Hansard Transcript 1985-Nov-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that on Friday last I received the resignation of Frank S. Miller, Esq., member for the electoral district of Muskoka, as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

I therefore recognize Larry Grossman, QC, member for the electoral district of St. Andrew-St. Patrick, as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Last Thursday representatives from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Wellington County Board of Education met in Toronto to try to negotiate an end to the teachers' strike in Wellington county.

During those talks, the parties met with the mediator in that dispute and the chief executive officer of the Education Relations Commission. The chairman of the ERC was in Toronto and was prepared to attend the meetings if any progress was made in the course of the negotiations. I was also prepared to meet with the parties if any advance was made towards a settlement. Unhappily, no such progress was made in the talks and the meeting was recessed on Thursday night.

In the course of this dispute, I have consistently followed the procedures of Bill 100 and have sought the direction of the Education Relations Commission. Late Friday the commission delivered an advisement to me regarding the Wellington dispute. The advisement reads in part:

"We wish to stress that each dispute must be viewed in the context of its own particular facts and that we are not making a finding that a sanction of any particular duration necessarily justifies a conclusion such as the one we have reached in the instant matter.

"In summary, however, it is our opinion that the continuance of the strike with no reasonable prospect for a negotiated settlement will place in jeopardy the successful completion of courses of study of the students in Wellington county."

This government, too, is greatly concerned with the education of students in Wellington county and is therefore introducing legislation today to end that strike. Our legislation, however, differs in an important respect from past legislation dealing with strikes and lockouts in Ontario education.

As I have explained to the House on other occasions, I believe the best outcome is one that the parties jointly negotiate. Unfortunately, although intense efforts have been made to settle this dispute, a locally negotiated settlement has not been achieved.

This is indeed unfortunate because a fair proposal for settling the dispute was placed before the parties in Wellington county by the mediator. If the parties in Wellington had accepted the mediator's proposal, as was done recently by the parties in a similar dispute in Grey county, the strike in Wellington could have ended two weeks ago.

I have been informed by the Education Relations Commission that the mediator's proposal for Wellington is close to what would have occurred in the way of a settlement had the parties negotiated their own agreement. I have been assured as well that the proposal is a fair one and one that is not unreasonable when compared to other teacher-board collective agreements. It is interesting to note, for example, that the mediator's proposal for Wellington county is very close to the mediator's proposal that was accepted and ratified by the two parties in Grey county last week.

We as a government are disappointed that the parties were not able to negotiate their own agreement in Wellington county, although it was well within their power to do so. Accordingly, we have not provided for compulsory arbitration as the method of dispute resolution in this legislation. Instead, we have adopted the terms of settlement proposed by the mediator two weeks ago. I would again stress that, according to the Education Relations Commission, these terms would have been the approximate settlement had the strike run its course. They are fair and reasonable terms.

This is not the best solution, legislation in these situations never is; but it appears to be the best and fairest solution under the circumstances. It sends out a signal to other negotiators in this province that they should resolve their disputes through local negotiation and mediation. It saves the taxpayers of Ontario the additional expense that would arise from arbitration in this dispute, which has already lasted far too long.

By following this process, the teachers and the board now know what their collective agreement is to be and they will not be forced to go through an acrimonious, lengthy and costly arbitration process. Finally, it adopts the terms that were recommended by an individual who is not only neutral but who has also spent more than 300 hours with the parties. Through that process he has come to know the issues and the parties' positions thoroughly.

Earlier today I met with representatives of both parties in the Wellington dispute. I have informed them of the government's intention to end the dispute through legislation based on the mediator's proposal.

I have also informed both parties in Wellington that this legislation, to be introduced later this afternoon, will not be called for third reading before tomorrow night. Therefore, the parties still have time to settle this dispute themselves. I am hopeful they will; but let there be no mistake about it, this government will proceed with the legislation if they do not.

We are concerned about the students in Wellington county and about their future. I have therefore asked my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) to intercede on behalf of the students from Wellington county who may be applying to college or university so that no student will be unfairly disadvantaged as a result of this strike.

2:10 p.m.

Recognizing that this dispute may have left behind unresolved tensions, I have also asked the Education Relations Commission to assist the Wellington County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers in improving their ongoing working relationship.

In the meantime, when classes resume in Wellington county secondary schools, I expect both the board and the teachers to co-operate fully in the students' best interests to make up the instructional time lost during this dispute.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact I am so concerned with the strike in Wellington, I would ask the minister to please send me a copy of the statement.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Elston: A few weeks ago I informed the members of this House that one of the issues on which our government is determined to move and to move quickly is the need to improve health care services for the people of northern Ontario. This is an issue on which a number of promises were made by the previous government over the past several years. It is one on which the Peterson government will now act.

We all recognize that people who live in northern Ontario are often required to take long and expensive journeys in order to receive specialized medical care. This has been a fact of life in the north that has continued far too long. When our Liberal government was elected last spring we made it a priority that we would change this situation.

Northerners are entitled to the same medical care as other residents of the province. I am committed to ensuring that neither they nor their children will ever have to forgo treatment because of financial concerns. After a series of very helpful meetings with specialists, general practitioners and hospital administrators in five northern centres last month, we have decided to proceed on two fronts.

I want to acknowledge the contribution made by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), who laboured long on behalf of this government in the formation of the policy. As well, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the 15 members who come from ridings considered to be in northern Ontario. The contribution of those members likewise was extremely helpful in formulating this policy.

Our first initiative is the introduction of the northern health travel grant, which will start next Sunday, December 1. This program is expected to cost approximately $3 million for the remainder of this fiscal year, $10 million next year and just over $13 million each year thereafter. Under this program, residents living north of the French River who must travel significant distances to receive medically necessary care will be able to qualify for financial support.

The northern health travel grant program will provide financial assistance towards the transportation costs of northerners who must travel more than 300 kilometres one way from their place of residence to receive medical specialist or hospital services in Ontario or Manitoba. For those in the Legislative Assembly, I would like to indicate at this time that Manitoba is included because of the close relationship the areas around Kenora have to that medical centre in Manitoba.

The grants will range from $125 to $350 for each return trip and will be based on the distance travelled to the closest appropriate medical specialist as determined by the referring physician. For example, from Kapuskasing to Sudbury, the grant would be $150; from Thunder Bay to Toronto, it would be $300. We fully expect in the great majority of cases these grants will cover all or almost all travel costs for eligible patients. If the patient is under 18 years of age, a grant may also be provided for an adult relative or guardian to accompany the patient.

If the patient is transported one way by ambulance, he or she will be eligible for a 50 per cent travel grant since the ambulance journey already is an insured service under the Ontario health insurance plan. If the specialist determines that future visits are necessary, these repeat trips will be eligible for the same level of grant.

During the next several days, general practitioners and specialists across northern Ontario will receive an information package and a supply of application forms for the northern health travel grant program. The patient being referred for specialist services will be required to have the application form completed by both the referring physician and the attending specialist. The patient will then complete the application and forward it to the Ministry of Health for reimbursement.

Based on discussions with northern physicians, it is my expectation that many of the grants paid under this program will be for travel within the north. This initiative should therefore help to strengthen local referral patterns. I believe the northern health travel grants will improve the level of health care available to the residents of northern Ontario and make the services of medical specialists more readily available to a greater number of people.

We have another basic objective, namely, to make northern Ontario as medically self-sufficient as possible. To do this, we plan to increase the availability and accessibility of medical specialist services throughout the north. Therefore, I am also announcing today the establishment of our second northern health care initiative, the medical specialist incentive program.

Under this plan, medical specialists will be encouraged to establish practices in northern Ontario communities. Financial incentives of up to $40,000, payable over four years, will be provided to these physicians to help them set up their offices and get their practices under way. Our aim is to establish 50 new specialist practices across the north in the next several years.

Once their practices are under way, the specialists will be encouraged to develop outreach programs to visit smaller communities in surrounding areas. The medical specialist incentive program will provide allowances towards the costs of travel, accommodation and the loss of professional time while making these community visits. These allowances will be available to specialists already working in the north as well as those who will be moving there as a result of this new program.

Capital and operating funds will also be made available to help equip facilities that the specialists will need during their visits to the smaller communities. We are projecting that these medical specialist incentives will cost a total of $6.7 million over the next four years.

In order to determine the types of additional medical specialties now required in the north, where specialists should be located and the patient referral patterns that might be developed to improve access to care, we will establish committees to advise me on all these matters.

Northern specialists, general practitioners and the hospitals have all been involved in the design and development of these two programs. They will continue to play key roles as these programs are now implemented.

In addition to these new northern programs, I am also announcing that $2.5 million has just been approved by my ministry for perinatal services at four northern hospitals. Perinatal units give specialized care to high-risk pregnant women, including women in premature labour, and high-risk newborn infants. A capital grant of just over $1.5 million will go to Sudbury General hospital to accommodate an expanded perinatal unit on its obstetrical floor.

The ministry is also making available more than $1 million to cover the operating costs of specialized perinatal services in three other hospitals. The General Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie will receive $318,000; the General Hospital of Port Arthur in Thunder Bay, $362,000; and St. Joseph's General Hospital in North Bay, $352,000. These hospitals are now operating ministry-approved perinatal units. The funds announced today will enable the hospitals to establish their programs on a firm financial footing.

Sudbury General hospital will also get a capital grant of $313,000 from the ministry to build an elevated helipad. The hospital is now a major trauma referral central for the Sudbury region. The new helipad will speed up the transfer of emergency patients directly into the hospital's emergency department. Construction of the helipad will begin immediately.

I am confident each of these programs -- the northern health travel grants, the medical specialist incentives, the additional funding for the perinatal services and the new helipad in Sudbury -- will greatly benefit people living in the north. This government is firmly committed to providing the best health care possible to every resident of the province. Northern Ontarians deserve no less.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it in order for the minister to announce as a new program something that this government has been funding since June 1985?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest the question period will commence shortly. That is not a point of order.

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today that we have reached a memorandum of agreement among the parties involved in the mediation talks regarding the discharge of mercury into the English-Wabigoon river system. The agreement, achieved with the full co-operation of the parties, including Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd., Reed Inc. and the Islington and Grassy Narrows bands, calls for payments totalling $16,667,000 to the bands involved.

The breakdown is as follows: Ontario will contribute $2,167,000, Great Lakes will contribute $6 million, Reed will contribute $5.75 million and the federal government will contribute $2.75 million.

Of these moneys, $2 million will be used to capitalize a mercury disability fund which will be administered so band members are eligible to receive compensation if they demonstrate both exposure to mercury and symptoms consistent with mercury contamination. In the event that $2 million is not sufficient to capitalize the fund, which I doubt, and more money is needed to facilitate the ultimate resolution of these matters, Ontario has agreed to be responsible for topping up the fund.

The monetary contributions by the parties and the establishment of a mercury disability fund swill provide some of the resources the Indian communities require to take control of their futures successfully. The bands will each receive approximately $7 million for their own use, the majority of which I understand will be put towards social and economic projects which we hope will greatly further the efforts these bands are making towards restoring a sense of control over their own destiny.

We hope this agreement, when fully implemented, will begin to heal the cultural and social wounds that these communities have endured over many years. Members of this Legislature are aware that this has been a long and tortuous process. It was clear to me from the positions taken by the parties to these negotiations that innovative and creative solutions were required. To that extent, I would like to acknowledge the key role played by Peter Jacobsen of the Ministry of the Attorney General over the past several months. He was instrumental in assisting the parties to reach an equitable settlement, and he is with us today in the members' gallery.

To implement the settlement of these issues, both Ontario and the federal government will be enacting whatever legislation is necessary and within their respective legislative jurisdictions to give effect to the memorandum of agreement.

We cannot expect the native people to be convinced of our compassion and goodwill as a result of a single memorandum of agreement. Rather, we must hope that this agreement, in spite of the time it has taken, will be viewed as a positive step towards achieving a spirit of trust and co-operation among the governments, the native people and corporate business interests.

In my opinion, this is a watershed agreement. I am delighted this government has apparently been successful in helping to bring a measure of justice to those most affected by this tragedy. As Anastasia Shkilnyk said in her book, A Poison Stronger Than Love, we must never forget that our own survival depends upon restoring a sense of mutual responsibility for one another and ultimately for the fate of the earth.

REPORT ON WAGE PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is my pleasure to take this opportunity to make public the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Wage Protection in Insolvency Situations.

As honourable members will know, in recent years the whole question of an employee's capacity to recover wages owing to him or her when an employer becomes insolvent has been a difficult one. In a number of cases, once such secured creditors and bankers and suppliers have been paid there has not been enough money left to satisfy the legitimate wage claims of employees. More to the point, the only recourse in these situations has been through legal action. That remedy has proved to be expensive, time-consuming and ineffective.

Against that background, in June 1983 a commission of inquiry was established to examine the situation and to make recommendations to provide for greater equity for employees. Donald J. M. Brown, QC, was appointed sole commissioner.

In his report, Mr. Brown concludes that ideally the federal government should accept its primary responsibility for legislation relating to wage protection in insolvency situations. He notes, however, that unless and until the federal government acts, the province does have legislative authority to provide wage protection. It is the intention of this government to fill this legislative vacuum.

Mr. Brown recommends that actual wage arrears, vacation pay and some benefits be protected by amendment to the Employment Standards Act. These amendments would guarantee wages through a combination of three approaches: creating a trust, establishing a fund and applying personal liability to employers.

Upon an employee commencing employment, an employer would be deemed to hold three pay periods of wages in trust for the employee. This trust would be modelled on the existing Employment Standards Act section, which the courts have upheld as an effective means of protecting vacation pay. A security would be created that would attach to all except fixed assets to ensure the trust.

Mr. Brown also recommends that employers, including officers and directors, be made personally liable for wages. This liability would be enforced through quick action by the director of employment standards in which 150 per cent of unpaid wages would be recoverable. The creation of liability for 50 per cent more than actual wages owed would serve as a deterrent as well as a penalty and partial funding source for the third of Mr. Brown's approaches: an unpaid wages fund.

This fund would be established to ensure that no employees lose wages even where no assets are available. The fund would be administered by the director of employment standards and paid for out of the consolidated revenue fund or by increasing fees for nonconsumer security registrations. The limits to claims from such a fund would be one year's vacation pay and three pay periods of wages.

The Brown report brings together for the first time the complex legal and financial aspects of wage protection into one coherent explanation. It is a first-rate effort, and I would like to thank Mr. Brown publicly for it.

I would like to tell honourable members that my ministry will be undertaking immediately a thorough analysis of its recommendations with a view to taking early and appropriate action. Through federal legislation, provincial legislation or a combination of the two it is my intention to ensure that this important area of public policy is addressed effectively and to the benefit of the working men and women of Ontario.

2:30 p.m.

GREY CUP GAME

Hon. Ms. Munro: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: A vital component of this province's cultural heritage was on display across this country on Sunday afternoon. I am speaking, of course, of Hamilton's beloved Tiger-Cats and the 1985 Grey Cup game. I know all honourable members will join me in extending best wishes to my home-town team for a battle well fought.

