident in the St. Clair River. From the reports of the Ministry of the Environment, it is evident that four of the 10 chemical companies which discharge effluent into the St. Clair River at present -- namely, Ethyl Canada, Polysar, Petrosar and Esso Chemical -- do not meet the ministry's existing and very limited guidelines.

Can the minister confirm to this House that those guidelines are so limited they contain no standards for the discharge of hazardous organics such as ethylene dichloride, perchloroethylene, vinyl chloride and polypropelene oxide derivatives? Do the ministry's guidelines contain standards for the discharge of these kinds of hazardous chemicals?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am not satisfied with the guidelines or with the certificates of approval that were in existence in the past. This is precisely why I have ordered ministry action which will result in an upgrading and updating of any certificates of approval and the imposition of any control orders which are necessary. It is for the very reason that the member appropriately raises in this House.

Mrs. Grier: Dow Chemical, one of the industries on the St. Clair River, has admitted it is conscious of there having been 11 spills since January 1985, many of them containing these kinds of carcinogenic chemicals. Why have charges been laid only in the case of one of those spills, that being the one that came to public attention?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The spills that take place at any time along the river are investigated, as the member knows, by the investigations and enforcement branch of the ministry. These are then discussed with the legal department of the ministry to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a charge against the company. The member would not want to see the ministry placed in a position where it laid charges against a major company that may be a polluter and then

Mr. Rae: The minister is powerless.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No, hold on -- because those charges were not based on sufficient evidence have them defeated in the courts. That is why I have indicated that on every occasion where there is sufficient evidence to press charges I want to see that happen.

I cannot answer for what happened with the previous government and why it did not proceed in that direction. As the deputy critic in the Progressive Conservative Party would know, the orders which I have given are of such a nature that I want to see charges laid in every case where there is a possibility of those charges being successful in court, based on the evidence which is accumulated by the ministry.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the whole matter of the quality of water in the St. Clair River, the minister released a report on November 8, in which he says, "We have discussed the results of all of our testing with our colleagues at the federal Department of National Health and Welfare." The minister then states, "They have assured us that the St. Clair area drinking water poses no threat to health at this time."

If there is such a substantial amount of pollution and toxic waste being spilled into the St. Clair River, why would the minister print in his own release a statement indicating there is no health threat to drinking water in that area? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot agree with his colleagues over here on the left and then, on the other hand, try to mislead the public with respect to what circumstances --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Did I hear the word "mislead"?

Mr. Brandt: It was an option.

Mr. Bradley: Oh, it is an option. I am glad the member gave that option of "Why does he not mislead?" or something of that nature.

We must look at the materials we find in the river. The answer to the question, "Are we finding these materials in the treated drinking water?" is that they have not been detected in the treated drinking water. We do the testing to ensure this is the case. However, on a number of occasions, including the one of finding the famous oily blobs under the river, we have found there known cancer-causing substances. If they are there in any quantity it is a matter of concern for the Ministry of the Environment and the people of Ontario. That is why I have undertaken all the actions I have announced in this House over the last two weeks. I am concerned about it. I am gratified there are no results in the drinking water to show there is a danger to health, but I am not prepared to leave it there and abandon the problem.

Mr. Rae: The minister has just told us there are no standards for certain hazardous chemicals, that he is not able to gather evidence with respect to 10 spills for which Dow Chemical, on its own, has admitted responsibility, and there is a study in the Ministry of the Environment which has been there since July 1983 stating clearly and categorically that it is cheaper for companies in Ontario to pollute than to clean up.

The minister has been in charge since the summer. When is he going to recognize he is in charge of a dilapidated regulatory structure that is not working, has not worked and cannot work unless he has the guts to come into this House with legislation to change it and bring it up to date?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is two weeks behind; I announced that two weeks ago. I do not know why he was not listening at that time. I came into the House before he even asked any questions and announced a number of activities this ministry would be undertaking. I have given an undertaking to the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) and to others in the House that we are reviewing and revising all the certificates of approval along that area and undertaking investigations of spills that have taken place in the past.

I wish I could in some cases answer for what has happened in the past, the member will have to ask somebody else about that, but I can tell the member, as I told him two weeks ago, that I view this with the greatest of concern and this is why we have this plan of action taking place at the present time in the St. Clair area. I am sure the member will agree with me a couple of months down the line, when he sees it fully in effect and starts to see some of the ramifications of it, that indeed I have taken the appropriate steps. I am sure even he will be applauding at that time.

Mr. Rae: This tune is beginning to sound remarkably familiar, rather like the Brandt quintet and the Norton minuet we used to hear.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Rae: Let me try again with the Premier on free trade. Was he consulted before the appointment of Mr. Reisman as Canada's chief negotiator, and what does he think of the appointment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no, I was not. Is the member asking me about his personality or about his ability to --

Mr. Wildman: Are you happy?

Hon. Mr, Peterson: The answer is no, I am not particularly happy. I think that decision should have been shared. We have no idea of his view of the consultation process, let alone the proposal development process; it is very woolly at the moment. It speaks to the whole way this thing has developed inside our own country without any attempt to develop any kind of consensus, without any real, meaningful dialogue on this whole thing. So the answer is that I am not very happy about the current situation.

Mr. Rae: Did the Premier express this unhappiness upon hearing of the appointment, the day of the appointment, directly to the Prime Minister of the country? In particular, has he objected on behalf of Ontario to the fact that as of April 1985 Mr. Reisman was referring to this project about the Grand Canal, which involves a damming of James Bay and a conversion of James Bay into a freshwater pond? Water would then be sold off through huge canals going down to the southwest in the United States.

As of April 18 in the Globe and Mail, Mr. Reisman was quoted as saying: "The Americans have a desperate need for water. I think they'd go crazy for the idea." Then he said the idea had been around for years, but suddenly he had what he called "a flash of imagination." He said, "Why don't we see if we can marry the two, selling them our water in exchange for free trade?"

The Premier has come into the House and said he is vaguely unhappy. The time for vague unhappiness is over. What precise steps has he taken to protect Ontario's interests? Has he phoned the Prime Minister to object to the Reisman appointment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is that I have not phoned to object to that. It is a decision he made. I was not aware of it and, to the best of my knowledge, no other provincial Premiers were aware of it, either. As the member knows, these issues will be on the agenda next week at the first ministers' conference and I assume the Prime Minister will explain what he has in mind, if he has anything in mind.

3 p.m.

I share with the member the view the suggestion we will deal off fresh water as part of these negotiations should be absolutely outrageous. Whether that is a personal view or whether it is a view he now carries with him in the discussions I have no idea. Mr. Reisman has had other problems with respect to his directorships and that kind of thing. I can only tell the member those kinds of questions still have to be determined, but I am not happy.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I hope the Premier will accept the fact that very few issues have as much potential effect in Ontario as this one. I hope he realizes that, historically, at least eight provinces have to disagree with Ontario's position. I hope at this meeting next week we can expect him to stand up strongly for a position that, as far as I can see, all three parties support in this province. Do we have his commitment he is going to do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member has seen by action that we have stood up. It was supposed to be nine to one, and we stood up with a very well-reasoned position and I believe with a lot of courage that was not shown by some of the member's colleagues and some of his fellow travellers in other parties across the province. I will make a prediction. I think he will see more support for the kind of view we did articulate at the Premiers' conference and subsequent to that. I think he will see that the interests of Ontario are in very good hands.

As the member knows, one of the problems is that, as soon as we assumed the leadership of this province, there was very little factual information of any type on this issue. There was no thought and no intellectual content in the whole discussion. It was just a knee-jerk reaction. We have been moving very quickly to build that base so we will never be caught out in the future.

With respect to my honourable friend's assertions that his party supports it, I have no idea if that is true. I have seen about six or eight different opinions -- I will read them to him if he likes -- from the new leader of his party and from the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), who I gather is one who supports discussions and a bilateral trade agreement; but I have no idea what is the position of the member's party.

We have been constant in this party. We have been the one force in this country that has provided a check to the steamroller that could be built under the hands of Mr. Mulroney, if we let him get away with it.

Mr. Rae: It is precisely because there is a steamroller that I want to say to the Premier I hope very much that the stance he takes next week, and the stance he takes as of today, is no longer one of simply asking questions or of simply raising concerns, but is one that states specifically that Ontario is opposed and stands opposed to a comprehensive free trade treaty with the United States of America.

Is that the position of the Liberal government? If that is its position, why did the Liberal members on the committee, together with the Tories, sign a document that gave the green light to the Mulroney initiative and to the negotiations the federal government is starting next month with the United States?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind, but I say with great respect that my honourable friend completely oversimplifies a very complicated subject. This is not a subject for theology. He may want to make a speech based on his responsibilities to speak for the labour unions. He may want to take the view that we should stand outside in the hall and scream, which is the view he is presenting now in this House. If that is his view, then he can stand up and say it.

I am telling him that the Prime Minister on his own initiative stood up in the House of Commons and announced he was going to enter into some kind of a discussion, or at least send a formal proposal to the President of the United States

Mr. McClellan: It is called negotiations.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is not at this point -- looking for a response from Congress on whether there can be any kind of discussion.

The problem is, as the member knows and I know, no one has any idea what the federal government wants to discuss, if it discusses anything. Therein is the problem. We have put forward in very clear and forceful way the position and the interests of Ontario with respect to the cultural industry, with respect to the point the member raised earlier about bargaining off our resources. We put forward strong positions on agriculture, on the automotive industry and a number of others. That is where we are on the situation.

Mr. Stevenson: The same speech the Ontario government has given for five years.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend over there is yapping and making noises, but he had better listen to his new leader. He has a very different view to that which his former leader had in this situation.

HYUNDAI PLANT

Mr. Bennett: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Mr. McClellan: Is the member still here?

Mr. Bennett: Yes. Is that not a shame?

I want to return to the second question of our leader in relationship to the location of an automobile plant in Quebec. It is interesting to sit here today and listen to the minister tell us what Quebec is doing to entice an automobile plant to that province and what it is prepared to do. What we want to know from the minister, very simply and concisely, is what he did on behalf of the people of Ontario in trying to bring that automobile plant here; not what Quebec did, but what he offered as an Ontario minister and at what time and in what place.

We would like to see his presentation in detail so we can try to make an assessment as to whether it was the appropriate one on behalf of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the member asked the question three times.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to tell the member that the same staff, who are excellent staff, were working very hard on this. He tends to criticize them. Those staff have never worked harder than they did on this specific matter.

Because none of the Conservative ministers had been to Korea for more than 10 years and because they were not even involved in --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is becoming very difficult to hear the questions and answers. I suggest to the members that they place their questions and answers through the Speaker. I think it would be a little more orderly.

Mr. Bennett: It is great to have a supplementary, but since there was no answer to the question, it is difficult to place one.

We did not have to go to Japan, West Germany or other countries every day of the year to try to get plants into this country. We had representatives from the Canadian government who represented us well in Korea. I am not making any apologies for that.

The minister said three times in his preliminary answer that he was going to tell me. He has told me and this House absolutely nothing. We are asking very simply that the minister table in this House the complete presentation he made to executives of the Hyundai company as to what he would do for that firm here in Ontario if it were to locate here. Do not tell me what Quebec is going to do. I could not care less. I want to know

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If Mr. Speaker will allow me, I will answer it now.

