Hansard Transcript 1986-Jun-11 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. O'Connor: Paul Nicholls, a constituent of mine in Oakville, who is president of Metal Panel Installers Inc., has brought to my attention a bureaucratic entanglement with the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mr. Nicholls was recently assessed a late payment fee of $313.17 relating to his employer premiums. His cheque, due on May 20, was mailed on May 15. Because of the inefficiency of the post office, this cheque was not received by May 20, resulting in the penalty.

This gentleman, who has not been late with a payment to the WCB in 14 years, was told by an employee at the board, "You should know better about the mail." It seems strange that the regular mail is a satisfactory method for the WCB to send out its invoices, but according to the board, those who remit the premiums should know better than to use the same system.

Further, upon inquiry, he was informed he would be responsible for payment of a WCB invoice sent by regular mail whether or not he received it on time.

I suggest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) that he look into this matter. It was not unreasonable for my constituent to assume that a letter going the great distance of 28 miles would be received in five days, as it had each month for the past 14 years. If the WCB, using the same system, will not make allowances for its invoices arriving late, it can hardly expect that the employers using that system should be required to pay additional fees for circumstances beyond their control.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Lupusella: The political hot potato of Metro property tax assessment is again being tossed from hand to hand, and no one yet knows where it will stop. Even the member for Downsview (Mr. Cordiano) has to ask in the House about his government's intentions. The Liberals will fumble this tough issue unless they are prepared to deal with the fundamental inequities of the property tax system.

Property tax needs an overhaul because it is the most regressive of our taxes. An unemployed worker has to pay taxes similar to those of a professional living on the same street. Retired people living in a newly fashionable downtown neighbourhood are saddled with high taxes because their street address has become trendy.

A market value assessment imposing tax hikes of 100 to 200 per cent on some Metro properties will not solve this problem. We need a government with a firm resolve to create a new system for the financing of education and social services. This has been the NDP position on the property tax question.

To date, the Liberals have shown no sign they possess the will to solve this problem. At this time, the government has a constructive property tax proposal made by the recent Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education, which called for an education tax on personal income.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired.

L'ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO

M. Poirier: C'est avec une grande fierté que je désire souligner l'appui concret et significatif de mon gouvernement auprès de l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario.

En effet, ma collègue la ministre des Affaires civiques et culturelles (Mme Munro) annonçait récemment qu'elle accordait deux octrois majeurs à l'ACFO: un premier octroi, de l'ordre de $100,000, afin de l'aider dans la planification et la gestion de la Fondation franco-ontarienne, et un deuxième, de l'ordre de $169,200, afin de l'aider à acquérir son propre édifice pour y loger, chez lui, son siège social provincial.

L'ACFO fut créée en 1910 afin de concerter les besoins de la communauté franco-ontarienne et de les revendiquer auprès des gouvernements. L'ACFO, au cours des 76 dernières années, a toujours agi d'une façon professionnelle et constructive dans la communauté, tant francophone qu'anglophone. Elle a su bien représenter les quelque 500,000 francophones de l'Ontario, la plus grande communauté franco-canadienne hors Québec.

Mon gouvernement appuie, et continuera d'appuyer à un niveau jamais égalé dans le passé, l'ACFO et la communauté ontaroise.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Partington: Because of the dramatic increases in the insurance premiums that are demanded of greenhouse growers, this valuable Ontario industry is being severely damaged. In the Niagara region alone, the annual gross revenue generated by the greenhouse industry is $25 million more than the wine industry. It is the only agricultural industry not subsidized by any level of government and which has been excluded from participating in the agricultural assistance programs.

Mr. and Mrs. Tjakko De Raaf, along with their two sons and daughter-in-law, operate a small family greenhouse operation in St. Catharines. In 1985, they paid $4,500 to insure their home, car, farm buildings and greenhouses. In 1986, they were told the insurance for their greenhouse alone would be $18,000. They must have insurance or they will default on the mortgage on their property.

The insurance rates for the greenhouse of René Koole in Creekside Gardens jumped from $17,000 to $51,000; Harry Van Egmond's from $3,000 to $13,000; and Mr. Van Egmond's brother's insurance from $3,500 to $14,000. On and on it goes. There are increases in insurance rates of 500 per cent, which cannot be absorbed by these hard-working independent growers. Something must be done to protect these people and the greenhouse industry.

CHILEAN WINES

Mr. Warner: Chile is now experiencing a profound political, economic and social crisis. The government has closed the doors to dialogue and responds with increasing repression. No positive solution is offered to the ever-increasing difficulties posed by the huge foreign debt, unemployment of one third of the work force, a massive internal debt, which has ruined years of hard work, business and labour, a housing shortage of close to one million units, the dismantling of a health and education system which was once the pride of the nation and a role model for the rest of Latin America, and labour legislation that seeks to dismantle a trade union movement.

Instead of attempting to deal with the problems, the government insists on economic and political models that lead to the perpetuation of General Pinochet's regime by the use of force.

A delegation from the trade union movement of Chile was here today. They are asking for our support and our solidarity in the cause of the freedom-loving peoples of Chile. I call upon us all to support the people of Chile in their struggle for a truly democratic nation. I call specifically on the government to add substance to our solidarity by banning the sale of Chilean wines in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario stores. I ask for us all to stand in support of the people of Chile as they struggle valiantly for their freedom and for a democratic way of life.

2:10 p.m.

FREE TRADE

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Many residents of Ontario are seriously concerned about the present freer trade negotiations with the United States. It is fortunate that our government will be making submissions to the Canadian trade negotiator through our negotiator, Robert Latimer. It is important that both the US and Canadian governments realize that the provincial governments make the final decisions in many of these matters, including softwood lumber, and that we should be consulted if there is any concern about these matters.

It is important that both countries realize that the US trade deficit is not the result of American trade policy or evidence of a need to realign trade relationships. It is simply a reflection of the US macrceconomic policy, the delayed recovery of western Europe and the low import penetration of Japan. No matter how dramatic the US trade deficit, it is a cyclical economic problem.

It is important for both the US and Canadian governments to realize that the US and Canada are both undergoing profound structural changes that are affecting the Canadian economy more than that of the US. It is important for both the US and Canadian governments to realize that right now what is on the bargaining table as far as the US is concerned is the American way of life.

LOGO

Mr. Barlow: All members of this assembly are aware of the high recognition factor, not only provincially but also nationally and internationally, that the Foodland Ontario logo has. This is largely because of the foresight and outstanding promotional skills of our former Ministers of Agriculture and Food.

I am sending to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) a letter I received from a friend who is working at present in England for his employer, Shaver Poultry Breeding Farms of Cambridge. Attached to the letter is the plastic wrap from Ontario-grown apples, which proudly displays the Foodland Ontario logo.

With this, I send a very clear message to our present Minister of Agriculture and Food and to his colleagues not to consider tampering with the success of the Ontario logo but to keep the trillium blooming in the markets of the world. It is easily recognized and stands for outstanding quality.

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I hope you and the honourable members of the House will give me unanimous consent to bring to your attention the fact that today marks the 27th anniversary of the election in 1959 of our good friend the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman).

Mr. Speaker: I understand there is agreement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If you will permit me to say a word or two, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member I have referred to is a good and personal friend of all members of the House. He is not quite the dean. I believe his term of service is second in seniority to the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil). The two of them and others here with long-service records have had experiences that should be recounted at least in footnotes of history because they have involved themselves in the emerging policies over these many years in a way that does credit to them and to the democratic process.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville was a high school teacher, a calling above which I recognize none other. He was also deeply involved in student athletic activities and became so well recognized in this regard that he was an Olympic coach in gymnastics and attended world-class meets, including the Olympics in various foreign capitals.

Besides this, his reputation at the local level was such that he was readily elected in 1959, in a Liberal sweep of 12 members, I believe, and took a prominent place in the opposition caucus. The record of his performance in the Legislature is impressive.

On a personal basis, during some of the tougher days in my political career in opposition, he was a tower of strength, both by way of advice and in friendly and personal support, which I want to acknowledge to him and to his friends in the House in a very sincere way.

I appreciate the fact that he has continued to contest the constituency successfully on behalf of the Liberal Party and we, on this side of the House at least, hope his commitment in that regard will continue for many years to come.

Mr. Harris: It is indeed a pleasure to rise on behalf of my party in revered recognition of our member with the second longest standing in the Legislature -- 27 years. For a young rookie like me, with hardly a grey hair in my head, who has only been here for a little longer than five years and knowing the demands of service to one's province and one's constituency, it is very difficult to comprehend how one could maintain one's sanity through that length of time, let alone be a stalwart member on behalf of his constituents.

He excelled as a teacher, as mentioned by the government House leader, a profession I suggest leads to excellence in any other career one might presume to follow. Striving for excellence and achieving it as an athlete and a coach, he has obviously achieved it in politics as well. Partisanship aside, he has been a friend to all members of the Legislature, some of whom have been here longer than I and some for less time than I. I have seen that friendship and desire to work co-operatively for better government. Barring a major sweep and change in the tide of political fortunes in Ontario, which I think is very likely but which some may prefer not happen, after the next election I am not sure on which side of the House the member will sit, but I am sure he will be here. We will look forward to that as well.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to honour the member for Windsor-Walkerville on behalf of our party. The first time I met him was in 1967. He probably does not remember, but he substitute-taught at my school when I was in grade 9. He came in for one day, and the first thing he did was circulate a list and ask everyone to put his name, address and birth date on the list. Until October 1976 when I was nominated for my party, I continued to receive birthday cards from him. In addition to teaching me the one day, the member taught my dad for a longer period at W. D. Lowe Secondary School. He taught him gymnastics. I know the member had a special relationship with his students.

Over the years, the member's involvement in our community has been substantial in municipal politics and provincial politics. I believe he took the riding from the Tories, and the Tories have not had too many successful elections in our community since. I would like to see the balance a little more even or perhaps a little more on our side at the provincial level; we know of our party's success federally. There were many elections when we thought we had the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I believe in the last election the party to my right thought they had him, but he succeeded in winning re-election.

I suspect there will be many tough battles in the years to come. I do not foresee that the honourable member will retire, but we will continue to put up good candidates and continue to have good fights with him. In the meantime, I continue to look forward to seeing the honourable member at all of the social functions that he attends as a local member of the Legislature and working closely with him to fight for our community. Congratulations.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly, as the third member for the city of Windsor, I want to join in the tributes to my colleague and friend the member for Windsor-Walkerville on this very important day. I join my friend the opposition House leader in marvelling at how the member for Windsor-Walkerville has withstood and continues to go forward with such a positive demeanour after some 27 years in these hallowed halls.

I know that many a member, probably not only on our side but also on the opposition side, can tell many stories of having just been elected to the Legislature, and when trying to learn a few of the little tricks of the trade that politicians learn, being sent to see the member for Windsor-Walkerville and being told how one ensures that scrolls are properly done and acknowledgements are made not only for birthdays, but also for other very important events.

I might note that on Saturday last, as was typical, I was to deliver a scroll in my own riding. I went to the door, and the individuals pointed out not only how pleased they were to receive the scroll from the government of Ontario, but also how pleased they had been the week before to receive the honourable member's own personal card of acknowledgement on their 50th wedding anniversary.

Over the years, I know people have come to know the honourable member as that kind of a caring individual. He is an individual who is known by virtually everyone in our constituency and in our community. He is one who is highly regarded as a real gentleman and a real friend, who works tirelessly night and day -- and I mean that literally -- seven days a week -- and I mean that literally -- on behalf of the constituents, not just of Windsor-Walkerville but all the constituents of Windsor.

To my legislative colleague and my good friend, happy anniversary on this 27th anniversary in the Ontario Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: All these tributes, which are well-intentioned and fine, have missed a major point, which is that the honourable member spent only $12,000 to get here, which is less than any other person in the House did. As a person who stands for moderation and fiscal management in these matters, I have to congratulate him.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain the House will agree with the Speaker if I asked the member for Windsor-Walkerville if he would care to make a comment in response.

Mr. Newman: Thank you very much for those kind words, Mr Speaker, and I thank those others who also had the opportunity to say a few words.

Fortunately, when I went into political life, I went in for one purpose, which was to see if I could serve my fellow man. That has been my sole reason for being here, even until today. I could do a lot of other political things and I could tell members all kinds of gimmicks and so forth concerning the political arena, but I am not necessarily interested in that. I am interested in the fact that constituents come to my office, and they come in, I can say, almost in droves on Saturdays. I am religiously there in an attempt to serve them, because I get a big kick out of being able to help an individual. I have always had that approach.

The one regret I do have in life is that my good wife is not around to hear these plaudits from my fellow colleagues. It has been a pleasure to be able to serve, to be associated with so many nice ladies and gentlemen in the House, including members at the table, who have also helped me whenever I needed help. I thank everyone for being so kind to me. God bless you.

VISITOR

Mr. Ferraro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: That is a tough act to follow, but it is my privilege today to stand and acknowledge the presence in the members' gallery of a distinguished municipal politician. I hope the House will join me in welcoming to this Legislature the mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake, Jim Marino.

2:26 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. Scott: It will be my pleasure later today to introduce the English and Wabigoon River Systems Mercury Contamination Settlement Agreement Act, 1986.

My colleagues will recall that on November 25, 1985, I announced in this House the signing of a memorandum of agreement which was negotiated by representatives of the government, the Islington and Grassy Narrows bands, Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd., Reed Inc. and the federal government. This legislation is necessary in order to give effect to the terms of that memorandum of agreement.

The settlement calls for payments of $16.7 million to the bands involved. As previously announced in the House, the breakdown of payments is as follows: Great Lakes will contribute $6 million, Reed will contribute $5,750,000, the federal government will contribute $2,750,000 and Ontario will contribute $2,167,000.

Two million dollars of these moneys will be used to capitalize a mercury disability fund, which will be administered by a board, so band members will be eligible to receive compensation if they suffer from both exposure to mercury and symptoms consistent with mercury contamination. In the event that $2 million is not sufficient to capitalize the fund and more money is needed, Ontario has agreed to be responsible for topping up the fund.

To expedite the settlement of this matter, Ontario has agreed to enact legislation to establish the Grassy Narrows and Islington Bands Mercury Disability Board, under whose supervision the disability fund will be administered. In addition, in order to bring finality to this matter, the Islington and Grassy Narrows bands have agreed that all existing and future rights of action of the bands and their members are to be abolished. Accordingly, the provincial and federal legislation required to implement this settlement has abolished these rights of action.

Understandably, both these Indian communities are anxious to see this agreement fully implemented. The monetary contributions by the parties and the establishment of a mercury disability fund will provide some of the resources the communities require to take control of their futures successfully. The bands will each receive approximately $7 million for their own use, the bulk 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.

Accordingly, I will be asking the members of the Legislature for their full co-operation to ensure that this legislation will be passed and final settlement of this matter, after 17 years, reached prior to the end of this session of the Legislature. Members of this Legislature are aware that this has been a long and tortuous process. I anticipate the support of and speedy approval from all sides of the House so we can begin to compensate these citizens who have suffered terribly from the pollution of their environment.

Some form of justice to these people who have had their lives so tragically affected through no fault of their own is long overdue.

Mr. Shymko: We are delighted by the statement made by the Attorney General and minister responsible for native affairs about compensating the victims of mercury poisoning. However, in expressing our delight, I want to share some concerns.

First, we found out about this statement and the introduction of this bill from the negotiator for the two bands, John Olthuis, via a telephone call about an hour ago. We are concerned that the negotiator for the two bands knew about this some days ago, and I understand the leader of the third party also was aware some time ago of both this statement and the bill. Notwithstanding the approach of open government, this is getting to be ridiculous. The leader of Her Majesty's opposition was not aware of this, and I want to express concern. There should be some protocol and a responsible approach to such major issues and statements.

Mr. Wildman: If you guys were less worried about protocol and more about --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: Second, notwithstanding some of the uncalled-for interjections from my left, I want to assure the Attorney General that he will have full co-operation from this party. However, he sets the agenda and the priorities of legislation in this House. I would have appreciated it had he stressed that he wants this passed in the next week or week and a half so that it may receive royal assent before the House recesses at the end of June.

I express the concern of the chiefs of the two bands in that they want this legislation to be unchanged so there are no surprises, and once again I stress the urgency for passage of this bill, which has been negotiated since November and for some time by the previous government.

Mr. Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am appalled and shocked at the personal attack -- no words are too strong -- by virtue and reason of the comments I was subjected to when the previous speaker mentioned that we had "been aware" of negotiations going --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the member's comments. It is not a point of privilege. It is a point of view.

Mr. Rae: First, I want to comment on the statement made by the Attorney General and, if I may, clear up what was a genuine misunderstanding between the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) and me. He asked me whether I was aware of the statement, and I replied to him that I was not aware of the statement but that I had had previous discussions with Mr. Justice Hall, which I have.

I was briefed when the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) was the minister responsible for native affairs in that very brief interlude now known affectionately as the last days of Pompeii. It was a refreshing change from the previous four years, but there was a brief time when, for some reason, our opinion was taken seriously by the Conservative Party. During that time, I was briefed by Mr. Justice Hall with respect to the framework of the negotiations. I know the member for St. David (Mr. Scott) was involved in those discussions as well.

As for the actual announcement today, I am as taken anew by it as anybody else, and I do not take particular offence in that regard. We have had ongoing discussions with the band. We have had an ongoing relationship with those involved in the negotiations for many years. If I may say so, and I say this in the presence of my colleagues the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who have acted so effectively as critics in the field of native affairs, I think of the work that has been done by my most distinguished predecessor, Mr. Lewis, who for many years shook the conscience of this province with respect to the problem of mercury pollution and the particular tragedy affecting the band.