As a fitting wager for the Grey Cup game, I had been thinking of asking the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) to put his vocal skills on the line with those of Premier Bennett of British Columbia. However, because of the results of the honourable member's last wager, I decided discretion would be the better part of valour.

Finally, as part of all honourable members' cultural education, I hope they will join with me in shouting these words with conviction as an entrée for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats entering the Grey Cup 1986 foray. Are they ready? Oskee Wee Wee; Oskee Wa Wa. Holy Mackinaw; Tigers, eat `em raw. Yeah.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain whether that is a point of personal privilege. However, it might be classed as a demonstration.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier that addresses the government's competence in dealing with the teachers' dispute, which it has finally decided has gone on too long.

The members on this side concluded some time ago that the strike had gone on too long. One cannot resist reflecting on the fact that only on Friday afternoon did the government become convinced it had gone on too long, just short hours after this party, led by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), had brought that circumstance to its attention.

Having scored that victory on the government and having finally prodded it into action, I should like to hear from the Premier how many times he has spoken to the chairman of the Wellington County Board of Education since September 30.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Once.

Mr. Grossman: We have spoken to the chairman of that board, who has told us it was on September 30 that the Premier spoke to him. Subsequent to that time, the chairman of the board, by his recollection, has called the Premier on at least six occasions. He has been trying to make the point, as he has made it in written communications to the Education Relations Commission as long ago as November 1 and November 12, that the school year was in jeopardy -- I will wait until the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) has finished telling the Premier what to say.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: He has been trying to tell the Premier since November 1, when he informed the ERC, that the school year was in jeopardy for those students. He was begging to be heard by the Premier, not by his minister, who only spoke to him a week ago.

There is this open government. I read in the paper that anyone can call the Premier's office and he will see anyone and that there are no walls or barriers around his administration. Can the Premier explain to this House why in that period of time he did not have the time to receive and take a phone call on six occasions from September 30 until last week, when he decided to legislate them back to work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, the minister talked to him on two or three occasions. Second, I do not interfere in labour negotiations.

Mr. Grossman: Just for the record, let me clarify the information the Minister of Education is whispering to the Premier. He spoke to them twice. The first time he spoke to the chairman of the board was one week ago. That addresses the competence of this government in looking after this matter.

Now the Premier has responded by indicating he does not get involved in labour matters. Let me remind him that the last time we were faced with a crucial circumstance was a year ago. It was November 1, 1984, when the community colleges were out on strike.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: After the second day of the strike, the now Premier concluded that courses were in jeopardy and it was time for the Legislature to send the community college teachers back to work.

I want to say this to the Premier and ask him --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Have you a supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, I have a supplementary. It relies upon this quote from the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier:

"It is our belief that this strike needs the minister's personal intervention, and that is something she can do in these circumstances. As she will modestly recall, she personally has been instrumental in solving strikes in the past. Given the spirit of leadership she has demonstrated in the past, will she get involved in this?"

May I ask the Premier how he reconciles the position he took a year ago with the statement he made a minute ago that he does not get involved in teachers' disputes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is interesting that the honourable member quotes his absent colleague on this matter. How are the two of them getting along these days? It would be interesting to know that.

With respect to the member's question, he will recall the former government let the Sudbury strike go on for 56 days. There is a procedure to be followed in these matters. It is all laid out in the statute, and that is exactly what we followed. The Education Relations Commission made a finding of jeopardy on Friday last, and we have moved today.

I remind my honourable colleague that it is not up to one of the interested parties, that is, the chairman of the board, to determine jeopardy. It is the responsibility of the objective group that the member's party brought in by legislation, called the ERC.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Grossman: May I see if we can get the Premier to answer just one question this afternoon, since he did not answer the last one?

The Premier may be aware, again on the question of competence and consultation, that many small bus companies now are facing bankruptcy because of the skyrocketing insurance costs they are facing. To cite one example, Charlie Lewis, a small businessman in St. Thomas, has found that he has a $17,000 insurance increase for one bus alone.

The Ontario Motor Coach Association wrote to the Premier on September 18 on this issue. Given all the Premier's talk about open government and consultation, and given the history we saw when it came to the Wellington County Board of Education and his inability and unwillingness to return phone calls to the chairman of that board, can he explain this afternoon why the letter written to him by that association on September 18 has gone unanswered? Will he give us a commitment today to take a moment out of his time to meet with that group?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In answer to the question and to the competence of the opposition, if it wants to run messages into this House with respect to my unanswered mail -- and I get hundreds and thousands of letters a week -- I am delighted; that is a constructive way to use the opposition. I get lots of other letters. If the honourable member has any I did not respond to, let him please bring them forward in this House and we will deal with them in this way.

Is he asking me if I am going to answer my mail, if I am going to meet with them or if I am going to deal with the insurance question? I can assure the member opposite that if he would like to join my staff and arrange meetings on my behalf, I would be delighted to have him. I would be very happy to meet with anybody he would like me to meet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Sometimes we have difficulty hearing what the Premier is proposing, in the middle of those long answers; whether he ever says yes or no. Just so he may help us, the Premier has refused to give adequate and real hearings to the farmers on the spills bill, the pharmacists, and now the Ontario Motor Coach Association. Is the Premier saying this afternoon that, having ignored and neglected all these groups, he is now willing to meet with them -- the Premier, not his ministers -- as soon as they call him?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind, but that is a silly question and the answer is no. The question was would I meet with them when they call; and the answer is no. What I am prepared to say is, interestingly enough, as I travel about this province to meet with groups they talk about how all the ministers have been accessible; all of them have met with various groups. There is a large group of people here involved in constant ongoing dialogue with all of these groups and we will continue in that mode to be an open government; unlike as in the past.

Mr. Rae: I would have thought the question would not be why does the Premier not answer his mail and his phone calls, but with respect to the insurance industry today, in which people face a number of problems. The Premier must be aware of them.

What is he going to do to ensure that small companies and small businesses have access to insurance in this province at a decently affordable rate? What is he going to do to make sure that happens so that people will not be driving around without insurance and be driven out of business because they cannot get insurance?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member for York South asked a very good question because there is a real problem. I want to congratulate him for his perspicacity in asking that penetrating question.

There is a problem with insurance right across this country, right across North America today, as he is aware. As a result of some of the environmental disasters, such as Bhopal and others, there are reinsurance companies who are reassessing their position in the market today. It is making things more difficult. Members will be aware of the federal insurance company that was taken over last week by the federal government. Again, there is a concern in that area. I can assure the member that the minister responsible has been meeting regularly with the industry, as well as the reinsurance industry, to solve those problems for Ontario companies and citizens. We think we are coming close to a solution.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has indicated the answer is no, he will not meet with the pharmacy groups, the Ontario Motor Coach Association and the farmers. May I ask the Premier a very simple question? Will he agree to meet with those groups if they join the Liberal Economic Advisory Forum?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You may want to go back and check Hansard, Mr. Speaker, but the honourable member asked me if I would meet with people as soon as they wrote. I am happy to meet with anybody. I met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture last week. They were delighted with the open response of this government in discussing the spills bill. Last week, we met with northwestern Ontario chambers of commerce and they were thrilled with the degree of consultation. We will continue to do it.

I am looking for more help, obviously. If the honourable member is aware of groups that would like to meet with me, if he could phone he can work as part of my secretarial pool and I would be delighted to have his help when he has those requests. I will go out of my way to accommodate the member with his friends any time I can, because we are in minority government. It is important we all work together. When he gets phone calls that are meant for me I will be delighted to assist him in answering those.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hope the opportunity will arise at the end of question period for us to afford the welcome to the newly installed Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) that I am sure we would all want to do. I have some things to say, but I do not want to take away from question period to say them.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health about nursing home financial accountability. The minister will be aware that we on this side have been raising this question for many years. In 1983 I raised an example of one nursing home that was making clear profits of about $5 a day per resident but was spending only $1.90 per resident on food.

I am sure the minister will have read and heard in the various media during the trial that is now under way of Mr. Buxbaum, the oft-described millionaire nursing home owner, of his own particularly extravagant lifestyle. Mr. Buxbaum, as the minister will know, is the owner of several nursing homes. He has been receiving a substantial sum of money from this province for a very long time.

How does the minister feel about the phrase "millionaire nursing home owner"? How does he feel about the fact that individuals performing a public service heavily subsidized by the government of Ontario are self-described millionaires? What does he intend to do about the lack of financial accountability within the system? What does he intend to do to open up the books and ensure that residents are getting their fair share?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think it is unfair to compare the operators of nursing homes in the province to the unfortunate situation that is on trial publicly now. It is unfortunate that the honourable member took the opportunity to reflect on an entire profession, the profession of operators of nursing homes, the qualities that are reflected and are being described in the media as a result of a particular trial. I do not think that is appropriate and on reflection he would probably wish not to indicate that all nursing home operators are in the same situation.

We do have people in the nursing homes business who are having an extremely difficult time making ends meet with some of their operations, and we are reviewing the entire nursing home situation not only under the auspices of the Minister without Portfolio, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who is responsible for senior citizens' affairs, but also in my own ministry, where we are taking a look at the co-ordination of our services for seniors and at providing services in a better and more complete manner.

Our analysis has gone quite far, and we are looking at ways of improving that care. That, from my standpoint, is the bottom line: the care of the residents. I am taking steps to ensure better care for the residents in those nursing homes.

Mr. Rae: The bottom line is care for residents. If that is the minister's bottom line -- and I can assure him it is ours as well -- why the hush-hush about the other bottom line, which is to say the profits that are being made in the nursing home sector by companies and by individuals who are heavily subsidized by the government of Ontario?

What does the minister intend to do to demonstrate real financial accountability when, in the case of Mr. Buxbaum, his companies received $6 million last year from the government of Ontario and all nursing homes received $250 million? What does he intend to do to ensure that we do achieve the bottom line of quality of care for people? Will he do that by fully publicizing the financial information of the companies involved?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not intend, nor do I think it would be constructive, to punish people who have made some profits in that industry. I do not think it would be helpful to the people who live in those nursing homes to cut down automatically, if that is what the member wants me to say, the profit levels of some of those operators. In a number of cases there are no profit levels to cut back.

2:50 p.m.

The honourable gentleman asked me what I intended to do. I have said on many occasions in this House that we have taken a number of steps that have been designed to increase the quality of care we deliver to those people in the province. For instance, we are upgrading co-ordination of inspection services; we are making available new guidelines for food handling; we are providing a better, more co-ordinated attempt to put together regulations that can be enforced and will guarantee quality of care.

Those are some of the steps we have taken. In addition, we have an ongoing review inside our ministry designed to improve the nursing homes branch. We are dedicated to improving it. We are taking steps and we are moving fairly quickly in those areas.

Mr. Gordon: Given the fact that we are in need of more than 100 chronic care beds in Sudbury, would the minister be prepared to provide money for a nursing home in that area or to give it to the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not a supplementary to the question, but the member may well know that when his party formed the government it was unable to come up with a program that would address the needs in Sudbury. They were unable to address the needs of northern Ontario. We are working very hard to do that, and I welcome his suggestions as to how we might meet some of the needs in Sudbury that have gone unanswered for many years.

Mr. Runciman: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member for York South (Mr. Rae) tried to malign a nursing home operator now on trial for murder and tried to malign all nursing home operators in the province. He tarred them all with the same brush. As a member of this House, my privileges were offended. I would like to go on record as saying I do not think this party or most members of this House agree with that kind of smear tactic.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully and I cannot consider that a point of privilege.

Mr. Rae: I have a final supplementary to the minister. When I asked this question in 1983, the then minister, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), said he was not concerned about how nursing homes invested their money. When I raised the matter in 1984 with another of the minister's predecessors, he said he would not try to determine who should invest in nursing homes other than to ensure they were reputable and responsible individuals.

We have now had a number of indications from the Tories as to what they intend to do to ensure financial disclosure, which is what the issue is all about. I would like to ask the minister why there is hesitation in his party and on his part today to say clearly that financial disclosure on hundreds of millions of public dollars that are flowing to care for the senior citizens of this province should be a fundamental premise of the way we operate health care in Ontario. Why the hesitation in saying that when it is such an obvious thing to do?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have indicated to the member on other occasions that I feel in developing programs that will meet the needs of the people of the province who are residents in nursing homes it is best not to do it in bits and pieces, one section at a time, but to co-ordinate a strategy to develop quality care proposals for those residents.

We have undertaken through the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs a massive review, an undertaking by this government that displays a commitment that has not been shown in any other Legislative Assembly across this country. I think the intervention we made to try to co-ordinate inspection services indicates a response to a need to co-ordinate services to those people.

I am conducting a review of the nursing homes branch in my ministry. We are putting together a very comprehensive package. When we have that program put together the member will be among the first to be advised of it. The member will have been advised already that we have met with a number of interest groups to discuss the very questions he raised. I am not prepared to make piecemeal announcements. We are prepared to put together proposals that will apply right across the province.

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about the future of de Havilland and the future of the aerospace industry in Ontario. The Premier will know that, according to all press reports, Boeing has already been given the inside track by the federal Tories and it now appears that a company that has been basic to aerospace and our capacity in that industry in this province is about to be sold to an American multinational company.

I would like to ask the Premier specifically, has his government considered a real objection to this sale? Has he considered other options, including a bid by the government of Ontario to ensure that these jobs and the technology stay in Canada, and the capacity to produce world-class aircraft stays in the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have not seen a serious proposal, nor have I discussed one from this government's point of view, of the province taking a position on de Havilland. That is not something this government has contemplated. Now that the member brings the matter to my attention, I recall there was some discussion by the former government. I gather the former leader of the Conservative Party suggested he would like, or was prepared, to buy a piece. I could well be misinformed. I gather the current leader of the official opposition has said he would not. I am just going by memory. We have not contemplated that. Obviously, we are concerned about those jobs and the research and development in the province. It has not gone so far in our minds as to take a position.

Mr. Rae: God forbid that events should proceed so far as to have to take a position. Specifically with respect to de Havilland, it now appears, according to press reports this morning in a column by Mr. Winsor in the Globe and Mail, the matter has already gone through a cabinet committee at the federal level, and we all know the predisposition of Sinclair Stevens to sell off all public assets at fire-sale prices. That is part of his ideology.

Why does the Premier not take a position today? Why not indicate that position firmly in this House and indicate what it is? Is the sale of de Havilland to a multinational like Boeing acceptable to the government of Ontario or not?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think there has been some misunderstanding. We have taken the position not to take a position; i.e. we do not feel it is in the interests of the taxpayers in the province to become involved. We have enough experience with Suncor and other things we are trying to unwind.

I understand the following: there was a conversation with Mr. Stevens's office on Friday. We have been assured a deal has not been made and we will be given a chance to look at that before it is consummated, if it is. I understand there were two or three different bids. I am not sure of the details of each. It is and will be our strong position that those jobs, that research and development, should be kept here in Canada, in Ontario.