If the member is not interested in what Quebec is offering, maybe he should be interested in what the federal government is offering to get Hyundai there. He should be one of the first to ask whether the federal government has bought them off and has got them to go there.

I would be very pleased to tell the member that when we heard there was a possibility we were going to lose that plant, I decided to go to Korea and I did meet with the company. I was there for two days and I tried to change their minds. Our staff in the ministry -- of which the member was also a minister and knows how competent the staff are -- have been working very closely with the Hyundai motor company. I have met with the company personally on two occasions along with the staff to try to get them to change their minds, after all they were being offered from the federal and provincial governments. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has also met with the president of Hyundai Auto Canada on a couple of occasions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I am going to recess the House for five minutes.

Mr. Speaker suspended proceedings at 3:09 p.m.

3:15 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Attorney General was here when the Speaker adjourned the House briefly. I do not know whether he has left the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question?

CATARACT SURGERY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It relates to funding for cataract lens implant surgery. The minister will know that today is the last day on which a patient who has been scheduled for such surgery will be able to have it in Sault Ste. Marie.

Is the minister prepared to provide the additional funding necessary to enable hospitals to carry out lens implant surgery across the province so we will not be cut in other areas as we have been in the Sault? I am sure the minister is aware that last year there were about 250 such operations and they have been limited to 140 this year.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the member for the question. I am well aware of the difficulties being experienced in the particular hospital to which he is referring. He will be well aware the lens implants are provided on the basis of the global budget from within the hospitals and decisions have to be made at the board level. It has made a decision with respect to its global budget.

My ministry staff have been working very closely with that hospital. They are working very hard to review its needs. I have met with them and one or two of the ophthalmologists involved in the lens implant program at the hospital. I am very well aware of it. We are working to deal with a global budget problem which has resulted in the board deciding to cut back on the number of lens implants. That is not a decision the Ministry of Health has made.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to ask the minister if he is aware this is not a problem just for the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie, but that hospitals across the province are not being funded for lens implants. As a result of this inadequate funding, other hospitals as well are looking at putting caps on this service.

Will the minister confirm today that hospitals across Ontario will be given special consideration and funding to ensure that the high cost of lens implants are being reflected in their budget allocations and that they can get special funding for these operations?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot give the assurance of extra funding today. I can say there is special consideration being given to the difficult pressures which are generated by new techniques of implantation, not only of lenses but also of hip prostheses and others.

All I can say is that we became aware of the difficulty during a tour of one of the hospitals in Ottawa. We have been actively pursuing a study of how we can address the particular problems which are generated as a result of the global funding.

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Premier. I was wondering whether he is coming back to the House. Can I step down until he arrives?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He is coming back in a moment.

3:20 p.m.

RAINY RIVER SYSTEM

Mr. Pierce: My question is for the Minister of Health, regarding the testing for dioxin in the Rainy River water system. It has been three weeks since this matter was first brought up in the House. The minister assured us that the taking of fish for further testing would be carried out immediately, but the results would not be known for four to five weeks.

Further to my question on October 29, I asked the minister to test both the fresh water and the treated water in the surrounding communities. Can the minister now tell me whether these tests have been made, and if the results are available will he make them available to the members?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The question was directed to me, but I believe it is an inappropriate question since the testing has been done under the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Pierce: I will redirect my question to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will answer the question. We did testing, as the honourable member knows. We had the results from the state of Minnesota, which indicated a certain amount of information. We were not satisfied that the information was acceptable to us to undertake certain activities that I know people in northern Ontario would be very concerned about if we did them in a very rapid fashion and without suitable evidence. As a result, instead of five fish we took 175 fish, which are now being analysed in our laboratories here.

There is some drinking water information which I just got today from the head of the assessment group, drinking water section, water resources branch. It indicates there are no detectable amounts of chlorinated dibenzo dioxins and dibenzopyrans in the water supply of Fort Frances or Emo. Everything is ND, which means nondetectable in each of these cases.

If there is further information the member wants, I would be happy to take it under advisement and get back to him tomorrow.

Mr. Bernier: When the minister responded on October 31, he made reference to the fact he would be contacting the United States Environmental Protection Agency as to why there was roughly a six-month delay in informing the Ministry of the Environment about dioxin in the water in the Rainy River system. I wonder whether that investigation has gone on and whether he can report to the House.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not have that information back, but I must say the honourable member had a very good question that day. When he first hit me with it, he mentioned, for instance, that I had mentioned we were pleased with some of the co-operation. The member justifiably brought to my attention the question, "Well, did you realize they had it six months before?"

We are investigating that now. As soon as I get that information, I will be happy to provide it to the member in the House, because it is a very legitimate question.

DOMESTIC WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), I would like to ask a question of the minister responsible for women's issues. The minister is well aware that Ontario's labour laws discriminate against domestic workers. Live-in domestic workers are getting paid less than $2 an hour and work 60-to-80-hour weeks. I have here nine different examples of domestics working an average of 13 hours per day. I would like to ask the minister whether he will act immediately to end this exploitation. Will he amend the Employment Standards Act, or see that it is amended, to ensure that the hours of work for live-in domestics are regulated?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for his question. I met last week with representatives of Intercede, the International Coalition to End Domestics' Exploitation, which is an organization of domestic workers. They made the case that they should be dealt with under the Employment Standards Act in a slightly different fashion than they now are. I indicated to them that I would forward their views on to the Minister of Labour, as I have done. I know he is considering a report within his ministry on the subject and will make a determination shortly.

Mr. Mackenzie: Domestic workers are exploited in other ways. They are charged high rates for room and board -- about one third of their wages. If they work part-time, they are not entitled to minimum wage. On top of these and other problems, they are denied the right to organize in unions.

I know the minister is aware of these problems and I would like to know if we can expect some relief for domestics. Can he give us a time frame in which we can expect some relief in this current session before Christmas, because we have been raising this matter for years?

Hon. Mr. Scott: My responsibilities are to bring in amendments that relate to equality under section 15 of the charter, which would not be applicable in the case of domestic workers. The remedy they seek is really an amendment to the Employment Standards Act and to the Ontario Labour Relations Act to permit them to organize. That is not within my area of responsibility. I have told my friend I have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour and I will relay to the minister again the fact that the question was asked.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Premier. I hope he will listen carefully.

It is apparent from the lack of action and involvement on the part of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) that he does not feel the school year of the students in Wellington county is worth saving. There are 316 students in Arthur, 1,570 students in Centennial in Guelph, 428 students in Erin, 1,600 students in Guelph and 303 students in Mount Forest who are in semestered programs and now their year is in jeopardy.

Will the Premier today personally interfere in the strike in Wellington county on behalf of those students?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am going to do two things for the member for Scarborough Centre. One, I am going to send over the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to assist him with his vocal problems. Two, I am going to ask the Minister of Education to respond to his question.

Mr. Harris: The Minister of Education has done nothing.

Mr. Cousens: The Premier should answer it. The question was pointed to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was placed to the Premier and the Premier asked that it be directed to the Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I share the concern of my friend the member for Scarborough Centre about the impact of this strike upon the thousands of secondary school students in Wellington county who are involved. I have said in this House, and I will repeat today, it is the strongly held view of this government that the best resolution is a locally negotiated resolution.

I point out to my friend from Scarborough that late last week both parties in the neighbouring Grey county dispute, working together, came to a tentative agreement of that dispute. Most sincerely, I expect the parties in Wellington will follow the example of their neighbours in Grey and resolve this at the local negotiating table.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: This supplementary is to the Premier. The Premier personally intervened in the negotiations to effect a settlement this fall between the Toronto Transit Commission and its workers. Is he telling us today that transit workers in Metropolitan Toronto are more important to him than the thousands of students in Wellington county who are placed in the position of losing their school year? Many students have already left the system. Is the convenience of transit riders in Metro more important than the future of the Wellington county students?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to the honourable member, and I know his depth of feeling on this matter, he is absolutely ill-informed with respect to my role in the transit drivers' dispute. I did not settle that strike and I did not intervene in any way. Those people came to their senses. They used their great judgement when they approached the situation and they solved it themselves as any good system of collective negotiations would dictate.

Mr. Davis: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order. What could be out of order?

Mr. Wildman: The member's voice is out of order.

Mr. Davis: I deliberately worded the question, "Would the Premier intervene?" How can a minister answer that question for him?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. You did ask the question and there was a response to the question. It really is not a point of order at all.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION

Mr. Rae: I have just been advised by a news release communiqué, and indeed in a note from the minister, that Mr. James Dochstader of Corunna has been suspended for 20 days with pay. He is the Sarnia district officer of the Ministry of the Environment and he has been suspended by the Deputy Minister of the Environment, Mr. Roderick M. McLeod, under subsection 22(1) of the Public Service Act.

That act says, "A deputy minister may, pending an investigation, suspend from employment any public servant in his ministry for such period as the regulations prescribe." Can the minister tell us the nature of the investigation that is ongoing with respect to the activities of Mr. Dochstader?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can only say the investigation in question concerns the operations of Canflow Services Ltd., its principals and employees. I cannot reveal more than that. The information upon which the suspension was based was made available late last week. The suspension took place as a result of it.

As I indicated in earlier answers to the member in the House, I was not in a position at that time to announce any suspensions of specific people, or to mention any who were under investigation. We had reached that point in the investigation on Thursday or Friday of last week. The letter has gone to this individual and the announcement has been made, but I cannot reveal the specific investigation that is going on because that would jeopardize it.

Mr. Rae: I can appreciate the integrity of the investigation. What I hope the minister will appreciate is that it is a sad day when a minister cannot get up in this House and say he has complete confidence in the judgement, discretion and work being performed by the public servants working in his office. Can the minister tell us whether an ongoing investigation affects the work of other employees of the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am not aware of any other employee who would be subject to this investigation. I really could not say that definitely, but I am not aware any other employee is affected.

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Leluk: I have a question of the Premier. Since taking office in June, his government has paid lipservice to multiculturalism and simply ignored the needs of the diverse cultural communities in Ontario.

In view of the fact $10.5 million has been cut from the allocation of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture -- the only ministry in the social policy field, I might add, which was cut -- would the Premier please state the Liberal Party's policy on multiculturalism? Would he table it in this House forthwith?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure the member I represent a party that has been the author of the philosophy of multiculturalism.

It is determined to bring people from all walks of life into full participation in all aspects of our governing process. We did not just hop on board last weekend. We did not just have a sudden conversion because there was a change in the polling. This is something in which Liberals believe. It is reflected in our cabinet, our caucus and our party makeup. We are the ones who really believe in it and are doing something about it.

I say with great pride that we in this party have a major influence in changing our processes, opening them up to people from all walks of life. That is why we will continue having close relationships with our multicultural communities.

Mr. Leluk: The budget cut of $10.5 million exemplifies the disdain and lack of importance the Premier's government places on cultural communities and immigrants in this province.

Since the Premier is not prepared to table his party's policy, are we in this House to assume the Liberal Party of Ontario does not have a multicultural policy? If this is the case, is his government prepared to uphold the one inherited from the previous Progressive Conservative government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is very interesting that the member has any policy at all. I have watched his party go through a couple of conventions in the last year. That was one of the things it discussed. It was generally acknowledged that it does not have one in practice. It may mouth the words but it does not believe in them. Look at the makeup of its convention in January. I invite my friend to a Liberal convention and he will see multiculturalism in action and people participating from all walks of life.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grande: Since the Premier obviously does not mouth the words of a multiculturalist but believes them, would he undertake to answer six questions placed on the Orders and Notices paper on June 17? An interim answer was to have been available on October 15. It is November 18 and still no questions have been answered dealing with the real meaning of multiculturalism in this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am prepared to answer those questions and any others with respect to our commitment. The honourable member will know of the very deep and intense commitment of this party to reflect the real face of Ontario in all its institutions. We are doing that in many aspects. For example, we appointed his former colleague to the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario because he was so sensitive and reflected one of the aspects of multiculturalism in this province. We will continue to do this because we believe in it. We invite his help in making every group in this province feel welcome.

LAYOFFS AT PIC RIVER FOREST PRODUCTS

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines. The minister may be aware that Pic River Forest Products --

Mr. Bernier: The member was with him all last week. Why did he not ask the question then?

Mr. Pouliot: I am directing my question at another predecessor.

Mr. Martel: Did they not invite the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier)?

Mr. Bernier: No, they did not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the members allow the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) to place his question?

Mr. Pouliot: The minister and I did not make it to Chateau Bernier in Minaki.

The minister may be aware that Pic River Forest Products has served notice on its employees that their services will no longer be required, effective December 31, 1985. This affects 150 jobs in the communities of Manitouwadge, Caramat and Marathon. Last month, the minister announced a northern Ontario development fund, the establishment of --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Pouliot: -- regional development councils and a change of name to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Will the minister tell us exactly what effect these changes will have on those 150 jobs that will be lost by December 31, 1985?

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Premièrement, je remercie mon ami, le député de Lake Nipigon. I do not bypass anybody; I told the honourable member that before. I treat everybody equally in the north. I will not do as the other guy and go around.

I would like to take this question into consideration. I will study those layoffs and I will discuss them with the Minister of Labour. Through the new program, we are going to try to help the honourable member out in his riding. In the next few weeks, I will do my best to work towards this development that I am talking about. The member for Lake Nipigon and I will work together towards a better quality of life in his riding.

Mr. Pouliot: While I welcome the declaration from "mi amigo," my friend, I ask the minister to protect these jobs. To protect the integrity of the order limits, I also ask the minister to ask his other friend, the distinguished Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), if consideration will be given to having the crown take over the limits now held by James River-Marathon Ltd.

L'hon. M. Fontaine: J'aimerais encore répondre au député de Lake Nipigon que dans l'industrie du bois de sciage et de la pulpe et dans les mines nous traversons une récession. Ce qu'il me dit là, ce n'est pas seulement à Lake Nipigon que cela arrive. On a du monde mis à pied à Kapuskasing et à Hearst. On en aura à Hudson dans quelques mois.

Mr. Bernier: The member should be careful now. He should not go too fast.

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: That has to do with the recession at this point. I would like to look into it, but the member should not expect me to answer it today.

I will meet with the Minister of Natural Resources on Friday and we are going to go over the James River problem.

PETITION

CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARY

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition which reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas both reports from the electoral boundaries commission have recommended that the townships of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve be removed from the Hastings-Peterborough constituency;

"And whereas these municipalities are part of Hastings county and work with provincial and county offices in the city of Belleville, the county seat, rather than offices located in other county seats;

"And whereas these four municipalities have a community of interests with other rural municipalities in Hastings-Peterborough;

"Now therefore we, the undersigned members of the Hastings county council, petition the Ontario Legislature to leave the townships of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve in the Hastings-Peterborough constituency."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions presented the fourth report on standing orders and procedures and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Breaugh: This is the long-awaited report on standing orders and procedures; it also deals with a restructuring of the committee system. It is anticipated that we will have an early opportunity to debate this formally, and we have attempted to provide for members in abbreviated form -- in point form, almost -- what is contained in this committee report.

This matter has been before the procedural affairs committee for some years now. It has been reported to the House on other occasions, when no action was forthcoming. We anticipate that we will see prompt debate of the report in the House and also prompt action on many of its recommendations. This is not to suggest that there are not a multitude of things that have to be done and that they have to be done in different ways. We acknowledge that.

We are recommending in here changes to the standing orders that would affect the daily working life of all members. We are recommending changes to the committee system that we think will make for a more meaningful working day for the members. We are, in essence, trying to get the business of the Legislature organized so that all of us, who have time problems and constraints, families and obligations back in our constituencies, will have a somewhat more organized existence.

It is important for each and every one of us as members to be able to discharge all those responsibilities fairly and to expedite that work as best we can. It is sometimes difficult to do that when, for example, one does not know when this session will begin or end or when one is not clear whether one will be available for an event in a constituency on a Friday afternoon or evening. So we make recommendations that try to give more authority to committees to operate, more latitude in what they might do.

We present this report in the light of a speech from the throne made by a previous government which indicated very clearly that that government was very interested in these reforms. It is also in direct response to statements made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that he wanted a more open form of government, that he wanted to have an opportunity for members to play a meaningful role in the development of policy and legislation. We as a committee think this report provides an opportunity for that to happen.

I want to point out just before I adjourn this debate that this is a matter of some controversy, and there is no question about it. We have two dissenting opinions attached to the report, and I want to point those out. But we tried to work as best we could, by means of consensus in the committee, and we took that as far as it could go. There comes a time when one has to make up one's mind, and I would suggest that when we debate this in the Legislature, each one of us will have to do that as well.

This report is not the world of the Ontario assembly as I personally would like it. I would advocate even more change than is recommended here but, by and large, it is a consensus of the work of this committee and previous committees on how we should change the standing orders, how the committees should function in different ways and how we should try to develop some sense of this place as a jurisdiction of its own headed by the Speaker.

We think a lot of good work has been done. We, who spent some of our summer putting together these recommendations, know that our staff people, in particular Smirle Forsyth, the clerk of the committee, responded with great dispatch to provide the members with the paper to draft and redraft the proposals in this report. We appreciated that work.

We were rather excited that we were on the verge of bringing this parliament, this assembly, into this century. We were happy to see other indications -- and today is an appropriate occasion when the television cameras are in place and operational for the first time in the history of this Legislature under the auspices of the Speaker that this is a good sign, that this is an assembly open to such changes.

We recommend this report to all members of the assembly. We hope they will take the time to look through it and make a judgement call on balance. We as a committee -- the majority of us -- feel that the need for change is clearly established, that the recommendations contained within this report will go a long way towards providing for each and every one of us a meaningful work place and an organized lifestyle. For example, it provides that we can get in as many legislative hours as we do now but still balance off other responsibilities members have.

I look forward to being a participant in the debate and to comments from individual members and from the caucuses and those who are interested in how we organize the business of the assembly. I hope we shall have that debate shortly and begin to implement this report.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that in the standing committee on general government, the estimates of the office of the chief election officer be considered for 30 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet in the afternoon of Wednesday, November 20, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McClellan moved, seconded by Mr. Lupusella, first reading of Bill 58, An Act to amend the Time Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: This bill would extend daylight saving time to run from the first Sunday in April to the first Sunday in November. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is similar in many respects to a bill I introduced earlier in the session which is listed on Orders and Notices as Bill 40. I am doing this because there are some necessary corrections that have to be in the bill.

Mr. McClellan moved that the order for second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Time Act, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 5 to 10, 81 and 83, and the interim answer to question 82 standing in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, November 22).

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Honourable members will be interested in this estimate. On page 34 of today's Orders and Notices, there is the list of estimates to be considered in this committee. Number one is the Ministry of Revenue and six hours are assigned.

You will note it is our custom in the House of more recent date to consider estimates Monday afternoon after question period until six o'clock and again on Friday morning after question period until one o'clock. I was interested that the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), in introducing the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions, indicated that sometimes members want a certain flexibility Monday and Friday so they can attend to things, either in their constituencies or elsewhere.

Sometimes these estimates are considered events that not every member of the Legislature has to attend. Estimates of the Ministry of Revenue are an exception because of their compelling interest, but I felt I should bring to the attention of the honourable member, who is no longer in his place, that certain accommodation has been made over the years in that regard.

I am very pleased to present these estimates to the House. Before I begin my more formal remarks, I would like to say that, having been the minister for just a few months, since the beginning of July, I have particularly appreciated the assistance of the deputy minister, Terry Russell, who has had a number of years of experience in this responsibility and others. I have found he and his staff to be completely professional in their advice and assistance to me as a new minister, and I appreciate that.

As Treasurer, I have an associated responsibility with the Ministry of Revenue. Going back 23 years to when I was first elected, the revenue responsibility was almost automatically lumped in with the Treasury. Over the years, it has increasingly become a more separate responsibility. It was only until the change in government that it was decided by the head of the government to put them back together.

The staff members in Revenue have been particularly co-operative, realizing that I have these shared responsibilities. Among other things, they have assisted me in meeting the members of the ministry, particularly those at the ministry headquarters in Oshawa. The Michael J. Starr Building in downtown Oshawa houses this function. Its design is excellent -- seven floors, each floor with an acre of working space. That appeals to me as a farmer. It is easy to figure out. In my visits there, which have been all too infrequent from my point of view, I have been very impressed with the level of activity.

I have mentioned my impressions to a number of people. Among the highlights was the room where the sales tax returns are opened and compiled. Two people, through the use of modern computer facilities, actually check in $36-million worth of sales tax revenue a day. This money is deposited in the local branch of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, right next door. You can understand why the manager of the branch stands up when the minister goes in to see him. It is a fairly big account. We are well served there, and the deposits take place on the day they are received. The organization is excellent.

I do not want to stray unduly from my text other than to say again how impressed I am with the staff of the ministry at all levels and to pay my compliments to them. I also want to thank them for assisting me in preparing these formal remarks in introducing the estimates.

I shall begin with a brief review of some of the salient changes in expenditures and staff levels compared to 1984-85. After this I shall describe some of the most important operational developments in each of the ministry's major programs, as well as the report of the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) on property assessment which I tabled in the Legislature a week ago Friday.

According to established practice, I have provided the opposition parties with a full set of briefing notes which supplement and explain the material contained in the printed estimates.

First, I wish to refer to the summary table of human resources for 1985-86. Members will note that the table describes total employment in the ministry in terms of planned or maximum staffing levels. In practice, actual employment will invariably be lower because of vacancies and possible in-year constraints. The table shows the total employment in the ministry is planned to increase by 33 person-years. In fact, this number has now been revised downward to 29.

This increase has three main components. The increase of 19 person-years in the ministry administration category represents a strengthening of such functions as internal audit, human resources planning and management and technology investment planning. Specifically, there has been no increase in staffing in the minister's or deputy minister's areas. The increase of 32 person-years in the tax revenue and grants program is directed to basic revenue processing and customer services and has been revised to only 28. The table also shows that staffing in the property assessment program has been reduced by 18. In overall terms, therefore, staffing in the ministry has been increased by less than one per cent over last year.

Second, I refer members to the summary table of expenditures for this fiscal year. The table shows an increase in total expenditures of $34.3 million, of which $22.7 million is for increased payments to senior citizens while $11.6 million is for ministry operations. However, I wish to emphasize that the increase of $11.6 million includes the special one-time provision of $3.9 million for the municipal enumeration in September.

The balance is more than offset by the filling of vacancies to build the planned staffing potential I mentioned earlier and by unavoidable increases in certain operating costs such as computer processing and other fixed commitments. In conclusion, these factors mean that in real terms the ministry's budget is less than in 1984-85 and it must deal with increased program work loads and changes through increased productivity and improvements in the management of resources generally.

I shall now briefly summarize the main features of the printed estimates and developments in each of the ministry's two major programs. Finally, I shall comment on the report on property assessment that I tabled on November 8.

The tax revenue and grants program is responsible for the administration of the province's tax statutes with the exception of personal income tax and the mining tax. Personal income tax is administered by the federal Department of National Revenue and the mining tax by the Ministry of Natural Resources. For guaranteed income and tax grant payments to senior citizens and for grants under the Small Business Development Corporations Act, the briefing notes explain the changes and expenditures in staffing levels for the whole program, as well as in its component branches.

In aggregate terms, total expenditures are estimated to increase by $28 million over the actual level of $546.7 million in 1984-85. As I have already noted, however, $22.7 million of this total is for increased transfer payments to senior citizens. On the other hand, the $5.4 million allocated for program operations is largely needed for staffing to planned levels and to meet the increased costs of computer communication and transportation services.

In staffing, the estimates include a net increase of 28 person-years which will be supplemented by internal redeployments to maintain tax administration and customer services in the corporations and retail sales tax branches. Overall, the program must rely on productivity increases resulting from past investments in computer technology to deal with increased work loads and maintain customer service.

4 p.m.

At this point, I shall deal with only two aspects of the ministry's involvement in my budget last month.

First, while the Ministry of Treasury and Economics was responsible for the tax policy side of the budget, the Ministry of Revenue is responsible for ensuring the operational implementation and ongoing administration of my tax proposals.

As members will recall, my budget involved an extensive set of increases and decreases across the full range of provincial taxes. Consequently, the ministry is engaged in a correspondingly large exercise designed to assist taxpayers to deal with the changes with the least possible disruption to their business. For this purpose, the ministry placed advertisements in all Ontario dailies the day after the budget to inform taxpayers of the proposals.

When the various bills are approved by this Legislature, the ministry will mount an intensified information and assistance program in two main ways.

Additional advertisements will be placed in newspapers to inform taxpayers of when the various increases and decreases will take effect. This will be supported by detailed bulletins which will be distributed to the various groups affected by each measure, far a total of 500,000 copies.

Also, the ministry's team of customer service specialists will visit as many small-scale retailers and businesses as possible to provide direct assistance in dealing with the tax changes.

Second, while considerable attention was given to the proposed tax increases and decreases, I would like to remind members of a major tax simplification measure that was also contained in the budget. I refer specifically to the amendment of the Corporations Tax Act which will abolish the requirement for small corporations to file annual tax returns. This measure will benefit about 120,000 small businesses. As such, it is the largest tax simplification measure ever undertaken by the ministry. Apart from reducing the paper burden involved in complying with the tax, I estimate this measure will save these small businesses as much as $9 million to $12 million per year in filing costs.

On the broader front of improved customer services and tax simplification, I would like to inform the members I was greatly encouraged by the favourable response I received when I tabled a report on the ministry's objectives and initiatives at the meeting of federal and provincial ministers of revenue in Halifax in September. I would be pleased to provide interested members with copies of this report. At the same time, I wish to assure members that we fully recognize there is still much to be done in this area and that we are committed to implementing further improvements wherever and whenever possible.

Turning to the assessment program, the estimates include total expenditures of $86.7 million, which represents an increase of 10 per cent over 1984-85. However, the increase should be adjusted to recognize two special items. They are a one-time funding of $3.9 million for the municipal enumeration already referred to and an investment of $1.3 million in new computer systems. I had better make that plural for the benefit of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who is interested in these matters.

As a result, the funds available for regular program operations are reduced to $81.5 million, which is virtually equal to last year's actual expenditure. Again, no allowance is made for the cost of increased work-load pressures, computer services or general reductions in purchasing power.

At the same time, the program's total staff will be reduced by 18 person-years compared to last year. Further, the new total of 2,152 also includes a special allocation of 51 person-years for the triennial enumeration exercise. Therefore, the staff available for the program's regular operations actually will be reduced by 69 person-years. In a broader perspective, this means the total staffing has been reduced by 446 or 18 per cent since 1979 as a result of ongoing budgetary constraints.

I shall now briefly describe some of the major developments in the assessment program in 1985-86.

The overview of the program's resources in 1985-86 demonstrates that, like other parts of the ministry, the assessment program must deal with increasing work loads and program changes within severely constrained budgetary allocations.

Members may recall, following my economic statement in July, I announced a constraint of $250 million. This was applied across the board to all ministries, including the Ministry of Revenue. We were actually able to accomplish a constraint of $260 million. The Ministry of Revenue, which is essentially a service industry looking after revenue exclusively and certain other programs, was able to meet the level of constraint dictated.

In 1982 the development of a new computer system called the Ontario assessment system began. This is the largest single investment project undertaken in the ministry and is designed significantly to increase productivity throughout the network of 31 regional assessment offices and 10 suboffices. After being fully tested in two regional offices, Oasys became operational in 22 regions and seven suboffices by July of this year. Installation in the remaining offices is scheduled for completion by July 1986.

In addition to increasing the program's production capacity, Oasys will result in a range of improved services to municipalities and ratepayers. For example, by late 1986, municipalities will be able to gain direct on-line access to their assessment data bases for a variety of planning purposes. Similarly, at a later date we plan to provide ratepayers with complete information on the calculation of their assessment. Apart from improving their understanding of the assessment process, this will greatly assist ratepayers in preparing appeals.

I believe the Oasys project is an excellent example of the ministry's businesslike approach to exploiting new technological opportunities. First, the total cost of developing Oasys is expected to be $4.6 million, which is less than the level approved by Management Board in 1982. Second, the members will be interested to know that these funds have actually been borrowed from Management Board and will be repaid with 15 per cent interest.

Members will recall that the Assessment Act was amended in 1982 so that full enumeration of municipal residents and voters would henceforth be conducted on a three-year cycle to coincide with municipal elections. Consequently, this year the ministry conducted the first full-scale enumeration since 1982. This was a major undertaking which had to be completed in only one month. The following points illustrate the size and complexity of the exercise.

All regional assessment staff were involved, while 10,451 enumerators were hired and trained for the field work. During the first 15 days, 3.2 million household units were visited and 1.4 million enumeration notices were mailed to industrial, commercial and nonresident owners. The preliminary lists of voters were delivered to 838 municipal clerks on September 25 and October 4 and contained some 6.6 million names. Over the same period, school support lists were delivered to every municipality and school board. In addition, 162,900 eligible jurors were selected and jury service notices have already been mailed by the Ministry of the Attorney General. Finally, revised lists of electors were delivered on October 23. I am pleased to report that each stage of the enumeration process was completed on schedule and within budget.

As minister, it might be appropriate if I were to express my thanks not only to those people who supervised it at the ministerial level, but to those people in the field who had to work very hard to accomplish what I have just described. In particular, I would like to draw members' attention to the absence of adverse reports on the conduct of the enumeration and to the accuracy of the results.

As an example of the appreciation expressed by a number of municipalities, I refer to a letter in the October 25 edition of the Sault Ste. Marie Star in which the city clerk notes that he added only 254 names or less than one per cent to the ministry's list. Mr. Lindsay goes on to say, "This tells me that the job of enumeration done by Ted Perks and the staff of the Ministry of Revenue was exceptional."

4:10 p.m.

I would like to comment briefly on the 1,000 equalization factors which the ministry is required to calculate annually for every municipality and for school boards in unorganized territories. These equalization factors are important because they are used in apportioning county and regional government costs and the education levies among municipalities, as well as in calculating provincial grants.

The calculation of the factors is a major and complicated process that involves all property assessors for about two and a half months, starting in January. Their main task is to sample about 10 per cent of the total assessment of a municipality, using valid sales supplemented by appraisals.

The real test of the quality of this service is the number of municipalities which appeal their factors to the Ontario Municipal Board each year. In 1979, which was the first year in which equalization factors were prepared since being frozen in 1970, there were 144 appeals. Since then, however, the rate of appeal has been consistently less than one per cent, while in 1984 and 1985 only two appeals have been filed, representing less than 0.2 per cent of the total of 1,000 factors.

Another major responsibility of the assessment program is to provide municipalities with supplementary assessments on buildings that are constructed or improved and in use during the year. Since supplementary assessments generate extra and unbudgeted revenues, the program has steadily improved the service to municipalities in recent years. We estimate that approximately 191,000 supplementary assessments will be delivered this year. This will yield about $94 million in additional municipal tax revenue, an increase of eight per cent over last year.

Finally, I wish to report on the progress of the ministry's reassessment program under sections 63 and 70 of the Assessment Act. This year we expect to implement 59 reassessments for taxation in 1986. This total includes first-time reassessments in 26 municipalities, the largest of which is Mississauga, as well as updates of earlier reassessments in London, Ottawa and 31 other municipalities.

If these 59 municipalities decide to proceed, the total of first-time, section 63 reassessments since 1979 will be 473. Together with the 145 municipalities which have been or will be reassessed at full market value under section 70, this means 618 or 74 per cent of 838 municipalities will be covered by the program. One measure of the success of the program is that we have had a full order book every year since 1979, and we already have 40 advance orders for 1986.

Another measure is the number of municipalities which have requested updates. Such requests are increasing each year. We expect the total to reach 111 by the end of this year. I shall return to the question of possible changes to the reassessment program at a later point.

In past years I have heard previous ministers talk about the priority given by this ministry to exploiting computer technology to increase productivity. Consequently, when I was appointed Minister of Revenue, I made a point of visiting our head office in Oshawa. I can report that I was impressed by the ministry's use of a wide range of advanced computer systems and with the obvious efficiency of operations and the enthusiasm of the staff.

However, I was even more impressed by the ministry's recognition of the impact of technological change on staff and the attention given to training staff to deal effectively and efficiently with this change. In this connection, the Oasys project, which I have already mentioned, provides an excellent example of the ministry's approach to staff training.

First, the implementation of Oasys in the 29 regional offices and subofflces entailed a massive training exercise involving 1,335 managers, assessors and support staff. Similarly, starting next January, ministry trainers will instruct an additional 600 staff in time for the installation of the new system in the remaining regional and suboffices by July 1986.

In addition to Oasys training, the expanded use of word processors and microcomputers across the ministry has necessitated an increase in technology training. In this connection, the ministry undertook two studies of the management of technological change.

The studies describe the ministry's principles and objectives for human resource planning and the need for a co-ordinated strategy for staff development and training. I shall be most happy to provide copies to any member who might be interested in this subject.

One significant feature of our training is that it is not confined to certain staff levels or classifications. It involves all levels of management up to and including the deputy minister. They have not attempted to take on the minister in this staff training up to this date; they may feel it is a lost cause.

In 1983-84 and in 1984-85 the ministry provided more than 800 participants with training for a wide variety of work-station, computing hardware and software applications. By the end of this fiscal year an additional 400 staff will receive such specialized training.

Further, as our investment in advanced technology accelerates, we are taking steps to increase significantly our education and training capacities to approximately 1,000 participants on an ongoing annual basis. To achieve this objective, the ministry will establish a new technology demonstration and training centre in Oshawa that we believe will be the first of its kind in a line ministry in the Ontario government.

This centre will enable us to provide hands-on training on a large-scale and cost-effective basis. It will also provide demonstrations of new computing hardware and software products to end users as well as specialized assistance in their application to specific business needs.

Finally, we recognize that the key to the efficient use of our technology investments and of our human resources generally is critically dependent upon the awareness, skills and training of our managers and senior executives. The ministry has for a long time used a variety of management training courses provided by the Civil Service Commission and external agencies as well as courses and seminars within the ministry.

However, these courses do not fully meet our requirements, particularly in training managers to deal with the specific requirements of the ministry's programs. Consequently, we have acquired and developed a comprehensive management training package, which has already been provided to 175 assessment commissioners and managers. By the end of December this total will rise to 236.

Starting in January, this training program will be extended to managers in the tax revenue and grants program, the support services division and the Province of Ontario Savings Office. Our objective is that all of the Ministry of Revenue's managers and supervisors receive at least one training program a year on an ongoing basis.

In addition to recognizing the need to provide career development opportunities to our staff, I wish to assure the members that my ministry fully endorses the government's commitment to affirmative action. During the past several years, the Ministry of Revenue's affirmative action program has made considerable gains.

For example, the wage gap has decreased significantly, with women's earnings equalling 69 per cent of men's earnings in 1985-86 compared to 60 per cent in 1977-78. During the same period, women's share of employment in the ministry increased from 38 per cent to 42 per cent. The number of women in the office services category, a traditional area of employment for women, declined from 374 in 1977-78 to 178 in 1984-85.

The number of women in the administrative services category increased from 134 to 207 in the same period, while in the administrative management module the number of female employees increased from 66 to 134.

Between 1980-81 and 1984-85, the ministry established a total of 190 hire-promotion targets in the categories in which female representation was less than 30 per cent. The ministry exceeded this by 23 per cent in achieving an actual total of 234 such targets during the period. Similarly, a total of 165 accelerated career development targets were planned by the ministry between 1980-81 and 1984-85. This total was exceeded by 59 per cent, with 262 women receiving accelerated career development opportunities.

Under the Ministry of Revenue career advancement program, developed to facilitate internal recruitment into the property-assessor and tax-auditor career paths, satisfactory gains are also being made. Since 1981, 27 women have been recruited into the property-assessor entry-level position out of 37 appointments. Since 1979, 18 out of 31 tax-auditor entry-level positions have been filled by women.

4:20 p.m.

Finally, specific targets for 1985-86 included 48 priority hirings and promotions in the underrepresented categories, of which 44 have already been achieved. Of the planned 65 accelerated career development assignments for women, 79 have been achieved, so we now have revised the year-end target upward to 85.

I turn now to the larger question of assessment policy. All the honourable members are aware of the long-running and inconclusive debate on comprehensive municipal tax reform since the 1960s. I have already noted that the ministry has made good progress with the local section 63 and section 70 reassessment programs since 1979.

Nevertheless, many fundamental problems remain unresolved and, most particularly, no progress has been made towards a consistent and equitable assessment system in Metropolitan Toronto. This, in turn, has generated considerable debate concerning the sharing of Metro costs and assessment of renovated properties. Consequently, when I was appointed Minister of Revenue, I immediately took two steps.

1. I authorized the release of the studies the ministry undertook in 1982 on the impact of reassessment in Metro Toronto. My purpose was to allow the Metro and municipal councils to review the studies as a basis for discussion on how they might wish to proceed with assessment reform. I was pleased that the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Dennis Flynn, responded by immediately establishing a task force.

2. I asked my parliamentary assistant, the member for Waterloo North, to undertake a review of assessment across Ontario. The primary objective of this review was to pinpoint the most important issues and to recommend practical solutions. Emphatically, I did not want another long, drawn-out study. I wanted a businesslike plan of action which would break the stalemate that has existed in this area for more than 15 years.

My parliamentary assistant has fulfilled his mandate with the able assistance of Mr. David Goyette. I was pleased to table his report in this House on November 8 and to distribute copies to all members to allow them to review it during last week's recess before these estimates began.

In my opinion, the report advances a clear and sound set of principles and objectives for progress in property assessment and municipal finance and its 53 recommendations establish a valid agenda for action in the immediate future. Naturally I value the opinions and views of the honourable members, representatives of municipalities and all interested citizens in these matters.

I shall not describe the report in detail at this point. Briefly, however, the recommendations of the parliamentary assistant may be summarized under four main headings.

First, the report recommends that the present section 63 and section 70 programs be continued to cover those municipalities that have not been reassessed to date. It also advocates that the programs be made available on a region- and county-wide basis and that reassessment be subjected to regular updates every four years.

Second, the report proposes that an enlarged task force be appointed to study the unique problems of reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto and to recommend ways in which it can be accomplished to the satisfaction of all parties.

Third, the parliamentary assistant deals with the assessment of renovations, which has been the subject of considerable controversy in appeals in recent years, particularly in Toronto. Most significantly, the report recommends that municipalities be allowed to give higher exemptions, that is, above the present limit of $5,000 in market value, and further, that the method of assessment be changed so only the value of renovations be added to the rolls, with basic assessments remaining unchanged.

Fourth, the report recommends that the ministry take steps to clarify its assessment practices and to provide ratepayers with more information on how their assessments are calculated and how they may appeal these assessments. Similarly, the parliamentary assistant suggests various ways in which procedures of the assessment review board can be improved and streamlined to the benefit of the ratepayers.

In conclusion, I am most anxious that this report be studied and discussed as soon as possible so the government may take appropriate action. For this purpose, it has been widely distributed to all municipalities and many interested parties and is available free of charge at the government bookstore. In order to proceed with assessment reform, however, it is critical that municipalities respond on two main points.

First, it is important that the task force on reassessment in Metro Toronto should commence work immediately. I fully recognize the size and complexity of the undertaking and my ministry is prepared to provide every possible assistance.

Second, although the local section 63 and section 70 reassessments have been well received outside Metropolitan Toronto, we need responses from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, from regional and county governments and from individual municipalities on the report's recommendations, especially those concerning the municipalities that have not been reassessed to date, county and regional reassessments, and mandatory updates.

In this regard, it is encouraging that a number of regions and counties have already requested section 63 reassessments. I am pleased to announce today that, in consultation with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmâitre), I have instructed my staff to produce a tax impact study in response to a resolution from the region of Sudbury. This will be presented to council later this fall and, if it is accepted, the region will be reassessed for tax purposes in 1986.

This concludes my introductory remarks to this year's estimates of the Ministry of Revenue. I would be pleased to hear the responses from the representatives of the other two parties and also to respond to questions over the next six hours.

Mr. Dean: I am pleased to respond to the first session the minister has experienced as the Minister of Revenue. As he says, one has been accustomed to having his good responses, his keen observations on the statements of previous ministers.

I do not intend to make a long formal response at this time, I will save more comments for the detailed description; however, I would like to say that I understand, having sat in the minister's shoes for a very short time. Or do you stand in shoes? Whichever it is.

Since I did so for a very short time before the transformation took place here, I can support what he says about the extent to which the ministry has attempted over the years to implement technologically modern improvements in the way work is handled. It is very obvious from the fact that staff complement has gone down, according to the latest details we have here, that under previous ministers and I guess for many years under the same deputy minister we now have, the ministry has been successful in implementing the introduction of proficient use of technological change.

This is certainly important in the Ministry of Revenue, where the main function, aside from the assessment portion, is to make sure revenue comes in. We certainly do not want to spend any more than we must in collecting. It is a self-defeating exercise if one spends too much to bring in what one is getting. Therefore, efficient operation is extremely essential and the extensive use of electronic data processing and other modern devices, including handling and so on, are absolutely essential.

I certainly commend this where the cost benefits show it is practical. I could not help but notice in the estimates we are beginning to consider there is a reference in many vote items to what are called by a beautiful phrase, "the enhancement of electronic data processing systems."

I do not know whether this is inspired by a word that has come down to us from the federal government regarding free trade. I would rather hope not, because one never knows what "enhancement" really means when it is used in that sense. I hope this means that in all these branches in which enhancement is the order of the day there will be certain standards applied so that we do not enhance ourselves into inefficiency. At the same time, I hope there is coordination throughout the ministry. I believe there is, but I would like to have the minister's assurance there are certain standards which we will attempt to reach but not exceed for the sake of having the latest toy on the block.

4:30 p.m.

I think there also should be some reference, perhaps by the minister at some time during the estimates, to how the work with computers in the Ministry of Revenue is correlated with what is going on in other ministries of the government, particularly with the role of the Ministry of Government Services, which supplies those services for some parts of the government.

My only concern about it is that we are not duplicating things. The minister, being a man of the soil, would not want to be ploughing the same field twice either.

Mr. Villeneuve: He rotates his crops.

Mr. Dean: He rotates his crops; that is good. It gets more difficult if he has to dig them up for rotation.

Along the same general topic, I notice in the tax revenue and grants program estimates that there is an actual decrease in the amount of funds budgeted for certain items this year -- travel, communications and so on -- because of past productivity gains. That is what it says there; I assume that is accurate. That is good if the investment in greater productivity items has produced that higher productivity. That is something we can hold up as an example of how all government ministries should operate.

Speaking briefly on the reassessment issue, as the minister has so humourously put it I had a lot of time last week to look over this blue tome --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is the right colour. We thought it would appeal to the member.

Mr. Dean: It did appeal to me. I am sorry, I was engaged in another bluish activity.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: At least the member's voice survived.

Mr. Dean: Somewhat better than certain of my companion frogs. This is not a racist remark.

Mr. Villeneuve: Multicultural.

Mr. Dean: The reassessment program that has been going on under the so-called section 63, and to a lesser extent section 70, was probably the best that was achievable at the time. There was considerable study to reform the taxation assessment system in 1972, when Darcy McKeough was the Treasurer of the province and the person who is now the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) was the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. We spent a lot of time with a lot of good municipal and provincial staff coming up with suggestions that would rationalize the assessment program and make it fair not only within categories, as section 63 attempts to do, but also among the categories, which is a much tougher proposition.

We came up with a sort of solution. The parliamentary assistant, the member for Waterloo North will remember it because he was active in the association in those years. The only problem with it was there was about $450 million needed to make the system work so there would be no hardship on those who would be adversely affected by the introduction of the system. As a result, that did not fly, and someone came up with the section 63 type of assessment.

It is interesting to note that one of the items mentioned in these Taxing Matters, which I am sure reflects -- is this little joke on Taxing Matters the idea of the member for Waterloo North?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a pretty good title.

Mr. Dean: It is not bad.

It is interesting to note that one of the items recommended in there specifically in connection with the Metro Toronto situation, which is the worst in the province, is that the province should, under certain conditions outlined there, declare that it would be willing to bring in a system of grants to alleviate hardship on low-income people. That is another twist of the suggestion that was made those many years ago where, without getting into details, a large sum of money seemed to be needed to make this assessment improvement function properly.

One of the things that will come of the studies -- and maybe the information is already available somewhere -- is how much money we are talking about to make this work. I presume it is monumental.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It could be as much as one would want to dump into it.

