Journal des débats 1985-nov-22 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is my pleasure to announce today several measures to strengthen the Ontario Human Rights Commission and to enable it to improve the quality of its service to the people of Ontario.

Since the last revisions to the Human Rights Code, the number of complaints of discrimination that have been registered annually has more than doubled. In 1981-82, 695 cases were registered with the commission; in 1984-85, 1,599 cases were registered. To handle the case load in 1981-82, the total staff numbered 83 persons; in 1984-85 there were 98 persons.

This government is convinced that more resources are required in this vital area of public administration. Accordingly, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is now being authorized to add to its staff 41 positions, 13 of which will be permanent and 28 of which will be contract staff. The contract staff will deal primarily with a case backlog of 1,100 during the next year. It is my expectation that with a constantly rising case load we will conclude that all, or the majority, of those 28 positions will be made permanent when the backlog program, now under way, is completed.

To assist in this important effort, Ms. Jean Read, currently director of the office of arbitration and a person with outstanding experience and ability in case management, is being seconded to the commission's management team. She will take responsibility under the executive director for the day-to-day management of the compliance staff of the commission, including a special backlog reduction unit.

In addition, a review of the commission's operations is being conducted with a view to putting into place long-term improvements that will enhance that commission's capacity to resolve cases expeditiously.

These additional resources and the in-depth analysis of operations are the first aspect of a three-pronged approach that this government believes is required to strengthen the protection and enhancement of human rights in Ontario. As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated in his remarks to this House on July 2:

"Compassion means recognizing people's rights and insisting they be met. Unfair discrimination against women, minorities and the handicapped must go; full and equal opportunities must come."

The second component of our effort will be through legislative initiatives in such areas as equal pay for work of equal value, various forthcoming amendments to the Human Rights Code and a new approach to employment equity. The third component of our program will be the appointment of outstanding individuals to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Within the next few weeks, further announcements will be made on substantive legislative amendments to the Human Rights Code, as well as new appointments to the commission. These initiatives are all designed to confirm this government's unqualified commitment to the eradication of discrimination in Ontario and to ensure we are in the vanguard in protecting the basic rights of all Ontarians.

SUMMER WAGES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to update the House on the status of actions I have taken through my ministry and the Ministry of Labour regarding unpaid wages associated with Ministry of Natural Resources tree-planting contracts. I am pleased to advise the House today that I am taking action to ensure that workers receive the pay owed to them in a timely fashion. I want to make it very clear I am taking this action for this year only, and it will complement other steps we are taking to improve this contracting process.

I believe there are special circumstances and special cases right now involving groups that are particularly vulnerable, such as students and native people. Of the cases we know about, where a tree-planting contract employee has not been paid and where the Ministry of Labour has investigated and has placed an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act, we will ensure that funds are immediately available to pay the employees promptly.

The Ministry of Labour can make prompt payment through its existing processes. If this is not possible, my ministry will pay the employees directly. In such cases, I want to assure the House the Ministry of Labour will continue to pursue the contractors to ensure they meet their obligations fully.

My strong commitment is to get the disputed funds into the hands of the unpaid tree planters as quickly as possible, while the government deals with the contractors for payment. As the members may know, the Ministry of Natural Resources uses the Construction Lien Act to help in cases such as these. Under that act, the Ministry of Natural Resources has been withholding 10 per cent of the tendered price of a contract for 45 days.

In addition, there is a process in place within the Ministry of Labour that provides assistance to employees in collecting wages due to them. The Ministry of Labour can put an order against a company on behalf of employees who have not been paid. We shall ensure that employees are aware of this existing process, as well as action that may be taken under the Construction Lien Act or through the small claims court.

I also emphasize that the special provisions I am announcing today will apply only to situations where the Ministry of Labour's processes have been followed and where the validity of the claim has been established. As members will recall, I have previously outlined a number of steps we are taking to improve MNR's tree contracting system.

We will ensure that contractors for the 1986 planting season provide all employees with information about the rights and responsibilities of both the contractor and the employees. We will require that all contractors attend one of a series of regional seminars this winter to make them fully aware of pertinent legislation and regulations. We will ensure that all successful contractors have high standards and good performance records. We are also looking at the possibility of bonding contractors or establishing prequalification and disqualification criteria which could be introduced before the 1987 planting season.

My ministry will closely monitor MNR tree-planting contractors. I wish to assure the House that we will make every effort to avoid a repetition of this unfortunate and inexcusable situation. I also urge other individuals or any of my colleagues on both sides of this Legislature who know of any employees hired to plant trees who feel they have been similarly wronged, to get in touch immediately with the Ministry of Labour's employment standards branch or with my ministry.

10:10 a.m.

MUSKOKA CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am sure all members of this House will have seen or heard the information circulated recently in the media concerning the Muskoka Centre for the mentally retarded. I would add that the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) have expressed their concerns to me about this. I wish to respond to those concerns today.

Muskoka is a facility run by my ministry, and I want to report to members of the Legislature that I went up to the centre yesterday to see for myself exactly what is going on there.

I now can say categorically to the members that I am confident the care being given to residents of the centre is of good quality. Staff members care for residents as they would for their own family. The food is plentiful and nourishing. It is fed to those who are unable to feed themselves in a compassionate and encouraging manner. There is no overcrowding: the centre currently accommodates less than half the 500 for whom it was built.

In addition, day programs are provided. As a matter of fact, 205 of the 250 residents attend workshops and other programs during the day away from the facility.

As you may know, the basis for the present interest in the facility was a report from the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded that was submitted to my ministry and was later made public.

My ministry staff already had begun a close analysis of the OAMR's report, so I am in a position to tell members that in many of its assertions it simply is not true. Although at some point some of the assertions may have been true, most of these problems now have been rectified. For instance, even before the report was received, the centre was undergoing renovations and it continues to be improved. Yet more improvements can and will be made.

My ministry and the OAMR have a history of co-operating in the best interests of developmentally handicapped people throughout Ontario. Many of the improvements made at the Muskoka Centre are the result of understanding, collaboration and a common goal. I do not want to lose the co-operative and practical working relationship that has achieved so much for developmentally handicapped people both in and outside of our institutions.

With continued co-operation in mind, I met personally with the executive of the OAMR on the issue of Muskoka Centre, and both the association and my ministry are determined to continue to work together to ensure that improvements continue to be made. As you may know, the OAMR has stated publicly its satisfaction with our efforts at Muskoka.

I remind the House that my ministry is working on two fronts: for the best in community living for developmentally handicapped people, and for the best in institutional living for those who are not able to benefit immediately from community living.

My ministry is committed to community living for as many developmentally handicapped people as possible. This commitment has been shown by the closure of four institutions since 1982. We, along with the OAMR, would like to see as many developmentally handicapped people as possible living in the community. This is a goal towards which we are moving as quickly as we can.

I also want the House to know that a number of parents have expressed concern that in the past few weeks the facility and staff at Muskoka have been cast in a negative light. They say they appreciate and find appropriate the care their relatives have been receiving.

I want to end this statement by clearly emphasizing to all members my full confidence in the staff at Muskoka Centre in their caring attitude to the residents and in their hard work to make the lives of residents as normal as possible. I applaud their efforts, their attitudes and their dedication in bringing friendliness and compassion to those they serve.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is coming in to the Legislature shortly. We were led to believe that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) was going to be here this morning. Is that the case?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Health is expected to be with us.

Mr. Harris: Here comes the minister.

DEPO-PROVERA

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware of the possibility that Depo-Provera, a drug that has been the subject of controversy around the world, may be approved for use in Canada before very long.

Given the fact that this drug has not previously been approved for use as a birth control serum in Canada or the United States, and given the fact that Depo-Provera has been connected to various kinds of cancer, depression and various other side-effects, will the minister tell the House what, if anything, he can do to stop the federal decision, or at least to delay it until such time as members of the public have had a greater opportunity to make input?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I wish to thank the member for the question. Delay is something the members on the other side are very good at; they have been doing it for a number of years.

The people who make the decision about the licensing of drugs in this country are the federal authorities, but the honourable member will know that in this province we do have our drug and therapeutic quality control group, which reviews the drugs we use in this province. He will also know we work very closely through our laboratory facilities to deal with questions of quality.

I will investigate the licensing of that drug in Ontario and the federal decision that is to be made.

Mr. Andrewes: Recognizing the province does not, strictly speaking, decide whether or not to approve the use of various drugs, and taking into account at the same time the fact various studies have concluded there are a number of reasons to be concerned about the use of this drug, except in some very limited circumstances, will the minister agree to look for a way to stop the use of this drug on a wider scale in Ontario if the federal government goes ahead and gives its approval?

Will he, at the very least, ask the federal minister to hold public hearings? Failing that, will he agree to hold such hearings here in the province so that concerns can be put on the table and discussed openly before any licensing or approval?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot control the licensing, as the member indicates, and obviously, failing public discussions, about which he has asked me to inquire with the Honourable Jake Epp, he can make the decision unilaterally with respect to how he wishes to proceed. Once he licenses that drug for Canada it applies in all parts of Canada.

I would like to bring to the member's attention the case of heroin, for instance. It is licensed now for use in all of Canada, and we have been trying to work closely with the federal authorities in providing for its use in this province. We found, however, that the announcement of the licensing of that drug was done before final arrangements were made for the establishment of guidelines here in Ontario. We can do our best but we cannot stop what the federal authorities want to do with respect to licensing.

In addition, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that our drug quality group here in Ontario investigates even those drugs that are licensed by the federal authorities. It has in some instances found drugs that were not appropriate and has brought to the attention of the federal authorities some deficiencies that may have arisen after the licensing occurred.

I can assure the members of the Legislative Assembly and the people of the province that we are vigilant in the Ministry of Health with respect to the drugs that are licensed and with respect to the quality of drugs that may be seen to be interchangeable or substitutional. I can make a commitment to the honourable member and to the people that we will continue our vigilance on behalf of the health of the people of the province when it comes to drugs that may be licensed too quickly by federal authorities.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. McClellan: The minister will, I am sure, be aware there has been controversy in the past with respect to the use of Depo-Provera, since the previous government had permitted its use on developmentally handicapped women in provincial institutions. I am sure the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) will remember efforts to stop that practice.

If, because of some mishappening, the federal government licenses this drug, which has been demonstrated to have serious health risks attached to it -- risks which are clearly identified in the compendium of pharmaceuticals -- surely the minister does not intend to abdicate leadership and simply to permit this drug to be used by women in this province at the risk of their health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thought I had fully explained before that we will continue to be vigilant with respect not only to this particular drug and its use in the province but also that we will continue to monitor and be sure of the quality of all drugs consumed here in the province. I will not refuse to carry out that mandate. Quite to the contrary of the inference which could be gathered from that member's question, which was that we will be shirking our responsibility, we will continue to be vigilant.