Mr. Bennett: Maybe the Premier would like to tell us now how many times he has spoken either to Mr. Stevens or the Prime Minister in relation to the potential sale of de Havilland and also his concern that, whoever should acquire it, there be some guidelines put into the deal so that we would retain the opportunity of employment in Ontario. How many times has he spoken to the officials in Ottawa? I am referring to the political officials who will make that decision.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to de Havilland, I have talked to the Prime Minister on at least one occasion that I remember and I have corresponded with him. I will be seeing him this week. If the member would like, I will bring it to his attention again and mention any other outstanding business the member personally has with his government. If there is any request the member wants me to carry there, I will. I am sure the member will share his strongly held views for the short period of time he has been here in his new responsibility. I hope he will convey his strongly held views to Mr. Stevens. One of the problems, as the member knows --

Mr. Bennett: I do not need the Premier as a mouthpiece. Look after the people of Ontario. Do not worry about me. I look after myself.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We know the member looks after himself.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: All of those guys look after themselves; that is why they are over there now.

We will take along the member's views. As he knows, Mr. Stevens has been ill. He has a considerable amount of business outstanding at the moment. We do not want to rush him and we have respect for people in his position. We will take those strong views, and I know the member will carry them on his own as well.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier tell us why the government has no position on the sale of a company that is the only integrated areospace manufacturer in Canada and which employs 3,400 people. The taxpayers of Ontario, more than the taxpayers of any other province, have paid literally hundreds of millions of dollars to support the technology. It is a company wherein we have developed the sole technology for the Dash-7 and Dash-8. There is 50 per cent foreign ownership in the areospace industry, and that figure will go up far closer to 100 per cent if this sale goes through.

Can the Premier tell us why the government of Ontario has no position with respect to that kind of a company when the stakes are so high for so many people, not only in Toronto but all over Ontario? Why does the government have no position on this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my worthy colleague and friend opposite, we have the position not to take an equity position. Surely I said that some time ago. It is not our position to buy --

Mr. Gordon: That is not what the Premier said.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Of course it is. We have a position not to take a position, i.e., we do not want to own shares of that company. What would persuade the member that we could do a better job of running that company than the federal government has done? Obviously, our interests are to see those jobs in research and development maintained here in Ontario.

If the member is asking me to go out with $50 million, $100 million, $200 million or $300 million and buy that company, the answer, with all due respect, is no.

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

Mr. Shymko: I wanted to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), and I am really concerned that because of his consecutive and stubborn absence and the fact that he has apparently missed two standing committee meetings --

Mr. Speaker: Where would you like to address your question?

Mr. Shymko: I would like to address my question to the Premier. On Friday, November 8, the Minister of Agriculture and Food made an announcement with regard to a review of the Ontario Stock Yards. That statement is of great interest not only to my riding but also the riding of the member for York South (Mr. Rae). We congratulate the government on its decision to resurrect and reaffirm the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development reference in 1981 to the stockyards location.

I am deeply disturbed that in the list of people who supposedly will be consulted and asked for input there is no reference whatsoever to the unions, the workers in these facilities or the ratepayers. Is this another example of the type of open government the Premier is preaching? Is he planning a full and open inquiry or is this another brick wall, as mentioned by the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro)?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, I am told the minister is addressing the Ontario Federation of Agriculture today. The member will be aware of the very fine efforts the minister has put forward on behalf of rural Ontario. He has brought more to rural Ontario than any other agricultural minister in the history of this province.

Second, I am not familiar with all of the terms of reference the member is referring to. I can certainly check and I would be happy to do that, but I cannot imagine a process that would not take all of those matters into account -- the local community, the employees and everyone else -- to effect the best situation. We are committed to that and I am sure the minister will follow up on your ideas.

Mr. Shymko: The workers are not mentioned and these people the Premier referred to are not mentioned in the release. The Kelljair report, which was issued in July 1981, stated that the stockyard location, which was one of the options that will be studied by the minister and the government, depended on and was totally related to the operation of the slaughtering operation of Canada Packers Inc.

Now that the slaughtering operation has moved to Burlington and Kitchener, is the Premier considering as a result of that entire move a study of the feasibility of the present location of the stockyards? If so, is he planning on seeing a redevelopment of the 38 acres of prime real estate in the city of Toronto and perhaps moving that operation to an area such as the former Pickering airport site?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to the member; I wish I could have a more precise answer for his questions. I do not have it, but I will ask the minister to give him any information he can. If the member has any ideas on this matter I am sure they will be most welcome.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning safe drinking water. The minister is aware that two weeks after the spill of perchloroethylene from Dow Chemical Canada Inc. last August the levels in the drinking water at Wallaceburg were dangerously high and close to the World Health Organization guidelines.

In view of that, how can the minister continue to claim there is no problem with the drinking water? Is he prepared to support the request of many of the citizens of Wallaceburg that the pipeline now bringing water from Lake Huron be extended to serve that community as well?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: My first recollection of the drinking water is that all the indications have been that the actual treated drinking water is acceptable and safe. Some questions arose, as I recall, about the raw water supply, but the indications were that the drinking water supply was within what we would call safe parameters. That is my recollection of it.

she asked was about the potential. I have discussed this and will be discussing it further with the mayor of Wallaceburg. I discussed it with him in a conversation on the telephone. While I have not excluded that potential answer to the question, it would depend upon our further findings about just how serious the situation is with respect to its potential effect on drinking water from the St. Clair River.

I think the member understands there would be a large number of requests in a large number of places in Ontario for this kind of pipeline to bring water from different places were we to acquiesce to every request, understandable as it is because of the concerns all of us genuinely have, including the member for Lakeshore, about the St. Clair River situation.

I have not excluded that possibility, but I certainly would want to determine the precise extent of the problem in the St. Clair River, which we are working on at this time.

Mrs. Grier: Given what the minister has said, will he take action on a broader scale to protect the citizens of the entire province? Will he urge the cabinet to call forward for second reading the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, which I tabled in this House last Thursday, and give some assurance to the people of this province everywhere that their drinking water is safe? That is an opportunity for some real action. I would like to have the minister's commitment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may or may not be aware that for some time now our ministry has been working on what we call a drinking water strategy to enhance the efforts that have taken place in the past and the developments that have taken place over the years to improve the quality of drinking water in the province. I want to be able to look at the best possible vehicle for providing that safe drinking water.

One of them is, of course, the alternative the member suggests, which has been suggested on a number of occasions as one of the possibilities. There are other ways of enhancing the quality of the drinking water as well. Many of my ministry officials have come forward with some positive suggestions that really work towards the goal that all of us in this House, previous ministers, present ministers and others, have of always increasing the quality of water in the province or of preserving the quality of water where it is already safe.

Mr. Brandt: I appreciate the minister's responses with respect to the St. Clair River, raw water and drinking water quality. But in the light of the question raised by the third party, since the minister, when he was in a different position -- namely, in opposition -- made some comments on the quality of water, particularly in Lake Ontario and, more specifically, since his quote at the time indicated that drinking water quality in Lake Ontario was the worst in the world, I think he said, or very close to that, would he agree that since he feels this drinking water is of such a very low quality, we now require activated charcoal filtration in some of those plants to bring drinking water quality up to a level that would be acceptable in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased to see the conversion on the road to wherever it is the member is on the road to.

Mr. Brandt: I said the minister said that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member quotes something he thinks I said in the past.

Mr. Grossman: We will find it.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition can look as long as he wants. Never mind his condescending attitude over there; we know he is in a new elevated position now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the minister would disregard the interjections and address his answer through the chair.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I will try very hard to disregard them.

Unlike the previous Minister of the Environment, who went around the province holding up a glass of water, drinking the water and saying, "I am not dead; it is the best drinking water in the world," I am a minister who says that wherever we find a problem that is going to affect adversely the drinking water in this province I am prepared to take whatever action is necessary to ensure we have safe drinking water in every part of the province.

AMERICAN MOTORS PLANT

Mr. Bennett: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I am sure the minister is aware of some of the reports today about another automobile manufacturing plant that is looking for a new location. I am referring to American Motors Corp.-Renault that wishes to move its plant from Kenosha, Wisconsin. It is said that it has been talking to Quebec. I would ask the minister today whether he has had any personal discussions with the management and the president of AMC-Renault as to what the possibilities are of the plant being located in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I guess all kinds of announcements are coming out. I would not even be surprised to find that the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) will be opening an office before December 2.

AMC-Renault is currently considering construction of a facility in North America that will produce both its Reliance and Encore models. As reported, this proposed plant will replace the one currently producing Reliance and Encore models in Wisconsin, which the company considers uncompetitive.

As the member is also well aware, the company is currently constructing a $750-million, 1.2-million-square-foot facility in Brampton, Ontario, scheduled to begin production in 1987. We were told in discussions with the company that it is possible part of the Brampton plant will be used for production of those models. The indications are that the company is in the preliminary stages of weighing the options and that Ontario is being strongly considered.

Mr. Bennett: I am being about as successful with the answer to this question as I was with the one about Hyundai, when I asked the minister whom he had met and what he had presented on behalf of Ontario. I know it had not made any decision as of one o'clock today, when I took the opportunity of calling AMC-Renault to find out exactly what the news report was about. To the best of my knowledge, a presentation has not been made on behalf of Ontario. Has the minister or has he not made a presentation on behalf of this province to try to secure that plant for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, it was just about a month and a half ago we went out and opened the facilities for the new plant in Brampton.

Mr. Bennett: I am asking about the transfer of the plant from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am telling the member that as yet no decision has been made at all as to where that plant will be located.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us what steps he will take to establish contact with AMC-Renault and what steps his ministry will take to ensure Ontario gets a fair chance at this plant?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I appreciate the question and the concern the member has. I can tell him that the officials of my ministry are in contact with a lot of companies and a lot of auto companies that are planning on locating here. We are in touch with them and we will keep in touch with them.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. D. S. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of Health regarding his announcement last Friday of the assistive devices program.

As I have stated in this House before, in view of the fact that his former colleagues, Miss Copps, when she was Health critic, and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), when he was Health critic, said the assistive devices program should be extended to all adults, and the committee reviewing the ADP made the same recommendation well over a year ago, why did the minister see fit to extend the program last Friday only to age 21? That is hardly helpful to senior citizens and many other adults who are desperately waiting for this government to act.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member is probably aware that one of the things we wanted to do was extend the program as quickly as possible to those people who had been assisted under the ADP program announced in 1982. I took it upon myself to ensure that we were able to expand that program across all classes of assistive devices so we would not lose those individuals.

At present we are taking active steps to have advice brought to us through the ADP advisory group to answer a number of questions which were never even addressed by the former administration. We need answers to questions, such as the involvement of other insurers and how we can implement programs. Those questions are now being addressed.

In the next three or four weeks, I will be meeting with the advisory group and also with a number of the interest groups that have been working actively on the ADP implementation side. I am looking forward to having a number of questions addressed and answered, so we can anticipate the broadening of our assistance to the seniors in Ontario.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is the same kind of answer we used to get from former Ministers of Health, always in the future but it never comes to fruition.

In his statement last Friday, the minister said the new program, or the extension to age 21, will cost an additional $4.2 million, to bring the total to $12.2 million. He must realize that in 1983-84 the government spent only $4.7 million of its budget of $10.5 million and in 1984-85 it spent only $6.6 million of its budget of $9 million.

Is history going to repeat itself this year? The minister is not announcing anything that is going to cost the government anything at all; he has simply spent unspent budget. Why does he not extend the program?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is interesting that the member does not seem to think an expansion of the program is something that was needed. If he does not want it then he should stand up and tell me.

This money was not put in the budget by the former government; it is money we have put forward as new money, new initiatives, to extend the program.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is unspent money, and the minister knows it is.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Even the member will understand that money does not survive from the previous fiscal years. This money is not sitting in huge pots somewhere because it went unexpended on this program. He knows --

Mr. Rae: All I know is there are 30-year-olds in wheelchairs in my constituency waiting for an answer from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentlemen obviously do not understand that this is new money committed to an expansion of new programs to ensure that people who were previously covered under a program to the age of 18 years will not lose coverage as they go into the years 19, 20 and 21.

We are working very hard to ensure that people who are disadvantaged in this province are brought into a situation where they can be active and independent members of our society. I will make no apologies for that, and I will make no apologies for putting programs together which are well conceived and which will be effective in meeting the needs of the people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:20 p.m.

JOB SECURITY

Mr. Bennett: I have a question; again for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Mr. McClellan: You are getting ready to go out, are you?

Mr. Bennett: The only thing that is going out of this province is the third party; so do not worry about that.

My question relates to a story --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bennett: It does not take much to rattle the chain over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am waiting for a question.

Mr. Bennett: I would be delighted to try to place one. It relates to a story that appeared in the Toronto Star this past Saturday, indicating that Petro-Canada was moving some 250 jobs from its head office to Calgary. It went on to say other jobs as well could be involved in the transfer of responsibilities to the western part of this country.

I want to put it very clearly to the minister so there will be no ifs, ands or buts. Did the minister have any contact with Petro-Canada? Did he have any discussions with his staff and others at Petro-Canada in relation to this transfer of responsibility, and does he know his responsibility in trying to protect the jobs of those Ontarians who are currently employed by Petro-Canada in Ontario? Can he please give us an answer to those very simple, direct questions?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This government is always concerned about any job loss in this province. I will be very pleased to take that under advisement. If there are going to be changes in the job situation, especially in that field, the honourable member should have asked that question of his colleagues in Ottawa some time back.

Mr. Bennett: I take it the answer to that initial question is no, the minister has not been in touch with Petro-Canada, nor has his staff been in touch with Petro-Canada. It appears to us the minister is asleep at the switch once again on the issue of job protection in Ontario.

Let me place the question very simply in a supplementary. What is it the minister's intention, and will he tell us what he will do --

Mr. Rae: "What is it his intention?"

Mr. Breaugh: "What is it his intention?" Good stuff.

Mr. Bennett: I am glad I have a few English teachers around here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bennett: Scratch it. Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: That is okay, David. I know you are infallible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please refer to members in the House by their riding or their ministry.

Mr. Bennett: I ask the minister very clearly, will he tell us what he will do to protect Ontario's interests in this opportunity? That very question about job security in Ontario was placed to us by the minister's leader, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time. Perhaps the minister would like to tell us what he intends to do to secure these jobs in our province.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It was placed by our Leader of the Opposition to the members opposite when they were the government. They did not do a heck of a lot about it. They had 42 years to do something about a lot of the jobs that were lost in this province and they did not do a darned thing.

I have not talked with that company since Saturday, but I will make sure I do within the next day. I will tell the member a couple of other things. He is asking what we were doing for jobs in this province. He is asking about jobs being lost.

Mr. Harris: No, he is not.

Mr. Bennett: We are asking about specific jobs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with regard to the shoreline property assistance program. Considering the response of his government today to two major issues in northern Ontario, I wonder whether this minister can explain why he is so insensitive to the needs of northern Ontario.

The emergency assistance program for shoreline property owners adversely affected by the high levels of the Great Lakes this year applies to the whole of the Great Lakes basin and the connecting channels. Why does it not apply to residents who live in northern Ontario communities that are not municipally organized?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Let me assure the honourable member that I am not insensitive to northern, eastern, western or southern Ontario; I am interested in this province. At present, we are reviewing the shoreline program and the member will be hearing from me shortly. We are consulting with municipalities that have been affected and a revised program will be introduced.