We are relieved that there has finally been a resolution of this question, a resolution that appears to be satisfactory to all the parties involved. We will be scrutinizing the legislation and discussing it in some detail with all those who have been involved in the negotiations.

I do not think this is a time for us to be congratulating ourselves. The process has taken far too long, it has been far too protracted and it has put far too many people at a tremendous disadvantage. There has been far too much personal tragedy and far too much loss of life in terms of what has taken place over the past 15 years and in terms of lost hopes and shattered dreams, for any of us to feel that today is anything other than a time of relief. It is a time for us to commit ourselves once again to the cause of increasing the autonomy and increasing the real ability of native people to provide for themselves. It is a commitment to the principles of independence and dignity, which are so important to all the people of this province; a commitment to the idea and the notion that we must give the means, the economic tools, for our native people to be able to stand tall in this province alongside everyone else.

I take this settlement as the beginning of a commitment by the people of this province, not just to talk about native rights and about the past 200 or 300 years of wrong but also to start to deal with the real tragedy; that is, our continued failure to give the native people the means to deal with the issues that face them and to deal effectively with their own economy and their own future. That is what the debate should be about.

I am relieved that this has been done, but it is just the beginning of the negotiations, discussions and, yes, transfers of real wealth that have to take place if we are going to resolve the tremendous challenges and difficulties facing so many of our native people.

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I make this speech in my capacity as Minister of Financial Institutions. The speech from the throne indicated that "regulations concerning the securities industry would be introduced to ensure Ontario's ability to compete in a changing internationally competitive environment."

Users of capital and investors in this province have been well served by our securities industry over the years and have benefited from access to one of the best capital markets in the world. Increasingly, however, the securities market is becoming an international global market, and this is generating the need to adapt and compete.

To meet these challenges, I am announcing that the government has decided to adopt in principle the main recommendations of the report of the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to entry into and ownership of the securities industry. These recommendations will allow limited participation by foreign securities firms and by domestic financial institutions and nonfinancial investors.

These measures are designed to ensure the growth of Toronto as a major centre of international finance, while maintaining the essentially Canadian character of the securities industry.

Let me first address the new provisions that will apply to foreign investment in the industry. Nonresidents will be allowed to own up to 30 per cent of a securities firm. Alternatively, a nonresident may choose to register as a foreign securities dealer. The total capital of such foreign dealers, however, will be limited to 30 per cent of the total industry capital, and any one foreign dealer will be limited to 1.5 per cent of this capital. Additionally, nonresident entrants will be required to meet defined standards of performance prior to being registered.

It is important to recognize that many nonresident firms are already active in the securities business in this province, dealing in the exempt market that accounts for approximately one half of all trading generated in this province. Under our new policy, all participants in the exempt market will be registered and will be subject to the provisions of registration.

We will also be opening the industry to Canadian financial institutions -- banks, insurance companies and loan and trust corporations. We believe domestic investment in the securities industry is desirable and should be encouraged. While we have set a 30 per cent ownership limit for nonresident investors, we are prepared to discuss allowing Canadian financial institutions to obtain an even higher ownership level.

Our major financial institutions are world-class players and their entry into the securities industry is, in our view, essential to the growth of Toronto as an international financial centre. At a minimum, we will be permitting them to own up to 30 per cent of a securities firm.

It is our preference that domestic financial institutions be allowed to enter the securities market at the same time as changes come into effect for nonresident companies. To permit ownership of securities firms by these institutions to the levels contemplated in this new policy will require amendments to the various provincial and federal statutes governing their investment and corporate powers.

For our part, we will introduce enabling amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and the Insurance Act as a priority matter, and we encourage the federal government to expedite amendments to its relevant statutes, including the Bank Act. We hope early changes to federal legislation will be forthcoming.

In addition, this domestic investment policy will also apply to Canadian nonfinancial firms investing in the securities industry. Our regulations will ensure that appropriate checks and safeguards are in place to address any self-dealing or conflict-of-interest concerns.

The adoption of these principles relating to the ownership of and entry into the securities industry leaves many important matters of implementation and of developing ongoing rules to be settled. I have met with securities industry representatives to discuss these matters, and I have directed the Ontario Securities Commission to work closely with them in drafting the regulations. It is our objective to have the regulations available in draft form by the early fall to meet a target date of January 1, 1987, for implementation.

I will also be setting up a committee composed of representatives of the Ministry of Financial Institutions, the Ontario Securities Commission and the securities industry to monitor the working of the new rules and to report to me on a semi-annual basis. In this way, changes may be made as deemed appropriate to better serve Canadian issuers and investors.

We are living in a time of rapid change in world financial markets. The adoption of the principles I am announcing today are designed to ensure that our financial markets are so structured that Toronto will be able to maintain its rightful place not only as the centre of Canada's capital markets but also as a major international financial centre.

Mr. Runciman: I would like to make a few comments on the statement made by the Minister of Financial Institutions. I am taken aback by the foreign ownership aspects of the minister's proposal. We all know his colleague the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has expressed concerns about foreign ownership and trade. We also know the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has stressed the need for Ontarians to invest in Ontario and has brought in measures to meet that need. In that context, I cannot understand how the minister can advocate increased foreign ownership of securities companies or of any other company for that matter.

The Premier also made much of his desire for Ontario to play a full role in trade talks with the United States. He says he wants Ontario to be consulted at every step of negotiations. Yet, without consulting the federal government, his government is announcing changes that have international and national implications. Obviously the Premier is all for consultation, but only when it suits partisan purposes.

Canadians are a nation of savers. That has been well documented on many occasions. There are two ways of dealing with it: either ease restrictions on foreign investment or devise ways to get Canadians to invest in businesses. The minister has chosen the former option, the path of least resistance.

Turning to the ownership of investment companies by other financial institutions, I believe there are many dangers which the minister will have to address. The first is the familiar problem of self-dealing which can occur when financial institutions are involved in cross-ownership. We will press the minister to ensure there are adequate controls for the sake of shareholders, depositors and employees.

There is also the problem of reduced competition, which always occurs when conglomerates are formed. Let me cite an example. As the minister knows, several banks offer investor services. If one of these banks acquired 30 per cent of an investment firm, it would serve to reduce competition in the marketplace. I know the minister would not want that.

We will study this document further and listen to the minister's comments at his press conference. We will work to ensure that the investment community is well served in this province, but we stress that the investment community includes investors as well as dealers and that this Legislature must consider the effect on other sectors of the economy when considering the minister's proposals.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps I can refer briefly to the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions. I cannot resist commenting that when I was in another place with the brother of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I spent many a happy afternoon, evening and morning going over revisions to the Bank Act. It was close to being a lifetime project.

Reading the deadlines put forward by the Minister of Financial Institutions, and knowing the unbelievable vested interests that are out there, there will be more free lunches offered over the next number of months than we have ever seen before by various people seeking to catch various ears and by financial interests that have a stake in trying to change things.

I wish the minister well as he faces the task of attempting to revise the legislation, which may well be in need of revision. We look forward to participating, not in the free lunches but in the discussions and debates that will have to take place to bring Ontario's laws up to date.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I request unanimous consent to go back to statements briefly. I have checked with the other two House leaders. I did not give them any warning about this, but they have agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the request from the government House leader is for an opportunity for the Premier to extend the statements period. I believe there was still time. According to the new standing orders, is it also agreeable to have a short response time of about two minutes for each of the parties?

Agreed to.

IDEA CORP.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I apologize, but I am sure they understand the time pressures we are under. Yesterday, allegations were made in the House that the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. had made two investments that were influenced by political connections. I asked the cabinet secretary to conduct an immediate investigation. His review shows there was no political involvement in the two cases cited. No minister or government employee made any representation to the IDEA Corp. on either case.

The IDEA Corp., as the members are aware, was established in 1981 by the government of Premier William Davis to encourage venture capital investment in technology-intensive enterprises. Several problems arose soon after IDEA's startup, and it became clear that some of the corporation's activities were directly competitive with the private sector. These, and questions raised concerning its overall management, led to the government's February 19 decision to wind down the corporation effective June 30.

The dominant feature of the IDEA Corp. throughout its lifetime has been the independence of its decision-making. Investment decisions are approved by the board of directors and are not influenced by the government in any way. Neither the cabinet nor Management Board deals with the specific decisions, in accordance with the provisions of the IDEA Corporation Act.

The board itself is a distinguished one, composed of eminent Ontarions and chaired by a former Deputy Treasurer of Ontario and former president of York University, H. Ian Macdonald. Other directors include Peter Morand, dean of science, University of Ottawa; Gordon Slemon, dean of engineering, University of Toronto; P. Ronald Doyle, president, Sault College, Sault Ste. Marie; Desmond Cunningham, chairman, Honeywell Ltd., Willowdale; Eleanor Ryan, vice-president, Ontario Federation of Labour, Ottawa; and William Reno, director, United Food and Commercial Workers, Don Mills.

The clear suggestion in the news release of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) that this board had made politically inspired loans will no doubt come as a considerable surprise to Mr. Macdonald and his colleagues. It will also surprise many of my colleagues across the floor who know the IDEA board and its members from their experience in government.

In any event, since June 1985, the board has approved 49 investments totalling $27 million. I repeat that all these decisions were made in accordance with the IDEA Corporation Act, without reference to the government in any way. The chairman of the board confirmed to the secretary of cabinet that "all board decisions are made on the basis of staff recommendations based on established criteria."

Mr. Macdonald, the president of the corporation, states that in his four and one half years as chairman, he has not been lobbied by either cabinet ministers or public servants on matters on which the board has decided. Harold Blakeley, president of IDEA for the past 10 months, also confirmed that there has been no government involvement in board decisions during his tenure.

Of the $27 million, 16 investments totalling $10.4 million were made after the announcement on February 19 that the corporation would be wound down. The $18.5 million quoted in the release is inaccurate either as an indication of IDEA's total investment program since June 1985 or that portion of it made after the wind-down was announced.

There is a larger problem with the criticism that the government should not have made any investments after the announcement of the phase-out was made. To follow such a course would have been a complete break of faith with all the companies that had become involved with IDEA while it was in full operation. That is why the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), at the time of their announcement, said IDEA would continue to process projects currently under review. This has been done. It is essential to note that no investments have been made in any projects that were not under review by the IDEA Corp. prior to February 19.

With respect to the two specific cases raised by my honourable friend opposite, the following are the facts. Graham Software Corp. initially contacted the IDEA Corp. in the summer of 1985. It received initial funding from IDEA on September 18, with an option for future investment, which was later exercised after a thorough review of the application by the staff. It is my information that Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Graham had no business relationship at the time of the application, having severed their business relationship three years previously.

The application of Wyda Systems (Canada) was made to the corporation in August 1985, following preliminary discussions with staff. Prior to these events, in June 1985, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, civil law, had a general discussion with Mr. Caplan concerning conflict-of-interest matters as part of an ongoing process to advise Liberal members and their spouses. Mr. Caplan mentioned that he was president of Damaza Consultants Ltd., a financial consulting firm. He stated that from time to time he might act as a consultant for companies that had applied to ministries or government agencies for grants or loans.

Mr. Caplan was advised that, pursuant to the conflict-of-interest guidelines, a minister of the crown, which included the spouse of a minister, could not have an interest in a private company that had a contract or agreement with the government. He was advised that he would be precluded from having an interest in the equity of a client company seeking funds from the government or any interest based on the amount of funds received from the government. He was also advised that the member for Oriole (Mrs. Caplan), as a minister, should have absolutely nothing to do with any decision on whether any client of Mr. Caplan received government funding.

In the opinion of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, civil law, Mr. Caplan has complied with these guidelines.

At the time of application and approval of the Wyda proposal, Mr. Caplan was listed by Wyda as a financial consultant and given the title of vice-president, finance. The application was made in the summer of 1985, placed on the IDEA board agenda for February 19, 1986, deferred, and approved on March 6, 1986. Mr. Caplan's relationship to Wyda was disclosed by Mr. Macdonald to the board before its deliberations, and the board decided it would have no impact on its decision. No member of the government had anything to do with the investment decision in Wyda.

With respect to the existing portfolio, the Ontario Development Corp. has been given responsibility for its management after June 30, and suitable arrangements are being made by the corporation to manage the province's investments under the supervision of its board. Our dominant concern in the future will be successful divestment of these investments to the private sector at a time suitable and consistent with their long-term development.

I regret that the integrity of the IDEA chairman, board and staff have been questioned. I also regret that the opposition felt it appropriate to criticize the government for keeping faith with the companies with proposals being reviewed by the corporation, especially when we had announced in advance that we would do so. Most of all, however, I regret that the reputations of particular individuals have been questioned in a way that does not square with the facts.

If the honourable member is not satisfied with the conduct of the IDEA Corp., I invite him to bring the matter before the standing committee on public accounts and present whatever further evidence the member may have, so that any concerns members may have can be explored fairly, completely and openly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing has up to two minutes.

Mr. Harris: I regret the member for Brantford is not in the Legislature today. He is in his riding with our leader. I am sure he will have more to say when he returns tomorrow. However, let me point out a couple of things in the Premier's statement.

First, the Premier states, "I regret that the integrity of the IDEA chairman, board and staff have been questioned." Let me put the record straight and assure him that the integrity of the chairman, board and staff was not, to the best of my knowledge, or ever will be questioned. We felt the problem was far more serious than that.

The Premier's statement today has absolutely no mention of Exploracom and the $17 million to Mr. Schwartz. I am a little surprised the Premier has not risen to clarify this issue and to undertake to table the materials that will demonstrate the impartial criteria that were used and that are in place. Any phone calls we make to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology or to any other source that may have access to these funds tell us the criteria are not in place and the rest of Ontario is precluded from applying. That has nothing to do with the IDEA Corp., as the Premier will recall.

Statements I heard and saw in print last night and heard on the radio this morning referred to the member for Brantford as being sleazy and in the gutter. I am not sure that those are quotes of the Premier's statesmanlike words or quotes that I would expect from the Premier of Ontario. I think they indicate that one doth protest too much.

Our role on behalf of the people of Ontario is that of a watchdog for their tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired.

Mr. Rae: I was not in the House yesterday; I have Hansard here. I understand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) accused the Premier virtually of criminal negligence causing death under the Criminal Code. It seems to have been a day in which accusations of a most personal nature went back and forth. I do not want to get into that.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: One lives with that kind of remark. If members of the official opposition carry on with such remarks, they will see how far the remarks get them as a political party.

It would be wise if the matter, including the grant to Exploracom, were referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

The matter raises questions that have been cleared up to my satisfaction by virtue of what the Premier said. If I can interpret what he said, he does not regard the IDEA Corp. as "the government." Therefore, it is my understanding that in this case, if the husband of the Minister of Government Services and Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Ms. Caplan) is in a corporation that has applied to the IDEA Corp. for a grant that in no way reflects a conflict of interest, that is satisfactory.

If that is a matter of government policy and interpretation, it should be made quite clear. If that is the interpretation the Premier is putting on it, that should be made quite clear too. None of us particularly relishes these matters; I certainly do not. It has never been my forte, unfortunately, perhaps, for my political career.

I have no hesitation in saying it would be useful if that matter and the question of the Exploracom grant were referred to the public accounts committee.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, before we move to oral questions, could I have the unanimous consent of the House to entertain the following resolution?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear agreement. We are moving to oral questions.

Mr. Andrewes: I am not sure they could disagree, not having heard the resolution.

2:59 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Andrewes: My question is for the Premier. Will he reconsider and move to appoint a mediator to settle the dispute between the government and the Ontario Medical Association to prevent the strike that is going to occur tomorrow and to make sure essential medical services are provided to people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have had a thorough discussion of this question on I do not know how many occasions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has asked me that question and we have discussed it. As I said, there is a difference of opinion at the moment. If the member is asking me to withdraw the bill, the answer is no. We are proceeding in this House and we are discussing it. We have answered the question so many times, I am not sure we can be helpful in that regard.

Ms. Fish: I have a supplementary on the question of steps necessary to ensure that essential health services are provided. This morning an individual case came to my attention of a woman, I understand a victim of violence and currently 11 weeks pregnant, who entered a major Metropolitan Toronto hospital this morning for pre-operative blood work. She was told by her gynaecologist at the close of that blood work that her procedure, a dilation and curettage booked for tomorrow, would not be proceeded with and that all such surgery was cancelled indefinitely for the duration of the strike. She followed all procedures and the procedure was determined as medically necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Fish: What steps will the Premier take to ensure that medically necessary surgery is provided in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Minister of Health will be better able to answer that question on the procedures he has undertaken to try to assist in these cases. Perhaps I can refer it to the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: If I may, this thing took place this morning; so the member should have contacted me immediately. I have urged all members to bring these serious matters to my attention at the earliest event. The opportunity of a number of hours for referral of this item to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which has invited this sort of information to come to its attention so it could act on it as well, is well known. I encourage all members, when they know of these types of events, to come directly, either to myself or to my ministry, which has a line which is available for public consultation. We do have physicians in a consultative role, but we refer that to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which has also undertaken to provide advice and assistance in those situations.

I regret the member did not phone me earlier so we could act at the first opportunity. When members know of these events, please do not wait for question period. Bring it to our attention first and we will act on it.

Ms. Fish: The matter only just came to my attention. I was clear that the woman undertook procedures this morning. I will be pleased to raise the particulars of this case with the minister. In the course of doing so, allow me to add that the specialist who turned her away this morning after her blood work suggested that she might want to go to Buffalo or, failing that, to the Morgentaler Clinic. I cite again that we have impending chaos. It must be dealt with and not wait for the individual cases to come forward.

Hon. Mr. Elston: There was no question. I have told the member I would be willing to act on the information when it is made available. She obviously knew about it before she came to the House, before two o'clock. An hour has gone by. We are interested in these cases so that at the very earliest opportunity we can get involved in helping on these items.

