The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1980, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 23, 1979.

MINISTER’S COMMENT

Mr. Stong: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last question during the oral questions of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, in the confusion I thought he had withdrawn his imputation of motivation. However, on check of Hansard, he has not. The comments he made in his answer indicate that I was, and I quote from Hansard, “by way of his interjections inadvertently, if not intentionally, misleading this House.” Mr. Speaker, that language, being unparliamentary and being inaccurate, I would ask that the chair rule the Minister of Transportation and Communications withdraw forthwith.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the Hansard but I do recall saying the member may be inadvertently misleading the House. I certainly would not indicate that he would intentionally do so. If I said he may have intentionally misled the House, I withdraw that of course.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that yesterday the Niagara Escarpment Commission announced a proposed plan for the Niagara Escarpment. This document represents the culmination of a substantial effort on the part of the commission and its staff, as well as the contribution of local authorities and interest groups. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the honourable member have a copy of that statement?

Mrs. Campbell: In accordance with the rules.

Mr. Speaker: The standing orders make it quite clear that if a minister is going to make a ministerial statement copies of it be distributed either at the time, or preferably in advance of its delivery. The logistics of living up to that standing order shouldn’t be too difficult.

Mr. S. Smith: They arrived just as you were speaking, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to all concerned for their hard and dedicated work in preparing this important document.

I also wish to take this opportunity to advise the House of the procedures that will apply for public review and discussion of the proposed plan before it is submitted to the minister.

First, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act requires the proposed plan to be circulated to each local municipality within, or partly within, the Niagara Escarpment planning area. Councils will be invited to make comments on the plan to the council of the county or regional municipality within three months of receiving it. The act anticipates that county councils, regional councils and members of the public will respond to the commission with their comments within four months.

In the four months’ time, the act requires the commission to appoint hearing officers to conduct public hearings into the proposed plan. I expect the hearings to commence early next April. At the hearings, all interested persons can make representations and ask questions on the contents of the proposed plans.

Three months following the completion of the hearings, the inquiry officers are required to submit a summary of the representations to the commission. In their report, the officers will state whether the plan should be accepted, rejected or modified.

After giving consideration to the hearing officers’ report, the commission will submit a proposed plan to the minister. Following an analysis of this document, the minister will submit the proposed plan with recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

It is difficult to predict when the proposed plan for the Niagara Escarpment will be submitted. This is because of the uncertainty regarding the length of time involved with the public hearings. In the coming weeks, I intend to consult with the commission to determine the locations at which the hearings will take place and what length of time is considered to be appropriate. Further details on these arrangements will be announced by the commission before the hearings commence.

My current thoughts on the matter are that the four months of public review preceding the public hearings is ample time for participants to prepare their representations. Given this opportunity for preparation, I would expect the hearings to be over by the end of next summer, which then makes it possible for the proposed plan to be submitted to the minister about a year from now.

With regard to the immediate situation, I understand copies of the preliminary proposals have been distributed to all municipalities along the Niagara Escarpment and to most of the interest groups involved.

In the coming weeks, the Niagara Escarpment Commission will be arranging briefing sessions for local authorities and interest groups. Drop-in centres will also be established in a number of communities along the Niagara Escarpment and in the Macdonald building, Queen’s Park. Commission staff will be available at the drop-in centres to answer questions about the proposed plan.

In the coming months, I expect the proposed plan for the Niagara Escarpment to receive extensive discussion. The participation by all interested parties in the process I have described is an essential ingredient in the development of a satisfactory plan for the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment. The government is encouraged by the intensive work of the commission in preparing the preliminary proposals and looks forward to the full expression of views by all concerned.

GEORGE BELCHER

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House this morning the fact that a very remarkable, dedicated and distinguished public servant has retired after 50 years -- a half century -- of service to the government of Ontario and to the people of this province.

The person I refer to is Mr. George Belcher of the theatres branch or the censor board; a man who came to work for that board and for this government on November 18, 1929, and has been faithful, efficient, and indeed all of the things that have really exemplified the quality of the public service in this province during that half century.

For the sake of the record, Mr. Belcher joined the public service during the time of Premier G. Howard Ferguson. He has served under 10 Premiers, countless deputy ministers, and heaven knows how many hundreds of members of this assembly.

I think it is significant that at the ceremonies marking his retirement the common denominator of his service, in addition to the things we have come to expect from Mr. Belcher, was his good nature, his cheerfulness, and his ability to provide service, particularly to the film industry, at times when it really was above and beyond the call of duty.

I’m sure that other members of the House will want to join with me in wishing him our sincere good wishes in the 50 years of his second career.

[Later (10:18):]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would also like to express my best wishes to Mr. Belcher. It is not everyone who survives 50 years of public service at any level of government. George Belcher has done it extremely well. I extend my personal best wishes to him as he continues whatever career he decides to pursue.

[Reverting (10:13):]

DEATH OF FRED SGAMBATI

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is with regret that I draw to the attention of the House this morning the death of a very distinguished constituent, Mr. Fred Sgambati. I know there have been in Mr. Sgambati’s life a great number of honours, not the least of which was a very high honour that was bestowed upon him just before his untimely death. I know that in the next few days undoubtedly the remarkable career he had will be chronicled most accurately and, indeed, there will probably be, in the way of tributes and accords, even more honours.

I think what I would like to draw to the attention of the House is the tremendous comfort and hope that Mr. Sgambati was able to bring to so many people, notwithstanding the fact that he had been extremely ill for a number of years. He strove valiantly back to work and performed as efficiently as he always did, despite the sometimes intense physical difficulties and the other difficulties that are so often associated with the knowledge that one has a terminal illness.

Because of the way he acted, his cheerfulness, his business-as-usual type of conduct, I’m quite sure, across this province and country he did indeed bring comfort to those afflicted with the same ailment. Indeed, by the fact that he was able to carry on in the most public of forums, he brought hope to those for whom I’m sure all members of the Legislature sincerely hope medical science, in time, will be able to produce some type of remedy.

It is that indomitable spirit of Mr. Sgambati that will surmount all of the so justly deserved public honours that he will receive. I’m sure the honourable members will join with me in condolences and sympathy to his family.

[10:15]

Mr. S. Smith: On behalf of members on this side, I do want to join with the minister in offering condolences to Mr. Sgambati’s family.

To put the matter briefly, Mr. Sgambati added immeasurably to our enjoyment of life throughout his life. At the end, he left us a legacy even more important than that: He taught us in a singular way how to face death. He did so in a way that will be an encouragement and an example to everyone in this province and this country. For that, we have to thank him perhaps even more than for all the great contributions he made during the rest of his lifetime. He was singularly able to encourage us by his own way of handling this very difficult human condition. We salute his memory and offer condolences to his family.

Mr. Foulds: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to lend our support to what has just been said.

Fred Sgambati was unique in that sports broadcasting is a particularly difficult task to do well and sensibly. Mr. Sgambati did it not only well and sensibly, but he did it with style and panache. He is a credit to sport, to broadcasting and to Ontario. He displayed courage during his career and during his illness. For that, we must all salute him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wanted to add a personal word about Mr. Sgambati. I knew the late Mr. Sgambati longer than almost anyone in this House, with the possible exception of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). We were friends for many years in spite of what he did to the Premier of this province many years ago. Mr. Sgambati isn’t necessarily unique, but without any question on this occasion he had the last word with the Premier of this province, which isn’t always easy to do.

I used to play, not well, a little bit of football. Mr. Sgambati, in one of his early involvements in the sporting community, was acting as referee. I argued a call with him one day -- I won’t say where or whom we were playing -- and Mr. Sgambati used his authority to suggest to the now Premier of this province that he vacate the field, that he no longer continue to compete in that game. I had no alternative but to accept his judgement and I had to leave the field under Mr. Sgambati’s direction.

I knew him personally quite well. I was a great admirer of his and understood what he was going through during the past period. I wrote Mr. Sgambati a personal note some three or four days ago to say a few things to him. But I would like to express here, in a personal way, my condolences to his family and to say, as one who understood to a certain extent what he had gone through, how much I appreciated the example he had set to so many people in this country. We will miss Fred Sgambati.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUNIOR HOCKEY COMMITMENT

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware of a situation where it appears that Canada will be reneging on an international ice hockey commitment to send a team to the world junior championships in Finland? Is he also aware that, as a consequence of reneging on this -- and this is a matter of some urgency since the tournament is scheduled for next month -- Canada may be fined and relegated to the second division in junior hockey?

Has the Premier had a chance to learn the facts of this matter? Can he, in view of the fact the team to be sent is the Peterborough Petes, which is mostly composed of Ontario boys, take some action to make sure Canada does in fact let Finland know immediately that we will send a team, and that we will not renege on our commitment? Can the Ontario government provide, perhaps from the lotteries or from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, some financial assistance so this team, bolstered by some suitable junior players, would be able to compete and maintain our reputation in international ice hockey, so whether we win or lose, at least we can be counted on to co-operate and keep our commitments?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of all the circumstances. I have asked for some information on this. The Minister of Culture and Recreation may have some more up-to-date information than I have. I expect to be able to say something, or the minister will, on Monday.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: It may assist the Premier to know I have been in touch with Mr. Costello, of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, and I gather the problem was the bolstering of the team. They had money from Sport Canada, about $25,000, to send the Petes, but to bolster them with eight suitable players requires a disproportionately high amount of money, given insurance policies and one thing or another on these star players.

Will the province make a commitment today that it will be willing to do at least its share, or pay a share, of the financial support so the Peterborough Petes can go, so these boys can have the trip they’ve anticipated, and can represent Canada, so we can avoid relegation and so we can, most importantly, keep the commitments this country has made in international ice hockey?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Although I don’t want to get into what commitments other countries may make in this particular field over the years, I am one who has always supported Canadian participation in international events, whether it be ice hockey or anything else. As I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I can’t give a commitment this will be solved. I have already asked for information on this, Mr. Speaker, and I expect to have a report for the House on Monday.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the Premier for that response and look forward to the report on Monday.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Attorney General: I return, reluctantly, to the matter of the CP Rail waiver and all the legal ramifications of the recent derailment in Mississauga.

Will the Attorney General explain why it is that the government has basically done nothing of substance to help the people of Mississauga to deal with the legal ramifications of this derailment? In the first place, can he say why so far the government has shown no willingness to change the class action laws to make it more suitable and to make it a little easier for class action to succeed in this case? Can he explain why private groups are now growing up in Mississauga, taking fees from people in order to give certain advice, and to take legal action? Why isn’t the government helping to coordinate this?

Finally, with regard to the infamous waiver, why is it that waiver is still continuing and there is still no government lawyer there? Why is it there is still no report of the Premier having met with the president of CP, and no real muscle being used with that company? The legal aid clinic that is there is on the other side of the street completely, totally divorced from the situation where the waivers are being signed, and there’s not even a sign to indicate there is a legal aid clinic available.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition is very badly misinformed in so far as the role of the government in assisting the citizens of Mississauga in this matter. I would like to advise briefly what we have done.

Mr. S. Smith: Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

In the early days of the emergency in Mississauga I spoke to the executive vice-president of CP, Mr. William Stinson, before the immediate emergency was resolved, and indicated to him I would hope CP would make some considerable effort to resolve the expenses so many thousands of Mississaugans have been put to as a result of this emergency. Mr. Stinson indicated a willingness to do this. As a result, the claims operation was established in Mississauga.

Obviously, we are not happy about the form of release, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that given the history of this type of problem on the North American continent, their claims operation, in settling these claims in the expeditious manner they have done most of them, is really quite without precedent.

The next step I took in this matter was to contact a local solicitor, Mr. Willson McTavish, vice-president of the local law association. I asked him to bring together a group of lawyers, along with voluntary legal assistance to assist the citizens of Mississauga. This was widely publicized in the area. The mayor herself has made a number of statements about this.

Furthermore, when it was brought to my attention by Mr. McTavish that the local lawyers were not able to provide sufficient amount of legal advice, I made a personal request of the Law Society of Upper Canada, who administer the provincial legal aid plan, to send out additional resources to assist with the giving of legal advice to the members of the community. The legal aid plan made a decision earlier in the week to send out additional lawyers, to assist in a legal aid office, which they opened for that purpose in Square One, indicating at the same time that if the demands exceeded those legal resources, they would look with favour, in so far as providing additional legal resources was concerned.

As I’ve already mentioned in this House, we indicated our concern with respect to the form of waiver or release. The Premier of this province has had at least three conversations with the president of Canadian Pacific Railway in relation to modifying their position with respect to the release form. CPR have indicated they are going to continue to use this form, on the advice of their lawyers. We don’t think it’s necessary. We think it’s unwise, as I’ve already said, because we don’t think it’s necessary. We think it is, perhaps, just injecting a problem that should not have been part of this process.

I can tell the members that the mayor of Mississauga and many other people are unhappy about this form of release as well. They’ve indicated to me that they’re very anxious for this claims office to continue, and while they would prefer to have it continue without that form of release, they don’t want to do anything, and they don’t want us to do anything, to encourage the CPR simply to close down this operation altogether. Certainly that is the message I have received from the mayor of Mississauga.

I have also indicated to this House that should it turn out, because of the use of this release, that any injustices do occur, there are other legal options open to the government. I don’t intend to discuss those legal options at this particular time. But I think it is totally inaccurate and quite unfair of the Leader of the Opposition to state that the government has not been very much involved.

I have to say there are some in the legal profession who feel an Attorney General has no role to play in relation to private disputes between private citizens and private corporations, and they are concerned about our role in this respect. Notwithstanding that, I feel we do have a role to play, and I think we’ve played it as effectively as any government could have done in the circumstances.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a supplementary redirected to the Premier. Since the Attorney General said the Premier has had at least three conversations with the president of CPR, presumably on the subject of the waiver, will the Premier tell this House the nature of those conversations, and how he feels about the fact that the president of CPR seems to have ignored the Premier’s request that this waiver be eliminated or drastically altered?

[10:30]

What clout has the Premier in any way suggested he might use as a resort, if necessary, if CP refuses to comply with what is basic fairness and reasonableness -- which is all they are being asked to do -- in getting rid of that waiver and substituting a proper receipt form?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with the president of CP. I am just going to tell you what he feels about this particular situation.

First, I think it is fair to assume that CP isn’t accepting liability. On the advice of their solicitors and those of the insurance companies, it is understandable that their position will be, at this stage at least, non-acceptance of liability.

CP felt -- and some may feel they were wrong in this -- they were doing the right thing by moving in immediately and compensating those people who had been affected, for out-of-pocket expenses. I’ve learned something about situations in other countries where they have had these sorts of situations, and I think in fairness CP has moved in a way that a lot of companies would not have, under the circumstances.

However, they were receiving very strong advice from their legal counsel -- while it is easy to single out a corporation, or a president of a corporation, directors do have some responsibilities under the law in terms of what they can and cannot do as it relates to their shareholders. CP thought their motivation was right and that they were and are performing a service.

I am informed that the average claim at this moment is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 to $250. They have processed now, I think, several thousand claims. The reaction to CP from the majority of those who have been served in this fashion has been very complimentary.

I made it quite clear to Mr. Sinclair I was concerned that the waiver provision might put some people in a position, in terms of employment or what have you, where they might be prejudiced. He pointed out to me that he understood this. However, as I understand the law, the application of this waiver may not be as effective as the lawyers, who are advising CP, suggest. I am not passing any legal judgement.

What I am concerned about is that if there is extensive criticism of this policy of CP, their legal advice probably would be that they would be better off getting out of this sort of program to assist those people with out-of-pocket expenses. I think this was the concern expressed by the mayor of Mississauga to the Attorney General, and I think it is one that every member in this House would share.

I would hate to see people wait for the litigation. There is bound to be litigation, and the lawyers opposite would understand that probably one is talking two, three, maybe even four years before this matter would be determined by the courts -- whether it is by way of class action or in any other fashion. I would be reluctant to see those people who put out money not being able to get these funds in the short term.

I have had these conversations with Mr. Sinclair. He understands the concerns we have expressed with respect to the waiver, but he says to me very simply that without it they would have to deny liability. I would assume the legal people who will be acting for the insurance companies have given CP the advice that they probably should not be doing it, period. His own legal people have told him that if the waiver were to be removed from the form itself, then CP would seriously have to consider suggesting that in their view they don’t have liability. At this moment there is no court decision saying they have liability. This would mean they would have to terminate the program, and I think that would be unfortunate.

I honestly believe as this thing sorts itself out over a period of time, people are being cautioned with respect to this. A lot of people legitimately only have those out-of-pocket expenses -- people who weren’t too close to where the accident itself took place. I think it is fair to state that a lot of people are satisfied with the program that CP has instituted.

I think there are other possibilities. If we find, somewhere down the road, that people have been prejudiced in any way, I think there are ways and means of rectifying it. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the citizens of Mississauga, if we find that is the case, if there are things we need to do as this thing moves further along, we will be prepared to do them.

Mr. Renwick: Supplementary: in the possibility that there may be an immediate likelihood for the Premier or for the Attorney General to take in connection with this matter, I am pleased that the Premier referred to the insurance companies’ role in this particular problem. It is my guess that is where the problem has arisen.

Since I understand Lloyds of London, which is authorized to carry on business in this province, is likely carrying the excess insurance coverage, and may well have been faced with the problem of dictating this kind of waiver requirement on CP, will the Premier or the Attorney General bypass the representative of Lloyds of London in Ontario, speak to the chairman of Lloyds in London, England, invite him to send a representative here who would meet with the Premier or Attorney General, the president of CP and the representative of whatever other insurance company is here, to see whether or not there is some possibility of making certain a waiver can be drafted or a document can be prepared in such a way as to ensure, without waiving any future liability claims that may be made, that the immediate out-of-pocket and wage loss expenses can be paid in an orderly way, which is, I think, what the Premier and the Attorney General and all of us wish would be the solution to the problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has been pursuing all possibilities for the government. I reiterate to the member for Riverdale, I am not sure whether Lloyds has it or not. We can make those inquiries and find out, because we are most anxious to find out if people’s claims are being prejudiced. Those options are open to us, they are here, or they can be here.

I think the majority of people in Mississauga have only out-of-pocket expense claims. We are most anxious that that process not be prejudiced, and that people’s claims not be held up because of whatever machinations we may get into, or the legal people for the insurance companies or CPR. I can assure the member for Riverdale, we will pursue every avenue. But we are anxious for all of us to understand that as a government we would like to see this program continue. We don’t want to see the people prejudiced. I think we can make sure that they are not.

Mr. Kennedy: Supplementary: Inasmuch as there have now been large numbers of these claims paid for out-of-pocket expenses, and that all who have received funds from CPR have signed a waiver of one sort or another -- some have signed releases with conditions; including some small businesses -- and that it seems to me that the remedies mentioned by the Solicitor General are very likely to come into play, is the government looking at this possibility right now?

The Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) has said he doesn’t wish to discuss them at the moment, but it seems to me there is a real possibility that these will be invoked, or efforts made. Will the government be ready at an early time to inform these claimants what remedies might be available to them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I repeat to the member for Mississauga South what I have said here, and what I have said to a number of his constituents in a very personal way. CPR has introduced this program to compensate immediately for out-of-pocket expenses on advice from its legal people; whether it is CPR or through the insurance companies, they are taking the position at present. I am anxious that program not be interfered with, but I give the member for Mississauga South and the people of Mississauga generally my assurance that in no way will their longer-term rights, if they have them in law, be prejudiced because of whatever program exists at present.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, because my own guess is that in terms of whatever litigation emerges from this, it will take not just weeks, but months and probably years, before ultimate liability is determined and what might flow then from that. I would hate to see the people from Mississauga not receive those expenses they have incurred to date paid by CP.