Mr. Wildman: While I appreciate the minister's response, perhaps he should consult with his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), whose ministry is also involved in this program and who wrote to me on November 14, saying, "However, the programs apply only where there are municipalities."

Is this government not aware that large expanses of the shoreline of the Great Lakes are not municipally organized? Will the minister please explain why on earth he is discriminating against the residents of unorganized communities?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That is exactly what I just told the member. We are reviewing the policy, and he is going to hear from me.

Mr. Hennessy: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and perhaps it concerns the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to know when the ministers are going to reply to my request for assistance for the people in Thunder Bay on Lake Superior. We are in the same situation.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The same answer applies. We are reviewing the total shoreline program and shortly, after consultation has been completed, a new program will be introduced.

EXTENDED CARE BEDS

Mr. Barlow: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have a news release here dated November 4, announcing some 63 extended care beds in south-central Ontario. Thirty-three of those beds were at Sunnyside Home in Kitchener, 20 were at St. Luke's Place in Cambridge and a further 10 were at St. Joseph's Home in Guelph. Are those 63 beds brand-new, never having been announced at any time prior to November 4?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: An announcement had been made previously that up to 2,500 beds would be allocated by my ministry to homes for the aged scattered throughout the province. The various homes for the aged were contacted to find out what expansion plans they had and what changes from residential beds to extended care beds would be needed because of the changing needs of their populations. Those beds now are being allocated from one end of this province to the other.

Mr. Barlow: I was talking to the administrator of St. Luke's Place in Cambridge. He received notification from the ministry, prior to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) becoming minister, that they were to get 20 beds. I think that announcement was made some time in April. I believe another event was going on at the time throughout the province. There were 20 beds announced at that time. The administrator is of the opinion that this is a further 20. St. Luke's Place had 29 beds; after April it felt it had 49 beds and now it feels it is up to 69 beds.

Mr. Speaker: Do you agree, Minister?

Mr. Barlow: Does the minister agree they now are getting funding for 69 beds? They have been receiving funding since August for 49 beds.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My understanding is that St. Luke's Place got 20 new extended care beds in 1985. I remind the honourable member that one of the difficulties we are facing, which his former government faced, is that the age of people moving into homes for the aged is now roughly about the mid-80s. Therefore, they need more nursing care, and so it is distributed everywhere.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I raised this concern in the House on June 6 with the previous Minister of Natural Resources and on July 12 with the present minister. I have spoken to him several times and have corresponded with him about the problem of flooding that the people in Essex county are having at this time. The minister has not seen fit to co-operate with me on this issue.

When is he going to stop pussyfooting around and take action to protect the people in Essex county who are experiencing flooding right now?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is a very good question. In deference to my colleague's concern, I do feel strongly about the position of all the shoreline residents there. They are having probably one of the highest high-water years we have had in a good long time, and with storms threatening in the fall we could have very serious trouble.

I have shared with him, and I think it is very meaningful that he understand this circumstance, that with regard to the boundary waters there are a great many responsibilities that belong more properly under the aegis of the federal governments on both sides of the border.

I have not responded in a sense that is satisfactory because the answers are very difficult to come by. There is such a wide variety of speculations: a deepening of the Niagara River, getting more water out of the upper lakes and all those sorts of ideas. It is a situation that is going to require many billions of dollars, and it more properly belongs with the federal jurisdictions.

I am doing everything I can and, of course, the honourable member knows it has been very open; I have been very willing to have a dialogue with him. However, that does not necessarily answer his question. I shall do all I can.

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

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I regret we did not have the opportunity at the beginning of question period, as I said at the beginning of my own questions, to welcome the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the leader of the Conservative Party, to his role as the new Leader of the Opposition. I know the Grossman family are all here and are eagerly watching their father, as I know the Leader of the Opposition watched his own father. It is a historic day for him and for the Grossman family.

We will have many occasions -- and it is fair to say the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick and I have already had a number of occasions -- on which to exchange some very tough and harsh words. However, he knows, as I know, that while members of our party disagree with him, we have the greatest respect for his ability, his talent and his political courage.

I am personally delighted that he is sitting in the House as the leader of the Conservative Party. I look forward very much to debates and to exchanges. We look forward to the kind of invective that occasionally elevates.

I happen to think that politics is a noble profession; it is one that has been much demeaned, but I happen to think that without a commitment to public life all of our private lives would be very much poorer. It is in this sense that I wanted to be particularly civil to the Leader of the Opposition today. He knows these occasions do not come very often.

I want to assure him, as I have on many occasions in private, that whatever our public differences may be, I am an admirer in an extremely nonpartisan sense and that we look forward to political life to come. There will be turbulent and interesting times, but nevertheless, I hope, very productive ones in the life of this long parliament, which may go on for many years to come.

Mr. Runciman: Wishful thinking.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I knew that would bring them out a little.

In the life of this long parliament, we simply look forward to the kind of good government, good politics and good legislation that is going require the co-operation of all three parties if we are going to succeed in getting the best possible kind of legislation. I know we are going to have that kind of co-operation and good spirit for at least another five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On behalf of the government, I want to join the leader of the New Democratic Party in extending to our friend and colleague the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick heartiest best wishes on this, the first day of his new responsibility.

I take some personal interest in these matters because, like the honourable member, I was elected a little more than 10 years ago. I was sitting here today thinking about the first day the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick arrived in this assembly to take the position so honourably filled by his father for almost two decades.

I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will allow me to recall very briefly his arrival in that first session of 1975. I know my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) will recall that very keenly.

The now Leader of the Opposition, the then newly elected member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, was about where the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) now is located. I can always remember that first session because we had considerable difficulty keeping the member in that far distant corner. He was determined, as his ability, enthusiasm and ambition had every right to so encourage him, to step forward. We were even known to call him "Coach," because he reminded one of Red Kelly or Punch Imlach walking up and down the benches.

I can remember the then Premier, along with the then member for Chatham-Kent and other front-benches in the government of the day, wondering what this young man was doing down here all the time. It reminded one of that great phrase of Michael Cassidy, "Step aside; I am coming through."

To the great credit of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, his family and his many friends and supporters, he has triumphed. On behalf of the government, I heartily congratulate him for his triumph. Last Saturday, as I sat watching the events at the convention centre, I thought of all the energy, work and good feeling that came with that success, and I thought to myself: "A long journey has surely ended. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is now Leader of the Opposition and of the Conservative Party."

I have always rather liked the member because what you see is what you get. In a business that has a lot of bafflegab, delicacy and diplomacy, it is sometimes nice to be able to say, "What you see is what you get." I have always found that to be the essential charm of this very bright, able, articulate and, yes, ambitious, member of the Legislature.

I congratulate the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I wish him well as that long journey has ended and tell him that a much longer journey began for him last Saturday night.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition may wish to respond.

Mr. Grossman: Yes, I may. Might I begin by thanking both the previous speakers, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), for not lavishing those kind words of praise upon me prior to the vote last Saturday. I feel certain that would have done me in. There were easily 19 people in the hall who would have voted against me had they heard even those mild words of endorsement.

I thank the Minister of Education for his words, although being compared to Red Kelly was not what I had in mind in terms of hockey coaches. My hero as a hockey coach has always been the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy). Nor was I flattered by the comparison to Michael Cassidy. I thank the member very much, but no thanks. He is performing admirably in the House of Commons, I am sure, or at least I am told.

I also appreciate the member for York South for calling the proceedings to a momentary halt to welcome me into the House. I appreciate him taking that kindness.

I reflected back to my early days in the House and remembered the chuckle, as only he could chuckle, of the former member for Lakeshore twice removed, Pat Lawlor. He said to me, chuckling in the hall one day, "Grossman, you are going to be heard from." I said, "Patrick, would you tell me how?" He said, "No, and I would not even help you."

I want to take a moment to say that if the member for Renfrew North is correct in saying it is the end of a long journey and the beginning of what he considers will be a longer one, I do not consider the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party any less worth while now that my party occupies this important side of the House.

It is a great honour, made more particularly so by the difficult competition I met with during the leadership convention just past, both from the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell). They acquitted themselves more than admirably and gained a great amount of public esteem and admiration, which will not surprise any member of this assembly who has worked with them for a long time. I consider it to be an enormous tribute to have been able to participate in a convention with my two fine colleagues.

It is an honour to lead the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario at any time. It is a particular honour for me to join the ranks of party leaders in Ontario, given the history and the courage and talent displayed by the other party leaders at this time in this province. I have often shared conversations with the member for York South about the job of being part of an opposition and leading an opposition. While he will not share many views with me and I will not with him, I have always admired his high standards of participation and the high standards he has tried to force and always tries to force upon the government of the day. They are standards I shall attempt to match. We will approach them from different sides and from different solutions, but he has never backed off from participating in the process and from accepting the fact that progress and change can be made from this side of the House.

It is an honour for me to be serving as Leader of the Opposition, having served as a member of the government. I hope members of the now government will acknowledge that from time to time as minister I did entertain their suggestions and incorporate them in legislation.

The member for Bellwoods was directly responsible for some actions we took in closing a certain nursing home and the former member for Hamilton Centre, Ms. Copps, who is now in the federal House, played a major role in achieving some amendments to the Health Protection and Promotion Act. There are many specific examples of where, in government, I was able to observe instances in which members of the opposition played an important role. That is how we will see it.

It is a particular and special honour for me to be assuming this role at a time when my father is able to share the moment with me. He served for many years in this House. It is a tradition of public service, such as that of the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. Nixon), which I am very proud to have been able to continue, on whatever side of the House the public should deem appropriate. I have never shied away from the fact, and neither has the Treasurer, of the lessons one has learned from his father. It is the major reason I was able to have some success in leading our party. I will never cease to cite the contributions and the approach my father took for more than 20 years in this House as examples for every member to follow.

I would like to say a word about my predecessor. I did not contribute last Thursday when very kind words were spoken. Happily, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was able to be present that day. There were many eloquent and fine things said about the contribution made in this House by the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). I want to say he carried out all his responsibilities, and there were many, with dignity, sensitivity, competence and compassion. He brought a warmth and openness that made him popular as a servant of the public and in this assembly.

I can only say all of us have many lessons to learn from each other and there are many to be learned from the member for Muskoka. I am delighted he has agreed to remain in this House as an active member so that we, and particularly the new Leader of the Opposition, can attempt to copy and learn from those important skills.

I think it is appropriate to say at this time that many people have speculated, particularly in the media, about the relationship between the member for Muskoka and myself. I want to say for the record, the relationship that has been speculated upon is one that results from two members who I like to believe hold particular beliefs, fight for them strongly and fight for what they think is right. On occasion, that means there is an important difference of opinion between two members such as ourselves. That was certainly the case when it came to the member for Muskoka and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

However, both the member for Muskoka and myself have always viewed that as the particular strength of our party. Intense debate and disagreement on important issues are not only tolerated but also encouraged. I like to believe that over the years we operated successfully in ministries that interfaced with each other regularly. To the extent that I had some success in those ministries, I could not have had it without the co-operation and assistance of the member for Muskoka in his various roles; nor could I have succeeded if the relationship was the one pictured by the media. It was a relationship of strongly-held views, of disagreements from time to time, co-operation almost all of the time and the kind of relationship that could better be emulated by many others in public life in respect to honest disagreement rather than going along with the prevailing point of view.

His further advice and counsel in the months ahead will be very important to me and to the members of my very same caucus. I have encouraged him to participate and he has agreed.

3:50 p.m.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, might I say that with guidance from you and other members of the House, this opposition party will be a fierce one. It will fight hard for what it believes, it will fight hard against what it thinks is wrong, but it will do so keeping in mind that the public interest must prevail above all. We will not divide this House or the public on issues of note when it is going to be divisive in the long term for public harmony and peace.

We will fight hard to point out the shortcomings of the government. We will fight hard to honour our role, which we take very seriously, as Her Majesty's official opposition. We will be firm, persistent, unbending and tough. We will never swerve from our obligation to fight for the public interest and to make sure the public is being heard when otherwise we believe it may not be heard; but we will always bear in mind the honourable and noble calling that each of us has in this House.

I jealously guard the reputation of members of this assembly. I have by now served with, I would guess, more than 200 of them in 10 years. I have been proud to stand with almost every one of them. We will do our utmost on this side of the House to acquit ourselves with firmness and with toughness and to fight fiercely for what we believe in, but to do so in such a way as to bring credit upon our party, our predecessors and our colleagues on all sides of this House.

I thank members very much for their kindness.

MEMBER'S RETURN

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think members of this House indicated clearly through their applause earlier this afternoon when an individual entered how pleased we are to see a person who has played such a significant role in this assembly return from a recent absence because of illness.

All of us are extremely pleased to see the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) back in the House. Whether we are on that side or this side, she is a person whom we consider to be a most worthy opponent, a tough opponent, but, we all know, a person with a heart of gold, a kind and compassionate person. We welcome the member for York Mills back to the House.

Miss Stephenson: May I simply say that I am honoured to have been so warmly welcomed back to the House after a rather protracted absence which was not of my choosing. I would like to thank the members of this House who communicated with me during that long period of time, providing me with encouragement and support. The members of my own caucus were particularly active in the sending of missives.

I must say that members of the government, particularly the front-row members, perceived their role as encouraging irritants quite appropriately. It was, I think, as a result of some of those letters that I have striven to recover rather more rapidly than perhaps would otherwise have been possible.

I am delighted to be here on the first full day of my new leader's presence in this House. I am also delighted to be a part of this caucus who will be serving under him.

May I simply say to the members that I may look chastened, I may look quiet and I may look as though the starch is not quite as stiff as it was; but I can tell the members that the steel is still in the spine, so look out.

Thank you very much.

PETITIONS

CLOSURE OF HOMES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have 17,778 petitions passed to me by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. They have not been made out to the Lieutenant Governor, and I therefore think they should be passed on to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), if they might be, by the table. They are from some 17,000 people who oppose the closing of the six developmentally handicapped centres in the various communities around Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention that the petitions I have received are addressed to the Honourable William Davis.

Mr. Jackson: I might submit that they anticipated the change from this side of the House to that side of the House by the member for Scarborough East (Mr. Fulton).

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If I might correct my record in terms of not having said that, I just presumed that because the policy seems to be the same by both the past government and this government, they are still appropriate today, sir.

Mr. Speaker: It sounds like a point of personal explanation.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by members of the executive of District 15 of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario concerning Bill 148, an Act to revise the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1983.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Jackson: I have three petitions signed by students and staff of the Halton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the members of the East Plains United Church, and the School Sisters of Notre Dame, concerning Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 63, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have nothing further to add to my statement at the opening of the House this afternoon, except to say it is my understanding from speaking to the government House leader that we will be proceeding with the second reading of this bill tomorrow and it will be so ordered on Orders and Notices.

DOG OWNERS' LIABILITY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved, seconded by Ms. Gigantes, first reading of Bill 64, An Act to amend the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, the dog owner is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the owner's dog on another person. This bill extends that liability to a bite or an attack on another animal if that animal is under a person's control. It exempts those cases where liability already is provided for under the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

I might add that this is prompted by an attack by one dog on a seeing-eye dog owned by a blind constituent.

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answer to question 11 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, November 29].

4 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: Was the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) in the midst of his reply?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have fairly well completed my response. If not, I would be glad to respond to specific questions referring to these matters.

Mr. Chairman: We have two hours and 11 minutes left. Is it the wish of the House that we deal with everything under the first vote and first item in a wide-ranging discussion, and then carry the votes and items at the end, or is there any idea that we would like an allocation of time? Do any members wish to speak on any particular items?

Do you want it wide-ranging and then carry all the votes and items at the end?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will do whatever you wish to do, but I do not see why we cannot deal with the items as they are listed in the estimates book. I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman, for the next two hours and 10 minutes. Whatever you say is in order certainly is.

Mr. Chairman: Either is in order. It is entirely in the hands of the House as to how we will proceed.

Mr. Lupusella: Based on my own experience, some members will likely raise some issues on votes which have already been passed. The House should be flexible. If any member of this Legislature would like to raise a particular concern on an item on which the vote has been passed by the House, he should be given the opportunity to raise it anyway.

Mr. Chairman: I take it then that the member for Dovercourt and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) are saying we should carry on under vote 901, item 1, and then carry all the items at the end? Are there any honourable members who wish to speak?

Mr. Dean: I do not have any objection to doing it that way as long as we do not spend so much time on some items that we do not get time to deal with the others at the end. One or two members of our caucus wish to make some comments on the assessment program, for example. I would like to make sure we do not squeeze them out by taking too much time on the earlier ones.

Mr. Chairman: Under the system we are using, a wide-ranging procedure, they can come in and speak to those at any time. In other words, we are not going to carry votes and items and close off discussion.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: I would be interested to know how you can decide that is the procedure we are going to use when the same opinion is expressed by two spokesmen for one party?

Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the Treasurer that standing order 48 states:

"(b) The chairman of a committee considering estimates shall apportion the time available among the minister, opposition critics and other members.

"(c) Latitude shall be permitted to opposition critics on the first item of the first vote...and thereafter members shall adhere strictly to the vote and item under consideration."

The problem when it is in committee of the whole House as compared to a standing committee is that if we carry them one by one or if some type of time allocation takes part, some members, as the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) has said, will not be here, their items will be carried and they will be foreclosed. We will have passed their item and they will be foreclosed from going back to it. I am in the hands of the committee. It is entirely as the committee of the whole House wishes to carry.

Mr. Philip: Both the Conservatives and New Democrats have indicated they would rather deal with the first vote in a wide general sense in that we have some fairly specific questions on, for example, as the member for Wentworth mentioned, the recently tabled Goyette report. We should carry on. You have the expression of two political parties of what we wish to do.

Mr. Chairman: Yes. Unless there is unanimous consent, we should go with standing order 48(b) whereby there is an allocation. I look to the Treasurer. Do we have unanimous consent to carry on?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am in your hands. In that connection, to assist me in responding to questions, Terry Russell, the deputy minister, and Jack Lettner, assistant deputy minister, property assessment program, are at the table and will be providing the information.

Mr. Chairman: We shall carry on then. It is agreed we shall carry all votes and items at the end.

Mr. Philip: On November 4, I raised a number of issues during the budget debate concerning the inequities in the property taxation of condominiums. The minister might like to review the issues I raised, which can be read in Hansard number 38, pages 1353 to 1356. Interestingly, a number of my concerns regarding property taxes, indeed a number of the proposals I made at that time, which echoed proposals I had been making over a number of years, were addressed only a week later when, lo and behold, the Goyette commission paper, Taxing Matters, was tabled.

With all due modesty I was somewhat prophetic. The Treasurer recognized that when he came over after my remarks during the budget and said that some of the proposals I had made were rather interesting. No doubt he realized that they echoed and reflected what he was going to table only a week later.

I have a number of questions directly related to that. Has the minister examined the extensive research I tabled on November 4? Does he agree that there are major inequities in the taxation and assessment in one area, namely, Etobicoke, in one part of one area in the city of Etobicoke that we studied, as compared to another area? Is he prepared to do anything about the present inequities or is he prepared simply to have an ongoing study of the Goyette report?

I found the information on page 55 of the report very interesting. I am sure the minister will agree with me that it says something about the way the officials of this ministry acted under the previous administration. Under the previous government, a researcher asked for the very same information in November 1984 and was told the information was not available and would be too difficult to obtain. I find it interesting that the information could be produced for Mr. Goyette but not for a member of the provincial parliament. I hope that under this administration that kind of thing does not recur.

I am somewhat encouraged that it will not recur by the very fact that the minister has tabled certain documents the previous minister would not release. I want to direct some questions to those documents in a minute. I do not want to get away from the Goyette report, however; I want to deal with some of the recommendations.

Recommendation 15(a) on page 164 is rather interesting. It shows to me a complete lack of knowledge by this ministry of the dynamics and workings of condominiums. It is difficult, if not impossible at times, for a condominium board of directors to get enough proxies even to deal with the requirements under the Condominium Act for running a general meeting. There have been recommendations by the Etobicoke Condominium Association and numerous others to change the Condominium Act because of that very problem, so a board of directors can carry on. Yet here we have that same lack of understanding reflected in this recommendation.

In a condominium building, such as some of the larger ones on Dixon Road immediately south of my riding, where a certain number of units can be owned in Hong Kong, Japan, the United States or in a number of other countries or by absentee owners living anywhere in Canada, a tremendous strain is put on that condominium.

It seems only reasonable therefore that a board of directors going through the normal procedures it would follow under the regular activities covered by the Condominium Act should be able to represent all the unit owners before an assessment review court. I suggest to the minister that recommendation 15(a) on page 164 should be reconsidered and I hope it will be.

4:10 p.m.

Recommendation 19 on page 166 is certainly a very welcome recommendation. It is one I addressed in some detail, examining the Mississauga court case and the various interpretations that could be made of that court case. It is fairly clear that the ministry and Mr. Goyette have recognized that problem. If that had not been corrected, we would have seen an increasing disparity between condominiums and other homes.

Recommendation 20 is less acceptable. It fails to deal with the basic problem that condominium owners are assessed more heavily, as I proved with the research I tabled, which was done in two cities. Part of the research was done in a third city, Ottawa, where we did not have a complete set of research. However, I proved without any doubt that in the city of Etobicoke and the city of Toronto condominiums were more heavily taxed and assessed than homes.

Unless we make a direct comparison, we are going to perpetuate that inequity. To include other condominiums as part of the total Gestalt simply corrects part of the problem. It is correcting it and dividing it by two; it is that sort of thing. It is less severe, but none the less still perpetuates an inequity. The minister must address himself to that problem.

I find recommendation 52(e) on page 179 of the Goyette report interesting. No doubt the minister has addressed himself to this. Is the present Metro Toronto Advisory Task Force on Assessment Reform to be assumed by the new task force and what is the relationship in this proposal in the Goyette report? It is an interesting proposal, but I would like to know whether we are going to have two bodies looking at the same thing. What is the overlap?

I find recommendations 36 to 41 on page 172 very interesting. The minister will no doubt recall I introduced on numerous occasions a private member's bill that dealt specifically with that problem. In my riding I have a number of people who are in the building trades who, during off periods, manage to improve their homes. That is to be encouraged. However, as a result of these improvements, suddenly the assessor is knocking on their door and charging them extra tax.

I have argued over the years, and the previous government refused to recognize the argument, that when you improve your own home, and when you are living in the home, you should not have increased taxes while you are still occupying the premises. My private member's bill set a figure of $10,000. I thought that was realistic at the time.

We may have agreements or disagreements over the specifics of the amounts or how it is done, but I am pleased the government and Mr. Goyette and his colleagues have recognized that we should encourage people to improve their own homes and that, because they improve their homes, it does not mean they have more money in the bank or more income. They should not be penalized for showing this kind of initiative.

Another matter addressed by the Goyette report is one I have spoken about over the past 10 years with both federal and provincial authorities. I spoke to the previous Minister of Transportation and Communications to some extent and urged him to deal with the problem. I have also talked with Ministers of Revenue to deal with the revenue side of it.

Lester B. Pearson International Airport is a tremendous asset to our community. It provides jobs and a great amount of wealth in our community. At the same time, those who live close to the airport have to put up with certain environmental problems, in particular, the noise level. The noise in some areas of Rexdale that I represent is worse than in others. The people who are under the east-west runway route are more affected than I am, since I happen to live more under the north-south runway route.

Certain residents in Rexdale live directly under the flight path and do not have the same enjoyment of their homes, particularly of their backyards, as do other home owners in the Metro area. Over the years, home owners such as those living on Norfield Crescent have argued before the assessment court that their assessments should be lowered, and they were justified, I believe, in arguing that on the grounds of the noise they were putting up with as a result of the airport.

I therefore welcome recommendation 22 on page 167. It is long overdue. I am particularly pleased to see it in there and I hope it will help us to deal with the problem we are having in the Rexdale area and perhaps an even worse problem for my colleagues who represent the two ridings south of me, where the people in the Dixon Road area are very directly affected by the noise.

The question I have for the minister is related to item (c) of recommendation 22. No one can disagree with the recommendation that if there is an environmental problem, not only should the assessment be lowered but the government should do something about it. Of course, the problem with airport noise is that the federal government has the chief responsibility.

If for any reason the provincial government cannot work directly with an insensitive federal government to deal in some way with the noise levels -- and I am not going to repeat proposals I have made in Transportation and Communications estimates on that -- then at least in those kinds of environmental situations the government should say: "We have tried our best; we have presented our views to the federal authorities. None the less, because you are putting up with this noise, noise is an environmental problem and we will consider it under items (a) and (b) for a reassessment or for the lowering of taxes."

I want to compliment the minister on releasing what the previous minister refused to release, namely, the impact study of reassessment in the city of Etobicoke -- which in this paper was called the borough of Etobicoke at that time -- based on the section 86 program, the equalized assessment of 1980 values. One of the things I found interesting in studying it was that it mirrors some research I have been doing, which I hope to have ready for the debate on the budget and for these estimates, but which is not quite ready.

It is my contention that it is not just condominium owners who are paying an unfair tax, as I showed in comparing those condominiums in the ward 5 area with those in the more affluent Kingsway area. When we get into single-family homes, the studies that were released by this minister show the same pattern is holding.

I had a fellow run against me for a party that is considerably to the left of me. He had a slogan he repeated over and over. He did not tell how he would bring it about, but it was, "Let the rich pay."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Very catchy.

Mr. Philip: It may be a catchy slogan, and we have not used it, but it would certainly be something he would relate to this.

If we look at the study on the city of Etobicoke, we find that if this were immediately dealt with, there would be a decrease in ward 5 of some 74 per cent whereas, lo and behold, the percentage of units decreased in wards 2 and 3, which is the Kingsway area, would be only 29 per cent and 39 per cent respectively.

4:20 p.m.

Similarly, the inverse is true. The percentage of units that would increase in ward 5, or in Rexdale, is 26 per cent, compared to those in wards 2 and 3, which are 71 per cent and 61 per cent respectively. One could take ward 1, which is the Lakeshore area, and get similar comparisons, although not quite as dramatic as the unfairness with which my constituents are taxed.

If we take the Metro-wide reassessment, the same pattern holds except it is even more dramatic. In ward 5, the percentage of units that would receive a decrease is 88 per cent, compared with wards 2 and 3, which are 48 per cent and 56 per cent.

I suggest this proves my contention that those in the perhaps more traditional areas, those that have been built a longer time ago, are getting a somewhat freer ride than my poor, hardworking souls in the north end who have gone out and built new homes and who are paying through the teeth in property taxes.

I hope the minister will address himself to those inequities. Needless to say, the Condominium Magazine is watching carefully for the minister's response to this and will print his responses in the December issue. Both my congratulations and admonitions of some of the problems. The Etobicoke Guardian will similarly print his responses.

I would like to deal with another area, the Province of Ontario Savings Office, because the minister addressed it briefly on Friday and I do not think he came to grips with the issue.

When his party, or his and our party, the farmers' party, went out of office, when they had set up the original Ontario savings offices, they had the function not just of encouraging thrift -- I do not have the historical documents, but it sounded very noble and important -- but also of giving loans. Their purpose was to give loans to farmers who needed equity and who needed money to expand their operations or purchase farms.

If we look at Alberta, they similarly had the same objectives although they go into mortgages and small business loans as well. I had introduced a private member's bill that would expand that authority of the Ontario savings office. The previous Minister of Revenue did not seem too concerned about it, and I am hoping this minister, having a rural background, having a sense of history of the farmers' party and what it attempted to do, having the same sense of outrage at what the Conservatives did when they got into power, which was to remove the authority of the Ontario savings offices to give loans, will start to reverse history and will make a mark for himself in rural Ontario by showing that sense of history and restoring the original act. That would be to his credit and to the credit of his father, who no doubt tried to convince old Mitch Hepburn to go against the banks and try to make the necessary changes.

The Alberta Treasury Branches -- I am referring to the Financial Post issue of the top 100 financial institutions and their rank -- ranks 22 among financial institutions in this country, with $3,422,157,000 in assets. The Province of Ontario Savings Office is down in 59th place, with only $686,408,000 in assets. The revenues are similarly disproportionate.

If we look at the financial statements for the year ending March 31, 1985, the Alberta Treasury Branches has a loan portfolio of more than $3,393,000,000. So there is that money out there for small business, for farmers and indeed for mortgages, as I suggested. The minister would do well to turn back history in this case to 1919 and make full use of the Ontario savings offices. I would also suggest they should be expanded into northern Ontario. There is not one in all of northern Ontario. That is legitimate and that is what we should be doing.

I want to talk for a minute on one last item. I have spoken at some length on the inequity between communities and neighbourhoods in tax collection. The corollary to this is the inequity in neighbourhoods in the way in which the Treasury manages to give out some funds.

In our neighbourhood, there is an organization called Friends and Advocates. I saw John MacBeth in the gallery only a few minutes ago; he is active in it. Friends and Advocates in Etobicoke has been allocated Ministry of Health support funds of $90,772 by this Treasurer. On the other hand, Friends and Advocates in North York, which we started as a pilot spinoff from ours, has a revenue of $110,000.

We have proposed that there be three community workers and a budget of $119,285. We now have a waiting list of 34 people and a very high staff/client ratio. I suggest our area is as deserving of revenue funds as North York, of which I also represent a corner. I hope those kinds of inequities can be cleared up. Friends and Advocates serves an important function.

Mr. Chairman, I know you have tremendous patience and would have pointed out that this comes up under a different ministry than the Ministry of Revenue. However, I could not lose an opportunity, with the Treasurer listening, to take at least two minutes to present this problem, as my colleague John MacBeth would have wanted me to do. I look forward to hearing the minister's answer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will not comment on Friends and Advocates, but I know somebody will look up that organization and the honourable member's recommendations and advise me further.

I appreciate the specific references made to the Goyette report in the member's comments this afternoon. That is specifically what we are seeking. Particularly the comments by page and recommendation will provide the kind of assistance we want.

The assessment of condominiums is a bit of a conundrum.

Mr. Ashe: Ha, ha.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is the best I could do. The member will know that when condominiums were assessed based on comparison only with other condominiums, this matter was taken to court and the learned judge ruled that they had to be compared with other single-family units and dwellings, which seemed to make sense to the judge and our assessors accepted it. At present, they are compared both with single-family dwellings and with other condominiums. We feel that is quite a fair way to proceed. I believe the Goyette report recommends that this continue.

There is some indication of a feeling among condominium owners that if their units were not compared with other condominiums, their assessment might go down. I am not sure that is the case. It seems to make obvious good sense, however, that condominiums should be compared with similar units and other single-family units. It seems to me that approach should be maintained, although we are prepared to listen to submissions otherwise.

4:30 p.m.

I have a feeling, whatever is decided, there will be a court case because somebody on one side or the other of that issue will feel it has been unfairly entered into. However, we have a recommendation from Mr. Goyette and, as far as I can see from my personal response, it makes good sense. Unless I have good reason otherwise, that would be the one I would support.

Mr. Philip: May I ask the minister a brief question? If he were earning $50,000 and I were earning $30,000 and we were doing the same job, would he consider it fair to me if we simply added $30,000 and $50,000, divided by two and he gave me $40,000? Would that not mean I was still out $10,000? Is that not the analogy? As long as condominiums are part of the same factor, he is still going to perpetuate an inequity, even though it may be an inequity halved or lessened, rather than simply comparing them directly with other family dwellings.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have never had any experience in assessment. I guess I have just been unlucky. It seems to me that a well-trained assessor is not going to compare condominium A, which is one of 100 units on south Dixon Road, with a penthouse condominium at another location. As far as I know, the assessors compare property to property with a similar sale value.

I cannot respond to the detail of the thing. Believe me, all I can say to the member is that his objection to involving other condominiums -- being an old Latin scholar, I always have trouble with that plural -- his objection to comparing condominiums with similar condominiums does not make much sense, if he thinks they should be compared only with single-family residences other than condominiums.

I cannot add very much to that. This can be argued either way. The only purpose in opening it up is so fairness and equity prevail and are seen to prevail in some of the divisions of opinion. Whichever way we come down, the other side is going to feel it has been treated unfairly and inequitably. I hope we are not simply opening up another series of problems that have to be dealt with by Assessment Review Board or the Divisional Court.

The member has made his point. I would like to go on, but if he wishes to pursue it further, I have no objection.

Mr. Philip: If the minister wants to make A equal to B -- and he used to be an old high school teacher, or a young high school teacher, as the case may be -- surely it makes some sense to say one does not make A equal to B by adding A to B and dividing by two, because A will still less equal than B that way.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It seems to me the whole purpose of assessment is to compare relatively equal units. If that is not the purpose, then it should be and we will change it so it is. I would like to go to the second point.

Mr. Chairman: Will you, please, because there are other members wishing to participate.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member mentioned something that is going to be of particular interest and I hope not an insurmountable difficulty. He talked about task forces and asked whether the task force that is already in existence in Metropolitan Toronto is going to be a duplication of the effort and work of the one proposed by Mr. Goyette. I do not believe that is so.

In our informal discussions we got agreement from the municipal heads in all the cities of the metropolitan area that they would like to participate -- they undertook to participate -- in a task force on assessment for the whole metropolitan area. It would be my responsibility to recommend a chairman for that group, someone who would be acceptable to all the principals. I do not think that is going to be too difficult, although I am not in a position to announce such a person at this time.

As a matter of fact, I would not mind a recommendation from anybody who has a brilliant idea, with the understanding that we have to be sure the person who is going to lead the discussion has sufficient acceptable abilities and reputation. That person would not be able to impose his or her views but would co-ordinate everybody in a good, co-operative way so that it would not descend into a morass of investigation of minutiae but would come up with a program acceptable to all the cities in the metropolitan area, which would permit market value or some acceptable reassessment to occur, beginning as early as next September 1. That would be great.

I am not sure whether that is possible, but that is the aim; that is the goal set out in Mr. Goyette's recommendation. Whether it overlaps would not be for me to determine, because this task force -- maybe we could give it another name; rather than a Metropolitan Toronto reassessment task force, maybe there is something else we could call it -- would simply be an effort to assist all the cities in the metropolitan area to cooperate with the officials in the Ministry of Revenue to come up with a good procedure to move forward. I sincerely hope we can do that and, if possible, that there will be an announcement in this regard before the end of the year.

The honourable member referred to recommendation 15(a) on page 164, which he feels would make it difficult for a condominium corporation actually to proceed with an appeal of an assessment since, according to him, the recommendation would require the written consent of each condominium owner. There has been some discussion further to that because we would not want to impede the condominium corporation from dealing in a fair and equitable way, once again, with all the members in the corporation.

However, it seems to me the owner of a condominium, even though he participates in the work of the corporation, might think differently. He might not agree with the stated aim of the corporation and, according to this recommendation, he would have to be consulted and give his approval before his assessment was appealed.

Once again we are quite prepared to listen to arguments or views otherwise, but in my view, the safeguarding of the individual liberties of the owner of this single-family unit, which happens to be a condominium, is something we should not dismiss lightly.

In regard to improvements, he mentions recommendation 36. I was particularly pleased with that because during a discussion I allowed myself to get involved in with the press before the report was even well under way, I said I had hoped we would be able to make a list of improvements that people could undertake without endangering their assessment. Such a list does appear here, and I feel it goes quite a distance.

As a matter of fact, a few things are included that surprise me. For example, it would be possible to install not only a new heating system but also one that involved a heat pump -- that is, air-conditioning -- without its being considered per se to trigger reassessment, the idea being that we are talking about temperature control that is modern, and that would be included. I thought the idea was convincing, progressive and acceptable.

The member also put forward the idea, with which we all agree, that we should encourage people to improve their properties in every way they can without automatically increasing their assessment and then their taxes. The idea of setting a limit beyond which reassessment is triggered is quite healthy. The idea that the local municipalities would set that limit themselves is the kind of autonomy that I personally think is valuable and quite ingenious. Some municipalities are particularly interested in revenue, and if somebody does something to his or her house, he wants it to be reflected in the assessment and he would have a fairly low triggering level. Others have a different approach; they would have a fairly high one. It is the sort of thing that I think is interesting, at least for discussion, and I hope it will proceed.

4:40 p.m.

Another point the member made had to do with reassessment of the homes affected by the flight paths and the noise patterns from Lester B. Pearson International Airport. The member knows we have a process, which was introduced by my new critic -- I believe he was the one who did it -- that allowed assessment to be reduced for homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The Assessment Review Board also reduced assessments in the Malvern area and in certain other areas.

I happen to have nine high-voltage hydro towers on my farm, and there has never been any thought that the assessment would be reduced there. The argument made by Ontario Hydro and by the assessors in this connection is that it cannot be proved that the value of the property has been reduced. As a land owner myself, I find that difficult to believe, and yet they have the statistics to show it. If I were out buying a farm and if I had my own choice to make, I would prefer to buy a farm unencumbered with high-voltage hydro towers. We all accept they have to go somewhere, but if one were buying a farm, it seems to me one would offer less money for one having those towers. As far as I know, the assessment has not been reduced because of that.

The argument, however, is that if we go for market value assessment -- I am a very late convert to that concept and I am not sure I am fully committed to it yet -- and the market value can be shown to have been depressed by anything such as that, by an environmental effect of any kind, it should be reflected in the assessment.

Recommendation 22(a) goes much further than that and it recommends there be specific reduced assessments in those areas where there is some sort of environmental impact. In my view, it is more than fair. I agree with the honourable member who spoke that it is a valuable recommendation, one I hope will be included in the changes we make.

The only other matter the member raised in his remarks had to do with the Province of Ontario Savings Office. I can say nothing more than that I welcome his views. The traditions I carry in this connection -- I suppose, prejudices -- go back a long time to the political career of my father who was a member of the government that established the savings office with loan capabilities. I find that concept attractive.

I am not saying that, as the minister responsible, I am going to go forward with a commitment to turn it into some sort of small bank. Its original concept was to make loans to farmers and encourage thrift among artisan classes; a rather nice phrase. We are not really returning to that specifically. However, the idea of the savings office appeals to me and I hope before long at least to be able to announce certain improvements in the services the savings office offers citizens.

Mr. Ashe: I will be brief because of the time constraint. My colleague who has had the responsibility for being critic of the Ministry of Revenue until today will be carrying on with the bulk of the concerns up to and including the end of these estimates. He has been more a party to them than I have. I will contain my remarks and will ask one or two questions about the assessment function.

I would like to compliment the minister on his release of the Metro Toronto impact study soon after assuming his onerous double job. There were many who felt it should have been released a long time ago. I am glad it finally took place.

Mr. Grande: The member included, no doubt.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to pursue that in further detail .

Mr. Lupusella: Is the member including himself as well?

Mr. Ashe: Yes.

In any event, it is out there. I am not sure that at this late date it will add to the end result, but in full sincerity I hope it does. As we all know, 74 per cent of the municipalities in the province now have undertaken the first, the second and are even approaching the third reassessment in their municipalities. With few exceptions, they have done it without great difficulties. At this point, I hope the constituent municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto will see that the same end result will be to the betterment of all, and will be fairer and more equitable to all.

Of the two questions I have, one relates to the Goyette report. There are many issues that will dictate and indicate considerable dialogue over the next while, but there is one in particular that I want to get the minister's views on. I do not have the document in front of me and do not have the page and point number, but I am sure he is familiar with it.

It is the recommendation that I suppose goes along with the innocent-until-proved-guilty concept, but I am not sure it is applicable here. It is the one that suggests that as long as there is an assessment appeal, the new indicated tax rate should not be charged or collected, but would accrue as an ultimate liability if and when it is confirmed. My view on that, and needless to say I am going to ask the minister what his feeling is initially, is that anything that may unduly increase the number of appeals in the assessment process will not be a plus. Anything that would encourage people -- once they become aware of this recommendation, if it comes to fulfilment -- continue to appeal to postpone the inevitable, is not helpful to the process.

Over the years, assessment appeals have fallen a little behind. They get caught up from time to time with extra impetus by the Ministry of the Attorney General and then they have a tendency to slip behind again as the numbers go up, particularly after a reassessment in a significant-sized municipality. If and when it happens in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, regardless of how fair it may appear to us all, the number of appeals will be significant.

That recommendation is going to increase significantly the number of appeals by those people who may more astutely become aware of the way to avoid the inevitable; that is, not pay increased taxes. That would add to the work load of the Assessment Review Board, among others. Some will drag out the total appeal process in whatever way is possible and feasible till the very last dog is hung, with the idea of postponing the payment of taxes.

In many cases, those will be people who may fully acknowledge that they do not have a case but want to prolong the inevitable. I am not quite sure that will be helpful to those who are in a legitimate appeal process because they differ for whatever reason on their assessment.

I would like to know the minister's feeling on that, having heard the pros and cons over the years. I understand the appeal process is not in the purview of the Ministry of Revenue, albeit any time there is an appeal it puts that much more charge on the local assessor to ensure he is up to date on his assessment figures before he goes to the Assessment Review Board or beyond.

Not only does it put further pressure on the assessor per se, but it would put more pressure, in my view, on the appeal process in general. I do not think this would be helpful to anyone, including the municipality, which in many cases will not get its legitimate increase in tax revenue until some years in the future.

I appreciate that there is still talk about interest and so on, but I can assure the minister that during the process he will get many recommendations that say: "You do not have to pay interest. Just let it go. You are innocent until proved guilty." I am not quite sure it is the same principle as somebody being charged with a crime.

The other question I would like the minister to respond to is: What is his understanding of the awareness of the local assessor and how he becomes aware of unique circumstances within a municipality or part of a municipality where he has jurisdiction?

For example, in an area such as is contained within my constituency and also to the north in the riding of Durham-York, there is a lot of unique land under the ownership and/or control of government, either federal or provincial. Restrictions have been placed on some of the adjoining land through the impetus of the Ministry of Housing over the years, in turn through the municipality and in turn through the region which has control over the official plan.

What is the minister's understanding of the process of the recognition of unique circumstances within a municipality? The one I have in mind -- and I will be taking this up more specifically with the local assessment commissioner -- is some space within the town of Pickering that has been designated as open space but is not indicated as such on some of the plans that are available within the local municipality. I know the minister is aware of this kind of problem, even from his own constituency.

4:50 p.m.

If somebody wanted to get a severance through a land division committee, he would find out the open-space restrictions. Yet, it would appear that the assessor was not aware -- it is not completely his fault -- of the unique situation and restrictions on the development of that land, or possible development of that land, or inability to develop or sever that land, which would have a direct impact on the market value and, in turn, on the percentage of the market value that generates the assessment and, in turn, on the tax bill.

I would like to hear the minister's understanding of that process and his views on the ultimate postponement, the tax implications of a changed assessment being postponed until after the full appeal process.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, you will remember the Honourable Perrin Beatty took a rather popular initiative at the federal level when he was critical of the procedures, in particular in income tax, before the present government took office in Ottawa. One of the recommendations he made, which was very well received, was that people had to be proved guilty before they made their payments on an assessment of their income tax. I may not have the details of that right, but it seemed to be eminently fair.

I feel the same way about assessment. If there is an increase in assessment and the property owner chooses to appeal it, he or she does not pay taxes on the increased assessment until it is verified by the appeal procedure. This means that money then is paid back to the time of the assessment and interest is paid on funds not already paid. In other words, the interest meter is ticking and it seems to me any rational taxpayer would realize that he or she might lose the case, in which case the money is all payable with interest at a reasonable rate which is even referred to in the report.

It is possible, however, that some people might approach this in a frivolous way, just as frivolous appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board are, at times, punished by the board. It may well be that there should be a provision for the assessment appeal people to find that appeals are of a frivolous nature. It is possible that safeguards could be built in to some extent for the problem that the member is bringing to our attention in his remarks.

I like the original recommendation very much. It is a step forward. I think it is fair and that people will see it is fair. I do not want to allow myself to drift away from the original point, but somehow over the last decade, perhaps a bit longer, confidence in the assessment process and the whole basis of local taxation has been substantially eroded.

One cannot just saunter down to the local town office and talk to the assessor about the situation quite as conveniently as one used to and, in large urban areas in particular, there is a sort of brushfire of dissatisfaction that goes through communities and people with different experiences. The assumption is made that the assessors are incompetent or, worse than that, there is some sort of plot on the part of the Minister of Revenue -- and we all know how innocent those ministers happen to be

Mr. Ashe: They do not get any revenue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Right -- to do something nasty to them, when, as the member knows, all we want to do is keep out of trouble. This at least is a recommendation that shows the bona fides of the people interested in reform to bring it up to date and to accept the basic consideration that an assessment has to be proved before it is applied, if there is an appeal.

The matter of unique properties is a concern. As the honourable member knows, as do members on all sides, with properties where there are substantial planning restrictions which affect the assessment, if it is based on its resale value, certain planning restrictions or the proximity of government lands with restrictions often affect the assessment. I think it is the responsibility of the assessors to take those under consideration.

The assessors carry out a study of the sales in the area and a study of rentals, and the values at which those fluctuate in the area. They look at neighbouring assessments and meet with municipal officials. It should be that all these factors will be taken into account by the people we hire, who have professional abilities and are professionally supervised. In cases where there is evidence that this is not occurring, we would be very willing and anxious to give it a special review, as the member would know.

Mr. Ashe: I will not get into the second point since, as I indicated, I will be specifically contacting the local assessment commissioner in that area. On the first point -- not putting through any tax increases until the appeal, and his comparison with federal income tax -- may I point out to the minister I do not think they are really comparable.

In the first instance, when one is talking about income tax, a taxpayer files a return of his income as he and/or his accountant sees it and then somebody else disputes it. The minister is presuming he is honestly filing his return based on his knowledge and understanding of his situation. On the other side of the coin, with assessment, the professional, the assessor, is making the first instance of saying what the value is and then somebody else is challenging whether he or she has made a correct determination. I suggest they are not comparable.

I accept what the minister has said; if in some way that goes forward -- again, I have some large suspicions about it and what it might do to the numbers of appeals, which will not help the legitimate appellant -- and there are some safeguards in it which make it somewhat of a penalty to go forward, much more severe than nominal interests, that is one of the safeguards.

We hope this would be another safeguard for the protection of property that turns over. We have all heard in many ways or another: "Buyer beware. The lawyer takes care of everything." However, we all know in the real world that does not quite happen. One may have property transactions taking place where legitimate increases are going to occur which are not brought to the attention of the new owner by the solicitor, directly or indirectly, and he picks up a retroactive liability for taxes before he takes over.

We can all agree theoretically that should not happen. I want to make sure the minister understands those things can occur unless there are some great safeguards which literally would have to go on title. The only way one can do that is to add to the degree and complexity of the appeal process and further slow it down.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member makes a good point and an interesting one we will consider. He probably is aware, though I am not sure all members are, that this year there were 160,000 assessment appeals. That is a lot of stuff to get through, and we do not want to do anything which is going to increase that, but just the contrary.

Mr. Chairman: In explanation to the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), it was suggested by the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) that since two New Democratic Party members had spoken, in fairness, two Progressive Conservative members would follow next and then to you.

Mr. Grande: The member for Dovercourt has said so; so it shall be.

5 p.m.

Mr. Stevenson: I want to bring to the attention of the minister some concerns in the Durham-York riding which relate to assessment. I am sure some of these are present across the province. I want to address them specifically to the situation which occurred in the past year in Brock township. There was a reassessment there in which there were significant changes in the values of a number of properties, not exclusively in any one particular classification but in residential and rural residential properties and in farm properties.

There were a number of public meetings. The usual meetings were held by ministry staff and so on, but out of these a lot of public concern still went unanswered. A particular group of people there that was fairly well organized continued to press the issue through appeals and then on after the appeals. I am afraid the frustration of the people still has not been addressed. I think it largely comes down to the inconsistencies that have been shown in the assessment procedure in that area. As some of these inconsistencies become more apparent, they lead to further dissatisfaction among the residents of Brock township.

In one farm situation of which I am aware -- and unfortunately I do not have my notes with me -- as I recall, 140 or so acres of class 1 land were allocated to this farm. Under appeal and as a result of further reassessment of this property, it has now been determined that there are 17 acres of class 1 land on this farm. Of course, this sort of information spreads through the community like wildfire. It really leads to greater frustration and greater dissatisfaction among the residents when these sorts of inconsistencies come to their attention.

I would like to mention this to the minister. I am certainly aware that the assessment people in Durham region work hard and try hard, but when cases like this receive a lot of public attention, we have to understand that the opinion of the residents of that area has to be affected by changes of that order.

The attention of the farm community in particular, and to a lesser extent that of a number of rural residents there, has been drawn to the change in values of farm lands as one goes from the southerly area of the municipality to the more northerly sections of the municipality. The values of properties change as one moves north. For some commuters, it is easy to see that distance from Oshawa and Metropolitan Toronto could certainly have some effect on property values.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The farther one gets from Oshawa, the more valuable the land.

Mr. Stevenson: No. Surprisingly enough, the closer one is to some of the major industrialized areas, the higher the values tend to be.

That same sort of variation occurs in farm land. There is a tendency for there to be more good farms in the south end of Brock than there are in the north. But if one looks at that municipality and asks oneself, "If I had the same farm, the same quality of farm land located in the southerly section, central or north, is there really that much variation in the value of those properties?"

I ask the minister to look at the situation in Brock township and review the general assessment procedure there. If the assessors are understaffed and do not have the time to take a close look at some of these properties -- it is a little tougher with the farms because some of them are so large and some have limited frontage and so on -- but they should have a look and thoroughly review the situation in Brock to alleviate what seem to be some serious inconsistencies in the assessment of properties.

If more help is needed they should find the money to hire people to get the job done over again in a more consistent manner, so a considerably greater number of the residents feel more confident in the quality and consistency of the job that has been done in assessing properties.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is reflecting what happens in any area where reassessment takes place. It is about to happen in certain areas in Brant county and I have a feeling I am going to experience some of the things he has experienced. It cannot be done without certain feelings of dissatisfaction.

These feelings tend to reflect politically, not so much on the people such as ourselves although we get a lot of complaints, but on the reeve and council, particularly the reeve and council that opt for the reassessment. The people who find themselves not positively affected by the reassessment tend to get a little upset.

I have just been informed that in Brock township there were 400 appeals and about half of one per cent by way of value were lost. The other 99.5 per cent were maintained by the appeal court. I know that is not much comfort to the people who appealed. There is a feeling, even in an appeal procedure that is obviously at arm's length, fair and professional as this was, that while one may have one's moment in court it does not amount to very much.

I have known people to go through the appeal procedure and somehow not feel fully satisfied with the procedure. That is another matter. There is not much we can do about that, other than be sure the people hearing the appeals are professional, knowledgeable and consistent. That is always a goal and something perhaps we can improve on. If there is a specific case of a property where there were 17 acres of class 1 rather than another number, that is the sort of thing we are glad to hear about specifically, even in some confidence, and to look into.

My own feeling, however, is that the assessors are capable and well-motivated. Instances where they act in anything less than a professional way are extremely rare, and I feel the ministry has dealt with them in quite an effective way. I want to be as supportive as I possibly can to the assessors, who are not the most popular people when they start tramping around a property, even when they are doing their duty in a professional and judicious way at arm's length. If we are going to stick with property taxes we have to have the best assessment we can. We want to improve the procedure. That is what we are talking about.

If the member would care to give me the specific property he referred to I will be glad to look into it and give him a report.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Stevenson: I will make one other very brief comment. I accept the fact that the people involved are trying to do their best. I do not want to suggest otherwise. My concern is whether there are enough people with adequate funding to do the job that is put in front of them. Are they properly equipped or trained to do the job?

When there is a situation of the type I referred to, and I will gladly get the information, the news gets out, which I am sure is not the sort of advertising the ministry would like to have. Are we sure we have the resources to investigate the number of properties out there and do it well, so we have the confidence that the time and effort have been put into the job to do it as well as people can possibly do it?

I fully realize there will be dissatisfaction and differences of opinion on occasion. We see that on a regular basis with property values, not only with assessments but also in the real estate business and so on. One sees some of the variations in assessments that have been put on those properties, particularly as one moves from south to north. One questions how much of it is real and how much is imagined, particularly in relation to farm land.

I know the assessors have to do some massaging of values because sometimes sales, for whatever reason, are excessively high or low, but some of the procedure of putting market value on properties, particularly when the value assigned by the assessor is substantially different from the actual value of the sale, can have significant impact on how market value assessment is placed on other properties that are near properties that have actually sold. That has aroused some concern in the area and it is something I suspect the minister will meet in his own area.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not want to pursue it unduly, but I have a lot of sympathy for what the honourable minister is referring to.

Mr. McClellan: You are the minister.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Did I say "minister"? No matter.

Mr. Villeneuve: You take the salary too.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Some people are slow learners.

Our own township of South Dumfries is totally rural, except that it is an extremely attractive place to live. The worst farms on the basis of productive farming are the ones that command the best value when city slickers come out and say: "Oh, this is nice with these hills, rocks and swamps. This is exactly the kind of farm we want." They pay through the nose. That affects the value. Other people who are trying to eke out a living through hard work, scrimping and saving the way all the farmers do, find their assessment affected by those new, welcome neighbours from the city, who come parachuting down with bagloads of money. It is very dislocating.

I am not sure how we are going to correct that, but it is the sort of thing that makes people wonder when the values of their working farm properties change and when the very highest values in the township are associated with farms that have probably changed hands 25 times in the last century rather than no times in the last century or two.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Oakwood.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can tell the member for Oakwood there are still a few good farms for sale up there.

Mr. Grande: Of course there are. We are just trying to find out and locate where they are. It has been chiselled away from us over the years, as the minister knows.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What do you mean?

Mr. Grande: Well, the original town of York was what is now Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Tell me about it.

Mr. Grande: I would like to take a few minutes -- not a long time -- to find out something. I am happy the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) is here in the Legislature. In May 1984, a flier was sent out to the good people of the riding of Oakwood asking them to come to a special meeting on their high property taxes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is the member sure he wants to do this?

Mr. Grande: There was a picture of the present Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Epp: It was a great meeting. The member should have been there.

Mr. Haggerty: It was very fruitful.

Mr. Grande: I wanted to ask him what he learned from that meeting. I do not know whether the Minister of Revenue is going to allow him to stand up at his place and answer that. What did he learn at that meeting? It is important for us in the riding of Oakwood to know whether this new government understands the problems of the city of York, the problems that I, as one of the representatives of the city of York, have been trying to bring to this Legislature for the past 10 years. The previous administration never understood it, figured it could not do anything about it, or did not want to waste the time and energy to solve the problems there.

Before I begin to ask the questions or give the minister a feeling of the solutions we feel we require and need in the city of York, I want to know the base of his understanding so that I can begin from there. If the member for Waterloo North gets the permission of the minister, I would appreciate knowing what he learned at that particular meeting in May 1984.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have already checked with the Chairman as to whether the rules permit the parliamentary assistant to respond to the question, and he has told me they do not.

Mr. Chairman: If the member for Oakwood was to ask you the question, you could, if you wish, ask your parliamentary assistant.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes. I have consulted with the honourable member fully and also with the former Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, about that meeting. We were interested only in getting their views on property value assessment and matters related to the benefit and good of the city of York.

One of the reasons we decided to have this review culminating in the report of the member for Waterloo North was as a result of that meeting and many others like it across the Metropolitan area and in many areas of Ontario. The many people who attended that meeting -- the member is nodding his head that there were many people -- expressed dissatisfaction with a broad range of matters in that area. It was such that we felt we should proceed to commission this report.

The report recommends a different approach to renovations, which is more clearly understood. It is seen by fair-minded, people to be the classic politician's phrase, "a step in the right direction." It is not perfection; that will come next year, perhaps. It was as a result of these meetings that it became apparent this was a matter requiring action by this House and by the government of the day.

I cannot answer the honourable member's question more specifically other than to say that one of the main complaints we have received from this metropolitan area and from some other urban areas concerns the policy on assessing renovations. They felt it was inconsistent -- it may have been -- and did not provide the initiative for home owners to improve their properties without the negative application of higher taxes often resulting.

By making it clear what renovations could occur without triggering assessment changes and by leaving some of the initiatives up to the local municipalities as to the level of renovations that would trigger assessment, we thought we were bringing it up to date and relieving some of the concerns expressed by the people in the member's constituency and elsewhere in the metropolitan area and across the province.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Grande: I thank the minister for that answer. Indeed, this is one of the many concerns that the people of the riding of Oakwood have raised, I am sure, with the minister. The minister has decided, or will be making a decision, to move in that direction. I think most members of this Legislature will be supporting that move.

I want to find out from the minister whether the assessments of comparable homes within a particular municipality, either in the residential class or in other classes of properties, go across the borders of a particular municipality. For example, why do we find that the good people of the riding of Oakwood in the city of York are strapped with the highest property taxes in all of Metropolitan Toronto? Why is it that, at the same time, they have one of the lowest levels of services in Metropolitan Toronto?

The minister is going to answer that by saying because they have a low industrial-commercial tax base not enough revenue is generated and therefore the residents have to pay a tremendous amount in property taxes. However, is he going to take a look at that problem and make sure a home assessed at $5,000 or $6,000 in the city of York will be paying as much as a home in North York or in Etobicoke assessed at the same amount? That has been a problem for many years in the city of York, and I feel the minister should begin to address that concern.

I will have the opportunity to raise other concerns with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) and with this minister wearing another hat as Treasurer. However, I hope there is an answer to this, because as long as the taxes paid in the city of York are higher than those paid in any other municipality in Metropolitan Toronto, not only are the people of York going to be before assessment review to appeal their taxes, but there is going to be something much greater than that as well. Some people are beginning to threaten the nonpayment of taxes, and that is very serious.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member for Oakwood makes a good point, because when people point out in informal discussions that I have this responsibility, they soon start talking about assessment, and quite often they will say, "My house in the city of York, compared with something in Etobicoke, has a much higher assessment." The solution, of course, is Metrowide reassessment.

Mr. Breaugh: Ha, ha.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a fact.

Mr. Breaugh: That is the ultimate solution.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It may not be the ultimate solution, but there is no way we are going to be able to compare a property in one municipality with property in another when they are in one municipal agglomeration unless we have assessment across those municipal boundaries.

In detail, my adviser tells me that comparative values are normally found within the municipality itself, but if a house is on a street that is the dividing line between municipalities, there are cases where values across the street are taken because they are the closest. However, to go into the middle of the next municipality to be sure a balance is achieved is not one of the procedures.

Although the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is getting a little ironic or something about Metro-wide assessment, that is the solution. With a little luck and probably with the commitment and good intentions of the mayors of the various cities, along with the assistance of a chairman, etc., to undertake this, we might -- and I sincerely hope we can -- undertake a reassessment in the metropolitan area that, in part at least, will do away with the problems the member has raised and bring justice and equity to the property holders of the whole metropolitan area.

We also must remember that the borough of York does not have a very high proportion of nonresidential assessment.

Mr. McClellan: The city of York.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The city of York, yes; I am living in the past.

For this reason also, because it is residential and they require a level of services at least as high as those of other cities, the tax rates tend to be quite high. This is not totally the responsibility of inadequate assessment; it is associated with things over which we do not have complete control.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have just a few remarks to the Treasurer. I speak as a real estate appraiser who has been doing appraisal work for quite a time. In certain parts of rural Ontario, if the Treasurer were to truly base assessment on market value people would pay no taxes. Not only do distressed values apply in certain areas of rural Ontario, but there is also no effective demand.

As the Treasurer knows, market value is established based on history, sale and known factors; it is based on historical data. The majority of the sales that have occurred in rural Ontario, especially in those areas that produce red meat or cash crops, have been distress sales, at only fire-sale prices if there is a demand at all. In those parts of Ontario, if market value were being applied as it should be those people would not be paying taxes. I understand that in certain areas of the beef-producing section of this province entire townships would be sold very quickly if there were any sort of effective demand.