In order that there be no misunderstanding, I must also indicate that the college has taken great pains to provide information to the public that it is willing to work out, as best it can, resolutions to this type of situation as well. I invite people to contact the college because that mechanism is there and its use has been encouraged by the college, and also to provide us with the information at the earliest opportunity.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Ms. Fish: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. Last Thursday he informed this House that the Ministry of the Environment provides the information requested by international bodies, whether they be state or national bodies, in the United States. Last Thursday we asked him why he had failed to provide often-requested information on sources of Great Lakes pollution to the Environmental Protection Agency.

I want to ask him again why he has refused to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with requested information on Great Lakes pollution sources.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member must be recalling her days in government when this was perhaps a complaint her government was faced with on an ongoing basis. I find it interesting that she has the audacity to ask such a question after the way the Conservatives very often dealt with this.

Mr. Davis: Just answer the question. Come on, Captain Chemical, answer the question. The minister should do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I realize the past poses some problems for the member for Scarborough Centre. I know in his previous incarnation --

Mr. Davis: The minister has had a year. He does not know how to govern. I thought I would help him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if the minister would disregard the interjections and answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will disregard the interjections of my friend the member for Scarborough Centre, who is not used to doing that.

In fact, contact was made with the International Joint Commission because I was interested. I have never received personally a complaint of this kind from the IJC or the EPA that I am aware of, saying that this is a problem at this time. We did contact several people, and the response was that they felt we were providing the information they wanted. If the member has further information, I would be happy to address that, but this is the response I got when we contacted them.

Ms. Fish: The request came last October. The administrator of the EPA indicates he spoke personally with the minister to ask for the information in February and that officials of the EPA met with the minister's officials in April, repeated the request and subsequently wrote to the minister in May. How can the minister stand and say he is unaware of a request he has failed to respond to?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I go back to the point I made when the member's leader tried this question a week ago. I understand the EPA is not happy with Ontario. I expect from that source and from certain other sources the member will be fed information that may attempt to cast a shadow on Ontario. That is what happens when one is in difficult negotiations with others.

Working through the International Joint Commission, which is the body we work through, I believe the clear indication was that it found our information acceptable. Any statements I had from the people we contacted in the IJC indicated it was acceptable.

Ms. Fish: The minister dismisses a serious request for serious information from the EPA by suggesting it is only negotiation. I do not believe it is. The EPA has made very clear it requires that information to be able to do exactly what the minister has suggested he wants to do, which is to continue to add to our store of environmental information and enhance Canadian-American co-operation, because it highlights one of the challenges facing the scientific community.

The EPA has sought the information to clean up the Great Lakes. It must be a challenge if the minister will not give it. Why will he not give it? Is it because it is as inadequate as his dioxin testing on two apples?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think the member, having been Minister of the Environment for however long it was, a couple of months, would recognize that the kind of testing -- and I should not invoke the gentleman beside her -- Ontario does in terms of dioxin, for instance, is very difficult to see matched in other jurisdictions. When we ask, "Do you measure in parts per quadrillion?" they say no.

3:10 p.m.

We spoke to Dr. Richard Thomas, a director of the IJC office in Windsor. John McDonald, head of the IJC's point source discharge monitoring, said there is no delay at the moment. David Chance, secretary to the IJC in Ottawa, said there was a complaint in the past but it did not appear to be a problem at this time. This is the information I get from the International Joint Commission. We are prepared, as always, to provide any information that is required. If the member thinks the practices of the past should be terminated and we should turn over a new leaf, l am quite willing to do that.

Ms. Fish: All talk and no action.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will let you continue the debate some other time.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will no doubt be aware from the work he has done that there are a number of hospitals -- I mention Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals, Toronto General Hospital, Sudbury General Hospital and McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay -- where a number of so-called elective surgeries have been cancelled. I understand in particular that at the Toronto General Hospital it is the policy that non-life-threatening heart bypass operations are going to be allowed to wait and not to proceed as scheduled, while others may proceed.

Has the minister had any discussion with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario not to leave it to each individual patient to have to complain about the delay of an operation, but clearly to establish guidelines that will ensure that patients who have been waiting for many weeks for operations that most people will regard as essential and important are not simply left outside wondering when they are going to be cared for? Can the minister not give us that assurance today?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have had continuing personal contact with the college. We have been developing a process of reviewing the situation as it arises. We are not only using connections with the college, but we are also working through the Ontario Hospital Association to bring us up to date right away on any situation that is of note.

The physicians in this province are the ones who determine when the service of medical care is to be delivered to their patients. We have encouraged the physician and the patient to enter into a dialogue on the decisions made with respect to the delivery of medical services. That is to be encouraged. We have not taken the role of injecting ourselves between the physician and his or her patient with respect to the delivery of care. There have been directives to physicians from the Ontario Medical Association executive about how they should proceed, but in many ways the decisions to deliver medical care must be made by the practitioner, and that process is being carried on. We have and we will continue to have very close discussions with the college.

Mr. Rae: This is not satisfactory. "Let the patient beware" may be a satisfactory slogan for the Liberal Party, but I do not think it is satisfactory to the patients of this province.

Is the minister conducting surveys on a hospital-by-hospital basis himself or within his ministry? In particular, can he comment on the fact that at the Sudbury General Hospital 140 operations scheduled for the period between June 12 and June 20 have been cancelled? Can he provide a categorical assurance to this House that the health of those people is not being put in some jeopardy by those cancellations?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As is the case in this province, the delivery of medical care is in the hands of the physicians. We in this province have faith in the system, which has worked during the past several years. I do know we have been advised by the OMA not to trespass on the strong relationship between a physician and his or her patient.

We have ways of receiving information from the various hospitals, not just the ones the honourable member mentioned. I can tell him as well that when a physician undertakes the care and control, basically, of the patient's medical needs, there are provisions under which the college can act to ensure that the physician does not abandon the patient. That is the role the college plays. It is an independent role and it is one of assessment.

My checking around the province to the limited degree that the reports are coming in has indicated, by and large, physicians are going to be providing that care.

Mr. Rae: The minister may not have heard, but what has come between the individual patient and the individual doctor is a force called the OMA and its advice to physicians to go out on strike. He may not have heard that. If he has not, I am going to advise him of it officially today. It is widely known and widely reported that this is what is happening.

Is the minister satisfied with the cancellation of 140 operations at Sudbury General Hospital? Is he satisfied with the cancellation of 30 per cent of all operations at Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals in Hamilton? Is he satisfied that heart bypass surgery is being cancelled at Toronto General Hospital? Is he satisfied that at McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay all so-called elective operations have been cancelled? If he is aware of those facts, what does he intend to do about them? What does he intend to do for all the patients who have been relying on care, have been expecting care and are not going to be getting care because the OMA has advised its members to withdraw --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Four questions were asked.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am aware of that. I have been advised of a more specific piece of information than I had before I came into the House. It is no surprise to me that the honourable member has said the OMA executive has advised physicians to undo their relationship with their patients. I made that statement myself, and perhaps he is picking up on it. I regret that has occurred. With respect to the provision of medical services, we intend to continue to try to expand accessibility to those services and we will do everything we can to improve our health care system.

In our health care system, there is a role that is played by the physician when he or she makes the decision with respect to the delivery of care, which I do not have the expertise to deliberate upon. I have told physicians over the past several months that I am not going to tell them what therapy to deliver, when to deliver it or how to deliver it. They have the independence and will continue to have the independence to make those decisions.

When it comes to patients and physicians, the physicians are going to make the decision as to the delivery of care. That will have to be the situation. I can tell the member I am not satisfied with the instructions that were provided by the OMA.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Attorney General, who is also the minister responsible for women's issues. Can he tell us why he has rejected the advice of his colleague the Minister of Justice of Quebec, who has told him and the world that in his view the provinces are powerless to enforce the laws with respect to abortion? Can the minister tell us why women are made to feel like criminals in Toronto today for seeking access to safe, therapeutic abortion services?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I did not get the advice from the Minister of Justice of Quebec that the member refers to. He made the point that in Quebec there have been four acquittals with respect to charges of this type that have been sustained in the end by the courts. That is not the case in Ontario. There has been one abortion trial, in which the Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial. The situations are not parallel.

Mr. Rae: For the record, there was one jury acquittal. Perhaps I can ask the minister how many jury acquittals it will take in Ontario before he comes to his senses.

Hon. Mr. Scott: My friend is getting to be quite like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman). I do not think it is a matter of coming to one's senses; it is a question of approaching this question rationally. The reality is that there has been no acquittal in Ontario. The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal that occurred and directed a new trial.

Mr. Rae: I specifically used the words "jury acquittal." Whether being compared to the Leader of the Opposition is unparliamentary, I have no idea.

There is a serious problem with respect to access. As the minister responsible for women's issues, he should be aware of that, if he is not already. If he feels he cannot effectively act as an advocate on behalf of women who are facing this tremendous problem of access today, why does he not stand down and let someone over there do the job who is prepared to stand up and be an advocate for women on what is, I know, a difficult issue, but one that has to be faced up to in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I have said before, the question is a medical question, a question of the provision of medical services. If my friend wishes, I would refer it to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), except he is not here.

3:20 p.m.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The agricultural fair boards are facing liability insurance premium increases of up to fortyfold or 4,000 per cent this year. What is the minister doing to assist fair boards to meet these massive cost increases?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am working very closely with the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter), who has jurisdiction of a review of the whole policy of insurance, as the honourable member is well aware. If he wants to know more about what this government is doing in connection with insurance for the agricultural fair boards, I suggest he contact the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Mr. Stevenson: The Ministry of Agriculture and Food funds the fair boards. As one example, the 133rd annual Beaverton fair is now in jeopardy. Last year it paid a $200 premium for liability insurance; this year, for less coverage, the premium being asked is $7,000. Is the minister prepared to act and provide a stronger public role, as suggested in the Slater report?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member knows we do not fund the liability insurance for these fair boards. I have already indicated that the Minister of Financial Institutions is well aware of the insurance problems that are being faced not only by fair boards, but also municipalities, schools board, etc. They all are facing the same problem. I definitely will be working with the minister to see what we can do to help the fair boards with their liability insurance. We want the fair boards to continue doing the excellent job they have done in the past.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question to the minister responsible for women's issues. Last week, in response to my question about delay on equal pay, the minister attributed the delay to the trade unions' request for government support for studies to be done this summer. The minister said the request paralleled a proposal made by the business advisory group. As we well know, the unions were simply asking for equal treatment because several weeks earlier the minister had agreed to fund the business studies. Is it not the case that the minister should be explaining to us that he is delaying because business still wants to study the issue?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I was in error if I attributed the delay solely to any trade union undertaking that has been made by the labour advisory group. That would not be right. The point I was trying to make was that both the business advisory group and the labour advisory group had entered into arrangements with us to undertake projects this summer that we hoped would be completed in mid-August. We judge, as I think they do, that those projects will be useful in assessing the way pay equity can be implemented in the private sector and we regard that as an important part of the consultation process.

Ms. Gigantes: Once again, the minister is trying to suggest that the labour group has asked for time for study, which is not the case. He knows it not to be the case. I say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: How about asking him?

Ms. Gigantes: -- if he is really serious about equal pay, he could have a bill in the House next week, and we could implement it.

If the minister responsible for women's issues is not comfortable advocating for women's issues, why does he not find somebody else in cabinet, suggest one of his colleagues, who could stand in that role and advocate on behalf of women?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not think there is any point in determining who is responsible for the delay; I will answer for any delay. I was trying to make the point to the honourable member that both the business advisory group and the labour advisory group have offered to undertake studies. I think they will be useful and important, and they have asked us to provide resources in order that those studies be done. Both of them will be completed towards mid-August. They are important and I propose to wait until the material that they each are preparing is available.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. South: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Davis: A setup.

Mr. South: He is the best Minister of Natural Resources this government has had.

Mr. Ashe: He is the best one because he is the only one.

Mr. South: Can the minister tell the members about the status of the northern Ontario forest fire known as Red 7, which has not been under control since it started near the community of Red Lake on May 21?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I hope those people on the other side will be prepared for many more of our members raising questions. The new format is such that the Speaker now has more questions raised than ever before. Our people are entitled to raise questions, and I am going to encourage them.

The new critic is up there examining the fires today. The House leader of the other party would acknowledge that. It is very important that we understand that the forest fire which exists there of some 150,000 acres is one that should be of interest to all. I know the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) is concerned about depletion of the forest in eastern Ontario as it relates to the gypsy moth, and his interest is keen about all the forests in Ontario.

The forest fire is under control right now. It has not been for a good long time, but we have about 700 firefighters there and eight or 10 water bombers. We can all be proud of how our people are functioning in that regard.

Mr. South: Can the minister tell us how his staff is addressing the concerns of the local officials about the handling of Red 7?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: For the information of the House, and many would not know, all major fires in the north are investigated. We have Stan Greene, one of the most acceptable people in that area, who is very much concerned about how those fires start and how we should be fighting them. He is one of the people who will be on the board of inquiry. I am pleased to say that augurs well for everyone as to how we examine every major fire in the north and how it is being handled.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am just going to wait.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There are 31 members of the official opposition not in their places at this time. I am wondering whether we should not hold down the rest of question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest the member read the standing orders.

3:30 p.m.

DOMED STADIUM

Ms. Fish: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Does the minister believe that such terms as substantially changing the demographic characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood or community, overtaxing existing community services or facilities such as transportation, water supply and sanitary and storm sewers, and being highly controversial are applicable to the domed stadium project?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would have to think about what the member has had to say. Does she apply all those to the domed stadium? Is this to what she is referring? Do all those things relate to that? Any of those matters is the kind of matter --

Mr. Rae: The minister will be able to hold it up just by talking.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The leader of the third party intervenes. I have to give this considerable thought.

It would be safe to say to the member for St. George, who is asking this question, that they are matters that our ministry, in conjunction with any others that are proponents of the project, would want to take into consideration and address as the project proceeds.

Ms. Fish: I am not sure whether that is a yes. I note to the minister that I just quoted some of the screening criteria applied by the Ministry of the Environment in determining whether proposed projects should come under environmental assessment. I believe the dome project conforms to each of those statements. Given that, and given the concern expressed by a number of groups about the contaminated soil involved in the domed stadium and elsewhere, can the minister tell this House why he has not exercised his current authority to direct that the project be placed under full environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I was not aware the member's party was in favour of placing the dome under environmental assessment. If that is the case, it is rather interesting to hear, in the light of the past record and the fact that indication has never been given in the past.

Mr. Harris: Is your criterion what other people think? What do you think? What does your ministry think?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) would be interested in that. These matters will all be addressed. The dome is exempt according to the information provided to me by legal officials of the ministry. It is not our intention to place the dome under the Environmental Assessment Act.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question about insurance for the Minister of Financial Institutions. I presume the minister has read the article written by Matt Maychak in the Toronto Star of June 2. It is headed "Public Car Insurance Popular in Manitoba" and is subtitled, "Autopac, the province's no-fault scheme, has brought Manitobans cheap premiums that will drive most Ontarians to envy." The caption for a photograph reads, "Government-run, no-fault automobile insurance plans in Manitoba and British Columbia have resulted in dramatically lower premiums for drivers in those provinces."

All the independent investigations have given the same kind of report. Given these kinds of articles and the fact that Mr. Slater did not do a comprehensive comparison, or any comparison, of the rates or even the coverage of those public plans in the west and the rates or coverage in Ontario, why does the minister stubbornly refuse to do an in-depth investigation to show the people of Ontario and himself the financial and other benefits that would exist in a similar plan here?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member from the third party raises a question that he raises on a regular basis. Dr. Slater did look in some depth at the problem. He made his recommendations. Right now he has his report. Anyone can respond to that report by July 31. Once we get that response, we will make our determination.

Having said that, I say to the member again that Dr. Slater's recommendation was most emphatic that this government should not be in the car insurance business. That is our position at this time.

Mr. Swart: If the minister can find any place in that report where there is a comparison of premiums and benefits, I would like him to name the page to me so I can see it too.

Even with the minister's pro-private-insurance-company mindset, he must be aware that during 1985 and 1986, averaged-out insurance premiums were reduced by two per cent or more in each of those three western provinces, while they increased in Ontario by 35 per cent. He will know that they started two years ago from a base 20 per cent --

Mr. Speaker: Order. "Therefore, my question is."

Mr. Swart: My question is, why does the minister want to play the con game of the private insurance companies, which give only selective and misleading figures to the public? Why does he not update the in-depth study that was done by Woods Gordon on the comparisons in 1978?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold keeps bringing up the western provinces as an example. I have said to him before and I will say to him again that we have taken a look at comparisons. If one looks at it the other way and asks someone in Manitoba, "What would you charge to get insurance in Ontario?" one will see that there is not that differential.

DAY CARE

Mr. Baetz: I have a question for the Treasurer. In his budget speech the Treasurer stated that he recognized "child care as a basic public service." He went on to say, "A comprehensive plan for this important service for working parents is now being developed."

Interjections.

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of cackling going on down here. They think they have a monopoly over social services.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to go through this whole question again. Would you complete your question?

Mr. Baetz: Yes. I shall repeat a part of that question.

In view of the fact that such a comprehensive plan would go far beyond the current welfare-oriented social service and would, if it were to be fair, include assistance to those working parents where either one or the other wishes to take parental leave to care for their infant children in their own home, under these circumstances, does the Treasurer intend to assist these parents financially, either directly or indirectly, through such measures as a provincial child care tax credit or perhaps a special provincial income tax exemption for parents with infant children?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The commitment in the budget reflects the commitment made by our party in the election campaign and in certain other documents that concern removing child care from the element of simply welfare support. That has been and will continue to be an important aspect of it, but it is our commitment as a government that we wish to have policies that will expand it substantially beyond that. As Treasurer, I am well aware of the implications, and therefore I am involved in the discussions to some degree.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) is leading the group establishing policy on this. I am sure he will take note of the member's suggestions. I look forward to the time when the policy is announced to the House by my colleague.

