ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 142, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to pick up where I left off on Monday evening. I think I began to talk about the whole question of market value. For me and the members of this caucus there are some problems with that whole question for two basic reasons. I am probably clearer than most, as clear as anybody in this House, about why we are again postponing full market value. As I said at the end of my remarks on Monday evening, the section 86 program, the equalization program at percentage of market value which the ministry moved into some three years ago, has some very clear and definite benefits. I and my colleagues in this caucus have acknowledged those limited benefits over the course of that three-year period.
On the other hand, it was acknowledged on a number of occasions by the former Minister of Revenue, Lorne Maeck -- who is no longer with us -- that although it does provide some benefits to individual property owners in the province and even to some major sectors in the area of property tax payment, the section 86 program does not deal with the real problems of property taxation and municipal finance in the province in an overall sense. We are not bothered so much that we are not all the way to the total and final answer. What bothers us -- and I think it was somewhat reflected in the comments of the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) on Monday evening, but not very clearly set out -- is that there is absolutely no specific discussion coming out of the government or the Ministry of Revenue that clearly sets out where we go beyond section 86. All the discussions around full market value have died and been shelved. Ministry staff in the assessment division -- and I see the assistant deputy minister and some of his staff sitting over there this evening -- are still working on the assumption that some day full market value will be implemented.
It is just as true and just as politically clear, though, that as long as the present circumstances exist in the real estate market the government across the way has no intention of ever implementing full market value. I am sure the minister will say in his closing remarks on second reading that this is not true but I think history has demonstrated very clearly since 1974, when we had the first postponement, that for as long as the present economic situation exists in the real estate market, for as long as major unacceptable shifts would occur as a result of the implementation of market value, it will not happen.
What really bothers us is that there is no discussion of alternatives. We have totally dropped the discussion of the overall problems of property taxation and municipal finance, and we have totally abandoned the direction set by this government. Even if it was an incorrect direction, the direction the government set out in in 1968, thirteen years ago, in an effort to solve those problems was laudable. Now we are not even discussing these problems any more. But none of them have gone away. In fact many of them have become much worse in the freeze that has been in place for the last decade.
The sections in this bill that deal with a transition on assessments on rental premises that are being converted to condominium ownership are an example of why we have developed a sense that pure market value is not the answer to the problems in the property tax sector.
We will support these sections under the present system of section 86. But I want to lay something out clearly, and this is what I started to do when the Speaker asked me last Monday night to limit my remarks because of the time. A lot of people do not understand what these sections really mean in a tax context. We are saying in these sections that we have a rental unit -- an apartment unit, a town house unit, whatever the case happens to be -- which, for whatever reason, somebody is proposing to convert from rental to condominium. When the conversion is complete and it is registered as a condominium it will be identical to the unit that was rented six months previously. But the taxes paid on that condominium unit to the municipality -- supposedly for education, for social services and whatever other services a municipality gives its residents -- will be substantially less than when it was a rental unit.
I understand probably better than anybody else in this House that the market value system provides a very precise system for assessors when they are evaluating property. But we in this Legislature have to consider the market value system from the tax point of view as well. Because we created the assessment system and maintained the assessment system as a tax structure, we ultimately have to look at what that system produces in the way of a tax burden on individuals.
8:10 p.m.
The clear example we have set out in these sections of the bill, where an identical unit is taxed in a substantially different way based on the name tag you hang over the door, is a clear indication of the taxation problems the market value system presents.
Assessors and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) will argue the market value system is a precise and clear one which tags a unit of a property with a clear indication of its real worth. But it certainly does not tag that property with a clear indication as related to other similar or even identical properties as to what taxes that property should be paying to the municipality in question.
There are some very serious problems left to be dealt with. What is bothering us at this point is that the discussion of those problems and of any solutions from across the House has totally died. There are no further comments. Section 86 is the only thing they will talk about. The former minister quite clearly stated on a number of occasions in this House that section 86 is only a small improvement and it is not the total answer. If it is not the total answer why is there no other discussion going on?
I think I understand what the ministry and the minister are attempting to do in the sections of this bill that deal with appeals and with the implementation of decisions in the appeal process. The bill says if a taxpayer appeals his or her assessment, whether that taxpayer is an individual home owner or the owner of a huge multi-residence complex or a large industrial property or a farm, there will be no award meted out. No adjustments will be made in taxes until that decision is final.
We have in this province a three-step -- and potentially a four-step -- appeal process. I personally know of no occasion on an assessment appeal when the four-step process has been used, but there may have been some. We have the assessment review courts, which is the first step. There is a county court, which is the second step, and the Ontario Municipal Board, which is the third step. The cabinet is that potential ultimate fourth step.
What this proposed legislation is saying is that if a resident goes to the assessment review court to appeal his or her assessment and wins, no awards will be made if the assessment office decides to appeal that decision to the county judge. If the appellant and the assessment office then go before the county judge and the taxpayer wins again and the assessment office decides to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, no adjustments will be made. If the municipality appeals, no adjustments will be made.
I think I understand -- but I am not sure -- the intent of trying to avoid a situation where an individual appeals his assessment and wins at the assessment review court level and gets a tax rebate. The assessment office, and/or the municipality, appeal it to the county judge, the decision is overturned and he has to pay back the tax rebate. But he appeals it to the OMB, wins, and gets the tax rebate again -- or any combination of crazy things like that.
On the other hand, over the course of the last two or three years the assessment appeal process to the end has become so protracted that some taxpayers, probably those least able to afford it, could quite easily get shafted in this system to the tune of three or four years.
This year I was involved in an appeal which is still pending before the Ontario Municipal Board. This appeal of a 1979 assessment was lodged in December 1978. To the best of my knowledge no date has been set for a hearing before the OMB. That is a particularly lengthy process to ask anyone to forego the dollars and cents involved in an assessment appeal which results in a tax appeal if one likes, especially if the dollars happen to be substantial.
As a result I have some serious problems with these sections. I would like very honestly to hear the minister's comments on this aspect of the bill. I can see some problems the other way as well, as I have suggested. If the total appeal process was six or eight months or even a full year to the end of the process, it would be a lot less difficult for me to handle. In the context of what we are faced with at the present time and the length of time that appeals may take to their final conclusion, I have some serious problems.
I have one further item I would like to raise with the minister while we are debating this bill. It is a question that has been raised with me by a fairly large number of people from his own ministry. That is the whole question of farm legislation announced earlier this year. The government was going to proceed with changes in the way farms were assessed and taxed. Absolutely nothing in this bill sets that out. Yet indications were that those changes would be ready and in place for the taxation year 1982.
Because it was made as a firm and positive and direct announcement, if the ministry has changed its mind or is having second thoughts I think some explanation is owed to the people in the ministry who are sitting waiting for direction. It is owing, too, to all those farmers across this province who are in a position of having to pay the taxes based on one system or the other in the next tax year.
8:20 p.m.
We would like to have some serious comment by the minister on that matter. Unless they have discovered a way of attempting to deal with this question totally in regulation, which I do not think is acceptable as I read the legislation, there is nothing in this bill which sets that policy in place.
Some of what is set out in this bill is acceptable and understandable. Some of it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the future directions of this province in the property tax sector. I would certainly ask the minister in his comments at the wrapup of second reading to respond to the things I have raised in as specific a way as possible. They are not all necessarily questions from myself or my caucus, but questions from across this province. Some are from his own staff and some from people who have expectations which it appears are not being fulfilled. They got those expectations from comments made by this government.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on what I consider to be an important piece of legislation. I want to congratulate the minister for bringing in a few minor reforms, but I do not think they have gone far enough in a number of areas. I want to address one area in particular.
I am also pleased to see the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) is here. He has had a lot of municipal experience, as has the Minister of Revenue. I would have thought that as a former mayor of an important municipality in this great province of ours the minister would have brought in more progressive legislation and that he would have represented the progressive wing of the party rather than its conservative wing.
The Deputy Speaker: The chairman of finance.
Mr. Epp: The chairman of finance. But unfortunately he has represented the wing of the party that is moving very slowly as far as reforms are concerned. In fact, reform is probably something that is not in his vocabulary.
The former Minister of Revenue brought in section 86 which in a sense was a stopgap measure. After the halcyon days of Darcy McKeough, the government did not want to do anything that might in any way rock the boat as far as tax reform, market value and assessment reform were concerned, so they brought in section 86 which was a result of the problems primarily, but not exclusively, encountered in Cambridge. The member for Cambridge will appreciate that because it was in Cambridge the former Minister of Revenue announced he was going to implement section 86.
We on this side of the House felt this was a short-term measure and that more long-term taxation reform was going to be brought about. Millions of dollars were spent on computer programs and in sending provincial civil servants around the province, as well as to other parts of the world. They were doing studies, but to no avail. The primary beneficiaries of this expenditure of money were the civil servants who had some nice trips, the consultants who were hired and the computer programmers who were hired and so forth. Aside from that the province itself, in its policy orientation and projection, was not a beneficiary.
One thing this government lacks -- which I heard highlighted again last Thursday when the former Treasurer of this province spoke to the Kitchener and Waterloo chambers of commerce -- is a philosophy. Whether or not one agreed with some of the policy initiatives of the former Treasurer, at least he took some initiatives. He had a philosophy and he wanted to bring in some kind of reform. But the present government with its present leader, Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and other ministers, stumbles from problem to problem without trying to project what is going to happen and what is needed in this province.
Do members know that nine of the 10 provinces in Canada have market value assessment? Ontario is the only one that has spent millions and millions of dollars and has not initiated it except in a few areas. It is not only that reform, which could be implemented over a long period of time -- maybe five years, or something like that -- but it lacks a number of other taxation reforms with respect to grants to municipalities. I believe about 83 per cent of the grants are now conditional and about 17 per cent are unconditional and the latter are decreasing rather than increasing. What we need is taxation reform.
The minister should look at section 6 on page five of the bill. If he has instigated some kind of reform here he has not gone far enough. As a former municipal politician I can tell him fairness is essential to any legislation whether it be provincial, municipal or federal. And as the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) has indicated, this appeal period could go from three to four years. It could be drawn out longer than that.
So what happens if I as a property owner appeal my taxation? I go to the assessment review court and it takes months to get to the stage when a determination is made. Last year in the city of Kitchener they wanted to hear 148 cases, and the honourable judge wanted to hear them all in two days. Some of them were in a package, but a lot of others were individual cases, and he wanted to hear them all within about 10 hours.
Justice is not being done to the people of that area or any other area when the judge tries to hear that many cases in just a few hours. There was such consternation and rebellion among lawyers and taxpayers in Kitchener, Waterloo and the surrounding area that the judge had to retract his decision, set a schedule and come back over the next few months to hear all the cases.
But there is a problem when many people appeal their assessments, and the court -- whether it is the assessment review court, the Ontario Municipal Board or a county court -- is not in a position to deal adequately with the cases. This bill or any other bill, or any other initiative the government is taking, is not dealing with that problem.
I am disturbed about that because the minister, as a former municipal politician, should understand the problems of his constituents. Surely since June 9, 1977, he should not be so far removed from the people that he does not want to deal with their problems. Yet like the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) and many other members, the minister has constituents who have to wait months and sometimes years in order to get their assessments reviewed and a final determination made.
The assessment review court is not the final determination. After that you could go to a county court if it is a question of fact; or if it is a question of fact it could go to the Ontario Municipal Board or finally to cabinet. We know cabinet's decisions always come down in July after the House has recessed, as was the case last July. The decisions are made and quietly disseminated to the individuals concerned. There is not a big press release or anything of that nature -- a press conference as in Suncor. The decisions are made and quietly disseminated about the province.
8:30 p.m.
With this section a person could appeal a particular case and would have to wait for three or four years. Let us assume that the question of assessment appeal may deal with taxes that would surround the question of $2,000 or $3,000. Nowhere does it say in here the person concerned would get interest on the money he has lost. For instance, if that assessment is reduced and he saves $500 in taxes over four years that is worth a lot of money at today's interest rates.
But the minister does not want to deal with fairness in this problem. He is concerned about alienating a few municipalities, and says, "We prefer not to pay the taxation on the money we really owe that individual," whether it is a senior citizen or a prosperous businessman. As far as I am concerned, as far as this party is concerned, fairness should be more important than trying to stay on a friendly basis with all the municipalities. The minister, in all fairness, does not deal with this problem. As a result of this, later on I will be introducing an amendment on behalf of our party to have fairness integrated into this section of the bill.
In addition, I understand there are a number of groups, bodies and individuals who would like to make some kind of representation regarding this bill. In order to do that they obviously cannot come before a committee of the whole House; they have to be able to come to a standing committee. I would ask the minister seriously to consider sending this bill to one of the committees.
I know what he will tell us -- that great urgency is required in passing this piece of legislation. If there is such great urgency why did we not come back earlier or why was the bill not introduced earlier? For four and a half years -- and I am anticipating what he is going to say; maybe he will not tell us that -- every time we introduced the suggestion that a bill should go to a committee, unless he has initiated that suggestion, the minister says there is great urgency. But if there is such great urgency why did he not introduce the bill sooner?
If that is the case, maybe it reflects either the minister's clout in the cabinet -- that he cannot convince the House leader to introduce the bill earlier -- or maybe it is a sense of misplaced priorities and he does not want it to be introduced earlier. Whatever the case may be, I appeal to the minister to be fair to the people and give those who are interested in this piece of legislation an opportunity to appear before a committee even for a few hours -- unless he is afraid there are examples or issues to be raised that he does not want raised. Surely to goodness one of the committees could deal with it, if only for a few hours. But I would rather see it go before a committee where there could be hearings for a few days.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few brief words on this bill. I want to deal with the theme my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) dealt with, the whole principle of the postponement of market value assessment. I say immediately that we on this side of the House recognize the real political problems with moving to market value assessment. Everyone who has been a critic in any of the three parties on this matter has struggled with this extensively over a number of years.
It is true to say that we in the New Democratic Party and those in the Liberal Party did come up with some proposals, although I am not as sure about the Liberal Party. We came up with a policy. We stood by that policy and we are prepared to move ahead. That has not been true of the government. They have talked about market value assessment, and they say they are postponing it; but when it comes right down to it, they have totally opted out of any responsibility to make the fundamental changes in the assessment system in this province which are required if there is to be fairness.
It is not untrue to say that perhaps in some respects we have got the worst of all worlds at present. We are still on the old system when it comes to levying taxes against the individuals, but we are on market value assessment when it comes to distributing government grants throughout this province. I am sure the minister will agree with that. We may be somewhere in between when it comes to the division of the cost between municipalities and a region or within a county system.
The minister cannot continue indefinitely paying out grants to municipalities based on one system of assessment that is very substantially different from the system on which he is levying taxes within those municipalities. The result is that a municipality, when it comes to the one system, may be relatively poor because it has very little industrial assessment et cetera, but when it comes to the other system it may be wealthy. There is no relationship between the two systems.
Therefore, it seems to me that when we are once again postponing the introduction of market value as the basis on which taxes are going to be paid, the minister should give some statement to this House about what the long-term intention of the government is with regard to this matter.
A section of this bill also deals with the matter of appeals and not completing the assessment roll until all the appeals are complete. I have to say, as the member for Hamilton Mountain said, if we are going to have a fair system of assessment, we should be trying more and more to get away from these appeals.
There were studies done not too long ago and reports made by a couple of professors in the University of Toronto with regard to the unfairness of the appeal system. I do not have copies of those with me, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, but it is true in a lot of appeal systems that if a person can afford to go to court, considering the huge cost of going to court, he can get some alleviation; but if he is a little person on the totem pole and cannot afford to take the day off work on the doubtful chance that he may get some reduction in assessment, he just does not get the benefit of the appeal system.
We should have a system by which we have the right to appeal but we do not need to have a system where the powerful and wealthy, by being able to appeal, get special privileges.
This has special application to a matter about which I am very concerned, the homes containing urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Here we have a clear situation where these people have had a dramatic reduction in the value of their homes. There can be no question about that. There is all kinds of evidence from the real estate profession.
8:40 p.m.
In the hearings that took place in British Columbia, one of the top experts on this issue in North America, who has been involved with it for 20 years, made a statement that a reduction in value on these homes runs in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent. Yet this minister and his ministry have refused to issue instructions to assessors throughout this province to reduce the value of those homes on the assessment roll, so people do not have to appeal it.
With respect to the section in this act, it can mean that there will be an even greater delay in getting recognition of that factor. If there is going to be a fair system, there is an obligation under the Assessment Act at present; they must assess at the market value.
The obligation is on the minister by law to ensure residents are assessed at the real value. Yet he has been saying to people who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation, "If you do not like the assessment you have, we are not going to automatically reduce the assessment; you go out and appeal it."
Those people with urea formaldehyde foam insulation are suffering from unsafe health conditions, and they cannot sell their homes. I had a call again just yesterday. I am flooded with letters and calls on this subject, and the minister just ignores it: "If they do not like it, let them eat cake; they can appeal it to the assessment review court."
That is not good enough when we have an act that clearly states property must be assessed at market value. This section of the bill will even make that situation worse with regard to what those people have to go through to get a fair assessment.
I would like to hear the minister say his assessors will not appeal it. When this goes through the courts and they look at it in a realistic manner and make a substantial reduction, is the minister prepared to say that his assessors will not appeal that to a higher court, as they do in some instances? Certainly he ought to be able to give that commitment. Truly, he should be going much further by living up to the act as he is required to do and making an adjustment in those assessments, all of them, seeking them out if the people themselves do not know.
The key obligation of the ministry is to arrive at a fair assessment on that property. It has the obligation to make the necessary investigation and give a fair assessment, not the people who are home owners.
I do not intend to speak at length on this bill, but I would certainly like to hear a clear announcement of what the minister intends to do in the long term with regard to the assessment system in this province where there are tremendous contradictions at present. Is he going to live up to the law at long last and issue instructions that the assessed value of those properties with urea formaldehyde foam insulation will be reduced according to their real value?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, once again I must express my disappointment in the fact that the new Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) has not been given a mandate by his colleagues to bring some sense into the assessment of real property in the province.
This is the ninth time we have been debating the same provision, that the assessment rolls need not be returned at market value for one more year. In my heart, I am relieved that this is the case. Unlike some of the previous speakers, I have never been convinced that market value assessment had any legitimate place in our general procedures.
Other things being taken into consideration, I must say I have always listened as closely as I could to the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), who again modestly said he knew more about this than anybody else. Frankly, I believe he is correct. Before he came into this House, when he was a working man and working an honest day for his living, he used to be an assessor.
Mr. Breaugh: What does that make you, the Liberal tycoon?
Mr. Nixon: All right. If the shoe fits all of us, we had better all wear it. I was a bit confused even by his statements when he said market value was the best way for the assessors to proceed but it was not a fair indication of the value for taxation purposes. I am not sure whether he is nodding or not. That is what I thought he said. It is a further indication of the complexities and obscurities of the whole art or science of assessment.
This art and/or science has been beyond the ken of most of us here and beyond the understanding of a number of ministers of revenue. I can recall raising the matter with the minister's predecessors. There was always a feeling that powers greater than they had somehow tied their hands or stopped their thought processes so they could not come up with a solution that would be viable and effective.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no viable or effective solution with assessment in the hands of the government. The big mistake was made more than 10 years ago, when it was decided our greater wisdom here would once and for all establish justice and equity in the taxation of property in the province.
It was Darcy McKeough, lamented in many other respects but not in this, who decided the centralization of assessment powers would give us the answer to the problems that had developed over previous years. We know there has been no solution, and the costs of assessment have skyrocketed.
One of the arguments against giving the responsibility back to the municipalities is that they certainly could not afford the Cadillac assessment structure that has been developed, because no one paid any attention to it and nobody had the strength or the forethought to keep it under some control.
Like any other regionalizing aspects of government, everybody's salary was raised to the highest common factor rather than the reverse. The centralized assessment facilities, in new offices with expansion of staff, have given our rather ineffective assessment procedures a price tag the municipalities could not be expected even to consider without the transference of major amounts of additional subsidy.
My feeling is that the final solution, if I may use that phrase in this matter, is not to continue blundering around with a succession of ministers who are not given the power to set things straight because of political considerations, but to return assessment to county or city responsibility.
The level of assessment is probably a phantom if we think that will solve the problems of fairness and equity; and at the same time the minister, through an involved procedure establishing equalization factors, has contributed to the obscurity of the solutions in many situations.
I do not want to deal too specifically with situations I do not fully understand, but I know the minister's staff has been trying to grapple with some of the problems in my own constituency. If problems have occurred in the municipality of Onondaga -- most people in this House know about Onondaga -- the costs of the education segment for that municipality have been based in a rather complex way with the equalization factor.
The interesting thing -- the minister, of course, always pays close attention to these matters -- is that they are not based on the most recent equalization factor but, for reasons that elude even me, on the equalization factor going back to about 1977. Nobody is nodding at me or shaking his head. Anyway, it is one we would consider substantially out of date.
8:50 p.m.
The equalization factor in the township of Onondaga was patently unfair when it was established. Even though they appealed it, no other references made them successful in their appeal. It is interesting to note, however, in comparison with certain other similar municipalities in the county of Brant, that the Onondaga equalization factor has been changed this year. Even though the ministry said adamantly there was nothing wrong with it before, it has now been changed. Almost like a spoiled child, the officials refused to say they were wrong, but they have corrected it.
The problem is that the education costs for Onondaga, apportioned by the local school board, are not based on the most recent equalization factor but on the previous unfair one, which has now been changed. We cannot persuade the minister, even though I know he has looked into this matter carefully and in detail himself, that the previous factor ought to be adjusted retroactively.
Other ways may exist to bring justice and equity to the ratepayers in the township of Onondaga. But so far, as far as I know, they have not come forward. They are a small municipality. They do not have the funds and the tax base to have an elaborate staff with a lot of experience, and they must rely on the interest and assistance of the minister's administrative officials if they are going to develop some fairness and equity in this connection. I felt I should raise it.
I know the minister's officials have been doing their best but, as far as I know, the solution remains beyond their grasp. I hope the minister will take a personal interest in this matter in the near future and assist us in working out a situation that is really giving an undue level of difficulty to the elected officials, not to say the taxpayers in the community who have been forced over the last four or five years to pay more than their share of education costs, simply because of the ridiculously complex assessment situation that this bill continues for another year.
On a previous occasion, I said that I personally have a high regard for the minister. I believe, from his own municipal background and from what I understand to be his personal abilities, he should be able to take hold of a problem such as this and set it straight -- get the kind of advice he needs, knock a few heads together, maybe fire a few people and hire a few new ones, if necessary. I really believe there has to be a substantial shakeup in the situation that has developed over the past 10 years since the centralizing of assessment.
I have no problem with any of the officials, but I have yet to find one, and I say this with great respect, who can really convince me that he has a grasp of the overall situation, how it can be applied and how it can be adjusted to improve its fairness and equity. I do not believe they feel it can, and I do not believe the minister can, but surely within a year we have to see some substantial improvement.
Ever since 1975 there has always been the argument that any Draconian changes in a minority situation would be politically misrepresented, and it would be difficult for the government to put forward the kind of changes they would want. Remember they established a special committee, under the now chairman of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, Willis Blair, former mayor of East York and former politician. He went around the province trying to get solutions, and some felt he approached some workable solutions rather closely.
But in a minority situation the government did not have the strength to go forward with any of the changes that some of them felt would be effective. Meanwhile, the complexity of the situation and the obscurity have increased. I referred to it before as some sort of mysterious priesthood that only a few people, hidden away in various offices of the Ministry of Revenue, have the power to give the kind of fairness that seems to elude most of the taxpayers when they look at their tax bills.
A good many Band-Aid programs keep the farmers from being too dissatisfied; that is, the taxpayers pay most of our taxes. We send out special cheques to senior citizens and all sorts of things to keep various groups within the community at least quiet, rather than taking hold of the tax situation and trying to give it some sense, meaning, justice and fairness.
Newfoundland, which has long been a leader in progressive taxation procedures, does not even have a property tax. A nice thought when one thinks of it. It has procedures that pay for its government programs based on a higher income tax, a higher sales tax and so on. I am not sure I am advocating that at this time, but we sometimes feel we are locked into procedures established back in the 1850s or 1860s without stepping back and taking an entirely new look at the basic procedures for taxation in Ontario.
As a matter of fact, it has been close to 40 years since we had a government that was prepared to take a look at the tax base and recognize the injustices and the incoherent aspects of some of these tax programs, to take a new look at the matter and establish something that is at least moving us toward the goal of justice and comprehensibility.
The minister, as I have said, is in a position to do something about it. Probably he is the last one in a long line of Tory ministers having to deal with this sort of taxation. Frankly, if he cannot do it, I do not believe it can be done by any of his colleagues.
Probably my message to him is that if there is one service he can do in Ontario, even in his capacity in the Ministry of Revenue, which is some sort of a handmaiden to the Treasurer, it is to say: "Look, give me the responsibility to reform this and deal with it. Let me bring forward a program that I, from my experience and from the work I am prepared to do, will make work and that will move us toward justice and equity."
The government has been afraid to touch it since 1975 and even before, I think basically because it felt that the centralization program imposed on us by Mr. McKeough was wrong. It was one of the few places where he made a basic error in judgement, tactics and strategy.
Frankly, I believe the basic solution is going to be to return the matter to municipal control with some additional financing so the municipalities can take over the costs of this fantastic, monstrous, costly procedure for assessment that has grown ever since the original centralizing decision.
I regret very much that we have had to make this sort of speech again in this House. We felt that one of the realities of March 19 was that the ministry could take some of the tough decisions it had been postponing for so many years before. So far, there is no indication it is prepared to do that. There is no indication it is prepared to decide what is right for the province and to present it to the House for debate, discussion, amendment and presumably eventual enactment. Instead of that, we are postponing again the tough decisions that have, over the past years and now once again, continued the old procedures that have led to so much inequity and injustice.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to acknowledge the tremendous overall support from the members opposite for this piece of legislation. Granted, there was the odd suggestion and criticism that came throughout it, but that is fine; that is acknowledged.
Mr. Nixon: What is the alternative? Are you prepared to deal with market value assessment? You are not.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. The minister has the floor. Carry on, Minister.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I will try. There is no doubt that after hearing comments over a couple of nights it is more difficult to try to make my response relevant to the specifics. I have made rather copious notes, and I hope I will touch upon most of the points raised by the honourable members on Monday evening and tonight.
9 p.m.
The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) in his opening comments indicated general support for the legislation and made comments vis-à-vis the enumeration process and the election year, three-year enumeration and so on. We were quite purposely cautious in the wording of this legislation and we did not identify the full enumeration process as being done every two years or every three years. We said it shall be done in an election year. Whether it is two years, three years, four years or five years, the legislation as now drafted will take care of any eventuality in that regard.
There was also a question regarding appeals. Frankly, I think it related to school support, and mention was made of how the process would be more difficult now by returning the ultimate responsibility of changing school support back to the assessment commissioner. Let me point out that we have not narrowed the opportunity to alter the direction of school support but, by putting it back to the assessment commissioner, back on the assessment roll and back on the assessment notice, we have made the designation much more obvious to the ratepayer and we have given him many more opportunities than before and many more places to change the direction if he so wishes.
He can change it as he could before by giving his direction to the municipal clerk. He can give it to his local assessor at the open houses that will be held before the return of the roll. He can give it to his school board. And he can give it directly to his assessment commissioner. The opportunities are there in greater abundance than ever before and, I think, with a greater ease than ever before.
Similarly, the only necessity of going to the assessment review court in this regard would be after the roll has been returned to the clerk. Even under that eventuality, what we have agreed to do is to go before the court and, assuming the change of school designation is the only reason for the appearance, the ratepayer will not have to appear. In effect, it will be an agreed-upon change in designation and will not put the ratepayer out at all.
There was also a comment vis-à-vis the availability of open houses. Over the last couple of years, and it will be further expanded this year, this ministry has made available in all municipalities -- and not just the municipalities being reassessed under the section 86 program -- an open house where the ratepayers have the opportunity to discuss what it is all about with the people who are directly involved, their local assessors.
Ratepayers can ask questions on their own assessment, how they compare with their neighbours and how their assessment was arrived at. They can discuss it frankly and personally with the assessor who was involved with their own home. These are very accessible. Not only are they open in the daytime, but also there will be at least one opportunity until nine o'clock in the evening. People who do not have opportunities and access during the day can go there in the evening as well.
I think there was a question raised regarding the condominium assessment, rental versus ownership. All we are doing in this amendment is closing a loophole that has had a tendency to cause concern among many municipalities. They were very concerned about their assessment bases being unnecessarily eroded by actual rental apartment buildings being converted or in the course of being converted to condominium ownership.
These conversions are not really being done with the intent of creating a new condominium; that is to say, personal ownership of one or more units. In fact, the only reason for these conversions is to get the lower taxation that is afforded to the single-family dwelling type of situation that is given to a condominium apartment. All they are doing is carrying it on a rental basis, and the conversion is just for that purpose.
We do not think that is in the spirit of what the assessment and the tax load is all about, and that is why this section is in the act. This indicates that a condominium will become a condominium only when it is occupied by the owner or his immediate family, and that is it. To carry on a rental building under an ownership known as a condominium will not in itself change that.
All honourable members have referred to the postponement of market value, and we all know the reasons why. It is quite simple to criticize the government and ask, "Why have you not just gone ahead with it?" Well, this is in the bill; it was put in, in effect, by the opposition a few years ago, and we are stuck with it in the legislation as it exists. It has been happening.
If, as some of the honourable members are saying, they would like this government tomorrow to implement complete, 100 per cent market value assessment, I hope they are prepared to go to the municipalities they represent and explain to the home owners why they are being asked to carry a much bigger tax load than they were before. That is really what we are talking about. We all know this is part of the problem of complete --
Mr. Epp: It does not necessarily increase taxes.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: It just goes to show that some honourable members really do not know what it is all about. In those municipalities where there are no significant shifts, many of them have been proclaimed under market value. But it is not axiomatic that this would be true in all the municipalities in Ontario, because that is not what it is all about. However, a significant number have been proclaimed on full market value, because there are not the shifts that do and would occur in the majority of the municipalities in this province.
Mr. Stokes: I think about 1984 would be an excellent time to do that.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Well, time will tell. This government will always do things when it is appropriate for the people we represent and when it is in their best interests.
The member for Erie made a suggestion and, I think, a reference; he quoted an article from Niagara-on-the-Lake. He was under the impression that a section 86 municipality only brought market value to residential properties. As I am sure nearly all honourable members in this chamber know, that is not the case. When a municipality opts to go forward, as many have, for a program of market value reassessments under section 86, it is in the various categories of values that these market values are put on.
Hon. Mr. Welch: And the municipality agrees with it.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: As my colleague the Deputy Premier points out, the municipalities ask to go into the section 86 reassessment program after they have examined many impact studies over a great period of time to determine what will happen in their municipalities.
The difference between true market value as it was being put forward and proclaimed by some and a section 86 program is not that only residential properties are reassessed but that shifts do not take place between groups within a property class. The residentials are assessed, the multiple dwellings, the industrials, the commercials, the recreational lands -- all are reassessed within their own group, and not just the residentials; but there are not the shifts that would take place in many municipalities if 100 per cent market value were implemented.
Nobody is suggesting that market value or section 86 or any program will be 100 per cent acceptable. As a matter of fact, I would say that those who face an increase in taxes, particularly under a section 86 reassessment, naturally figure it is unfair and inequitable and does not work. But I would suggest that those who hear that kind of complaint should seek out those others in the municipalities who have experienced a decrease in taxes; they think the system is more than fair, more than equitable, because now they are paying a little closer to what they perceive to be their fair share of the expenses of operating that municipality, that county or region, as the case may be, and that school board.
Mr. Laughren: The more you talk, the less sense you make. Keep it up.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Well, it is difficult for someone who really knows little or nothing about the subject to grasp anything out of any subject.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Breaugh: George, you are a pompous rear-end.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: It takes one to know one.
I think the member for Erie made a reference, and quite rightly, to the manuals used by the assessors. There is no doubt they can, like anything else, get out of date. I think the member will be pleased to know that we are updating all the assessment manuals. They will be in effect with 1980 values for next year. We have a program to keep the manuals up to date in the years ahead. I hope I have touched upon most of the issues and points raised by the member for Erie.
There is no doubt that the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), as he has indicated on more than one occasion, has some personal expertise in this area. Nobody will deny that or attempt to take that expertise away from him, as he used to be involved in the Ministry of Revenue.
He touched upon the enumeration and the school support. He acknowledged his personal support for going back to something of the old system. I think it is his indication that sometimes one can make changes regardless of what motivated one to make the changes. I am talking specifically about how to change school support. When one finds it does not work quite as well as many thought, and this is not necessarily just the government, at least we can look at going back to something that was perceived to have worked better. That is what is happening here.
The honourable member also referred to postponement of full market value. To use his words, "It does not come close to solving the problems." I think I have mentioned that and acknowledged that. I would be interested to know whether those who seem to imply the answer is to go to pure and true full market value, with all the implications that has, are speaking on behalf of their party. Is it the party position to suggest that market value in its pure state, with all its shifts, would be the answer? If so, I would be happy to hear it. I did not hear it in that context. It was generally in a critical way without saying, "If I had that decision to make, I would do it tomorrow and let the chips fall where they may."
The member for Hamilton Mountain brought up the subject of the appeal process and the other suggestion and discussion vis-à-vis section 6 of the bill which is an adjustment of taxes as a result of final appeal. What we are doing in this section is making this appeal process similar, as I understand it, and I do not have a legal background, to virtually every other appeal system in law within this province, which means nothing happens until all avenues of appeal have been disposed of.
What this amendment does is bring equity and equality with other similar legislation, vis-à-vis appeals as they are accepted in common law. It is not going into something new. It is bringing this part of the legislation back into what is accepted as common law. In other words, moneys do not change hands until the appeal process has been fully resolved. I know there were concerns about the time process. There is no doubt that some appeals, particularly the more complicated ones, can take a significant period of time.
Let me point out, and I think this touches upon some points made by others, that the majority of appeals that do go forward, and they are fewer than 10 per cent in an average year --
Mr. Laughren: All you do is touch upon points. You don't explain. You don't understand what you are talking about. You need a good briefing.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, can you not shut down the fire over there?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order, please. Each honourable member has had his turn, with respect.
Mr. Laughren: I wasn't here.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is your problem.
As I was saying, on average less than 10 per cent of the appeals go beyond the assessment review court. I would suggest a huge percentage of that fewer than 10 per cent is not in the residential category. In actual fact, few appeals go beyond the assessment review court when they are of a residential nature. They are usually either multi-residential, industrial or commercial and rather significant in size.
To give any credence to the comment by the member for Hamilton Mountain, and I think I have written it down verbatim, that the taxpayer least able to afford it is being asked to carry the burden, is not consistent with the facts.
The same honourable member asked me to comment on the farm legislation, as announced in the budget earlier this year, and the fact that this legislation does not allude to it in any way. That is obviously a correct conclusion, the reason for which was announced in the May 19 budget. That indication was a part of the budget.
We also indicated then, and have indicated since, both the Treasurer and others, including my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), that when that kind of legislation will have profound effects on sectors of our economy, in this case the agricultural community, we want to have discussion and dialogue.
That is exactly what has been going on over the summer and into the fall, principally with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture but also with others. There was dialogue and discussion back and forth. Frankly, we just ran out of time. The OFA is aware of this, and it is nobody's fault that we ran out of time. Those who have access to the members and executives of the federation will find that they acknowledge it was a fruitful and beneficial ongoing dialogue.
Because it was carrying on and because it was accomplishing things, it was thought that we should not go forward with an imperfect change, that it was more prudent to wait until next year to implement any changes vis-à-vis the farm assessment and credits and the managed forests. It is not in this bill but undoubtedly will be in next year.
The member for Waterloo North talked about this bill containing a few minor reforms. That is a matter of opinion. I think it is a significant piece of legislation. Granted, it is not major, but I think it accomplishes and straightens out a few things.
If he took the trouble to go back to his municipalities, he would find there is general support for what is in this bill. It is not the total answer. Nobody ever said it was a total answer. I doubt there ever will be a total answer, but I think it goes towards taking care of some of the concerns, particularly those of the municipalities. In that sense, I think it is positive in nature.
There was a completely incorrect reference about the process, saying, to use his words, "Consultants were the benefactors, and civil servants on their long trips." That is not exactly so. There were not many consultants who made very much money. Knowing most trips that are taken, they are not taken with any great amount of luxuries involved. In most cases, the time could be better used keeping up with one's day-to-day activities back at the office.
With the renowned support of my former colleague in the Treasury, Darcy McKeough, I suggest the member for Waterloo North may ultimately be his campaign manager for some future activities he may wish to participate in. I may very well join him. I do not know, but time will tell.
9:20 p.m.
I think I have touched upon the reference to the slow appeal process. Some appeals, particularly the big ones, do take too long, but I suggest the record will show that in most instances the assessment review courts hear the majority of appeals before the rolls are finally returned.
I acknowledge that this year is an exception in many municipalities. Unfortunately, the reason goes back to something no member in this House had any control over, although our federal colleagues did have some control: the mail strike. It caused an undue delay in sending out notices of court sittings. Many that were scheduled had to be postponed significantly, causing the backlog to build up in the meantime. We all know a court cannot be sitting in two places at the same time.
Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I find this unadulterated crap where the minister --
The Acting Speaker: I do not accept that as a parliamentary statement. The member will withdraw it.
Mr. Epp: Well, it is unadulterated diatribe. The minister is saying that for years and years we have had a backlog of thousands of cases, and now he wants to attribute the backlog to a five or six week mail strike. I find that unadulterated diatribe, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it is fair to the members of the Legislature, the people of Ontario or the civil servants of this province.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is too bad the honourable member was not listening, because that is not what I said. I think I acknowledged before that some of the appeals that go beyond the assessment review court, generally in the multi-residential, commercial and industrial areas, often do take an extended period of time. However, most of the people we deal with and represent, namely, the home owners of this province, have their appeals settled at the assessment review court, which is normally held quite promptly. That was the sector I was referring to, and I think I made that abundantly clear.
The member for Waterloo North made reference to cabinet appeals only in July and decisions quietly disseminated. Obviously, he has never taken the opportunity to find out how it works or he would not come up with such ridiculous statements. The cabinet makes decisions all the time, and these decisions are issued literally weekly on a year-round basis. This business of July must be a figment of his imagination from lack of knowledge. Frankly, I cannot put it down to anything else.
Mr. Laughren: That is unparliamentary. The minister is being silly.
Mr. Epp: Check the facts, George.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: The member should check the facts. He started off his remarks -- and frankly, I could not quite understand him -- by saying that Ontario was the only jurisdiction in Canada that did not have market value. Again, as is quite customary over there, his facts are somewhat removed from the truth. In fact, half the provinces in Canada do not have market value; so I do not know where his figures came from.
At least two people mentioned the fact that Newfoundland does not have a property tax. I am advised that is not the case. I do not know that personally, but I am advised by people who should know that Newfoundland does have a property tax, and the director of property assessment for Newfoundland would be rather upset to hear that they do not have it. Otherwise, he has been going through the motions for some time without a function to perform. All built-up areas have property tax administered by the province.
I think I touched upon most of the issues raised by the member for Welland-Thorold, other than the urea formaldehyde foam insulation issue, which I will comment on. The indication that I have refused to issue instructions, and the cost of appeals, both on that sector and generally on appeals of going to court, again is somewhat far removed from the facts. In the residential sector at least, the assessment review court does not have to be, and in most cases is not, a court where one goes with high-priced lawyers, planners, assessors, evaluators and tax consultants -- not by any stretch of the imagination. I do not know how that would be perceived to be the answer.
The problem with the urea formaldehyde foam insulation issue is that it is not a very simple one. Contrary to the views expressed by the member for Welland-Thorold, it is not the role of the assessor to start poking holes in people's homes to see what kind of insulation they have.
Mr. Laughren: Nonsense. That is not what he said.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is exactly what he said. He said the onus was on the assessor to go and poke around and find out what they have. That is a lot of baloney. The member knows it as well as he knew it.
It is not a simple issue. There are great variations of opinion as to changed values. The problem is, as everybody would acknowledge, very few transactions have taken place involving these households. Until the federal government clarifies the issue, which I hope they will do somewhere down the line, the appeal process is open to them. As well, if they feel they have been hard done by on the current year's tax, they can appeal to their municipal council under the Municipal Act and have some remission of taxes if they can make a case to their local elected representatives.
The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk indicated it was a mistake some 10 years ago for the province to have taken over the assessment function, and the municipalities should take it back except they probably could not afford it. I do not agree with that conclusion on more than one count.
First, as I stated earlier this evening as well as on other occasions, the assessment function is not, and never will be, pure or perfect. I acknowledge that. But there are fewer inequities, fewer glaring differences now than there were some 10 years ago when the municipalities had control of the function themselves. In many jurisdictions, the system went quite well; I do not deny that. It was handled fairly, equitably and what have you. But we are all aware of situations in many municipalities in Ontario where that was not the case; there were glaring inequities in adjacent municipalities.
Mr. Haggerty: They are still there.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Sure, there are some, but there are a lot fewer now than there used to be. At least there is some equity in trying to get recourse to something fair and equitable for one's neighbour.
As to whether the system has become more costly, let me give a few statistics. If the members then come to the same conclusion, so be it. When the province took over the assessment function from the municipalities in 1970, they assumed some 2,800 municipal staff. The provincial staff in the assessment function of the ministry now is something on the order of 2,100. Any way one wants to cut that one, that is 700 fewer than there used to be and 25 per cent less than in 1970.
I am speaking about the people who were assumed by the province. The municipalities had indicated that was their function, their job; therefore, the person went to the province. That was with an increased work load of a four to five per cent increase in properties to be assessed. We know of the complexity, the growth of special types of properties that have developed over the years.
We can take claim for one more thing that has caused a little more equity. The province has assessed all the properties in this province. This was not the case when it was under municipal jurisdiction.
9:30 p.m.
I hope I have covered most of the issues. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned the issue of the township of Onondaga. We are still looking at it, and I will once again personally look at it to see if there is anything that can be done. He indicated the main problem was with the education costs. As he knows, and this is the background of the problem, the factor that the Ministry of Revenue provides for the municipality is not particularly the same factor that is used for the apportionment of school costs.
I do appreciate the compliments that came forward from that member, but I cannot agree at all with his conclusion, and I have refuted it statistically, that the system we now have is a fantastic, monstrous, costly procedure. I think I quoted those words verbatim.
One other suggestion has been made to me in the last few days and was alluded to by the member for Waterloo North; it has to do with section 6 of the bill, the one where there is a postponement in the settlement -- or no refund, in other words -- of taxes until the appeal procedure has been finalized.
Within this bill, we do not in any way acknowledge the payment of interest on the part of anybody. Frankly, I do see some equity in this situation, in that if a municipality has taxes owed to it, it charges interest. Similarly, I think it is fair and equitable that if a municipality ultimately is deemed to owe moneys that it finally loses, let us say, after the appeal process, possibly the payment of interest is also equitable.
I am told that this should not be addressed, and quite rightly, in the Assessment Act per se, because interest rates, as they are charged or would be paid by municipalities, are addressed, quite properly in my view, in the Municipal Act. I will draw this particular situation to the attention of my colleague; as a matter of fact, I will indicate tonight to the honourable members that I am prepared to recommend to my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) that he should look very seriously at that particular equity and take it under advisement to include a possible amendment in the Municipal Act at the earliest opportunity. I do think it is fair and reasonable that something works the same both ways, but I am advised this should not be in the Assessment Act, which we are dealing with tonight.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Ashe moved second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the Income Tax Act will enable low- and fixed-income earners to claim a temporary home heating credit for the next three years. It will also change some of the administrative provisions of the act.
The new tax credit is a complementary part of the program to provide temporary assistance for home heating costs that was announced by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on June 23, 1981. The temporary home heating credit will absorb some of the impact of increases in home heating costs that low- and fixed-income taxpayers are likely to incur over the next three years.
Individuals under age 65 who own or rent their homes will be able to claim the home heating credit by filling out the Ontario tax credit form in their income tax returns for the 1981, 1982 and 1983 taxation years. The maximum amounts of the credits will be $60, $40 and $20 respectively.
Because the credit is geared to the income of taxpayers, the basic credit will be reduced by one per cent of the individual's taxable income for the year.
Every effort has been made to keep the temporary home heating credit program simple. No receipts need be kept or filed. If a taxpayer qualifies for the property tax credit, he or she may be eligible to receive the temporary home heating credit.
The temporary home heating credit program will ease the transition to higher heating costs for Ontarians receiving low or fixed incomes. The credit program will be phased out gradually over three years. During that period, some 830 households will benefit from the program. This home heating credit program will reduce personal income tax revenues by some $33 million during fiscal 1982-83 and by some $63 million over the next three fiscal years.
Other amendments in this bill will bring the administrative provisions of the Income Tax Act into line with corresponding provisions in the federal Income Tax Act. Ontario imposes its own personal income tax but, as all honourable members know, this tax is collected and administered on behalf of the province by the federal government.
Under the terms of the income tax collection agreement, Ontario is obliged to have the same or similar rules as the federal government for collecting and administering its personal income tax. The amendments will not only preserve the uniformity of the administrative provisions of the Ontario and federal Income Tax Acts but will also simplify the administration of these acts and relieve taxpayers from regulatory requirement.
None of the proposed changes involves any major change in the administration of Ontario's Income Tax Act.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 138, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act. We do support the bill in principle. It does indicate that the provincial government is paralleling federal legislation.
The Ministry of Treasury and Economics press releases dealing with the energy tax rebate given to the old age pensioners mention that the government will not allow price escalation of home heating fuels to pose an insurmountable adjustment problem for low-income Ontarians.
Section 3 of the explanatory notes of the bill says: "The amendment enacts the home heating tax credit announced by the Treasurer on June 23, 1981. The temporary credit applies to only 1981, 1982 and 1983 taxation years and is equal to the amount by which $60 in the 1981 taxation year, $40 in the 1982 taxation year and $20 in the 1983 taxation year exceeds one per cent of the taxable income for the relevant taxation year of the principal taxpayer entitled to claim the credit."
If I interpret that section correctly, it says only the principal taxpayer is entitled to claim the tax credit. I would like a definition of the terminology that the minister is trying to convey to the members on this side. What bracket are we looking at in terms of low-income earners? Is it the $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 bracket? What is the figure? What are the criteria that the minister has established for low-income earners?
Are we talking about persons who are receiving general welfare? Are we talking about persons on mother's allowance? Are we talking about persons on a fixed disability income? Are we talking about a person who may be getting a little bit above general welfare from the Workmen's Compensation Board or the Canada pension plan? Are we talking about this particular area of low-income earners or are we just talking about persons who are 65 years of age and older? I am not quite sure of the point the minister is trying to drive home to us.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Stokes: What is $60 one per cent of?
Mr. Haggerty: It's $60 plus one per cent, whatever that may be.
Mr. Stokes: It's $6,000.
Mr. Haggerty: Six thousand? I do not know.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Haggerty: What is it going to be in the year 1983? What happens beyond 1983, when we know that the price of crude oil as set by the federal government and the oil-producing provinces probably will increase again? Are we just concerned about the next two or three years and nothing beyond that? We know that the price of energy for heating a home, such as electricity, natural gas and oil, is going to go up continuously in many areas year after year. We are looking at nine per cent this year for hydro, which is a substantial increase.
I do not know where these people are going to get sufficient funding. It is suggested here that by 1983 they will be paying $400 more to heat a home than they are now. I do not know whether it would be wise to just cut this off at that time. The year 1985 may be an election year, and I suppose we can look forward to more promises that something will be given to people to help subsidize their huge heating costs.
I suggest that the minister is not quite clear in this area, and I think we should spell out in more detail what we are talking about so we all have a clear understanding: $60 plus one or $40 plus one or whatever it may be, I am not quite sure; but if I am correct in my interpretation of the statements the Treasurer has made, he definitely is speaking about adjustment problems for low-income Ontarians.
I just want to make sure that I and other people in Ontario understand clearly that it will have some bearing or some effect on all low-income people in Ontario. That is a question I want the minister to respond to. But we do support the bill in principle.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset that we are going to support Bill 138, but we are going to support it very reluctantly for whatever little assistance this bill will give. And believe me, it is very little.
In relation to the questions that were just raised by the member for Erie, the basic numbers in this heating tax credit are the same as those we dealt with and passed for senior citizens on Monday night: $60 in the first year, $40 in the second year and $20 in the third year.
But let us look a little more closely at this piece of legislation. The credits in this bill will be reduced by one per cent of the taxable income of the applicant so that someone who has a taxable income of $6,000 will get no heating tax credit at all; yet someone in this province with a taxable income of $6,000 is obviously living far below the poverty level. Someone with a taxable income of $4,000 will get a tax credit, not of $60 in the first year but of $20. Someone who has a taxable income of $2,000, somebody who is so far below the poverty level that he is probably having difficulty just staying alive, will get a tax credit of $40, not $60.
In the second year of the program, someone with a taxable income of only $4,000 -- and that is after another full year of inflation, which has been running above 10 per cent, and inflation in the home heating sector is certainly far above 10 per cent -- will get no credit at all. Someone with a taxable income of $2,000 will get a tax credit of $20 in the second year of the program.
The only people who will qualify for any credit at all in the third year will be those with taxable incomes of less than $2,000.
So while we have a bill that talks about low-income people, the government does not use its own figures and provide this credit to all the people it defines as having low incomes. Even those in the low-income category to whom it does provide the credit do not get the whole credit. In the first year they have to have no taxable income at all to get the whole measly $60, and it gets worse in the second and third years of the program.
We support the bill simply because we would like to get these dollars for the very few people in the province who will be eligible for them. But it is a program with a very sick excuse for a home heating tax credit in a day and age when families are paying $600 a year at the very best to heat their homes, and in many cases are paying $1,000 and more.
We are talking of a maximum credit to low-income people of $60 if they have no taxable income at all. For the majority of low-income people in the province, it will more than likely be $40 or $20 or nothing at all, because most certainly a husband and wife with two or three children and a taxable income of $7,000, $8,000 or $9,000 are living in dire straits, but they will not get one red nickel out of this program.
I do not want to spend a lot of time on it but it is a very poor excuse for assistance to the people of Ontario in a day and age when the government admits that inflation is the key problem, and it sets up this program when inflation in the home heating sector is going to run at 25 or 30 per cent a year or better. It is a poor excuse when this government can implement such a program, for whatever public relations benefit it will provide, while totally ignoring its own statistics on poverty and low incomes in the province.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly to this bill, as I spoke on the other bill only a few days ago. I guess my main thrust is the same as that stated by my colleague the member for Erie. We will be supporting the bill but we are disappointed that it does not help the people of Ontario any more than it does.
As we said on the other legislation, we feel it is unfortunate that the government has the spending priorities it has demonstrated lately. Without going into too much detail about Suncor, the jet and so forth, I just want to reiterate that although we are supporting the bill, it is definitely not enough.
People are being affected in a grave manner by this increase in the cost of fuel to heat their houses. People in the lower income bracket are in dire straits. They do need a lot more assistance than they will be getting with this legislation.
9:50 p.m.
We recognize that getting $60 is better than getting nothing at all. But that is of very little comfort when a person is short three times that amount to pay the bills. The $60 he receives is just not enough. When not enough is not enough, what more can one say? It is unfortunate that the government is not seeing fit, first, not to decrease those grants as the years go by, and not to be investing so much money in other priorities that would be better used in this mechanism.
Looking at $60 for the 1981 taxation year, $40 for 1982 and $20 for 1983, what we should remember is what we already know, that fuel will be increasing for the next five years at quite a rapid pace. So one would think, in looking at this bill, that somebody printed it backwards. The amount of relief they should be getting should be reversed. Not that I am saying that people should only be getting $20 this year, because that amount is too small. But whatever amount is decided certainly should not be decreasing over the next few years.
I know the Minister of Revenue was telling us on the previous bill, the one with the same grant for the seniors, that the reason why this is done this way is so that the people can slowly adjust to these new higher prices in fuel. But that is very small comfort because, as they are starting to adjust -- if that word is one that should be used -- the price of oil is going up even faster. So if we are looking at a $60 grant for this year and $40 for next year, the cost probably will have increased by more than that grant in the next year. Unfortunately, that means every year they are getting even further behind.
Nevertheless, we will be supporting the bill. It is a very minute effort on the part of this government to help out the people who are in need in this province. In the last few months in my own constituency we have seen a tremendous increase in the welfare rolls and the unemployment rolls. We have the town of Hawkesbury, which has been subjected to massive layoffs at the Amoco Fabrics plant and several other plants in the area. All this is to say that this winter is not going to be an easy one for my constituents.
The residents in my area are going to be in quite serious difficulty this winter in trying to make ends meet. We do not think this plan is enough to assist them. Having said that, I will acknowledge that those who will be receiving the $60 will find that it helps. Of course, as I mentioned in the previous bill, to receive that in May or June, or whenever they are going to get their refund, is not going to help them when they try to pay their December or January heating bill. By the time they get their refund it probably will be 80 degrees outside.
One good thing we are hearing is that the government is trying to implement this without creating more cheques, as the member for Erie was referring to a minute ago. At least we know there will not be a whole series of cheques, and therefore there will not be all that administration which has caused chaos in the senior citizens' tax grants. So there is some relief there. We are glad to hear we will not have to go through that nightmare again.
On the negative side, of course, I repeat that the residents will be getting the cheques when the winter is completely over. Those who do file at the last minute, for all kinds of reasons, probably will get the cheque when it is 80 degrees outside. It will not do much good there for the residents to buy their groceries at the end of the week, if they are short of money, or to pay for their heating bill. By then their heating bill would have eaten up more than $60 in interest charges and unpaid bills alone. As it has been said by my honourable colleague the member for Erie, it would not even cover the equal billing. We do not think that it is enough, and we would certainly welcome the government putting more money into that plan at a later date if it sees fit to do so.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, as the honourable members opposite have been.
As has been acknowledged, virtually all the points were really touched upon on Monday night in relation to the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Amendment Act; that is to say the $60, $40 and $20. As I indicated then and will indicate again, it was never intended or suggested by the Treasurer that it was going to pay all of the heating costs or even the increased heating costs for Ontario residents. It was to be a program that could be added to existing programs -- that is the case, without any additional administrative costs -- of a temporary and albeit small nature to just cushion the blow of adjusting one's thinking and one's pocketbook.
Again I acknowledge, as has been pointed out, that prices are going to go up, not down. But that really is not the basis behind the program. The very important aspect of the program, as I indicated in the pensioners property tax grants earlier in the week, is that they are going to be added to an existing program and an existing cheque. Similarly, this is just one additional component to an already fairly generous tax credit program for taxpayers when they are filing the Ontario portion of their federal income tax, known as the Ontario tax credit.
It is designed, as are many programs, to benefit those at the lower end of the economic scale more than others; there is no doubt about it. If you get into any kind of income in the middle range, you lose the credit; there is no doubt about that at all.
I think the member for Erie's questions have already been answered by others. The arithmetic is right there. We have the grant on this coming tax form, which is based on this year's income. We start out with a $60 credit. The principal wage earner in the home -- the one who earns the most money -- starts out with $60 and deducts from it one per cent of the taxable income.
I think that is the significant key. We are not talking about total income; we are talking about taxable income. People can have, depending on their exemptions and their other deductions and dependants, $8,000, $10,000 or $12,000 of income per year -- which is not substantial in today's economy, that is for sure -- and have substantial deductions from that income and end up with a taxable income that is little or nothing. They will get a few other dollars added to the present tax credit program.
The other amendments -- of course, nobody mentioned them -- are significant in nature and go along with the federal government in our tax collection agreement to have our Ontario tax portion administratively in line with the federal programs and definitions.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
10 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 6:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 36(6) of the act, as set out in section 6 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(6) No assessment shall be increased, reduced or otherwise altered until all complaints, appeals or other proceedings concerning the assessment have been finally determined and disposed of; and where the result of the final determination and disposition of such complaints, appeals or other proceedings increases, reduces or otherwise alters the assessment, the taxes levied and payable with respect to such assessment shall be adjusted accordingly; and any overpayment resulting from such adjustment shall be refunded by the municipality together with interest at the rate charged by the municipality for nonpayment of taxes calculated from the day on which the assessment review court decision was given."
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks the minister made earlier that he feels -- and he has been so advised -- that this should be part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendment, something in the Municipal Act. Although in the past it may have incorporated some of the amendments regarding finances and pertaining to the Assessment Act, I do not see why a matter that deals with assessment and interest is inconsistent in the same act.
Essentially, the Assessment Act deals with assessment, and that eventually leads to the paying of taxes. In this case, we are talking about giving some kind of reward to those taxpayers in the province who have to appeal their cases and whose cases then exceed the time it takes to go to the assessment review court. In other words, if an appeal is made beyond that point, we are saying some reward should be made in terms of interest to those taxpayers who, in the final analysis, successfully appeal their particular property.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment put forward by my colleague in relation to section 6. I notice in the background papers, which the minister was good enough to forward to me, that the reason for the amendment is that it would give the time for the municipality to pass on the taxes owing on an appeal to the property owner.
Why would the minister want to bring in that particular change when it has not caused too much difficulty under the old Assessment Act, where after the first appeal, if there was an adjustment to be made in property tax and a rebate to be given to the property owner, it would be given at that time.
The other area we looked at was the amendment to section 36(6), relating to the matter of sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the bill being retroactive. Why did the minister want to make this section retroactive? What complaints has he received since last year as to the number of problems this section has created? Is there a need to make it retroactive?
If the act was wrong before, and an appeal was made and the property owner was successful in winning that appeal, the minister should not have the right to say to him, "Now you have won your appeal, but by legislation you have not." That is the wrong approach for any government ministry to take, to say, "Regardless of what you do, whether or not you win in the courts, it does not mean anything because we will legislate it out." That is what the government is doing here.
If an error has been made or a correction is required under the act, it should be done under the normal procedure, that is, the government brings in an amendment and from that day forward it should apply, but it should not be made retroactive. I detest that section. There is no need for it. I do not think there have been enough appeals in this area to warrant such legislation or amendments to these sections.
The amendment put forward by my colleague is good. It gives the person who appealed his assessment, if there is a rebate coming back, a fair settlement of the money owing to him. He will collect interest on it. If a property owner is behind in his taxes, as the member has indicated, the municipality has a right to collect about 19.5 per cent on back taxes. If an appeal goes through different stages, about four stages, it can go on for a period of two, three or four years. That is a long time for a property owner to wait to be reimbursed for something he was overcharged for, perhaps because of a miscalculation in an assessment notice or an assessment practice.
The minister said earlier that this should be a matter for a different ministry, perhaps the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and there should be an amendment to the Municipal Act. I do not think that is good enough. It should be covered under the particular section of the Assessment Act, as indicated by my colleague. I strongly support him on that.
If I read all the information before me, there are maybe one or two cases where the assessors have lost their day in court. I do not think the minister has enough cases to warrant this type of legislation, and to back up his argument that the amendments should be brought in now and for him to say, "We were wrong, but now from this day forward, we are right, and we will make it retroactive." I am strongly opposed to that type of legislation.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I have great sympathy for the amendment moved by the member for Waterloo North. I suggested a minor wording change to him, which he has accepted, and I appreciate that. The minister has raised the question of whether this is the proper place to put this amendment or whether it should be under the Municipal Act, where the taxing authorities and penalties are set out. I am in the unfortunate position, as are many members tonight, of not knowing; I do not have a copy of the Municipal Act with me. I was not aware of the amendment until some 20 or 25 minutes ago. I am at a loss to know what the correct thing is for us to be doing in relation to this amendment tonight.
10:10 p.m.
I have no question in my mind about the intent of the amendment, which should result, either here or in the Municipal Act, in changes to the process. The minister has given us an undertaking that he will recommend it to his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). Unfortunately, we are in the position of putting this change in the appeal process into place for the Assessment Act, and we are not sure whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will come forward with the appropriate amendment before the end of this year to have it in effect for the next round of appeals at which this new process will govern.
I am in a bit of a bind, as are many members, because I take the minister at his word that he will recommend the change to his colleague. Our simple problem is that everybody seems to agree the intent of the amendment is fair and warranted, but we have no way of knowing for sure, standing here tonight, whether his colleague is going to bring in the amendment in time to affect the process for next year.
It leaves us all in a bit of a bind, and I am not sure whether it is even appropriate to deal with voting on this amendment this evening until we can get some kind of statement from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in terms of his intention and timing, so we can know how to deal more effectively with the amendment that is before us now.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, regarding the amendment that was brought forward by the member for Waterloo North, I tried to indicate on second reading, once I found out that this was going to be forthcoming, that it was too bad he did not make me aware of it before this evening. I could quite possibly have had much more than my personal undertaking vis-à-vis the Municipal Act, but because it was sprung at the last minute, I cannot do that.
As I indicated on second reading, and I will put it on the record again to assure the members for both Hamilton Mountain and Waterloo North, I have some sympathy for the equity that is suggested and proposed in this amendment, but it is in the wrong piece of legislation. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment to this act.
I will recommend the amendment, particularly as it was amended by the honourable member for Hamilton Mountain, vis-à-vis when the interest rate would start to accrue; namely, after the decision of the assessment review court. That is the nature and the timing that I will suggest to my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It is true I cannot guarantee that he will take my advice, but I can assure the members that I will bring it forth to him not only as a suggestion but as a recommendation. Unless there is some other reason that escapes us all tonight as to why it cannot go forward, I am quite confident he will give it serious consideration and bring it forward at the earliest opportunity.
As far as the amendment to section 6 of this bill is concerned, I am afraid I cannot support it because it would be completely inappropriate, if not illegal, to have that kind of interest suggestion within the Assessment Act.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Epp's amendment to section 6 will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 142 reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole reported one bill without amendment.
THIRD READING
The following bill was given third reading on motion:
Bill 142, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the third report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on agencies, boards and commissions.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this important third report of the standing committee on procedural affairs. While reviewing the report in some depth, I realized it would be with some difficulty that I could address myself to all the important topics raised in the report within the time parameters available to me.
I had wanted to speak at some length with regard to the Ontario Educational Communications Authority. However, I realize my colleague the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) did a more than adequate job in that regard the other evening and addressed in a great amount of detail some of the criticisms that had been directed with regard to the operations of that authority. She clearly put into perspective some of the positive efforts and results of the activities emanating from the communications authority. I felt it would not be necessary to elaborate further this evening with regard to that particular aspect of the report.
I know, as well, considerable time was spent with regard to addressing the committee's concerns about the operations and procedures of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. That was more than adequately addressed by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) the other evening. I feel there is no need to comment further on that part of the report.
While I was torn between speaking to the recommendations dealing with the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, I thought I would come down between the two and speak to the third important agency that received consideration by the committee; namely, the Ontario Lottery Corporation.
10:20 p.m.
This agency has assumed a very high profile in the minds of the people of Ontario in recent years -- in fact, since the inception of the lottery program in the province. So it should, given the fact that so many people in Ontario are involved in such a personal way in the cause cèlébre of the corporation. It is interesting to note that, in speaking to the activity highlighted in the report, some of the members of the Legislature have been less than complimentary in some areas, but, I think, without really being able to justify some of the criticism they have directed towards the corporation.
First and foremost I would like to compliment the board of directors of the lottery corporation as an independent agency on the way in which it has been governing itself and conducting its affairs since its inception. They have done a commendable job in carrying out the mandate of the corporation in a fashion that I think has gained the respect of the citizens of Ontario from all quarters.
In the time left available to me this evening I would like to start to address some of the recommendations set out in the committee report that pertain to the lottery corporation. The committee saw fit to put forward four specific recommendations to the members of the assembly for our consideration and action. Again I have to compliment my colleague the member for St. George for the manner in which she addressed at least three of these recommendations in her comments before the assembly the other evening. I will speak to those very briefly, without elaborating beyond the information she brought before the assembly, perhaps to confirm some of the findings contained in the factual information she laid before the members that evening.
Before doing so, however, I must say that I share some of the concerns and reservations expressed in the report about the suggested expansionist tendencies of the lottery corporation. Some members of the Legislature have alleged that the corporation, and I emphasize that this has been done without any factual substantiation, is moving from the four lotteries that exist within the province today -- two of which, I guess, are under the direct supervision and control of the lottery corporation -- and into other types of lotteries. I think this rumour and those allegations were put to rest the other evening when the member for St. George simply and succinctly indicated that this government had no intention of expanding the lottery programs in Ontario beyond those at present in place.
I have to disagree with the general observation made in the initial part of the committee's findings which suggests that the lottery corporation was set up simply to head off the out-of-province lotteries that were draining off the moneys of the people of Ontario into other jurisdictions. I think this approach looks only at one element of the overall situation and really does not address itself to the fact that the lottery corporation was set up, as the report concedes, for the much more positive purpose of generating revenue for the Ontario government by tapping the discretionary income of consumers. Of course, the purpose of generating this revenue is for very well-intentioned social programs and undertakings that are for the benefit of all the people of Ontario.
So the suggestion in the report that the corporation was put in place simply as a defence to keep out the other offshore lotteries, if I may use that term, really looks at only one side of the issue. The more positive and substantial part of the involvement of the corporation under the initiatives of this government is to generate discretionary revenues that can be put to good social use for the benefit of all the people of the province.
It is in the context of this second positive element that I wanted to take some time to address the Legislature, but given --
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the member for Oriole to adjourn the debate, please.
Mr. Williams: Given the fact it is now 10:30 of the clock, I think this would be an appropriate point in my address to the assembly to adjourn the debate for another day.
On motion by Mr. Williams, the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I said this afternoon, I would like to indicate the business for the remainder of this week and for next week.
Tomorrow we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.
Next Monday afternoon, November 16, there will be debate on motion 31 on the Notice Paper standing in the name of the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald); in the evening we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.
On Tuesday, November 17, we will consider legislation in the following order: resuming committee of the whole on Bill 68 in the name of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry); second reading and committee of the whole, if needed, on Bills 143, 144 and 145 standing in the name of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton); second reading of Bill 160, followed by committee of the whole on Bills 2, 53, 93 and 160, if required, standing in the name of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow); and second reading of Bills 162 and 163 standing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker).
10:30 p.m.
On Wednesday, the usual three committees may meet in the morning: general government, administration of justice and resources development.
On Thursday, November 19, in the afternoon we will deal with private members' ballot items 17 and 18 standing in the names of the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart); in the evening, second reading of Bills 147 and 115 standing in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) followed, if time permits, by second reading of Bill 123 standing in the name of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell).
On Friday, November 20, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.
Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(b), I deem a motion to adjourn the House to be made and we will now hear from the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), who has indicated he was dissatisfied with an answer from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie).
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I was and still am dissatisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Labour, because the questions asked him were very serious questions.
He said he knew about the letter that the Workmen's Compensation Board sent to 11,000 injured workers, upsetting them without reason. The minister said in a letter to the legitimate representatives of the injured workers, the Association of Injured Workers' Groups, that he is not willing to receive them at this time but that in January he will let them know what time he can set up an appointment.
This means, in effect, that for the Minister of Labour at this point there is no legislative action in process. Therefore, the letter of the Workmen's Compensation Board represents an undue interference in a process that does not even exist.
The Minister of Labour at least should have told the Workmen's Compensation Board to wait until the new legislation is passed. The new legislation, as I said yesterday in my question, has been rejected. The draft legislation attached to the white paper has been rejected by the Ontario Federation of Labour, by several unions and by the groups of representatives of the injured workers. It has been rejected on a solid basis.
I mentioned the basis of the rejection to the Minister of Labour. They do not accept the way the temporary compensation benefits are set in the legislation. They do not accept the dual system for permanent disability, the system of benefits for widows, the lack of any adequate cost-of-living allowance and, above all, the way the injured workers who are receiving benefits under the present system will be treated under the new system.
For the Workmen's Compensation Board to say no one will receive less than he is receiving now is totally false. The minister should realize that. I think he should direct the Workmen's Compensation Board to withdraw the letter, and he should think twice before introducing that kind of legislation.
I want to suggest to the minister that he should go further. He should take immediate action on the basis of the suggestions, opinions, briefs and submissions that several groups have made to him. That reform is urgent is underlined, as I said, also by the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board. I hope the minister takes into account what he said. Mr. Alexander said they cannot operate because the present system is anachronistic and needs overhauling. He also said that he would like a lot of things but he cannot get them.
For those of us who are dealing every day with the frustrated injured workers, we know what that means. It means benefits cut without notice. It means pensions rescinded without any justification at all. It means benefits that should be received under section 42(5) are not received. It means rehabilitation assistance is not given.
Above all, it means many injured workers who are receiving pitiful pensions cannot get back into the labour market, because there is not a decent mechanism to make it possible for them to get back and make a living from their work. The basis for the present system is the protection of the employers, not the protection of the injured workers.
We have been advocating for many years, and we will be advocating again and again, that a system of universal coverage should be introduced in this province so that injured workers may be treated like human beings, not like used cars, as they are treated now. If there is a universal system of insurance, we know the injured workers will get back to work. If they cannot get back to work, at least they will be compensated as a result of the accidents, whatever they are.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the members of this Legislature who have turned out in such large numbers, not only to pay tribute to the problem, which is one we all have a common interest in, but also to pay tribute to the member for Downsview, who has long been known as a diligent fighter for the rights of injured workers.
I think that he and I could agree quite honestly, in a quiet room out of the rhetoric of this lovely institution we all love so much, that there is probably not too much difference in what we are trying to achieve. I ask him to look back at his own paper, the task force policy paper of 1975 or 1976, and point out to me any significant differences from what has been proposed in the white paper.
But let us go back over history a bit and recall that Professor Weiler was asked to conduct a review of workers' compensation in this province. He did so. I believe the report was tabled in the fall of 1980 and received general support from members of this Legislature and the public. There was lots of time to read it, and it is a very thoughtful review of the problem with very thoughtful suggestions for implementation. Following the election, the proposals outlined in the green paper were brought together in a white paper along with a draft bill for consideration.
Surely the member for Downsview is not telling me he does not agree with a broadened corporate board with greater input from the public. Surely he is not telling me he does not agree with an external review board with representatives from labour and management as side persons. Surely he is not telling me he does not agree with the medical panel concept. Surely he is not telling me he does not agree that workers should have a right to return to their previous jobs if they are able to do so. Surely he is not telling me there should not be an improvement in worker and employer advisers. And surely he is not telling me workers should not have greater access to their records.
What he is telling me is that he may have some difference of opinion as to whether we should consider a wage loss principle. And I understand there are those who disagree about that; that is exactly what the process we have been going through is all about. If I responded to all the briefs I had received, I would be permanently immobilized, and I do not intend to do that. I intend to review those briefs, I intend to meet with people who want to meet with me in January, and if the member were in my position he would be dealing with it in exactly the same way, responsibly and sensitively. Out of the glamour of this institutional room, I am sure he would agree with that.
The House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.