Mr. Dean: The minister has answered the question very truthfully: "As much as one wants to dump into it." Obviously, if one were to put something like that into effect in Metro Toronto, there would be other places in the province that would be equally eligible. I am sure that all those bodies and individuals who will be responding to Taxing Matters will at some point raise the question of whether it is a good precedent for us to say we are going to bail somebody out because the municipality in which he lives happens to have an anachronistic assessment system. That is for the future.

I support section 63 as a first step towards the thorough reassessment of the province in all its parts. Having gone through the operation when I was the head of my own municipality, I know it can have its ups and downs. In most municipalities there are more on the up part than there are on the down, but one naturally hears mainly from those people who are going to be adversely affected by it.

I probably should not point this out, but it is nevertheless true that the taxpayers and the property owners who are adversely affected by a section 63 reassessment are those who have been getting a free ride or a partial free ride at the expense of the rest of the municipality and its taxpayers for some years, so there is an averaging out at this time. That argument does not sit very well with one's constituents when they come in and say, "My taxes are going to go up 50 per cent because of your stupid reassessment program," but one certainly feels like saying it sometimes. An element of fairness is brought in this way and it should be extended.

I am interested to see there is also a reference in the minister's introductory remarks to more emphasis on making it available and on encouraging it to be available on a county-wide and region-wide basis. That is also overdue and it is to be encouraged without our actually being seen to meddle as a government in the affairs of municipalities -- not any more than we ordinarily do, anyway.

There is a curious little anomaly I noticed in one of the items in the assessment section where, after the minister's general comments, he said an increase had been proposed in salaries for recruitment, This sounds as though they are going to hire more people. At the same time, in the same vote there are plans for fewer staff. I do not know how we would work this. We are going recruit people but we are going to fire them the next day perhaps? I could not quite see how we would have more salaries but fewer staff, unless he is going to hire a lot of high-powered help and get rid of some of the low-powered ones.

Still on the subject of assessment, there are some parts of Ontario where certain condominium owners have had some unfortunate results from the most recent way of calculating assessments for condominiums. The minister knows as well as I do that there was a court case on the subject which was supposed to be the definitive word on it until the legislation was changed. The legislation has not been changed. Some of those people still feel they have a legitimate grievance in that they are compared not only with other condominium residences but also with all kinds of single-family residences in the community.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That was as a result of the court case, as the member recalls.

Mr. Dean: Yes. I do not know whether anybody has put his head to this to try to figure out how we can get around that, but it seems to be unfair.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The report deals with it to some extent.

Mr. Dean: We will deal with that later, then.

In the estimates there is a small item that has a particular connection with me and maybe with some other people whose roots go back to the farming era, and that is the Province of Ontario Savings Office. It is not necessarily something with a high profile, but my family and I have been longtime users of the services of POSO. One of the reasons is that it has always given us a better deal on the things it can provide than other places have. It is not a bank and it does not pretend to be a bank, but the ones I have dealt with have been extremely well staffed, and I think the POSO should be expanded.

4:40 p.m.

I notice there is a reference in the Revenue estimates to surplus revenues being ploughed back into the provincial system. I would be interested in knowing what those surplus revenues are and also what the benefit is -- I am sure it is probably somewhere in the budget, if not here -- from the use the province makes of the funds it can borrow via POSO for general provincial expenses.

I am sure there is something very worth while cultivating there but I have also heard rumblings that some people in the past have thought that POSO itself was a very inefficient tail of the whole provincial dog and perhaps should be cut off. I hope the minister is going to consider enhancing its role rather than cutting it off, if that is the word in vogue today.

One of the items in the budget that is referred to in the opening statement is the simplification of tax measures for small corporations by abolishing the need to file an annual tax return. This sounds like a good thing but I have had a few questions from small businesses in my riding. They say it has produced a probably unintended, unpleasant surprise for some of them whose fiscal years happen to end at certain times. People who have been enjoying the tax holiday have suddenly found themselves eligible to pay some taxes they were not really counting on paying.

We can discuss that later and see whether it is a misunderstanding on their part or whether it is a machiavellian attempt to take with one hand and give with the other. The minister may wish to review that. If there is something of that nature with substance, perhaps a transitional, easing policy might be possible.

I am pleased to see that the equalization factors, according to the minister's statement, have pretty well levelled off, so people are not getting uptight about them. Just to make sure that we still have a vision, it will be a great day when we do not have to have equalization factors. Is the minister gearing towards that? He might want to give it some thought, although everybody is already equalized automatically.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That was the whole point of centralizing assessment.

Mr. Dean: The minister had his chance. Regarding the Epp report -- is that the right thing to call it or do we just call it Taxing Matters?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Either is fine.

Mr. Dean: Okay. In regard to Epp the taxing master with his Taxing Matters, just in a preliminary way without wanting to prejudge anything, I would say there are some good recommendations in it; probably not all of them are but some are. The need for a Metro task force or something similar has been well documented.

Personally, living in a reassessed municipality, I also agree that those new assessments should be updated on a regular basis. It is suggested they be done every four years. It is difficult sometimes to get municipal people to go through that agony twice, however, and so that may have to be mandated.

I shall have a few questions about the policy on renovations later. That, like some of the others, should be thoroughly vetted with the municipalities and the municipal associations before we jump off the deep end on it. The emphasis that has been made in the report on consultation with the municipal associations, especially with AMO and with individual municipalities, is excellent and I hope we get some good response from them.

Finally, the Epp report refers to the idea of getting more information out to the taxpayers to help them with appeals, to provide reasons for decisions and the other things recommended there. It should be seriously considered whether we are not just adding to the cost of paperwork and other informational expense which all too easily snowballs.

The principle is correct, and I look forward with interest to what will be developed out of the report. I know that is not strictly part of the estimates, although I expect there will be some ongoing costs for its development. With those few introductory comments, I await with interest the comments of the other members and the minister's response.

Mr. Lupusella: Before starting my comments in relation to this important ministry, I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce to the members of this Legislature some important guests from Italy who are sitting in the public gallery.

I am sure everyone here knows Mr. Laureano Leone, former President of the Italian Congress. With him are guests from Italy, Mr. Gaetano Novello, president of the Abruzzo region, along with Emilio Batillo, vice-president of the region of Abruzzo. They came to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Il Coro Lancinese. I am sure everyone has heard about this folkloristic group that has been operating within the Italian community for so many years. I hope they will enjoy their stay here in Toronto, and it was a privilege for me to introduce them to this Legislature.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order: Mr. Chairman and members of the House, I want to join my honourable colleague in welcoming Mr. Leone and Mr. Novello and our guests from Italy and say how proud I am that they are here visiting with us today.

We have just come from the office of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) where we spent the better part of 45 minutes discussing the friendly relations that Ontario has with the region of Abruzzo. We spent some time discussing the large number of Italian-Canadians living in this great city and this great province who actually have come from the region of Abruzzo. I would like to say, as my colleague has said, that we are always pleased to have visitors from Italy. In particular, I am pleased to have Mr. Novello here since I am from the region of Abruzzo.

I would also like to thank the mayor of Abbateggio, which is the small town where I was born, for sending a small gift through the honourable Mr. President, and I want to extend through this House my warmth and good feelings on having received this gift. It was something of a surprise to me, so when our friends return to Abruzzo, I hope it can be said that we have truly enjoyed their visit.

I truly enjoyed the thoughtfulness of the mayor of Abbateggio and I look forward to returning to the small village where I was born to once again greet my relatives and friends and, in particular, to personally thank the mayor.

I wish you a very good stay here in Ontario. We wish to continue our friendly relations. At this point, I must add that it is a heartfelt experience to meet so many distinguished people who continue to bring good relationships between our two provinces. Thank you once again. Safe trip home.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Lupusella: In the name of multiculturalism, I would like to say a few words too.

[Remarks in Italian]

If I may get my mind to the business of the day now, we are dealing with an important ministry which employs 4,000 people and has a budget of $680 million, if I am not mistaken. Again, the minister might correct my figures if I am wrong.

When we take into consideration those two components, we see the Ministry of Revenue is really an important one which should not be overlooked. Each item and program implemented by this minister should be considered and should attract importance to the review of his ministry.

I did not have the opportunity to convey my appreciation to the minister, who delivered his opening remarks before getting into the main core of the estimates and then said six hours had been assigned for the review of them. Again, I want to emphasize the importance of this ministry. I have been fighting to get more than six hours and I am sure that if I am the critic next year I will be able to have more time assigned to the overall review of the assessment.

I said I am not sure if I will be this ministry's critic next year because I do not know the minister's intention about pursuing the issue of amalgamation with the Ministry of Treasury and Economics or whether he is going to keep the Ministry of Revenue separate, even though in his capacity as a critic around 1980 or 1981 his views were that amalgamation of the two ministries would eventually take place.

He might correct my remarks, but I am sure the minister will have an opportunity to tell the members whether he is planning to keep that ministry separate. Is it just an assignment of that specific portfolio given to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics or is he planning to amalgamate both ministries?

Having said that, the reason I was pleased about the minister's opening remarks was particularly in relation to the principle of informing the public and members of the Legislature about innovative programs which have taken place in the ministry. The other reason I was pleased was that for the first time he tackled an important issue which is related to assessment of properties. Members of his party raised this issue several times when they were in opposition and they were concerned about it, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto.

The approach used by the former administration was to convey the message outside that they were concerned, they were studying, they were reviewing the issue of property taxes, they understood that something was wrong and maybe they were trying to make radical changes in relation to this issue; but we also saw their inability to face this particularly sensitive issue for political reasons.

Having been a member and having represented the great riding of Dovercourt for the last 10 years, I have observed that candidates running for the Conservative Party have always raised the issue of property taxes during elections, but there was no way the former administration would tackle this important issue, which affects thousands and thousands of people across the province.

I do not think this issue is the only important one. Taxation in general should be debated under this ministry. To set the tone of my criticism, it is a criticism that has been caused by the past administration and its inability to solve problems in Ontario. I am sure the new minister and the new government will have an opportunity to test their political ability to face these issues and to try to put an end to 42 years of injustices that were caused by the previous administration by making people suffer in Ontario.

I know this ministry is a very sensitive one. Nobody wants to talk about taxation. When I was the critic for the Workers' Compensation Board it was the same thing. When certain ministries or levels of government were opened up and a human touch was supposed to be implemented, there was no way the Tories would be moved to try to take into consideration the concerns coming from citizens across Ontario.

We have seen this ministry only as a collector of taxes from different sources in Ontario and from the citizens of this province. Of course, this ministry has a duty to make sure the legislation that has been enacted by this parliament will be carried out on the basis of the principle of the law enunciated within the framework of the specific legislation.

As the minister may recall, I had an opportunity to speak on the unfairness of the provincial sales tax and on how the small business community would be affected by amendments the Treasurer introduced in the last budget. My particular complaint has been that the last budget was not based on the principle of doing something for the small business community. Considering the importance of the small business community, I think the government has to do something about it.

5 p.m.

I would like to make reference to the issue of the retail sales tax assessment branch of that ministry. Recently I was contacted by several constituents from my riding and from other ridings, small businessmen who were injured working on construction sites and were faced with permanent disability awards. As a result of the board helping them to open a business, they are faced with the issue of paying retail sales tax to the government, and most of the time the assessment has been too high.