Mr. Speaker: We have spent nearly 20 minutes on this. If the member has a brief final supplementary, I’ll hear it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Do I understand the Premier to have just said he gives his personal assurance that the signing of these waivers by people will not prejudice their longer-term rights to future payments, future possible claims with respect to wages, health, whatever?

Does the Premier feel confident he can give an assurance that the signing of these waivers is really, in effect, nothing more than giving a receipt and does not have the power the Solicitor General must have thought the receipts would have because he advised everyone not to sign them?

If the Premier is giving his personal assurance that the signing of these waivers will not, in fact, prejudice any future claims and they are not what they seem to be, why has he not said this earlier at least to contradict what the Solicitor General said in advising people not to sign? Why don’t we just forget the whole matter and let people sign the whole thing?

Could he tell us by what route he intends to guarantee their future rights? Could he tell us by what route he intends to guarantee that the waiver will have no force at all?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course I didn’t say what the Leader of the Opposition is saying I said, nor did the Attorney General say what the Leader of the Opposition is saying he said. He shouldn’t look so angry, he shouldn’t shake his head. I am just telling him what I said, and I happened to be here when the Attorney General said what he said.

Certainly there is a potential that the waiver form has an effect in law; there is no question about that. What I have said to the member for Riverdale and what I said to the member for Mississauga South is that there are options available to us if we find there is any prejudice to people who have signed these waivers. I am just saying that if we find this to be so -- and I say “if,” because I think one can exaggerate the potential of this beyond that which is reasonable, and I think it is incumbent upon us not to do that -- the options are available to us.

The Attorney General never said the waivers could not have an effect; I am not saying they don’t have an effect. What I am saying, and what I heard the Attorney General say, was that there are options available to us if we find there is a prejudice with respect to those who have signed them.

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR HANDICAPPED

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications relating to the rights of the handicapped.

Since the proposed bill on the rights of the handicapped states in section 1 that “no person shall knowingly discriminate against a person on the ground of a handicap so as to deny or qualify the equal enjoyment by that person of services, goods and facilities,” would the minister explain to us what impact that legislation will have on the government’s separate but equal policy for the transportation of handicapped people on public transportation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a little trouble in following what the leader of the New Democratic Party is getting at. It is my understanding that the plan at present in place by the government in supplying or making available assistance to municipalities to supply public transportation for the handicapped meets the requirements of the bill introduced by my colleague yesterday.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Could the minister explain, if the government is committed to making public facilities accessible and to implementing section 1 of this new bill affecting the handicapped, why it is that the government has consistently refused to provide for the additional funding required to make the Scarborough light rapid transit line accessible to persons who are handicapped?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think that particular question considers a lot of sides. We have said to Metropolitan Toronto that many things they wish to do as far as public transit facilities are concerned, in order to make them more accessible within certain reason, are eligible for subsidy and we have not refused subsidy on that basis.

[10:45]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary: Since the Life Together report, which formed much of the basis of yesterday’s human rights’ announcement, stated “that provincial and municipal governments can and should provide transportation which is accessible to all,” and given the fact that transportation planners agree that parallel systems are only useful as interim measures, will the minister take action similar to that of the United States in its Rehabilitation Act, which ties financial assistance for transit to development of local policies for total accessibility?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give that commitment because I don’t believe it is possible or feasible and I don’t believe the system that the member is referring to in the United States is working in any way.

Mr. S. Smith: Has the minister yet come to the conclusion that in Scarborough it’s necessary to have a publicly funded form of transportation for the handicapped, over and above the access which, in my view, certainly should exist on the regular TTC vehicles? Has he yet come to the conclusion that it is not likely the private sector in Scarborough will be able to run properly a system of transportation for the handicapped and is he prepared to make sure the funding is available so that the public sector can do so?

Hon Mr. Snow: I have some trouble understanding what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. Funding is available right now -- and has been for approximately two years -- for the public sector, the corporation of Metropolitan Toronto, which I believe to be the public sector, to operate transportation for the physically handicapped within Metropolitan Toronto. In fact, for the last several months it has been available to every municipality that applies for it in Ontario.

That the corporation of Metropolitan Toronto or its arm, the TTC, has chosen, as have many other municipalities, to contract the service to a private operator, is their right and privilege to do so. Some municipalities, I believe, are operating it themselves but I believe most municipalities have chosen to operate it on a contract basis. Some municipalities operate their public transportation, their normal public transportation, on a contract basis; quite a number within the province. We subsidize those on the same basis as the municipalities that choose to run their own transit system and that is in place and working well right now.

Mr. S. Smith: Not in Scarborough.

Hon. Mr. Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the honourable leader says, “Not in Scarborough.” To my knowledge, Scarborough is part of Metropolitan Toronto and comes under the Metropolitan Toronto system.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not aware that the rejection of the principles of accessibility to public transit that he has just delivered to this Legislature is quite specifically the knowing discrimination against the handicapped that his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), is seeking to outlaw in the proposed amendments in order to protect the rights of the handicapped?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t agree with that.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development relating to the implementation of the plans for the Niagara Escarpment on which he commented briefly this morning.

In view of the vital importance of land acquisition in the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s proposals that were published yesterday, specifically that some 30,000 acres of land must be acquired in order to protect the escarpment as a continuous natural area, could we have a commitment from the government that the escarpment commission’s recommendations for $25 million worth of land acquisition over the next five years will, in fact, be implemented by the government?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This government has acquired thousands of acres in the past few years. There is money in the Ministry of Natural Resources for land purchasing and land purchasing will be done on a priority basis.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary; Since there is no commitment there, would the minister explain what credibility his references to acquire land on a priority basis has when, in fact, in 1978 and 1979 there was no land acquired and no money spent for land acquisition in the escarpment area by the ministry, when in 1977 there was less than an acre acquired at a cost of $12,000 by the ministry and when, also in 1978, the ministry cut its proportion of shared costs with conservation authorities in the area from 75 per cent to 50 per cent? Is there a commitment or isn’t there? If there is a commitment, will the government say when and by how much it will increase its acquisition funds for land in the escarpment area from the present sum of zero dollars a year?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, there is a commitment to purchase lands in the Niagara Escarpment Commission area, and there are funds in the 1980-81 estimates which will be forthcoming.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize the new plan that has been tabled permits many new lots to be developed in some of these areas? Does he not realize the proposal permits in excess of 10,000 new lots for development in the escarpment protection area and the escarpment rural areas? Does he not realize the escarpment commission, in the years since 1975, has given permits for development on more than 90 per cent of the applications, and if this power is given to municipalities the percentage will go even higher?

In view of the fact the escarpment plan has been reduced to only 37 per cent of what it was originally, doesn’t the minister think the grand principles of escarpment protection outlined in the principles and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Development Act are rapidly being scuttled?

Will he recommend to the government that their land is going to be purchased? Will he assure us that he will keep those principles and objectives in the act? Will he give consideration to firmer zoning in place of the --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: -- pressure point uncontrolled development, and will he remove the automatic provision for one or two new lots in every 100 acres?

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the honourable member that it is against the rules of this House to read at great length from documents. This is the question period.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The commission has acted very responsibly in keeping the objectives of the act and it will continue to do so.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary: If the commission has acted responsibly, can we have an assurance that the government will act responsibly? Will it listen to what the commission is saying when it points out it will not be possible to protect the escarpment if the funding is not available to ensure that land acquisition, where required, can be carried out? To quote Ivor McMullin, the chairman, “If the province won’t buy the land we will have to say it is all right for current owners to go ahead and build.” Is that not the current situation when no money is being spent on land acquisition, and when will that policy change?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would like to repeat to the leader of the NDP that there are funds for land acquisition.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. During the Mississauga crisis, with motorists forced to detour around the quarantine area for obvious reasons, could the minister inform us why in these circumstances his work crews would still be out on the Burlington Skyway doing routine maintenance work and reducing it to one lane? Could he inform the House why all major detour routes were not free of construction work during the crisis and all possible lanes utilized to facilitate the movement of traffic?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I realize the tremendous problem created by closing three major highways -- highway 2, the Queen Elizabeth Way and highway 5 -- as well as all the municipal streets. There is a very heavy volume of traffic that travels through that Lakeshore corridor and through the city of Mississauga, and it created an overload on highway 401. I don’t relate that to something that might or might not be happening on the Burlington Skyway. I know the honourable member feels there should be no maintenance done on our highways --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He has said that. The honourable member has said that to me in letters -- that we should not be resurfacing the Queen Elizabeth. The other day I got a letter saying we should not be repairing the guard rail that had been knocked out on the highway. We did the job between nine o’clock in the morning and three o’clock in the afternoon, and that is not in the rush hour in that area. I don’t really know how some of the honourable members of the opposition expect us to maintain our highway system when they do not want us on the highway doing the maintenance.

In the particular situation to which the honourable member is referring about construction taking place on the detour routes, I’m not aware of the location to which he is referring. I’m sure there was no maintenance. I’m almost positive, but I would have to check, there were no maintenance operations being carried out on those detour routes at that particular time.

He may be referring to the construction on highway 401 between Mississauga Road and Trafalgar Road. In that particular situation there are only a few days left to pave between now or then, and the closing down of paving operations for this fall. It is most important for that paving to be finished on that section of 401, otherwise it will be in a horrendous condition for the whole winter.

There were very few days available to do that work and I would presume the contractors, because of the very tight schedule did not cut down resurfacing on that job. If he had, it would probably not have been available to be used for traffic in any case, but there were, I’m sure, and there has been throughout all that construction two full lanes of traffic maintained. There has really been an excellent job done by the contractor in maintaining traffic in that section of 401 all summer. The job is well ahead of schedule.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: Could the minister inform us when he is going to extend the GO train service around to the other side of Burlington Bay -- the south side of Hamilton -- so the traffic problems that exist on the Queen Elizabeth Way can be alleviated?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows very well there are no plans to extend the GO train service around the other side of Hamilton.

WATER RESCUE SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to respond to a question the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil) asked a few days ago.

In response to the honourable member’s question of November 9, regarding the use of ambulance frequencies for privately owned rescue boats, I’ve looked into this matter with the federal department of communication which has responsibility for assigning all radio frequencies.

Under Canadian policy -- and as a result of an international agreement -- land mobile frequencies, which include ambulance frequencies, are not assigned to marine use. Marine radio frequencies are available, however, to those who go through the normal licensing process applying to the department of communications in Ottawa for such a licence.

I understand these marine frequencies can be linked with the land and water agencies responsible for search and rescue operations but that, I presume, would not be the frequencies of an ambulance operation which is really not search and rescue.

SUPERMARKET PRICING AND CHECKOUT SYSTEMS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Does he recall when the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and I urged him to take action to prevent the supermarkets from eliminating the individual price tags on their products when they introduce the universal product code, as Loblaws has done in Ottawa? Does he recall he told the House he was unhappy they had not followed the guidelines and, I quote, “in a very brief period of time” he’d come to the House and tell the members what he intended to do about it “in a very positive way”?

May I remind him it has now been five weeks. Can he tell the House today what steps he's taking to ensure the retention of those individual price tags?

[11:00]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Quite frankly, if it weren’t for my informing the honourable member in the estimates, the matter probably wouldn’t have arisen.

When I said I would be back in the House in a relatively brief period of time with a very positive approach to the matter, I meant before the end of the House session. If the member wants an elaboration on that, he should understand that before one does anything one wants to see how the system is working. I did not want to be put in the position of making a judgement on certain situations in the beginning or formative stage.

I have met the Consumers’ Association of Canada and other groups concerning this matter. They know my route plan and they endorse it,

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware of two other Loblaws stores, one in London and one in Stony Creek, who have changed to the universal product code and eliminated the individual pricing on their products? Is he not also aware that the consumers’ association on November 1, since we asked him to do something about it, launched a boycott of those stores? Does he not know the Canadian Food and Commercial Workers Union objects to the elimination of those price tags, although they are going along with the new technology otherwise?

Surely the minister must understand that the removal of the stickers further breaks down the price consciousness of the consumers, and provides a potential for huge windfall inventory profits, because it is so easy to mark up the products? Will he bring in legislation to prohibit the removal of price stickers?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I know which stores are using the electronic checkout without individual prices. I can assure members I know almost before they begin to operate --

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s a start for the minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will repeat something once again. If it were not for my sharing my information with that party, they would never have found out about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is a matter of record that one week before any question was asked in this House -- I am looking at the Liberal critic; he was there -- I went to great lengths in my estimates, something I didn’t have to do. I said I wanted to share this information with all members. The particular member raising such vehement objections said, “I thank you very much. I would never have known about it.”

To come back to the main point, as I said when I was asked this on a previous occasion, I will be bringing into the House a very positive program to deal with this matter. As I said just a moment ago, it will be before the end of the legislative session.

The boycotts and whatever else is being done by the Consumers’ Association of Canada, as referred to by the member, I assume is happening in the Ottawa area. I meet constantly with the Consumers’ Association of Canada in my office. I have been privy to their plans and attitudes in this matter, and that will be reflected in what I bring back to the House.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Baetz: On November 16, the member for Oakwood asked a question. As honourable members know, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the Art Gallery of Ontario.

As honourable members also know, certain matters in respect of that application process have been studied and commented upon by the labour relations hoard. On November 16, the member for Oakwood implied that the art gallery had spent $30,000 on legal fees to “fight charges to deprive workers of their legal rights.”

I agreed to look into this matter. I have now been advised by the Art Gallery of Ontario that in the past five and a half months the art gallery has spent approximately $17,500 on legal fees. Counsel was hired to deal with a number of matters:

First, in that OPSEU has applied for certification, the regular personnel policies and procedures of the gallery have been frozen in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

Among other things, this freeze has meant that until the certification application is decided upon, the art gallery could not hire any new staff. The art gallery’s presentation, the Treasures of Tut, has required the short-term hiring of some 300 persons. The art gallery has therefore had to negotiate conditions for contracts for some of those persons with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and retain legal counsel for this.

Second, it is OPSEU’s preferred practice to conduct labour negotiations through legal counsel. It is therefore normal practice for the art gallery to be represented by legal counsel in such negotiations.

Third, legal counsel was required for the drafting of management contracts for management personnel.

I have been assured by the art gallery that it has not spent any money on legal fees to “fight charges to deprive workers of their legal rights,” as the member for Oakwood has implied.

Mr. Grande: Then would the minister tell us, or find out for us, who paid the money for the legal fees on behalf of the Art Gallery of Ontario to fight those charges before the labour relations board?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Once again, I shall check with the management of the art gallery and come back with the details. But I’m under the impression that has been covered under the $17,500 and that it does not constitute union-busting or efforts to stop the negotiations.

LIE DETECTOR TESTS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. As the courts in Ontario cannot convict or acquit an individual through the use of a lie detector or polygraph, and yet lie detectors and voice-stress analysers are said to be used by employers in their selection of employees, and as 19 states in the United States have already banned or limited the use of the polygraph, what has the minister developed in relation to a policy concerning the use of lie detectors?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I assume the honourable member is talking about the use of these lie detectors, polygraph machines, in employment situations. I have indicated my concern about the use of these machines in such situations. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), in whose jurisdiction the matter lies so far as employment is concerned. I really think the question should be directed to the Minister of Labour as to what, if any, action they intend to take at this time.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Is the minister aware there are serious doubts as to the accuracy of the polygraph or lie detector, as it only measures psychological signs of stress, blood pressure, skin sensitivity? Is he aware that now arriving on the scene are such devices as psychological testing and handwriting analysis and that these are an invasion of privacy? Will the minister develop a policy concerning the use of the other devices, not only in relation to employment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t understand the question in relation to these other devices. I indicated some time ago, in response to a question from the honourable member, my own concern with respect to the polygraph. I agree with his observations in relation to the polygraph.

I would be very distressed if anybody’s employment depended on a polygraph machine. I would think that would be most unfair. I happened to be involved in an inquiry before I became a member of this Legislature that dealt in some detail with the usefulness of the polygraph machine. I share the member’s concerns in that regard and have communicated them to the Ministry of Labour.

I wonder if the member could give me further particulars with respect to this handwriting analysis he speaks of. That hasn’t come to my attention before and I would be interested to have further particulars

FILM CENSORSHIP

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The question regards this government’s paternalistic attitude on the question of film censorship. Does the minister not agree the decision to view or not to view films in Ontario is one that should rightly belong to the parents and families in the province, rather than to the state? Therefore, would he not consider, once again, getting rid of the banning and cutting mandate of the censorship board, leaving that board with a mandate to classify films and to issue warnings?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I can’t understand the minister’s addiction to state control in these matters, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to ask a supplementary in two parts: Given his opposition to that change, (1) will he make public the working guidelines of the censorship board in Ontario, and also make sure that when the board does cut or ban a film they publicly issue their reasons for doing so; (2) would the minister inform the House as to what action he’s decided to take to widen the representation of the board so it more adequately and appropriately reflects the makeup of the citizens of Ontario, especially the question of the domination of that board by people of Anglo-Saxon descent?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware people of Anglo-Saxon descent posed a significant threat in this province. I must admit that’s a new one on me.

Mr. M. N. Davison: We were aware; we talked about it in the minister’s estimates.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not being an Anglo-Saxon, and I assure the member I am not Anglo-Saxon, I haven’t regarded them as a threat.

Mr. Conway: Tell us about your Celtic background.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s right, absolutely right.

I don’t know what’s going through the mind that produced that form of question -- so I’m going to answer it this way, Mr. Speaker, so the House won’t become involved in a rather lengthy dialogue, since the bulk of that question was asked in the estimates.

Number one, there will be no changes in the present censorship procedures of the censorship board of Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s shameful.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will tell the member if he goes out on the street and he says that is shameful he will have to run for cover because the people of this province want censorship in films exactly the way it is being provided.

If the member wants to go out and advocate that we’re going to run classification with “O” for obscene or “W” for weird or “P” for pornographic, then the member should just march right outside that door and see what kind of an audience he gets, because, I will tell the member, he is living in a dreamworld.

The people of Ontario, on every occasion where they have been consulted, have made it abundantly plain that they want the present censorship of films and all of the procedures to continue exactly as they are. Therefore there will be no change.

With regard to the final part of the member’s question to what I was doing about the composition of the board, I will repeat what I said in my estimates. I’ve said it on at least two occasions. Broadening the base of the board is constantly on my mind. I am looking for ways to do it. I have taken under advisement a suggestion by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) as to how to do it. I am looking into the matter, and I think that is a sufficient answer. That is exactly what I said in my estimates some time in the month of October. I don’t change.

POLICING OF DETROIT RIVER

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. The minister may or may not be aware that during this past summer there were several fatal boating accidents along the Detroit River. A great deal of concern has been expressed by all of the municipalities with waterfront property along the Detroit River that there is not adequate policing on that strip of water.

[11:15]

Would the Solicitor General undertake to form an internal committee of his ministry whereby all the municipalities and the federal government could be contacted? Then it would be possible to set up a proper policing force to handle the traffic on the Detroit River, which is one of the busiest seaways in the world, and hopefully prevent some of the fatalities that occurred over this past summer.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member is correct; I am not aware of those fatalities. As the member appreciates, the jurisdiction in matters of water policing is complex, particularly where there aren’t any harbour commissions and where we are talking about an international waterway. The responsibility of the OPP in this area is questionable.

I certainly will look into the matter and report back to the member whether or not there is any useful initiative I can take. I would like to explore the situation before committing myself further.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister also look into the possibility of licensing the individual driver of the motorized boat? This would be so that we would not have youngsters at the ages of eight, nine and 10 driving boats through the areas in which there are a substantial number of swimmers and also a fairly large number of boats.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think all the members of the Legislature are concerned about water safety in this regard. There certainly has been a large increase in the number of boats and the boating population has certainly increased considerably in recent years. With respect to the government moving in and requiring all operators to have a licence, this is a move I am not necessarily prepared to support at this time.

I want to make it very clear that I share the member’s concern about the reckless use of boats by people of all ages. There is a much larger number of charges being laid. The Criminal Code was amended not so many years ago to provide for a reckless driving section with respect to boating and a number of charges have been laid.

Given our resources, we would like to see increased patrols where the OPP clearly do have jurisdiction, but when it comes to requiring every citizen who operates a boat to have a licence, I am just not prepared at this point to state that is the best way to deal with what is, undoubtedly, a situation that does concern us all.

TELEPHONE RATES

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications concerning the Ontario Telephone Service Commission. Is the minister aware that the Community Telephone Company of Ontario Limited serves 21,000 telephone users across Ontario, including many in the Hamilton-Wentworth and Haldimand-Norfolk areas? Given that the federal government provided funding to those who intervened with the CRTC to oppose proposed Bell Canada rate increases, will the minister provide similar funding to those who wish to intervene against the proposed Community Telephone rate increases? The proposed increase will mean almost a doubling of telephone rates for many of those 21,000 telephone users.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of providing funds for interveners. There is a normal process almost every year with the 35 or 36 private and municipal telephone companies in the province applying to the Ontario Telephone Service Commission for rate increases or other regulatory matters. It has not been the policy to fund those who wish to appear before the commission and I don’t suggest that I am prepared to initiate that type of assistance.

I realize there has been a very large increase applied for by this particular company. Of course, at this moment that is only an application. The commission has not considered that application in any way as yet. I realize that in some areas served by this company there are considerable complaints about the service level. This was discussed at great length at the last hearing when a rate increase was applied for.

MOTIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be referred to the standing social development committee for consideration within the 17 hours already allocated to that ministry, and that the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics be considered by the committee of supply within the 13 hours already allocated for that ministry.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing resources development committee be authorized to meet on the evening of Monday, November 26, 1979, and that the standing administration of justice committee be authorized to meet on the afternoon of Wednesday, November 28, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COLLECTION AGENCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. M. N. Davison moved first reading of Bill 189, An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit collection agencies from collecting amounts for insured services under the Health Insurance Act, 1972, in excess of the amounts payable for this service by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, except where an agency is provided with an affidavit made by the physician or the medical practitioner, indicating that the debtor was informed in advance that he would be charged for the excess amount.

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. M. N. Davison moved first reading of Bill 190, An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The purpose of this bill is to prohibit consumer reporting agencies from including in a consumer report any information regarding collections or debts owed by a person for amounts charged by a physician or medical practitioner in excess of the amounts payable by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan under the Health Insurance Act, 1972, except where an agency is provided with an affidavit made by the physician or the medical practitioner that he informed the patient in advance.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Isaacs: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that I am not satisfied with the answer given to me today by the Minister of Transportation and Communications and would ask permission to have it raised on Tuesday evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Before we enter the debate on the vote dealing with assessments, I would like to inform the members who may not already know that one of the senior members of my staff, with whom I am sure they have dealt on many occasions with regard to assessment, Mr. Pat Gillis, who was my executive director in the assessment division, passed away on Wednesday night. Certainly, we are going to miss him around this building and around the government. I just want to pass the information on to the members that the funeral will be tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock, for those who would like to attend and it’s at St. Gregory’s Church at 122 Rathburn Road at the corner of Kipling Avenue and Rathburn Road in Toronto,

I can’t let this opportunity go by without saying how much assistance Mr. Gillis has given to me, as a Minister of Revenue, and I am sure to all of the members of this Legislature, and, to all of the municipalities, the clerks, reeves and councillors who knew Mr. Gillis very well and who have dealt with him over a great period of years. I thought the members would like to be made aware of his passing.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, we were very shocked to hear of Mr. Gillis’ death. In my case I believe it was yesterday I heard about it.

He really was an extremely useful public servant. I remember just a few months ago when it was decided that certain townships were going to have the benefit of a section 86 reassessment he undertook, I am sure with the minister’s concurrence, to be sure the members involved were fully instructed as to its ramifications. I really appreciated that at the time and I felt he approached the job not only with a very broad base of knowledge -- probably broader than anybody else in the province -- but also with a very good spirit to assist those perhaps less knowledgeable than himself, but obviously with very good humour and with the very best attitude of co-operation.

It’s a very sad thing indeed that he has died at such an early age. Not only will we be deprived of his advice and assistance, but we have lost a very good man.

Mr. Charlton: I would just like to make a few brief comments as well. Mr. Gillis was not only a very capable civil servant but was one who provided a very definite and distinct amount of leadership in what’s happened in property tax movement in Ontario in the last 15 years or so.

[11:30]

My personal association with Mr. Gillis, both as a civil servant, since I have been here, and as my boss in my former employment created for me a great deal of respect for the man. His loss to this province and to this Legislature and to the Ministry of Revenue I think will be felt in a very significant way.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I can recall some 10 years ago -- the minister probably isn't aware of this -- I spent a summer working in assessment for the Ministry of Revenue in Sudbury after the province had taken over assessment from municipalities. In those days, as now, when anyone talked about property tax or property tax reform, with all due respect, they never mentioned the names of Terry Russell or Lorne Maeck or any other officials; it was always Pat Gillis.

He was always very helpful. In particular, I can recall the enormous amount of work he did in trying to sort out mining taxes and how mining companies should pay taxes to the municipalities and to the province and so forth. Just the other night I was down at the Ontario mining association function at the Royal York hotel and it had just been announced that Mr. Gillis had died. Several people from the mining industry expressed very great sadness because he had been extremely helpful and very constructive in attempting to sort some order out of that whole question of property taxes that should be paid by mining installations. So it’s not any one particular section of Ontario that will miss Mr. Gillis but a great many people in the province.

On vote 804, municipal assessment program:

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on the municipal assessment program, the minister is aware that back about a week or two I wrote him a letter concerning a resolution passed by the city of Windsor council. It asked the minister to reconsider his decision to discontinue the printing of complete and comprehensive property descriptions on the assessment rolls in view of the additional cost and inconvenience this would cause all municipalities. Has the minister reconsidered that or has he some information that he may provide the House at this time?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, that matter is still under consideration. As the member probably knows, we have just recently revamped all of our system and the data that’s put on the assessment tapes. We felt at the time that we had all the necessary information there. Indeed, we have more information in most regards than what was there to start with. We have just gone through all of these changes and we really feel the information that’s now on the tapes should be sufficient for the municipalities.

I wouldn’t be anticipating any changes to our procedure now because we really just made those changes and it has been with the advice of municipalities and so on. We had a committee that worked on that for quite a long time and there was input from the municipalities and other groups dealing with property taxes all the time. We thought we had covered pretty well all the information that would be necessary. As a matter of fact, we did include more information than was on the original tapes.

The details the member is referring to are not really fresh in my mind. I am not sure exactly what the city of Windsor is requesting, but I think it would be very difficult for me to make a commitment to change the information on the tapes at this point, because of all of the intensive work. It has been a matter of a couple of years. There has been a great amount of intensive work done before we developed our new system and it would be rather difficult now to make changes.

Mr. B. Newman: There’s some misapprehension that shouldn’t exist with the municipalities. If I may, Mr. Minister, I would like to read this into the record so your officials could look at it and see if the municipality is justified in its complaints. This was a resolution adopted by the city council on October 29 of this year:

“Whereas the Minister of Revenue has decided to discontinue the use of complete and comprehensive property descriptions and, in due course, will also eliminate the depth of property from the assessment rolls which are prepared by the regional assessment office for distribution to municipalities annually;

“And whereas the following major procedures undertaken by municipalities involving the examination of assessment rolls require that detailed property descriptions be available:

“(a) preparation of property lists used by the city departments in connection with zoning amendments, street and alley closings, committee of adjustment applications, improvement areas, local improvement assessments;

“(b) the calculation of local improvement assessments which are determined on the basis of property dimensions;

“(c) responding to requests received by the public, including real estate offices, lawyers, building contractors, investment firms, banks, as well as all municipal departments;

“(d) establishing new polling subdivision boundaries for municipal election purposes;

“(e) determine ownership and property dimensions for weed-cutting charges;

“(f) to ascertain the existence or otherwise of alley or street allowances;

“(g) preparation of petitions for local improvements;

“(h) preparation of petitions for street and alley closings;

“And whereas the only alternative to municipalities is that they prepare Mylar plans which would contain the dimensions of each property in the municipality which would have to be cross-referenced with the assessment rolls;

“And whereas the preparation and updating of these plans by all municipalities would entail a considerable amount of work and in many instances additional staff would be required;

“And whereas all information has in the past been available from the assessment roll and in the future will require an examination of both the assessment roll and the plan prepared by the municipality;

“And whereas the additional cost to the municipality to gather and update this information does not appear to be justified when it is now available at the regional assessment office, but not printed on the assessment rolls;

“Therefore, be it resolved that the Minister of Revenue be asked to reconsider his ministry’s decision to discontinue the printing of complete and comprehensive property descriptions on the assessment rolls, in view of the additional cost and inconvenience this would cause to all municipalities.”

That is the extent of the resolution, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The gist of the whole thing seems to be that the city of Windsor feels we already have the information and we are just not putting it on the assessment rolls. I will look into that situation to see if there is a possible way of doing it, but I would warn the member that the responsibility of the Ministry of Revenue and the assessment division is not to correct all of the situations that the municipality is concerned with, but to assess for property tax purposes. We could extend our services way beyond our mandate by getting all kinds of information that is not related to property taxes.

While we want to co-operate with the municipalities as much as we can, there has to be a cutoff point on the amount of information we gather, because we don’t have a mandate to go beyond assessing property for taxation purposes. Municipalities can use much of the information we gather for our needs and we are certainly prepared to give it to them, but we really don’t want to extend our program beyond what we are supposed to be doing in order to facilitate some other needs.

I will look at it, however, and if it is the case we do already have the information and it is only a matter of putting it on the rolls, if that is possible certainly I will consider it.

Mr. B. Newman: The ministry has provided the municipalities with all of that in the past, I assume, so it is simply a matter of continuing the policy you had.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That’s true, except, as the member knows, on the assessment rolls there is only so much room to print things. While we have added other information which was necessary for assessment purposes, we may need the space on the assessment roll for that purpose rather than for information that really is not relevant to assessment or property taxes. But we will look at it.

Mr. B. Newman: If the municipality has to do something that has already been done by your offices, why have the taxpayers got to pay twice for the information requested?

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise two items with the minister. The first concerns section 86 reassessments -- and I’ll be very brief because we’ve covered a lot of this ground before.

In recent weeks I’ve been meeting with many elected and appointed municipal officials, discussing the matter of section 86. It’s coming before them again now -- those who have opted for the study -- and they are being faced with a difficult decision.

I think it’s fair to say that almost without exception municipalities are considering a section 86, not because they regard it as putting in place a tax system which is any more fair or any more sensible, but because of the problem of assessment appeals by large property owners, both multiresidential and, in some cases, industrial and commercial as well. It seems to me that to go through this process and to have a new section 86 system of assessment in place in a municipality, with all the hassles that that entails and all the problems it creates for the residential and commercial taxpayers within that municipality, simply to deal with the matter of assessment appeals is a very complex and not very reasonable way to proceed, especially since it now appears that for 1981 we’ll be moving into some new system which may or may not require a section 86.

I seek the minister’s response to that. It bothers me greatly that it’s being done for completely the wrong reasons.

Second; on section 86 there seems to be some difficulty facing municipal councils when they are considering now whether or not to proceed with that reassessment for next year. They are being given advice -- and I’m not sure whether it’s from staff of the minister or whether it’s from the municipal solicitors out there -- that if the meeting is held in the open and if they decide that they do not wish to proceed with the section 86 reassessment, then the municipality may be subject to very expensive and serious lawsuits.

It seems to me that because they have not proceeded the appeals will then have a ground on which they can go to the assessment appeal and have their taxes reduced very, very substantially because the municipality didn’t implement section 86. This would undoubtedly result in action by the municipality to try to recover its lost taxes in some other way. It would have to go to the courts.

It seems to me that it’s very unfortunate -- if the advice the municipalities are getting is indeed correct and I have a hunch it probably is -- that the system is forcing municipal councils to conduct very important business in closed meetings and to refusing to give the people who elected them the reasons for whatever decision they make. I really cannot support that; I would appreciate your response to it.

I would hope that your staff and yourself can advise municipalities of a way around that problem so that a council’s decision as to whether or not to proceed with section 86 can be held in an open meeting so the citizens of that municipality can know what the municipal council is doing and why it is doing it.

One final matter on section 86: we now have a situation within counties and regions where some municipalities within the same upper-tier municipality have opted for section 86 and some have not. Even if all municipalities within the upper tier had opted for section 86 the factors applied to each class of property will be different from one municipality to another; that seems to me to be increasing the inequity in terms of the apportionment of regional or county costs.

[11:45]

It means that in one municipality residential taxpayers may be paying on the basis of 20 per cent of their market value for their share of regional or county costs. In another municipality in the same region, because of the buffering of the equalization factors which comes into this as well they may only be paying 15 per cent on their market value for the apportionment of regional or county costs. Thus there is inequity within the upper-tier municipalities.

It seems to me you might want to consider whether section 86 should not have been done across an entire upper-tier municipality rather than being kept at the lower tier. I recognize the legislation doesn’t presently permit that, but I wonder whether that is something you have been looking at.

My other two questions relate to the new equalization factor. I am still very confused as to why we got into the difficult situation we are in. The only argument I have heard that makes any sense at all is the law required the new equalization factor. Yet in my perhaps overly simplistic way of looking at things -- although I don’t think it is -- it seems to me we are here to make the law and if it became apparent to you and to your staff that the new equalization factors were going to create a very serious problem, as they have done, why weren’t we asked to change the law so we could avoid the mess we are now into?

It seems to me to be very clear, after talking to the municipal representatives, that while the new equalization factors may be better for some and worse for others than what we had before, when viewed as a whole the system is no more fair and equitable -- and in fact for some may be less fair and less equitable -- than the factors we had in the past.

It is agreed they were unfair. There is no doubt about it. But I’m not convinced the new factors, with the new buffering and everything else that is wrapped up into the package now that the disaster or near disaster has occurred, are any better than what we had before.

I would appreciate your response to that. I believe you recognize that and I believe your colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), recognizes that too. I assume that is why we have a commitment for a new system for 1981. But I would appreciate confirmation of my beliefs and I would appreciate any further clarification you may be able to give us. I know you were not able to give my colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) too much on Monday, but if you have some further clarification about the kind of thing we can expect in 1981, whether it be a completely new property tax structure or whether it is to be more tinkering with what we have got, I would appreciate that kind of clarification.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I will deal with the items as the member has brought them up.

He first spoke about section 86 and he talked about the fact he didn’t feel section 86 was any more fair than it was before we started the exercise and it was only there to accommodate the matter of the loss of assessment appeals.

I do not deny that is one of the reasons the municipalities are requesting section 86, but it certainly is not the only reason. Certainly, when we are finished with this section 86 exercise, there is a lot more equity and fairness within the property classes than there was before we began. To state it very simply, if in a municipality there are two houses valued at $50,000, I believe each one of those property tax payers should pay the same amount of tax.

That isn’t what was happening in those municipalities which are already under section 86 and those who have requested it. Our investigations and the program itself have revealed there were some grave inequities, not just with residences but with commercial buildings, industrial buildings and so on, and there were many inequities and a lot of unfairness out in those municipalities.

I don’t think it’s quite right to say the only reason municipalities have asked for section 86 is because of the fact they were losing appeals. However, that follows as well. If there are inequities they are bound to lose the appeals because the appeals are based on what other people are paying for similar property in that same vicinity. If they’re losing appeals it’s very obvious something is out of whack with the assessment. If it’s out of whack, it’s unfair. I just want to clarify that I don’t agree with the member’s idea about it being only because of the loss of appeals.

The member indicated it was being done for the wrong reasons. I think it’s being done for the right reasons -- to get some equity within those property classes so people who are paying their taxes are going to pay the same amount for property of the same value in that municipality.

The member was also concerned about the presentation on section 86 to the municipalities. I have instructed my staff to go whichever way the municipality requests. If the municipality requests the impact study information in camera, that’s the way it would be given. I would prefer it to be public and we do suggest that to the municipalities. But we don’t want to dictate to them,

I think the other thing the member was concerned about may be a little bit of a misinterpretation of what has been going on. To explain it in detail, if a municipality were to ask us during the impact study presentation for the names and addresses of each resident and each property owner and the amount their taxes would go up or down, then later, should the municipality reject the application of section 86, that information would then be public. Then everyone whose taxes were going to go down would, obviously, next year appeal their taxes based on this information and the shift would take place through the courts instead of through the program.

When we talk about that aspect I think that’s what we’re referring to. We do not give the details of each property -- as to the names, the addresses and so on -- because we want to leave the municipalities the freedom to make their own choice, based on what the impact will be in general terms.

I don’t know if the member has seen an impact study; I’m sure he probably has and knows the detail that’s in it. It doesn’t list each property.

My concern is if we go beyond that with the municipalities -- and some municipalities have asked to know how it is going to affect each property individually in the municipality -- if the municipalities demand this kind of information they had also better be prepared to implement section 86, because the appeals the following year will do it for them anyway. Then it would only bog down the courts. That’s the danger of giving detailed information.

Maybe that’s the kind of thing the member has been hearing from councils. I’m not sure, but it probably is.

The member talked about the inequities between the upper-tier municipalities because some are under section 86 and some are not; some are based on a certain percentage of the assessment, while others are based on a different percentage. I really think he must have been referring to lower-tier municipalities, rather than upper. I would think he is talking about the municipalities within a region, so it would be really the lower-tier municipalities.

That is the reason we have equalization factors. The purpose of the factor is to equalize those differences. If we were on 100 per cent market value assessment throughout the province we wouldn’t need the factor. But the factor is developed to account for those differences in percentages of assessment in each municipality within that region. That’s the reason they’re there.

The other thing the member talked about was the equalization factors themselves. As I said earlier, we have developed those factors using the same act and the same criteria from which the old factors were developed. What they do is reflect the changes in assessment during that nine-year period when they were frozen from 1970 to 1979.

It’s very difficult to develop a different factor if there are going to be adjustments made if we feel it’s unfair. I’m one who probably does feel if we went to the raw factors it would be very unfair -- the kind of burden imposed upon the small rural municipalities particularly. I don’t think anybody in this House wants to see that kind of burden. That is why the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Ministry of Education announced the other phasing-in type program with the five per cent and 10 per cent raises in grants for the school boards in the municipalities.

I have to reiterate that my responsibility as the Minister of Revenue is to develop the factors. There are not too many municipalities complaining about the factors themselves. They know the factors are developed properly under the act and they’re not complaining about the factors themselves. What they’re concerned about is what those factors do and the shifts they create.

As I said earlier in the debate, the ministries of Intergovernmental Affairs, Education, Treasury and Economics and others are looking to find some sort of equitable program for 1981. We have announced only the phasing-in program and the adjustment for 1980.

Hopefully, those answers will be forthcoming. I would like to see them come as quickly as possible because I understand the municipalities have to plan for the future and they want to know where they’re going. I can understand why they’re upset about not knowing what’s going to happen beyond 1980. So I hope the ministries involved will move in that direction as quickly as possible and get some information on it to the municipalities.

That pretty well answers the inquiries the member made.

Mr. Isaacs: I have one minor comment. Yes, I appreciate the minister’s answers. It certainly provides an answer although I may disagree with him in certain areas.

On section 86, the minister indicated that section provides more equity within classes. I don’t dispute that, but I would suggest that in many cases it provides less equity between classes. It may well be that under the old system, by accident and not by design, a commercial property worth $100,000 was assessed the same as a residential property with the market value of $100,000, but when you implement section 86, that disappears.

I agree it would only be by chance that situation would arise, but you move from a system that may or may not have some equity in it by chance to one that has equity for certain groups but not for people within different groups. I don’t see that as any big improvement at all, but I think that’s somewhat of a difference of opinion and I’ll leave it at that.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I would like to make a very brief reply. It will not mean less equity between the classes, because when we do the section 86 exercise part of it is that each class will have the same total amount of assessment as before we started. So we’re not permitting any shift at all between classes. They’re not going up or down; they have the same amount of assessment in each class when we’re finished as they did when we started. So it doesn’t allow any shift. It’s purposely that way because, as I’m sure the member realizes, if we went to 100 per cent market value and allowed the shifts that would take place in each class, residential property taxes in Ontario might go up as high as double what they are now. Of course none of us can permit that to happen. That’s why I feel rather comfortable with section 86; we’re not allowing those shifts to take place.

It’s not the final answer, but at least I think it’s a much better situation than those municipalities had before we started.

Mr. Gaunt: There is one matter I wanted to raise briefly with the minister, Mr. Chairman. It’s a matter we’ve discussed on numerous occasions. My friend the minister has been most co-operative in dealing with this situation. I just wanted to ask a question and get his view with respect to this whole matter of the assessment procedure on mobile homes.

[12:00]

In my area, we are having a little difficulty with this. I should mention to the minister that we have a number of mobile home parks which have sprung up, mainly because of Douglas Point. The great influx of construction workers, a lot of whom have opted for this type of housing, certainly has caused a greater than normal problem in this regard in so far as the assessment procedures that apply to mobile homes are concerned.

The minister has indicated that under the definition of land in the Assessment Act, once a mobile home is installed on a piece of property and services are provided, for property tax and assessment purposes the unit becomes part of the land and consequently is assessed, with the land, to the owner. That is quite correct. The minister suggested there was really no relief under the Assessment Act, although there may be under the Municipal Act if a municipality wanted to pass a bylaw enabling it to enter the names of the tenants on the tax collector roll. The taxes could then be payable by the tenant under the terms of the lease.

Until now the municipality hasn’t been inclined to do that; in fact it has resisted doing so and a constituent of mine is still left with the problem. There is a further problem because of the new landlord and tenant legislation and its implications, whereby a landlord is locked into the six per cent. Where the tax increases go beyond that then it does create a problem, particularly in terms of the interim tax bill.

In this case the owner of the mobile home park has to pay an interim tax bill without knowing what his final bill is going to be, so all he can do is guess at the amount. If he guesses wrong he is going to have to carry the can, so to speak, for the additional amount for that period, until he is able to get it back from his tenants.

I understand he may apply to the commission; he may be able to estimate those tax increases over and above the six per cent and hope the commission would be sympathetic to his case based on, perhaps a past record of what he had been paying as far as the interim and final tax bills were concerned.

My question to the minister really is does he anticipate, when he brings in his tax reform package -- whenever, if and when -- there will he any thought that the definition of land under the Assessment Act would be changed to take into account these problems being experienced by my constituents, and I am sure by many other people who are owners of mobile home parks in this province?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, the problem outlined by the member for Huron-Bruce is one I have had inquiries about from other members as well.

The major problem, of course, is that municipalities do not want to pass that bylaw. The simple fact is that mobile homes are mobile. It is fine to assess someone who is leasing or renting a space in a mobile home area as long as the person stays there, but they are mobile and they can move. That is why the municipalities leave it to the owner of the property to assess these taxes from those people.

I can very well understand that, and I can very well understand why a municipality would be very hesitant to go the other route. That is not to say all people in mobile homes are crooks by any means; but they are easily moved, they can be moved overnight. When they are gone, who pays the taxes?

It is possible, I suppose, that municipalities could pass a bylaw under which they could assess, but in the final analysis if they weren’t paid the owner would then be responsible. However, that is something that could be looked at.

I think at one time the whole matter of property tax reform was addressed, as were some of these problems, by the commissions which sat. I think mobile homes were discussed. I don’t think any final decision was taken on it; it is a problem we really have to look at again. When we bring in a package, if it happens to be the type of package I think most members would like to see and that is total property tax reform -- whether we can ever develop one that is acceptable to all members of the House is rather difficult to say -- but if we go that route perhaps this is one area that should be looked at again.

I understand the difficulties of your constituent. You and I have already agreed to sit down and discuss it with your constituent, but in this case there aren’t any easy answers. The municipality, of course, wants to collect taxes on the property. They are going to collect them from the person they know is going to be there and the person they can hold responsible.

You and I had a discussion about condominiums, but really you can’t compare condominiums with mobile homes because condominiums stay in the same location all the time. They are registered in the registry office under a legal registration to the owner. I am not too familiar with the Condominium Act, but I understand they jointly own the land on which the building sits. It is all in their deed, it is all registered.

The mobile homes are much more difficult to administer. Perhaps something could be done in the area I suggested whereby a municipality could pass a bylaw that if a person moved and didn’t pay, in the final analysis the owner of the property would be responsible. That might be the direction to go.

Mr. Gaunt: Just to respond to that, Mr. Chairman, in this case the owner has already indicated he would be quite prepared to assume that responsibility. He has indicated if the township would put the names of the tenants on the tax collector’s roll, in the event one of them did leave without paying his or her taxes he would ultimately be responsible. He is quite prepared to accept that responsibility -- willingly, gladly -- as long as he can overcome the main burden with which he is saddled at the moment, given the condition we have described.

It seems to me where you have a person such as we have in this instance -- and I am sure most owners are this way; very sincere, very dedicated to providing a service to that community and to the people in his mobile home park. He runs a good operation; I have never had one complaint from any tenant of a home park operated by my constituent, Mr. Cormier, never. I did get one complaint having to do with the entrance to the mobile home park, but that was because of the road superintendent who overlooked grading the entrance in the spring and it became a real problem to get into the home park. But that was readily rectified and that is the only complaint I have ever had.

Under these conditions, where you have a person who is providing this kind of service and who is prepared to do everything reasonable to accommodate the people and the township, it seems to me unfortunate that he can’t get some relief for the financial burden with which he is faced; perhaps we can work it out somehow.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I was just talking to my staff while you were speaking. The suggestion I made regarding the tenants being assessed and the owner of the land being responsible finally if they didn’t pay would pose no problems for our assessors at all, or our ministry: but I guess we would have to check with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), who administers the Municipal Act, to see whether that type of thing is permissible under their act. I’d be happy to have our staff look into that before we meet with your constituent so we would have that information.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, could I bring to the minister’s attention complaints that I have received, and I think they are quite widespread across northern Ontario, having to do with Ministry of Natural Resources policy to allow cottage owners to purchase their lot which was formerly leased. The lease entered into some years ago was at an annual rental of 10 per cent of the assessed value. New evaluations are now coming through and this poses difficulties.

One problem that came to my attention was a person who had a lease and was paying $180 a year rent. This was 10 per cent of the assessed value, which was $1,800. That lease is about four or five years old. It has a 10-year life, but the change of the government’s policy has given him the option to purchase. The price now coming through on the new assessed value is four times higher than what it was when the original lease was entered into.

For instance, this $1,800 assessed value four years ago is now coming through at about $8,000. These people feel they are being put in a corner in that they have an investment. There have been improvements put on that lot to the tune of $20,000, so in order to protect the $20,000 of building improvements they now must expend $8,000; or conversely, continue with the lease to the end of 10 years, and then at the end of the 10 years they will have to pay a rental of 10 per cent of the new assessed value which would equal $800 in this case.

I know land values have gone up in four years, but have they increased to the tune of 400 per cent in that time? I think either the values were wrong four years ago or they are wrong now. I don’t know which end of the stick is wrong, but certainly they don’t balance out.

I also am aware that in the last lottery draw in the district of Sudbury, only last June, 32 lots were drawn and they sold or were leased at an assessed value between $2,200 and $3,000. These people who are now getting the figure of $8,000 know what happened last June when these lots went for less than $3,000.

Obviously there are wide discrepancies; I wonder if the minister could bring some light on the subject and tell us where we are as far as cottage lot assessments are concerned.

[12:15]

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter I have discussed with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) and others who have experienced the same problem you are talking about. I think in some cases the people who are doing the appraisals or the assessments are looking at the lot today after a considerable amount of work has been done to improve the appearance of it, as compared to the time it was first leased to the lessee as raw land, probably with no work done. Obviously when you look at it after they have brushed it out, cleaned it up and done all of these things it looks more valuable.

I don’t think they should be including that. They shouldn't be including any improvements the owner or the lessee has made in the value of that lot. I think that is high, if they are being assessed at $8,000 up in your area; although I don’t expect they should still be assessed at $1,800, I don’t think that’s reasonable to expect.

I have just been told by my staff that our ministry is doing the assessment on this. I wasn’t aware we did the appraisals as well, but apparently they are taking our assessment as an appraisal, is that right? If that’s the case I will instruct my staff to look again. The story you are telling me indicates to me the assessment could be high.

I will ask our staff to look at it again with a view to being a little more realistic; bearing in mind of course the other part of the statement you made about the lots that were put up for auction; did you say they went for $2,200 in that vicinity? Those would be raw lots, I suppose, they wouldn’t be lots that had any work whatsoever done on them. Would they be lots that had roads leading to them or would they be water lots? I wonder if the member could advise me on that?

Mr. Germa: The particular problem I was posing to the minister was in the Espanola area where these assessments are coming through at that rate. I compared the price there, but the lots in the Sudbury district would be more desirable on account of their proximity. Despite that, the lot in the Espanola area was coming through at the high price; further the lot I was talking about was accessible by water only, so there were no improvements whatsoever in that regard. Of the other 32 lots, I am not aware whether or not they had highway access or whether there was strictly access by water.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We will certainly look into it and see if there are some adjustments that can be made, because the way the honourable member has presented it to me it appears to me our appraisals may be high. This is where complications arise. We assess at market value, or a percentage thereof, but we take into consideration all of the improvements that have been put on the property. It may be that Natural Resources should be reverting it back to the status it had before the lessee or owner improved it, maybe that’s where the problem lies. I will certainly look into it. I think there are some problems there that have to be resolved.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the minister will recall that during my opening statement and during my comments last Monday, we got into a rather lengthy discussion about leadership and about where we are going from here with property taxation. I would like to get into that a little bit again today.

Just before I do that, though, I would like to make some comments to the minister about some of the things he said earlier about section 86 and try to relate that to some of the things I have said. As I have said in the past, I understand and I agree there are some improvements that result from section 86. The minister made it quite clear this morning that the losses municipalities were suffering in the review courts indicated the inequities that existed in the current system, and that is quite correct. Obviously, if the system is equitable and fair people don’t win appeals.

That raises the question, though, of what losses in appeals in an area that was done on section 86 this year indicate about how far we have gone towards real equity with section 86. I don’t have current Hamilton figures with me, I didn’t intend to raise this until I heard his comments this morning, but early in September I got the figures in Hamilton, when they were approximately halfway through the appeal process. They had about 8,000 appeals this year. They had not yet heard any of the major appeals, the major commercial, industrial or apartment appeals.

Most of what they had heard at that point were residential appeals and small business appeals, the less complicated appeals that were also a lot smaller in terms of assessment dollars, and therefore in terms of losses in assessment dollars per appeal. At that stage we had already lost, in Hamilton, half as much as we had lost last year under the old system.

I suppose my point is simply that section 86 has some value, but that it is not in any way, shape or form what we are looking for in terms of real, effective fair and equitable property tax reform in this province. I haven’t been over what has happened since September -- although I could make some good guesses. I suppose -- but I had a look at some of the kinds of things that were being lost in those appeals. I guess what it really boils down to is when you take something that is imperfect, as in a very inequitable assessment system, and try to match it to something that is supposed to be at least more perfect, as in relative market value, you still have a lot of problems left over.

I think the minister is going to find in the appeal process -- and it will vary from area to area obviously -- that after section 86 the assessment review boards will still to a fairly large degree reflect a fairly substantial number of inequities existing in the system. I think the appeal courts will reflect that this year, next year and the year after.

For example, I think what is happening in Hamilton with residential and land appeals will set some precedents that will win additional appeals next year, which is the same kind of process that was going on under the old system. It may not be quite as substantial in extent, there may be some improvements, but I think you will find there is still a fairly substantial number of inequities in the system. I will leave that, but it is just something I would like the minister to think seriously about and have a serious look at.

I want to get back on to the leadership thing. I think the minister may have taken some of my earlier comments a little too personally and perhaps even some of his staff did. I want to try to make the kind of thing that I was talking about a little clearer. I have piles of file folders all over my desk today, most of them filled with newspaper clippings.

In Ontario we probably get somewhere between 10 and 15 times more publicity about the property tax sectors than on all the other taxes in this country put together. That indicates to me there is not only a very serious resentment by the public, but very serious misunderstanding and a very serious lack of knowledge. To all intents and purposes there is very little if any, valuable leadership from this government, not just from the Ministry of Revenue but from Treasury, Intergovernmental Affairs, and Education -- leadership in the sense of involving the opposition members of this Legislature, the other members of the government party, and the public in the process of working towards property tax reform.

When we consider other jurisdictions in this country, British Columbia, for example, there is no question in my mind that the system they went to in 1974 is imperfect; it has its problems, it didn’t solve all of the problems in the property tax sector. They went to a system very similar to that which the minister is attempting to do, in a voluntary way under section 86. They went to it province-wide though.

They are confronted with the same kinds of problems we have here in Ontario; the same kinds of public reactions, the same kinds of shifts in property value, I would imagine. Obviously there was some extra ingredient. There have been other places, not necessarily in Canada, but in the United States that we’ve all read about and that the assessment staff in the ministry use as examples or refer to in comments when they’re briefing assessment staff on certain matters.

In all of those other jurisdictions, all of the kinds of problems that we’re confronted with here, existed -- to a greater or lesser degree. Those problems existed as they exist for us. The difference seems to be that there was some ingredient in those jurisdictions which allowed them to proceed -- an ingredient which for some reason we don’t seem to have here. I suppose I’m suggesting that in large measure that ingredient has to be leadership.

The minister and I have discussed the assessment situation on a number of occasions, perhaps more frequently than we sometimes like to remember, and his staff have been through it a hundred times more frequently than he has. We’ve discussed the fact that he has difficulty talking to or selling anything regarding assessments and property tax reform to the government caucus and to the cabinet.

We’ve also discussed the fact that both opposition parties have the same problem and lack of understanding, in terms of what we’ve been presented with to date, of understanding in an effective and useful way and of where we should be going from here.

The minister knows there aren’t more than two or three people in this House who really have a useful feel for the kind of things that are going on in assessment and property taxation -- maybe as many as five, but that would be pushing it.

[12:30]

Since we’ve been at this game for 10 or 15 years now -- I guess probably closer to 15 if you take into account the time we spent studying before we jumped -- that indicates to me a lack of leadership.

There should be by this point not only a universal understanding in here of what is going on -- what we are confronted with and precisely what the problems are that we have to solve -- but there should be a reasonably good understanding out there in the public after the reams and reams of publicity we have had on this topic. Yet not only are we really no closer to effective, fair, province-wide property tax reform than we were 10 years ago, we are no closer to having the people to whom we should be talking about it understanding not only the problems we are faced with but the direction we have to head in in order to find some answers.

That is what I was getting at, I suppose to the largest degree, when I was talking about leadership. There is no question the staff in the assessment division are competent and understand what they are doing. There is no question that your staff met regularly with Treasury staff or Education staff or Intergovernmental Affairs staff and pass things back and forth and discuss them. That’s not what I’m talking about as leadership. That’s not what I’m talking about as input either, because the system is far bigger than a four-ministry interrelationship.

The system includes this Legislature and the system includes all of the property taxpayers in the province. One thing for certain, you would have real difficulty finding a property taxpayer in this province who would say they can see any real leadership on the part of this government in sorting out the property tax sector.

I think that’s true even for the members of this House. If all this misunderstanding and mistrust about property tax reform exists among members you would have a difficult time finding members on your own side or on this side who could honestly say they can see any real leadership. Again I am not talking about leadership in terms of understanding and expertise on the part of your staff. I am talking about the kind of political leadership that is required to go any further than what we have gone.

That, I suppose, is why I felt I had to go through this thing again so that the minister might more clearly understand what I was getting at. I have suggested to the minister a number of times over the last couple of years a number of things which I felt had to happen before we would really make any serious progress. Yet still none of those things have happened.

The minister has been particularly open and useful in his relationship with me as a critic, and probably the same is true for the Liberal critic -- I don’t know if that is true but I would imagine it is. The minister has been helpful to me and I think even on occasion I have been helpful to the minister, but that’s not going to solve our problems in terms of property tax reform because the minister and I can sit down and discuss things reasonably openly.

I suggested two years ago to the minister that before we could get over the hump, the rut that we are in in terms of property tax reform, there had to be some reasonably good understanding in this Legislature. As I have already suggested I think even more than that, we’ve got to go beyond that and effectively go out to the public. This place is a good place to start, yet, we’ve made no progress in terms of the members of this Legislature and I think it’s time. Although I have a reasonably good understanding of what’s been happening and what goes on -- I talk to the minister regularly, and I even talk to fairly substantial numbers of his staff regularly since I still have acquaintances in the ministry -- even I don’t have a good overall sense, because I don’t have the data. I don’t have the access to it, nor do the Liberals, nor do most of the people in the Conservative caucus.

As I suggested two years ago, I think it’s time we, as a Legislature, made a commitment to get on with the job. It’s time the government made a commitment, the minister made a commitment, the Treasurer made a commitment, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made a commitment that we would sit down together to teach each other and to help each other to work towards the solution. It isn’t going to happen unless we do. I think as time goes on, you are becoming more and more aware of that.

I’m raising it again today because I raised it two years ago when you were new and perhaps not as familiar with the roadblocks that confront us as you are now. I raise it again because before we can effectively do anything, we have to pass this hurdle. The minister has to pass the hurdle in his own party. Each of us over here has to pass the hurdles with our fellow members in terms of finding an acceptable package.

You talk about packages, and we’ve been talking about packages, but we’re no closer to anybody understanding what should even be in the final package to make it acceptable. We’ve got to get beyond this stage, and part of that process has to be leadership. Part of that process has to be somebody providing the leadership in this House so we can sit down and understand what it is we’re up against and what it is we’re doing to try to overcome that. I don’t see it happening.

For these reasons -- because your ministry is the place where the expertise exists, or at least should exist, and I believe it does exist -- to that degree I have to level the criticism at you. I understand the bind you’re in; I understand the Treasurer has certain policy responsibilities, and I understand the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Education have a fair stake in this as well. At some point we have to get beyond the stage we’re at, and I think that has to be done through co-operation, through information, through consultation and questioning.

I suppose what I’m doing is pleading with the minister so at some point in the very near future we can get over these horrendous piles of newspaper stories on property taxes, all of which reflect a very serious understanding of the whole system and all of which never seem to improve in terms of their view of that tax structure.

Vote 804 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That completes the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

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

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolution for supply for the following ministry was concurred in by the House:

Office of the Provincial Auditor.

The House adjourned at 12:41 p.m.