Mr. Baetz: Certainly the Treasurer recognizes that there should be some major tax reforms and tax concessions if his famous plan is going to lead to fruition.

In view of the fact that these and other measures require close federal-provincial cooperation, has the Treasurer --

Interjections.

Mr. Baetz: There they go again, Mr. Speaker. They think they have a monopoly on this field, yet they know very little. Do you want me to continue?

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Baetz: Thank you. In view of the fact that these and other measures require close federal and provincial co-operation, has the Treasurer taken any positive steps or has he made any specific and concrete proposals to the federal government regarding additional tax credits and income tax exemptions or any other tax measures or cash benefits that would benefit working parents who choose to take parental leave to care for their infant children in their own homes? What, if anything, has the Treasurer suggested to the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member is correct when he predicts there will be substantial tax involvement in a mature child care program, and one aspect would be the credits to which he referred. Specifically, I have discussed the financing with the Minister of Finance for Canada, and I expect to raise it at a conference of treasurers, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance, which will be held next week in Victoria.

HIGH SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. I would like to go back to the question of the scandalous situation of drop-out rates in the secondary schools and ask the minister whether he is aware of the unfortunate situation that pertains in the general-level student category of our high schools.

Is the minister aware, for instance, that general-level students are likely to fail early and often? Is he aware that they drop courses without replacing them as a matter of habit, that they take few, if any, employment-related courses, that they work part-time more frequently than other students and that they drop out at a rate of 62 per cent over the course of their high school careers? That is a scandalous situation.

Is the minister doing anything to address this problem of the drop-out rate of general-level students?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has already asked five questions.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The government is taking specific measures in the area of co-operative education in building better and stronger bridges between the world of school and the world of work. As the honourable member knows, this government has made a strong and clear commitment to relevance in education for all our elementary and secondary school students. I look forward to working with this assembly to ensure that the concerns the member has addressed today and some weeks ago are addressed in all respects.

Mr. Allen: Those are worthwhile initiatives, but they do not tackle the peculiar syndrome of problems that afflict the general-level students. Every writer on this subject observes that this group is the forgotten middle in the school system and that neither the ministry nor the school boards attach the significance to it that they should. The students come from working-class homes, have ethnic parents on the whole, are from single-parent families and so on.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Allen: Why will the minister not establish an emergency working group that will tackle the drop-out problem in this province, target annual reductions and work with the school boards to achieve them on an annual basis?

Hon. Mr. Conway: At the risk of being mildly provocative, perhaps it is because the member's distinguished leader has cautioned members of the government about creating too many such task forces or working groups. I know of the member's concern. We believe that, as a government, we have taken important and positive measures. I agree that we must be vigilant to ensure that all students at the secondary level are properly provided for. Specifically, in the throne speech we indicated a number of initiatives in this area.

I repeat what I said to the member some four or five weeks ago. If he or the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) has additional or specific initiatives they would like the government to entertain, I am most anxious and willing to do so.

DAY CARE

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, whom I just saw slip around the corner. I am sure he will be back in a few moments.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps some other member would like to ask a question in the meantime.

Mr. Cousens: The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has not answered a question in so long that I would not try it.

Here he comes.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has returned.

Mr. Breaugh: Ask the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) a question. Let us go for the old days.

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Community and Social Services at least gives it a try.

The minister stated on Day Care Day at Toronto city hall on May 6 that the existing funding structure with the federal government was adequate and would likely remain in place. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), on the other hand, proposes a re-evaluation of federal-provincial financing of child care. Can the minister tell the House exactly what his government's position is on the issue of new cost-sharing arrangements with Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The earlier reference was to the fact that the bulk of the proposals we are prepared to advance fall within the existing cost-sharing between the province and the federal government. However, there are some elements to a program that we would like to propose that are not currently covered in the cost-sharing between the two levels of government. We have indicated to the federal government that we would ask them to review that.

I believe it was yesterday that the member mentioned subsidization for commercial spaces. Another one would be the possibility of a direct grant to a day care centre. They are both proposed from outside advocacy groups. They are not cost-shared. The bulk of what we want to suggest would be cost-shared, but there are some elements that currently are not. We are asking the federal government to consider those.

Mr. Cousens: Obviously what the minister said about it being adequate was not the case. On May 7, the Progressive Conservative Party made a formal presentation to the special parliamentary committee on child care. Tomorrow afternoon, my colleague the member for Ottawa West will also be making a presentation. My friend the New Democratic Party critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services also took the time to make a presentation.

I have been informed that the Minister of Community and Social Services turned down an invitation to meet with the committee. Considering the tremendous impact that the federal government has on provincial child care, can the minister explain why he ignored this opportunity to further federal-provincial consultation in this important area?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As a minister of the crown in Ontario, I think it is more appropriate that I deal with a minister of the crown for the federal government. That is the normal relationship between governments. It is not deemed appropriate at either level of government for a minister to appear before a committee of the other level of government.

I am quite prepared for the federal government to send out a committee to get recommendations, to come to certain conclusions and then to discuss those conclusions with all the provincial ministers of social services from across the country. That is the most appropriate and traditional way for ministers to communicate with one another.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Development and Mines a question this afternoon. It is in regard to the north-south gasoline price forums he has organized for northern Ontario, commencing in Kirkland Lake on Monday next. What interest groups, such as farm organizations, taxi and fleet organizations and owners, municipalities and chambers of commerce, has he invited and notified of the forums? Has he asked them to present a brief to these forums?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, I am not the only one involved in this. There is also the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio). I am only there to assist. Everybody knows about this, because I am getting phone calls every two minutes; so somebody must know. The way we are going to proceed is to advertise in the newspaper. People will be invited to give their briefs in front of the committee. There will be representation by the Ministry of Energy on the north-south pricing study.

We will accept the input from the northerners on the impact on them of the gasoline prices in northern Ontario. It should be in all the newspapers. If not, I will have to tell that to my staff today or the staff of the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Ramsay: We on this side would like this forum to work. How effective does he think it would be and is it going to be when his local office in Kirkland Lake does not have the details nor know of such to date? To date, no ad has appeared in the daily paper in Kirkland Lake. As of this moment, no order has been placed by the ministry for an ad in the daily paper of Kirkland Lake, and this forum starts on Monday.

Mr. Gordon: No development. No study.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: There is a parrot talking. I think it is the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). A few years ago, a study was done by the previous government and it did nothing about it. I do not have to answer the member on this one.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much crossfire here. I will just wait. Does the minister have any further response?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will look into it when I go to the office in a few minutes. If there is no advertising in newspapers, there will be some on TV or radio for sure.

3:50 p.m.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr. Andrewes: In view of the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). Has he gone for the day? Perhaps the Premier would like to take the question.

The Premier will know of the commitment of a number of very prominent people, including June Callwood, to the creation of a hospice for the victims of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Does he agree that this form of palliative care is innovative and worthy of government support?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the honourable member for the question. I was beginning to feel like the Maytag repairman. I appreciate it.

Mr. Hennessy: You look like him too.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank my honourable friend for the contribution.

I do not know a lot about the particulars, but I do know of the hospice concept and have some understanding of it. They had a fund-raiser a few nights ago. I know of the problem in that area. I do not know of a specific proposal that has been made to the government for funding, but I am aware of some of the advances in palliative care, which I agree with my friend is a humane and sensitive way to deal with some terribly difficult problems.

Without knowing the specifics the member has in mind, I am sure this government would work very sensitively with the people in this regard.

Mr. Andrewes: We understand an application will be made to the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Community and Social Services for capital assistance. To date, no public funds or very few public funds have been expended in the area of palliative care. In the last stages of the fatal disease, AIDS victims do not require the rather heroic measures that hospitals perform in acute care areas; rather, they require support for the victims and the victims' families.

The hospice steering committee needs a capital commitment to get its fund-raising efforts off the ground. I ask the Premier clearly and honestly whether he will make that kind of commitment.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know the member will realize that in the absence of knowing the specifics of a commitment for how much and to whom -- I am not even sure who is applying, whether it is an existing hospital, a new group for a hospice or what kind of facility. I am sorry, but I am not familiar with those details.

The member will be aware that there are some enormous pressures on the system for housing. The other day I met with a remarkable young lady who is a quadriplegic because of a diving accident. One of the things we do not have in our mix of housing is a place for her to go and be independent. I am moved, as my friend is, at the concerns of these people because they are real and legitimate concerns. My friend has --

Miss Stephenson: This is ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will not get into a discussion with my friend the member from Mount Vesuvius.

Mr. Speaker: Please disregard the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will continue on and say to my friend that the minister has announced a long-term capital program. There will be announcements in the coming little while. We have a major commitment of funds of $850 million. I appreciate the input he makes. When other members have ideas on the disposition of those funds, they should be shared. He put the point very sensitively.

FISHER PARK HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Education regarding Paul Anka's alma mater, Fisher Park High School in Ottawa. What does the minister intend to do to protect the local residents and the Education Act, which is now under threat, from any school board that decides to ignore its own school closing guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The honourable member knows the matter of Fisher Park is still before the courts. I have no intention of commenting until the final judgement on the Fisher Park matter is handed down.

Mr. Warner: The minister is no doubt aware that the board is attempting to have $3 million in costs and damages assessed against the community association and, in particular, the individual representing the community association. Will the ministry undertake the appeal on behalf of the residents trying to defend their community against the misguided school board?

Hon. Mr. Conway: While appreciating the member's concern, I do not think it would be prudent for me to add to my earlier answer at this time.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In the housing paper he put out last December, he said 80 per cent of those tenants living in apartment units with chronically depressed rents could well afford to pay more in rent. Is that why he is increasing their rents by approximately 7.2 per cent next year?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The assured housing policy paper -- I presume that is what the member is referring to -- put forward in December did not say tenants with chronically depressed rents could afford to pay more. I cannot recall it saying that.

Mr. Gordon: I would like to correct the minister. That is exactly what it says in that paper. As a matter of fact, there is a second report out now, based on the assumptions the minister made, that shows it is false, that they cannot afford to pay increased rents and that 40 per cent of those living in those kinds of units are paying too much for rent. Yet the minister is going to have those tenants pay at least 7.2 per cent more next year. Is that the way he makes apartment units more affordable for the tenants of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member is making a good point here. In those units, to our knowledge, there are some experiencing hardship on both sides. Many tenants in those units are paying rents way below the market rent outside. It is a chronic complaint of those landlords that they are not able to make enough return on their investment. In the meantime, there are also tenants in those units who would have difficulty if the rents were to rise drastically. The Rent Review Advisory Committee has come up with a formula by which we can address the difficulties of those units' landlords and be sensitive to the tenants living in those units without a drastic increase. That formula will take care of the balance between the landlords and tenants concerned.

4 p.m.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that the city of Toronto parks department is planning to spray oak trees in Kew Beach Gardens park in my riding with a highly toxic pesticide known as Sevin to control an insect infestation this spring? Since the minister himself has questioned the use of Sevin for spraying the forests of the north, will he sit down with the city of Toronto parks department officials and the Toronto Board of Health to discuss alternative methods for controlling any expected infestation since this pesticide is considered a carcinogen?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will be pleased to investigate this matter and to explore all potential alternatives.

The member will agree that what was referred to in terms of the forests of the north was aerial spraying, and this is not aerial spraying. However, I would still like to look at the member's concerns and explore with the city of Toronto the potential for using other products.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Breaugh: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

This petition is signed by 40 fine constituents of the riding of Oshawa.

Mr. Ferraro: I have a petition signed by approximately 100 constituents of mine. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

Mr. Hayes: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

This petition is signed by 40 constituents.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with a certain amendment:

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the Brantford General Hospital.

Your committee would recommend that fees less the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary and Bill 31, An Act respecting the Brantford General Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Harris: I have a motion which would probably need the unanimous consent of the House for me to read it. It is very short. While I am reading it, I would be delighted to send copies forward to the House leaders of the other parties. I agree it is a unusual request; however, we have twice today given unanimous consent before we knew what was coming. I ask the indulgence of the House to do so, if that is acceptable.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member has correctly indicated that the House has been fairly agreeable about unanimous consent, and I am hardly in a position to refuse it. If he is bringing forward something that he considers to be a motion under this order which deals with the business of the House with the thought that perhaps the House might be able to discuss it, we are not in favour of anything that would be, in that sense, out of order.

All of us as members have the right to put motions in Orders and Notices for consideration during private members' public business, or other motions dealing with confidence in the administration or whatever; but if this is something that does not deal with the ordinary business of the House, then I am not very keen about it.

Mr. McClellan: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I recall that at three o'clock the Conservative Health critic rose in his place and asked for unanimous consent to move a resolution. It is now four o'clock, and the opposition House leader has asked for unanimous consent.

I have been in the House for two hours and I am very close to the gentleman. If the opposition members had wanted to have some consultation about the possibility of obtaining unanimous consent to move their resolution, which is the normal way we do business in this House, I would have been pleased to listen to their request. They have not bothered to do that; so I am not inclined to accede to their request.

Mr. Speaker: I understand we do not have unanimous consent.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENGLISH AND WABIGOON RIVER SYSTEMS MERCURY CONTAMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 76, An Act to implement the Terms of a Settlement of all Claims arising out of the Contamination by Mercury and other Pollutants of the English and Wabigoon and Related River Systems.

Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act and the Education Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As many members know, the three elements of local government, the lower tiers, the upper tiers and the school boards, rely on property taxes as a major source of revenue. How these taxes are raised has become very complex. This has led to tax contributions being unfairly distributed among ratepayers who live in the same upper-tier and school board jurisdictions.

On March 19, 1986, the Sudbury regional council voted overwhelmingly in favour of reassessing all properties throughout the region on the same basis for each major class of property. This will bring fairness among taxpayers in the Sudbury region. Cost sharing among municipalities for upper-tier and school purposes will use the same assessment as that used in computing tax bills for individual ratepayers. Councillors, trustees and ratepayers alike will be able to understand and compare property taxes among properties.

4:10 p.m.

The bill, which I am now introducing for second reading, implements the desire of the Sudbury regional council. The legislation defines the area for the reassessment to be the boundaries of the regional municipality and authorizes the Ministry of Revenue to undertake the reassessment. It will enable the regional municipality and school boards to establish uniform mill rates for both residential and commercial purposes for the region-wide services.

It requires that the appropriate portion of nontaxed revenues which is collected in lieu of a property taxation by the lower-tier municipalities be turned over to the region and school boards separately from property tax collections. It requires that every four years at least all properties in the region will be reassessed. It permits the province to provide grants to phase in intermunicipal tax shifts. There are companion amendments to the Education Act to allow this new and fairer means of levying school taxes.

Finally, I must emphasize that the reassessment requested in March 1986 by the council of the Sudbury region is for the 1986 taxation year. It is necessary to pass this legislation now to allow the different local government bodies to change their system of property taxation and allow the full benefit of the reassessment to occur.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions and comments regarding the last speaker?

Mr. Gordon: I would like to comment on the minister's bill.

The Deputy Speaker: It is clear that this is your two-minute portion of comments and questions on his remarks.

Mr. Gordon: Two minutes. Thank you. Then later on we will have more time.

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Gordon: In the 119 seconds that are left to me, after being informed about exactly how much time I had, I would like to say the minister and his bureaucrats will tell members that the regional municipality asked overwhelmingly for this market value assessment. During the time I shall have in a little while to speak on this, I will point out some of the reasons people living in Toronto and some of the neighbouring boroughs should think twice before they get into this type of assessment. Those are the comments for now.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there other comments or questions?

Mr. Laughren: I assume we are moving immediately into debate on second reading on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, we are in second reading. We are in the comments and questions and going around.

Mr. Laughren: I will wait for that.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there other questions or comments?

Mr. Ashe: I have a very brief question by way of clarification. Can the minister please let us know what the March 1986 vote of the regional council was?

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Are there any more comments or questions? I take it the minister wishes to reply.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The final vote was 18 in favour to one against.

The Deputy Speaker: Does any member wish to take part in the debate?

Mr. Gordon: I am delighted the minister said that with such emphasis and panache -- really, 18 to one. It sounds like a one-sided hockey game.

Mr. Polsinelli: That changes the member's speech now.

Mr. Gordon: No, I have not changed my speech. I know it was 18 to one. However, I know also the municipalities in the region of Sudbury were informed that they need not look to the ministry for the grants they used to get in the past to help them over some rough edges. It was pointed out to them that the methods they have been using in the past just would not do in the modern world in which we live.

When the minister tells me with such conviction that it was 18 to one, as if he had just won the biggest basketball game in Ontario, I think he is pushing his luck a little far. Nevertheless, I do not want to be hard on him since he is the new minister. At the same time, he must remember -- and he can give me a sign if he wants; yes, I will give him some more and I will not hesitate -- he is the minister and he is responsible for this bill. It is not good enough for him to stand and say: "The regional municipality voted 18 to one. Whoopee. I do not have any responsibility here and my staff are just bystanders. They are just on the side."

Whenever the minister has a market value reassessment similar to this one, I hear brave words coming from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and some of the other people in the Liberal government hinting and suggesting to the city of Toronto and Metro council that market value is long overdue down south and they should really get to it, get with it and get started. Before he gets into that line of talk, he should perhaps think about his civil servants. I believe we have an obligation to think about our employees.

I think about what Bob Vendette is going through right now in Sudbury. Here is a very fine gentleman whom I have known for years. He has been a good, loyal, energetic public servant. What does the minister do? He leaves him in Sudbury to take care of all the complaints about market value assessment. The man has to go home every night to his wife and family carrying that heavy load, while the civil servants who are sitting in the gallery right now can afford to sit there and be very happy and at ease. They just fly into Sudbury, talk to a few people, listen to a few complaints and then fly back down here to Toronto and leave Vendette to carry the can.

I do not think it is fair. It is not fair at all. I am sure the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) would tell the minister, in the great basketball game in Ontario called 18 to one, that when he is going to foist this kind of misrepresentation on to a region, he should not leave a civil servant like Bob Vendette hanging there turning in the wind. The minister would be better off to bring in somebody new and let him take the flak.

Mr. Laughren: Leave me out of this.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Nickel Belt could not even be a guard for a basketball team.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether these New Democrats on the left are going to run this House or whether you are going to run the House.

The Deputy Speaker: No. The Speaker will run the House. It is correct that those two members are being a bit noisy, interrupting the member speaking.

Mr. Laughren: Go for the throat.

Mr. Gordon: I am just getting warmed up. The member for Nickel Belt wants me to go for the throat. That would be much too easy.

I am genuinely surprised that the minister, a former mayor from a very fine community, has so quickly forgotten the local taxpayer. It did not take very long in greener pastures. They come down here to Toronto and get the big limousine to take them around town and somebody to open the door for them, the east door. Is that not where the limousines are? Is it Winston's? What are some of the other fancy restaurants in this city now?

Miss Stephenson: Fenton's.

Mr. Gordon: Fenton's.

I can see the minister now as he sits there eating his salad at Fenton's. Is he worried about the local taxpayer? Is he worried about the little guy? No. The minister sits there fantasizing. Is he fantasizing about his staff who are in the Speaker's gallery squirming uncomfortably? Not at all. He does not think about them. He is fantasizing about how he is going to bring market value assessment to the great area of Metropolitan Toronto. He is going to right all those wrongs.

4:20 p.m.

I will lay the minister dollars to doughnuts -- I do not think that would be right, Mr. Speaker; you will probably tell me I should not lay any wagers in this House -- but I will make the minister a bet that the government does not bring market value assessment in before the next provincial election. I dare him to bring it in. He will not bring it in.

What will he do instead? He will go up to the Sudbury region and say: "Hey, fellows, I have news for you. We are not going to provide you with any nice little grants any more. There is no point in the mayor of Sudbury coming down to Toronto any more. There is no point in flying down here or getting in your dogsled and coming down. There is no point in that because those grants are not going to be available any more."

That is what he told his civil servants to do when they came in and asked, "What can we do about Sudbury?" The minister was fantasizing at the time the deputy minister first came in to talk to him. I can imagine the conversation, which probably went something like this:

"Minister?"

"Oh yes, deputy. I was thinking I would like to leave my mark here at Queen's Park. I would like there to be a little tablet out on the lawn. I do not want a big statue, but a little tablet that says, `Grandmaître: the minister who first brought market value assessment to the first region in Ontario.' That is what I would like, a tablet out there that says that."

He then said to the deputy minister: "Deputy, I have had this fantasy ever since I was elected. It is the one thing I really want to do. I want to have that on the little tablet."

The deputy said, "Minister, I have to ask you about northern Ontario, which is north of Steeles Avenue."

North of Steeles Avenue is like a cliff. It does not matter which government it is; anything north of Steeles Avenue does not count or matter. We saw that today.

As just a little aside, and I hope I will have the opportunity to make this little diversion, we saw that today when the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) was asked by -- yes, I almost said minister because he has so much presence -- by my colleague the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), who got up and asked, "What about these meetings we are supposed to have about the cost of gasoline and the cost of things in the north?" The Minister of No Development said, "In actual fact, we have not been able to do anything yet." That was despite the fact he told us about this a month ago. I bring up that point to illustrate that north of Steeles Avenue we just do not count.

I know what the minister is going to say. He is going to say, "That is a fantasy of the member for Sudbury, who believes we think anything north of Steeles Avenue does not exist."

Yesterday, I was attending a funeral in Sudbury. After the funeral we went to a little gathering in the Italian Club in Copper Cliff. I ask the minister to remind me to come back to the Italian Club in Copper Cliff. When I digress like this, if I should forget I was going to talk about the Italian Club in Copper Cliff, I want the minister to remind me I was going to do that, because it is an interesting story.

I met a gentleman from Sault Ste. Marie who is working very diligently, along with the other noted bureaucrats and noted entrepreneurs and politicians in Sault Ste. Marie, to try to do something about the many people who have been laid off in that community in the past few years. They are now facing another 1,500-man layoff.

The Deputy Speaker: Is this leading directly to market value assessment?

Mr. Gordon: This is coming right around to assessment, because those people in Sault Ste. Marie are going to have a lot of trouble with the market value assessment process that I believe has been brought into place in that community. Do I see one of the civil servants nodding at me in the background there? Has it been brought in there? It has. I knew I had read that somewhere.

As the minister indicated, it had been announced that 1,500 people are going to be laid off from Algoma Steel. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has done absolutely nothing. We have heard nothing. We have had some people come in to talk to us. They have gone away, and it is as if we do not exist. That is why this minister would have the nerve to make the Sudbury region the first region to have market value assessment in this province.

It makes me wonder. Here we have a region that since 1971 has had more layoffs and has had more working people lose their jobs on a per capita or percentage basis than any other region or municipality in Ontario. What happens north of Steeles Avenue as far as the government is concerned? It could not care less, and I think it should be ashamed. That 18-to-one vote, on the one hand, recognized very clearly, as it should, that we have people in our region who had been paying too much in taxes and who do deserve that difference.

On the other hand, there are an awful lot of people in that region who are suffering right now and who are really going to suffer in three years when that sum of money he offered them -- what was it again? I will save the minister the bother of telling me about it later on this afternoon -- he offered the regional municipality $7 million if it would go along with market value assessment.

The minister is going to tell me the regional municipality asked for market value assessment on two occasions, in the mid-1970s and just recently. Does the minister mean to tell me he is getting $7 million out of the Treasurer's kitty for the region of Sudbury just because he likes the way we walk around in the bush in northern Ontario? Is that the reason we are getting the $7 million?

As a matter of fact, he is giving us that $7 million because he wants to bring in those regional councils and woo them into accepting market value assessment. I am willing to bet that $7 million he offered, the money he says he is giving them for the next three years, would be about the amount of money this government would give all those municipalities in the regional municipality of Sudbury over the next three or four years to help them balance their taxes.

Do not tell me this $7 million is any great windfall; it is not. The minister has not fooled me and I am sure he has not fooled the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) or the member for Nickel Belt either, but he did fool some people who voted. With respect to the great basketball game in Ontario, he went up there and pulled a fast one. Let us put things on the record here.

Let us talk about the taxpayers. What about those taxpayers whose incomes are limited either because of unemployment or because their income cannot possibly meet the everyday expenses of supporting a home? What kind of opportunities will they have? Are we forcing these people to move into subsidized housing that we do not have? It has always been my theory that one helps people to remain in their homes, to raise a family in an environment that is conducive to good family living.

I would think the minister would remember that as a former mayor. One thing a mayor has to remember is that there are a lot of people living in a community who do not have as much as others. A mayor's first concern should be to try to see that he keeps as many of his people living in their own homes as possible. I do not think he has done that in this instance.

4:30 p.m.

As a matter of fact, the minister did not even see fit to throw the city of Sudbury a carrot. Instead, Sudbury is using the reserves it built up over a number of years to try to cushion the impact for the next two or three years. It is not really going to cushion the impact. We all know that once the subsidy runs out, the game is over and then people pay through the nose.

What of the taxpayers in Sudbury who are unemployed? It is beyond my comprehension how the minister could decide to bring in market value assessment in a region that has an unemployment rate of 14 per cent, a region that over the past four or five years has had an unemployment rate that has probably run between 15 and 20 per cent and that has a welfare rate well above average for a municipality its size.

Mr. Polsinelli: There are a lot of other things in the back of my mind. That will be filed way in the back.

Mr. Gordon: Why would the minister pick that municipality to be one of the first? As I pointed out to him succinctly and clearly -- I would like the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) to listen carefully to and remember what I have to say -- the municipalities within the regional municipality of Sudbury have been able in the past to come down here and get a little extra money to help them over the rough spots. Those days are gone. Instead, they have taken that $7 million, which might cover the next three or four years, and lumped it together and said: "Here is the great big carrot. Go for it." I would like him to keep that in the back of his mind.

We have talked about unemployment. The other point is that there are unemployed people who are not going to be able to afford homes because of this change. We have a vacancy rate of around zero throughout the province. It is not much better in Sudbury. Will the minister now go out and build subsidized housing for these people? Is that what he will do?

This is one of the favourite ploys of government, to take what people have out of one pocket and try to give it back to them through another pocket, saying, "Whoopee, look what we have done for you." Reassessment will cause an unhappy situation for many. This government will soon find that the demand for subsidized housing in the region will become an agonizing experience for both the present-day local government and Queen's Park.

Must we not be concerned too about our senior citizens, who have saved in their lifetimes to own homes and now are faced with a substantial increase in taxes? This is something they never dreamed was going to happen. Institutional living is not the environment we want for our seniors. The government will say: "We are developing programs to keep seniors in their homes. We are going to run out and develop our programs a little faster now to help the seniors in Sudbury region." Reassessment will cause an unhappy situation for the elderly at a time when they should be enjoying the fruits of their labours.

The Sudbury region is still dependent on the mining industry. Although we have taken enormous steps in the diversification of the area, our working population is nevertheless made up to a great extent of those employed in the mining industry. The early retirements that took place in the past few years consisted of employees who had not reached the age of 60. Most of these retirees are still living in their homes and trying to keep them up on limited incomes; in most cases, there is barely enough to make ends meet. Will these home owners now be subjected to a heart-wrenching situation at a time when their incomes are considerably restricted? Can they now afford their homes? There are so many workers from Inco and Falconbridge who are in exactly that situation.

The types of pensions that big mining companies give out are not the types of pensions on which one can afford to go to Florida every winter. Many people are now going to be faced with considerable market value reassessments. The government will say: "Yes, but the member for Sudbury should recognize that about 50 per cent of the households are seeing a change. They are going down in their assessment. Therefore, they are going to benefit." I do not buy that 50 per cent. I would like some of the bureaucrats who are here today to run around a little faster and come up with some important figures that the minister can use later on in this debate.

How many lakes do we have in the Sudbury region? It is too difficult a question for the minister to answer. I will tell him how many there are. There are approximately 120 lakes in the regional municipality of Sudbury. What do people like to do in the north? After spending a great deal of time suffering from the inclement weather, because it is a littler colder in the north than in the south; after putting up with the frost, the deep freeze, the snow and the ice, they like to do what our Deputy Speaker does.

The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) talks quite fondly to me every once in a while. Most of our conversations revolve around how this wonderful man from southern Ontario takes the time to go north. Does the minister know why the Deputy Speaker goes north? He goes north because he has a cottage. We call them camps in the north, but down here they call them cottages. He goes up to his cottage. His cottage is one of the things he lives for.

In northern Ontario, we live for our camps. Most of those camps were built by ordinary workers. Those working people went out and hacked a road through the bush. Then they hauled in the materials. Sometimes they had to haul them across a lake in boats. They took the time over a number of years to build those camps for their own enjoyment. Now they are finding that those camps are going to be treated the same as any other property. They are going to have to pay market value assessment on them.

There are camps where perhaps they were paying $200, $300 or $400 in taxes on them. Many of them are finding the taxes going up from $400 to $900 and more. Does the minister know how much time they spend at those camps? Those camps have no services. There is no running water. The municipality does not run sewers and water out to those camps. The municipality does not provide any services.

Most of these people hack roads, working together. For miles and miles, they have these roads going out to all those camps on lakes. There must be about 70 lakes that are inhabited right now. The roads are kept up by the people who own those camps. They get together and form an association. They put the gravel on the roads. Every spring they are back in fixing them up.

Most of the people who own those camps are ordinary working people. We are not talking about people with a lot of money. Northern Ontario or the Sudbury region is not like Toronto. It is not like some of the more established communities in Ontario. We do not have the pyramid effect where there is a good section of well-to-do, then another group of people who are close to being well-to-do, then another group of people who are close to close to being well-to-do, and then another group of people who are close to close to close to being well-to-do. We do not have that in the north at all.

4:40 p.m.

Most of the people are working people. They do not have a lot of money. For them, their camps are a very important part of their lives and 90 per cent of them built those camps and those roads. They maintained everything and improved those camps over a period of years by the sweat of their brow. It was not because the municipality or the provincial government did anything for them.

Does the minister know what he is going to do to those people? He went up there and said: "Do we have news for you. We are going to offer the boys who sit around the regional council table $7 million," which they would have received anyway, as I explained earlier, "and we are going to make everything uniform and pretty. We are going to try to make things more like the south," even though the minister never thought about us north of Steeles Avenue except when he had this great fantasy about how he was going to get this tablet put on the front lawn of Queen's Park by bringing region-wide market value to Sudbury region. This is his great claim to fame. He did not think about all those workers who have been pensioned off. What is going to happen to them?

I wonder whether the minister's staff took time on this, or if he asked his staff because we cannot really blame the staff. If the minister does not ask the questions, they are not going to give him the answers. I wonder whether he asked them to give him a demographic profile of Sudbury region. I wonder whether he asked them to find out what the average age is in that community. Does the Sudbury region have buckets of young people or adolescents? Are scoop trams full? Maybe that would make some of the people on the left a little happier. He might have to explain to them what a scoop tram is, but nevertheless --

Interjections.

Mr. Gordon: I have got them going now. We can see that.

The minister will find that one of the problems we have had in the north is that we lose a lot of our young people because we have depended upon single industries for so long, either forestry or mining. The haemorrhage of jobs, which has been talked about in this House by both opposition parties, has become a reality this year. We are losing an awful lot of jobs. Because of that, the young people do not stay. What has happened is that we have a gentrification, an ageing northern Ontario, which is much more severe and much more evident than we have south of Steeles Avenue. That means there are more pensioners, more seniors and more people who are going to be seniors.

What does one do? One goes in there and says: "La-di-da. Have we got news for you. The minister's fantasy is that we are going to have market value assessment in Sudbury. We are going to be able to say this is the first region to have it. How wonderful. By the way, we are also going to take your camps and assess them at market value."

A lot of those people are not going to be able to afford those camps because they may spend only three or four weeks of summer in them -- maybe six if they are lucky -- because climate militates against the use of those camps. In the north we say, "If you are going to take a holiday in the summer, take it in July," because after mid-August, summer is over.

Somebody is going to get up and say: "The member for Sudbury should have realized. Maybe he did not do his homework. Tut, tut, tut; he did not do his homework." I know they are going to say I did not do my homework. I know someone is going to pass a note to the minister to tell me I did not do my homework, but I did do my homework. That is the difference.

Someone is going to get up in this House on the other side and tell us, "Fifty per cent go down and 50 per cent go up." Is that not convenient? The minute somebody tells me 50 per cent are going to go up and 50 per cent are going to go down, I have to suspect right away there is a game being played here. Those numbers are just too pat.

Let me tell the minister something, if he would not mind listening just for a minute, because I would like him to remember this. In northern Ontario and in Sudbury region, what everybody aspires to do is to have a camp -- not a big camp, but 20 feet by 12 feet -- usually made out of plywood and put up by that individual with the help of his friends.

This means that for somebody living in the city of Sudbury, for example -- for one of those so-called 50 per cent -- the taxes on his house may go down, but when he gets his tax bill for his camp, these taxes may have gone up significantly. Instead of paying $300 or $400, he is looking at an increase of $800, $900 or $1,000 in taxes. Did the minister count them? Are they his 50 and 50? No way are they his 50 and 50. He should not tell this House it is 50 per cent up and 50 per cent down. He can say it in this House, but thank goodness the people of Ontario are much too bright to believe something like that.

I recall quite distinctly that one gentleman came to my constituency office recently. He is from eastern Europe. He said: "Jim, when I first came to this country I believed this was the best country in the world. I worked hard and I raised my family. My wife has passed away now. I have a home on this lake." Does the minister remember that I told him how many lakes there are in the Sudbury region? This man built his home by the sweat of his brow. He did not build it with a contractor. He took time during a period of years to build that home.

The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) is interjecting. He is being noisy. Please keep the interjections down.

Mr. Gordon: As he pointed out, he built that home by himself, by the sweat of his brow. He is on a pension from Inco. Does the minister know what he has found? He came to me and said: "I cannot afford this house any more because of the market value, because the taxes are going up on it. I worked hard all my life. I raised my children. My wife has passed away. I have this little house on the lake, and now the taxes have gone up. On the pension I get, I cannot afford to live there any more. I thought this was a good country, but it is not a good country. If I had thought this was going to happen to me at 62 years of age and on a pension" -- he has been on a pension for six or seven years -- "I never would have come to this country."

The minister should go up and explain these inequities to those people in the Sudbury region. He cannot explain them, because he is dealing with individual people. Each one has his own story. Each one of them worked hard, and now many are finding they cannot afford the very houses they are living in.

Miss Stephenson: Did you get that from the Italian community centre?

Mr. Gordon: No. I thank the member for reminding me.

I would like the member for Yorkview to listen to this. This is something he can understand. He has that extra perception. Let me tell him about the Italian Club in Copper Cliff. The Italian Club is located in a part of Sudbury called Copper Cliff, because Copper Cliff used to be a town on its own. There is a section of Copper Cliff that is called Little Italy and it truly is a remarkable geographic area. They have houses up there that are built very close together on little laneways that run in between the houses, and the club is pushed right up against Inco's fence.

4:50 p.m.