These are situations that must be addressed very quickly by the Treasurer and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). As a former employee of the Farm Credit Corp., I check their statistics quite often. Since 1980, there has been in excess of a 50 per cent reduction in the value of farm properties in many areas of this great province.

Realtors are very hesitant in listing farm properties. The majority of properties that are sold in the areas with which I am familiar are sold as going concerns. Dairy operations in particular are sold as going concerns, with real estate quota, livestock and equipment as one package.

If the Treasurer were to subtract from this package the value of the quota, the value of the livestock at market value and the value of the equipment, he would find the residual value of real estate, which is land and buildings, to be minimal. That is a very grave situation. If he is going to proceed with market value assessment as it should be, many of these values on rural properties would be cut by at least 50 per cent. There are many cases where properties still would not sell after having been cut by 50 per cent. That is a very grave situation.

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member once again makes a very interesting point. The property values in our own area are plummeting and certainly have done so for the past eight years. For example, property in Norfolk county for which the government of Ontario paid as much as $2,800 to $3,000 an acre some years ago, or probably an average of $2,000 an acre, could not possibly be sold by the new owner -- me -- for $600 an acre; so there has been quite a change.

The assessment procedure examines every land sale in the province, particularly land sales from farmer to farmer. This of course takes out of main consideration the sale from a farmer to a well-to-do Toronto resident who wants to go up and paint his fences white. They are very welcome, but it skews it slightly if one allows them to have too much influence.

The assessors and the supervisors do review all these sales. They check them with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for its input in this connection. They compare similar properties by way of productivity; that is, the classification of the land, its proximity to market and, of course, the actual value of sales taken; particularly, I once again emphasize, from farmer to farmer. So on that basis they do maintain the actual sale of land.

One of the things I was concerned with was the assessment of farm property used to grow high-value crops such as tobacco. The value of the property would be very high, but as the member may very well be aware, that value is reducing. The member knows about this as well as I do. It is very difficult to sell a tobacco farm now unless the new owner is going to put it to other use, such as growing corn, soybeans, lettuce, pumpkins, asparagus or some other crop which has a return that is nowhere near as lucrative as the tobacco crop used to be; and still is, in fact, in many areas.

The assessors do have a procedure whereby the value of the land is established in what they consider to be, once again, a fair and equitable way. It can be appealed, but the assessors have been remarkably successful in having their assessments accepted by the appeal boards.

Mr. Villeneuve: The Minister of Revenue knows that in the mathematical process of establishing and assessing value, three approaches are commonly used. There is the income approach, and I suggest to the minister that in many instances the income approach on a farm that is not a dairy farm or one that is protected by supply-managed quotas is negative. Therefore, on the basis of the income approach, the real estate returns no dollars to its investor and therefore would not be purchased on the basis of income.

On the basis of market value, the same situation applies. Market value is, as I have said, based on historical factors, based on the situation where property A sold at a certain known value, and one yardsticks the acreage, the soil quality, the type and quality of the buildings and the functional ability of these buildings.

The third approach is the cost approach, which is used only in a situation where there are no comparables and a very shaky income. The cost approach establishes the replacement costs of the improvements, less depreciation from all sources.

I suggest to the minister that in many parts of Ontario, on the basis of those three approaches, many land owners who are trying to eke out a living producing red meat or cash crops would pay no taxes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The income approach the member refers to is not used for farms; it is used for commercial properties but not for farms. If the farm has a milk quota or something like that, it is irrelevant as far as the value of the land is concerned. The quota is sold separately, and the member knows that.

On the basis of income, one cannot say: "That is a productive farm, therefore, it is going to have a higher assessment." One can say it has a certain proportion of class 1 or class 2 land, and I believe that can be used in establishing the value.

We have already referred to market value. I am told the emphasis is on an arm's-length sale from a farmer to a farmer, not from a farmer to a city slicker who wants a few horses. Like most farmers, I have certain prejudices about how these things affect assessment. We have a small township in my riding where a large proportion of the township was sold to Ontario Hydro. It is not known for paying the lowest market value, although the sellers usually complain about the price. Even in these instances, the assessors are very careful not to allow those sales to influence unduly their decision on the assessment of other properties.

Replacement cost is an interesting aspect I do not believe is used. The basis of the assessment is a review of comparable properties sold from farmer to farmer. It sounds good, and the intention is 100 per cent to base assessment on that. Of course, it is an art rather than a science, although they want to make it as precise and computerized as possible. We feel we are doing a good job and will continue to do so.

Mr. Lupusella: I am a little disappointed with the answers the minister is providing to this House. He is very machiavellian; I have to recognize that. During the course of these estimates, he has heard that rural areas are very concerned about assessment. Market value assessment in rural areas has been implemented now for many years. He has also heard that there are inequities in metropolitan areas such as Toronto.

The minister is concerned about everything. We have the minister of the crown telling us he is concerned and saying his ministry "should" and his ministry "will," but he did not come out with a specific program about what his ministry will do about the whole issue of assessment.

I will give a synopsis of the issue we now are faced with. We have the Goyette report. We are faced with a task force appointed by Metropolitan Toronto and with a bunch of paper released by the present Minister of Revenue in relation to the issue of reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto.

My complaint is that I am not satisfied with the minister's answers. He is gambling politically. Even the answer to my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) smells of political opportunism.

When the Liberals moved into Oakwood riding, they did not go there because they were extremely concerned about the issue of property taxes; they were concerned to take over the riding. That is why they went there. He should be more open in giving this type of answer instead of saying: "We are concerned. We are going to restructure. We know where the problems are."

In fact, we know the assessors in his ministry are not doing their job properly. I am a little reluctant to recognize that his open mind provides us with a very conservative mind on this important issue affecting each family in Ontario.

5:40 p.m.

I was of the opinion that on reviewing that ministry's assessments, the minister would have complied with a clear principle of assessment in relation to what his government is going to do on the issue. As far as I understood the minister, he is ready and prepared to go only as far as to take into consideration the renovation issue in Metropolitan Toronto and nothing else and to keep the status quo as it has been kept by the Conservatives for so many years.

I expect the minister to stand up on his chair and come out with a clear answer instead of playing political games.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On my chair?

I can assure the member that our motivation in going into Oakwood was to find out what the people were interested in by way of assessment change. It was exactly the same as the motivation of his leader and some of his colleagues who came to Brant-Oxford-Norfolk riding to find out about nursing homes. There is no question the motivation is directed entirely towards the betterment of the community in more ways than one.

The member's complaint or disappointment about the lack of a timetable is well-founded. In my comments on the introduction of the report I stated that I hoped the committee or task force on reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto would commence its work as soon as possible. Actually, I said immediately, if not sooner. It is my intention to get that going as soon as it can be organized and arranged.

I also hope to make an announcement to the House before the end of the year on the aspects of the recommendations from the report that we can enact without legislation. In other words, there are some things that can begin simply by direction of the minister, and some by regulation, I presume. We hope to select those -- and I have not found too much in the report I do not like at this stage -- so we can proceed with them.

Anything that requires legislation, unfortunately, might take a bit longer. I cannot guarantee that the bill for those changes will be before the House in this calendar year. It would be nice if that were possible, and it may be, but obviously in 1986 I am hoping we will have more far-reaching changes to present by way of legislation.

Mr. Lupusella: The minister introduced the Assessment Amendment Act, 1985. Such a bill has been introduced every year for at least the last 10 years. A bill has been introduced every year since 1970 to prevent the application of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto.

We had a study, which has been released; they were hidden by the Conservative administration in the past but this minister was kind, as we have to recognize, and released the study. There are so many inequities involved. We have a law that has been introduced every year so market value assessment should not be considered at all in Metropolitan Toronto. Why are we talking about reassessment and all the time having political dialogue on market value assessment when we are faced with clear legislation that prevents any assessor in Ontario from applying that principle in Metropolitan Toronto?

Can the minister deny that in the past, market value assessment has been applied in Metropolitan Toronto despite all the studies that have been released? Why are his ministry assessors not going back to the same properties to roll back the amount of the increase that has taken place in relation to the application of market value assessment?

Just to refresh the minister's mind, on March 15, 1982, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) raised the issue with the then Minister of Revenue. I quote: "I have a question to the Minister of Revenue about property tax assessment in the city of Toronto. The minister is no doubt aware that some homes in Toronto have received increases in their assessments exceeding 300 per cent." The Treasurer's own colleague raised this issue.

"Will the minister have the candour to confirm that provincial assessors have deviated from the usual administrative procedures in reassessing renovated homes in the city of Toronto? In other cities, the assessors used the assessment manual in connection with renovation, employing the criterion of historical value. Does the minister deny he is using the reassessments on renovated homes to introduce market-value-based assessment by the back door?"

That is what happened. Even though there was clear legislation preventing the application of market value assessment, the government of the day broke the law. I am urging the minister to send back the same assessors to review all these increases and roll back the assessments.

Am I asking too much? The Treasurer should try to comply with the principle of his own law now. They did not follow the law in the past. Is the Treasurer going to follow the one that has been introduced, the Assessment Amendment Act? What is he going to do? We do not need more studies. Is the Treasurer going to send the assessors to roll back the assessments of these people which have been increased unfairly?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the honourable member is aware the Legislature or this government would have the power, if they wanted to do so, to impose market value assessment and reassessment on the Metropolitan Toronto area. We have the power to require that our assessors be admitted to any property by warrant. We do not use that at all and it is not my intention to jam a reassessment down anybody's throat.

As a matter of fact, by virtue of simply selling a reassessment on the basis of its merits, 72 per cent of the municipalities of the province are now reassessed at market value and many of them have had a second reassessment. Some of them are ready for a third. The recommendation of the report is that reassessment occur automatically on a four-year rotation, which I think is extremely valuable.

Metropolitan Toronto is the area that has never accepted this sort of reassessment. As I say, we have the power to impose it, but I personally think that would be a very serious mistake. That is why the report recommends establishing a task force, really a continuation of the one that is currently in existence, co-ordinating it with officials of the Ministry of Revenue who are expert in assessment matters and finding a chairman from the community of Metropolitan Toronto or elsewhere who can command the respect and attention of the municipalities concerned, with a deadline that is not imposed -- let us say suggested -- by the minister, of September 1, 1986.

We can persuade the municipal leaders recently re-elected, with three years to go before another election, to move forward with the kind of reassessment that I believe in the long run will be seen to be fair and equitable in the city.

It is by no means going to solve all the problems, but it is the only way we can approach the solution to the problems the member, his colleagues and others have brought to my attention. I think it is a rational and fair approach. If all members would consider that as an alternative and not throw too many distracting things into the fan, we might be able to achieve something worthwhile in the next calendar year.

I sincerely ask for the members' thoughtful consideration and support for that. We will move forward as deliberately but as quickly as we can to achieve it. If it becomes apparent it cannot be achieved, we will have to look at some other alternatives. Probably the least attractive one is taking no action at all.

Mr. Lupusella: Can the minister make sure that next year the Ministry of Revenue prepares an annual report? I do not think it has been printing one and I would appreciate it if he would comply with my request.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was not aware we did not have an annual report.

Mr. Lupusella: The minister has the old one.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We can probably do something about that. We could perhaps make a review of the ministry a little more orderly if we could bring ourselves to go through the estimates of the ministry section by section. We are going to run out of time, but the time available for estimates cannot accommodate speeches of two and a half hours, no matter how interesting they are.

I am not critical; it is the members' time. However, we do not have unlimited time. We have a process that would permit us to go through the work of the ministry section by section. I have no complaint about spending this time on assessment. I wish we had more time and I think there will be an opportunity for further discussion.

Mr. Dean: In the dying moments of the time we have, I have a couple of short questions for the minister that I think are more along the lines of what he just referred to; that is, something about the operation of the ministry itself instead of the general policy of some of the dealings of the ministry.

One is listed in vote 901, item 3. I have numbered the pages myself. The minister does not have them numbered, so he will not know what it is, but he can find it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Audit services?

Mr. Dean: Yes, where they speak about value for money. I wonder whether the minister could say in a few short sentences what that really implies. I know what an auditor looks for in a general way, but how much value for how much money? What are we looking for there anyway? Maybe I could have a few of the minister's thoughts on that.

The second one is in regard to Oasys, the Ontario assessment system, if that is what it is called properly. It sounds like a very dry operation anyway. It is the assessment and information system. I would like a further explanation of what it will make available to the people in the ministry, and to the public, on a ready basis that is not available at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The audit question about value for money is an interesting one. I believe the federal government led in this. I am not sure, but it was some years ago that the Provincial Auditor was instructed by our new Audit Act to undertake value-for-money considerations as well as simply tracking the dollars from their approval to their expenditure.

Value for money is an attempt by our auditors to consider the efficacy of the program. This is a tough assignment because sensitive ministers are liable to think the auditor is transgressing into a policy area, but of course the auditor has indicated his concern about value for money on more than one occasion.

One area of concern the Provincial Auditor has expressed by way of the Ministry of Revenue is that we do not have sufficient audits of our tax clients, if they can be referred to in that way. The honourable member, as a former Minister of Revenue himself, is aware there is some indication that we ought to have a higher or more intensive level of audit of the people who are responsible for collecting the variety of taxes coming into the ministry. He has indicated that a level of a five to six per cent audit would be reasonable. In fact, we are auditing at something more in the level of one to two per cent.

Naturally, to have a more intensive audit we have to spend more money on auditors who are all trained, capable and professional people. An argument can be made that the more audits, the more revenue, which is an indication of something that concerns me. However, the statistics show clearly that with a more intensive level of audit, the revenue increases on a direct arithmetic progression, if that is correct. The member questioning me used to supervise my arithmetic progression in physics so he can correct me in this instance too.

Mr. Dean: I am not responsible for your arithmetic.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sorry. He says he is not responsible for my arithmetic.

He also referred to the Oasys system that was one of the more interesting aspects, I thought, of my original statement, going back to the beginning of these estimates. I will read a comment put before me by the deputy minister as follows: "Oasys will give assessors ability to calculate residents' costs and store data for all assessments on an on-line, up-to-date basis. It will give municipalities the right to access on-line information, give ratepayers copies of their appraisal and allow comparison."

How is that for a succinct answer?

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to proceed with the various votes within the Ministry of Revenue.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other honourable member who wishes to participate in these estimates? If not, is it the unanimous consent of the committee that we carry the votes and items at this point? Agreed.

Votes 901 to 903, inclusive, agreed to.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that it is the government's intention to bring forward Bill 63 for second reading tomorrow. That is the one introduced by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) having to do with the settlement of the board-teacher strike in the Wellington area.

With the agreement of the House, we would like to proceed to committee stage if necessary and to third reading before adjournment tomorrow at 10:30. Naturally, this is in the hands of the honourable members, but that is our intended program.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

November 25, 1985

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

REPORT ON WAGE PROTECTION

GREY CUP GAME

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

INSURANCE RATES

NURSING HOMES

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

ST. CLAIR RIVER

AMERICAN MOTORS PLANT

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

JOB SECURITY

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

EXTENDED CARE BEDS

FLOODING

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

MEMBER'S RETURN

PETITIONS

CLOSURE OF HOMES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

DOG OWNERS' LIABILITY AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE