Hansard Transcript 1988-Oct-31 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House I have today laid upon the table recommendations from the Commission on Election Finances, pursuant to subsection 4(3) of the Election Finances Act.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PREPAID SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: I wish to emphasize weaknesses in recently enacted legislation, the Prepaid Services Act, as it applies to fitness and health clubs. The act does not provide sufficient protection for consumers. The law does not provide for a compensation fund similar to that which exists in the travel industry. If a health club folds at any time, members are not guaranteed their money back.

I would also suggest that where people have paid membership money into a new club that fails to become operational, these individuals should be entitled not only to a refund of their membership money but to interest at the prevailing rates.

Neither does the legislation address the whole area of public safety. There are no requirements for thorough checks to ensure that members are fit enough to use facilities safely, nor is it mandatory for facilities to be staffed at all times by people trained in approved lifesaving techniques. Indeed, there are no minimum training or education requirements for club employees.

I urge the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) to address these loopholes in the legislation so that consumers receive appropriate financial protection and to ensure that consumers do not put their health at risk in these facilities.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to bring to the attention of this House a concern that many of my constituents have expressed about the recent court decision concerning the Lord’s Prayer in public schools. I recently tabled petitions containing many hundreds of signatures from various groups in my riding expressing concern about this matter, and I feel there is much merit in these petitions.

While I accept that in a pluralistic society we must recognize and provide appropriate conditions for the expression of those of other religions and beliefs, I hope the boards of education will not abandon the saying of the Lord’s Prayer but will continue to give this prayer a place in proportion to the number of students within their jurisdiction who uphold its teaching and tradition. Certainly in areas such as mine, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Wellington County Board of Education, the proportion of these students is very high.

A few minutes ago, the members of this House participated in the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, a tradition that we have followed for over a century. I sincerely hope we have no intention of abandoning this practice.

CAROLE BERRY

Mr. Offer: I am delighted to inform the House that Mrs. Carole Berry of my riding of Mississauga North has received one of the crime prevention awards, on behalf of the Malton community council, from the Office of the Solicitor General. These awards recognize the efforts of individuals and organizations in increasing public awareness and participation in crime prevention programs.

Nominated by Inspector Banting of the Peel Regional Police Force, Mrs. Berry, in conjunction with the Malton community council, has been very successful in raising community awareness, especially within the predominantly multicultural community of Malton.

The Malton community council has been able to heighten awareness through a number of ambitious programs. For example, flyers have been distributed by participating community watch programs. The local cable program known in my community as Malton Mosaic has devoted time to exploring and discussing the benefits of watch programs and home security programs, and perhaps most important is the high level of co-operation between the police force and this community-based organization.

Because of her efforts, there have been noticeable increases in participation in Neighbourhood Watch programs and requests for home security surveys conducted by the Peel Regional Police Force.

I would like to commend Mrs. Berry and her organization on this very special award and wish her continued success in the future.

PAYMENT FOR HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Reville: People in Ontario had better start saving for the next time they get sick.

York Central Hospital has just instituted a pay-first policy. This policy applies whether or not a patient has private medical insurance coverage. The Wellesley Hospital thinks that is a great idea too, and other downtown hospitals will not rule it out.

I have already heard from a number of people who are wondering why they bothered to negotiate with their employers for additional medical coverage. The new policy is hard to rationalize in view of how easy it is for hospital admitting staff to validate policies, and it will undoubtedly increase premium costs because of the massive increase of administrative costs to process individual claims.

The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) should he advising hospitals that Ontario patients should not be expected to arrive at hospital with a bushelful of money and a fistful of credit cards. Or is this a glimpse of the well-planned, well-managed, fairly funded world?

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs. Cunningham: It has been seven long months since a 14-year-old girl was brutally assaulted in London by a patient on a Lieutenant Governor’s pass from the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

We are still waiting for the promised report on risk management systems at psychiatric hospitals. I was informed today that it will be another month before the long-awaited report is released to the public, although it was to be completed no later than September. It is appalling that families which have been looking forward to an explanation regarding the Lieutenant Governor’s pass procedures, as well as some assurance that a dreadful mistake will not be made again, will be put off for yet another month.

We expect this report to be given the priority it warrants in the light of the severe consequences that neglect will entail. It is totally unacceptable that we will he forced to wait eight months before we can reassure families that their children will be safe to play outside and, just as important, that patients given these day passes will receive the support they obviously require as they take the long and difficult road to recovery.

BILL MASON

Mr. Ballinger: I know the members of the Legislature would like to join me in paying tribute to Bill Mason, an artist, environmentalist and award-winning filmmaker who died Saturday in Meech Lake, Quebec.

Bill Mason was probably best known for his many wonderful films. He produced the definitive series of films on canoeing, entitled Path of the Paddle. His film The Rise and Fall of the Great Lakes was a landmark environmental statement. But most people, especially young people, probably know him for his unique film Death of a Legend, the film that helped change everyone’s attitude towards wolves.

The Ministry of Natural Resources will particularly miss Bill Mason. Millions of visitors to our provincial parks since the 1970s have seen his films over and over again and loved them all. People from every walk of life who attended evening programs in parks with their children invariably cheered when the evening’s program included a film by Bill Mason.

1340

Bill Mason was particularly fond of Lake Superior and Lake Superior Provincial Park, where he did a lot of his filming. His movies brought people closer together, closer to nature and gave everyone a deeper appreciation for wild things and wilderness areas and the environment.

Bill Mason had a very special gift, and I know members of this House join me in expressing our condolences to his family.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Farnan: It is interesting that the media are now commenting on how this government is employing its backbenchers constantly and irritatingly to ask easy questions in the Legislature, taking up time traditionally available to opposition parties to raise criticism and providing ministers with openings to flatter themselves.

Surely government members can receive information from ministers outside the forum of question period, and surely this government will allow opposition parties raising substantive issues to hold the government accountable rather than allow this easy, soft lob to ministers in the House from backbench Liberal members.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: I would like to bring to the attention of the government questions in Orders and Notices. Last December 15 I had put a question on the order paper to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten), who tabled an interim answer on December 29, 1987, and said the other answer would be completed and ready for February 29, 1988. To date, Mr. Speaker, there has been no answer to these questions on the order paper, and I ask you to make sure that the rules of this Legislature are followed.

PROGRAM FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would like to rise to correct the record on behalf of an answer I gave to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) last week.

The honourable member asked a question with respect to access programs. I indicated that we funded two pilot programs in this area. While we do fund two programs, one in Peel through the children’s aid society and one in Waterloo through Lutherwood, only the Lutherwood project is officially a pilot program with an evaluation component built into it. I wished to be sure the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore was aware of that correction.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM / SYSTÈME D’INFORMATION SUR LES MATIÈRES DANGEREUSES UTILISÉES AU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I rise to acknowledge a historic day in the workplace for our province and for our country. Today the workplace hazardous materials information system, or WHMIS, as it is known, comes into effect across Canada. It is a day of justifiable pride for labour and management representatives, legislators, government officials and other involved people and groups who have worked so hard to generate an unprecedented consensus and bring WHMIS into being.

Les représentants des syndicats, des employeurs et du gouvernement, ainsi que les législateurs et tous les autres participants, ont tous raison d’être fiers, aujourd’hui, d’en être arrivés à un consensus sans précédent et d’avoir permis au Système d’information sur les matières dangereuses utilisées au travail de voir le jour.

As members know, the authority for WHMIS in Ontario was originally granted by this assembly when it passed Bill 79 in June 1987. At present, there are amendments to the legislation before the House, which are required to enforce all of the provisions of the model regulations to be implemented across Canada. Once the amendments are passed, the law will be retroactive to today’s date.

Dès que les amendements seront adoptés, la Loi sera rétroactive à la date d’aujourd’hui.

As members will recall, Ontario’s legislation will go beyond the basic requirements of the national WHMIS plan. It will eventually include an inventory requirement that leads to the community’s right to know about hazardous materials in its workplaces. It will also extend the workplace hazardous information system to include hazardous physical agents such as laser generators.

In the meantime, WHMIS is revolutionizing the way hazardous materials are handled in workplaces all across Canada. Under the program, employers are required to ensure that workers will be able to recognize and understand the labelling on hazardous materials, to understand material safety data sheets and to safely use, store, handle and dispose of hazardous materials.

Selon ce programme, les employeurs se doivent de s’assurer que leurs travailleurs sont capables de reconnaître et de comprendre les étiquettes identifiant les matières dangereuses, de comprendre les fiches techniques santé-sécurité et d’être en mesure d’utiliser, d’entreposer, de manipuler et de disposer de ces matières dangereuses.

Worker training is one of the most critical factors in the whole of the WHMIS program. The Ministry of Labour has financed a training package that has been developed by Ontario’s nine safety associations and the Workers’ Health and Safety Centre in co-operation with the Occupational Health and Safety Educational Authority, an arm of the Workers’ Compensation Board. This training package can be ordered by contacting one of the safety associations or the Workers’ Health and Safety Centre at the Ontario Federation of Labour.

In consultation with their joint health and safety committees, the parties in each workplace will have to determine their particular needs and may want to build upon the basic training package.

I am pleased to report that many of the WHMIS training programs are well under way. Ontario employers have until January 31 to comply with the worker education and training requirements of the WHMIS legislation.

I would like to mention that some allowances are being made for supplier compliance with WHMIS. The October 31 deadline affects primary suppliers who do not rely on other suppliers for their raw material. Once the amendments are passed, from this date, all hazardous materials shipped to an Ontario workplace from a primary supplier must be labelled and include a material safety data sheet.

Secondary suppliers, who rely on primary suppliers for their raw material, must supply employers with information regarding their product’s risk as well as precautionary and first-aid measures for the purposes of worker training. They will have until March 15, 1989, however, to meet the WHMIS requirements of labelling and detailed material safety data sheets.

The WHMIS legislation will be enforced under existing health and safety law in Ontario. Ministry inspectors will also be enforcing the federal regulations for suppliers.

The Ministry of Labour is deeply committed to the spirit of co-operation and consultation which has been the true hallmark of WHMIS.

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS / SUBVENTIONS POUR IMPÔTS FONCIERS

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to inform the honourable members that the Ministry of Revenue today began mailing the second instalment of the 1988 Ontario property tax grant cheques to eligible senior citizens throughout the province. Some 630,000 households will receive $187 million, with an average value of $297 for each cheque.

J’aimerais informer les députés que le ministère du Revenu a commencé aujourd’hui l’envoi postal du deuxième versement des chèques de subventions pour impôts fonciers 1988 de l’Ontario aux personnes âgées admissibles de la province. Ainsi, quelque 630 000 ménages recevront un total de 187 millions de dollars, ce qui correspond à une valeur moyenne de 297 $ par chèque.

As the honourable members will recall, the first instalment of up to $300 of the property tax grant was received by seniors in May of this year.

May I remind the members that for seniors who turn 65 this year and who did not, therefore, receive the first instalment of the grant, the full year’s entitlement to a maximum of $600 will be issued to them in the form of one cheque. It is important to note that the May 1987 provincial budget raised the amount of property tax grant from $500 to $600. The deadline for filing a 1988 application is December 31, 1991.

I would like to thank the honourable members for their assistance in the successful administration of this program. As always, we have received excellent co-operation from their constituency offices in ensuring that senior citizens receive their full benefits.

1350

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Scott: Over the last several days, allegations have been made in this House and in a Toronto newspaper regarding alleged relationships between certain developers and certain municipal officials in the towns of Markham and Richmond Hill.

The Ontario Provincial Police and the York Regional Police Force are already, as honourable members will recall, in the midst of an investigation related to the town of Richmond Hill. I have today asked the senior officers of these two forces to extend this investigation to include the allegations involving the town of Markham. I believe they will conduct a thorough and independent investigation and the crown law office will, in due course, receive their report.

RESPONSES

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM

Mr. Mackenzie: We are pleased with the bill dealing with the workplace hazardous materials information system, Bill 150, that we have before this House.

I just want to make one comment to the minister and that is about the concerns I know he is aware of in the trade union movement about the interpretation of the word “consult” and the desire that there be amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that clarify exactly what the interpretation of the word is.

The bottom line remains that the Occupational Health and Safety Act does not compel the involvement of workers or their representatives in the delivery of training, and, of course, that has been the concern over the word “consultation” all along, as the minister is well aware.

While we appreciate this bill and hope it goes through very quickly, we also appreciate the comments the minister has been making about the need for amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and certainly the interpretation of that word has got to be one of them, in the near future.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. B. Rae: Obviously, we are now in somewhat of a dilemma in that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has extended the police investigation. I say “dilemma” in the sense that the investigation with respect to Richmond Hill has been going on for many, many, many months. I think perhaps it would have been more refreshing if the Attorney General had given us some indication as to the progress of that investigation and as to when or whether charges were or were not going to be laid.

The Attorney General says we can ask him those questions in question period. He has not been particularly forthcoming with that information when we have asked him with respect to other investigations, and I have serious questions in my own mind as to whether it is worth pursuing that course in terms of those questions.

But the point I want to make is that, quite apart from the question of a police investigation, which the Attorney General should know can be very extensive and very exhaustive, the questions that we have been raising in this House and the questions raised by the series of articles in the Globe and Mail extend far beyond the question of criminal liability to include such questions as the overall relationship between the municipal officials and elected people and the development industry, activity which may not be criminal in the strict sense but which may nevertheless have produced certain results in terms of the decisions which have been made.

We want to have an investigation that requires the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) to explain how it is that the ministry’s own guidelines with respect to the use of agricultural land were certainly, if not circumvented, short-circuited by decisions made by the Ontario cabinet and, indeed, by the minister himself.

We would want answers to questions involving the decisions that were made at the local level with respect to the allocation of certain contracts and decisions that were made with respect to the provision of infrastructure.

Again, these are not necessarily issues which are going to be resolved by a criminal investigation. What we are looking at is the entire relationship between an industry which is growing and enormously powerful, and local governments which, in our view, have not been able to effectively control and direct development in a way that best serves the interests of the people of York region and best serves the interests of the people of the province. These issues are quite above and apart from the question of a criminal investigation.

I just conclude by saying that we on this side of the House continue to demand a full and complete public inquiry into questions involving the relationship between the development industry and local government and, as well, the relationship between the development industry and the cost of housing in York region. These are questions which need to be dealt with: questions of the monopoly on land, questions of the ways in which decisions are made at the local level, and the relationship between that industry and this level of government, the provincial government, as well as the relationship between the development industry and local governments.

These are the questions that will not go away, that are not going to be settled one way or the other by a police investigation. We should be focusing on these broader questions in addition to the simple question of whether criminal venality is involved. That is not the only question; that is simply one aspect of the entire problem.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) in calling for a full, public, independent inquiry with regard to these allegations that are made. The Attorney General must remember that many of the decisions that were made with regard to the development of this area of our province were made behind closed doors. The public does not understand the reasoning behind some of the decisions made. An Ontario Provincial Police investigation will not clarify the situation for either the people against whom these allegations are made or for the councils which have been dealing with the decisions which have been made in the past.

We have had experience in the past with OPP investigations. Our experience with OPP investigations in this government is sorry. The Wyda Systems and Graham Software OPP investigation has now been going on for over three years with no greater knowledge on the part of the public as to exactly what went on. I think we should join with the mayor of Markham, who has called for a public inquiry into this matter so that all names can be cleared. I say to the Attorney General that this is better than nothing, but it just is not good enough.

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM

Mr. Brandt: It is not frequently that I have an opportunity to stand in my place in this House and congratulate a minister for an undertaking that I happen to agree with, but I do have to extend congratulations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) with respect to the initiatives he has taken --

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: Hold it down, now. I am not through yet.

I have some advice to share with the minister as well as congratulating him on the initiatives he has taken with respect to the identification of hazardous materials in the workplace. We, on all sides of this House, agree that there was a necessary level of co-operation that had to be undertaken at both the federal and provincial levels in order to bring into being an act that would have teeth in it and that would in fact protect workers in the workplace.

We agree with that particular initiative. We on this side of the House also think, I might add, it is totally appropriate that the provincial minister take an objective look at guidelines which are established at the federal level and, if necessary and appropriate, strengthen those guidelines, as we do with many other programs that are handed down to us or worked out in consultation with us from the federal to the provincial level. The minister is on the right track with respect to the undertakings he has initiated in connection with this particular act.

Second, however, I would like to caution the minister that in my discussions with various individuals who will be impacted by this particular legislation, the large corporations do not appear to have much of a problem in compliance because of their size and because of their financial capacity to respond, but I do hear some problems from some of the smaller ones.

In his statement, the minister has identified suppliers, as an example, as requiring some degree of flexibility. I suggest as well that some small corporations may need some flexible response from the ministry in terms of how this act is in fact introduced and how it is effectively legislated. I compliment the minister and I hope he will continue to build on this most appropriate foundation.

1400

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

Mrs. Cunningham: In response to Ontario’s tax grants program for seniors, we should remind the government that our party introduced this program some time ago. The real interest for me in this announcement is that it is simply one of mailing instalment payments, which does not usually take an announcement in this House. But we will take the opportunity to let the minister know we are aware that in May 1987 the amount was raised from $500 to $600. We do support the move in that direction, but he should know we are aware that we are simply not keeping pace with inflation. The real issue is that taxes are up, costs are up and this grant is static.

The purpose of the grant was to assist seniors with their tax payments when they were involved in property with regard to education. Right now, we find this government spending less in education at the government level and the local taxpayers are paying a lot more. This grant does nothing to help the seniors. It is another announcement of the same thing. We asked the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to raise it to $750. He did not do it. Shame on the Treasurer; shame on the minister.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I want to focus specifically on the question of tuition fees and what it is costing students to go through university these days and how much debt they are having to accumulate and pile up in order to get through university and college. I wonder if the minister can give us a categorical assurance that her government will not be raising tuition fees.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I would be happy to give the honourable members of this House some reassurances about the government’s policy on tuition fees, because it does concern me that as people express concerns about future directions, there can be some misunderstandings about what the government’s policy is and is not.

Let me first of all give an absolutely categorical assurance that we are not considering the issue of deregulation of tuition fees. I think we would have some concerns about the impact of deregulation on the nature of our university system that would be shared by the members of this House. Let me also indicate what our tuition fee policy is and has been, and that is a policy of increasing tuition fees on an annual basis at approximately the same rate that we increase government grants.

In fact, over the last years it has been somewhat less than the rate at which we have increased government grants. As a result, students in our universities are actually paying less of a percentage of the cost of their education than at any time since 1982. University students currently pay 18.2 per cent of the cost of their education.

The issue of tuition fees is one we will not consider outside of our commitment to accessibility, which is a commitment that this government has made, both in terms of its statements and in terms of its very real funding support, to ensure increased access to post-secondary education.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if I could ask the minister how she feels, in terms of the impact of tuition fees and the costs of going to university, about the kinds of debts students are coming away with. We have stories, which have been related to me, of students coming out of the university with a debt as high as $20,000 each and $12,000 being the average figure of Ontario student assistance program debt now being accumulated by students.

I wonder if the minister would agree with me that a debt of $20,000 as a prospect of what you are going to be facing at the end of three or four years of university in fact is a barrier to access and is a problem which the minister herself is going to have to deal with very directly.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I would certainly agree that the prospect of very large debts being acquired over the course of post-secondary education is one that would be of concern. It has been of concern to this government. That is exactly why we have provided additional support to the Ontario student assistance program, 34 per cent over three years, and why by far the greatest percentage of Ontario’s contribution to the student assistance program is in the form of grant assistance, not in the form of loans, because we are concerned that our support for students to have greater access and to ensure that their post-secondary education is affordable is one which is, in fact, given in the form of grants to as full a degree as possible.

It is also because of our concern that students’ debt loads at the conclusion of their postsecondary education be ones which are manageable that we introduced the Ontario student loans plan interest relief program this year, so that those students who do graduate with some measure of debt and who are in low-paying jobs or who are not employed can, in fact, defer for a longer period the payment of that loan that has been acquired. So we are concerned and we have been dealing with it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is as if the minister is saying that all is so well that low-income kids are going to universities because they are not worried about the debts they are going to come through with. She is saying that 18.2 per cent carrying costs by a student are appropriate and will continue to be appropriate because the ministry is going to match increases by that amount which it is passing through to grants to universities at this point. The minister is saying that sixth place in the country is good enough. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: If we want to get into numbers, we will have quite a long afternoon ahead of ourselves because we have to debate the specific numbers. For instance, as the honourable member makes a reference to sixth, I would also want to indicate that last year, as I have looked at the most recent figures, our percentage increase in operating grants to universities was probably the highest of any province in the country.

In all sincerity, I would like to suggest that the whole issue of fees is a complex issue which is a part of the very fundamental question of a balance between excellence and accessibility. That question is one which this government has truly struggled with.

We inherited a post-secondary education system which faced very serious funding problems. The initiatives that were taken by this government to support enhanced quality and excellence in our universities would take me longer than the balance of our question period to be able to outline. At the same time, we have been concerned about ensuring greater access. As this House knows, we were faced with the largest increase that has been experienced in applications for universities over the last two years. So we have supported increased quality in education at the same time that we are supporting the largest participation rates in our universities in history.

The question of what is a legitimate proportion for students to pay is a legitimate question, but it is not the only part of the question. The other is how much assistance we provide.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: In view of the absence of the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who I had hoped would be here, I would like to address a question to the former minister, who I know has these facts and figures at his fingertips with respect to the auto insurance industry.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: No, not Corporal Kwinter; I was thinking rather of Private Nixon.

I wonder if I might ask the Deputy Premier this question with respect to the announcement made on Thursday by the Co-operators insurance company that it would not be offering new auto insurance coverage to drivers in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us what steps the government intends to take to stop this kind of blatant geographic discrimination being practised by one of the largest insurance companies in the province.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think it really inappropriate that the honourable member would put the question to me, since I am not the minister.

However, I can assure him that the automobile rate review board will be able to be of some assistance in this regard. But I can also assure him that the minister, when he returns to his place, would be very glad to give him a more detailed answer.

Mr. B. Rae: The Deputy Premier was in fact the minister responsible for the carriage of Bill 2. He will recall he was responsible for bringing this bill in and for seeing it passed through. Can the Treasurer recall whether there is anything in the act which prevents this kind of geographical creaming off, this kind of geographical discrimination? This means that in the future an insurance company will be able to say, “We are not going to insure Sudbury,” or, “We are not going to insure Sault Ste. Marie,” or, “We are going to do nothing for Windsor.” Is there anything in the bill which prevents an insurance company from doing that?

1410

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There are great powers and resources in the hands of the ministry and also in the hands of the inspector of insurance, who could require the companies doing business here to offer a broad coverage. I think the whole point of the announcement made by the Co-operators is that the cost of servicing its contracts is now well ahead of its premiums, according to its statistics, and it has taken this action as a business decision.

Mr. B. Rae: I am intrigued by the Treasurer’s answer. I would like to know, from his recollection, as he was the minister responsible for the bill, what section of the act it is that will give to the rate review board or to the government the power to tell an insurance company that it has to provide insurance across the board for all categories of drivers right across the province in every part of the province. Can the Treasurer point out which section of the act in fact gives the board that power?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, I cannot.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was enjoying the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer to such an extent that I did not realize it was my turn.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Brandt: I want to address my question to the Attorney General; it is partially in response to his statement today. I would like to remind the Attorney General that last Wednesday and again on Thursday our party called for an independent public inquiry into certain allegations which were reported publicly in the Globe and Mail newspaper respecting the area north of Toronto, primarily around Markham and Vaughan, and the land transactions associated with those particular allegations.

I wonder if the Attorney General does not think it is time now to put aside the Ontario Provincial Police investigations, for which we have a rather sorry track record in this province, and to move into the public arena with respect to a full inquiry so that these allegations can in fact be heard publicly and disposed of in the way in which Mayor Bell of Markham has requested as of one o’clock or 1:30 this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I suppose it is true that under this government the traditional role of the OPP has been restored and we have directed it to focus its function exclusively to the apprehension of crime and the production of reports of crime.

What has happened today is that it has come to our attention, as a result of what was said in the House last week but more particularly as a result of these newspaper articles, that there is material there which might reveal evidence that a crime had been committed. To ensure that it was being investigated, we directed the OPP to expand an ongoing investigation to cover that material.

The crown law office, in the normal course, will receive the report when the police believe they have unearthed all that is to be unearthed. We do not control the timing of an independent police investigation, but when they make their report it will be made to the crown law office and if appropriate, that is to say if a crime is revealed and if there is evidence of it, charges will be laid in the normal course.

Mr. Brandt: I would remind the Attorney General that justice delayed is in fact justice denied, and in this particular instance --

Hon. Mr. Scott: What a phrasemaker.

Mr. Brandt: Did the minister not like that one? He has used it himself on occasion.

I would like to remind the Attorney General that the kind of justice which has been denied in this province and delayed for so long as a result of other investigations is exactly the reason, specifically the reason why we are calling upon him to initiate a public inquiry that would be fully independent and would bring forward all of the facts in this particular case.

Let me read from the Globe and Mail, Friday, October 28: “Several experienced planners...said the regional and provincial authorities who vet municipal development decisions also give these men fast-track treatment.”

I ask the Attorney General again: Do allegations like this not bother him? If there is nothing to hide and if there is no problem with respect to what has been going on in that part of Metro Toronto, will he not for once move in the appropriate fashion and call a public inquiry into this whole mess?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Of course it bothers me to see an allegation like that. As the honourable member knows just from reading it, the allegation is a bald assertion that certain persons unnamed have dealt with certain persons unnamed in a particular fashion.

It is precisely because of the lack of detail in the article that we have invited the Ontario Provincial Police to conduct an independent investigation, to commit its powers and resources to that investigation to see if any criminal acts have occurred. If they have evidence of criminal acts, I want to assure the honourable members that they will be brought to the attention of the court and informations laid.

I cannot control the length of time it takes to conduct that investigation. The OPP conduct an investigation in the most thorough way they know how because of its importance. When their report is received, I can assure the honourable member, however, that my ministry will act on it very promptly.

Mr. Brandt: Well, in our party, and I believe in the member’s party, we believe that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. It is for that reason that we are calling upon the Attorney General to have a public inquiry with respect to this particular matter. We believe, as Mayor Bell of Markham believes, that the individuals mentioned in the articles have a right to have their say in an atmosphere that does not prejudge them.

I say again to the Attorney General that the only way he can clear the decks on this particular matter, the only way that the truth can come out in such a way as to satisfy, I think, the very justifiable questions being raised by the public pertaining to this issue is to have a public inquiry. I do not know why the government is reluctant to do that and why it wants to shove this thing behind closed doors, which is exactly what an OPP investigation results in. Again, from our party, we call upon the government to hold a public inquiry into this whole matter.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If there are some political issues in this, they will be decided either in this House or on the hustings in the current municipal election. My job as the Attorney General, with the support of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), is to investigate allegations of crime, to determine whether those allegations are supported by evidence and if they are supported by evidence to see that charges are laid.

The corollary of that is if there are no allegations of criminality supported by evidence, charges will not he laid. That is how people’s names are cleared when allegations of criminality are made against them, or even if the charges are laid and they are acquitted, their good names will be maintained on account of that process.

The Solicitor General and I are doing our jobs, which is to take allegations of criminality, get the independent police force to determine whether the evidence exists and to lay charges if charges are warranted.

I want to assure the honourable leader that under this government, those things will be done.

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the same subject with respect to the development of certain lands in the northern part of Toronto.

It is my understanding that he received a telephone call, according to the Globe and Mail article, from the mayor of Richmond Hill requesting that he speed up the approval on close to 1,000 acres of land in that municipality for development purposes.

It is also my understanding that shortly thereafter, he got back to the mayor of Richmond Hill indicating that he was prepared to give his approval to that particular undertaking.

I would like to point out to the minister that my understanding is that those lands, according to the official plan for that area, were not to be developed for some 15 years. Could he perhaps share with the members of this House the sequence of events that occurred resulting in the development of lands 15 years before the official plan and as a result of a phone call from a mayor to his office?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Shortly after we formed the government, I believe a telephone call did come in from the mayor asking that he have a meeting with me.

I do not believe he indicated what he wanted to meet about, but being that this government runs an open-door policy, my door is always open. I have met with people, whether they are mayors or schoolteachers, you name it, I meet with them. I have no hesitation about meeting with anybody who wants to come into my office.

By the way, I would not know Mayor Duffy if I was to run into him on the street today, but I believe that Mayor Duffy came into my office back in 1985 and talked about this proposal for subdivisions up in that part of the Toronto area. I said, “Look, anything that is done has to be done by proper procedure and it will have to have the approval of my ministry in accordance with the food land guidelines.” It was as simple as that.

1420

Mr. Brandt: It is interesting. I am glad the minister raised the whole question of the food land guidelines. In 1985, and I believe it was either article 15 or 16 in the Liberals’ platform at that particular time, the Liberals talked about the preservation of prime farm land in this province being the highest priority of the government.

Since that was the position of his government in 1985, and since he was the minister at that particular time implementing those programs, how was it that this particular development, of all developments in various parts of Ontario, received the kind of fast-tracking that it got with respect to the approval process? Could the minister explain that without telling us any more about his open-door policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Before giving a thorough explanation, I would want to check the files to see what has gone on back over the three years. But it is my understanding -- I stand to be corrected, but I believe I am right -- that we said at the time, my ministry comments were that it did not coincide with our food land guidelines and therefore we did not grant approval.

I believe I am correct when I say that, but here again, this has all surfaced over the weekend. I caught just a glimpse of the report in the paper this morning, and I have not had a chance -- I had just come back from a function in the riding -- to check my files to see what has gone on over the last three years. I do believe my ministry did not grant approval, because it was not in accordance with the food land guidelines.

Mr. Brandt: I will try to be of help to the minister, because I know the minister would appreciate any assistance we on this side of the House can give him. I want to suggest to the minister that on July 11, 1985, the Minister of Agriculture and Food stood in the House and said in response to a question from one of my colleagues, in the fashion in which he handles these kind of questions, rather boisterously with his open policy, and I quote: “I am in favour of protecting agricultural lands; I want to make that point clear.”

It seems to me there was another politician who used the phrase “perfectly clear,” and I would not associate myself with him, if I might, at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question’?

Mr. Brandt: Some five months later, cabinet did approve a plan to develop the very thousand acres I am talking about -- I want to help the minister with those dates -- five months after July, when he stood here and voiced his complete and total support for the preservation of agricultural lands in Ontario. How did that happen, recognizing that all of this transpired 15 years before those lands --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked: How did it happen?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Let me tell the member that I have not strayed away from my whole attitude on the preservation of agricultural land. He can ask my colleagues where my stand is as far as the preservation of agricultural land is concerned; he can ask my cabinet colleagues what my attitude is about the preservation of agricultural land; they will tell him.

The honourable member knows full I well, after having spent some time in cabinet himself, that one individual cabinet minister does not make the whole decision for cabinet. We, as cabinet ministers, will put our point across. He can be assured that if my ministry were not prepared to approve this subdivision up in the north end of Toronto, if it were not in accordance with my food land guidelines, my ministry would have said so. I would have supported my ministry in that effort.

But as I say, before I can comment thoroughly on this, I want to check the files. I am not going to accept what the member is telling me has taken place. I want to check my files to see what has taken place over that time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the Minister of Agriculture and Food wants to apologize for his cabinet colleagues, that is fine, and we will accept on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. New question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: That is the first time I have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Food say that the devil made him do it.

I wonder if the minister could confirm, as a matter of fact, that he did have this meeting on September 9, 1985, with Mayor Duffy and that on December 5, 1985, cabinet made a decision with respect to the approval of this particular project, which I might add is a project involving entirely luxury homes. The average size is some 4,000 square feet. This is not exactly part of the affordable housing strategy being put forward by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek).

I wonder if the minister can confirm that in fact that information was relayed by telephone to the York regional council by an official in the government of Ontario. Can the minister confirm those facts?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I can certainly confirm that I met with Mayor Duffy. He asked for a meeting. He did not indicate what the meeting was about, and neither was I the least bit concerned about meeting with any mayor who wants to come in to meet with me.

He came in. He talked about this proposal for the subdivision in the north end, but as I told him, it has to go through the procedure. It goes before the various ministries. Any time there is a change in designation of land, a rezoning, a change to official plans, it goes before the various ministries, as it goes before my ministry.

My ministry comments, based on the food land guidelines. Again, I want to check my files, but it is my understanding that my ministry at the time did not grant approval, because it did not meet with the food land guidelines. I believe I am correct when I say that.

Mr. B. Rae: This makes it all very interesting. In the absence of the leader of the government, it is very hard for us to ask the next logical question, which is, if the ministry was opposed to this approval, which took place in some two months, it would be fascinating to know which ministers and which ministries were in favour of the fast track for this particular development and development of this land for residential use some 17 years before it was supposed to be under the official plan.

I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Food would do us the favour of tabling any and all documents he has with respect to any transactions and discussions he has had with Mayor Duffy with respect to the development of this particular project.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I can personally say that I would not have any hesitation in tabling any documents, because my ministry did as it is required to do.

My ministry comments on all these proposals that come before it if it means redesignating land, so I have no hesitation in saying that my ministry saw the proposal. Again, I want to check my records, but I believe at the time there was no approval given from the standpoint of their operating in accordance with the food land guidelines.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs. Marland: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last week, I released some examples of slow response times in the Halton-Mississauga ambulance strike. I wonder if this minister has spoken with the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) about the 11-week-old strike. Is he interested in resolving it, or does he feel that those slow response times are good enough for the people of Halton and Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the member knows that whenever there is a labour dispute of any size or consequence, it means an interruption of service, product delivery or whatever. In the case of the Halton situation with the ambulance drivers, I take what she says at face value.

It is my understanding that members of my own ministry have had discussions with officials within the Ministry of Health. Far more important than that, officials within my own ministry obviously are up to date on the nature of that dispute and what differences separate the parties.

Our mediators are there, have met with the parties on a number of occasions and are prepared to sit down with the parties whenever it appears that sort of meeting would be opportune and could resolve outstanding issues.

1430

Mrs. Marland: I am sure the people who have lost loved ones in this 11-week strike are going to be very happy to hear the minister talk about product delivery. We are not talking about product delivery; we are talking about response times. I am asking the minister again if he feels that is satisfactory, or does he have to wait until someone close to him is impacted?

If that kind of response time is adequate in his opinion, then why does he have the number of ambulances he normally has in Halton and Mississauga to cover those patients’ needs? I am not talking about transportation; I am talking about emergency response.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: First of all, I want to tell the member for Mississauga South that emergency service and accommodation have been made for her community so that no member of the public is at risk. I want to make that perfectly clear.

Second, I want to point out to my colleagues in the House that every time there is a labour dispute, the member for Mississauga South suggests that the government step in and legislate workers back to work. Now, if that is her view of the way in which labour relations should be carried on, that is fine for her and her party; but we believe that the most effective approach in this sort of situation is to provide the best sort of mediation service we can and to help the parties, in free collective bargaining, to resolve their differences.

I know she is not in favour of that process. I think that is regrettable. I just want to tell her that, in that area, I think all the steps necessary to ensure that the public is well served have been taken and will continue to be taken.

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Health. As everyone in the House is aware, Saskatchewan was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce medicare. But I understand that, more recently, that province has introduced a $1 charge per prescription for those normally receiving free drugs. I also understand that this was not intended to deny medication for those in need but simply to bring to the attention of those people who are using them the effects these drugs might have on them and the overall effect of drug usage across that province. Apparently, it has resulted in a 25 per cent drop in charges to that province.

Can the minister advise the House whether she is aware of this happening in Saskatchewan and whether Ontario is looking to see whether or not it could be considered for this province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to thank the member for his question. I know of his concern regarding the Ontario drug benefit plan. I believe members of this House know of my concern as well.

My primary concern is always for quality of care and the fact that we should have the very best therapeutic results possible from our Ontario drug benefit plan. Any steps we take and any changes we make must, I believe, be within the context of quality assurance and quality of care. I want to assure the member that I am always willing to look at experiences in other jurisdictions both in this country and abroad whenever we are looking at modification to our programs.

Mr. Owen: Almost daily I hear of stories where seniors who have been prescribed one drug have suffered the consequences with other side-effects from the use of that particular drug. Sometimes the side-effects have been very serious for these patients. Is the minister aware of this problem? Is anything being done by the ministry, both with regard to the seniors themselves and also, more particularly, the doctors who are prescribing these drugs that are resulting in these side-effects?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, Ontarians are among the highest users of prescription drugs in the world. He is quite correct when he says that every prescription written under the Ontario drug benefit plan is written by a physician. Also, every one of those prescriptions is dispensed by a pharmacist.

I believe that physicians and pharmacists, as well as the patients and consumers of drugs, all have a responsibility to ensure the very best therapeutic results of our programs. It is the reason I asked Dr. Lowy to conduct an inquiry into the Ontario government’s role in the drug marketplace and to review our government programs. Dr. Lowy is presently holding public hearings and I look forward to his recommendations. I am hoping to have interim recommendations from him by the end of this month.

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STANDARDS BOARD

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Ballinger: We didn’t think that for a moment.

Mr. Breaugh: You haven’t thought for several years.

Mr. Reville: Stop being so generous.

Mr. Breaugh: Two years ago the government of Ontario established a thing called the Residential Rental Standards Board of Ontario. The only real problem with it is that nobody works there.

It is part of the rent review process. Landlords, such as the ones at 35 Brookwell Drive in North York, seem to have a rent review system that gets them a 10 per cent increase in rent. However, the tenants there are having some difficulty.

Is it because the minister does not have any inspectors working for this branch that they cannot seem to get work orders which are outstanding against that building completed and that they continue to have to live with ceilings that are broken, walls that are broken, doors that have no locks, doors that have no handles, plumbing that does not work, electricity that does not work, paint peeling off the walls, holes in the walls --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Breaugh: -- rats coming up through those holes in the walls, complete access to the exterior without any kind of repair being done at all, broken windows, elevators that do not work --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Breaugh: -- and maintenance problems on the exterior of the building? Are all of these problems simply because the minister does not have anybody in place yet to enforce the law?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: The maintenance standards board was created precisely to respond to some of the difficulties that tenants in the province have faced on the whole question of maintenance. In fact, since the board has been in existence, thousands of work orders that were outstanding have been completed, and they have been completed because of the intervention of the maintenances standards board. In many cases, when the staff follows up on some of the repairs that need to be made, then landlords seem to move much more quickly.

Mr. Breaugh: They are doing a hell of a job, considering that no one is working there.

How can the minister anticipate that this board will actually be able to do its work when it has, in fact, no employees at work now? There is no one there but the board. The best they can tell us is that they intend to have by the end of this year, more than two years after the board was created, five inspectors for all of Ontario. Does the minister anticipate that they will be able to do anything for these people in North York or any other tenant who has a problem with maintenance?

As the situation now stands, the minister will know it is simply not possible to get the work orders enforced. Even when municipal inspectors come into the site and find that there is a problem that ought to be fixed, they cannot get the work done. These tenants have had no success with that at all, and it seems to me highly unlikely that they ever will have until the minister actually decides to hire the inspectors.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked a little while ago.

Hon. Ms. Hosek: What the board does is deal with orders that have been outstanding for a long time that municipal building inspectors have put forward. Since the board has been receiving orders, the average time for compliance has been about 73 days, and there have been 500 buildings in the province where orders have in fact been completed and where repairs have taken place.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week I asked the minister if he was aware of the restrictive nature of the Day Nurseries Act, specifically the regulation that limits the number of children who can be cared for in a private home to five. The minister agreed with me that the current legislation is faulty and that it does not address the specific circumstances in caring for school-age children in private homes, but he did add that his staff have been under severe other pressures, with no time for new legislation.

We have received numerous letters from London families and other families across the province who complain of some intrusive and harassing actions as ministry staff spend precious time enforcing the regulations of a somewhat outdated piece of legislation.

Will the minister reallocate his staff to draft a new day care act, as promised, an act that will eliminate regulations that hinder accessibility to desperately needed child care?

1440

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of the last time the question was asked was to the effect that the existing legislation was there for the protection of children. A decision was made many years ago by the government of Ontario, certainly before I was minister, that a single family home that was not designed in any particular way for a day care facility, did not have particular playground provisions and did not have trained staff provisions, was not the best place for a larger number of children and, in fact, five children was the appropriate number.

I am not prepared to say to the honourable member that five is a better number than four or six. Five was the one that was picked. No one has ever demonstrated to us clearly that it is not as appropriate as any other number. I did point out, however, to the honourable member the last time around that children who would come in after school, simply because of their age and the amount of attention and supervision they need, probably should get a slightly different perception in terms of what kind of numbers we should permit, and I was prepared to re-examine that. At the time, I did point out to the honourable member that our legislation was under review.

Mrs. Cunningham: I suggest that moving as soon as possible is exactly what we are asking the minister to do. We want him to reallocate his staff immediately. Changing that regulation limiting the number of children who can be cared for in a private home setting would be an important move in that direction.

I am sure the minister would agree that many of us have cared for more than five children at once, especially when they are school-aged children. The minister especially should relate to that probably more than anyone in this House. His personal experiences, I know, will cause him to have some sympathy for our position. Families are quite seriously looking for that particular regulation to change, and I know he will seriously look at it.

In the interim, my question is this: Will he give direction to his area managers, as he has for the staff qualifications in day nurseries, that would give them some discretion to allow, where appropriate, that people with proven experience -- because I think that is important -- can care for more children in a private home setting?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked. Perhaps the minister would like to answer.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The dilemma that we find ourselves in as a ministry is, on the one hand, as the honourable member suggested, that perhaps our field inspection staff is spending too much time doing these kinds of things. She is also well aware of the fact that just this past summer, in the Mississauga-Peel area, we came under considerable criticism from parents that we did not have enough inspection staff, in fact, to check the day care centres. One of those centres eventually had to be closed down because it just was not too effective. The difficulty is trying to balance the number of staff that we have.

The honourable member is also aware of the fact that we came under criticism earlier because, in fact, we had hired too many extra staff to try to do the particular kinds of jobs. There is never a right or a wrong way as to how we allocate our staff or how many staff we definitely have.

However, the member is correct in terms of the difference between the needs of after-school kids and those of during-the-day children. I think she is also aware of the fact, from a previous discussion, that we do have sort of a test program, a pilot program, whatever you want to call it, in the Mississauga area right now to see what is a legitimate number. We honestly do not know. We are prepared to try that. As soon as we have some sense as to what we can do that still will meet the needs of parents and the safety of children-and I do not think there is any question between us as to the safety of children-then we are prepared to be a little bit more flexible, but I need to have some evidence as to just what those numbers are. Right now we honestly do not know.

CHICKEN INDUSTRY

Mr. Miclash: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Some time ago he indicated that the Farm Products Marketing Board was ensuring that the Ontario Chicken Producers’ Marketing Board develop a quota policy that would not discriminate against the people in northern Ontario. Can the minister tell the House if this issue has been resolved?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is my understanding that the chicken marketing board has had its quota policy under review for some period of time as it pertains to all of Ontario, not just northern Ontario. They did meet just recently with the Farm Products Marketing Board and informed the commission that they now do have a policy available for all of Ontario, such policy being that there can now be a transfer of chicken quota without the purchaser having to buy the premises on which that quota was being filled. I am pleased to say that northern Ontario farmers who want to get into the chicken business can now purchase quota and transfer it to the north without having to buy the premises along with the quota.

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Last week I drew to the House’s attention the case of Maraon Ryll, who shares her apartment with a 16-year-old cat, which has never caused any problems in the building.

She is a house-bound disabled person of 56. On October 18 she received an eviction notice, effective November 14, which gives no reason for the eviction except that the keeping of a cat violates her tenancy agreement. The case has been well documented by Jeffrey Freedman in a series of articles in the Toronto Star.

In view of the fact that pets contribute greatly to the mental and physical wellbeing of thousands of seniors, as well as other house-bound people, will she and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) take immediate steps to stop this inhumane and unfair discrimination against all tenants who own pets?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I would certainly agree with the member that there are many seniors who are living alone who find that the companionship of a pet in fact enables them to be more independent and more healthy for a longer period of time. We must balance this, of course, with the other seniors who live in fear of the German shepherd who may be residing in the apartment building down the hall. I have been consulting with the Minister of Housing on this issue and will consult with the Attorney General as well.

Ms. Bryden: The minister has mentioned that she must consider the other tenants. As she knows, there is already ample provision under the “other disturbance” section of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which allows landlords to order the removal of pets who create a nuisance or disturb the other tenants. There is no need for a no-pet ban of this universal nature that is now becoming widespread.

Will she undertake to bring in, with the help of the Attorney General, an immediate amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act to outlaw blanket no-pet clauses in order to stop the eviction of Mrs. Ryll before November 14?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As I have indicated to the honourable member, I would be very pleased to meet with her to discuss the particular case of Mrs. Ryll. As the member, I am sure, realizes, Mrs. Ryll cannot be evicted without due process. In fact, the landlord must prove in court that she has stood in the way of reasonable enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or the tenant. That case, no doubt, will come to court. As I have said, I will be pleased to discuss the specific issues with the honourable member, as I know this issue concerns her. It does concern me as well.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. It is with respect to the Globe and Mail articles on the development of lands in York region. I have raised some questions earlier, before his arrival, with his Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell).

Let me suggest, if I might, to the Premier that there are some very legitimate concerns on our side of the House that an Ontario Provincial Police investigation will not clear the air with respect to all of the individual personalities whose motives have been impugned by the articles that have been printed in the Globe and Mail.

It is our view that a full public independent inquiry must be held in order to clear the decks on this particular matter. I ask the Premier, in light of the fact that there seems to be even some disagreement in his cabinet over the approval of 1,000 acres of prime farm land in the Richmond Hill area and that there is some suggestion on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Food that he did not support the decision of cabinet with respect to this particular matter, would he call an inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of all of the allegations that are now floating around, so we can clear those allegations in a fashion consistent with the call by Mayor Carole Bell of Markham?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Attorney General can enlighten the honourable member on why the government has chosen the course it has.

1450

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the allegations in the Globe and Mail raised the possibility that crimes had been committed by persons, assuming the allegations to be true. We believe, as I think most honourable members believe, that if there is an allegation of crime, we owe it to the public to see if that allegation can be made out and a charge laid. If it cannot be made out and a charge laid, of course we owe it to the persons who are named to see that they are cleared and that it is made plain that those allegations of criminality have no substance.

The step we have taken is to expand the investigation to include the allegations that were made in that newspaper article. It seems to me that is how we protect the interests of the public, by ensuring that those guilty of crime are convicted; and that is how we protect the interests of the innocent, by assuring that a police investigation in the end, if possible, clears them.

Mr. Brandt: Again we say to the Attorney General, as the Premier does not want to respond to this question, that that particular action on the part of his government is inadequate. I say to him, with respect, that there are situations that occurred with respect to the approval process, even within his own cabinet, that raise concerns, not necessarily concerns of any impropriety but concerns as to the fast-tracking of approval some 15 years prior to the official plan calling for the development of some 1,000 acres.

There was a series of phone calls made between the mayor of Richmond Hill and the Minister of Agriculture and Food or his office. There was then a cabinet discussion and, I might add, Mr. Speaker, if you can believe this, there was then a phone call, not a series of official documents approving of the development but a phone call which expedited the process, indicating that approval was being given for 1,000 acres, probably one of the largest single residential developments in the entire province at that particular time. It was done by a phone call. Why was a phone call made rather than the official exchange of documents, which is normal in this particular case?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is Hallowe’en and the leader of the third party is obviously going out tonight as the master of innuendo and disguised as the purveyor of gossip. It is the one night a year when he is entitled to wear those costumes and get away with it.

The honourable member has complained that as a result of the Globe and Mail article --

Mr. Brandt: Are you going to take the high road or the low road? Make your mind up on that.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member has complained that some of the ministries, he says, have not conducted themselves properly. This is the forum where questions are asked about that and he can ask every minister here any question he wants. I remind the honourable member that we have here the longest question period in the Commonwealth simply to answer his questions.

If the member has questions of criminality, they will be dealt with in the traditional way in the criminal courts. If he has questions to ask of ministers, they will be presented here and I believe answered.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware of the many years that Windsor has been attempting to get a new chronic care hospital under construction. She will also be aware that it was promised in the 1985 provincial election by her government, by her party, that there would be a sod-turning for this new hospital by the fall of 1985, and it still has not seen a sod-turning. The expectation now is that the hospital will not have its sod turned until at least the fall of next year because of inflation costs.

Can the minister indicate whether she is prepared to intervene to see that this hospital is constructed more quickly because of the absolute need for these new chronic care beds in our community?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member would know of my concern to ensure that all of our processes, whether they are planning for capital or planning for operating, give us an opportunity to make sure we are planning appropriately for the future. At the present time, as I know he is aware, we are reviewing many of those processes within the ministry to ensure that is in fact the case.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I think the people in this province are getting sick and tired of hearing the phrases from the Minister of Health about good planning. It was her party that promised that this new chronic care hospital would be built in Windsor and that the sod would be turned in the fall of 1985. Now it is 1988 and it looks like it will not happen until 1989, which means completion in 1991 or 1992.

The current chronic care hospital in Windsor is a converted school that is about 70 or 80 years old. Is the minister prepared to intervene to see that we have decent health care for our seniors in Windsor and speed up this project which she and her party embrace every time there is an election but do nothing in between?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, I am concerned that we are able to provide appropriate facilities for our communities. One of the concerns I have is that, following ministry announcements, often the scope of the project changes or the costs in fact increase. One of the things we are doing as we review our capital process is to make sure we have a process in place which will respond appropriately to the future. If the member has a concern about any specific project, I am always pleased at any time to review that and discuss it with him.

Mr. Cousens: I saw the Minister of the Environment about, but maybe he has gone into hiding now. Is he about to answer a question? Oh, here he comes.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Cousens: On September 16 of this year, Metro council voted to spend $300,000 to study the expansion of the Keele Valley dump site. Metro executive has recommended that its solicitor apply to the province for amendments to legislation which would modify the current agreement between Metro Toronto and the town of Vaughan to facilitate this expansion.

What action is the minister going to take with regard to the Keele Valley dump site? Will he in fact order an environmental assessment before anything else is done or will he be assisting in this crisis by looking for an additional site?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have not received any application from Metropolitan Toronto for any particular work to be done at Keele Valley at the present time. What I have done with Metro is I have not given what you would call a generic exemption or anything of that nature. But before you make any decision of this kind, you look for a specific proposal to be put forward, but certainly any proposal put forward would have a very close environmental examination.

I know the member, just like other members, does not want any particular site or facility located in his area. I understand that people in the area of the Keele Valley landfill site would prefer there not be any further activity there as well. Virtually everybody has told me where they do not want the site or what they do not want done. I am wondering if perhaps the member has a suggestion on where it might go.

Mr. Cousens: Indeed, the people of Vaughan, around Maple, are concerned with 1,000 trucks coming through daily, dumping more and more into that landfill site, which by 1992 will reach its capacity unless this minister says, “Let’s increase the capacity and let’s allow it to be doubled in size.” A similar proposal was raised and turned down in 1978 when the Environmental Assessment Board said, “No, we will not agree to the doubling of the Keele Valley dump site.”

Now what is happening is that the Minister of the Environment is just standing by, waiting for some magical solution on this. Meanwhile, the people who are standing by looking for something to happen are finding a Minister of the Environment who is not getting involved.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cousens: The people of Metro Toronto are reaching the point of last return; soon there will not be a place to put their garbage unless the minister comes up with some guidelines and assurance that he is going to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. What is he going to do about these landfill sites, especially Keele Valley?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1500

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can only illustrate, from the member who is asking the question, just how one person contradicts the other person over there. One day those people get up and say, “Why don’t you pick a site?” I know that if I were to pick a site, for instance, or if the government were to pick a site, the member would say it is the wrong one. The next day he would get up and say, “Don’t pick this site and don’t pick this site.”

The member knows the process that has been established. For instance, I was in Etobicoke. The members from Etobicoke who are here would know that one of the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Since some of the material goes from Etobicoke into the landfill site, one would know that the recycling program which was kicked off today, established today in Etobicoke, as well as the one we already have in York -- and it is just growing around Metropolitan Toronto -- is going to have a very positive effect.

I know that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), who represents the area in which Keele Valley is located, is an individual who has on many occasions drawn to my attention the concerns of the people in that area, not only as they would relate to a major expansion, as the member has discussed, but also as they might relate to other matters of the continuous use of the site at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: What I want to assure the member is that when any proposal is put --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That is quite a full answer.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if I might ask the Premier a question. We were told by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) earlier, when the Premier was not here, with respect to this question of the approval for the 975 acres of top-class farm land, that in fact this approval was not granted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and was not recommended by the Ministry Agriculture and Food, to the best of the of recollection of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Despite that fact, it appears that the Liberal government approved the project on December 5, 1985. I wonder if the Premier would be prepared to release any and all documents which he has in his possession or which the cabinet has in its possession that would lead to an explanation as to how the recommendation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was overridden by the Liberal cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would be very happy to look into the matter and report back to the honourable member.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Ms. Poole: I have a petition signed by over 200 people regarding funding of independent schools. It reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“As parents whose children attend a Jewish independent day school, we are very concerned over the inaction by the government in responding to the recommendations of the Shapiro report which recommends funding to independent schools. As voters and taxpayers, we respectfully request that this government issue its response, which in our opinion should give some monetary relief to those of us who must pay independent school tuitions.

“Secondly, we the undersigned wish to be placed on record as supporting the efforts of the Ontario Jewish Association for Equity in Education, who have been requesting that all independent religious day schools meeting proper education requirements be accorded similar rights to Roman Catholic schools who are presently full funded.”

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am very pleased to table a petition containing the signatures of 378 concerned citizens from Peel, Maryborough, Drayton and area, in the county of Wellington. The petition reads as follows:

“The Honourable Lincoln Alexander, the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We, the parents and community of Drayton, Ontario, believe the Lord’s Prayer and scripture readings to be very important in the education of morals to our children and would like to have them reinstated immediately as part of our education system.”

I have signed this petition and strongly support the intent of this document.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Morin: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

“Introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr. Miclash for Mr. Ruprecht; on the standing committee on social development, Mr. Carrothers for Mr. Miclash.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED) / CRÉDITS, MINISTÈRE DU REVENU (SUITE)

On vote 3201, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

M. le Président : La semaine passée, vous avez pris 22 minutes. Il vous reste environ huit minutes, je crois.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître : Huit minutes ?

M. le Président : On s’était entendus sur une trentaine de minutes ?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître : Avec la permission, peut-être, des députés, Monsieur le Président, si on me donnait de dix à douze minutes...

Mr. Chairman: The minister would have about another 12 minutes of presentation to make. Is that agreed? Minister.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The members will recall that I began the presentation of the 1988-89 estimates of the Ministry of Revenue last Thursday. Before I continue with my opening remarks, I would like to briefly recap some of the major points I made at that time.

In overall terms, I described the ministry’s 1988-89 budget as essentially flat-lined. Not only is the ministry faced with the requirements that deal with the steady growth and expansion of workload in established programs, the ministry must also implement the new budget programs of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), such as the Ontario home ownership savings plan, employee share ownership plan and the corporations tax superallowance.

The ministry’s budget estimates reflect an increase in total funding of $82.3 million, which includes a net increase of $72.3 million in transfer payments. The increase of $10 million in our operating budget is more than offset by the increases for negotiated salary awards and onetime funding for the enumeration process. In addition, the ministry’s operating budget has been reduced by a further $6.1 million as a result of the Treasurer’s in-year government-wide constraint.

Last year, I described in some detail the significant developments and achievements in the major program delivery areas of provincial tax revenue and grants, municipal property assessment services, and the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

I also provided the members with details of the ministry’s investment in computer systems and end-user technology. Most particularly, I reported to the members that the new mainframe computer facility installed in our Oshawa head office will generate savings to the government of $51 million over a period of four years.

1510

I would like to resume my statement on page 41 of the material that I have distributed to the members and discuss one of our largest investments in computer technology, the Ontario assessment system.

L’importance stratégique de cette initiative a été confirmée par le fait que nous avons été en mesure de faire face aux augmentations massives des cotisations supplémentaires et des nouvelles cotisations mentionnées aux articles 63 et 70, sans aucune augmentation de financement ni hausse de personnel. Par ailleurs, les députés seront heureux d’apprendre que les fonds nécessaires à un tel placement ont été prêtés par le Conseil de gestion et sont exigibles avec intérêts. En fait, les provisions du programme d’évaluation comprennent une réduction de 2,2 millions de dollars de remboursement au Conseil de gestion.

The strategic importance of this initiative has been confirmed by the fact that we have been able to deal with the massive increase in supplementary assessments and section 63 and 70 reassessments with level-lined funding and staffing. At the same time, members will be interested to know that the funds for this investment were borrowed from Management Board and are repayable with interest. In fact, the estimates of the assessment program include a deduction of the repayment of $2.2 million to Management Board in 1988-89.

Finally, one of the most important recent developments in information technology has been the appearance of the high-powered, lightweight laptop computers. As the first models appeared on the market, my ministry immediately moved to develop the applications necessary for their use by retail sales tax and corporations tax field auditors. In 1987, Management Board approved our business case to proceed to equip these auditors with laptops.

These laptops have already paid for themselves in increased revenue recoveries. As important, however, has been the positive response by businesses and the reduction in the time and inconvenience involved in conducting field audits.

Another benefit has been our ability, in most cases, to provide our clients with detailed printouts of preliminary assessments on the spot.

I might also say that Ontario is the most advanced among Canadian tax jurisdictions in using laptops. We are even ahead of our federal counterpart, the Department of National Revenue, in this domain. In fact, we have responded by making our applications available to our federal and provincial colleagues.

Further, the use of laptops offers considerable promise to closer co-operation with corporate taxpayers through greater compatibility of tax reporting and verification. To this end, my officials demonstrated the use of laptops in auditing corporations to a conference of the Tax Executives Institute only last week, which also resulted in a number of requests for copies of our software.

Thus far, I have concentrated mainly on the ways we are seeking to improve the efficiency of our program operations.

Toutefois, il est vrai que nos programmes touchent plus de gens, plus souvent et sur un plus grand nombre d’aspects que ceux de tout autre ministère ontarien. J’estime donc qu’il serait approprié de conclure mon analyse de nos provisions par quelques commentaires sur l’importance que nous accordons à un bon service à la clientèle et à la simplification du processus en cause lorsqu’il s’agit de faire affaire avec nous.

In November, we will be issuing our 16th report on our continuing efforts to improve customer services. At this point, I shall merely say that the report describes over 60 initiatives in the past year, bringing the running total to over 400 measures since the program was established as a management priority two years ago.

These new measures cover the full range of our programs and will work to the benefit of many thousands of small businesses, senior citizens, municipal ratepayers, francophones and third-language customers.

This concludes my introductory review of the ministry’s estimates for 1988-89. I will be pleased to answer all members’ questions.

Ms. Bryden: I want to congratulate the minister on heading up the biggest collection agency in Ontario. I think his ministry probably takes in more money than any other ministry and probably disperses more in transfer payments, as well, because it does disperse the senior citizens’ grants, guaranteed annual income grants, tax credits and various things of that sort. That makes him a pretty important person.

This is the first time the minister has brought the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue to this House. We have not had estimates for the Ministry of Revenue for more than a year. I am glad we are having an opportunity to discuss the ministry.

Of course, the minister just collects the taxes and leaves it to the provincial Treasurer and the Legislature to decide how they shall be spent, but I think the actions of his ministry play quite a large role, both in whether there is enough money coming in and whether there are changes in taxes that might be brought in which would increase the revenues and at the same time put less of a burden on the existing revenues for administration.

I would also like to congratulate the minister on adhering to the agreement or proposal that we try to restrain our contributions to 30 minutes each, by each of the critics as well as the ministry. I think he pretty well adhered to his 30 minutes. I hope all members of the House will restrain themselves on the length of their questions and the minister with his replies because of the fact that we only have five hours. This is a very important ministry and it is time we had a review of it. I hope we will all exercise a certain amount of judicious self-discipline in the questions and answers to make the maximum use of the time, which is basically opposition time to obtain information.

The minister has given us a very elaborate briefing book which gives the basic statistics on each program, each vote, the amount spent, the number of employees and so on, but I find it really quite inadequate as an analysis of his ministry. For example, these are some of the things I would have liked to see in his briefing book: the actual cost of tax collections by tax and the number of employees who administer each tax, so that we have some idea of what it costs us to have, say, a corporation tax of our own or a retail sales tax.

Second, I think it is high time the ministry got into step with the federal government, which produces an annual report on tax expenditures. Most of us know what tax expenditures are. They are the cost of various tax concessions that are given in the legislation and which people apply for, either on their income tax or through other programs; in effect they are really an expenditure and not a tax collection question. They are an expenditure that is never voted by this House. Therefore, we should have a reporting of such expenditures.

I will say that the new government did produce one report in May 1986 called Ontario Tax Expenditures, by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, but for some reason or other the well dried up and we have not had another report since May 1986 on that. It was quite a useful report, but it is now two years out of date.

1520

Other things that I think should have been in the briefing book are a description of the actual amounts paid out under the various tax credits, an analysis of who gets what: the amounts paid out to guaranteed annual income system people as to how many there are and what income groups they represent; a description of the number of people who have applied for some of the new programs that were adopted by this House last spring, particularly the Ontario home ownership savings plan. How many applications have come in for the program which provides a tax credit for people investing in stocks and in new kinds of entrepreneurship -- the employee share ownership plan, I think it is called.

We do need some statistics on those. All these things really add up to the need for an annual report, which the ministry does not have and is not required to have by law. If we had an annual report, we could get some of these statistics, at least on an annual basis, and they would be all in one place where we could look at them.

The minister did mention that he has just put out his 16th report on customer service improvements. I may say that this is something I have been taking up with the Minister of Revenue in this House for many years, because I think the customer relations of the ministry have been, in the past, rather poor, very much assuming that all retail operators are potential tax evaders and they should be pushed around.

The appeal system is very poor. If they wish to appeal an assessment of tax owing, they do not go before a really independent board; they go before another part of the Ministry of Revenue. Many of them, especially in the retail field, are not entirely familiar with all our laws and customs. They are not lawyers. Some of them do not have accountants. They find it very intimidating when they are challenged on their assessments and then are expected to defend them before an appeal process that really has another part of the ministry reviewing the whole thing.

I think there should be a much more independent appeal method. It is true that they can go to the Divisional Court, but when you are being assessed, say, an extra $10,000, you would spend $20,000 going to the Court of Appeal, so the appeal system is very poor.

I did have a constituent who ran a shoe store and who was a fairly recent newcomer to Canada. He apparently was not keeping the proper records on his sales, what was taxable and what was not. He went through a long process of trying to negotiate with the ministry to find out exactly what was the problem and what was wrong with his figures. He also came to see his MPP about it, but while it was happening, over a period of about a year, the computer was running and his assessment under this extra assessment levied against him kept going up.

Even if you complain about an assessment, the clock does not stop, so usually by the time you get through all the procedures of trying to find out what is behind the figures and the assessment, you have doubled the assessment.

For a small businessman, what was close to a $10,000 reassessment amounted to about double that by the time he got through. He had hoped there might be some compensation allowance for the fact that he had not been properly briefed by the ministry on what he was supposed to do in the sales tax. This was over a period of years; it was not entirely during the period of this government. As I say, it went on for three or four years, some of which was before 1985 and some after. He ultimately went out of business. I think this is a very bad blot on the ministry’s record, that a small entrepreneur with an immigrant background was forced out of business. I have documented this case to the Minister of Revenue in past years.

At any rate, these are reasons why we should have better customer service. I would like to see the latest report on customer service. I do not think it was included in our documentation.

The other thing I am worried about is that the minister says he is following the expenditure constraint program but that it is not going to affect the department very much. I would like to know: Where are the cuts coming and are they the kind of cuts we want?

For example, will this program make the minister a poorer watchdog on those who might be tempted to evade taxes? Will the constraint program make customer service poorer so people can get fewer visits from a representative of the ministry to explain the taxes to them or can get less opportunity to get through, even on the phone? This is the sort of thing I would like to know more about in this expenditure constraint program.

I notice in one spot in the briefing book, regarding two taxes that concern me very much, it says, “This branch is responsible for the Collection of all retail sales tax and racetracks tax in an equitable manner and encourages voluntary compliance through emphasis on customer service.”

I am very interested in racetracks, as the Greenwood Racetrack is in my riding. I would like to know in what sort of way they are encouraging voluntary compliance through emphasis on customer service. What kind of service are the racetracks getting that makes it easy to swim through the red tape in collecting the racetracks tax? Are we really getting our full money’s worth out of the racetracks tax?

We are not, really, because a lot of it is rebated back to the operators of racetracks and to the horse owners, so we want to make sure that whatever is coming in, particularly that the province benefits from, is the maximum that could be obtained. I am not sure what that section in the briefing book says. I do not see any page numbers on the briefing book to draw it to the minister’s attention.

The minister could, of course, have more money to operate on if the government would put in a land speculation tax. It would bring in great amounts of money and it would stop the churning over of housing, which is creating great problems, and not only for the homeless. It is creating great numbers of new homeless but it is also creating great problems for middle-class people who want to buy homes, young people getting married. A land speculation tax would bring in potential new revenue to the ministry that would more than pay for itself. This is something the minister should be discussing with the provincial Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Conway: With no negative side effects.

Ms. Bryden: It stopped the land churning back in the early 1980s when it was put into effect. It is the only way to stop this churning over; and all income groups in Toronto are suffering from it.

Another place the minister could get piles of new revenue is a minimum corporation tax, which they have in the United States. Our capital tax is really just a very minor tax all corporations pay, but there is no minimum corporation tax under the Corporations Tax Act and literally thousands of companies in this province are not paying any tax at all, and that is because there are so many loopholes that they can get various concessions. These are tax expenditures, really. We do not know how much each company gets, but we do know there are literally thousands of companies not paying any corporation tax, and these companies do have profits. I think that is an area the ministry could get more revenue from, but of course, the minister has to convince the provincial Treasurer about that.

1530

I am very concerned about the incident that happened on the property tax. These studies that were done by the ministry of the effect of potential market value assessment in the Toronto area were not released in detail to the six municipalities, although they had asked for these figures. They showed very substantial differences in the effect of a market value assessment system on the different municipalities. The city of Toronto would lose about $93 million in the assessment and some of the other municipalities would gain slightly, but overall the ministry decided that the new freedom-of-information act did not cover the details and the resultant estimated assessment for each property.

You cannot evaluate the effect of a new form of assessment on the individual properties if you do not see the individual figures, and I think it was really a misunderstanding of the purpose of the freedom-of-information act on the ministry’s part. I am surprised that they did misunderstand this, because the Liberal government came in on a policy of openness, that it was not going to keep facts secret and buried so that the Legislature, in making decisions, or the city councils, would have the full facts of any studies it was doing.

Fortunately, the freedom-of-information people finally told the ministry that it must release the individual figures, and I hope the ministry learned from that lesson that that is why we need an annual report and that is why we need more data released to the public on a regular basis on the effects of the tax collections it makes and who is affected; who pays what.

Today the minister announced an increase in the seniors’ tax grant which is supposed to offset school taxes and make seniors more able to stay in their own homes, because they have been very seriously affected by recent increases in property taxes. The seniors’ tax grant came in as an election measure brought in by a Conservative government, $500 per household. Unfortunately, the Progressive Conservatives apparently had never heard of indexing. At least, it stayed at the same $500 from its inception until 1987.

Mr. Cousens: We don’t believe in indexing.

Ms. Bryden: I thought one of his members mentioned indexing of this particular tax in the question period today and seemed to be in favour of it. Maybe there is a split in the party there.

The increase from $500 to $600 for that seniors’ tax grant occurred in the May 1987 budget brought in by the new government, but it still is not promising any indexing, so seniors may not really catch up, because raising it from $500 to $600 does not enable a lot of them to catch up to the increase in property taxes. Have they any hope of keeping up with inflation? If they do not have that hope, many seniors are going to be forced out of their homes because property taxes keep on going up both for schools and for municipal services.

I think it is being unfair to seniors to say the government is giving them property tax relief if they are stuck at $600 for the next three or four years or until there is some sort of election campaign to prompt the government to raise it again. Seniors have to take the money out of their food budget until there is another election to raise the ceilings or they are forced into institutions because they cannot keep up their homes. That is, as we all know, a very much greater cost than indexing the tax grant.

The same applies to the tax credit which is supposed to help nonseniors, given the fact that property taxes are a greater burden on low-income people. The change in this year’s budget was really minimal and gave a bit more tax credit to the very low-income people and took some of it off the people who are a little higher up but are not really on easy street. If we are going to have a property tax, we have to have some means of making it less regressive.

As far as market value assessment is concerned, and the ministry seems to be convinced that is the answer to tax reform, we all know there are a lot of inequities in our present assessment of houses and businesses and we would like to see those inequities removed. But to use market value assessment as an alternative yardstick is simply to put your head in the sand and not look at what is happening to property values in places like downtown Toronto or even Beaches-Woodbine, where I live, where the land speculation is just putting the cost of owning a house and the taxes right out of the reach of any medium income people.

If the government puts in any sort of market value assessment in the city of Toronto, it is in effect depopulating the centre of Toronto because the land speculation and the development plans are so great that almost every ordinary person of medium or small income will not be able to afford the taxes in downtown Toronto. Whenever a government forces ordinary home owners out, it also forces out the ones who are providing rental accommodation or rooms and that increases the number of homeless.

Market value assessment is a very bad solution. The New Democratic Party has been opposing it for many years. We think the whole tax reform should stem from the idea that the burden of property tax should be relieved of things like education and welfare, which should be put on the province to a much greater extent because it does have access to progressive taxes.

We also would like to see greater tax credits in order to offset the property tax. Basically, we think that if the government reforms the property tax in that way, then it can reform other taxes which are more progressive, such as the corporation tax and the income tax, and get a fairer tax system. We are certainly a long way from that in this province.

Again, I think the statistics we get out of the Ministry of Revenue do not make it clear how unfair it is. It does not show how many people are paying a higher percentage of their income on housing and on taxes than they should be in comparison with people who are better-off.

1540

I must say that I was completely puzzled as to what the minister’s position is on market value assessment.

“On Friday” -- that was December 6, 1987 -- “Revenue Minister Bernard Grandmaître repeated the Liberal government’s pledge not to impose the controversial reform” -- meaning market value -- “unless all six Metro municipalities are in favour of it.”

Well, the city of Toronto has definitely voted against it because of the $93 million in extra taxes it would have to pay under the one analysis it has seen and that is based on two years ago.

The next day, the minister said, “The provincial cabinet is willing to consider a property tax reform plan for Metro, even if the city of Toronto opposes the scheme.”

So I have these two quotes, one from the December 7 Toronto Star and one from the December 8 Toronto Star, which seem to show that the minister either does not know what the policy of the government is or has flip-flopped and is prepared to go f

or a market value assessment imposed by Metro council on the city of Toronto.

Mr. Faubert: Toronto is part of Metro.

Ms. Bryden: Yes, but Toronto does not control Metro.

Mr. Faubert: Oh, it sure does.

Ms. Bryden: The ministry is supporting market value assessment without looking at other alternatives, other forms of tax reforms such as the ones I have mentioned, to take some of the burden off and make it much more a property services tax. They are promoting this market value reassessment without enough study, without enough understanding of what it will do to many thousands of people in many parts of this province.

They certainly should not say that it can be imposed by a regional government on a local government, because up until now that has been part of that program by the government and by the previous government that it should be done municipality by municipality and they should have the say. Really, property taxes are the most important part of their revenue.

I think also that some of the other tax sources could be opened up a bit to the municipalities to also take some of the burden off property taxes. There could be a small share of the income tax going to the municipalities to give them some more revenue and some independence in spending it.

I will move on to one question that I always like to ask in the estimates -- I think I have only about five minutes left in my 30 minutes -- and that is the question of women and their place in the ministry.

I have not seen a very recent crown employees’ office annual report that used to come out on how many women were in each ministry in proportion to the number of male employees and what their average rates of pay were in relation to the male employees, but I would like the minister to report to us the figures for his ministry; that is, what percentage of ministry employees are male and what percentage are female and what the average earnings are of the males and the females.

Another question also: Is the ministry moving on pay equity? What percentage of women are in management positions compared to the men and what percentage of women are in the top administrative categories compared to the males, because that tells the tale whether women are being assisted in moving up and working towards pay equity.

Also, I would like to know if the ministry has a pay equity unit, which it should have under the new legislation on pay equity that was passed a year ago. Has the ministry set any goals and targets for each branch to work towards employment equity and pay equity? Are the training grants that are available open to men and women equally? How long is it going to take, in the ministry’s plan of goals and targets if it has one, to achieve pay equity as provided for under the legislation? The act provides for a phase-in period which we in the NDP think is much too long, but we want to know that the ministry is moving towards it. Those are the main things.

I would like to mention, though, preparation of the voters’ list by the assessment department under the new Municipal Elections Act. The minister was saying that we have been very successful in getting a good voters’ list for the coming municipal election. I do not know whether he has been ringing any doorbells as I have, with the municipal lists as his guide, but I find the lists are almost equally as faulty as the old lists we used to get out of the municipalities when they did their own annual assessment. If nobody is home, they have a tendency to just put on the people who were there on the fast assessment a year ago. You come up with all sorts of people on those lists -- which are now printed for the 1988 municipal elections -- who are dead, who have moved and some who never even lived there at all, but they got the name from somewhere.

I think the monitoring of that mail assessment that was tried this year was not as great as the minister is making out. He says it costs $7.3 million to put in this special monitoring and checking on the 25 per cent who did not return their assessment forms, but I think a lot of it goes back to the fact that the whole preparation of the municipal election lists was done with too little information to people, in too much of a hurry and with too short a deadline.

Of course, we in this party had said the whole thing should have been postponed until a period when there was more time to acquaint the public and to train people in what to do, and the government would not have had that $7.3 million of expenditure. We would have had to have the municipalities conduct their usual annual door-to-door enumeration, but that has been used, of course, in past years with some success and may have been necessary this year because the ministry gave so little time for this municipal election reform.

I am very much afraid that the municipal voter turnout is going to be extremely small because a lot of them do not know what is going on in all the reform, who they vote for or what new ward they are in. The confusion of course with the federal election does not help, but that is not the minister’s fault.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Where does your canvass suggest that Tom Jakobek is -- ahead, behind or sideways?

Ms. Bryden: I have not completed it yet, but I am worried that the municipal turnout is going to be very low because of the ministry’s ramming through this new method of making up the lists.

It is true, I will admit, that there is some progress in that you can now get sworn in at the polls on election day at the municipal level. That will help people who suddenly discover they are not on the list; although they must be aware that they can get sworn in. That is another thing. I am not sure whether the ministry is advertising this new change adequately or that the municipal clerks are advertising it.

That is another area I would like a report on from the ministry, as to how it happened that a lot of people who are dead or have moved are still on the list.

Also, how did it happen, this fraud that has been reported in the newspapers of people being put on the list in buildings that are under renovation, not occupied and places of that sort? How did that occur? Could it have been prevented by the system or is that a flaw that must be looked at?

I hope we will have lots to talk about if the minister answers some of these questions. I am particularly concerned about property tax reform and that we should look at something besides market value assessment, and that we should look at the progress on pay equity and male-female equity within the ministry.

1550

Mr. Cousens: As I begin, I would first of all like to compliment the minister in selecting one of the most delightful parliamentary assistants we could have around the House, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert). I have seen such a smile on his face ever since he had his appointment. The kinds of things he will do to help the minister I am sure will help guarantee a Conservative government in the next election. But in all the best interests of --

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That is an underhanded comment if I ever heard one.

Mr. Cousens: I just know. But anyway, I compliment the minister for putting him to work. I know he will serve the minister well and will also serve us well, too.

Mr. Faubert: You’ll have a Conservative mayor in Markham.

Mr. Cousens: I do not want to get into municipal politics. I think we have to keep it on a high level here at the provincial level; but there are a number of things.

The people who are sort of taking in what is going on in the Legislature will realize that they are seeing something that does not happen too much, because ever since the Premier (Mr. Peterson) took office and this government took control of the coffers of Ontario, we have not had as many opportunities as we have had in the past for estimates, the opportunity that gives the opposition a chance to look at what is going on in each of the different ministries. It becomes something of an anomaly because now the ministers are too busy spending money and doing things to give the opportunity for the opposition to make them accountable for what they are doing.

The fact of the matter is this Legislature will not have as many estimates this year as we did last year. It has been decreasing ever since, which means that we in opposition are not having the opportunity that I think is a prerequisite to good government so that ministers become accountable for what is going on.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It looks like your colleagues can’t wait to get their chance.

Mr. Cousens: I know. We will all be running just to get before a microphone to let the world know that we are concerned. None the less, the minister has released a fine statement of what is going on. I find that he does not cover everything in his opening statement of almost 50 pages.

I would like to touch on a few issues that certainly concern me. One has to be the size of the bureaucracy. It has gone up ever since the Liberals took over the government. They are just adding more and more people. I know it helps the unemployment levels, but they are also adding to the costs of government by virtue of what they are doing.

The bureaucracy that is taking place here in Ontario, and especially within this ministry, I say to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), where the administration programs -- I have the numbers here. I would like to just put them on the record in case people have forgotten how much the ministry is spending. The administrative programs are the programs that provide overall administrative and support services for the ministry and include main office, financial services, personnel services, legal services and so on.

Let it be known that in 1988-89, the Ministry of Revenue increased its administrative services to $23.9 million from $16.9 million, an increase of 41 per cent, a change of seven million additional dollars. That is what starts costing the taxpayers more and more in order to maintain that high complement of people the minister is adding to his rolls. This is not money that is going to programs or to capital projects, but instead is going to support the bureaucracy of an increasingly bloated government.

This ministry is one of the worst offenders in increasing the number of people who are just running around doing things. Now, I would not want to be critical of Ministry of Revenue staff, because I think they have been good people in the past, but is the minister not allowing a few slots to be filled that maybe could be kept empty for a little while?

I go through the minister’s estimates briefing notes and on just about every page, when we talk about the human resources data, the staff categories have gone up and up.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: If the member reads the second, third and fourth lines of each paragraph, he will have all the answers.

Mr. Cousens: The concern I have is that the minister is just adding to the number of people, and I think we all have to be concerned with that. I wonder about the extent to which the minister is concerned with the high costs that are going into salaries, people and personnel.

Under many pages there are notes such as we have for program 3201, “Increases in salaries and wages are primarily due to staffing increases in ministry main office (dual portfolio), communications (French-language services) and the information technology division, associated with the establishment of the revenue computing centre.”

That one makes me ask another question. How much money is the ministry spending on French-language services? I realize the honourable minister is also responsible for francophone affairs, but how much are we now paying out in all these costs for administration and people to have exclusively French-language people working there? To what extent is the ministry moving towards a francophone emphasis and what is that costing the province?

I guess in asking that question, what I really want to know is whether the minister has guidelines for the number of people he is hiring and whether or not all of them have to be francophone, the number who are francophone and what the francophone services are costing. We know that we want to have French-language services where numbers warrant, but the extent that these services are going beyond that is a matter of increasing concern to many people.

The minister has many different hats that he wears and I would be interested in whether or not he has any statement on the extent to which his ministry has moved towards more French-language services in the last year, how much those extra services have cost, whom those services are being directed towards and whether they are really needed in the light of the fact that our party has certainly asked for public hearings on Bill 8 and the French implementation. I see extra costs coming in here, but I have no idea just how much money the ministry is beginning to spend on those matters.

I would never take away from the importance of having French-language services where they are warranted, but I have a feeling the ministry is moving very quickly towards getting ready for the day when this province becomes officially bilingual. I would be very happy if the minister could clarify what his position is on that matter.

There is a whole issue that surrounds government; that is, taxes. People forget about it after a while. Once the tax has been levied, they get used to it. It is like a pain you are used to. It is there all the time; it is pressure. None the less, I think at this point in time it is well worth taking a moment to talk about the level of expenditures that this government is continuing to spend and the kind of taxes it takes from the people of Ontario in order to maintain these spending levels.

I do not think very many people understand just how great an increase has taken place in the last four years in the way this government has been spending money. In fiscal year 1984-85, the total Ontario government expenditures were $26,898,000,000. This year, 1988-89, it is up to $38,420,000,000. That is a $12.5-billion increase. The change is exactly a 42.8 per cent increase in four years.

This is a horrible increase and nothing to be proud of, yet the Minister of Revenue is the tax collector. He is the one who is bringing the money in. I just wish he had some influence on the cabinet to have it be a little bit more fiscally responsible. Maybe one of the places to start is within his own ministry. If he is able to bring down some of his own spending, and I have already pointed out how excessive it is, then that would be a good example for the other ministers and the other ministries to look towards.

1600

We are seeing a change taking place in total expenditures in this province that is in excess of anything we have ever seen before in the history of this province. The fact is that it has increased from $26 billion in 1984-85 to $38 billion in 1988-89. It is in fact something I would like to see the government constantly have to defend. It is not going to get away with it.

The people of Ontario have no desire to pay these increased taxes because it just never seems to be enough. If there was some sense that they were going to call an end to having more and more taxes, then the people of Ontario might have a chance to do some of their Christmas shopping in October and November, rather than waiting to the last minute and spending next year’s money.

Unfortunately, the government had the biggest tax grab in this province in this last fiscal year. Almost $1 billion from its budget has gone into the coffers of this province. Government expenditures, as I just said, are up to $38.4 billion, up over last year by 8.6 per cent. Its revenue increased by 11 per cent.

I am saying that we as a province have to stop and take stock of just how much money the government is taking and spending, and just what it is not doing with it. We will get to some of those issues in a moment, but we have to stop and realize that we do not get anything for nothing. We all know that, but is there any way the government can stop and reassess its spending habits? It is like any person in this province who has a credit card and just keeps spending in excess of what his credit limits are. What we want to do is see this province live within its budgets, stop the deficit spending and live within its means. If everybody could begin to do that -- I know it is harder and harder to do it, but here is an example in the minister’s own ministry where the old prices, the old services, the number of people and everything else it is doing is going up and up.

How does he do it? How does he get the money? What he does is get into the business of levying taxes. We have seen some taxes dropped on us this year. I wonder why we have not had the debates on the tax bills yet. Does the minister not have any influence on what is going on with his House leader to schedule the debate on the tax bills? What we have had happen is legislation by fiat.

I do not mean a little car came creeping in. The Premier and his budget man, the Treasurer, have come into the House and announced a budget, yet we in this House, although we have had a chance to debate the budget, have not had a chance to debate the bills that are going to come out of that budget. Why? If the budget was important when the Treasurer tabled it back last spring, we should have debated those bills then. I am looking forward to debating them some time, unless this government is planning to bring them in on December 24, just when the House is about to rise. Bring them forward. Let’s debate those things that are important to us.

The people of Ontario do not want to have a government that is going to keep on laying out the taxes, but not have a chance to defend it in the Legislature of Ontario, where it presents its bills and we have a chance to debate them. I would like to ask the minister if he is able to give any kind of sensible answer why he has not had those bills debated.

The fact is that we have had a gas tax come along and generate $1.2 billion in revenue, a 16.6 per cent increase over last year’s inflows from gasoline tax. I would not mind if some of that tax money on gas was going into roads or into the infrastructure for services, but the amount that is going into roads and services for the people on the roads is minuscule. If the minister has any numbers, fine gentleman that he is, with all the resources of the thousands of people who are in his ministry, I would love to know how many of the dollars we have raised through gas taxes have gone back into roads and how many have not. I do not think it begins to touch upon the needs we have in this province.

The fact of the matter is that this government has increased its gas taxes and we, as a province, have quietly and silently been paying it out. What are we seeing for it? More and more potholes; more and more problems; it is taking longer and longer for people to come in and out of Metropolitan Toronto.

Metro Toronto cannot do it itself. The government of Ontario has to help Metro and York and Durham and Peel in building more roads. To what extent is this government doing something on it?

I realize that this minister is not equipped or ready or prepared, nor is he charged with that responsibility, but the fact of the matter is that the government is raising the taxes. Then when they drift off into the netherland, I do not see them go into the areas that really count and that would really help make this a stronger economy, a stronger and better environment for people to come and go to work in.

I know that when the Canadian Automobile Association reviewed the government’s recent taxes, it was shocked by the increases in the gasoline tax and said that the tax was regressive. The association estimated the new increases in taxes for gasoline tax will mean that the Ontario government will overtax the Ontario gasoline consumer by $700 million in 1988.

I am just sick and tired of having to pay so much in taxes and get so little for it, and here is our Zacchaeus of the modern-day government who is taxing us and not giving us anything back for it, except more employees in the civil service and more promises and things like that.

I see we have our new Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House. I compliment you on your assignment and wish you well, Mr. Chairman. I hope you can maintain control. It is a pleasure to see you in your new office. I had that job for three and a half years and I do not envy you.

None the less, as we look at the whole area of taxes, here is a government that came along and raised, in this year, $15 billion in taxes in addition to what comes in from the federal government and from other governments. I would just like to know if the minister could give us some comment on whether he is going to get more money than he expected or less money, and just give us a total update. I did not see that in his statement.

As we are talking about property assessment, I have to compliment the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) for her comments and for reading the Toronto papers and finding that on one day the minister said they would do one thing and on the next day he said they would do another.

It is the inconsistency of it all when we are talking about market value assessment and the effect that is going to have on the ratepayers in Metropolitan Toronto. They do not know where they stand because at one point the minister says, “I won’t do it unless all the six Metropolitan municipalities want it,” and on the other hand, he says, “I will support it anyway.” Let’s have a consistent answer on what he is going to do.

I have to go along with what my good friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine is saying, that what they really have to do is come along and review the whole tax process. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has been asking for that. Is there any chance the minister is in fact going to look at that? Could he open up the subject for consideration? Is it something that is a possibility in the near future, or is it the distant future? What would it take to make the minister reconsider how to deal with assessment in this province?

I know the problems that are beginning to be felt by people who can no longer afford to live in their own homes because of the high taxes they are having to pay. The percentage of tax that is being taken from the local ratepayer for education far exceeds the level it should. For seniors, who have no one else in school, they have done their bit, yet we continue to burden them with such heavy taxes.

Everybody just assumes you are going to pay taxes. Let’s have a time now to review how we are going to have those municipal taxes. Let’s really look at it seriously.

In fact, as I read further in the minister’s own notes that he gave to the Legislature just a few moments ago, he was talking about market value assessment. It would appear, from page 22 of his statement, “I am hopeful that after the November elections, the new Metropolitan Toronto council will turn to the question of reassessment as a means of replacing Metro’s seriously flawed and antiquated property tax base.”

1610

I would just like him to give his rationale for that viewpoint, to go into it in some detail and let us hear what his thinking really is. Is he really saying to do that in spite of the fact that the people of Metropolitan Toronto do not want it? Is there any chance he would force it down their throats in case he does not get his own people in there elected? Has he really stopped to consider some of the problems that are occurring because of market value assessment?

It has not worked in Mississauga. The people out there are not happy. When he starts looking at what he is doing, it is really changing things around in a way that does not serve the greatest good of the greatest number. He has a chance to do something. I am wondering just how much he will do and when he will do it. Will it continue to be to the detriment of the majority of people of Ontario?

When we start looking at different kinds of taxes, I do not think there is a tax that anyone likes. The Ontario provincial sales tax is one of the ones that really is a horrible thing that touches upon everyone in this province. It has gone from seven per cent to eight per cent, compliments of Premier Peterson’s government. Do not think we are going to forget about it. I cannot forget it. Any time you go to a store you are paying that one per cent more, and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars is that giving to the government? It is really hungry for money, our money, and it just keeps spending it without a sense of responsibility.

Let’s just touch on one of the taxes that is very hurtful to anyone who is buying property. It has to do with land transfer taxes. I think they are the most heinous of the lot because people do not realize they are there. I had a question on the order paper that I asked the honourable minister. By the way, he is an honourable man. I just wish he could do the job the way we want him to do it, rather than be influenced by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere or some of these other people. Surely to goodness we would then begin to see some of the things we saw from this gentleman when he was in municipal politics.

Here are the kinds of taxes he is generating with land transfer taxes. Very few people would realize how large they are. When the Liberals first came to government, the region of York in 1984-85 was paying out to the province $12,768,000 in that year for land transfer taxes. Does the minister have any idea how much was brought in through land transfer taxes in 1987-88?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: We have all the answers.

Mr. Cousens: Oh, he has all the answers. He is a shrewd man, because he probably would say, “It was probably double what we got in 1984-85, or maybe triple.” The honourable parliamentary assistant would say, “It was even more than that maybe, because we need the money to spend on other things.”

The fact of the matter is that from the region of York in 1987-88 this government has collected and will collect $63,362,000. That is a fivefold increase over what it collected in 1984-85. Here is the problem. You get a nice person like the Minister of Revenue. He puts on such a lovely image. He is so friendly and everybody cannot help but like him, but he is the mean guy who continues to collect these taxes from the people of Ontario. Here is the tax collector and I wish the cameras would go on him. He is not as nice as he leads us to believe.

Mr. Faubert: He is a good guy.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere says he is a nice guy, so make sure he is looked after. Give him another banana.

In 1984-85 the region of Durham paid $5,200,000 in land transfer taxes. In 1987-88 it paid $24 million, again a fivefold increase. The land transfer taxes of the region of Peel in 1984-85 were $12,400,000 and now, in 1987-88, $58,740,000.

Let’s just talk about land transfer taxes. According to section 2 of the Land Transfer Tax Act, the rate of tax is one half of one per cent on the first $55,000 of a purchase price and one per cent on the balance of the purchase price. However, where the purchase price exceeds $250,000 and the property being conveyed is a single-family dwelling or a duplex, then an additional one half of one per cent is levied on that portion of the purchase price which exceeds $250,000.

With the average house price in Toronto now being $200,000, the land transfer tax collected in such a transaction is $1,725. Effectively, this means that purchasers of homes for more than $250,000 will pay more land transfer tax than a businessman who purchases a factory or an office building for more than $250,000. In addition, the businessman can write off the land transfer tax over time, while the home owner is unable to deduct in any manner whatsoever the land transfer tax payable.

For example, in Markham, if a house sells for $350,000, the land transfer tax payable would be $3,725. Anyone buying a factory in Markham for the same purchase price would pay a land transfer tax of $3,275, a $500 difference.

May I ask the minister to explain the anomalies in the land transfer tax? Why so much? Why has it increased so much from 1984 to the present? Why is there a difference between what a person in business or a commercial property has to pay and what a property owner has to pay? The next question is why does he not forget entirely about land transfer taxes for persons buying a home for the first time? Why not just drop that entirely to give them an additional incentive to buy their first home?

These are big questions. I know that what I am asking him to be is an advocate for the small guy and an advocate for the individual in the province, rather than the strong-arm person he has become in collecting so much out of land transfer taxes. It is exorbitant. It is too much. He is doing nothing with it, except adding to the coffers. When I look at the amount of money that has come out of York, Durham and Peel, these are huge sums of money, without the sense of satisfaction of knowing that the money is being used properly and correctly.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s like land speculation tax.

Mr. Cousens: The honourable member brings up land speculation tax. There may well be a need for it in certain areas. I have worries. Maybe this is something the minister could look at: to what degree people outside of this country are coming into Ontario and buying property with money from outside of the province. I think we encourage people to invest in our province. We see that as a positive effort.

I happen to know there are certain nationalities that have made extensive investments in property in Ontario in recent months. I am talking about buying large blocks of property. To what extent does this cause the price of land to increase by virtue of the fact that they are seeing property in Ontario as a good buy compared to what it is in Japan or in Hong Kong or in other parts of the world -- New York City or other places? What is happening with this outside money? Is it in any way fuelling more speculation on land and causing land prices to go up here in Ontario’? I feel that it is.

Is this an area that should be concerning us, knowing that we want the money and knowing that we do not have it? We are not a cash-rich society to the extent that some of these outsiders who are able to come in are. A negotiation will go very simply like this: “How much do you want for that property?” It may be pegged at a high amount and they will get what they are asking for. This is just pushing prices up further and further.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: A willing buyer.

Mr. Cousens: I know, but there is a concern because you are talking about some people who have far greater amounts of money than native Canadians have at this point in time. No one seems to be willing to address that subject. I think it is a matter of concern and should be a matter of some research by this government.

1620

The ministry will continue to survive. Death and taxes: it just seems that we are all going to pay our taxes and some day we are all going to die. In the meantime, we want to get the best value we can for the money we have to pay, and I am not satisfied that we are getting that value from the Ministry of Revenue .

The costs have increased in the past year. The overhead and the number of staff have increased. The government has increased the taxes, as I have already suggested earlier in my remarks, by a huge amount since it took office, and we are not seeing that money coming back into capital or hard services or to build a better infrastructure for Metropolitan Toronto.

What we are seeing instead is a larger bureaucracy and a larger civil service, not necessarily a more responsive one, not necessarily the open door that was described by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) today. We are just seeing that we, as taxpayers, are paying more and more and not necessarily getting any more for it.

I hope the Minister of Revenue does not take any of these comments personally. I happen to respect him as a member of the Legislature very much and I know he has a staff that has been very responsive in trying to respond to the needs of seniors and special areas that have problems. I know, in my own riding office, when we have called the ministry and asked for assistance and taken a specific case, I have had a good hearing from the minister, his staff or the ministry.

I would also like to say that in a number of instances the Minister of Revenue has personally interceded and helped develop new policy that has been responsive to some of the anomalies that take place in government, so I compliment him for that as one who has made an effort in the past to try to respond to these needs.

I am saying now that we are dealing with a very large problem with the size of government and making sure that this government is truly doing the best with the money it is collecting. It is collecting an awful lot of money. Let’s just make sure it is spending it wisely and correctly.

Undoubtedly, we will have more questions on the details that go on as we look at these estimates. I am sorry that we just do not seem to have enough time to put the government on the hot seat to answer for what it is doing and going to do, but I look forward to the minister’s comments.

The Deputy Chairman: Would the minister care to respond to the speeches of the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Markham?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I should probably start with the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I thought her remarks were to the point and very interesting. I know she is very interested in my ministry, because she keeps writing me every so often. We try to inform her of our new programs and our new approach to taxation.

Maybe I should start by accepting her congratulations on the announcement I made this afternoon on the mailing of property tax cheques to senior citizens. The honourable member will know that last year we increased the property tax program by $100. To some people, this may not sound like a whole lot of money, but I can assure the honourable member that we are keeping a close eye on not only this program but any other program to senior citizens, to farmers, to needy people in this province.

I think the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), all of these people, are very much interested in keeping seniors and needy families -- if I can call them needy families -- in this province up to date and providing them with the necessary dollars.

If I may digress for two seconds, I think I did provide members with an update of what we do for seniors and farmers. Some of our farmers do not pay any school taxes or municipal taxes. We are very proud of this program and will continue to provide seniors and farmers with this kind of service.

I think one of the member’s questions was, who gets what and what group? She wanted me to provide more information. If I can find my papers, I have so many good things to tell her. Yes, here is number one. With regard to the number of guaranteed annual income system recipients and the dollars, in February 1988 approximately 160,000 people received $114 million; that is the estimated payout. I think we are attending to these people, and we will continue to do so.

The member’s question went a little further than that. She wanted to know how many people and the number of dollars appropriated or budgeted for property tax grants, retail sales tax grants, the Ontario tax credit via the federal government, the Ontario home ownership savings program and the employee share ownership plan. I can supply the member with all this information. If she wants to be a little more specific, she could send me a note or a letter and I will try to answer all her specific questions.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to interrupt, but there is a terrible smell coming into the Legislature right now, exhaust fumes of some kind. I have complained about this before to the Speaker. It is happening again, right now. Could something be done about it? It really is not pleasant at all. It is not from the minister either, I can assure the honourable members. Could someone do something about it? It happens rather regularly. Just stop and take a sniff. I guarantee members it is no reflection on my good friend.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Maybe we should tax this unpleasant odour.

The Deputy Chairman: Could I just respond to the member for Markham? The Sergeant at Arms has indicated they are testing the air at this time and further investigation will be undertaken.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: To the member for Beaches-Woodbine, yes, I will be pleased to answer any of her specific questions if she will only write me a letter.

Also, the member mentioned customer services. I think it is very important that I remind the honourable member and all members of this House that with regard to customer service at the ministry level, it does not matter what office one asks questions of or refers questions to, I think we are doing an excellent job. We are not perfect yet, but we do keep tabs on the questions asked and I am very satisfied with the customer service. But we can always improve it, and I am always interested in knowing where we can improve customer services, because after all we do tax people and we recognize that they do deserve an answer.

As far as budget cuts are concerned, I find it a little strange that the member for Beaches-Woodbine was saying, “I’m concerned about all those cuts or constraints in your budget.” Also, 10 minutes after that, the member for Markham was saying: “How come you’re increasing your budget? How come you’re increasing your staff?” Maybe the two members should get together and realize that my budget cuts will certainly affect staffing, but by providing more productivity and more efficiency, I think we will respond to the Treasurer’s liking that we do need to cut back a lot of dollars, but we will meet that challenge and we will provide adequate services.

1630

While I am on that topic, if I can switch to the member for Markham, who was talking about the increase in staff, I find this unacceptable. The member knows very well that 1988 was enumeration year, and whenever we enumerate people, we do increase staff; so let me give the honourable members a short history of staff in my ministry.

In 1987 I had a staff of 2,800 people, in 1988-89, 2,298, and of that increase of 502 people, 221 were part-time people, temporary assessors; so there has been a reduction of staffing in my ministry, and it is simply due to our efficiency in installing a computer system that will save the government a good number of dollars. I do not see where or why the member for Markham is criticizing or is accusing the ministry or the minister of increasing staff while actually the staff has gone down, and we intend to keep a close eye on staffing.

While I am on staffing, maybe I should answer the member for Markham, who was asking me about French services, or the number of people employed in my ministry. As the member knows, I am also responsible for francophone affairs, and I will give the honourable member a more precise computation of the extra staff not only in my ministry but right across the government. I can advise the honourable member that in my ministry, under my responsibilities as the Minister of Revenue and minister responsible for francophone affairs, yes, staff has increased by six people, for a total cost of some $400,000.

This is new in the Ministry of Revenue because, as members know, when the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was the Minister of Revenue, he did not have to occupy space for francophone affairs. We are combining the two, and this is why my staff has increased by six; but I will give a better explanation when the francophone affairs estimates are due, very shortly, I think Thursday.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine asked a question about the cost of collecting all these taxes, especially the corporations tax and the retail sales tax. I am pleased to say that for the corporations tax, including capital tax and mining tax, in 1987-88 the actual cost of collecting $100 in taxes to our ministry was 56 cents, so I think it is a very good investment, a very worthwhile program. As far as the retail sales tax is concerned, in 1987-88 the actual cost of collecting $100 was 42.7 cents, so I think we are very efficient, very productive and I am pleased to brag about it.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine was asking me how the racetrack tax was administered. As members know, the Department of Agriculture of Canada does have an interest in this. By deducting nine per cent from the triactor wagering or seven per cent from all other wagering, from the total amount bet or wagered on each race, this is how we collect our taxes. There are 18 regular tracks in Ontario and 35 part-time tracks. I hope members will not ask me any more questions on racetracks, because I have never been there. I do not know too much about racetracks, but I can tell members that it is a lucrative tax. In 1987-88 our revenue from such activity totalled $75 million, and I go on and on.

Maybe I should talk about market value, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, because I know that my two critics are very interested in market value assessment, or the lack of it, in Metro. My critic from the third party, the member for Markham, has now left. I will make sure that he is provided with all of the information on the questions he has asked me. I want to remind the member for Beaches-Woodbine that this ministry and this government continue to be very, very proud of our assessment program. I think we have top professional and qualified people to do assessments, and we are very proud of our record.

At this time, I would like to simply go through the number of municipalities in this province that have successfully approved a section 63 or section 70. A total of 655 municipalities, or 78 per cent of our 839 municipalities in Ontario, are presently under a section 63 or section 70; 449 of them under local section 63; 153 under local section 70; 53 region- and county-wide -- Sudbury in 1985; Haldimand-Norfolk in 1986; Waterloo in 1987; Brant in 1986; Huron in 1987 -- and 302 update reassessments.

I think that our assessment program is a very, very good one. When you look at these results, it is a real success story: 78 per cent. I am convinced that, right after the municipal elections, Metro will be more serious than ever about resolving its assessment program. As members know, some of these homes were last assessed in 1940 or 1945. We are determined to work with them to resolve this problem.

We have always said that section 63 or section 70 is a voluntary program and we intend to keep it a voluntary program. We will continue to work with Metro as closely as possible, because I am reminded every so often that the Metro situation is a very special situation, a very delicate one. We have never turned down any of the Metro municipalities to work with us and we will continue not to do so.

I think we have done a great job. We intend to continue to work with sections 63 and 70 and we will look at other possibilities. We are an open government, and if we can find a better way to assess municipalities, I will be the first one to stand up and tell members all about it.

1640

Personally, I do not think the member for Beaches-Woodbine agrees with market value. I do not know where she stands and I am not accusing her of such, but I would be interested in hearing what she has to say on market value, because people do change their minds. Who knows? Maybe her party or the member herself has changed her mind.

Let’s talk about enumeration, because I know the member for Beaches-Woodbine is very interested in enumeration. I want to repeat what I have said previously, that our enumeration program was a very successful one: 90.1 per cent or 90.2 per cent of our questionnaires, if I can refer to them as questionnaires, were returned. I think this percentage shows that even though it was a new program, this was a new way of consulting people on their enumeration. We mailed out 4.6 million questionnaires, with a return of 90.1 per cent or 90.2 per cent. I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine will agree with me that this is a success story.

Mind you, there have been some errors, but we will stand behind what we have said previously, that the margin of error, considering the number of mailouts, is acceptable. If I am not mistaken, I think the margin of error stands between 1.5 per cent and 2.2 per cent or 2.4 per cent at the maximum. I think this is great, undertaking such a new program. I think it is very well accepted. Having learned from our errors, I am sure 1991 will be an even greater success.

The member for Markham, who has left and has not been back, was accusing this government of increasing our budget by $12.5 billion. I am pleased to remind the honourable member that we have done a great deal with these revenues. I think we have improved the Ministry of Health, which needed to be cleaned up, if I can use the words “cleaned up,” and improved to provide quality services. I think the honourable ministers, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston) and now the member for Oriole (Mrs. Caplan), did and are doing a fantastic job.

We will continue to provide the citizens of Ontario with better services, but naturally it costs money. I think people are willing to pay for quality services and improved services. They are very pleased that at least this government is listening to what people need. But we can surely improve it.

When we look at the budget of the Ministry of Education three years ago compared to this year, I think we have made tremendous strides. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) is on his feet at least once a week announcing new and improved programs.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: He even gave some to me.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The elderly and the disabled and child care and young offenders and single parents and family violence.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: You name it. If I am not mistaken, the minister’s budget has gone up by --

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Over $1 billion.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Over $1 billion. That is a great record.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The minister will address the chair.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I think these are costly services, and we will continue to improve these services.

Transportation was also improved. I think we have built more roads and improved roads in the past three years like no one else did in the past.

The member was also asking me about my tax bill. My tax bills are ready. We are ready to go, but the opposition has been filibustering for the last couple of weeks, ever since we have been back in the House. This kind of obstruction causes my tax bills to be delayed. I know we have had first readings, but we would like to have second and third readings as soon as possible. I hope the third party, or at least the member for Markham, realizes as soon as possible, now, that this kind of filibustering or obstruction will delay not only my tax bills but other tax bills.

The member for Markham was complaining about the land transfer tax. I can only remind the honourable member that in his own region of York, Durham and Peel, he was asking me why, if you try to match 1984 and 1988, the land transfer tax has increased -- tripled, quadrupled. The answer is very simple. The answer is that in Markham right now, or in Durham, more and more homes of high price and high quality, $300,000, $350,000 and $400,000, are being built. He is criticizing us for raising more taxes. It is because of the high cost of homes in his own riding. Also, the member is against building affordable housing, especially in Markham. Maybe if the member would allow us to build affordable housing in his riding, we would collect less in land transfer tax.

The member for Markham asked whether we were on target with our collection of $15 billion for 1988-89. I can tell him that the answer is yes, but the Treasurer will be releasing his quarterly report tomorrow. I am sure the member will be pleasantly pleased that we are on target.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine asked me a very important question on women’s employment equity, formerly affirmative action. I am pleased to report that the number of women, francophones, persons of visible minorities, racial minorities in the workforce of my ministry has increased. Since the inception of the affirmative action program for women in 1974-75, the number of women employed by my ministry has increased from 1,347 to 1,706, or a 26.7 per cent increase. As a result, women represent 43.6 per cent of the ministry’s workforce, compared to 34.2 per cent in 1974-75. A 43.6 per cent representation in my ministry exceeds the government’s objective of having 30 per cent representation by the year 2000. I am very pleased with this record, and we will continue to improve this program.

This is it for the time being, Mr. Chairman.

1650

Ms. Bryden: The minister has touched on a good number of the points that I raised, but I find he is somewhat lacking in specifics.

For instance, on the question of women’s participation in the ministry, I did ask for figures on how many women are in what might be called the top administrative positions or in management positions, which would be heads of departments or senior positions within various branches. If he could get us some figures on that, it might indicate whether there has been an improvement in women’s participation at the higher levels, and that is an important thing to look at, whether we are increasing the opportunities for women to make the higher salaries. He also did not give us the figures on the average earnings of men and women in the ministry. That is still to come, I hope.

On the market value question, in a Globe and Mail article on October 26, 1988, the story says that the Ministry of Revenue may not be able to comply with an order to release the 1984 market value of all properties in Metropolitan Toronto within 20 days, which is what the freedom-of-information administrators had called for after the ministry had refused to release the material. An order has been issued by the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, Sidney Linden, to make public the market value assessment on a property-by-property basis within 20 days.

If the ministry finds it impossible to provide that material within 20 days, I think it is a very great setback to the debate on what kind of assessment -system we should have in Metropolitan Toronto, and I am very disappointed by the minister in his comments on page 22: “And finally, I am hopeful that, after the November elections, the new Metropolitan Toronto council will turn to the question of reassessment as a means of replacing Metro’s seriously flawed and antiquated property tax base.”

It looks as though he has opted entirely for Metropolitan Toronto council’s making the decision. It looks as though he has backed away from his statement that no municipality will be forced to put in any market value or other reform of its assessment except by its individual desire. The minister, in a way, has not clarified what he expects in Metropolitan Toronto, except that he apparently hopes the Metro council will be given the power to impose on the other municipalities what it wants.

I think this is completely contrary to the principles of sections 63 and 70. That tax reform was put into effect so that the municipalities could choose. He has reiterated many times that it is a voluntary program. For him to come down in his statement to the House today and last week to saying that he is going to work only with Metropolitan Toronto indicates that he is abandoning the voluntary program.

Also, if he is not able to comply with the order of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, how can he expect any action and any reasonable discussion of the issue in the whole metropolitan area without the facts? What is he going to do about complying with that order?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I think this ministry has never refused to release the information on individual properties. Even before the freedom-of-information guidelines, this ministry was able and willing and did so regularly. Even in our assessment offices or bureaus right across this province, at our 31 assessment offices, we have released this information willingly.

To say that we have refused to release this information, I think, is not totally true. I would like to remind the honourable member that we have never turned down the commissioner’s order or the commissioner’s office. Yes, we will comply with the order of the commissioner. What we did say is that the order says we have to provide all of this information within 20 days. We have said that we think it is physically impossible to do so, and we are trying to work out some arrangements with the office of the commissioner and we will provide the four appellants with the information needed.

I would like to remind the honourable member that the four appellants are not all on side. For instance, one or two appellants would like the Metro figures, while another one is asking for the Scarborough figures and the other one is asking for the Toronto figures. So it is very difficult at the present time to comply fully with the order of the commissioner, but I can guarantee the member that we intend to do so. We are rectifying these unresolved questions at the present time.

We will release this information and we are pleased to release it, because once and for all people in Metro will realize how important it is that we go on with reassessment. I do not think it is fair for people to subsidize their neighbours. I think reassessment is needed. Assessment should reflect equity in paying taxes. I know that municipal school taxes are a burden on every citizen of this province, but I think that sections 63 and 70 have resulted in finding a more equitable way of paying taxes. I will encourage not only Metro but all of the remaining municipalities in this province to secure section 63 or section 70.

I want to underline the fact that this ministry has never refused to provide information to individual home owners or to comply with an order of the commissioner. I want to make it very clear that this ministry will provide all of this information as soon as the commissioner provides us with more information on the type, on what format the information should go out in -- tapes, hard cover, discs; there are a number of ways this information can go out -- and as soon as we rectify this, as soon as we find out from the commissioner, we will comply.

Also, the member wanted to know about the wage gap between men and women. I am pleased to say that --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. A point of clarification? You have a question?

Mr. Sterling: Yes. The minister is leaving us with the impression that there was not a refusal on the part of the ministry to provide these property tax figures when, in fact, his ministry has refused in the past to release these property tax figures, and it is only as a result of the information commissioner’s ordering him to produce these tax figures that he has produced them.

1700

I refer to an article in the Toronto Star, February 16, 1988: “The province has turned down a request by a Scarborough alderman for secret figures on the effects of property tax reform. Information about the effects on individual properties may lead to home owners demanding their taxes be reduced, and if the data is released it should be done so by municipalities, not the province, a Ministry of Revenue spokesman said yesterday.”

It was as a result of the refusal on the part of this ministry to provide this information on a number of occasions over the past two and three years that finally somebody went to the information commissioner and said, “This isn’t fair.”

The government is trying to hide information which was collected by the taxpayers paying for it. Taxpayers in this province paid for the collection of this information, and then somebody went to the information commissioner and said, “We are entitled to this information.” The ministry still refused to bring forward that information. Finally, the information commissioner said, “You must.” Even then, there was a hesitation on the part of the ministry to comply with that order. They finally decided they would not appeal the information commissioner’s order.

I think it is a far cry from saying, as this minister now puts before the Legislature, that they were willing to supply this information, that they want to be open about it and that now they think every property owner should know what the next property owner’s taxes are when, in fact, that is 180 degrees from where they were in February 1988, only eight months ago. I just wanted a point of clarification on that.

Mr. Chairman: The minister may respond.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I just want to remind the --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What about his colleague there?

Mr. Chairman: We will let the minister respond, and then the member for --

Mr. Polsinelli: Mr. Chairman, if I could, it is tied in to the same issue.

Mr. Chairman: I see. Go ahead.

Mr. Polsinelli: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence in this matter. It is tied in to the same issue. I thought the minister, in responding to the question from the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), perhaps could indicate to the House the time he decided to release the information on a home-by-home basis, because I know that that has been around for a while. Perhaps he could comment also on the 1980 market value impact study that was commissioned by the former Conservative government -- I believe we released that study about five years after it was commissioned -- and what type of items that covered.

More important, the minister could talk about the volume of paperwork involved in releasing the information his ministry has now agreed to release. My understanding is that we have around two million individuals in Metropolitan Toronto. If we are talking about the number of households in Metropolitan Toronto, I am sure we are talking about hundreds of thousands of households that this study is going to affect, that this information is going to cover. Perhaps he could talk about the amount of paper it is going to require, whether the ministry at this point is considering perhaps publishing some type of report in a book form; what the cost of this book, if it is going to be producing it in that form, is going to be; and who is going to absorb the cost of releasing this information.

I thank the Chairman again for his indulgence in allowing me to pose the question to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I want to thank my honourable friend for reminding me. Where is the member from?

Mr. Faubert: Yorkview.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Yorkview, yes. Since day one, the honourable member has been after the former Minister of Revenue, and now myself, to try to resolve the situation in Metro, and I want to thank him for his interest. I would like to remind him that this ministry has spent close to $20 million or $22 million on the Metro assessments since 1982.

I want to remind the member for Carleton, who has missed most of this conversation, that he has missed some very good estimates from the Ministry of Revenue; now he comes in and he wants to go back and ask questions that were previously answered in this House. But I want to remind the member for Carleton that under his administration, all of this information was not available, and it is only in the past three or three and a half years, and especially with the freedom-of-information legislation, that we can assist municipal taxpayers right across this province with how their assessment is done.

Again, we will comply with the commissioner’s request or order without any hesitation, and nobody has ever been turned down.

Mr. Sterling: David McFadden was turned down; the previous member for Eglinton was turned down. He asked for that information two years ago. He was turned down.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That was before the legislation was passed and we were respecting the former legislation introduced by the former government. That is why he did not receive it. Now it is an open government, and we will provide any member with all the information.

In talking about the volume of paper, imagine just paper costs, just for the city of Scarborough, for instance. We will have to provide information on 116,000 properties. At 25 lines per page, that is 4,673 pages. Imagine what the cost will be, and that is only for Scarborough. I could go on. For Metro, it would be 21,000 pages.

This is why we are working very closely with the commissioner, and I want to reiterate my original comments that we will comply with the order of the commissioner.

If I can go back to the member for Beaches-Woodbine on women’s issues --

Ms. Bryden: I have a supplementary on the minister’s explanation about the request for the information. Freedom of information always costs money -- that is one thing you have to recognize -- but in the process of getting freedom of information, a great many facts have come out to electorates across the world where they do have such laws.

The minister says he has never refused, or has not refused lately, to give data. Well, here is a clipping from the Toronto Star of September 8, 1988, where it says:

“Fred Jones, freedom-of-information and privacy act coordinator for the Minister of Revenue, said giving out such information” -- that is, the market value estimates in this study -- “would reveal a property owner’s assets and thus be an invasion of privacy.

“‘The ministry is obliged to not disclose personal information to third parties,’ he said. ‘We feel bound by law not to do so.’”

At that time, he was refusing to give out the information on the grounds that it was an invasion of privacy, but as the commissioner said, you cannot judge the effect of the proposal on the properties involved in the six municipalities without complete information for all six municipalities, because they are all affected in different ways. Some would have large increases; some would have large decreases.

I think the minister is still not being completely frank with us when he says that he has never refused or has not recently refused to give out this data. His own co-ordination officer refused it back in September 1988. That is not very far back.

1710

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I want to remind the member that this is one of the reasons we needed to test the legislation. Again, I want to remind the member that I can give her a number of requests that we have had -- people requesting information. Naturally, we wanted to charge them for the information, but nobody was turned down for the simple reason that with the new freedom of information legislation, it had to be tested, because this was the government’s approach to releasing this information.

It has been resolved now that the commissioner is saying, “Release the information.” Again, we will release the information. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue to inform the member for Beaches-Woodbine about the activities on affirmative action or employment equity in my ministry. I will provide her with a very short note.

Since 1974-75, the ministry has achieved a seven per cent reduction in the wage gap between men and women. Women’s average earnings now equal 71 per cent of men’s average earnings, A man’s average salary is $37,000 compared to a woman’s average salary of $26,000. So we are moving. We want to close that gap as soon as is humanly possible, but I am very proud that my ministry has increased the number of women executives from 6.7 per cent to 11.1s per cent. I think we have a great record.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just an aside, when the minister mentioned charging a fee for freedom of information, is eight per cent sales tax added to that.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am sorry?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I was saying that when the ministry charges a fee for freedom of information, does it add on the eight per cent sales tax?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: It is for a good cause. I do not know why we would eliminate the eight per cent.

I want to remind the member to wait until his cousins in Ottawa go ahead with the last leg of tax reform. How much is it going to cost taxpayers in this province?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a serious matter, I would like to just ask about the farm tax credit program and the senior citizens’ property tax.

It is very confusing for many seniors living on farms because the two programs quite often overlap and conflict. There is a problem relating to the farm tax credit program that the ministry assesses acre land and the residents. Farm land is not taxable. But sometimes the farmer has a great deal of difficulty in breaking the assessment tax notice down into the proper proportions.

I do understand some of the clerk’s system, but could we not design a better mechanism? The minister mentioned earlier that he is always trying to improve the service. Would there not be a simpler way of determining exactly what the farmer would owe on the house and one acre of land and make it easier so that they do understand?

Then we come to the second problem when it is seniors living on that land and they receive the property tax credit. It becomes really complicated for many of them, and it is my feeling that many of our farmers are missing out on their farm tax credits because they are not knowledgeable. I have a couple of smaller questions, but I would like the minister to address that one now.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I think the member for Wellington is absolutely right. I think it is a little confusing, but I would like to remind him that in the last three years we have tried to simplify the program and maybe we should be accused or are accused of confusing farmers.

Now that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is responsible for part of the program, the Ministry of Revenue is responsible for another part of the program and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is responsible for another part of the program, the member is absolutely right, but I want to remind him that having recognized this, we have sent out assessors to help farmers fill out their applications, and I can tell the member that it has been working. Our assessors are dedicated people. We want to make sure that our farmers receive all the right information, and we want to send out a cheque as soon as possible.

I want to remind the member that last year our assessors did help 5,000 farmers fill out their applications. We recognize that the program is not perfect, but we will continue to monitor the program and improve it. We do not want any farmer or any municipal or school taxpayer in this province to miss out on this great program.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I was not being critical of the process as much as I was trying to be of some assistance in suggesting that maybe a simpler procedure could be developed so that we would not have to send out assessors to meet with 5,000 farmers. Surely it would be more costly to do that than to design a simpler method.

Just the other day, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) introduced a new program for wetlands that would make those lands tax-free as well. We will have to come up with some determination of how to arrive at what is wetlands. I can think in terms of having to become extremely technical, having surveyors, engineers and people making extremely complicated guesses on whether lands do fall under the assessment.

With four ministries involved, would it not make sense to work on a program, even if it takes a period of time, to see if one ministry -- such as the Ministry of Revenue -- could not assume the responsibility of coordinating the three programs and develop a very simple, straightforward means of ensuring that people such as farmers, seniors and people who have wetlands could determine if indeed they did qualify -- and without a lot of paperwork, to make it simpler for them and make sure that they do receive the credits that are due to them and to make it simpler for the government?

Certainly I do not think the minister wants to continue sending assessors out every year. I am simply suggesting in the spirit of co-operation that if we could work together to try to determine some program, it would have to be more meaningful.

I might also suggest that one of the problems is sometimes the publications that are sent out on these programs are extremely complicated and go into too much detail. If the minister can keep it simple, it is much better.

I have two other brief questions.

1720

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I pointed out to the honourable member, yes, I appreciate his comments and his sincerity in improving these services to seniors and farmers, and I am constantly reminded by the Treasurer of this great province to look not only at improving these programs but at the delivery, the cost of these programs.

I want, again, to thank the member for his comments. They are well appreciated. We will continue to improve these programs and to provide more programs and of better quality, so I want to thank him for his continents.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have just a couple of other points. One concern I have is tax on tax, as exemplified by the Bell Canada telephone bills where there is provincial tax on federal tax. I hope that at some point in time the Treasurer will accept the fact that it just does not seem right.

The other point I would like to raise is that, on the retail sales tax, the government has increased it from seven per cent to eight per cent. We depend on the retail merchants and other business people to collect this tax. It is a burden on them. They certainly do not want that responsibility, but they are faced with it and there is not much else we can do if we want to retain a sales tax. There is one thing that we can do: Certainly we should increase their remuneration for collecting the tax.

I think it certainly should be reviewed on an ongoing basis. For some of the larger stores that have the mechanism in place, it is not a burden, but it certainly is for the very small, independent retail business. On their behalf, I would like to appeal to the minister to give consideration to giving them a little more for the burden that they are called upon by the minister and the Treasurer to collect tax on their behalf.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Again, I appreciate the member’s comments. He makes some very, very good points. At the same time, with regard to increasing or raising the retail sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent, we did it for a number of reasons. We had to do it. I explained to members a short while ago how we improved the quality of the health care services in this province; also our social services programs and our education and transportation.

Mr. Sterling: An extra billion bucks and you blew it all.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I realize that increasing the retail sales tax to eight per cent was not done with great joy by this government, but I think the extra one per cent is a good investment in this province, and we will continue to improve the high quality of programs being delivered by this government.

I would like to remind the member for Wellington, who talked about the tax on telephone bills which did not appear before, that in 1987 the federal government introduced a new tax at the rate of 10 per cent on telecommunication services such as long-distance telephone charges and cellular telephone services, telegrams, you name it. Unlike the federal tax imposed on the provider of other telecommunication services such as cable television, this new federal tax is imposed on the user of the service. Our definition of a fair value did not include this new type of federal tax, and effective May 2, 1988, our budget introduced a new clause of the retail sales tax. This clause was necessary in order to capture the new federal sales tax in the fair value base, upon which provincial sales tax is calculated. It is consistent with our treatment of other federal excise tax.

I do not think the federal government likes it, and the provincial governments do not like increasing taxes, but we were faced with a no-win situation. I am sure the taxpayers of this province will certainly appreciate the improvements in the high quality of the delivery of our services.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The minister answered part of the question, but he did not answer the one I really wanted him to answer, that is, on paying the retail merchants a little more for collecting tax. When I made reference to the increase of 78 per cent, the government said it needed the money to pay its added expenses.

I am appealing to the minister to give the same consideration to the merchants. They have increased costs every year. Surely the minister can accept the fact that since the government has increased costs and they have increased costs, he could share a little more with them. It has nothing to do with the one per cent increase, just basically the amount of money they have been paid in the past to collect the government’s tax. Surely the minister could give consideration to giving them slightly more remuneration.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I will certainly pass on the information to my good friend the Treasurer. With his generosity, I am sure he will be back in the House very shortly and provide the member with a good answer.

I would like to remind the honourable member that his government at one time initiated the commission or the remuneration given to tax collectors and abolished it and later on came back with it. We do not intend to abolish this remuneration to our tax collectors, and if we can improve it, we will do so.

Miss Martel: Oh, no.

Mr. Mahoney: Oh no, yes. I find it interesting in this debate -- particularly with the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) waving over there, doing a poor impersonation of the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) -- that we have three members from Sudbury in the Legislature while this debate is going on. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) was giving the minister a hard time. I did not hear any one of the three thanking the minister for the $7 million in equalization grants that went to the region of Sudbury under section 63, recognizing the fact that it was a region-wide reassessment and that there were severe financial difficulties for many of those communities. I did not hear the member mentioning that, but perhaps when he or the member for Sudbury East get an opportunity, they will stand up and pay due homage to the government in respect of that very generous assistance.

The member for Markham, who unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your perspective -- is not here at the moment, made a comment earlier about how section 63 reassessment is not working in the city of Mississauga. I would like to share a little bit of information for his benefit and for the rest of those who might be interested.

When we went through section 63 in the city of Mississauga, I happened to be on council at the time and in fact was one of the people who voted in favour of requesting the government to implement section 63. The reason was very simple. The reason was that we were provided with information not on specific taxes on specific properties, but rather with information that indicated that over 60 per cent of our ratepayers were and had been for many years -- since 1969 -- paying substantially more than their fair share and 40 per cent were paying, in many cases, substantially less.

I would like to give one brief example to illustrate the value of section 63. I do not know how, in good conscience, Metro can avoid telling its people, the ones who are paying more than they should be paying, that it is not going to adjust the bill. I do not know how it is getting away with it. I can only assume that the taxpayers in Metro are not aware that the vast majority of them are paying more than their fair share and that this information is not being spread out to them by their municipal council. I can only assume that to be the case.

1730

The reality was, to give one example, we had one home, a lot with an 80-foot frontage by about 200 feet deep. It was a beautiful bungalow on a beautiful treed lot. They were paying taxes in the neighbourhood of $900 a year. Within less than one mile of that home, there would be a semidetached home on a 32-foot lot, without a tree in sight, paying $1,400 a year in taxes.

Mr. Dietsch: How much?

Mr. Mahoney: It was $1,400, so you can imagine how the people in the semidetached home felt when they looked at their tax bill. If they drove over to the house on the 80-foot lot, which was worth probably three or four times the amount of money that the other one was worth, you can imagine how they felt or would have felt if they had known that indeed they were paying $500 a year more in taxes. I ask anyone to tell me that is fair, that is equitable, that is anything anyone can understand.

As a result of being given that information, city council really had no option. Well, I guess we did. We could have said to the ratepayers who are paying more than their fair share: “Sorry, folks. We’re going to maintain the status quo, we’re going to stick our head in the sand and we’re not going to adjust your tax bill. You’re paying more than you should, but that’s too bad.”

Sure there were some difficult times, but for the member for Markham to say it has not worked in the city of Mississauga is patently untrue; it is not based on fact. While there are people who have had some difficulties, it has been based on a much more fair and equitable system.

I would like to ask the minister if he has available to him the information on what the percentages would be in Metro. For example, do we know what percentage of Metro ratepayers would in fact get a decrease in their taxes under section 63 and what percentage would get an increase?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaîre: I would like to provide very accurate figures to the member for Mississauga West, but at the present time, due to the fact that, as I mentioned a little earlier, we will be providing Metro and other municipalities with the information, I am not in a position to provide him with accurate figures, but I am sure the member for Mississauga West and others in this assembly know that in Metro more people will certainly benefit from a tax decrease.

There have been a number of studies done over the past five years. They do vary. If you look at the latest Metro study, 38 per cent would receive an increase in taxes and 62 per cent would receive a decrease in municipal taxes. Other impact studies have shown it may be the opposite. It is very difficult, but at the present time, if you want to take the latest Metro figures, 62 per cent would receive a decrease and 38 per cent would receive an increase in municipal taxes.

Ms. Bryden: I certainly concur with the comments of the member for Wellington about the retail sales tax people deserving an increase. I think customer service is important in that field, because many of them work very hard to collect the taxes for the government.

The question I have now that I want to put forward is, the ministry has added two new programs to its activities, namely, the Ontario home ownership savings plan and the employee share ownership plan. In the discussion of these bills, certainly we came to the conclusion that they were two of the most useless pieces of legislation that have ever been put in, and yet the minister now tells us that they are going to require a substantial building up of a bureaucracy to administer them. I would like to know how many staff have been hired for that bureaucracy and the estimated cost on an annual basis of operating these two plans.

The Ontario home ownership savings plan will not benefit anybody in the city of Toronto with the current house prices, as far as I can see, and probably in a lot of other major areas. It was simply to implement an election promise to resurrect a program that had proved very deficient at the federal level and had been abused greatly by people who manipulated the tax system. The employee share ownership plan is probably not going to contribute any great increase in stock ownership or in development capital which is needed here. Yet both these programs are going to require new bureaucracies.

If the minister does not necessarily have the figures at his fingertips, I would like to know and get a report some time of how many people have applied for OHOSP and from which municipalities, because, as I say, I do not think it will benefit anybody in Toronto, and how many companies and employees’ groups have applied for ESOP and what the estimated costs of administering this are.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to give the member very precise numbers, and we do not have them. We will provide her with accurate figures as soon as possible. Maybe tomorrow I can provide her with these figures.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, as I really did not get an answer, could I have one more short question?

Mr. Chairman: Of course.

Ms. Bryden: The member for Wellington did raise the question of the tax on a tax on the telephone bills. Certainly that was a great shock to many people, that they had to pay a new tax at the federal level and then a provincial tax on top of that. Does this reflect the coming possibility of an integrated sales tax at both the federal and provincial levels? When the Treasurer was asked last week about his attitude to that, he said he was still looking into it and that he had not rejected the idea altogether. Yet we can see from the reaction to the tax on tax on telephone bills that the public is not very receptive to the idea of the two governments having a turnover tax that goes on at every level of a transaction. This is sort of the forecast of it.

Does the minister support the Treasurer’s view that he should still be studying the possibility of a joint federal-provincial sales tax that would go on every transaction? Has he any staff studying this tax and how it would be a administered, or is he prepared to recognize that if it comes in, according to the studies by the Treasurer which were released in the paper, it will cost the people of Ontario about $14 billion in extra taxes?

Is he prepared to look at that kind of integration of sales taxes which are very regressive and which should be replaced by more progressive taxes rather than be a substitute for increases in income and corporation tax?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I think the member has pointed out very accurately that the Treasurer had responded to that question some time ago or a few days ago. I am, as the member for Markham described, the bad tax collector and I do not think it would be wise on my part to stand up and tell the member for Beaches-Woodbine exactly what I think of these double taxes. I think the Treasurer assured us that he was looking into the federal-provincial situation, and I am sure that very shortly the Treasurer will provide her with a full and complete answer.

1740

Mr. Sterling: I have a couple of brief questions. Is the minister responsible for the collection of land transfer tax?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The answer is yes.

Mr. Sterling: Could the minister please tell me what it would cost me, as a young person trying to acquire a home, in land transfer tax if I bought a home for $100,000 on June 26, 1985, and what it costs in land transfer tax today for my buying that same home?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: If it is the same value, the land transfer tax will be the same. But what is happening -- and I think I have responded to that question, which was asked by the member for Markham -- is that homes for which probably you were paying $100,000 in 1984 or 1983 are now costing consumers $300,000. The tax percentage has not changed, but the price of homes has increased tremendously. That is how you calculate land transfer tax; it is on the cost of the home. The percentage has not changed. Our policy has not changed in the last few years.

Mr. Sterling: I am not about to challenge the minister, because I do not have all the facts in front of me, but I would ask the minister to check with regard to whether there has been an increase in the land transfer tax, because I believe there was an increase in the land transfer tax two budgets ago. That is why I asked him.

Not only would there be an increase in the land transfer tax for a young couple trying to get their first home because of the increase in the cost of the home, there would also be an increase because the amount of tax has increased as well.

Not only has this government increased the costs through land transfer tax, but it has also increased the cost of the home through the increase of the retail sales tax. If you bought a window for your home, it used to cost you the price of the window plus seven per cent. Now, it costs you the price of the window plus eight per cent. You have not only an increase in the retail sales tax, but you have an increase in the land transfer tax because the cost of that window has gone up, as has the cost of every building material that has gone in there.

The minister referred to a tax on a tax. Effectively, that is what land transfer tax is. It is a tax on a tax, because when the government goes from seven per cent to eight per cent in terms of the retail tax, it shoves up the value of the home and it collects twice, because the land transfer tax increases as well.

I would ask the minister to provide me in writing whether or not there has been an increase in the value, from June 26, 1985, until today, on a $100,000 home.

The other thing I would like to ask the minister is this: His ministry was very well known through the present deputy, who has been the Deputy Minister of Revenue for some period of time. He was known as being very progressive in regulatory reform. I would just like to ask the minister what he has done in that regard recently.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I did say that in the last few years the land transfer tax has not changed. In 1986, a tax of one half of one per cent was imposed on the excessive taxable value of a single-family residence that was over $250,000, but I will provide the member with more accurate figures, or dollars and cents, on what the total cost is. But it was, in 1986, one half of one per cent over $250,000.

I think our deputy minister is known not only to this government but to every member of this House as a very progressive deputy minister. I am very pleased to have the experience of working with him. I would like to remind the member for Carleton that this deputy minister is for ever looking at more innovative, more imaginative ways of improving the productivity and the efficiency of my ministry. I think the deputy minister and the ministry have proven themselves in the last 10 years.

In my opening remarks, I pointed out that with our new computer systems, great savings will be due to this government. This is all due to our innovative approach and our improved productivity in the Ministry of Revenue. I am very pleased to say that we will continue. This is a commitment. This is the sort of thing that we talk about every day in my briefings: how we can improve the productivity and the efficiency of the ministry?

Mr. Sterling: Perhaps if I could expand just briefly with regard to regulatory reform, regulatory reform not only includes saving of money as a result of changing your system, it also results in benefits for the public. That is why we are all in government.

Some time ago, we in the former government had the necessity of all ministries reporting on at least an annual basis -- it might have even been a quarterly basis at one point in time -- what steps each ministry was taking to reform its processes, to look at what it was doing and make certain that it was not asking small businessmen to fill out forms which were unnecessary and that it was not asking old age pensioners to fill out forms which they could not understand, as my friend the member for Wellington pointed out before.

In other words, it forced the government to look at itself in an introspective way to make certain that there was a continuing look at what the ministries were doing.

I would ask the minister to provide me in writing, because we are getting near the end of the day and near the end of his estimates, with the steps which his ministry has taken over the last year in terms of regulatory reform and whether or not it has got rid of any unnecessary paper in the last year or the last three years, because we have not heard anything from this government on that part, either from his ministry or other ministries.

I ask the minister because, in the former government, his deputy minister had probably one of the best reputations in terms of tackling that particular matter. I would say before I sit down that our caucus is ready for the votes on the estimates at this time.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to point out to the member for Carleton that in my estimates statement, on page 45, I do talk about improved services and regulatory reform, but I will provide him with more information in written form.

Mr. Sterling: in response, I did not stay awake for page 45 . I am sorry I missed that.

Vote 3201 agreed to.

Votes 3202 and 3203, inclusive, agreed to.

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

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.

October 31, 1988

COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PREPAID SERVICES

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

CAROLE BERRY

PAYMENT FOR HOSPITAL SERVICES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

BILL MASON

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PROGRAM FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM / SYSTÈME D’INFORMATION SUR LES MATIÈRES DANGEREUSES UTILISÉES AU TRAVAIL

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS / SUBVENTIONS POUR IMPÔTS FONCIERS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

RESPONSES

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

AMBULANCE SERVICES

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STANDARDS BOARD

CHILD CARE

CHICKEN INDUSTRY

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

CHRONIC CARE

LANDFILL SITE

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

PETITIONS

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

NATUROPATHY

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED) / CRÉDITS, MINISTÈRE DU REVENU (SUITE)