As a matter of fact, if one goes to visit somebody in Little Italy, the smokestack is right there, the stack that is called the superstack, which sends all that acid rain down this way and all the way to the Maritimes. When one goes to Little Italy, that huge stack dominates everything. One would have to be lying down on the ground to be able to look up to the top of the superstack. That is how much it dominates that area.

Almost right next to that stack is the Italian Club. Next to the Italian Club is an oxygen plant, which makes a lot of steam, noise -- you name it. The club's market value assessment went up. It is looking at taxes of maybe $6,000 or $7,000 more on that building.

I want the member for Yorkview to listen to this very carefully. I will have the president of the Italian Club give him a call. Perhaps we should arrange for that member to be given a call by the president of the Italian Club in Copper Cliff and let him explain what has happened.

As they said: "We are an older community and we do not have that many young people coming behind us. They put a ridiculous market value on this club. We could not sell this club for the market value they have given it."

The people who belong to the Italian Club are volunteers. They have their dances, they rent the hall out and so forth, and it is all volunteer work. It is unjust that the government would raise their market value to that point. It is also unjust that they should have to pay those kinds of taxes.

The government will say, "Fifty per cent go up, 50 per cent go down." It has all these nice bureaucratic ways of cushioning these things and making them sound as though, "Well, too bad; that's life." If this government is so brave, if the minister's fantasy is really so big, then I am just waiting till he does it in Metropolitan Toronto, because they will lynch those guys. The government is lucky we are at least four and a half hours from here by car.

I say to the minister, who is so imaginative, that reassessment in this region may be necessary, but there has to be a better way. If it is more expensive to operate the regional municipality of Sudbury, the city of Sudbury or the towns in the region than it is to operate our southern communities, then it is evident that it is considerably more expensive for a home owner to keep up his home. It is just as simple as that.

It is more expensive. In the north it costs more for everything. It costs more for fuel, for travel, for food and for shelter. If it is costing the municipalities more, surely it should be evident to this government of the people that it is going to cost more. Yet here it is bringing in market value assessment and saying, as the minister said earlier, "Oh, well, 18 to one, you know."

I cannot believe a former mayor would dare to say this in that tone to me, another former mayor. I sat on municipal council long enough to watch municipal councils. There have been times when councils have voted 10 to one and the public out there did not agree with it. That is not an unknown fact. Numbers do not really mean that much when we are talking about things like this.

To be faced now with an incredible increase in taxes after years of supporting a system that is beyond the capability of most municipalities in this province is insane. Keeping this in mind, why was the Sudbury region considered to be no different from other municipalities in this province when reassessment was being considered? Our regional council made these points. Council was told Sudbury had to be treated in the same way as other municipalities.

If that is the case, will the minister give us a date today when he is going to bring in market value assessment for Toronto? I would like to hear it, since Sudbury is going to be treated the same as everywhere else. I would be glad to talk to Toronto city council about market value assessment any time. I am just waiting for an invitation.

Are we the same? To prove we are not, we perhaps should be lining up our inequities against those of our southern neighbours. I can assure members the answer will be very clear. There are situations in this region that are far beyond the realm of other communities in this province.

For years, the municipalities were not allowed to tax the mining companies. Instead, they were given what were called mining revenue payments, which the province figured would give so much. That is all they got. We could not bill. We did not have the facilities that one sees in the rest of Ontario. We do now, but we did not have them then.

Over the years, there have been exceptions for the north because of its unique circumstances. Our difficult situation still exists. Reassessment in this region should have been determined with our specific problems in mind. It is wrong to consider the region as being parallel with other regions in this province.

There is a lot to be said about people who own farms in the Sudbury region. What does a farm in the Sudbury region produce? The land owner has struggled for years to make his farm productive only to be hindered by the short growing season and the rugged terrain, which is not always conducive to profitable growth. Most of these farms are located in a part of our region that will never see growth and are occupied by an ageing population for residential purposes only. These properties have been assessed using the same criteria as those used for large, crop-producing farms in southern Ontario. That is shameful.

What is going to happen in the Sudbury region? A lot of these people will be giving up their farms. One is going to see them being given up for taxes. Then either the members on the left here, or other members of this House, will be getting up and saying what a shame it is that the people in the Sudbury region are losing their farms. That is wrong.

I would again like to emphasize to the minister that I think it is wrong that a cottage which is used for a few months of the year should be assessed as a year-round residence.

It is difficult to comprehend the logic of assessing vacant, unserviced lots in a rural area in the same way as fully serviced lots in urban areas. That is what is happening in the Sudbury region. Many of our residents hope the minister will look at some of the problems that can be rectified immediately and come up with base criteria which will correct these inequities.

5 p.m.

The residents of this region are not easily convinced that all is well. In wards 8 and 9 of the city of Sudbury, the people fully realize the crunch will come three years hence. Wards 1 to 7 in the city of Sudbury are being similarly assisted, but they will be helped through city of Sudbury reserves, which past and present councils have worked diligently to set aside. It is most insulting that the seven wards in the city were not given equal consideration from the government in the case of subsidies. It appears to me the city of Sudbury was being penalized for being frugal over the years, and I do not see that as being fair.

I remind the minister that the residents of wards 1 to 7 are also mindful of the exorbitant taxes they will be faced with three years from now. There has to be more concern from the minister to help to allay some of the fears and problems in Sudbury region. This is a situation that has never been experienced by the residents of our communities in this region and it is one to which more thought should have been given. On that note, I will have to say the minister has some serious thinking to do when he is talking about Sudbury region. I hope I do not see that tablet go up on the front lawn before this next term is over.

Mr. Polsinelli: I do not think two minutes for my comments would allow me to do justice to the speech of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). It was so eloquent in describing the problem. In the full hour and some minutes the member spoke, he did not once indicate that the purpose of this legislation is to restore equity to the system. He did not once indicate the purpose of this legislation is to restore a sense of fairness so people who have properties that are worth the same amount will be paying the same amount of taxes.

He referred to the former mayor as having forgotten the local taxpayer. The people who forgot the local taxpayer are the people on the opposite side. If they had taken action, if they had constantly reassessed the properties rather than letting them wait for 33 years and letting these disparities occur, these problems would not exist today. In Metropolitan Toronto, they have not touched assessments since 1942-43. That is 43 years of inequity.

When the member rants, raves and talks about the unemployed people, the people on low income, the pensioners who are going to be hit with the higher property tax, my heart goes out to them. He does not mention that there are those pensioners in less expensive properties who are on the same fixed income and who are subsidizing those people who are paying less taxes and have properties that are worth four or five times their value. I can point to specific cases in North York of owners of properties worth $100,000 who are paying exactly the same amount of taxes as those with properties worth $500,000. Those are the situations the member does not refer to; those are the situations the member should be thinking of and looking at also.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Sudbury wish to reply?

Mr. Gordon: Do I have two minutes?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Gordon: Two minutes is perhaps too long a period to answer a reply like that from the member on the other side.

One of the very sad things about this regional assessment in Sudbury region is there are no built-in benefits nor are there any built-in programs to help those seniors or those pensioners, those people who are not going to be able to afford their properties because of what has happened. I do not think the minister's program recognizes that this is really an ageing population in Sudbury region and these people just do not have the kind of money to put up with the kind of stuff he is foisting on them right now. Do not give me this 50 up and 50 down. That is a bunch of malarkey.

Mr. Laughren: I want to caution the Liberal members of this chamber not to get too excited about the comments of the member for Sudbury. They should hear him when he is opposed to a bill. If I wanted to sum up the hour-long speech by the member for Sudbury, it would be in that ringing declaration, "Market value is necessary for Sudbury, but there must be a better way." I do not think I am being unfair to the member for Sudbury when I sum up his remarks that way.

I should remind the chamber that the regional municipality, as the minister has told us, supported the bill almost unanimously. I believe at one regional council meeting it was 18 to one and at another it was something like 17 to three. The last vote was taken when the senior civil servants went up to talk to the region and three people voted against it. One mayor, one regional councillor and one alderman of the city of Sudbury voted against the proposal.

There are major problems with property tax in Ontario. It would probably not even be useful to go through the way in which the previous government ignored the inequities that we live with to this day all across this province.

The municipal government in Sudbury actually requested the reassessment, section 63, on numerous occasions: the town of Onaping Falls on May 27, 1985; the town of Rayside-Balfour on June 11, 1985; Valley East on December 13, 1984, and February 5, 1985; the town of Nickel Centre in January 1985; the town of Walden in January 1985; the city of Sudbury in April 1985, and the town of Capreol in 1983 and again in 1985. There have been numerous requests by the region and by the area municipalities to do something about this and to do an impact study.

There has been a lot of correspondence about this. I was impressed by the way in which the Ministry of Revenue people went to Sudbury and the region and attended various public hearings. That is not an easy task. They were at the beck and call of the area municipalities and, as far as I know, responded to the questions that were put to them at the public meetings that were held throughout the region.

One area municipality in the region is still opposed, and that is the municipality of Rayside-Balfour, which is in my constituency. Three of the regions' area municipalities are in my constituency. Two of them have voted in favour of market value assessment for the region and one, namely, Rayside-Balfour, has voted against it, although I would add that in the past, Rayside-Balfour voted for it. It is only within the last couple of months that it had a change of heart when the phone calls started coming in.

The community is unquestionably divided on this bill. There is no question that those whose taxes are going to go up will oppose it and those whose taxes will go down will obviously support it. I was pleased to learn that a committee has been established in the region that is going to look at the whole problem of protecting the owners of vacant property and cottage owners. I believe there are inequities, particularly with vacant land.

5:10 p.m.

In the Sudbury basin, there are a lot of do-it-yourself working people from the mines who have built their own cottages, who had no idea of the market value of those cottages. They built them during the last 25 to 30 years and, because they had not put that kind of money into them, had no idea just how high the market value was on their cottages. That is what is causing a real jolt to the community. The same can be said of vacant land, which is not good farm land by and large; it tends to be simply vacant land.

The problem is that whatever kind of property tax reform is being brought in by this government, it has nothing to do with the ability to pay of the people who own the property. If they like, members of the official opposition can rant and rave all day long in the assembly about this bill, but while they were in government, except for giving some minor property tax credits, they never did anything to reform the tax system that reflected the ability to pay of the people who own those properties. To this day they would not support an ability-to-pay property tax reform resolution.

They can talk out of both sides of their mouths if they like and they can shed their crocodile tears for people who pay more in taxes, but they would not change the present elitist tax system we have in this province. They had an opportunity for 42 years and they did not change it. As a matter of fact, they made it worse.

I am not sure the Liberals should be thumping their desks. I have not seen any indication from that side that they are serious about making ability to pay a component of property tax reform. I have not seen any indication of that from that side. They are not going to do it. If the government were serious about property tax reform, it would remove education, health and social services from property taxes. That would be the real test of whether they believe in property tax reform or whether they believe in fairness.

I am not saying they should do it all at once. They should phase it out and in the interim period --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is like OHIP premiums. We are phasing them.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, the government is phasing out OHIP premiums. I know the Treasurer wants to do that first.

Mr. Epp: Phase out all taxes.

Mr. Laughren: Do not be silly. What does the member mean by "phase out all taxes"? When property taxes are phased out that way, provincial income taxes and corporate taxes will have to be increased in order to make up for that. There is no free lunch, as the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) seems to think there is. Taxes cannot be phased out and not be replaced with something else.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Waterloo North is fiscally irresponsible.

Mr. Laughren: That is right. He would be an inept assessor.

If education, health and social services were removed from property taxes, 70 per cent of property taxes would no longer be paid by the property owner. Someone will have to explain to me the relationship between health, education and social services, and property taxes. I believe the hard services belong on property taxes, but I do not believe the so-called soft services belong on property taxes. Yet that has been a long tradition. I understand the problem of phasing it out and adding it to the provincial income tax. Obviously, the provincial income tax is going to be increased, but that is surely the best measurement there is of equity. That is progressive income tax, the best one we have in this province.

Governments over the years have done everything possible to disguise the tax system. It is done through sales tax, OHIP premiums, federal excise taxes and liquor taxes. The government stands up and pretends it is going to bring more equity and fairness to the tax system by introducing market value assessment to one region or another. That is not the case. In my opinion, it will bring some order out of chaos in the property tax system. That much I do believe, but I do not think it will do anything more than that.

It will make some people pay less and some people pay more, but it has nothing to do with the ability of property taxpayers to pay their taxes and absolutely nothing to do with their income levels. Until that happens, nobody has the right to call market value assessment property tax reform. It is not true reform; it is simply tampering with the system:

In the Sudbury community for many years now, my colleagues, particularly the member for Sudbury East, have been talking about getting the mining companies to pay their fair share. There are ways they could pay more. The underground machinery at Inco and Falconbridge could be taxed. There is such a thing as a foundation tax that could be applied against the two companies that would give more revenue to the local level.

It must be almost 10 years ago when the Blair commission was holding hearings across the province. I remember making a presentation to that commission and seeing what the region was feeling as well. The region felt there should be more revenues retained at the local level. Here we have a community which, as far as I know, is the world's largest mining complex; yet it is grovelling for money year after year after year. That is inappropriate.

The member for Sudbury talked about the increase in the number of pensioners in Sudbury. An enormous number of pensioners have taken early pensions from Inco and Falconbridge as a result of early retirement incentives. Any kind of property tax is difficult for these people. More than half of all property tax revenues in the Sudbury basin are paid for by residential taxes, either on single-unit or multiple-unit residences. That is not unusual in terms of the province; probably right in the middle.

I tried to find in the book put out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs called Local Government Finance in Ontario, a comparison of tax levels across the province. It is a sad comment when one picks up a major document like this and cannot find that information. I do not know why it would not have the kind of documentation that tells the people in Sudbury the kind of property taxes they pay compared to other municipalities; it is simply not in there.

What is in here is a throw-away paragraph which talks about average property taxes in the following communities: The average residential property tax paid in 1984 for all Ontario was $1,036; in Toronto, $1,263; in North York, $1,401; in Vaughan township, $1,687, and in Rockcliffe Park -- this did my heart a little bit of good -- it was $3,752.

There are no data on Sudbury or any other community I wanted to find. That is simply not there. I do not know whether it is a deliberate omission or an oversight, but it seems that is the kind of figure the average person out there would like to see in a municipal affairs document that deals with property taxes and municipal finance. I do not know why it is not there. It is a silly omission that should be corrected.

In my view, the real question we should be debating in this chamber is not whether to have market value assessment but how to make the property tax system fairer than it is now. I hope in the months and perhaps the year to come there will be some indication from the government that we will be able to have a serious debate about property tax reform.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a word about the regional municipality of Sudbury. My colleague the member for Sudbury East and I have not been consulted very often about reforms in Sudbury, and this is no exception. Over the years, including when the member for Sudbury was the mayor of Sudbury, we were not consulted. They were quite happy to have the tax system remain as it was.

5:20 p.m.

It is time the regional municipality of Sudbury joined us in an attempt to obtain more revenues from the mining companies. We are not talking about taxes from profits; we are talking about taxes from property in the Sudbury basin.

There have been really tough times in the Sudbury community in the past eight or nine years. During that time, people have paid their property taxes. By and large, they have scrimped and saved during layoffs, shutdowns and strikes, and they have paid their property taxes. That is why I do not listen very seriously to people who say we cannot increase the taxes on the mining companies in hard times. When the people who work at those mines had hard times, nobody was forgiving taxes. I feel very strongly that more revenues from the mining companies have to remain in Sudbury.

Quite frankly, I do not care how it is done. I think it can be done through property taxes, through either the foundation tax or the assessment of underground machinery. Inco and Falconbridge are underground empires, and there is an enormous amount of wealth that is not taxed beneath the ground.

There is no reason that could not be done. Just because the previous government always refused to do it does not mean it cannot be done and does not mean this government should not attempt to do it. The present government should ignore the cosy relationship the previous government had with the power structure in Sudbury and should get on with meaningful property tax reform as it applies to mining communities. By the way, I think it would be doing a service not only to the Sudbury community but also to all mining communities, which simply do not get a fair share of property taxes from the mining companies that are located within their jurisdictions. In conclusion, I am supporting this bill because of the almost unanimous request from the region. We know there will be problems with it, but we hope the government, once this is behind it, will move on to introduce some more meaningful property tax reforms.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to make a brief comment on the speech of the member for Nickel Belt. I appreciate his support for the concept of market value assessment and I have a certain degree of agreement as well that that does not make it any easier for the people assessed, reassessed or otherwise to pay their bills.

The fact that the average property tax now is just under $1,100 is an interesting subject, and I will see that some specific information dealing with Sudbury values is sent to the honourable member. However, I felt I should mention that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Revenue and the Treasurer are assisting in the transition in the Sudbury region, which is a unique situation indeed. I am quite troubled as Minister of Revenue and Treasurer that other municipalities undergoing reassessment will think it is quite a good idea that similar support might be forthcoming for them. I wanted to make it clear, particularly to any citizens of Sudbury who might be reading this debate, that the funding of about $6.5 million is because of the unique circumstances there.

We know that in all communities, reassessment puts a strain on those whose assessment increases, obviously, but up until now it has been the policy of the government to allow the local municipality to use the flexibility in the Assessment Act and the Municipal Act to phase it in or assist residents who might be unduly affected. The fact that some additional assistance was found for Sudbury was because of the very complex situation that the officials in the assessment branch of the Ministry of Revenue were able to straighten out in about the most professional and effective way that could possibly be done. I particularly appreciate the comments from the member for Nickel Belt, which were complimentary to the assessment officials in this regard.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Your time is over.

Any questions and comments? Does the member for Nickel Belt have any reply?

Mr. Laughren: I think I have said all I need to say.