Mr. Andrewes: I appreciate the minister's dilemma if the federal authorities go ahead and approve this drug. He has mentioned that the drugs and therapeutics service advisory group is there to control the use of drugs in this province, to investigate those drugs and to provide information. Would he be willing to provide that information to the medical practitioners of the province and to potential users of this drug if the federal government goes ahead and approves its use?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have no problem with providing information to practitioners. In fact, in the Ministry of Health we receive requests for information not only on drugs but also on other health-related matters. We will continue to provide that. I see no reason for withholding information about the possible side-effects. I thank the honourable member for raising that particular suggestion with me.

Mr. Harris: I would like to stand down a second question until the Premier (Mr. Peterson) arrives.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have just received a note from one of the Premier's assistants saying he is at the airport now and is on his way back, but they are not sure he will get here before the end of question period.

Deputy Speaker: Does the official opposition wish to defer the second question?

Mr. Harris: We will postpone it.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about overtime. The minister will know there are 500,000 workers who worked more than 50 hours of overtime in September 1985, according to Statistics Canada figures. The minister will also know that in firm after firm there have been complaints raised by the workers themselves about the amount of scheduled overtime they are being expected to work.

We have had complaints from Inco, which we discussed yesterday, from several aluminum companies and from the workers of Northern Telecom, Stelco, General Mills and Boise Cascade. The human and statistical evidence is overwhelming.

Why is the minister delaying the introduction of amendments to the Employment Standards Act which would bring Ontario into line with most of the other provinces, establish the 40-hour week as a matter of practice -- with four hours of permitted overtime to 44 hours -- and recognize it is time we stopped overworking 500,000 workers and started providing jobs for those people who are unemployed in the province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not quite as certain as the leader of the third party, who appears to have a fixed and firm position that is unalterable, that he has canvassed all of the aspects of this question. I am not as sure as he is that we necessarily have a final handle on the amount of overtime.

What I do agree with the leader of the third party on is that the figures we now have for the first time, the specific figures I quoted yesterday -- for example, for Inco and Falconbridge -- and some of the specific figures we are developing for Stelco and others, indicate the extent of the problem.

I also share his view that it is quite serious. There may be, and I am sure he would understand this, some exemptions needed for emergencies and the like. I do not think we ought to come forward too quickly with legislation that would be ill-thought. In conclusion, this government intends to move actively to get a handle on this issue and bring forward appropriate changes as quickly as is reasonably possible.

Mr. Rae: If the minister does not have this information I will share it with him. Is the minister aware that in one week at Northern Telecom more than 3,000 hours of overtime were logged in the plant? Another 4,500 hours of overtime were recorded in the office over a two-week period.

At Stelco the union did a survey which showed 12,400 hours of overtime were chalked up over a six-week period last winter. A Ministry of Labour report on overtime at General Mills this summer revealed that during 1984, 117 of the approximately 170 employees worked hours in excess of the hours allowed by the permit issued by the director. That is what is happening in the province, and the minister knows it. He can talk about complexities all he wants, but we have to have a position from the government.

Is he in favour of reducing the 48-hour permits, the special permits and the 100-hour permits over that? Is he prepared to bring in amendments to the Employment Standards Act which would do that? If he is prepared to do it, I can assure him on this side that we would be prepared to pass it in one day.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I was doing fine until he got to the last part of his question. Yes, I am in favour of reduction. Yes, I will bring in appropriate amendments once we have reviewed the matter and know exactly which amendments are appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. I cannot give the member a final timetable on that, but we want to get on with the job.

Let me share a concern I have. I do not know whether the leader of the third party would share this concern. There may be some appropriate concerns that management might raise about inventories over a time and the need for some period of fairly intensive overtime because inventories have dropped or sales have picked up. That could lead to the economic wellbeing of the company.

I want to hear the views of management on these important issues because they may also have something to do with the economic wellbeing of the workers at those plants. Then we will bring forward the appropriate changes. The present policies are clearly, I agree with the leader --

Mr. Warner: Why does the minister not ask the fox how he likes eating chicken?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Just hold on. The present 48-hour permits and the present 100-hour permits and the like allow far too many hours of work to go on.

Mr. Gillies: We can appreciate the complexities of this issue, but the minister will know we are not talking about --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Here is the expert on overtime. Check their pockets.

Mr. Gillies: The leader of the third party is a Bobby-come-lately to this issue.

The minister will be aware that in many communities with higher-than-average levels of unemployment there have been expressions of concern by working people about the amount of overtime being worked. There have been demonstrations in London and in my riding of Brantford. Will the minister at least now look at restricting the overtime permits in communities with much higher-than-average levels of unemployment? We are not talking about maintenance overtime; we are talking about full shifts of regular overtime.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Unlike the previous government, this minister is not going to do nothing. That is the first thing we are going to do. Unlike the previous government, we do not believe in an ad hoc approach, a little here and a little there approach to problems. We are going to --

Interjections.

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: They had 42 years to do it and they did not. The leader of the third party shares my view.

I agree with my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) that there is a problem. I want to suggest to that member that while the problem does relate to the number of unemployed workers we have, it also relates to what the leader of the third party raised in his first question, that is, the number of hours some workers are being asked to work, week in and week out, month in and month out, and whether that is appropriate.

Frankly, this minister does not believe it is. We are going to look at the problem in terms of an overall policy determination, not just for Brantford and its problems but for the entire province.

Mr. Rae: Who knows: the Liberal Party may even embrace the revolutionary idea of a 40-hour work week; that really would be an astonishing move.

The minister should know, and I am happy to share this information with him because we are gathering it all the time, that we are hearing spontaneously from people across the province on this issue. For example, the Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 238 at Boise Cascade, has told us that workers are putting in a 12- to 18-hour day or a seven-day week as a matter of course. The minister talks about inventory and so on; I am talking about scheduled overtime.

I am talking about a situation where companies are now expecting workers to give up that time with their families and telling them that is the way it is and that it has been approved by the Minister of Labour and by the Ministry of Labour. It is being done right under his nose with permits issued by people working directly for him and his ministry.

What is causing the delay? Why is the minister so unwilling to bring in legislation that will deal now with this situation? There is an unprecedented level of overtime being worked in the province, more than ever in the entire history of the province. More permits are being issued than ever before. When is he going to do something about it? He has had time to look at it now is the time for some action on it.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the leader of the third party will understand we have been looking at a few other things as well. However, he is right. We have been looking at it. We have had a number of meetings on it. We have had some discussions as to whether some interim measures would be useful to bring down the hugely inappropriate hours being worked while we put together a more comprehensive policy.

I can give the member the assurance that we will take a careful look at that. This minister wants to make it clear that he shares the view of a lot of workers in Ontario that it is inappropriate to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, week in and week out. The workers of Ontario have indicated they are finding, for personal reasons and for reasons of the unemployment problem we all share and we are all concerned about, that it has become inappropriate to them. They would like to see some reduction in the number of hours they have to work, and this minister agrees with them.

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RATE

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Treasurer. Did he realize that by paralleling certain federal tax changes in his budget that allowed the cumulative deduction defining qualifying income for the small business tax rate he allowed companies such as Eaton's, one of the largest privately held empires in the country, to qualify for the small business tax rate on part of its profits?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: One of the problems with paralleling was that. We raised the corporate tax rate by one half per cent to compensate. Small business tax rates were left at 10 per cent and the standard rate was raised from 15 per cent to 15.5 per cent. An alternative to establish a separate standard of identification for small business was extremely elaborate and complex. It would have made the returns by bona fide small businesses more expensive and time consuming. We thought by administering an additional one half per cent we could compensate on the broader basis.

We maintained the preferred position for small businesses in that they are exempt for the first three years of their incorporation. Also, they pay taxes on profit at the 10 per cent rather than the 15.5 per cent level.

The answer to the question is yes.

Mr. Foulds: As Eaton's is now clearly defined as a small business in the Treasurer's mind, what other major privately held corporations in Ontario are defined as small businesses? Does the Treasurer not think it is about time they were not so defined?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot give the honourable member a list because in the discussions Eaton's was always the one indicated as the problem. We are getting the revenue from their reported profits.

Mr. Gregory: In line with this tax increase to the larger corporations through the so-called 32-month plan, phase 2, in which there is a section of industry that is reaudited in a similar fashion to what was done in the Department of National Revenue prior to the conversion a short time ago, does this make it easier for the Treasurer and the ministry to collect a larger slice of taxes from these people, so that on the audits he can bring in much more than the $100 million that was brought in previously from that source?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member has the advantage of having been Minister of Revenue longer than I. I am darned if I know what a 32-month reaudit is. Perhaps he might give me a little more information or assist me with the answer. Otherwise, I will find out and report to him.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer is charming and forthright in his directness, but does he not realize, now that this tax change has happened, it is entirely possible that the Eaton's of this world are now being treated more favourably than real small businesses for that portion of their income that qualifies? Does he not think it is his responsibility to present to this Legislature the amendments that could be proposed to the legislation which would eliminate the Eaton's of this world from this tax break?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can assure the honourable member that a very careful review of the situation he has brought to the attention of the House has been undertaken by the Ministry of Revenue and the Treasury. We will have an opportunity to review this matter in the estimates, which begin very shortly, and in debate on the bills.

When a detailed description of the various checks, balances and safeguards are described, the member will be able to agree with me that the revenues of the province are carefully maintained. Eaton's and its ilk will be paying their share; if not their fair share, at least a substantial one.

10:40 a.m.

DOMED STADIUM

Mr. Gillies: In the absence of the Premier, we will ask our second lead question of the Treasurer. It concerns the funding of the proposed domed stadium.

The Treasurer will be aware that at the standing committee on public accounts yesterday the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Party members combined to pass a motion, over the objection of the Liberal members, that would set a limit of $30 million to Ontario's contribution. What is the Treasurer's current policy regarding the funding of the domed stadium? Will he continue to leave the door open to additional public funds going into this project?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The specific answer is that we are not closing the door. I should then give the longer answer.

The province made a commitment of $30 million, I suppose directed by the then Premier, Mr. Davis, who I understand did that without consulting the public accounts committee or, for that matter, his esteemed caucus. He was able and had the power to make certain unilateral decisions that the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is as aware of as am I.

The $30 million was paid by the former government to the Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. , but I must say the former government did it rather well. It said it would pay the $30 million but it must be deposited in a non-interest-bearing account of the Province of Ontario Savings Office. The money is back under my control at present -- that is, on deposit in the savings office -- without payment of interest. It is available there for the stadium corporation to use as it sees fit in the development of the stadium, but only when the plans are finalized and approved.

I do not want to make the answer too long, but members will know that the original estimated cost was $150 million. That was announced by the former Premier at about the same time as he announced his estimated cost of extending support for Roman Catholic schools. All of us who now have had to deal with that matter know that he was somewhat conservative, i.e. wrong, in his projections of the cost. We have had to live with these errors and we are prepared to do so because even Bill Davis was not correct in all things, although in many things he was correct.

We now find that the Davis projection of $150 million is somewhat low and that harder heads have assessed the matter. The corporation has four proposals available which came in at something like $220 million to $225 million, which is a lot of money. So far, the corporation has not come to the government saying, "We need more money." I suppose it does not have to; it has indicated that it is attempting to raise that gap between $150 million and $225 million from other sources.

Mr. McClellan: Time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: During the election campaign, the mayor of Toronto stated clearly that he did not feel Toronto or Metro should raise its $30-million ante.

Mr. McClellan: Uncle.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have lots of time. When we think of the Grey Cup game being the day after tomorrow and we came into this session this morning through freezing rain, sleet and snow, there are those people, not including myself, who will be going to the Grey Cup in Montreal -- even though their stadium has a hole in the top -- who are saying, "It would be nice if at some time Toronto had a similar facility." I am not going to the Grey Cup game, and I do not know whether I have ever been to one. Maybe I went to the Grey Cup game one time.

When the decision is made, it is possible the province may want to increase its contribution.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: I say to the Treasurer, that is the best imitation of Jean Drapeau I have ever heard.

The Treasurer has left the domed stadium wide open for further provincial contributions. Metro Chairman Flynn has been very clear in saying there will not be additional money from Metro. The federal government will not be kicking in more through Canadian National. At the same time, the Treasurer is telling us there may be additional funding. Several weeks ago, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said there would not be additional provincial funding.

The cost projections have grown by $75 million. We have a very clear expression of sentiment by the standing committee on public accounts that the burden of the additional cost should not fall on the province. Will the Treasurer say now and unequivocally that the current government will hold to the $30-million figure announced by then-Premier Davis?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The clear answer is no. I hope we do not have to put in more money, but it is possible we may.

When I see the change in policy from the Conservatives I cannot help but agree with my good friend Paul Godfrey, who is well quoted in the Toronto Star today. I will not bother to quote his remarks other than to say that he said he was "disturbed and disgusted with the Tories" on their change of position. Like good little Tories, when Bill Davis spoke, they stood up, saluted and said, "Ready, aye ready." Now that their leadership tends to be a little vaguer they are all over the map.

Our position is to support the commitment of the previous government for the $30 million, but we wish to see the facts and figures and what is required. The decision will be one of great importance and will no doubt be discussed during the next few weeks, probably the next many months, in this chamber.

Mr. Reville: I am disturbed and disgusted that the Treasurer is prepared to play The Price is Right. However, since he is interested in playing The Price is Right, why do I not offer him the traditional three doors and see which one he wants to pick? Would he like to pick the door behind which is the advice of the standing committee on public accounts? Would he like to pick the door behind which is the advice of the Legislature? Or would he like to leave the cabinet door open and let $100 million escape?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can assure the honourable member that the decision of the government is to maintain the $30 million currently on deposit in the Province of Ontario Savings Office. I do not see anything wrong with that. There has been no indication from the board that additional funds are required. If a request is made to the government, the government will give it consideration.

Mr. Gillies: I do not think the Treasurer should have any confusion about the position of this party. In January, former Premier Davis said $30 million; we are saying $30 million, the New Democratic Party is saying $30 million; and he is saying, "Well, we will see." I am beginning to think my friend the Treasurer spent too much time in the sun the other week.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gillies: The Treasurer will know the stadium consortium has not embraced the promised contributions by the other two breweries, some $13 million or $14 million. He will know there is other private sector money available to this project, money that was made available to the former consortium by Mr. Black is sort of lurking out there for the current consortium.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gillies: Will the Treasurer give us an unequivocal statement that $30 million is it from the province so that Mr. Connell can get on with the job of getting the additional private sector money that is needed to complete this project?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Villeneuve: I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Community and Social Services is making ministerial statements to the press in Ottawa before apprising this Legislature of what he is going to do. He made a statement yesterday on expanding French-language services in the agencies that come under his ministry.

I would like to know first his definition of "designated areas"? Second, can he give us timetable for the implementation of his description of French-language services in these designated areas?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The remarks I made in Ottawa last night referred to the children and family services legislation, which was proclaimed in Ontario on November 1. A section of that legislation indicates that, where appropriate, French-language services will be delivered by the transfer-funded agencies that are supported by this ministry.

The words "where appropriate" were recommended to us by the francophone community from the eastern Ontario region. We had asked the community in various parts of the province how it believed this legislation should be worded. That was its recommendation and that is what was in there.

I also point out to the honourable member that the legislation and its wording were approved by all parties in this House last year, long before proclamation. The point I made last night in Ottawa was that those agencies in eastern Ontario that are going to be required to provide French-language service and do not have it now will have the support of my ministry in assessing and evaluating their needs and putting in place the human resources they will require.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Villeneuve: Do I detect "where numbers warrant" in the minister's statement? I have heard that many times before. However, I have heard very different comments from the present government. Has the minister checked with a certain former member from Ottawa East, the present member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître) or the present member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin)? Do we detect here "where numbers warrant" for French-language services?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The significant difference now is that instead of these services being at the pleasure of the government they are guaranteed in legislation. The "where appropriate" designation refers to two things. First, where it is appropriate in meeting the needs of children and their families it will be provided.

In a broader general context, "where appropriate" obviously refers to the fact that it will be needed more in certain parts of Ontario than in others. Where it is needed most it will be implemented first. Where it is needed least we will have to work with those agencies to be sure they have the resources.

That is not going to happen overnight. I made a very clear statement in response to a question last night in Ottawa that it might take two, three or four years before we are able to evaluate correctly what the needs are and to have sufficient professional staff to meet them.

The member knows even better than I do that there is a shortage of francophone professional staff in this province and that my colleagues in other ministries are attempting to work with the francophone community to address those shortages. The member knows as well as I do, for example, that there are shortages of francophone psychiatrists, physiotherapists and psychologists.

We are attempting to meet that need and we will continue to do so, but the francophone community that was present in Ottawa last night found my remarks most reasonable and responsive and said it was quite prepared to co-operate with me in implementation of this policy.

TORONTO APARTMENT BUILDINGS CO.

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Attorney General. On October 24 I asked him a question regarding the Toronto Apartment Buildings Co., arising from a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. news report with respect to two serious allegations: one, that Toronto Apartment Buildings Co. continues to charge illegal rents in violation of a Supreme Court order; and two, that Tabco threatened to evict students of the Radio College of Canada unless it was paid $250,000.

My questions of the Attorney General are, when and by whom were these matters first brought to the his attention and what action has been taken since the matter was raised in the House on October 24?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The information that was obtained by the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), and disclosed in the House was, as the House now knows, disclosed to him in the presence of two investigators from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. When that happened they began an investigation. That has been carried on in consultation with a law officer of my ministry, and when a report of the investigation is completed I will be glad to inform the House of that fact.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, I believe I have now asked the question four times and I am still not clear about the answer.

The matter that was brought to the attention of the Attorney General was regarding the allegations made about the Toronto Apartment Buildings Co. -- not about some middleman, but about the allegations made about the two matters raised with respect to Tabco.

Were those allegations brought to the Attorney General's attention pursuant to this letter released by the Minister without Portfolio to two of his cabinet colleagues? Were the matters that were brought to the attention of three members of his cabinet ever brought to the Attorney General's attention with respect to Tabco's involvement in the violation of a Supreme Court order and Tabco's threat to evict students unless it was paid $250,000?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The allegations that were made in the presence of the Minister without Portfolio, as I understand the matter, related to breaches of either the Residential Tenancies Act or court orders made under the Residential Tenancies Act. That information was provided in the presence of two investigators from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which would normally have charge of those investigations. Subsequent consultation occurred, as is appropriate and usual, with a crown law officer some weeks after that; I do not know when with any precision.

I want to emphasize that the investigation began in the ministry, which was the appropriate place for it to begin. It was conducted by investigative officers of the ministry's staff who were charged with residential tenancies investigations. When, if ever, it becomes necessary for them to consult a crown law officer they know how to do so, and they did so in this case.

The investigation is not complete and a report has not been made; when it is, I will advise the House.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Ferraro: My question is of the Premier. The talks on the strike in my riding broke down last night. I should premise that by saying the strike is in its 49th instructional day. It was a valiant attempt on the part of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to get these two brick walls together and try to come up with an agreement but, unfortunately, it failed.

I have to go back to my riding today; so I want to ask this question. I respect the Premier's straightforwardness as a leader. Surely it is time we legislated these people back. What is the position of this government vis-à-vis the strike that is dividing my community in Wellington South?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the pressure on the honourable member and others who have been through these strikes. It is not just the member from the great riding of Wellington South; others in this House have encountered this as well.

The minister has dealt with this issue on a number of occasions. The member is quite right; the talks broke off last night at midnight after a valiant attempt. The mediator is discussing the matter with the Education Relations Commission today. The minister is in Timmins. I have not had an opportunity to chat with him this morning as I was delivering Governor Gu Xiulian to the airport and the minister is out of town.

That being said, at the moment I want to tell the member that the position of this government has not changed.

11 a.m.

Mr. Ferraro: For clarification, what we are then saying is that we still want a locally negotiated settlement and that we still have faith in the ERC, which on many other occasions has ruled that there was jeopardy in shorter time periods than the one that exists. To understand quite clearly, do I have to go back to my riding and say, "We are going to do nothing but continue with the charade going on with the ERC"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I look at these matters. There are strikes in many areas and there is pressure on us to solve every one, be it an ambulance strike or a teachers' strike. There are many around the province. We could spend the entire time of this Legislature solving labour-management problems or we can leave the decisions where they correctly belong.

I recognize the difficulty. It is a tragedy that the students are suffering for this intransigence. It is a local situation and it is a local responsibility, not ours. Sometimes this Legislature has to impose its will, but from my point of view it is the very last resort.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The Premier fails to understand one thing. He has the responsibility to provide an education for the children of Wellington and he is not doing so. He has failed. Week after week his minister keeps saying it has to be a locally negotiated settlement; that is not going to happen. The kids have lost a year and it is time the Premier did something. For God's sake, govern.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the question from the honourable member. I do not mean to be in any way personally disparaging because I know the feeling he has, but I did not hear such passionate speeches from him when he was over here on the government side and we were going through much longer strikes.