I am pleased with the minister's approach to extending the period of time for assessment appeals. With the previous administration we were faced with the principle that if people did not launch an appeal at the proper time they would be penalized in the sense that they could not appeal any longer. I think the same principle stands in relation to the principle of the assessment of properties. Last year I remember by ministerial decision the period of time to extend the assessment was postponed.

The former administration tackled this issue in a very rigid way without the human touch. A lot of people were not aware of the time within which they were supposed to launch an appeal on their assessment and were penalized because of that. The issue of a fair system of taxation should be tackled by this government and by this minister. They have to implement the general tone in which this government took office, that it should be open and more sensitive to the public and use the human touch when dealing with the problems that affect our citizens.

For example, I mentioned the issue of small businessmen in my riding, where owners have been helped by the Workers' Compensation Board to open a small business because they could not go back to the same kind of work they used to perform. They are faced with the terrible problem of assessment, which most of the time is too high. If one takes into consideration that the business may be located in a nonprofitable area, the assessment sometimes is even harder to fight because the government uses computer analysis.

That is how they compare the profits and how they compare the assessments, and the owners have to pay without taking into consideration the social condition of individuals and the location of the business, which is usually in an area where they do not make very much profit. I believe the government expects them to pay the assessment on the principle of computer analysis rather than human analysis.

I hope the minister will take some time to review this situation, to comply with the statement made by the Premier that he would like to be humane in the implementation of the law without dealing with the bureaucratic frame of mind of people who are putting legislation into effect, which is very rigid most of the time. They implement the principle of the law, but we as legislators have a duty to take into consideration the conditions of citizens of Ontario and try to help them.

There is a popular expression, "The money has to come from somewhere." Since I became the critic I have always said that the most unfair system in Ontario is in relation to property taxes. That is why the time allocation of six hours is not enough. If we want a fair and sensible debate on that issue we should spend 10 or even 15 hours trying to find solutions.

The Minister of Revenue is looking for solutions. At the moment it appears that we are at the stage of consultation in which regional municipalities are supposed to respond to a study on property assessments in Ontario. The study on assessments is the result of the sensitivity which the Liberals had before and after the last provincial election, trying to put an end to an injustice which we are all aware is there.

In the past, municipalities complained about a reduction in transfer payments from the province to the municipalities. Property assessments played a major revenue role, supplementing the money the Tories were not willing to give to the municipalities and complementing the revenue the Tories needed to comply with their unfair spending practices over the last 42 years.

The home owner has been paying the price for so many years while the Tories have been so generous with industrial grants. I would like to see a report on the recovery of those industrial grants somewhere. The Liberals have an obligation to investigate all the industrial grants given by the Conservatives in 42 years and to find out when this money is coming back into the Treasury.

In the past I had the opportunity to review entire books of these industrial grants. The amount of interest given to industries across Ontario is two per cent for the next 20 years. It was a ridiculous approach used by the Tories to help their friends and was politically motivated only. That is why they stayed in power for so long.

When is this money coming back into Treasury hands? An investigation is appropriate to find out the legality of putting out that money, where this money went and when it is going to be recovered; and to find out how much money

Ontario will lose on the recovery of these grants, based on the principle of ridiculous interest rates given to big companies across the province which are friends of the Conservatives.

5:10 p.m.

The most contentious aspect of this ministry is property taxes. Maybe I went too far in elaborating on the Conservatives. I will go back to the principle of transfer payments from the province to the municipalities. If the municipalities receive less money from the province, property taxes go up. It is a fact and it has been a fact for many years.

In different municipalities, people are calling to inquire and complain about their assessments. I can give the members assurance about that with respect to my constituents in Dovercourt. The municipal position is, "Do not complain to us; complain to the province." The province's position is, "Complain to the municipalities." The municipalities raise the level of property taxes maybe six or eight per cent every year, which eventually has nothing to do with assessments.

We cannot play games on this issue, because in this part of the House we view the individual's first home as a right, not a privilege. I think each citizen in the province should have the right to be the owner of a house; but if the first home in particular should become the basis of revenue for each municipality in Ontario, I think we are counter-reacting and defeating an important human principle, which is the right to live in and have one's own house.

It is an essential commodity. One cannot be without food, and housing is the same thing. When we understand that particular principle on a human basis, then we can also understand the principle of fair taxation on property without playing political games or playing with human beings.

I think citizens have been looking at the new government with an open mind. It has the political will to make this type of reform on taxation. We all understand the need for fair taxation on property taxes. It is time this Legislature tackled the problem, faced it and went to the citizens of this province with a formula which will take into consideration their human needs.

The minister in his opening remarks expressed his eagerness for responses from members of the Legislature and the contribution each member can give to the implementation of reforms in that area. I would like to remind the minister, not as a form of criticism, property tax reform is an important element of our cause and it should be implemented as soon as possible.

The minister agrees, the New Democratic Party agrees and I do not think I heard anything different from the Tories about what they used to do in the past. I would like to remind members again that they want to use property taxes to generate revenues for municipalities in Ontario. The old principle cannot operate any longer, and I do not think the public of this province is willing to accept this ordeal that came from the Conservatives.

Therefore, if I can make my humble contribution to this important element of property tax reform, I would like to suggest to the minister it is time a committee of the Legislature was formed or a special government white paper commission instructed to operate and come out with a comprehensive method of reform in that particular field.

The avenues open to the government are so many. I would not like to see, for example, the same approach used for this important issue as was used for the government white paper, the Weiler report on the Workers' Compensation Board, then a committee of the Legislature, then other studies to find out the feasibility of implementing the recommendations of the select committee that was formed by this government. It is an important item and we do not want to get into a situation in which, instead of approaching the issue, we prolong it and are trapped in the next provincial election in which property tax reform may be the basis of the election.

I understand the minister and the government have good intentions and they are not willing to play on that issue. Again, I think negotiation is the best way, instead of consulting in private with each municipality to find out its response to the document, Taxing Matters, which has been introduced in the Legislature. I understand that eventually the minister will table his replies to each member of this Legislature, but I would like to warn him that the municipalities have a personal interest. There is a conflict of interest in this matter, of course; they want more money coming from home owners.

When the political wind changes in Ontario and the new party in power gives less money to the municipalities in transfer payments, property tax is one item the municipalities will exploit to raise money, along with the party that will decide that an increase in the assessment is the best way to go to get more money from the citizens of this province.

It is extremely important that we not play political games with a family's first home. I would like to go a little further into this. Perhaps the second house can be a matter of investment and other situations might affect the principle of taxation, but we cannot play games with an individual's first home, which has been penalized for so many years. A lot of people do not have the financial status to buy a new home, and yet there is a section of the Assessment Act that penalizes them if they make renovations.

This great province is becoming the province of taxation and nothing else. Consider a poor family with an income of $12,000 faced with property tax assessments all the time, as used to be the case under the Tories. In my riding in 1981 the assessors of the Ministry of Revenue went out because of the unbalanced market for housing. Prices were jumping; they were skyrocketing. Housing prices of $200,000 around Bloor and Dufferin alerted the assessors of the Ministry of Revenue. They said: "What the hell is going on? We are losing a golden opportunity to raise money from homes."

That is why we have to understand the principle that the first home should be respected as a right and not as a way for people to raise money. Especially if they have a family and children to raise, they need the human and essential privilege of having a first home.

5:20 p.m.

Maybe the former Minister of Revenue was trying to catch the people who were abusing the market -- the speculators and so on -- and poor people were trapped in the middle of this crazy game that took place in 1981. Now, of course, the market value of the same home in the same area has gone down, but I do not see assessors going out and reassessing the properties of these people. I am sure the same assessment that prevailed in 1981 is still on, yet the price of housing has gone down.

I do not understand it. We raised an issue in this Legislature and I am going to deal with the issue we raised. The Conservatives made a political decision that market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto was not supposed to be implemented. A sensitive decision was too controversial. Market value assessment made sense, for example, outside Metropolitan Toronto in other municipalities where the value of the properties is not extremely high.

The market value assessment issue makes sense because the assessment goes down, but in Metropolitan Toronto there is the adverse effect of assessment going up and people are making renovations. When the real estate market goes bizarre, the assessors move out like mandarins. That is what the former Minister of Revenue did in 1981. He tackled the poor people in my riding; he tackled the Riverdale riding. The citizens of the borough of York are paying exorbitant property taxes because of the inequities of the system.

That ministry is wasting time assessing and reassessing. I wonder why $680 million is spent when we can find a wise and sensible solution to this problem, which is more equitable and which eventually ends up saving millions of dollars for that ministry.

By the way, I never understood from the briefing material what the unclassified staff is all about. Maybe the minister can give me an answer. The very people who were hired by the former administration during the last provincial election are people who have been hired by the new administration.

The citizens of Ontario are looking for reforms. I would like to convey to the minister my appreciation for his open mind on different subjects affecting this ministry. I am sure something will come out as a result of the change of government, but I think timing should be an issue to finalize all those concerns.

On the issue of assessment on property taxes, the people are waiting for the renovation issue to be dealt with as soon as possible. Does it make sense, for example, to penalize handicapped people because individuals are willing to adjust their own property because of a physical disability?

In the last provincial election I had an opportunity to see some of the people who had been over-reassessed. They were living in their house while renovations took place to adjust for a handicapped child, to build an extra room on the main floor because the child could not go to the second floor to sleep. People such as those have been penalized.

When we are talking about a human touch, it is offensive to see what this ministry is doing on this issue of assessment of property taxes. It is insensitive. I do not know why the former administration did not tackle the issue. It had been playing games with the citizens of this province. It was willing to accept the principle of market value assessment because taxes outside of Metropolitan Toronto did not go up. It was politically attractive to the citizens of this province; but in Metropolitan Toronto the political inability to deal with the issue created human, social and financial problems.

For example, injured workers and senior citizens who do not have children to send to school are supposed to carry the burden of education costs in Ontario. This is the only jurisdiction that is taxing people for each service they get from the government. Education and housing must be viewed as important human rights and not used simply to get money from people.

The minister is giving a $500 rebate to the senior citizens of this province, but they are supposed to contribute to the education costs to keep education alive. The cost of education should be carried by all citizens of this province and not just by home owners. It is time that we dealt with the important matters affecting people in Ontario even though they may not be popular with certain groups in our society. We have to recognize the unfairness of the system and try to make changes in a province that has been so stubborn with tradition to keep the status quo, because the status quo was a guarantee to keep the same party alive in Ontario.

The cost of education should be shared by everybody. Why not? Why only by the home owners? Why by the individual who got married and is faced with the prospect of having children and being penalized with the assessment and the education cost? At a certain point someone might say, "Where do you get all of this money?"

I would like to see where the industrial grants are going and what they are serving. The previous administration talked about strengthening the industries in Ontario by providing them with these grants. Let us compare how much money they are getting and how many financial loopholes they have to not pay taxes. Let us see how much the people of this province are paying in taxes and let us balance everything.

I am sure the regular citizens of this province are penalized more; and on what? On important issues affecting the nature of the people, housing and education. It is unbelievable.

5:30 p.m.

Again, education is to come from property taxes. It is a cost which is not shared by everybody in Ontario. For example, why are property taxes not tied to the principle of whether a person can afford to pay property taxes? When one agglomerates spending for food, the portion of money which goes to the municipality, education costs and so on, and the income is in the range of $10,000, I do not know what is left for the education of children in Ontario. They are paying for education, but I do not know what quality of education the people of this province can provide for their children. There is a need to move in this area as quickly as possible.

The Minister of Revenue must arrive at an acceptable position for members of this Legislature, rather than consulting only the regional municipalities about what they think. As part of the consultative approach used by the government, of course they should be asked, The best approach would be to form a committee of the Legislature as soon as possible to tackle this important matter.

Three or four weeks ago I wrote a letter to a municipality in Metropolitan Toronto. There were constituents outside of my riding complaining about a sidewalk being in such terrible condition they could not use the driveways to park their cars on their own properties. I wrote a letter to the mayor and the alderman to the effect that these people were facing financial problems even fixing their cars, and the mayor wrote me saying, "Why do you not complain to the Treasurer? The province is not giving us enough money to repave the sidewalk."

We cannot play this dumb game. The municipalities should provide the services. They are looking for more money, and sometimes we use the paternalistic approach in this Legislature. We believe in the independence of each municipality, but the interests of the citizens of the province are not taken into consideration because of this motherhood approach used by several MPPs, making a pitch in the Legislature on behalf of municipalities.

By the way, I did not raise my salary by 19 per cent as some aldermen did. Where do those salaries come from? They come from individual home owners. The aldermen in Ontario should be paid by the province. Why not? Why are home owners supposed to subsidize their salaries? There are important issues some people do not want to tackle because they are not politically sensitive. In the name of people who have homes and are supposed to pay taxes -- and it is right they pay taxes, but nobody is taking their beefs when they do not get even the important services. I have nothing against municipalities, but if we want to tackle this issue we also have to tackle the ramifications and be willing to pinpoint where the problems are.

I would like to leave this grave area of taxation. I know the present Minister of Revenue was an important element in the past in criticizing the Province of Ontario Savings Office. Now he is in a position where he can make changes. I think the POSO can play a different role, if I may use the approach used by the minister when he used to be in the opposition, from the role it plays at present.

I would like to remind the minister that in Alberta, for example, the POSO makes money. It is a very profitable institution because the government was willing to expand the operation, to give loans to people and make profits as well. Am I wrong?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We do not make loans, except to the Treasurer.

Mr. Lupusella: At present we do not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The savings office gives all its money to the Treasurer, with one per cent profit.

Mr. Lupusella: To the Treasurer, at present. The minister will have an opportunity to find some money that otherwise he has to go elsewhere to borrow. This innovative approach, which was a component of his criticism in the past, should be easily implemented at present.

I hope I am not boring members. As I stated in my opening remarks, this is a very important ministry, with 4,000 employees falling under the minister's jurisdiction and a budget of $680 million. Am I correct on that budget?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, right on.

Mr. Lupusella: Dead on. I would like to refresh the minister's mind about a Liberal communiqué dated April 27, 1985, headed, Liberals Promote a Fair Property Tax Assessment Process. Taxing Matters has been the product of that concern, and I think I was right to convey my appreciation to the minister and to the Liberals for at least having the decency to tackle this problem before the last provincial election.

They were sensitive as well. In their communiqué they heard from a taxpayer in York whose assessment was raised 115 per cent by Queen's Park in 1982. I would like to refresh the minister's memory so that he knows how important it is how people are feeling about this problem. He had a vivid approach when the task force met with the same people. He has an obligation to deliver to those who were not then and have still not been able to receive adequate information on how the increase was calculated.

The task force received petitions such as the one from 31 taxpayers in Sault Ste. Marie who indicated that Queen's Park had increased their assessments without even having bothered to inspect their properties. They heard from two neighbours in the east end of Toronto who both sold their houses in the same year. While one sold for $37,000 more than the other, Queen's Park had assessed the lower-priced house at 55 per cent higher than the higher-priced house. They heard from hundreds of home owners who said they were denied information from Queen's Park on the calculation of assessment increases on their homes. They could not understand why as income tax payers this information was sent to them but as property tax payers it was denied to them.

5:40 p.m.

I can read into the record the whole communiqué. I understand and that is why I am not willing to read the full comments. I am sure I will have other opportunities to use that material. The Toronto Star published a nice article on the task force formed by the Liberal Party before the last provincial election to look at the issue of property taxes. They have credibility because of the work they did, and now they are in the position of delivering what they discovered in the course of the visits they made across Ontario.

It disturbs me that the government is aware of the inequities of the system, but when we raised the issue on July 4, 1985, and asked the minister if he was willing to roll back all the assessments which had been increased in 1981 and 1982 because of a court decision, I did not see any move from the minister to try to adjust the situation. The only way to protect home owners from unfair property tax assessment was supposed to be taken by the government, based on the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which was released on July 3, 1985.

The Ontario Municipal Board found, in the case of Toronto reassessments, that provincial tax assessors had unfairly assessed homes by confusing repairs with improvements and by using the assessment had brought in market value assessments through the back door. This ruling is a clear recognition of unfairness that must be ended by the new government. To ensure future reassessments are fair and equitable, we call on the present minister to instinct assessors to change their methods to comply with the crucial board ruling.

The minister will recall I made two proposals which, because of the goodwill of the minister, will be part of the contents of the study which eventually will be done -- I do not know when. He was very sensitive to take into consideration the two proposals I made. The first was that no reassessment for repairs or renovations would take effect until the home ceased to be owner occupied or was sold.

Number two was that the reassessments made since 1981 would be rolled back and would be covered retroactively by the moratorium outlined above. These were two sensitive positions given on July 4, 1985, for the minister to implement at the time. Again I want to emphasize that he has good intentions, but I do not know when his goodwill will be shown in legislative changes which will comply with radical policies affecting the citizens of this province.

We are giving the new government an opportunity to act. I understand that changes cannot come at once. There is a consultation process which has to take place. But the consultation process can be combined with the legislative action of a committee of the Legislature which should be set up immediately to take into consideration the widespread concern about the unfairness of property taxes.

If the minister goes back to August 27, 1985, there was an article in the Toronto Star headlined, "Ontario Promises Property Tax Reform," and the Liberals are again talking about that issue. "Property Tax Storm Is About to Break." Again, this goes back to September 1, 1985. The Globe and Mail said on September 16, 1985, "Worried Liberals Hold Hot Potato in Tax Reform Plan."

I understand the sensitivity of the issue, but the one thing that is clear to everybody is that we are faced with an unfair system of taxing thousands of people in Ontario. I do not think political opportunism should prevail in trying to hold something that we know for a fact is completely wrong. The Liberals should move in a very sensitive way to implement something with which everyone is concerned in Ontario.

I do not want to talk about the analysis of property taxes, which goes back to the former Minister of Revenue in 1980 and 1981. The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), if I am not mistaken, was the main political game-player among the Tories in relation to this issue, in a game that taxed the seniors, poor people and people with low incomes in Ontario.

Again on October 1, 1985, another article said, "One-Man Ontario Task Force Seeks Property Tax Reform." Again that comes from the Liberals. They got good publicity in relation to this issue. On October 25, 1985, the Star said, "Condo Owners Big Losers in the Tax Ruling."

The minister had an opportunity to hear the problem affecting tenants in high-rises and condominiums, how they are affected by this issue, and my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) illustrated a portion of the problem affecting condominium owners, especially in Metropolitan Toronto.

On November 1, 1985, there is another article in the Toronto Star, "At Long Last-A Break on Property Tax Front." The publicity is good, but again it is now proper to call for political action.

I have another two hours of opening remarks.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have four left.

Mr. Lupusella: I do not know whether the Conservative member is willing to extend the six hours allocated to this ministry to more than that.

Mr. Dean: I suggest the member shorten his remarks.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, with $680 million in this ministry, I feel a little reluctant to pass all the votes without comment. I think the six hours allocated to this ministry are unfair.

Again, we can go back to the assessment amendment legislation, which the minister introduced on November 8, 1985. The minister introduced for first reading An Act to amend the Assessment Act, and I think he also asked the members of this Legislature to pass this act immediately, or as soon as possible, or market value assessment would take place in Metropolitan Toronto. This act has been introduced each year since 1970 and we are in 1985.

I have been the critic for the Workers' Compensation Board for eight years and each time injured workers were to get an increase they were supposed to wait until July 1 of each year. It appears that to try to stop this market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto, we are supposed to deal with an amendment to the Assessment Act every year. It would be reasonable to tackle the issue all at once and try to put an end to this unfair system that has been going on for years.

The municipalities are resisting reforms. The minister has an opportunity to find out the position taken by Metropolitan Toronto in relation to market value assessment. The study urges market value assessment because, as I stated before, it makes sense in some regions of the province whereas in Metropolitan Toronto it is causing problems that must be corrected by other legislative means.

Metropolitan Toronto has formed its own task force to study the issue. There are so many studies going on. Again, I want to emphasize the position we are in now. We need action by the Legislature to try to reform the old system and find a reasonable solution to the issue of reform of property taxes.

In relation to the recommendations contained in Taxing Matters: An Assessment of Property Taxation in Ontario, we have to recognize some of the recommendations contained in the Goyette task-force report on property assessment reform in Ontario. There are 53 specific recommendations in this report, which is like a blueprint for the comprehensive reform of Ontario property assessment and the taxation system. Whenever the government decides to form a committee of the Legislature, will the minister give it a mandate to open up the discussion of this matter a little bit more without limiting the discussion to just the 53 specific recommendations of the report?

The majority of the recommendations do not need the legislation. It is like improving the system within the system. It is something that can easily be done even though some of the recommendations related to the administrative process or improvement of the system should be debated as well because they will cause some problems to interested groups.

Recommendations 50 and 52 propose the framework and timetable for the comprehensive updating of the Metropolitan Toronto property tax system. That is where the debate has to take place. I understand that at present the government is consulting regional municipalities to find out what kind of position they take.

I would like to warn the minister and all who have been part of this comprehensive study that when there is conflict of interest over the money the municipality needs from home owners in Ontario of course they should be consulted, but the consultation should fall into the widespread principle of the study, which has to be pursued by a committee of the Legislature to find out the pros and cons of their position.

It is something that is affected and I think their position is politically motivated. Their position should comply with the will of the voters as well. Each municipality has to meet the voters every three years. Responding to what can be politically attractive will not solve the problem on that issue of reforms because everyone will play political games.

If the minister wants to review all the recommendations, I think 50 and 52 must be deeply explored by a committee of the Legislature in relation to the issue of the Metropolitan Toronto property tax system. I would be interested to find out what the municipalities have to say on the issue of market value assessment which has been in place now for years in different parts of different regions of the province.

I mentioned to the minister the responsibility of the Ministry of Revenue for the 21 branches of the Province of Ontario Savings Office. Over the years the present minister has discussed with some criticism the inability of the former administration to expand the operation of the POSO into a more active provincial savings and lending institution rather than it serving only as a low-profile savings institution.

As I stated before, now he is the man in power and he can make changes, along with the responsibilities the Ministry of Revenue carries. When we tackled that ministry, we saw that ministry as a way to collect money and be ready for the next budget. The implementation of the Agricultural Development Finance Act, which falls under the jurisdiction of the ministry, the Assessment Act and the City of Toronto 1981 Assessment Complaints Act, the Corporations Tax Act --

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I would like to draw the member's attention to the clock.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.