Mr. Gregory: It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to make a few comments on this bill, having had something to do with market value assessment back in the good old days when Ontario was blue and God looked down from His heaven and saw that things were all right. We took a major step at that point under a former minister, Lorne Maeck, who was the member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Haggerty: How about Darcy McKeough and all his dialogue in this area?

Mr. Gregory: I do not know what it is about me. When I start to speak, the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) comes alive. He sleeps most of the time. I think he is an assigned hit man or something.

The Acting Speaker: Please address your remarks to the bill.

Mr. Gregory: Yes. I was just going to say I think the member for Erie is an assigned hit man for some reason. He comes alive and opens his eyes brightly when the member for Mississauga East starts to speak.

The Acting Speaker: Just ignore him.

Mr. Gregory: I intend to ignore him. As I was saying, I remember Lorne Maeck, who was the member for Parry Sound, the same area our whip represents at this time, coming to cabinet and bringing the suggestion of an amendment to what was then section 86 of the Assessment Act. The situation of market value assessment was brought into being.

At that point it was determined that municipalities could opt for market value assessment within the specified categories, not cross into industrial, housing and so forth. This policy was carried on by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) when he was Minister of Revenue. I myself had the pleasure of serving in that capacity. At the time I ceased being the Minister of Revenue, three quarters or 70 per cent of the municipalities in Ontario had opted for market value assessment.

I do not think there is anything new in this situation except that this is the first time the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) have allowed a regional assessment. I find this totally acceptable. Had I remained in the Ministry of Revenue for about one more year, I would have opted for this course of action. The Deputy Minister of Revenue, the assistant deputy minister in charge of assessment and I discussed this on many occasions. To start assessing regions would be the way to go.

I totally support this concept. I have one or two concerns of a minor nature I would like to express, but basically the minister is on the right track. I give full credit for this to the Deputy Minister of Revenue, Mr. Russell, and the assistant deputy minister of Revenue, Mr. Lettner, who are in the audience. They are proceeding in a very intelligent and orderly fashion.

Today I have heard concerns about increased taxes, and they are all valid; there is no question about it. Any time there is a reassessment using market value, the taxes of some people are going to increase. This is understandable. It has probably happened in every one of the 450 reassessments that have occurred. There is an element that is going to be faced with increased taxes. To give them the argument that some taxes go up and some go down is pointless, because they do not buy it. The fact is, their taxes are going up and they object to it.

Not very much is heard from the people whose taxes are going down. There is something funny about that; I do not know what it is. Nobody whose taxes are going down objects, although I believe that in my experience as Minister of Revenue, we did have some cases in Newcastle. People appealed their taxes and some of them were not aware their assessment had gone down. It came as quite a surprise to them.

We are going through this with 350,000 people in the great city of Mississauga. The council of the city of Mississauga opted to go the market value assessment route. I am told there were only 2,700 appeals from 350,000 people. I hope I am not quoting the wrong figure. That does not seem to me to be too loud an objection.

5:30 p.m.

However, that does not make the objections of people any less serious when some of their taxes are going up 200, 300 and 400 per cent and some even higher.

It is useless to use the argument that their taxes are going up. They probably have not been paying enough along the way. That is fine. It is logical and very true, but people are not going to accept this too readily. It is also true that once the initial flurry of the reassessment under section 63 is finished and done with and the appeals are heard, in the future one does not get too many objections or complaints about it.

What one does get is people taking the attitude that their taxes go up every year. It is muddled in their minds and they are associating assessment directly with taxation. It is not associated, and we all know it is not. Taxation is set. The amount of taxes to be paid is set by the municipal council, which sets the mill rate. The assessment base is just that, a base on which it can apply the mill rate.

Unfortunately, when people say, "My taxes went up," they immediately blame the province and say, "The province raised my taxes." The province did not raise their taxes. The assessment under market value assessment does not increase in a municipality. One ends up with the same assessment on a gross basis as one had prior to the reassessment. It is difficult to explain this to people, but nevertheless it must be explained to them.

We have a situation in the region of Sudbury, which is a first-time thing. I hope it is one of many to come in the future because it seems to me the only way we will ever have a truly fair assessment system or tax system is if the whole of Ontario is eventually assessed on a market value basis right across the province.

Mr. Haggerty: The member was Revenue minister.

Mr. Gregory: Right. I have advocated this for many years. We are going to be faced with this in the near future if one can believe, as one always believes, the words of the Treasurer. I have never questioned him for one minute. We will have the possibility of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto.

Indeed, as Minister of Revenue I spent many hours, a great deal of time, negotiating with the mayors of the various municipalities and talking about when we could do this. My position was not dissimilar to the position taken by the present Treasurer. He would like to see this done on a co-operative and negotiated basis between the municipalities.

It is going to be a very difficult thing to do. I had gained some ground. I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs is able to get some degree of consensus from Metropolitan Toronto to implement this. This is the only way he is going to clear up a very bad situation in Toronto, when he does get around to doing this. I have mentioned this to the minister.

We understand there is a $7 million subsidy going to the region of Sudbury that is going to assist in getting over the hump in this case. I do not dispute that. I will dispute it if the same situation arises in Metropolitan Toronto, because right next to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto lies a rather large city named Mississauga which is going through the pains of reassessment. We are getting the same objections from people that we got in every one of the 450 municipalities done previously.

If there is any trendsetting precedent here; if the minister has it in his mind that in future, market value assessments will be done and people will be promised subsidies for whatever reason -- political or because of poverty or whatever; if the minister decides to subsidize market value assessment not only in regions but also in municipalities, then he will get himself on to a very slippery slope. He will have requests from many municipalities to do it retroactively and he will have requests from many municipalities to do it on reassessments in the future.

I can understand in a first-time case, with the unique situation in the region of Sudbury, that this may be necessary. In that case, I, for one, on this side of the House urge him to do so and I urge him to do so with all haste. I think it very necessary, but I would find it very disturbing if at some time he appeared before this House with a bill, saying, "We want a subsidy for North Pumpkin Corners where we want to reassess but where they are having some financial troubles."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: South Dumfries.

Mr. Gregory: South Dumfries and Earl's Esso.

Mr. McLean: Earl's Shell.

Mr. Gregory: Earl's Shell; sorry.

That is a thing the minister is going to have to watch and be careful of, because, whether he likes it or not, and whatever message he gets across to the region of Sudbury that we are making an exception in this case, people are reading about it. No doubt he has already heard from Mayor McCallion in Mississauga, who has a suggestion that some subsidy would be in order. I know precisely what answer he gave her too; but then I knew the conditions she put on that request to the minister. I think her suggestion to him regarding Metropolitan Toronto was probably precisely what mine was, perhaps not word for word but probably very close to it. She might have thrown in a few expletives; I do not know.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We do not use those words.

Mr. Gregory: She does not, except by mistake. Sometimes they slip out. I do know how strongly Mayor McCallion of Mississauga feels about this. She has certainly conveyed that to me and to the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) and, no doubt, to the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), who I wish was here. He might find this interesting. Perhaps not.

Mr. McLean: He does not spend much time in the House.

Mr. Gregory: Oh no, he is a very regular man. He always tries to be here when the member for Mississauga East is speaking. I know that. He makes a special effort to come.

I am on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I was saying the member for Mississauga North would love to have been here to hear my debate on Bill 13, which we are discussing.

Mr. Wildman: Back to the bill.

Mr. Gregory: Right. I have given credit to Lorne Maeck. Right?

I gather my party will be supporting this bill.

Mr. Haggerty: What about the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon)?

Mr. Gregory: I do not speak for the member for Sudbury any more than the member for Erie speaks for me. He speaks at me; he yells at me; he heckles me from time to time. It is nice to see the member awake.

At any rate, the market value assessment under section 63 is not perfect. We all know that. I was interested to hear the remarks of the member for Nickel Belt, who was taking a position that education, health and a couple of other things should be taken out of property taxes. This is a change in position for the New Democratic Party. The last time I heard, the position of the New Democratic Party was that there would be no property taxes. It would all be handled by income tax, the so-called "progressive" tax, or sales tax, which I understand is now progressive, according to a government spokesman I heard recently. I cannot remember who it was. That was very interesting. I heard that and I found it very interesting.

Frankly, I do not see that it improves the situation. I do not see too much wrong with what is now called the "assessment" way of taxation. It used to be called the "wealth tax." Perhaps we have outgrown that but it seems to me that assessment or a property tax reflects a person's commitment to his community and I think there is a certain merit in that.

There are questions. When I was Minister of Revenue, we were looking at getting away from the idea of reassessing because of improvements. I always took the view that if we got rid of assessing improvements and did it for everybody, it would not be such a bad idea. It would not affect the assessment in any way. But, lo and behold, the people who object to that are the councils of municipalities, which see that as a little bit of --

5:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are two things. Up in the area to my right, the member for Mississauga South and the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) are leading a bit of a disruptive, noisy area. Would you please keep the noise level down? Also, the member for Mississauga East is straying from Bill 13.

Mr. Gregory: I apologize if I was straying from it. I thought we were talking about market value assessment and that was the nature of Bill 13. Am I on the same bill? Bill 13, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act and the Education Act. I will not touch on the Education Act because it is an offshoot of the basic premise of this bill, and that is reassessing the market value assessment.

I do not want to go on at length, but I find this subject very --

[Applause]

Mr. Gregory: I do not know how members can applaud a statement like that when they know very well that I have been nothing but complimentary up until now. I could just as easily change my position and argue equally strongly on the other side, if that is what they would prefer.

I have taken the position of supporting Bill 13 and I am trying to tell members of the wonderful merits of their suggestion and the wonderful merits of the Ministry of Revenue. I am not going to speak too highly of what used to be the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I always felt they had too much play. They had more play than they deserved when the work was being done by the very capable staff of the Ministry of Revenue.

I am surprised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is carrying this bill. I thought it would have been the Minister of Revenue. Why it was not done that way, I do not know, particularly when I know the backup staff are all from the Ministry of Revenue. Maybe the members are spreading themselves too thinly. One is having to take the work of another, or one understands it better than the other.

I applaud the intent of the minister's bill. I applaud what it is doing. It is very necessary. As I mentioned earlier, the sooner we can do a market value assessment across Ontario, the sooner we will be well on our way. Some 75 per cent of the municipalities have been reassessed and they do not have far to go. There are some holdouts, of course, and we are always going to have them. The biggest holdout is right in Metropolitan Toronto, and that is a difficult one to solve.

My colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is nodding his head. I thought he would be opposed to that. I do not understand why. How does one take a position opposed to fairness? I do not understand that.

Mr. Wildman: The members opposite are doing that on Bill 94.

Mr. Gregory: No, on Bill 94, we are trying to be fair to everyone, including the doctors. There is nothing unfair about that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, what has Bill 94 to do with this bill? Why did the member bring it up?

The Deputy Speaker: Disregard the interjections, which are out of order and off topic. You stay with Bill 13.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know it is within your capabilities to keep control over that member. Would you tell him he is on the wrong bill? We are talking about Bill 13.

The Deputy Speaker: He does not have the floor. He is interjecting. You disregard him.

Mr. Gregory: I look forward to the debates in the House if and when it is necessary for the bill on Metro Toronto to come here. That will be a hot and heavy one. I imagine there will be an awful lot of delegations. In the interest of fairness, I urge the minister to go ahead with that action as quickly as he can.

In the meantime, the minister has taken a very important step in opting for the first regional market value assessment in Ontario. I urge him to continue with this. He might take a look at some of the larger regions around and consider some confusing situations where market value might right those situations. His big challenge will come with Metro Toronto. He has taken a first step here. He will get flak from it and he will get people saying: "Our taxes are going up. Our assessments are going up," but he will not hear from too many of the people whose assessments are going down. That invariably happens under this sort of thing, so it can be expected.

I know that the minister, a former mayor, is used to flak. I know he will not knuckle under to that flak. I hope he will not knuckle under to it. I hope he will act as a responsible minister will, or should.

Mr. Wildman: Does the member want him to agree with the member for Sudbury?

Mr. Gregory: I think I recall the Speaker saying something about interjections?

The Deputy Speaker: They are out of order.

Mr. Gregory: The member for Sudbury is finished speaking, I believe.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, carry on.

Mr. Gregory: I am almost finished speaking too, Mr. Speaker. I know that is going to please the members.

Mr. South: That is the best thing we have heard in the last half hour.

Mr. Gregory: I thought the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) was enjoying my remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: As I mentioned before, I could easily argue the opposite position just as strongly. It could be done. The reason I am going on like this is that I cannot express my opinions strongly enough. I think the minister is on the right track. He will not always be on the right track.

For example, he does not know anything about taxis. He knows nothing about the taxi problem between Metropolitan Toronto and Mississauga. He does not know word one. I hope he is going to get some good advice, better advice than he has had up to this point.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member will go back to Bill 13.

Mr. Gregory: I was talking about the regional taxi problem, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: The taxi problem has nothing to do with Bill 13.

Mr. Gregory: Oh.

Mr. McClellan: The meters are running.

An hon. member: Mississauga is watching.

Mr. Gregory: I know. I certainly hope so. I have said nothing bad yet. I am talking about the regional bill, Bill 13, regional assessment in Sudbury.

An hon. member: All morning.

Mr. Gregory: I hope they do not have the taxi problems up in Sudbury that they were having, that largely confused me when --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Confine your remarks to Bill 13.

Mr. Gregory: Yes, I am trying to. I do not get to speak very often, Mr. Speaker, but when I do I like to cover as many bases as possible. At any rate, having kept the minister's rapt attention for the last few minutes I know he will take my advice to heart. I know he will proceed very carefully, carrying a big stick at the same time. He should be careful when he gets to Metro Toronto because I will be standing here arguing just as vociferously if he starts talking about subsidizing Metro Toronto at the expense of the rest of Ontario.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to see the member for Mississauga East is supporting the bill, a bill that we find very proper for Sudbury and one, we think, that is going to address many of the needs of Sudbury.

One of the important things to remind members of is that when we talk about tax reform we are talking about market value assessment. We are talking about no net increase in the amount of taxes. Although there are adjustments within the categories there is no net increase in the amount of taxes that are being raised by a municipality or by a series of municipalities.

What market value assessment is doing is bringing about equity and fairness within the system. This is what the minister is trying to do in bringing about section 63 in Sudbury, and what he is trying to do in other areas of the province and what his predecessors have tried to do across the province.

It is also important to note that when some members suggest we should take health, education and social services away from property taxes, although this might be a very enviable position to be in, it is also important to note that if one is going to take all educational taxes away from local municipalities then one is eliminating all local representation from that, because if the province is going to pay 100 per cent of the education tax it is, of course, going to want 100 per cent of the say.

By doing that one is immediately totally eliminating local autonomy from municipalities. I am not sure one would want to accomplish that but, in fact, one would be doing that.

Miss Stephenson: That is not what the member said when he sat on this side of the House. The argument has changed dramatically, I must say.

Mr. Epp: With respect to Sudbury, it must be noted that the assistance that is being given there --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: I was delighted to hear that the member for Mississauga East supports the bill. As the former Minister of Revenue, perhaps he has had a change of heart.

I support Bill 13 and want to deal in particular with section 71 of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, which is amended in section 1 of the bill.

This authorizes the regional council to specify not only the annual amount of money to be raised by each area municipality, but also to set a uniform residential and farm mill rate and one uniform commercial mill rate. These rates will be levied by all area municipalities to raise the sums required for regional purposes. We could look at that as a regional apportionment cost.

This bill may be the forerunner of one that will come into an area such as the regional municipality of Niagara, which was established 17 or 18 years ago.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I am hearing comments that the member for Erie is straying a bit from the speech of the member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Haggerty: I am dealing with section 71, if you will just wait until I get to the point I want to drive home.

When the regional municipalities were established 17 or 18 years ago, two members -- the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and I -- stood in the House and advised the government of the day to bring in revaluation of assessment in all area municipalities. We could foresee a problem.

I draw that to the members' attention because we have a similar problem, for example, using section 71, in the regional municipality and the town of Fort Erie, which is part of the region. The differences in the mill rates have been established and continue to go this way.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Laughren: Very briefly, because I have had a say already, I want to deal with the question raised by the member for Mississauga South concerning the removal of educational, health and social services from property tax.

Mr. Gregory: Mississauga East.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Mississauga East. I should never confuse the member with the member for Mississauga South. I am a fan of the member for Mississauga South, but not of the member for Mississauga East.

If we could remove those taxes from property, it would not mean the school boards would not have a significant role to play. They could then concentrate on delivering education to the people in the community with the new jurisdiction and not be preoccupied with the property taxes. To remove educational taxes from property does not in any way negate the importance of school boards.

Mr. Callahan: For the first time since I have been in the Legislature, I rise to congratulate the member for Mississauga East for speaking in support of the bill of the minister. Interestingly enough, when equalized assessment was proposed in the regional municipality of Peel, I was on the council of the city of Brampton and spoke with great gusto about how the province was trying to stick it to us. The province had the power to do it but did not have the guts to do it, so it gave the responsibility to the municipalities, to try to tie the tin can to them politically.

I speak in praise of the minister and this government. This is a representation of the openness, fairness and guts of this government. It is prepared to take something and go with it even though it may be unpopular, according to the member for Sudbury. We have the guts to do it. We are not playing smoke and mirrors with the people of Ontario. We are prepared to stand up and be counted and do what is necessary to govern in this province.

I commend the member for Mississauga East because of his fortitude in coming forward to support the minister's bill, but then he says, "I think our caucus is going to support it." That is representative of what is going on in the official opposition. Caucus members do not know what they are supporting. Some people come out and talk against it, some people come out and talk in favour of it, and by the end of the day the people watching them on television must be totally confused.

Mr. Gregory: I listened very intently to the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) and he has led me to think I should reverse my position. Obviously, he has not heard anything that has been going on.