Those guys have either lost their sense of responsibility along the way or have changed on so many issues that they are not very credible. I understand the member's concern and my remarks are not personally directed to him, but they are personally directed to some of those yahoos he is with.

Mr. Harris: I have a question of the Premier. He has stated today that his position has not changed. I am assuming that is the same position we have heard, that he is not going to do anything, that he is going to wait for a locally negotiated settlement and that he is not going to get involved personally.

I have difficulty with the statement he made to this Legislature on November 18, when he was asked about his involvement in the Toronto Transit Commission strike. He said, "I did not settle that strike and I did not intervene in any way." That was his argument for not getting involved or caring about the students at Wellington.

Can the Premier explain the words "did not intervene in any way" in his statement to this Legislature in the light of this heading in the Toronto Star, "Peterson Makes Bid to Avert TTC Strike"? The story says, "The Star has learned that Peterson met TTC general manager Al Savage late Wednesday night." Did he meet with Al Savage?

Can he explain "TTC Raises its Offer as Premier Steps in" or "The commission, under strong pressure from Ontario Premier David Peterson..." or "To help reach a settlement, Ontario Premier David Peterson asked his special adviser John Kruger to the talks."? Was John Kruger invited to the talks at the Premier's suggestion? How about "David Peterson, who kept a close eye on the talks and was pressing for a negotiated settlement..."?

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: Or "Wednesday night David Peterson told Savage and transit chairman Julian Porter to forget arbitration and bargain a settlement."

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Harris: I have several more of these quotes. Can the Premier rationalize his statement for not wanting to get involved to help the students of Wellington and his words "did not intervene in any way"`? How does that add up?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There was possibly a misconception at the time that I solved that matter. I did not solve it in any way. Those people came to their senses and solved the matter themselves.

I cannot account for what is written in the press every day, but I can tell the member that I did not sit down with the two parties and hammer out a settlement. I had an update meeting with some of the members of the board and that was the full extent of my discussions on the matter. I did not sit down and solve that. We had some very reasonable people there who understood the pressure, who came to a resolution and that is the way the system should operate.

The Deputy Speaker: If the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) is going to interject, would he do so from his seat.

Mr. Harris: He is not going to interject anyway. No members interject from this side.

The Deputy Speaker: Except he was.

Mr. Harris: Was Mr. Kruger involved in negotiations at the Premier's suggestion? Did the Premier meet with Mr. Savage?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the member, some of the members of the TTC came to my --

Mr. Bennett: Did you or not?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How is your hearing today?

Mr. Bennett: Very good.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is hearing only the siren from Ottawa. He should turn his attention to his job here and he will hear what I just said.

I just said I had an update from the TTC; from Mr. Porter, Mr. Savage and some others. I said that some time ago. That is public knowledge, but I did not settle that strike and I will take no credit for doing so. If the member wishes to give me credit for that, fair enough, but I am far more modest that. I had an update. The people came to their own decision.

ONE PER CENT BEER

Mr. Swart: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is he aware that many of the purchasers and consumers of the one per cent beer that is sold in the grocery stores are kids -- many in their pre-teens? I have two cans of that beer here and I will send them over as my first gift to him, if I can have a page. I wonder if the minister will note --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is illegal. He is illegal.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Those are children.

Mr. Epp: He is under 19. The member is using him.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to know the age of the young person who just delivered this beer.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that is appropriate.

Mr. McClellan: That is exactly the point.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is contributing to delinquency.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Could he send over a sandwich, too?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member is trying to put his question.

Mr. Swart: The minister will note that it is packaged like beer and I am told it tastes like beer. It is beer with a lower alcohol content which is sold in six-packs. Does the minister realize there are an awful lot of parents concerned about their kids getting hooked on this and moving right on to the real stuff in their early teens? Does he share that concern or is it part of his long-range plan to increase consumption of alcoholic beverages, particularly by the young?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There were several questions in the member's statement. I would like to say that my responsibility, when it comes to the marketing of alcoholic beverages, is under the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. These products are not sold through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and they are not considered alcoholic beverages under the act.

Mr. Swart: I might inform the minister that he still has responsibility and if he is concerned about this, why does he not simply amend the Minors' Protection Act, which he has the power to do, to prohibit the sale of this beverage to minors?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Again, this has not been brought to my attention as a problem. It is an area that is not under the jurisdiction of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

Mr. Swart: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations can change it.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It has not been brought to my attention as being a problem. If the member can demonstrate that it is a problem, we will react to it.

11:10 a.m.

PCB DESTRUCTION

Mr. Andrewes: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Will he update us on the activities and progress of his ministry towards the licensing of polychlorinated biphenyls destruction technology?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to thank the member for this question because it is of particular importance, I note, to his riding, specifically in the area around Smithville.

The member will understand that I have been preoccupied with the St. Clair River activities, but according to my last knowledge we are in the final process of fine-tuning the regulations that deal with this, and we have had discussions with a number of groups and organizations that are interested in providing this service. I will be very pleased to complete my answer to the member on Monday by providing him with the fine details of this. He has a very legitimate concern in that area. His government allowed the largest accumulation of PCBs in Ontario to go into his riding, and I want to help him solve that problem.

Mr. Andrewes: I appreciate the minister's comments and his help. I am not sure the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) would feel quite as comfortable with that answer as I might.

Will the minister assure municipalities across the province, such as West Lincoln, where, as he indicated, there are some 40,000 gallons of PCBs in storage, that he will move expeditiously towards the licensing and approval of technologies that will eliminate once and for all the risks or potential risks of these storage facilities?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will give the member that assurance and indicate to him that, in addition to moving expeditiously in the licensing of the organizations that will be involved, I will also ensure there will be a full public consultation before it takes place so the people of the municipality he represents will have input on the site-specific problems that might arise and on the technology. I have made that commitment previously and I give it to the member again.

Mr. Lupusella: Considering that the greatest accumulation of PCBs in storage is located at the Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. plant at Lansdowne and Dupont, and also considering that the member for Parkdale raised this issue so vividly during the last provincial election campaign and before that mobilized the community at large in Metropolitan Toronto, can the minister explain to this House what his ministry is going to do to solve the problem affecting the General Electric plant at Lansdowne and Dupont?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I thank the member for drawing to the attention of the House the very significant role that was played by the member for Parkdale in developing these regulations. His input was extremely helpful in the development of the final regulations that we are involved in at this time.

One of the items we wanted to ensure was a provision for consultation because, as the member has aptly brought to the attention of this House, we would not want to have any technology used, particularly with the class 1 PCBs, that would have an adverse effect on the community.

That is why, instead of simply allowing what I would call an open house or something of that nature, what we did was to apply a full public hearing, which will take into account two things: first, the technology we would be using anywhere in the province; and second, and I think equally important to the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), the site-specific problems that might arise.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the Premier (Mr. Peterson) would inform this House in his seriousness and his intent to bring a resolution to the strike in Wellington county

The Deputy Speaker: That is not --

Mr. Davis: Just a minute; I have my point of order. Why has he allowed Norman Bernstein, the chief negotiator, to go to Montreal to watch the Grey Cup game when the kids are out of school?

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: After five years, I think I finally have a real point of order. I am sure the standing orders prohibit the consumption of food or beverages in this House. The convention always has been that we only drink water in here. I just saw all the front-bench members of the Liberal government sampling the offending beer-like substance that was brought to our attention by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

My concern is that, first, it offends the conventions of the House; second, this government has enough trouble when sober, I would hate to see what would happen if they had been drinking.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not an appropriate point of order.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) be deleted from the order of precedence for private members' public business and that all members of the Liberal caucus listed thereafter be advanced by one place in their turns and, notwithstanding standing order 64(h), the requirement for notice with respect to the ballot item 10 standing in the name of the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward) be waived.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on energy be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Thursday, November 28, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MISSING CHILDREN

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Caplan, resolution 11.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings] .

Motion agreed to.

11:20 a.m.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to continue my constructive criticism which I initiated on Monday.

My thinking was based on the principle and mandate of the minister in relation to particular acts of which he is in charge, such as the Agricultural Development Finance Act, enabling legislation for the Province of Ontario Savings Office, the Assessment Act, the City of Toronto 1981 Assessment Complaints Act, the Corporations Tax Act, the Fuel Tax Act, the Gasoline Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Land Transfer Tax Act, the Ministry of Revenue Act, the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act and the Ontario Home Buyers Grant Act, 1975.

I really do not understand why this last act is still there; I do not think it is active. In 1975 the former administration gave a $1,000 grant to people who were buying their first home in Ontario. Even though I understand the act is still in place, I do not think there are funds available to give to people who are willing to buy their first home. They should have some source of relief from the province. I would like to remind the minister there was nothing in the budget that was introduced some time last month for people who are not able to afford the price of a house. Some source of funds coming from this province would alleviate their problem.

I would also like to remind the minister that in the last federal budget, as I understand it, the $1,000 that was given by the federal government as a home ownership grant was discontinued. I hope the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon), who is also the Treasurer of the province, will take this issue into consideration in the next provincial budget and try to help people who are unable to afford to buy their first house.

The minister is also in charge of the implementation of the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act, the Provincial Land Tax Act, the Race Tracks Tax Act, the Retail Sales Tax Act, the Small Business Development Corporations Act, the Succession Duty Act Supplementary Provisions Act, 1980, and the Tobacco Tax Act.

There are so many acts at the Treasurer's disposal just to raise funds, but the only one that gives him credibility for not being only a tax collector is the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act. The former administration introduced this act, not only to assist senior citizens in Ontario, not only to release them from the skyrocketing process of property taxes, but also to give some credibility to the Minister of Revenue as being not only. the minister raising funds in Ontario from any source of taxation but also the man in charge of trying to assist senior citizens.

I made an elaborate and extensive contribution to the debate affecting that ministry in relation to the operation of the property assessment system, which in 1982, 1983 and 1984 generated a great degree of concern in the Legislature. We also focused upon the administrative practices of the ministry in performing the assessment function and the related assessment notices and appeal provisions; the basic inequities in the assessments of properties within the same municipality, in the city of Toronto in particular; the practices of the ministry in conducting reassessments for renovations and other improvements; and the specific concerns relating to condominium assessment.

This type of debate took place in the past from the Liberal Party, when it was the official opposition party, and the New Democratic Party as well raised this issue, which affects so many people in Ontario. Individual members, particularly from the government side, raised the issue of the assessment methods related directly to the specific assessment problems of constituents.

If I recall correctly, 1981 was a year in which people really paid the price of an unfair system and an unfair practice by the Conservative government in the middle of an economic recession that was leading so many people across the province to lose their homes because interest rates and the price of a home were skyrocketing. In the middle of this market value confusion, the former administration sent out the so-called mandarins employed by the ministry to penalize people further and increase the assessment on their property.

Of course, when I speak about this issue, I speak with some sense of frustration because people in my riding were coming to see me in my constituency office with notices of assessment increases that sometimes reached 100, 150 or 200 per cent. Most of the ethnic people did not know they had an opportunity to appeal.

When we talk about the democratic process of this province there is always a remedy: one can appeal, one can go through the structure of the appeal system and make one's point before someone who has been appointed by the provincial government. If one is lucky one wins the appeal, or else pays the cost of a particular political decision made because the party in power is looking for more revenues and those revenues must come from somewhere. In 1981, 1982 and 1983 the revenues for the province and the municipalities were generated by a skyrocketing process of assessment on property taxes.

I am going back to this point again because, as I stated, in 1981, 1982 and 1983 a lively political discussion was generated on the floor of this Legislature. A lot of members of this parliament really raised the genuine political concern that was affecting their constituents. I will never forget in 1981 and 1982 the Riverdale riding was under siege and attack from the former Conservative administration to increase assessments beyond the level of taxation that people really could afford to pay.

11:30 a.m.

In 1981, in the middle of unemployment and an economic recession, the great riding of Dovercourt became the target of the unwise Conservative political manoeuvres to increase the taxes of people who could not find jobs. As members may recall, I raised this particular and genuine concern in the budget debate, in which I emphasized the fact that there were people living in my riding who were unemployed as a result of the economic recession of 1981 and urged the government to do something to make sure they got some sort of help from this province.

The Conservative government's help was in the form of a $500 grant to employers willing to hire people who were unemployed as a result of the economic recession and because they were too old to be hired. The $500 grant given to employers across the province did not last too long. When the money was gone, the individual was without a job. I am sure the Conservative government did not attach any stringent conditions to the grants.

In my humble political opinion, the $5,000 grant was money given away. It was not constructively utilized by the employers across Ontario. Where did the money for the $5,000 grant come from? From taxes from property owners, along with other forms of taxation which have taken place under this ministry.

The assessment issue has been discussed in the past by the province and by the city of Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto has also been specifically reviewed. I have a genuine concern about this issue. I understand the Goyette report generated some political action from the Liberal government. A task force has been formed, consisting of mayors and people appointed by each municipality.

I do not know when the work of this task force is going to be finalized, but I would like to warn the minister and the government representatives against carrying on this task force. There is a conflict of interest involved when the mayors or their representatives are sitting on a task force in which they have an interest. They want money from the property owners; the province is also looking for funds from property owners. As a result of this conflict of interest, I do not know how truthful the municipalities are going to be in relation to tackling the issue of concrete property tax reform in Ontario.

Time is running out and people are frustrated. Let us not forget the people who were so unfortunate in 1981-82 as to lose their homes because of interest rates and because of the reassessment which took place at the same time.

Another major general concern in the estimates debate has been the operation and administration of various taxation and grant programs which are implemented by the ministry. For example, in the past there was a concern raised by several members of this Legislature about the inefficiency in the processing of senior citizens' grant cheques. This concern was repeated by opposition members and, as a reflection, questions were raised by individual members on behalf of constituents on the floor of this Legislature.

I understand the system has improved a little bit since then, but there is always room for further improvement. When we talk about senior citizens I think the present minister and the former administration should take a look at the motions which have been moved by the New Democratic Party on this side of the Legislature, which really took the needs of the senior citizens of Ontario into consideration.

The issue that senior citizens should not pay the portion of money allocated for education is a genuine concern which should be taken into consideration. This process, which is a radical one if we are going to listen to the Conservatives and perhaps to some of the Liberal members, would alleviate the needs of senior citizens across Ontario. They made their economic and social contribution to the economy of this province and to the provincial government.

They paid their share when they had children and sent them to school. They paid their share of the cost of education. Although I understand the $500 grant is some sort of social and perhaps political recognition that must be given back to senior citizens, I do not think it is really enough to recognize the valid contribution given to our society by senior citizens across Ontario.

I would like to warn the Minister of Revenue and government officials that the municipality of Toronto has, as a token gesture, suggested the $500-property tax grant is not enough. They suggested $1,000. Again, I do not want to commit a sin in the sense I really do not know the political motivation of that particular suggestion, but the recommendation made by the New Democratic Party that education costs should be completely eliminated from property taxes is a wise solution that must be considered by the new government if we want to talk about property tax reform in Ontario.

I hope the present administration will not delay the process because that is what the Conservatives did in relation to this particular issue. They were ready to talk about the exorbitant increase of property taxes during the election, but we have been faced with delays in the studies in order that this issue will not be tackled by the government of the day.

I bring to the attention of the minister that in 1982 there was a debate on the fuel colouration program introduced under 1981 amendments to the Fuel Tax Act to identify tax-exempt diesel fuel used for agriculture and other off-road uses. It generated substantial concern in this Legislature. With the new budget, the tax on gasoline, unfortunately, is going up. The Conservatives have been raising the particular position that the money generated from the fuel tax increase should be devoted to the improvement of the road system and highways in the province.

11:40 a.m.

There is nothing wrong with that, but there are other priorities to which this money should be allocated. When we talk about highways, we have to find out the cause of the erosion of roads in Ontario.

In the past the Liberals were very critical of the use of salt during the wintertime. It costs billions of taxpayers' dollars to fix the roads when the winter is over and the summer comes along. Why? Because the salt is eroding the roads across Ontario.

The municipalities are also using salt to melt the snow on their roads and streets. They are complaining that they do not have enough money; so they go to the Treasurer and ask: "Why do you not give us enough money to repair the roads in our municipalities?"

I would like to discuss this on a friendly basis with the Minister of Revenue, who now has the power to do things. The Liberals have been critical about that. Is there any substitute for salt which is more convenient for the consumers and taxpayers of this province?

Instead of wasting money on repairing the roads, let us go to the root of the problem. If salt is causing the erosion of our roads, then we have to find other solutions that will not cause this problem. There would be a saving for that ministry and for the municipalities, which would save millions of dollars.

I am not an expert on what should be substituted for salt, but I understand other regions and jurisdictions are using a substitute that is very effective and does not ruin cars. I wonder why the former administration supported the principle of using salt, which ruins cars and causes consumers to complain, and also cut a lot of money from that ministry for repair of roads that had deteriorated terribly through the use of salt.

That is what this minister has to take a look at, or else we are going to complain about the $686 million allocated to his ministry. Some people are going to be extremely concerned about where this money is going. The minister, as I said before, has an army of about 4,000 people under his jurisdiction just for the implementation of maybe 10 or 15 bills to raise funds for the government and so the Treasurer can eventually prepare a budget for the next fiscal year.

With regard to other taxation measures, the administration and application of the retail sales tax program, which contributes about $4.42 billion to the provincial coffers, is a matter of concern that has often been raised on the floor of this Legislature.

In the 1982 estimates debate, for example, some Liberal members raised some concern about the application of sales tax to catering by charitable organizations in some Liberal ridings. The present Minister of Revenue is now trying to do something about it. We will have to wait and find out if the concerns raised by his colleagues in the past will be taken into consideration.

I want to warn the minister, in relation to the proposed $1 exemption from sales tax for prepared food as contained in the 1985 budget, about the difficulty for the small businessman. It is an issue affecting not just my riding but all ridings where such a process has to be implemented.

I remind the minister that if I am going to buy two items of prepared food that cost less than $1 each -- for example, a Coca-Cola -- the price will increase to more than $1, and I think there will be some problem associated with that. I do not think small businessmen in Ontario are looking for additional complications in the application of this bill.

I hope the minister and his officials are giving consideration to that problem, which will arise in the near future. If I go into a store and buy something for less than $1 the situation is crystal-clear: no tax should be applied. However, if I buy something plus something else, how is the ministry going to implement the principle that individuals are not supposed to pay tax?

The minister's officials are going through the results of a computer analysis of the implementation of this bill. I remind him that there is a human element involved in the implementation of this bill and I hope they will be sensitive enough to take into consideration the ramifications of implementing this law.

It is time to refresh the minister's memory about his own position regarding the Province of Ontario Savings Office. In the past the banks have been great contributors to the Conservative Party, and I am sure they are still contributing for political reasons.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is my friend referring to POSO?

Mr. Lupusella: Yes. I am trying to find the questions the minister raised in relation to POSO when he was in opposition.

Mr. Shymko: Does the member need some help?

Mr. Lupusella: No, I do not.

I was planning to quote what the minister said when he raised the issue as a member of the opposition but I cannot find the page. I hope it will turn up.

11:50 a.m.

The Province of Ontario Savings Office must be compared to the one located and widely applied in Alberta, where it appears that a profit is made by using this tool. In addition, I believe the government of Alberta is using the tool to borrow money.

The Minister of Revenue was extremely convinced in the past that POSO should be restructured and given a new mandate. The new mandate that the minister has in mind would increase his capability of borrowing money from that source instead of going, for example, to the United States, where they are concerned about our spending and where they set the rates in their own way. POSO is a golden opportunity for the minister.

In 1982 my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) spoke very openly on this issue in the Legislature and introduced a private member's bill to expand the scope of POSO to make loans and to offer financial services as well as to receive deposits. These reforms could result in the development of a provincial bank along the lines of the more extensive and aggressive model of the Alberta Treasury Branches. In contrast to the low profile of the 21-branch POSO network that we have now in Ontario, the Alberta provincial financial institution operates a 131-branch network and more than 100 agency offices with financial interests in excess of $4 billion.

POSO is therefore an area of Revenue's portfolio that might be examined further during the upcoming estimates process. I wonder whether the POSO issue is under review by the minister or covered in the general policy of the government to review the efficiency of any government agency. I hope the minister will be able to clarify that position.

As I said before, the Liberals raised concern about property taxes. I cannot forget the motion that was introduced on the floor of this Legislature by my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande). By the way, I would like to inform the members of this Legislature that very soon I will reintroduce the same motion and it will be debated some time in December, because I would like to find out where the Liberals and the Tories stand on the issue of property tax reform.

The motion was debated on Thursday, May 24, 1984. It was an evening sitting, as I am sure the minister will remember because he was here to vote against that motion. The resolution was: "That in the opinion of this House, the government should create a new system for municipal finance which will reduce the burden of residential property taxes and phase out the present residential property tax system and replace it with a system which reflects ability to pay."

When we talk about radical changes in the assessment of property and in taxation in general in Ontario, the Conservatives and the Liberals should get used to the notion of radical changes instead of talking about a superficial reform of taxation just when people are renovating their homes.

My colleague the member for Oakwood also stated the framework to achieve this objective. He said the government should phase in a series of reforms designed: (1) to reverse the process of shifting provincial spending obligations to local taxpayers; (2) to shift the funding of education and social services from the residential property tax base to progressive sources of revenue; and (3) to restructure the financing of local hard services so they reflect benefits and ability to pay.

Specifically, the following phased program should be followed: (a) immediate increases in municipal grants to reflect the costs of providing municipal services, (b) immediate assumption by the provincial government of the full cost of welfare and related social services, (c) phased removal of the education portion of residential property taxes over a period of five years, thereby reducing property taxes by about 50 per cent, (d) replacement of the remainder of the present residential property tax with a tax system which reflects benefits and ability to pay and (e) reform of the nonresidential property tax system to eliminate inequities, particularly as they affect small business.

This is the framework of concrete and radical changes in the reform of property taxation which has been incorporated in the accord signed by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. The Goyette report and the new task force now under way are not getting us closer to the clear concept of property tax reform in Ontario.

I had an opportunity last night to speak to someone whose name I do not want to mention but who asked: "Where is all this money coming from? You want to eliminate a portion of spending allocated for education. Who is supposed to pay the rest of the money if it will be completely eliminated from the assessment of a property owner?"

That person was unable to understand that we are talking about a radical change, a new direction in relation to the principle of taxation. He has become so used to paying this type of tax on his property that he is concerned about where the rest of the money will come from. In his own mind he has a problem, but there is no problem in my mind or in the minds of my colleagues sitting on this side of this House. There is no confusion whatsoever in the minds of the ethnic people across the province.

If the Tories would like to know the truth of the situation and of their loss, they should go through the general concept of why ethnic people are reacting to government policy. They are not used to paying education costs from their property taxes. In many of the jurisdictions they come from the costs are paid from the general revenue fund. If they are upset about the process and the skyrocketing cost of taxation in Ontario, this is the main reason. There is no other way to make them understand that there is a need to pay these extra taxes.

12 noon

I think the Tories lost trust a long time ago among the ethnic people of this province. We still have credibility in talking about this issue because we never formed a government to implement our policies.

I hope the Liberals will not lose credibility among ethnic people.

Mr. Shymko: They are on the brink of losing

Mr. Lupusella: Yes, that is why I am warning them. It is political advice. If the government wants the ethnic people on its side it should make sure these tax changes are implemented.

Mr. Shymko: The member's party put them there; do not complain now.

Mr. Lupusella: That is right. I still trust that something very positive will be implemented in the near future; however, I do not know how long my patience is going to last.

Mr. McClellan: It will not last 42 years, I can tell the member that.

Mr. Lupusella: I do not think we are talking about a three-year term. When our agreement was signed we made sure political stability at least would take place without guns on the floor of this Legislature, unlike what was demonstrated by the Tories, "Either you pass this unfair legislation or we will call an election." It was so undemocratic.

We are trying to define the terms and the concepts of our agreement. It talks about property tax reform. We are trying to give some parameters to that concept and principle. We are trying to state in a very clear way what the NDP is seeking in taxation reform. I hope the Liberals will be sensitive enough to initiate this type of reform if they want to stay in power at least for a full year.

Interjection

Mr. Lupusella: Is that not right? Do they want more than four years?

The minister's opening statement related to this in particular and that is why I am spending a lot of time on the issue. I think we have to get together all the data on it, because I am really looking forward to concrete action coming from the Liberals with relation to this type of property tax revolution in Ontario. I hope they will be the catalyst for this revolution; otherwise, the people of this province will initiate a revolution against the government.

Just to remind ourselves of the minister's position on this issue, selected questions from the legislative debate raised by Liberal members during the Conservative term of office can be concretized and summarized as a sort of short synopsis on this point.

One, the selective assessment of renovated properties in the city of Toronto in some cases resulted in substantial increases in property taxes. I think there is a genuine complaint that the system currently is implemented for people who are renovating their first property. I am talking about the first property; I am not talking about speculators buying the second and the third properties on which they make money. I am saying the first one should be respected because the first home is the phase in which people are starting their families.

If we are talking about overassessing a property just to get revenues for this province and the municipality, I think the cornerstone of the family will be jeopardized by the political inaction on making reforms and changes in Ontario in relation to this issue.

We and the Liberals raised this issue. In the last provincial election the Liberal candidate in my riding was canvassing from door to door complaining that the Conservatives were unable to solve the problem which a Liberal government would solve and it would lower the property taxes in Ontario.

Here we are. I trust the Liberals will do something about this, not by studying the issue and not by initiating other taxes, or the next provincial election will be called with no reform whatsoever.

Two, the possible imposition of market value assessment in Toronto. The former Conservative minister, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), did not proceed with the imposition of market value assessment as this matter became an extremely sensitive issue among the Conservative members of the Metro caucus. That is why we now are faced with the new legislation -- or the old legislation that has been introduced on an annual basis in this Legislature. It prevents the application of market value assessment in Toronto.

The Conservatives were playing politics on this important issue. They were raising the assessment even though there was specific legislation preventing the assessors -- I call them mandarins of the government because they did not use a human approach in 1981 to take into consideration the social and economic effects on the people of Ontario. Even though there was specific legislation they went about the implementation of market value assessment through the back door. That is what happened through the years.

Three, a question in the Legislature, in February 1983, was about the possible release of the 1982 Ministry of Revenue impact study for Metro Toronto on complaints on property taxes. The study has been reviewed. It computed the impact of Metro-wide adjustment of property assessment to 1980 market value. This study was not made public by the Conservatives. We have to thank the current Treasurer that in July 1985 this study was released.

Four, a sample question dated April 1982 and a statement that was made in October 1982 also refer to the administration of the tax grants to seniors program. The operation and efficiency of this issue has been raised in the past. It has been corrected, but further improvement can take place. If we are going to help the senior citizens who are currently living in their homes we should eliminate the cost of education from their property taxes.

12:10 p.m.

The property assessment issue in Toronto raises concern. There are recent developments. In the Final Report of the Joint Committee on Property Tax Reform, 1982, the city endorsed in principle the assessment reforms in section 63, which was formerly section 86 of the Assessment Act, but only after the province upgraded the property tax credit relief to low- and moderate-income households. In addition, the city advocated a five-year phase-in of upward or downward property tax shifts due to assessment adjustment. The key recommendations of this report were as follows:

"1:1. That a reformed tax system adopted by the city of Toronto contain the following fundamental elements." Again I do not fully agree with those recommendations made by the city of Toronto because of the conflict of interest which affects this study. It wants its share of money coming from property taxes, let us face it. Those elements are:

"(a) A reformed assessment based on market value;

"(b) a system of differential effective tax rates for different classes of property; and

"(c) improved tax relief for low- and moderate-income taxpayers."

Then there is recommendation 4:1, "That the provincial government restructure the Ontario property tax credit program to improve property tax relief to low- and moderate-income households so that there is a substantial degree of offset to any tax increase caused by reassessment."

Section 4:2. "That the following means be adopted to achieve the objective of property tax relief to low- and moderate-income households:

(a) Income for tax credit purposes be defined as a household income (adjusted for normal extra expenses of a multiple income household, such as child care costs) rather than higher individual income;

"(b) income for tax credit purposes be further defined as the total income less personal exemptions rather than taxable income;

"(c) a maximum of $1,000 be set on the amount of property tax which can be claimed for credit rather than the existing $500 ceiling on total credit paid out."

There is a clear conflict of interest being advocated by the municipalities of this province in relation to this important issue. A select committee of the Legislature, sitting when the House is sitting but not necessarily when the House is not sitting, should review and tackle the problem of property taxation in the province. This should be initiated immediately because it is an urgent matter.

From talking to officials of the government, the government is unwilling to proceed with this recommendation because of this task force which has been instituted to study the recommendations of the Goyette report and also to make sure that the recommendations made by each municipality are going to take into consideration the future restructuring process of property tax reform in Ontario.

I do not know when this study will be finalized; we do not have a date. I know there is some work going on. Even though the final recommendations of the task force eventually will be debated on the floor of this Legislature where each member of this parliament will get deeply involved in the final recommendations which have been structured by the municipalities and the Goyette report, and eventually by new policies which will be enacted on that study by the Liberal government, it would be fair to have a committee. How far the Liberals will go on this report I really do not know. If the government thinks it is to time to proceed with the task force, in parallel to that a committee of the Legislature should be instituted as soon as possible.

Then there is recommendation 11:1, "That the city not request section 86," now section 63, "reform of the property tax system in the city of Toronto until the province restructures the Ontario property tax credit program, as outlined in recommendation 4:1 and 4:2, to improve the property tax relief for low- and moderate-income households so that there is a substantial degree of offset to any tax increase for such households caused by reassessment under section 86."

There is no question whatsoever that the system is unfair, and I think the Tory members realize that and will be talking about this issue in the next provincial election campaign. The Liberals recognize as well the unfairness of this system, and the citizens of this province also recognize and pay the price of this injustice.

One thing that comes to my mind immediately is that, for example, if a property is reassessed and the individual launches an appeal and wins it, the appeal is not retroactive. Furthermore, if I do not launch an appeal within the time prescribed by the notice of reassessment then I have to wait until the next year to appeal, but I cannot appeal the increase of the reassessment of two years before the notice is sent to the individual. It is a clear-cut case of injustice.

The final message to the taxpayers of this province is: "We need your money. You have to pay it and you have to be quiet." We cannot operate on the premise of such an archaic principle of law. We are trying to be fair with the law, but at the same time the message is the opposite of what the law says.

Recommendation 11:2 says, "That, subject to the condition outlined in recommendation 11:1, the city endorse the general principles of section 86 reassessment as a framework in which to implement the committee's tax reform proposals as outlined in this report."

As I said before, I read those principles but this does not mean I share their views. If we want to tackle this issue we have to start from the very beginning and appoint a committee of the Legislature to study it as soon as possible.

When the city of Toronto released its report, other municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, the Metro government and the Ontario government were unable during the Conservative regime to reach agreement on a property tax reform mechanism. I would bring to the members' attention the terrible performance of the Conservative government, which was unable to deal with the issue. Now, because I have to give this historical political perspective of their inaction, I have to mention their past.

The thrust of the above recommendations, however, is still the basis of the city of Toronto's position on property tax reform. That is their position, and it is the position eventually of other municipalities in Ontario, which, as I stated before, have a conflict of interest because they are looking for more revenue from property taxes.

12:20 p.m.

In June 1983 the city council last reaffirmed its opposition to Metro-wide reassessment. Recent assessment appeal concerns in the city of Toronto have focused upon the impact of maintenance repairs upon reassessment. The city has also conducted property tax appeal seminars for ratepayers and hired specialist legal counsel for this purpose.

There is an unfair system in place. The government has been trying to contain the problem of an injustice by delaying the whole process of implementing and enacting new programs or innovative policies that will solve the problem. In the aftermath of the recent municipal election, it would be of interest to determine whether the newly elected city council is willing to modify its position on the property tax issue or to present a new model for the structure and the whole process.

There is an indication of the importance of property taxes to the city in the 1985 civic budget. Civic budget property taxes are scheduled to amount to some $222.1 million, or 58.5 per cent of total municipal expenditures of $373.6 million. We are talking about millions of dollars coming from property taxes. The people are unfairly paying the price.

If legislation has been enacted by this parliament that market value assessment should not proceed, I really do not understand why people of Metropolitan Toronto have been paying the price in their property taxes. I do not understand the criteria used by the Conservatives. I hope the Liberals will do something about the matter.

In more recent developments, the city of Toronto economic development committee during July to September meetings in 1985 reviewed detailed data on the potential impact of reassessment at the ward level within the city of Toronto. Based on the study that is available, are the assessors employed by the Ministry of Revenue taking action? No way. The individual taxpayer has to launch an appeal to try to remedy the situation.

The individual assessor is not going out again and saying: "We made a mistake in 1981 and 1982. Legislation has been enacted by the province which is preventing us from implementing the principle of market value assessment. You are paying too much. We are going back to the principle of your taxes of 1981 retroactively." No way. The individual has to appeal. An injustice has been committed by the government. Are we going to tolerate this injustice? I hope the Liberals will do something about it.

The data were derived from the Ministry of Revenue's Metro-wide tax impact study prepared in 1982, using 1980 market values. I do not have a copy of the bill that was introduced recently by the Minister of Revenue in relation to this issue of property tax assessment, which should not be implemented for the city of Toronto.

A study was made, but no action has been taken. At the same time, the Minister of Revenue is alerting the members of the Legislature that we have to pass the legislation as soon as possible, or market value assessment will be implemented in the Metropolitan Toronto area. As I stated before, the Minister of Revenue released the study in July 1985.

Mr. Chairman: Has the member concluded his remarks?

Mr. Lupusella: I have not concluded yet. I have three quarters of an hour to finalize my comments.

Mr. Chairman: May I remind the member that these are estimates. We do have to allow time for other members to discuss the various votes and items and to ask questions of the minister.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw to your attention that I have used one hour.

Mr. Chairman: No. The member has used two hours and 22 minutes to be exact, by my calculations.

Mr. Lupusella: Two hours?

Mr. Chairman: You started with five hours and five minutes to go. I recorded that the last time. There are now two hours and 43 minutes to go.

Mr. Shymko: Are you alluding that this is a filibuster, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: No. I am simply reminding the member that we do have to get to votes and items and discuss the financial aspects of the estimates.

Mr. Lupusella: If that is the wish of the members, I will give other members an opportunity to speak. I would like, however, to conclude my opening remarks later on with the agreement of the members of the House. I will leave the floor to give others an opportunity, but I will get the floor back when other members have made their contributions to the opening remarks of the ministry.

Mr. Chairman: Could you continue on with your critic's statement and please finish up as soon as you can?

Mr. Lupusella: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very important ministry. In the past perhaps we did not spend so many hours reviewing the activities of the Minister of Revenue. Now that I am trying to do my work as a critic, everyone is criticizing the process, including my colleague the member for Etobicoke. How is it possible? Would he like to speak? Stand up and speak.

Mr. Philip: Fine, sit down.

Mr. Chairman: No. Perhaps the minister wishes to reply.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I do have one or two responses to points made by the members in their opening remarks which I found interesting and helpful, so interesting and helpful that I cannot put my hands on the piece of paper I am looking for right now.

To begin with, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) expressed some fears about the process of technological improvement in this ministry and, I would expect by extension, in all ministries. The member himself was a member of Management Board for a considerable time. He may recall meeting by meeting where proposals for computers and other technological improvements were put before the members of Management Board for their approval.

This is continuing at a very rapid rate. I believe the Ministry of Revenue has led all the others in technological improvement and advancement. This is because the work of the ministry responds better than that of almost any other to the capability of modern technology.

The Ontario assessment system program, described briefly in my opening remarks, is an attempt to assist in the assessment computerizing program right across the province. It is well established from our central headquarters, and in the next few months it will also be made available in all the assessment administrative facilities.

It was somewhat disappointing during the recent municipal enumeration, because the response time for each entry was a few seconds, maybe 40 or 50 seconds, longer than had been expected. When a total enumeration for municipal purposes is going forward, you can understand that even a loss or a lag of a few seconds is very time-consuming.

12:30 p.m.

I mention that only because I want to say how much I appreciated that the staff of the ministry and all the offices, including Brantford and elsewhere, who worked overtime, worked very hard under difficult circumstances and brought in the total enumeration, using the Oasys facility, on schedule and under budget. I appreciated both of those things. I have not had any letters of complaint as minister. Maybe the deputy and others have, but certainly the response was good.

To go off the track slightly, I want to mention that while we are moving forward technologically, sometimes there are bugs that are costly and of real concern. In general, the process of improving the computer capability of the ministry has really gone forward under very good direction, which includes the deputy, Mr. Russell, who is sitting at the table before me with his back to Mr. Speaker's chair, in case not all of the members know him, and the other staff. We have technical advisers, of course. I am quite proud that the Ministry of Revenue has taken advantage of the opportunities to computerize its work. It has worked out very well indeed.

The former minister, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), is now in his place. He and the member for Wentworth and others now on the opposition side were deeply involved in these decisions as ministers of revenue. I have nothing but commendation from my experience in this regard.

The phrase that the member for Wentworth used caught my attention. He said, "I hope your offices and others in government are not simply buying hardware so they can have the new machine on stream," or some such remark. I have that feeling from time to time as well.

In Management Board of Cabinet and even when we are talking about changes in the Ministry of Revenue, I am always assured that a business case is put forward. As a farmer, I never really knew what a business case was, but the phrase describes it very well. People involved in the actual business of the process have to justify it in dollars saved, in time, manpower and efficiency increases. This is demanded by those people who are approving.

It is quite possible we might misunderstand -- I certainly do not say might be misled -- the information, because usually a proposal that comes from a ministry that stands up to an examination by the officials of Management Board is approved. On the other hand, we are committing a lot of dollars to the computerization of government services. This is happening at an ever accelerating rate. Really, my own question is, when do we become saturated? When does that line of improvement -- and I trust and believe it is such -- start to level off so that we reach the point where we have it pretty well on line and functioning?

The former minister raises something that has been in my mind for many years around here and must be of concern to all of us. A lot of taxpayers' money is involved and it is up to the ministers, former and present, to be able to justify to them that we are providing better service and lower costs. I believe we are.

The second point the former minister mentioned, or at least the one I wanted to mention next, had to do with the Province of Ontario Savings Office. The member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) also spent quite a bit of time referring to it. I frankly appreciate the views expressed by both of the formal critics in support of the concept of the Province of Ontario Savings Office providing a service to the community.

It was inaugurated about 1922 at the initiative of the government of the day, which was largely made up of supporters of the United Farmers of Ontario party. I do not want to spend a lot of time on history, but that particular event in history makes it more understandable why I, for one on this side, am quite committed to its continuation and the improvement of its utilization.

Mr. Philip: It was restricted by the Conservatives when they got into power the year after that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That may be so.

The other important point in the history of the savings office was that in 1934, in the depths of the Depression, the government changed again, and the new Premier found that the bond-trading houses in the financial community of downtown Toronto were not in total agreement with all his newly stated policies as leader of a new Liberal government.

There are certain parallels that are interesting in the present situation, not that the bond-trading houses are anything but enthusiastically supporting all the innovative initiatives this government has brought forward, but at that time, in order more or less to enforce their views on the new government and use their undoubted financial power to bring the new administration to heel, they informed the administration they were not prepared to buy government of Ontario bonds.

In those days, some provincial jurisdictions were renouncing their responsibilities in this regard. I believe, and I hope this is not an actionable comment, Alberta was one of the provinces that found it simply could not pay the interest on its bonds in those times. The pressures were very real, and for the government of the day to find that it could not do business, even in the financial community of Toronto, was a very serious matter.

To get back to the subject at hand, the then Premier said: "That is unfortunate. We will have our own bonds printed up and we will sell them over the counters of the Province of Ontario Savings Offices," which he was quite prepared to do. As they made preparations for doing that, the normal bond-trading procedures seemed to fall back into place, and we have been blessed with good advice and good support from the bond-trading houses right through to now. They are still doing an efficient and effective job.

The members might be interested to know Ontario Hydro sold an issue of about $250 million worth of bonds in the last few days and the spread of cost to the bonds above our benchmark, which is the cost of similarly termed government of Canada bonds, was about the lowest in history. I say "about" because it is in the range of 17 basis points and the range has been up to about 30 basis points in the last three or four years.

I mention that because it is particularly apropos, having to do with decisions made by the bond-rating agencies in the last few days. I do not want to oversimplify the case. Certainly the bond-rating matter that has been raised in the House -- and I am sure will be again -- is a matter of concern to all of us and to me; but in this first instance, it has not had a dramatic effect on the cost of our borrowing.

The savings office now functions with the guarantee of the province as a convenience to many citizens of Ontario. We have about 98,000 accounts and about $585 million on deposit. It is interesting that the number of accounts is down from 103,000 in 1983 and the amount on deposit is down from more than $700 million in 1983. The trend is down because our interest policy, which pays approximately one half per cent more than bank interest, has not kept up to date.

We still maintain that premium, but the banks have a very competitive calendar of interest alternatives, including daily interest. POSO has not gone in that direction yet. My own feeling is that very serious consideration must be, and is being, given to bringing in a daily interest proposal that would maintain the historic premium over interest payable at the chartered banks. We are not really in competition with them because, although the amount of money on deposit at half a billion is very impressive, it is not an amount that the major banks, or even the minor banks, find much of a competition.

12:40 p.m.

However, I suggest to the members that we have an excellent savings facility in the government complex here. If they have not been in the Province of Ontario Savings Office in the Macdonald Block, I would urge them to go there. They should take their next paycheque in there and put it on deposit. It is very convenient and the people working in there are very friendly. I notice the critic of the official opposition is waving around his deposit book; I will see that a Christmas bonus is sent to him.

A good deal more might be said about the Province of Ontario Savings Office. It is a statutory item in these estimates, but it is quite in order to discuss it in further detail, and some of the members might want to do so later in the estimates.

Another item raised by the member for Wentworth had to do with the implication of returns made by small businesses in the corporation income tax procedure. We are quite pleased that, although over the years the ministry has dealt very effectively and positively with small businesses, this year through amendments now before the House we were able to improve that procedure even more.

The corporate returns for 120,000 small businesses will be made automatically. They go out almost as bills do, no specific return is required and no additional accounting procedures or legal procedures, we hope, will be required. This matter is before the House. We know it will be supported even though certain changes in the tax rates otherwise might not be supported. We will have a chance to discuss those in more detail later.

The member for Wentworth raised a number of other items, but I want to finish my response to his comments by referring to his statements about the report of the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) on assessment. He referred to the problems we have experienced over a number of years in improving the assessment procedures in Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto. The member for Mississauga East is looking at me and thinking about some of the problems. He, as a former minister, and others know how difficult they can be.

When I first became the minister, someone described the assessment situation and compared it to Mount St. Helens. There it is, an enormous thing on the horizon, vibrating, with a little plume of smoke coming out of the top, and one wonders what is going to happen next.

Mr. Grande: Speaking of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter).

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes. We used it there as well.

I had that feeling when I took over as minister. I had written the previous minister some letters about reassessment and what I thought about it. I had made a few mild, brief remarks in the Legislature from time to time about the assessment responsibility. I may hear some of those comments read back to me before the estimates are completed.

I thought the best thing I could do was to ask my parliamentary assistant to convene a low-profile review of the assessment practices. There were so many specific complaints from individuals, such as home owners in Toronto, farmers out my way -- myself included; I had sent a complaint -- and condominium owners. There seemed to be a falling-off of confidence that the assessment procedure was good enough to be supported by fair-minded taxpayers. If we lose confidence in something like assessment, it is a very serious matter indeed since it is the cornerstone for the funding of our municipal government.

In my experience there have been at least two rather full-blown reviews with public hearings, and they were entered into with very good work and good faith. One was chaired by Willis Blair, the current chairman of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. He even brought the chairman and his commissioners to the opposition caucus, as it then was -- the Liberal caucus -- to ask us for our views. Even though we gave him our views, his report, although it reflected some of them, was never implemented by the government.

There was a political concern about imposing market-value assessment, because while this often gives rise to lower tax rates, at the same time it always give rise to some higher tax rates on individuals. The problems of explaining that and getting it settled down in the community are very difficult, as we all, as politicians, know. There are additional difficulties, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area, with certain special assessments going back to veterans of the First World War. Nobody wants to interfere with them, and yet to achieve fairness and equity, an overall reassessment would obviously be necessary.

The member for Wentworth pointed out particularly the problem that if reassessment took place and if the new assessments gave rise to substantially higher taxes in some of the older parts of the city, the residents obviously could not meet those higher responsibilities.

He was questioning the recommendation as to whether the government would find some transition money to assist in those changes in tax rates that would be higher than could be met by the home owners. This is a recommendation to which we are giving consideration, but we must realize that where this occurred, I believe in Ottawa, the regional municipality there, through its own tax base, found some additional subsidy funds to assist those people hardest hit over the transition period.

I am simply pointing out that it is not completely the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue or the government of Ontario to meet that requirement. The recommendation is that we give consideration to it, and I can say to the honourable member that we are doing so, but we do not want to be left holding the whole bag. We consider it a local government responsibility as well, because while some taxes are going up, others will go down, since the overall assessment capability remains largely unchanged, and it should be an internal responsibility to see that no one is too severely hit by these additional payments.

The member referred to the possibility of a special assessment task force in Metro, as recommended by the report of the member for Waterloo North. Just in passing, I should mention again the role played by David Goyette, who is sitting under the gallery ready to send me a note of advice if necessary in this connection. It was his recommendation, through the member for Waterloo North's report, that called for the establishment of a special task force.

Members will be interested to note in the report that Mr. Goyette and the member for Waterloo North, having talked to the municipal leaders in all the cities of the metropolitan area, had received the agreement of the heads of councils -- that is, those before the election, and that is the same bunch now, is it not? There have been no changes -- that they were prepared to sit down to consider seriously establishing a program that would lead to a reassessment of the whole of the metropolitan area.

He recommended that this agreement ought to be in place and ready to go by September 1, 1986. That is a reasonable period of time. A couple of members have spoken to me privately and said, "I do not think we can do it in that short a time." Frankly, if it takes longer than that, it probably cannot be achieved. As a realistic politician, I would say it might be a useful time to proceed, as the new councils are in the first year of a three-year term, because a good deal of the work could be got out of the way, the dislocations could be ameliorated by the kinds of payments that might be forthcoming with an agreement in this connection and we might be able to achieve the kind of reassessment the metropolitan area obviously needs.

The concept of the task force is an excellent one, and I can say it is my intention, with Mr. Goyette, the member for Waterloo North and the staff of the Ministry of Revenue -- the deputy and others -- assisting me, to move as expeditiously as I can, but having everyone on side. We do not want to leave any of the cities of the metropolitan area behind, saying, "We do not like what you are doing." The members of the opposition, particularly those who had the responsibility I now have, know better than I do that as soon as somebody is left behind and starts being publicly critical and saying, "This will not work," then it will not work.

If we do it carefully, with the kind of consultation that is effective and meaningful and with a lot of luck, we might be able to achieve this. Certainly it is my intention to give it every support and to move forward in that situation.

12:50 p.m.

The critics of both opposition parties referred also to the recommendation for a regular assessment update on a four-year basis. I thought the report was particularly interesting in that connection where it looked at the ambit of a longer, five-year or seven-year possibility. Four years was the one put forward. Of course, reassessment costs money. The commitment to this is something that concerns me not only as Minister of Revenue but also as Treasurer and as a taxpayer in the jurisdiction. The recommendation for a four-year reassessment is a reasonable one, and I hope we can get the views of the members opposite in that connection.

There are other recommendations in the report having to do with the assessment review board, which comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). There are recommendations that it have a multilingual capability, that it hold meetings in the evening for the convenience of ratepayers and that it be asked -- in fact, be required -- to give reasons for its judgements. All these things might be found to be inconvenient by the present members of the board, but with the co-operation of the Attorney General, I sincerely hope we can set out guidelines for the assessment review procedure that will make it more effective.

While we are grateful for the services rendered by present and previous members, we particularly want to have people who are experienced in assessment or knowledgeable about the act and regulations and who are sensitive and responsive to the complaints that have become so common in the metropolitan jurisdiction, particularly to be able to take part in assessment review. We hope to improve that.

We want input and response from municipalities across the province. We have sent a copy of the report to the clerks of all municipalities, and I am informed the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is already considering the report and will make its views known to me and to us.

While I am talking about that, I want to say that the member for Dovercourt also spent considerable time referring to the report by the member for Waterloo North, indicating his dissatisfaction and particularly the dissatisfaction of his special constituency with the assessment matters as they now stand. He indicated the ethnic population in metropolitan areas was often not used to having an assessment of its own property as the basis for the payment of education and certain other services. It is a point that is well made. There have been others from the community at large who indicated we should reduce the dependence on local assessment for education costs.

The member for Dovercourt also went on to point out that the responsibility of senior citizens -- and all of us represent a good many of those; they are an extremely important group in our constituency, politically and otherwise, growing in size -- to continue paying for the cost of education is something the honourable member questions.

From my own point of view, I do not agree with his views in this regard. I believe the whole community has to share, and should continue to share, in the cost of education. However, we have a number of programs we have inherited. We administer them more effectively and more generously than our predecessors, but the programs we inherited were designed to assist senior citizens and others such as farm -- land holders to pay the cost of education.

An hon. member: Are you holding your tie, or what?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am putting my hand on my heart when I refer to farmers.

An hon. member: I thought you were holding up your tie.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No. That gesture means I am getting serious.

Even now we are mailing out the cheques, up to a limit of $500, all signed by the Minister of Revenue, to the senior citizens to assist them in paying their local taxes. While I could say this is the education part we are relieving them of, I do not feel that is appropriate. I believe senior citizens do not like to pay more than their share of taxes, but most of them, if they think about it, do not seriously object to contributing their tax share to education.

Mr. Davis: Ha.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They should not. I believe the whole community must share in that important role. Seniors as well as everybody else know it is the most important responsibility we fund. In my view, it is the most important responsibility we have in this House: to provide quality in education. Let us get into that right away.

In the next few minutes, I want to refer specifically to some points made by the member for Dovercourt. I appreciated the fact that he opened his remarks by introducing the delegation from Abruzzi and that a number of members took some of the estimates time to associate themselves with the comments by the member for Dovercourt. I thought it was quite appropriate.

Mr. McClellan: Copycat. "Me too"-ism. The minister will never get it right.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I love the name Abruzzi and the people.

The member for Dovercourt also asked me if I thought we were going to continue to have separate ministries. It had not occurred to me that we might not need separate ministries. I have often said one minister could handle the responsibility. I do not want to say, now that I am doing it, it is easy; it is anything but that. The reason I have not got into serious difficulty, particularly on the Revenue side, is that Mr. Russell and his staff have been relatively successful in keeping me out of trouble.

It is run very well indeed. I have even come to have a warm feeling for the assessors. I never thought that would happen, but I now know some of the unfair criticism that has been levelled towards them. They are a professional group of people across the province who work hard to apply the law and the regulations --

Mr. McClellan: It is the policy that is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right. I entirely agree with the honourable member who persists in interjecting that the policy has been wrong. We hope to correct it so the assessors will be seen to be the friends of the property owners and so people will come to appreciate the fact that they work hard and conscientiously. We are going to improve the regulations so the position will be improved as far as they are concerned as well.

The member for Dovercourt also made reference to the small business development corporations, which we will be discussing a bit later in the presentation of the revenue bill.

I do not think I have time now to refer to anything else that I made a note of when it was raised, but when we return to these estimates for the remaining two hours and 11 minutes on Monday, I will be very glad to respond to the direct comments from the honourable members.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

22 novembre 1985