He talks about this government being the first one to have the guts and intestinal fortitude to go ahead and do this. Where does he think the other 400 odd came from? They were done by the previous government.

I do not expect the member to know that any more than he has been able to absorb anything else that has happened in this House. Why does he not talk to the member for Waterloo North? He knows what he is talking about and he will be the first to admit that when we were bringing through these market value assessments, community by community, that group over there when they were sitting over here were much in opposition and saying things far worse than the member for Sudbury said in his speech today.

Why does the member not take a gift when he has it instead of trying to be a smart mouth

Mr. Callahan: I said nice things about the member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Gregory: There is nothing unparliamentary about smart mouth. I came very close, but I was very careful. I said smart mouth. What the member should do is give credit where it is due because the minister has the pleasure and the honour of carrying on something that was instituted by this party when it was the government and it did a good job. He is going to do a good job if he behaves himself and if we let him.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) is not in his seat and he is interjecting. Will he please stop.

Mrs. Marland: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill 13, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act and the Education Act. I note at the outset that the member for Brampton talked about the openness and the progressiveness of the current government, and how courageous it is at taking a position. It certainly is a very courageous move when one takes a position behind something that has been approved in an 18 to one vote.

This bill will enable the region of Sudbury to implement its decision to move to a 1980 property tax assessment or market value assessment. I am sure, however, that the region of Sudbury is somewhat disappointed that it has taken the government so long to follow through with the legislation it requested in a vote almost three months ago. I understand from the region of Sudbury it is costing about $10,000 a day while it has been waiting for Bill 13 to be dealt with in this House.

It is interesting that this House has had other priorities in terms of legislation which actually have not been costing the region of Sudbury any money while the government is giving the transitional grants to the region of Sudbury. How ironical on the same score that it is costing the region of Sudbury $10,000 a day because it did not bring forward this legislation earlier.

The region of Sudbury, as other colleagues are pointing out, is the first region to move to a market value assessment. I recognize that this decision must have taken a great deal of political will on the part of those who were responsible for making that decision, to attempt to rationalize and deal with the tremendous disparities that the process of market value assessment can create. As the member for Mississauga South and as a previous councillor in the city of Mississauga and on the region of Peel council, I can speak to this disparity with some authority, having first-hand experience with the process.

6 p.m.

The city of Mississauga implemented market value assessment in January 1986. As member for Mississauga South, I have had some difficulty with the city of Mississauga's decision to bring in market value assessment because the greatest adverse impact of market value assessment has taken place in Mississauga South, particularly in the east part of my riding, east of the Credit River, which is municipal ward 1. The city councillor for the area, Councillor Harold Kennedy -- whom you, Mr. Speaker, will remember as the brother of my predecessor, Doug Kennedy -- Councillor Kennedy has had a very difficult time with the decision of the Mississauga council and how it has impacted his own constituents.

Although in the long term I think market value assessment is inevitable, the implementation of it in any municipality is what has to be addressed and is the most critical aspect of it. I am aware that in the east part of my riding there have been some people who have faced as much as 304 per cent increases in their assessment. On an average, in that part of the city we have had anything from 30 per cent to 40 per cent to 50 per cent increases.

The Deputy Speaker: May I remind the member that we are on Bill 13, which is the city of Sudbury.

Mrs. Marland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that, but also in dealing with Bill 13, we are dealing with the subject of market value assessment.

The Deputy Speaker: As it affects Sudbury.

Mrs. Marland: As it affects Sudbury; and in addressing my comments about how it has affected the city of Mississauga I may be giving fair warning to some of the people in Sudbury who are yet to face the impending difference it will make to Sudbury. It is rather interesting that Sudbury is waiting to do its mailing on its assessment notices. As I mentioned at the outset of my speech, it is waiting because of the passage of this bill.

In speaking to the subject of Sudbury, I would like to say that although market value assessment does bring relief to some residents, it can also bring a real burden to some others, as has been the case in Mississauga South. Some have experienced these tremendous increases. Whether the answer to that for a municipality is to have some help financially from the province, or automatically where market value assessment is introduced in the province to have a form of phasing in, I am certainly aware that the Treasurer of Ontario has seen fit to promise $7 million to Sudbury to help with its implementation of market value assessment.

I am aware that our illustrious mayor in Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, sought some compensation or help for the residents of Mississauga at the time of our market value assessment implementation earlier this year. Of course, she was told there would not be any money forthcoming from the Treasurer for those purposes and two or three days later there was an announcement in the newspaper that the region of Sudbury would have $7 million to help it.

In fairness, both Mayor Hazel McCallion and I recognized the differences between a regional municipality made up of many municipalities and the city of Mississauga, which is a part of the region of Peel but in terms of assessment it is one municipality. However, it is with great respect that I give the Treasurer fair warning that if, when the city of Toronto comes to deal with the subject of market value assessment, which I can appreciate will be one horrendous challenge because it has not had any change in its assessment since 1940, the Treasurer sees fit to help to bail out Toronto, Mississauga will be back for the same commensurate kind of compensation, especially in the light of the precedent which has been set in the aid that has gone to the region of Sudbury.

Recognizing that property tax reform is something that is long overdue in this province, I understand the need for market value assessment at this time. I have very mixed feelings because, as I said earlier, the impact on my own constituents has been very grave and in some situations very serious.

I do not know what the answer to that is, except perhaps a consideration by the Treasurer of the kind of help that is being given to the people in Sudbury from the provincial Treasury, to which the people of all municipalities subscribe. It might be encouraging if the Treasurer could develop a formula whereby market value assessment, at least in its initial year of implementation, was eased throughout the province as a whole until all the municipalities had the assessment in place and functioning.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill 13. I agree with the comments of the member for Sudbury and I share his concerns. I have experienced at first hand the impact on some of the long-time property owners in Mississauga South of the problem, as they try to deal with it this year.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the remarks made by the member?

Mr. Haggerty: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I tried to enter the debate before and I was ruled out. My time was up in a matter of two minutes. I do not know what the rules are, but the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) stood up and spoke for seven minutes.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I can help the honourable member.

Mr. Haggerty: You may be able to help me.

Mr. Speaker: The new standing orders state that any member has the right to make comments on any legislation before the House. After that member completes his or her remarks, then other members have the opportunity to ask questions or make comments on those remarks for up to two minutes. I believe that was the time you had when you got up to speak.

I am calling now for any member who wishes to make any comments or questions on the remarks by the member for Mississauga South. Then any other member still has time to speak. Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Haggerty: I am still not clear on that. I followed the member for Waterloo North. I was not really raising my questions to the member for Mississauga East --

Mr. Wildman: The member was out of order then.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are there any comments or questions on the comments by the member for Mississauga South?

Mr. Harris: I want to say how much I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Mississauga South. I share her frustration with the inconsistency of the government, which will not provide some assistance to the people in Mississauga who are being disadvantaged by market value assessment. It is an inconsistent approach, and I can understand the member's concern and frustration.

Mr. Wildman: As a member who has been waiting all afternoon to participate in a debate on Bill 43, I found the comments of the member and her colleagues from the Conservative Party very frustrating, particularly when it appears we are in a debate on a matter related to Sudbury about which there is not even going to be a division. It seems a little strange that they decided to waste the time of the House in the way they have.

Mr. Brandt: We cannot let that go by. By way of answer, I think the comments of the last speaker from the third party were totally out of order. I say that only because I too was sitting here prepared to speak on Bill 43 and I know the minister is quite anxious to get Bill 43 proceeded with.

The fact of the matter is that Mississauga is impacted by the reassessment of its community, as are Sudbury and other parts of this province. This was a very meaningful and worthwhile debate, one I spent a great deal of time listening to. I found a great deal of substance, quite frankly, in the presentations that were made from all sides of the House.

I listened to the member for Nickel Belt. He had some very cogent remarks to make. I hope the debate to follow will be equally stimulating and interesting. The member for Mississauga South made some comments I thought were valuable in assisting this House in a very difficult decision and making sure this whole matter is handled in a fair, equitable and balanced way. I would like to dissociate myself entirely from the remarks made by the previous speaker.

6:10 p.m.

Mrs. Marland: I am sorry the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has found his afternoon wasted. I would have hoped that when he was elected to office it was for the purpose of taking part in debate and being willing to listen to people with other opinions. I would hate to be elected to any office in any government with a closed mind so that all I did was to sit in a legislature or a debating setting in a council waiting to speak on one specific item. I think he has a duty to his electorate to listen to all speakers on all subjects and, perhaps not change his opinion but at least be willing to learn.

As a further indication of the impact that market value assessment will have on the people in Sudbury, as it has had on the people of Mississauga, I understand Sudbury already has had a filing of 10,000 appeals of its new market value assessment. In addition, in the city of Mississauga there are 30,000 appeals of the new market value assessment. That is probably enough indication to the Treasurer that municipalities such as the regional municipality of Sudbury and the city of Mississauga need help during the phasing-in implementation stage. We will be watching the next municipality very closely, because to this time Mississauga is the largest municipality in Ontario to adopt market value assessment. I think the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon, with some reservations, are very well intended.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to make any comments on Bill 13?

Mr. Hayes: I would like to make a comment that I am glad some of the comments are over. The point is that the member for Algoma made a remark, and I really have to defend that. I believe everybody should have the right to get up in this House and speak and express his views. When we have another very important issue coming up, such as the Shoreline Property Assistance Amendment Act --

Mrs. Marland: In your opinion.

Mr. Hayes: They are both important.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the honourable member have any comments on Bill 13? That is what we are discussing right now.

Mr. Hayes: Dealing with Bill 13, I am glad at this time that the member for Sudbury is finally going to let us proceed. I am glad he is through wasting an hour flip-flopping without even deciding where he is going on the bill.

Mr. Harris: This may lead to 10 minutes of responses, but if that is the objective of the member, I would be pleased to respond to the member's speech.

Mr. Speaker: Under the circumstances and under the standing orders, the member for Essex North made some comments; therefore, I have to recognize the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to respond to the garbage we just heard from the previous speaker, the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes).

There are many of us here who thought we might do two or three bills today. Several of them are important. The Shoreline Property Assistance Amendment Act is a very important piece of legislation, one that concerns a good number of people. We would hope it might be expanded to include inland lakes as well. It might, in fact, affect the whole province.

If anybody has been wasting time in the Legislature, it is those who have chosen to disrupt the whole process with silly comments and silly speeches that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are dealing with an important piece of legislation when we start talking about market value. If the member wishes to go up to North Bay, where they have been through market value assessment in the last few years, we could share with him many instances, examples and problems that were there that I think would assist in Sudbury.

I thought the comments of my colleague the member for Mississauga South, who has an immediate problem in her riding with market value and who gave examples to point out and to lend assistance to this bill, were very important to the debate and to those of us who are concerned about the problems market value causes. She also pointed out the inconsistency of the government.

Now we have the third party members, who just want to get up to hear themselves talk and take another 12 minutes out of the debate. If anything is irresponsible, that is.

Mr. Gregory: I am glad to have an opportunity of commenting on the contribution from the member for Essex North. His great contribution to the debate was to stand up and complain about somebody expressing a viewpoint. It is unfortunate when a member of this House takes the position that he and he alone will set the agenda for this House. I was under the impression the government House leader determined the process in this House.

My colleague the member for Mississauga South has genuine concerns about assessment and she has the right as a member of this House to express them. I do not hear the minister or the government House leader objecting to that. When the members of the third party take it upon themselves to try to determine the business of this House, I think they have an inflated view of their own importance. If they sat patiently and listened, they might well learn something. I well recall being whip of the government party for many years.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I well recall when the member was too.

Mr. Gregory: I know the Treasurer does. There were many times when we had grandiose speeches of three and four hours from third party members who just wanted to get themselves on record. When they find themselves in the position of objecting to the member for Mississauga South making a 15-minute speech on something that is very important to her riding, I find that in very poor taste. I hope the next speech of the member for Essex North will be better.

Mr. Wildman: In response to my colleague the member for Essex North, I certainly agree with his comments. I also accept that any member in this Legislature has the right to speak on any piece of legislation before the House, particularly an important piece of legislation.

I must also agree with the comments of the ether members who have said that the contribution of the member for Mississauga South was very worth while and useful. It was certainly far more worth while and useful to the whole debate than the comments of the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Hayes: In my opinion, I never commented on anything said by the member for Mississauga South. I thought she made a good presentation.

As a new member, I find it a little bit frustrating when one tries to do something. I do not feel members should be stopped from expressing their views and contributing, but I do get a little bit upset when members continually try to stall and repeat things. Maybe I am just not used to the tactics that are used by some members over there.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind all members of standing order 20(a) which says: "Following the speech of each member, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the matters before the House." I hope all members will contain their remarks.

Do any other members wish to comment on Bill 13?

6:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I will try to be very brief. I would like to compliment my colleague the member for Mississauga East. He seems to be the only person in the official opposition who knows what we are trying to do in Sudbury.

Reassessment brings equity to a system that needed to revamped. This is exactly what staff did, and I want to commend them. They did a great job. It was not easy.

We did not have to convince the regional municipality of Sudbury or impose reassessment on it. This is a voluntary move by the region. As I said in my opening remarks, the vote for it was 18 to one. That is a very democratic vote, and I want to congratulate the region for accepting reassessment.

I am sorry my colleague the member for Sudbury opposed it and said a great number of things that did not make sense. He does not have the guts to vote against or for it. He will be going back home to say to 50 per cent of the people that he was right and to 50 per cent that he was wrong. He wasted close to 45 minutes of everybody's time to say exactly nothing.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since there is some urgency to this bill, I wonder whether we could have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with third reading of Bill 13.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. Harris: We never refuse unanimous consent when there are important issues at stake.

Mr. Laughren: Has the Minister of Revenue and still House leader had the agreement of our House leader on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, I cannot say I have, but I advise the member on a friendly basis that as a senior member of his party, he will not get into trouble -- in fact, he will get credit in heaven -- if he agrees to proceed.

Agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 13, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act and the Education Act.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 43, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I will try to get second and third readings in 30 seconds.

We have waited a long time for this new shoreline program. With the improvements in the program, I am sure everybody will agree to this second reading and also to third reading. My intention today is to accommodate my friend who has been waiting for the past two hours. Mr. Speaker, on with second reading.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to co-operate and accommodate the minister on Bill 43, but there are some speakers who want to comment on it. I recognize the clock does not leave a great deal of time to hear all the speakers, but I would like to make some comments about the major changes in the bill.

Let me start me off by complimenting the minister on two changes I recognize in the bill. One is that owners of properties in unorganized municipalities can now participate in loans, which is a very major step forward. To show I am not looking at this in a parochial or partisan way at all, it does not have any impact on my municipality. I will bring up some other things that will have impact on my municipality, but this happens to be a step in a very positive direction and one I can certainly endorse.

The second major change the minister has brought into this bill is that loans are now available either to raise or to relocate buildings for repair purposes. That is also a very positive step in the bill.

I am sure the minister recognizes we are at the moment experiencing in Ontario, and particularly in my part of the province, record high levels of water that are causing us some real concerns. As a matter of fact, in the spring of 1985 we reached all-time records, as I know the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) is well aware.

This trend has not been going on for 42 years, but it has been going on for a number of years. When we sat on the other side of the floor, I listened with great interest to some of the very simplistic solutions offered by members from counties such as Essex, who were asking the government to move in forthwith to cure the problem.

If I had the time tonight, I would offer the minister for his consideration some ways in which this very serious high-water problem can be cured. The short-term changes the minister has made, for which I have already applauded him -- and that is the last time I am going to do that in this speech -- are valuable and a step in the right direction, as I indicated, but there is a whole host of other things that have to be done.

The minister must recognize that this high-water problem is not entirely a result of natural causes. A number of other man-made problems are elevating or raising the level of the Great Lakes basin, specifically the Great Lakes basin behind the Niagara gorge. I am talking of Lake Erie and, moving north, the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River and Lake Huron. Those areas are acting as a holding basin for water that cannot escape through the Niagara gorge because of some difficulties there in terms of the volume of water that can proceed through that part of our province.

Some of the man-made causes I speak of involve the dredging of the St. Clair River, parts of the Detroit River and the mouth of Lake St. Clair. Water is now flowing more rapidly through those areas and cannot get out of Lake Erie and, therefore, is building up in that body of water. We have urban runoff on an annual basis as a result of more sewers being constructed around the province. That urban runoff is impacting very rapidly on the Great Lakes system. In addition, we have rural runoff which has been brought about as a result of the drainage.

All these things, in addition to increases in the precipitation of rain and of the snow we get during the winter months, are impacting on this area and causing a very unnatural elevation of the water in that area. It concerns me that the government is not looking at some of the real changes that could impact very substantially on that Great Lakes basin, which is at present suffering from tremendously high levels of water.

The government of Ontario has to take the lead in this instance because virtually all the waters I am talking about border Ontario. They also border the American states, but the government of Ontario has the most at stake. When one recognizes that the losses during the last few years have been in excess of $1 billion on the US side as a result of high water -- and I underline the point again -- not as a result of natural causes but as a result of changes in that water course itself, those changes have resulted in a tremendous amount of damage.

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

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

June 11, 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

L'ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO

INSURANCE RATES

CHILEAN WINES

FREE TRADE

LOGO

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

IDEA CORP.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

EXTRA BILLING

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

INSURANCE RATES

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

FOREST FIRES

DOMED STADIUM

INSURANCE RATES

DAY CARE

HIGH SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

DAY CARE

GASOLINE PRICES

PALLIATIVE CARE

FISHER PARK HIGH SCHOOL

RENT REVIEW

SPRAY PROGRAM

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENGLISH AND WABIGOON RIVER SYSTEMS MERCURY CONTAMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACT

REPRESENTATION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT