L014b - Mon 25 May 1998 / Lun 25 Mai 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
SMALL BUSINESS AND CHARITIES PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES PETITES ENTREPRISES ET DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 16, An Act to give Tax Relief to Small Businesses, Charities and Others and to make other amendments respecting the Financing of Local Government and Schools / Projet de loi 16, Loi visant à alléger les impôts des petites entreprises, des organismes de bienfaisance et d'autres et à apporter d'autres modifications en ce qui a trait au financement des administrations locales et des écoles.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Northumberland.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's certainly a pleasure to be able to address this budget bill, Bill 16, that certainly is recognizing the importance of small business in Ontario and also charities and the many volunteers in this country. This bill is about giving a break to small business. It's important that we give a break to small business because they indeed are the ones that create most of our net new jobs. Some people have estimated in the neighbourhood of 90% of new jobs are created by small business.
Unfortunately, though, some of the figures in Canada are that four out of five small businesses collapse within the first five years. That's most unfortunate. Their biggest problem relates to taxation. Taxation is the number one cause of why these businesses fail. Just imagine that if we could reduce this taxation enough so that maybe one less would fail in that five-year period, it would only be three out of five, and two out of five would keep going.
It's unfortunate that here in Canada we are the world champion on property taxation when it's measured as a percentage of the gross domestic product of this country. In a study by the OECD countries, when they looked at property and wealth taxes throughout the world, they came up with Canada at 4.1% compared to GDP; the US at 3.3% GDP; the UK at 2.6%, tying with Sweden, which is quite a socialistic country, providing an awful lot of social programs, at 2.6%; also Germany at 1.6%; and Italy, of all places, coming in at only 1%. We could copy a lot from Italy in their 1%.
It's interesting to note that businesses consume only a third of the municipal services in their respective communities while at the same time they're taxed up to two thirds of the property tax for that community. Not only do they pay two thirds of the property tax, but they also pay income tax, payroll tax and other taxes. They're also charged extra for things like garbage collection, telephone rates, higher electrical rates.
The opposition has a great myth that business owners are rich: "Oh well, sure, they can afford it." Stats Canada indicates that entrepreneurs generally, on the average, earn $15,000 less per household in Canada, and those entrepreneurs work 13 hours per week more than the average employee. It's unfortunate that many of these entrepreneurs are well below the poverty line. However, they're still required to pay the minimum wage, and in many instances they don't even earn it themselves.
The real problem here is that business and property taxes are still payable regardless of whether these entrepreneurs make a profit or not. It's most damaging to these fledgling industries that are starting out with little or no profit, facing things like unfair taxes. This is the very group that we're asking to create jobs and create the wealth in this country, yet we don't hesitate, at least the opposition didn't hesitate, to add on those taxes. Bill 16, which we're dealing with here, is all about recognizing those small businesses and doing something about those taxes.
We never see the NDP out there demonstrating on behalf of the poor entrepreneurs, but they certainly -
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What are you talking about? The member for Fort York was out protesting your tax increases all over the place.
Mr Galt: We're talking about Bill 16 and what we're doing with taxation to look after small business.
At the NDP convention recently, I noticed they were talking about abolishing tuition fees. Spend, spend, spend. They voted down any proposal to total up the cost of their election promises. It sounded more to me like a Liberal convention than an NDP convention. Alexa McDonough made the comment that electoral fortunes will improve when it shows it can govern responsibly. We saw what happened between 1990 and 1995, when we talk about governing responsibly.
The member for Welland-Thorold cited at this conference that they had political courage from 1990 to 1995. I would interpret it that they had courage to spend money they didn't have. They didn't have the courage to increase taxes, but they had the courage to go out and borrow against future generations.
Some 70% of the firms in this country are small businesses which have five or fewer employees. Bill 16 recognizes these particular businesses, and we must, if we're going to have a vibrant economy here in Ontario.
Since taking office, there have been many changes that this government has made to encourage small business. An excellent example is in the recent budget. We are getting rid of the employer health tax for payrolls up to $400,000, and we're moving it from January 1, 1999, right down to July 1, 1998, as one example.
I think it's important to point out at this point that the employer health tax was an extremely regressive tax.
Mr Wildman: Hear, hear.
Mr Galt: It's good to see that the member from the NDP really agrees with this. What we had was a tax-and-spend Liberal government that really upped the taxes in every area they possibly could. There's no question that all payroll taxes discourage business and they discourage business from hiring staff. The employer health tax was one of the best-known job killers this country has ever seen. As a matter of fact, it was high on our most-wanted list, and we've certainly looked after it. Next year, 80% of businesses will no longer be paying the employer health tax.
Bill 16 also provides municipalities with additional tools to protect small business, which reaffirms our commitment to small business in Ontario. Bill 16 allows municipalities to protect them from sudden increases in property taxes that may occur because of the fair value assessment. This is particularly true as I look at my own riding of Northumberland, and also an area like Toronto, where they have upgraded their assessment from pretty well 50 years ago. Not all of the municipalities in my riding go back 50 years, but certainly some, if not most, do go back that far. Consequently, there's going to be some tremendous adjustments and changes as we get to a fair level of assessment. Business owners came to this government and brought a clear message of change, that it be orderly and also that it be phased in over time. I'm pleased that, as usual when concerns like that are brought to us, this government listened and we responded.
It's important at this point to remember that businesses power Ontario. Businesses create jobs. Businesses build wealth and also generate taxes that help governments operate. Where would we be if there were no business to create those taxes? We as a government recognize and applaud that entrepreneurial spirit that comes in small enterprise.
Does the opposition ever ask where we would be without small business? I don't think so, because over the last 10 years, with some 65 tax increases, many small businesses were driven out of business. It's very obvious to me that they never really asked where we would be without small business.
1840
High taxes kill jobs. All we have to do is take a look at the Canadian left coast and see what happened when Premier Mike Harcourt came in in 1991. They took the economy for granted. The economy was booming. The Asians were moving in with all kinds of money, particularly from Hong Kong. A typical socialist government increased sales tax, increased tax on stumpage, and on and on it went. Where is it now, after all that happens? Unemployment is at 9.7% while the Canadian average is at 8.6%. Business confidence totally plummeted right down, and in a recent survey of the Vancouver Board of Trade, 12% of the members surveyed, some 212, were in the process of moving their business from that particular province.
What about unemployment in some of the neighbouring states? Washington is sitting at 5.3%, Oregon is sitting at 3.8% unemployment and Idaho at 5% unemployment, obviously demonstrating what can happen when they really look after small business. Next door, Alberta has an economic growth of 5%, similar to Ontario, while the growth in BC is 2%. They say it's all because of the Asian crisis, but they were down actually to 1% prior to the Asian crisis coming, all relating to greedy governments after more and more taxes, and finally they just go way over on the Laffer curve that I've explained here before.
Small business Ontario is not asking for help. What they're asking for is fair treatment, and that is indeed what this government is providing. It's the work ethic of small business that makes Ontario and Canada what they really are and what makes them so great. It's capitalism that's working. The fact is that people work hard and are prepared to take less in exchange for the possibility of success, for the possibility that their business may grow and prosper. We're very lucky that we have small business owners in this province who believe in the Yiddish saying, "You can't hold your head up with your hand out."
There's further protection in Bill 16 as we look at capping at 2.5% all business taxes and property taxes for business. Of course, it would be based on the realty and business taxes of 1997. This would continue over the next three years. We're also looking at a transitional provision which permits municipalities to delay paying their school property taxes during this year.
I've received a lot of letters and a lot of calls from municipalities in Northumberland expressing their concerns over the transitional year and about having to borrow extra funds. Most agree with the fair, equitable property tax system. Many of them considered it, but it's pretty rough to bring it in in a small municipality. They're pleased that we did. It has been an enormous undertaking. Their biggest concern in this transitional year is the additional cost as it relates to turning over the education taxes. It's great to see that the Minister of Education is prepared to address this. He may allow the municipalities to defer the education tax for a reasonable time and, at the same time, may advance funds to cover this particular period. However, it is only going to be for this current year, 1998.
Looking at cutting commercial and education taxes, we've recognized for a long time that the business education tax in Ontario has indeed been too high. As I mentioned earlier, we are a world champion when it comes to taxation measured against the GDP. I'm pleased to see that we're recognizing and able to meet a commitment to reduce business and commercial taxes by some $500 million over the next eight years. In Northumberland that translates to being $1.7 million in 2005, down by some 27% - a 27% decrease.
There's no question that high taxes discourage jobs. After all, tax evasion may be illegal, but tax avoidance is not. People in high tax jurisdictions have a choice: They can stay or they can go. In BC, in a recent Angus Reid poll of the Vancouver Board of Trade, they found that 28% planned to move all or part of their businesses within the next two years. They've cited high taxes as the chief culprit for why they are going to move. Some 60% of BC's businesses said taxes were the biggest hindrance to doing business in the province.
I think it's interesting to note that in the US, Dr Richard Vedder looked at the 10 lowest-taxed states and the 10 highest-taxes states from 1980 to 1988 and found that there were 1,000 people per day moving to the lower-taxed states and 1,000 per day moving from the highest-taxed states, all because of taxes, including property taxes. All these taxes drive people out, particularly the property tax, the toughest one for them to deal with. Also, in comparison of these two groupings of 10 states, the economy of the 10 states with the lowest taxes actually went up 20% faster than did the 10 states with the highest taxes.
Lower taxes create jobs. There is just no question that it does stimulate jobs and leads to higher tax revenues once you bring those taxes down. It seems that the opposition will never quite understand how increasing taxes takes away from revenue coming in. They keep talking about taxing the rich. I wonder who they think the rich really are. What it's really about is a brain drain and driving people out of this province. They are fleeing the high tax jurisdiction. We talked about some of the other countries and provinces, but here in Ontario who is leaving? Our physicians, our lawyers, our computer engineers are the ones who are leaving because of high taxes. First they get relatively low tuition to go through university and then they head for the low-tax states to practise in.
It's equally laughable when we hear the leader of the official opposition talk about increasing spending and holding taxes at the same time. I wonder how he is going to hold the tax line and increase spending. I think he's just waiting to get to that taxation trough as soon as we get the budget balanced. It's very obvious where the Liberals will go if they were ever to accidentally get back in and form the government again. They would spend, spend, spend; it would be the same old tax-and-spend government all over again.
There's no question that the leader of the NDP got it right at their convention that the Liberals want to be all things to all people. I think that recognition of the Liberal Party and the Liberal leader was interesting.
Just a couple of comments on charities: I think this is a great bill to recognize the volunteers of this country. It will require municipalities to give back at least 40% of the property taxes to those charities, and the municipalities may pass a bylaw whereby they can give back up to 100% of the property taxes to those charities. That is a real boon for those organizations and for those volunteers. I really applaud our Minister of Finance for having that kind of insight to recognize the volunteers in Ontario.
In conclusion, Bill 16 is indeed another example of this government's commitment to small business in Ontario, and to charities and volunteers in this province. It's also a commitment and an indication that this government is prepared to listen and does respond to the concerns of everyday Ontarians here in our province.
Business owners have told me that they are concerned about sudden hikes in their property taxes, because a sudden hike is obviously going to jeopardize their profitability. We've responded to that by limiting these tax increases for businesses and recognizing that, particularly for those businesses where there will be a very significant increase in market value assessment, there is no question that fair value assessment, market value assessment is the right place to be. It's paying taxes based on the value of the property, but there is an adjustment and we are recognizing that adjustment period over three years.
We're also recognizing the transitional year and looking at when education taxes have to be paid and giving some recognition to the municipalities. We're also recognizing that the education property tax on businesses and commercial enterprise has just been way too high for many years and through $500 million we will be recognizing that over the next several years.
There is absolutely no question that other governments have failed to look after our small business, have driven jobs out of this country. This government, I'm really pleased to see that we are listening, we're responding, we're acting on some of the recommendations that are being made by municipalities, that are being made by small business. I for one, as a member of this party, the PC Party of Ontario, am very pleased to be able to support our Bill 16.
1850
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'm sure that anybody tuning in at this time and not knowing what this bill is all about would think that this is the best thing since sliced cheese. But what the people of Ontario should understand is that this bill merely corrects something that we have warned the government about for the last year.
We told them that if you go to a market value assessment system, if you take away the business occupancy tax and you don't have a plan in place, you are going to see tremendous tax hikes in some areas and we've heard it right here in the city of Toronto along Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue, where small businesses' taxes are going up from $5,000 to $25,000 while at the same time the big bank towers downtown are paying $5 to $6 million less in taxes.
What the government has had to do, and we've warned them of that, we've warned them of that for at least the last six to eight months, if you bring it in and you haven't got a plan, you're going to have to correct it. This government is involved in exactly the same thing that they were involved in so many times last year. They have to correct mistakes that they made when they implemented the market value assessment system. That's what this is all about.
The question that people could be asking out there is that if businesses are only limited to a 2.8% increase in taxes for the next three years, then we're not going to be in a market value system and somebody else must be picking up the difference that these businesses aren't paying. If you had come in with an overall plan to deal with the entire situation, this piece of legislation would not have been necessary.
Mr Wildman: I have listened with interest to the member's intervention in the debate. I thought I might learn something. Unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case.
However, I would say it's interesting that the member skimmed over some of the problems that the government is facing and tried to emphasize more what is happening in British Columbia, in Vancouver, of course ignoring the relationship that economy has to the Asian market. He mentioned that there were a lot of Asians coming in, but he did not really acknowledge the fact that the collapse of the Asian market, the problems in Indonesia and so on, have had significant impact on the British Columbia economy. I would just say the economy of Ontario is doing well right now, largely because of exports to the United States.
In Ontario, largely because of the auto industry, we have a relationship somewhat similar to our American neighbours that the British Columbia economy has to the Pacific Rim, particularly Japan and Singapore and some of the so-called Asian tigers. When you have a collapse of their economies, it of course has a tremendous effect in British Columbia. I hope this does not have the same effect here, but if we are to see the cyclical recession in the American market, the dependence we have on exports will have a tremendous impact here. If our American neighbours catch a cold, we're going to get a very bad case of the flu, because of our dependence on the American market.
I would also point out that the member did mention in passing that this bill will ensure that for three years there is not more than a 2% per cent differential in taxes. That just postpones the problem for three years.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Unlike the member for Algoma, I found the member's comments edifying and informative and on topic. I think there's always a very startling contrast between their comments and the comments from this side, which attempt to inform people about the contents of the bill but do it in the spirit of what is happening throughout the province, that while it's not perfect out there yet, the bottom line is that it's a heck of a lot better than it was three years ago.
As Spiro Agnew once said, "The nattering nabobs of negativism on the other side may have their day," but I find it very interesting that even some of their most ardent supporters in the media are on any given day coming out with fulsome praise for the budget, for this bill, for a lot of the things our government is doing. The Windsor Star, and we don't have any seats at all there, three ridings down there -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, the member from Windsor.
Mr Gilchrist: - a tax study showing that the average Ontario family is paying a lot less tax, endorsed by the Windsor Star. The Thunder Bay Chronicle - that's in another part of the province where we don't have any seats - is raving about the fact that, under Bill 99, we're now giving compensation to widows of former compensation victims. "Workfare Plan Quietly Scoring Some Success" down in London. "More Mine Inspectors Coming Up," also in the north, a place where, to listen to the members opposite, everything is going wrong. Obviously we're dealing with issues. "Mike Harris' Ontario No 1"; "No Tax Hike in Waterloo." More negativism obviously put to rest there. "Budget Points Ontario in the Right Direction." Here's one that was most interesting in the last couple of days: "Liberals Lie, NDP Boss Says." So in some areas we obviously share some -
The Acting Speaker: Your time has expired. Further debate?
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Just coming back to the bill and the matter at hand, which of course the member for Northumberland was speaking to, Bill 16, Small Business and Charities Protection Act, I'm sure it has been pointed out that this is the fifth time that the government is trying to get it right with respect to this legislation dealing with property tax. They came out with Bill 106, Bill 149, Bill 160, Bill 164, and now here we are with a fifth attempt to get it right. If there's anything that underscores the incompetence of this government in trying to deal with a fundamental form of taxation that's been around since Confederation, it is this one here, and they still don't have it right.
All my colleagues opposite who trumpet the value of market value assessment, let me tell you the reality, because we went through market value assessment in Ottawa-Carleton in 1991-92. We're on MVA, and there were two lessons we learned from that, which are (1) if you leave property values to the market, then you drive out single-family homes in the downtown core when you need this kind of housing to make sure you don't end up with empty business ghettos and nobody there to make the downtown vibrant, because people are driven out by high taxes, and (2) you also drive out small business. Take the market area in the city of Ottawa, where we have these lovely little small businesses but still it's popular, and the market drives them out. You end up with large chains, people don't go there and it takes a while for all this to straighten out.
You simply cannot leave things in the hands of the market. There are other values, values such as keeping downtown neighbourhoods vibrant, values such as keeping small businesses active, yet this government is going to give it to the blind hand of the marketplace and it will rue that when it hears from small business and cannot keep these things in place.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Northumberland.
Mr Galt: I really appreciate the support that the member for Scarborough East gave my presentation. The member for Kingston and The Islands's remarks sounded like the usual rhetoric and "I told you so," and I listened to that. If they were so right and knew how to do it, I'm really wondering why they didn't do it in their term from 1985 to 1990. They had all kinds of opportunity to put it in at that time.
I appreciate the comments of the member for Algoma, but I think maybe he missed the point in my presentation about the Asians, that the economic growth in BC, the Canadian left coast, had dropped to 1% prior to the Asian crisis, so it was not the Asian crisis. They're trying to blame it on that, but it was all over and they were in big trouble by the time the Asian crisis came along. I can appreciate them trying to blame it on that; most governments do. But in reality, that's what it was.
1900
What happens traditionally across this country and many other countries is when an NDP or socialist government comes into power, it's automatic that they exacerbate another recession. We see this time after time after time. It's certainly happening on the west coast, and it happened here in Ontario as well.
I listened to the member for Ottawa West and he talked about this government trying to get it right. At least we're going ahead and doing something. We're moving -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Galt: If we can get it 90% right with the first attempt, it's worth going there and I think that's what this government has been doing. A little fine-tuning later on, yes, it may be necessary, but at least, as in a great slogan that the group Up With People often use, "Deal with it and move on." That's exactly what this government has been doing with something like market value or fair value assessment. We have been dealing with it, trying to set it, doing some fine-tuning, making some adjustments, and we are getting it right. There is no question.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I too am pleased to join this debate this evening on Bill 16. The member for Northumberland left a good segue for me to begin the debate and that is this issue of, are we getting it right? That's an important question because there is no doubt that no matter who the government were to be today, there are difficult and complicated choices to be made. I want to begin my portion of this debate by talking about what my colleagues alluded to, that this is in fact the fourth change in less than two years that this government has made. This bill represents an attempt to clean up their own stupidity, their own desire to go too far, too fast without thinking through the consequences, particularly to small business and charities.
You will remember Bill 106. You will also remember the megaweek announcements of January 1997, the week we ushered in a new era in Ontario, the week a government that claimed to understand what it was doing began to reform the entire process of how we govern ourselves in this great province, particularly at the municipal level.
What has happened since then? This is the fourth cleanup attempt of Bill 106, the fourth time. The member for Northumberland spoke, I believe, with sincerity and passion when he talked about the need to create a climate for small business in this province that is conducive to investment and therefore job creation.
I wonder how it is you create or induce new investment when you make chaos out of the property tax system. That's what this government has done. They didn't listen in 1997. They didn't know what they were doing as they jammed those changes through this House, invoking their majority, in fact changing the rules of this House so that they could push their ill-conceived Bill 106 through the House.
What do we have going on in Ontario this week? In my community of Windsor tomorrow evening our city council will resume their budget debate, and I regret that for the first time in more than eight years, they are facing a property tax increase. Why? Because of this government, because this government has chosen to force municipalities to pay a greater share of the costs associated with those services that historically have had a greater percentage paid by the province, at least historically since the last time municipalities went bankrupt in this province, some 60 years ago. So in Windsor they're going line by line.
In our city we had a fiscal fitness policy that saw us reduce the city's debt year over year. Indeed, I was proud to be part of a council that actually cut property taxes in two years. What's really interesting about the chaos this government has created is that normally we would have set our budget in Windsor last December for this year, and as it stands right now, we're not even ready to complete it.
Anecdotally, Mr Speaker, I know you're aware that this bill is 80 pages long.
Interjection: That's all.
Mr Duncan: That may be all, but it's twice as long as the original bill it's designed to clean up. That's not good government, with all due respect. That doesn't create a climate for investment. That creates confusion and that creates property tax increases.
This government trumpets the fairness of current value assessment. Well, I can tell you, our community went to market value assessment in 1984. We had our assessments updated as recently as 1993, and I can tell you I have constituents in my riding, the people on Pierre, the people on Empress, the people on Westminster, people of modest means with modest homes, and they are facing 40% increases in their property taxes due to this government. And all the while in our community, many others of much greater means are seeing great decreases in their property taxes.
We spoke about this in 1997. We talked about this in this very Legislature, and the very members who this evening are going to stand up and trumpet how good they are as a government are going to ignore the very simple fact that they didn't listen a year ago. They want to talk about 10 years ago or 13 years ago or 15 years ago, but you won't hear them talking about last year. You won't hear the member for Northumberland talk about Bill 106, you won't hear him talk about Bill 149, you won't hear him talk about Bill 160, because they were needed to clean up your mess.
This is a government that's raising property taxes right across this great province. This is a government that has deliberately chosen to increase property taxes. This is a government that has deliberately chosen to increase user fees. This is a government that has deliberately chosen to close 37 hospitals and counting.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Oh, come on.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau.
Mr Duncan: This is a government that has chosen to pick and choose the wealthy over the poor. This tax will hurt seniors more than anyone else. Let me tell the member for Ottawa-Rideau, the comfortable former judge, about seniors in my riding who have very modest incomes, who struggle to keep their homes, who are paying -
Mr Guzzo: They're paying Peterson's debt.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Ottawa-Rideau, please. You're getting out of control.
Mr Duncan: - who are paying the legacy of mismanagement by governments going back to the 1960s, many years of which included Tory governments in this province, and Tory debt. The member for Ottawa-Rideau would much rather give a tax cut to the wealthy than hold the line on property taxes for those seniors struggling on a fixed income who aren't seeing anywhere near the kinds of increases that those people will see as a result of their income tax cut. So there's a fundamental dishonesty -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, please take your seat. Member for Ottawa-Rideau, I don't want to advise you again to quit shouting.
1910
Mr Duncan: The member for Ottawa-Rideau preaches the fundamental dishonesty of a policy that favours the wealthiest over the poorest. Then they try to take facts and figures, they talk about the efficiencies created by this budget or by this particular bill, ignoring the fact that they're simply cleaning up their own mess, never mind what happened 10 or 12 years ago. Let's not complicate this debate. Let's focus right back on Bill 106. They don't want to do that. The member for Ottawa-Rideau would much rather see property taxes go up for senior citizens in my riding and in many other ridings across this great province.
The government would have you think they are the only ones who believe there was a mess, that there was need for change. That's simply not the case. All parties in this Legislature have attempted to deal with the issue over the years, and all parties, except this, have shown some caution and didn't bring forward legislation they would have to change four times within a year of its original passage.
Let's talk again about the member for Ottawa-Rideau's priorities. He would much rather see the big bank towers in Toronto get a huge cut in taxes, 15% to 20%. That translates to $5 million to $8 million per year, and he'd still like to see the seniors on fixed incomes in small war-time houses get a property tax increase. That's what the member for Ottawa-Rideau wants, that's what he's voting for, that's what this bill is about, and that's what the bungling has been about right from the very beginning. So when the government tries to suggest somehow that they're cleaning up a mess, wrong again. For everything they try to clean up, they create more. So I'm not surprised, and I guess none of us should be surprised, that the member for Ottawa-Rideau supports huge tax cuts for the bank towers in downtown Toronto but won't stand up for those people in inner-city, war-time houses who are going to see their property taxes rise.
What about another principle of taxation; that is, responsibility? Mike Harris and the member for Ottawa-Rideau now set the education tax rate for business, so they're now setting 55% to 65% of the total business property tax. Even though he has said in 1997 that he wanted to have total control of education spending to provide equity, the government announced in early 1998 that they had decided to tax business at widely differing rates across the province. Again, more chaos and confusion. That chaos and confusion is what led to the 1998 budget announcement to spend $500 million over eight years to lower business property tax rates to the provincial average. Again, they've got to spend scarce public dollars to clean up their own mess.
What do we have now? Is our new system of taxation clear? Is it transparent? No. This government has given itself the power to set those tax rates by regulation. That means no public debate, no local input. It's done by fiat, with simply a publication in the Ontario Gazette.
Again, we join with the municipal clerks and treasurers of Ontario, who called this mess overwhelming, absolutely overwhelming. We join with those municipalities across Ontario that are wrestling with the largest property tax increases they've had to foist on their unsuspecting property owners in many, many years. We side with those who say that the interests of the bank towers ought to be secondary to those seniors who are struggling to stay in their home on a fixed income and still deal with the mess that this government has created in the property tax system.
This bill presents us the opportunity to speak in general terms about the entire nature of municipal governance in this province, but we haven't debated and cannot tonight debate the full impact of all the other downloading and what it means.
What's really disturbing about the government's approach to this issue is that they're trying to pretend it's not happening. They may think it's working, they may think they're fooling people, but they're not. People understand that this is not about fairness; it is not about equity at all. It's about redistribution of taxation and redistribution of expenditure, and it's about choking our ability as a society to answer the needs of the people we represent.
Fundamentally, this bill, as a first principle, is a bill that's designed to clean up a mess that this government created.
Secondly, it's a bill that's designed to camouflage downloading. The most odious aspect of this bill is that it shifts the burden deliberately, along with all the government's other policies, down to those who can least afford the burden.
It's interesting. We talk about property taxes. In our city, because of the government's failure to fund capital into health care, our municipality is being called upon to look at a special levy to raise money to deal with the two and a half hospitals the NDP closed, and now this government doesn't want to help our community come to terms with that reality. I say to the members opposite who haven't proceeded as far along this debate in their communities as we have that when your community goes to raise those capital dollars, don't be surprised if the fund-raisers have to turn to your municipal government as well to make up for the shortcomings.
There is no doubt that this bill is designed to clean up a mess, a mess that was created by this government. No doubt our property tax system had to be cleaned up. There is no doubt; all of the parties have talked about that. But we don't believe that creating a system such as this, a system that has 84 classes and subclasses with 156 tax rates, is an adequate cleanup.
We believe and concur with the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers that this bill and its predecessor, the one it's designed to clean up, is a recipe for administrative chaos. This is part of a deliberate strategy to create confusion so that people won't fully understand or be cognizant of how this government has shifted the burden of the cost of government down to local ratepayers.
If this government were serious about property tax reform, it would have taken its time and done it right in the first instance. Instead of jamming through Bill 106 and then the subsequent four bills, we might be dealing with one bill today that not only tried to clean up - and I recognize that's a complicated process - but might in fact improve the system. But no, we had to create chaos, and this bill is about cleaning up chaos. It's about a government that went too far, too fast. It's about a government that didn't think about the consequences. It's about a government that didn't think about who is paying the piper. It is about a mess in health care. It is about a mess in education. It is about not dealing with reality but dealing with ideology, a bill about cleaning up a mess - you're darned right it's a bill about cleaning up a mess, and there are a lot of messes that this government has created that are going to have to be cleaned up, whether it be in the health care sector or the education sector.
There is no question that this government created this mess and this government has not addressed the mess, but the biggest mess that will be cleaned up is the mess that was created in 1995, and that is to turf this government and replace it with a government that's sensitive to the needs of the people of this province.
1920
Mr Wildman: I'd like to comment briefly on the remarks of my friend from Windsor-Walkerville. I agree with him that this is a government that is presenting this legislation because it brought forward some ill-advised, poorly conceived pieces of legislation in the past and it is now trying to clean up that mess.
Just as the member for Northumberland earlier accused me of blaming - I think that was the term he used - others for the situation in British Columbia, they are attempting to blame others for the mess they've created around property tax assessment. We all knew there needed to be a reform of the property tax, but this government said to the assessors, "We want to reassess all of the properties in Ontario, and you only have a year to do it," even though the ministry staff said clearly to the government, "To do this properly, we need three to five years; it cannot be done properly in one year."
As a result, there have been mistakes all over the place. There are going to be appeals - there are appeals - all over the place. There is going to be such a backlog of appeals, it's going to take forever to resolve this. It's all because this government was in such a hurry and it didn't want to do it right. When other governments amalgamated school boards, they took three years to do it in Alberta and British Columbia. This government did it in one year because they're in such a rush that they don't want to consider all of the ramifications and do it properly.
Having said that, I want to emphasize that while we recognize there needed to be a reform of the property tax system, overall we don't accept that this government is going too far, too fast - it's going in the wrong direction.
Mr Gilchrist: Unlike the previous speaker, I must take exception to the comments made by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, although I would agree with one sentence he used. He says all parties agree the property tax system needed to be cleaned up and that they have all talked about it. You're right. That's all you did: talk about it. You talked about it in 1990. You talked about it so late in your mandate that you then -
Mr Duncan: You're cleaning up your own mess.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, you had your turn. Please.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, I don't have to tell you two or three times. Please.
Mr Gilchrist: In fact, you did it so late in your term, you then passed the buck to the NDP, and rightly or wrongly, even though Metro council and others brought resolutions to this chamber to allow market value assessment, they too dropped the hot potato. The fact of the matter is that we have properties not just in downtown Toronto but in other municipalities across the province with assessments that are 50 years out of date because people like the member for Windsor-Walkerville didn't have the courage to go into those communities that were getting the deals and say: "You know what? Fairness means more to me than pandering to your votes."
Do we know that there will be mansions in Rosedale whose taxes go up? Yes, we do, and we knew that the day we all voted in this House, including the members who represent those affluent areas. You, sir, and your party didn't have the courage to do that. Furthermore, the fearmongering you've done in here, you know full well that every senior of low income -
Mr Duncan: You have no courage.
The Acting Speaker: I don't want to tell you again.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. That kind of thuggery is what I would expect from the member.
The bottom line is, you know full well that the law makes it mandatory that all low-income seniors and anyone who is disabled must be provided for, no tax increase, the first time any government has had the courage to do that too.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): First of all, I want to commend my friend and colleague from Windsor-Walkerville. I just wonder how many of those people across the hall have ever sat on municipal council. If they ever sat on municipal council, it doesn't show here in this House.
With the downloading that this government has produced to the municipalities, no wonder the charity groups won't be able to afford having their organizations going any more. They will have to pay rent to municipalities. It's true that the government has cut $1.6 billion in taxation, the business occupancy tax, but charity groups won't be able to keep on going any more.
This government keeps saying it has cut taxes 66 times, but we just wonder how many times the municipalities will have to increase taxes to be able to continue operating. The government has come down with the transition fund. The transition fund is only temporary for three years. What is going to happen to the people in this province after three years, I really don't know. No one will be able to afford it.
I'm looking at the town of Hawkesbury: 800% increase in business tax. I'm looking at Russell: 625% in increased taxes. You just have to come down in our area. You people never did the planning properly. You didn't realize that the move you were doing would affect the rural area. When you do plan, please look at the rural area before you implement or introduce any bill. Definitely, small groups in the rural area won't be able to continue giving the service to the poor people in the rural area because they won't be able to afford it.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It was quite the spectacle, sir, the member for Windsor-Walkerville in his usual eloquence taking advantage of a talent and trying to play the poverty game, which does not become him.
I agree with the member that Bill 16 is where you pick up all those bits that don't fit into the original bill, but there again, let's be benevolent, let's not be too harsh on the government. When you're in a revolution, you get tired, and when you're tired, you make mistakes.
What we have here is the unspeakable, trying to defend the indefensible. It cannot be done. They say on the one hand, "We will leave the contribution, the beauty, food-for-the-soul culture, and we will impose on the municipalities a tax break for arts, for culture." Yet when it comes to the budget, culture and recreation, in 1994-95 our government - the government past, alas - was spending $408 million. In the interim, 1997-98, they're down to $287 million. See the shell game? See what's happening here? One hand takes, rakes it in, it goes into the big vat which is the general fund, and the other hand dictates to local government to become more benevolent than the government should have been in the first place.
You're not fooling anyone. You've created fear, anxiety, and you will get the just cause that you deserve come July when the appeals start pouring in. Unfortunately, it's the people who will suffer.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, now is your turn. You have two minutes.
Mr Duncan: It's been a pleasure to participate in this debate.
To the member for Algoma, he recapped a number of issues that we have reviewed.
My colleague from Prescott-Russell spoke about the impact that this government's changes have had overall in terms of downloading.
1930
The member for Lake Nipigon, as always, in his eloquent and good-humoured way pointed out flaws in the bill.
The member for Scarborough East took on the usual role of sycophant extraordinaire, accusing us of thuggery. I'll tell you what thuggery is: Thuggery is jamming Bill 106 through this Legislature without full debate and creating a mess in property taxes. I need no lesson from that member on market value assessment. I was part of a municipal council that did it. I was part of a council that implemented those kinds of changes, and I'll tell you, we did it a heck of a lot better than this government's attempting to do it. We certainly didn't have to bring in four pieces of legislation to clean it up.
When that member talks about thuggery, I think about senior citizens who aren't given a voice by that member; I think about a government that's taking money out of hospitals and putting it into bank towers. That's what I think about. I think about a government that has changed the rules of this Legislature to stifle debate, to make it more difficult to get these points across. That in my mind is thuggery, and that is thuggery of the worst form, because they don't want to talk about reality; they don't want to talk about the facts; they don't want to talk about what they've created. They want to go into the past, the distant past. Talk about 1997, what you've done as a thug and a sycophant to this province and to the people in it.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask you to rule whether "thug" and "sycophant" are parliamentary terms.
The Acting Speaker: I have often said in this House that sometimes you get so close to the precipice that you nearly fall in it, but "thuggery" I would accept; "sycophant" I accept too.
Further debate?
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I could think of a sentence that put both of those words in it, I'd use it right now to just reaffirm your ruling. However, I must say many other words come to my mind.
Particularly, I must say that the comments of the member for Scarborough East raging on about how this has been a problem for 50 years and the two parties on this side of the House didn't deal with it - I just did a little quick math here, and for 37 of those 50 years, Progressive Conservatives were re-elected again and again in this province, and they didn't do anything about it either.
We know that the Reform-a-Tories over here like to pretend they didn't get elected on a Progressive Conservative ticket. They like to pretend that they can criticize the other two parties for the governments they had without accepting the responsibility for what Progressive Conservatives did over 42 years of rule in this province. They cannot escape that responsibility, because they know very well that the people who elected them thought they were like the Tories who used to rule in Ontario. They now know that's not true. They now know that this party bears little or no resemblance to the Progressive Conservatives who ruled for a long time.
You would not have seen any of the governments of those 42 years bungle legislation again and again the way this government has - bungle legislation to the point where they're consistently now having to bring in bills to try and correct the mistakes they have made. Why? Because they are so ideological, they are so convinced that you cannot take advice from any experts, they are so determined to push forward their view that they don't listen to the advice of those who try to tell them that this is a more complex issue.
This is a government that has tried to convince itself and the electorate that there are very simple solutions to very big, complex problems. Of course, when they trip themselves up again and again by all the things that they haven't listened to and haven't thought of, it becomes clearer and clearer to the voters of this province that they simply don't know what they are doing, that they simply think they can push through their idea of what should be without taking any account of the effect of that on the very people who will vote in the next election.
That's what makes this issue so important, because having completely bungled the download of responsibilities on to municipalities, having completely bungled in their belief that they could hide what they are doing by so much change so quickly, that somehow you could disguise it by taking back the educational part of the assessment base and changing the rules about who's responsible for what, that there could be so much change so rapidly that taxpayers would be so confused, that the sleight of hand would confuse them to the extent that they wouldn't know who was taking what out of their pockets - that's what this is all about.
This government that prides itself on being taxfighters don't care about the ultimate cost to the taxpayer, to the person who pays the bills. All they care about is who that taxpayer identifies as the culprit, and they're very, very consistent in trying to make sure that increases in property tax are clearly blamed on municipalities, that increases in user fees are not brought home to them. They constantly try to tell people, "We've saved you X number of hundreds of thousands of dollars," and it's baloney and everyone in this province knows it's baloney. It is becoming clearer all the time.
"Baloney" rhymes with something else, and we all know what. It is the same kind of trickery around who is responsible for what.
Interjections.
Mrs Boyd: I'm aware that there's no poetic sense in these folks, so perhaps they don't actually know.
Mr Wildman: They think you mean Mulroney.
Mrs Boyd: I do mean Mulroney. You're right.
The reality of this situation is that this is a government that had grandiose notions about how much they could accomplish in how short a period of time; also a government that frankly cared very little about what the fallout might be if they thought they could make it a politically winning deal. The problem is that the fallout happened to the people who actually vote and now they're getting caught on the situation.
You can't tell me that the folks in the Ministry of Finance didn't know what the effect on small business was going to be of the policy that made this bill necessary. I've been in government. I know what kind of advice you get. If this government is trying to fool people and say that they didn't understand the effect of the original bill on small business, then they don't have much control over the bureaucrats or they don't know how to ask for the information - perhaps they've even made it clear they don't want information - that might make them think twice about what they're doing or they're not listening to their own experts any more than they are to those who are experts within the municipalities. There's no other way around it. It's got to be one of those kinds of things.
This government tries to talk about being a friend of small business and then they literally dumped a tax burden on small business, in Ontario generally but certainly in Metropolitan Toronto, that actually brought people who might have been supposed to be quite supportive of many of their policies out on to the streets in outrage, and so now they're trying to fix it.
The reality is that those small business people are also homeowners, so those small business people may see some savings in their small businesses, but when they go home and pick up their tax bill for home, they're going to say: "Gee, it just went from one pocket to the other. They robbed Peter to pay Paul."
Mr Wildman: The same as the farmers are going to experience.
Mrs Boyd: Same as the farmers are going to experience; same as many people are going to experience.
The member for Scarborough East is quite right to say that this problem is greater in Metropolitan Toronto because over the years there had been decisions made in Metropolitan Toronto that were somewhat different.
1940
I too come from a municipality that went to market value assessment a few years ago. It was a market value assessment sort of scheme that really caused a great deal of pain for the very same people who are going to feel the greatest brunt of this: the people who are on fixed incomes, the people whose one asset is the home they own. These are the people to whom, on the one hand, this government is saying, "We want you to stay at home. In fact, if you need health care, we want you to have it at home," and, on the other hand, is putting policies into place that are going to make it impossible for many of those people to maintain that asset or in fact to have that home in which to receive the care. That is going to be one of those ironies that is not going to be long in coming across to people.
It's fine for the government to try to say, "We gave permission to the municipalities to phase this in," or to say to seniors, "You could always work out with your municipality some kind of negative mortgage situation in order to maintain your home." That's scant comfort to people who see the only asset they have being eroded over time and who face the prospect of living longer than they ever expected to live, of being in their homes trying to maintain themselves longer than they ever expected to be, and finding the challenge of that much greater than they ever anticipated it would be.
It's interesting that time and time again we stand here in this Legislature and realize very clearly that it seems extremely difficult for this government to put themselves into the shoes of those who are barely making it in this society. It's bad enough when they don't understand the plight of the very poor, but they seem not to understand that even those who are middle-income earners are faced with such difficulties in trying to maintain a quality of life, in trying to maintain their home, in trying to provide for their children the kind of opportunities they've always expected to have, and then finding that every step along the way this government has put barriers in the way of their remaining independent, of their remaining able to provide that quality of life for their family.
The worm will turn because those are the very people this government expects its policies to appeal to. Sooner or later one of these blows is going to bring it home to people that they are as much a target of this government as some of the other more marginalized people in this society.
It's really interesting the way this government succeeds in dividing and conquering people: trying to put the interests of small business ahead of the interests of homeowners; trying to place the interests of charities in a situation that is almost impossible for them to meet; requiring, for example, that school boards charge child care centres full rent, many of those child care centres being charitable organizations; and then putting municipalities in the difficult position of having to choose between putting the cap on and rebating to charitable institutions the necessity for them to pay taxes.
It's a very, very clever policy of trying to pit one against the other, but it only works for a short time, because when people begin to understand that this is in fact a political philosophy, that this is not just something that happens once but happens again and again, they begin to perceive that they are being used in the efforts of this government to put across its policies while it manages to evade any kind of responsibility.
One of the things that's impossible for municipalities to do is to know what the actual effect of choosing to put a cap on will be, because they don't know what the assessment base is going to be. In fact, the ministry has made it quite clear - this is one of the most absurd things I have ever even heard of. How can elected municipal officials make the right decision when they are being told they have to make a decision on this cap before they know what the amount is that's going to be capped? It becomes so absurd that you could probably write a very good comedy about this thing, if it weren't so serious and if it weren't going to affect the lives of people in this province so seriously.
Under this act, the government has the ability to set and adjust, by regulation, the base on which this 2.5% cap would be levied. It could include the education tax reduction, or not. We don't know the answer to that. It means that they can't make up any additional tax room, because once they accept the cap, they're limited for any other reason. They can't make up tax room for any other reason. They're buying a pig in a poke, but then that's typical of this government. Most of the legislation that they've put into this House has been legislation that has clearly been designed to enable the government, without coming through this Legislature, to set by regulation the real terms of what will happen.
Look at what we're looking at in terms of the welfare legislation. So much in the welfare legislation depends on regulation. What did we find this week? That as the regulations begin to filter through to the municipalities, the municipalities are discovering more and more situations in which the regulations are forcing more and more of a burden upon the municipalities, or are forcing on the municipalities less and less flexibility to meet the real needs of the people they are expected to serve. This is pretty typical of a government that wants to shift the responsibility to others, because in all of these cases this government has very cleverly fashioned all of its plans so that they will be able to try and evade accepting responsibility.
I don't think it's going to work. I think you can try this once too often. If you make an assumption that the voting citizens of this province are not perceptive enough to understand what's happening, you're making a big mistake. Because we have an articulate and a concerned population, a population that is prepared to change with changing times but is not prepared to feel as though it is being duped by the government in power.
It's very difficult to really understand how viscerally people are beginning to feel about the way they are being treated by this government. If this government tries to force through this bill without going out to public hearings that welcome full participation by those that are going to be affected by this bill, they will be very foolish. It will be another nail in the coffin of a government that already is known to be very non-democratic in its approach. It is extremely important that hearings on this bill take the time to hear from people what the effect of these changes could be.
1950
That helps people to understand that there is nothing in this bill that is not going to be controversial and that municipalities are being forced to choose between very unpalatable choices. They're being forced to choose between two different groups of taxpayers. They're being forced to choose that, knowing that they're very often simply shifting the burden from the taxpayer in one area to the same taxpayer in another area. It becomes very clear to people when they see themselves being, really, put into an impossible situation when it comes to making choices.
Municipal council members have difficult enough choices to make. It is not easy to be a municipal politician - a conscientious one, at any rate. It is not easy to balance the conflicting interests of the population, in any case. But when municipal councils are set up by a government like this government to take the fall for the decisions this government has taken against the urging of those municipal councillors, the worm will turn. These are intelligent, committed, dedicated public servants in these councils, and they are not going to forget quickly the fact that this government has shifted on to them a burden and an inflexibility that makes their job impossible.
Mr Baird: I listened with great interest to my colleague the member for London Centre. This government has pursued property tax reform, an issue that has plagued many governments. I think even she would acknowledge that it's a tough issue. It's always easier to sit by and do nothing, to just let a problem fester for years. I'll grant that her government at least got rid of the commercial concentration tax brought in by the Liberal government, which was a real problem.
Mrs Boyd: And did a thorough study of the tax system.
Mr Baird: And did a thorough study of the tax system, which is still gathering dust in the library across the hall, she is very right.
We are pursuing tax reform, and inevitably this government is committed to working with small businesses and with charities and listening to those concerns, and we indeed did take steps.
Just the other day, the member for Parkdale said, "To give the government credit, they've listened." I agree with the member for Parkdale. That's what he said the last day we debated this, and that's extremely important.
Mrs Boyd: Maybe he should run for you next time.
Mr Baird: I say to the member for London Centre that we will not take the member for Parkdale off their hands.
Mrs Boyd: Neither would we.
Mr Baird: And neither will the third party.
I did listen to her comments that shifting from a commercial-industrial base with this 2.5% cap somehow would have an impact on residential rates, and that brought up the issue, in her judgement, of why the government wouldn't extend a similar 2.5% cap to residential. Of course, in the city of Toronto the tax rate is about six times greater for commercial-industrial than it is for residential, and that is obviously a concern. With multiresidential properties, it's three and a half times the residential rate. The problem is obviously far more acute for commercial-industrial. As well, the municipalities have tools, such as an eight-year phase-in, in previous legislation. As well, they must provide tax relief to low-income seniors and the disabled. There are some measures to ensure that these tax reforms proceed wisely and well.
Mr Gerretsen: It's very interesting that we've got a government here that believes in less regulation, in less red tape. Let me just tell you what the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers, in a letter dated today to the Honourable Ernie Eves, Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, says about this piece of legislation. It says:
"There are over 25 specific controls and directions through regulation. This amount of administrative discretion is excessive. It leaves administrators and municipal councils without certainty. Many of the regulations needed are key in proceeding with implementation of the act. Any delay in establishing and publishing the regulations will place the financial stability of municipal government in jeopardy."
These are the clerks and treasurers who actually have to administer this law. It says:
"This bill is complicated, cumbersome, confusing and, too often, badly drafted. It serves to perpetuate the bad system that the government was so bent on eliminating. The end product is a political and administrative nightmare."
They are not my words; they are the words contained in a letter today to the Honourable Ernie Eves on behalf of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. That's how they feel about it. How much have you consulted with these people if that's the way they feel about it?
Let me just go on. By the way, this is a 13-page letter that the clerks and treasurers have drafted. They say:
"Few municipalities will be able to defend taxes for these classes when facing legislation that limits increases to 2.5%. Municipalities will face serious revenue shortages. If commercial and industrial classes are limited to 2.5% increases, municipalities will not be able to levy sufficient funds in 1998, 1999 and 2000 to pay for operational costs."
That's what our clerks and treasurers are saying about this bill.
Mr Wildman: I just want to commend my colleague from London Centre for her remarks, well thought out and measured in approach as normal, as she usually presents her views.
I was particularly concerned about two matters she pointed to: First, that municipalities are being asked to choose whether or not to cap the increases or decreases for business taxes without knowing what their total assessment is going to be. The municipalities are put in the untenable position of having to make a decision that might benefit the small business community without knowing what their total revenue will be and how it will affect their budgets if they do choose to cap. This is a terrible position for municipal councillors to be put into.
The other thing that struck me is that we understand that this government is contemplating time allocation on this bill, a time allocation that would prevent the holding of hearings so that the public, the members of the small business community whom the government purports to care about, will not be able to come and present their views to the legislators who make the decisions on the assessment process that is going to affect all the small business owners and the residential owners across Ontario and all of the municipalities.
This is evidence of a government that has made such serious errors and has made such a mess of this whole thing that they don't want to air the problems in public, they don't want to hear what the public has to say about it, they just want to rush it through and ensure that the municipal clerks and treasurers have to try to pick up the mess after they get it passed.
Mr Gilchrist: Always a pleasure, and indeed a pleasure to listen to the comments from the member for London Centre. I'm intrigued, though, that the member and her colleagues somehow think that this bill is not important enough, does not warrant the immediate attention of the Legislature and does not warrant immediate opportunity to give municipalities these extra tools. We know we've heard from the other side. We know we heard in questions weeks ago the fact that somehow the municipalities were being held up if they didn't have these new tools.
The bottom line is that the member opposite knows full well there is nothing more to be gained by you and I exchanging our views. We know you'll oppose absolutely everything we bring forward. The fact of the matter is, we know that municipal councils need these tools. They've told us that they weren't capable of handling the fact that the original bill allowed the creation of classes and subtiers. They knew they just couldn't handle that. Despite the fact that we had Ministry of Finance people sitting down at Toronto city hall, working side by side, somehow on March 26 the mayor, throwing his hands up, said: "There is no solution. I can't find an answer to this." Isn't it remarkable that the next day at 2 in the afternoon our Minister of Finance was able to present exactly what we're debating here today?
2000
These models had been shown to the city of Toronto. They knew what the options were. They knew that you didn't take money from the bank towers to just overwhelm the taxes being paid by small retail. That was ludicrous; it was obscene. The fact of the matter is, they didn't have to go through that exercise, they didn't have to fearmonger. Isn't it intriguing that all of the demonstrations were in opposition-held ridings here in Toronto? You folks are the ones who went out scaring the small business people silly. And for what end? Crass political gains. This bill is necessary to bring fairness back to property taxes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): The member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Gilchrist: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: I apologize to the member. We have to go back to the original speaker, Mrs Boyd.
Mr Cullen: But you recognized me.
The Acting Speaker: Well, I de-recognize you. We're going back to the original speaker.
Mr Cullen: I don't know how you can do that, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: I apologize to the member.
Mrs Boyd: And I apologize to the Speaker because I miscounted too and I think I mislead the member for Ottawa West, so I beg your pardon.
I appreciate the comments from my colleagues and I'd like to respond a bit to the comments by the member for Scarborough East because, as usual, he gets up and skews the issues in such a way as to suit his own ends. The member is trying very hard to pretend there is no issue here. He is trying very hard to pretend that this government didn't bungle this whole issue. He is trying very hard to pretend that the Minister of Finance did not have to respond to the issue because he was forced to respond to the issue as a result of the anger on the part of council members and on the part of citizens of Toronto.
The member likes to talk about: "We weren't trying to shift the burden from the bank towers on to small business. We always intended to do something like that." No one believes that, because if they'd always intended to it, they would have done it from the beginning.
He also tends to gloss over the fact that the so-called solution to this problem simply moves the burden of taxation from the bank towers on to the homeowners, not really a very good solution. By the time all this playing around about responsibility is through, what we are going to see is yet another shift of the burdens of taxation to those who can least afford it from those who can best afford it.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I will turn my remarks to the subject of Bill 16 in just a moment, but with the indulgence of the House, I want to mention that this is the first occasion I have had to speak in public since the Victoria Day weekend, which saw the loss of two exceptional young girls from my community. I represent a community which is still recovering from the grief of that event. I want the families of Carrie Evans and Theresa Pierrynowski to know that they are not alone in their grief and that the thoughts of an entire community are with them at this time.
We are here tonight to discuss Bill 16 and from the debate which has gone on so far this evening there might be some confusion as to what the subject matter of Bill 16 is and just what Bill 16 is all about, so I thought I might take a few moments to bring to bear some perspective on just what Bill 16 is about. Of course, what Bill 16 is about is political courage. We have already heard from the member for Windsor-Walkerville that the matter of property tax and the need for reform is a subject that has been talked about for years in this place. It's quite true that it has been talked about for years in this place, much as Mark Twain commented on the weather, "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." That has pretty much been the story on property tax reform in this province in recent years.
The system that we have for property tax in this province was not always in need of reform, was not always out of date. When it was put in place, of course it was current, but by 15 years ago it was clearly out of date in some communities. Certainly in my community in Toronto it was vastly out of date. Since that time a succession of governments have had an opportunity to address the matter.
The first Peterson government had an opportunity to address the matter, but did they do anything about it? No, they didn't. What did they do in their first two years of office? In their first two years of office they did what they were told by the NDP. That's what the Peterson government did for its first two years in office. I might mention that those were the Peterson government's finest years in office, when it was its most dramatic, most dynamic, most active and most prolific. As soon as the accord with the NDP expired and Mr Peterson had his opportunity, he called an election and was returned with a majority, a clear opportunity to set his own agenda. Did the Peterson government use that opportunity to address the issues of property tax and the need to reform the property tax system? No, they didn't.
The Peterson government, for those three years when they had the opportunity to set their own agenda, when they had the mandate to govern this government, didn't do much of anything. When they had to think for themselves and when they didn't have the NDP to pull their strings for them and to tell them what to do and to spoon-feed their legislation to them, they were bereft of ideas. So they sat and did virtually nothing for three years and then, when the opportunity was right, when the public opinion polls looked favourable - translation, Mr Speaker: when the public had pretty much forgotten Patti Starr and a lot of the electorate was presumed to be not paying much attention - Mr Peterson called a snap summer election. He didn't have to do it. He could have dealt with the pressing issues of the day. He could have dealt with the need to reform property tax.
The member for Windsor-Walkerville, a member of the opposition caucus here today, says, and I agree with him, that this is an issue that has been talked about for years and people have been aware of it for years, but the Peterson government ignored it, took no action on it. Instead they called a snap election.
I don't want to suggest they did absolutely nothing during those years. They did raise taxes - how many? - 33 times. They did manage to raise taxes 33 times in their years in office. They did manage to introduce new taxes like the commercial concentration tax. They did manage to do that. So those Liberal years were not years of accomplishment -
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): And didn't they have roving casinos at the same time?
Mr Parker: I'm reminded by my friend from Scarborough that they also managed to introduce roving casinos during their years in office. So it's not that they did absolutely nothing, and I shouldn't misrepresent the record. But did they take any action on the need to reform property tax, which the member for Windsor-Walkerville says was clearly in need of reform at that time? No, they did not.
The result of the summer election of 1990 we all know. Mr Peterson got the result that he deserved. I'm afraid the people of Ontario didn't get the result that they deserved, however, and we were introduced to what became five years of NDP government. Did they address the issue of property tax reform? Yes, they did. Well, they tried. They did take some steps towards addressing the need to update the system, but I wouldn't recommend the approach that they took. As soon as the going got tough, the Bob Rae government collapsed on the issue and they withdrew their initiative to bring the property tax system up to date.
2010
Did they run out of time in their mandate to take another run at it? Did they run out of time to correct the errors of their initial attempt and to bring about the reform that was needed in a more thoughtful, more appropriate way? No, they did not run out of time. In their last year in office, how many days did the Legislature sit? The Legislature sat 19 days in the last year of the Bob Rae government. Did they run out of time to bring about the necessary legislative change? No, they were stuck like a deer in the headlights, waiting in vain for the public opinion polls to turn, and they never did. Eventually they did run out of time. The inevitable election of 1995 was called and finally, this time, a government was elected into office with a clear mandate, a clearly defined program of reform, including reform across the board, which is exactly what the people of this province knew was required.
This government now sets about the difficult and challenging task of reforming the property tax system. Is that an easy thing to do? If it was easy, maybe the Peterson government could have done it in the two terms they had in office. But no, they saw it was going to be difficult and they backed off. The NDP might have done it, but they saw it was going to be difficult and they backed off. It's not going to be an easy thing to do to reform the property tax system in this province. But in an act of political courage - and we have heard that not everyone is happy with all aspects of the reform package, because of course change is difficult and those who have benefited from the status quo are not enthusiastic about seeing those benefits removed from them - that change is going to occur and it's about time it did occur in this province. It's going to lead to a more stable, more fair, more defensible, more transparent property tax system.
We've heard that there were some problems with the initial proposal, and I'm not going to suggest that there haven't been some problems with the initial proposal. I've certainly heard from my constituents their concerns about some aspects of the initial proposal. I was at the Donlands diner when I met with many of the small business operators who were concerned that if there was an immediate and unmitigated shift from the old property tax regime to the proposed new property tax regime, there was the potential that those small businesses might see tax increases of an abnormal amount and it would be difficult for them to absorb those increases.
I also met with the south Leaside business association at Original's diner. There was a large group there and we were met by the leaders of the business association of south Mount Pleasant. We discussed the concerns of those people over the same issue, similar concerns. I met with the Leaside business park association. I met with my colleague from High Park-Swansea with Bloor West Village, the business improvement association. We heard their concerns about the potential effect of an immediate shift from the status quo to the proposed new tax regime.
My colleagues from the Toronto area and elsewhere in the province were aware of these concerns. We listened to our constituents. In the Toronto area, the Toronto government caucus, under the leadership of the member for High Park-Swansea, met immediately and we asked for an opportunity to meet with the Minister of Finance and discuss these concerns with him, to bring the concerns of our constituents directly to the attention of the Minister of Finance. He agreed to meet with us. We met with him at length and discussed at length the concerns that we had for our constituents, and we discussed proposals for how those concerns might usefully be addressed. We also had a meeting with the Premier and discussed with him the concerns that had been brought to bear. We discussed approaches to address those concerns.
In parallel with these efforts on the part of the caucus, the minister immediately dispatched his senior staff to meet with the financial staff of the city of Toronto and to discuss with them directly how current value assessment might be implemented in the Toronto area and how the effects, where they were unacceptable, might be usefully and effectively mitigated. Those meetings between the senior finance staff and the city staff, and the meetings between the Toronto caucus and the minister and the Premier, led to the result, which was announced by the minister in a small restaurant on the Danforth earlier this spring, shortly after a meeting between the Premier and the mayor. The minister at that time announced the theme behind the bill we are here debating today, Bill 16.
The bill includes a number of features, but the critical feature that I'm going to comment on tonight is the option that the bill grants to municipalities throughout the province, the municipal option. Where there is potential that a shift to current value assessment may result in unacceptably high shifts in the tax burden among the commercial and industrial taxpayers, those municipalities have the option to limit the effects of the conversion to current value assessment to no more than 2.5% of the 1997 tax bill. In short, where a municipality chooses to do so, it can assure its businesses that their taxes will not go up by more than 2.5% as a result of the conversion from the old tax regime to the new tax regime. The concern that was brought to bear was that taxes might go up by 50% or 100% in some cases, and there were some instances where there was concern suggested that they would go up by over 100%. The result of Bill 16 is to assure that no commercial or industrial taxes will go up by more than 2.5%.
There were concerns that were also brought to bear on other matters. For example, as part of the property tax reform package, the province met with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, and we heard from them what their concerns were over the old tax regime. One of those concerns was that the business occupancy tax, which had been in place in this province for many, many years, was outdated and not useful, a very expensive tax to collect and a tax that the cities had a very low success rate in collecting. About 40% of the value that was taxed was never recovered. A great deal of municipal effort was expended in trying to collect that 40% from taxpayers that simply evaded that tax. They told us, "This is not a very good tax." They wanted it gone. So this government removed that tax.
One of the byproducts of removing the business occupancy tax was that the burden on landlords, on their regular tax rates, went up commensurately. As the tax came off the business occupancy tax base, it went on the regular real estate tax base, and for landlords, who paid the tax, this meant their tax burden went up accordingly. This was not a problem for landlords with net leases, those landlords who could pass that tax back down to their tenants, the tenants who were the businesses which ostensibly paid the business occupancy tax in the first place. That was virtually a straight swap of business occupancy tax for a commensurate increase in the real property tax. But where there was a difficulty was in the case of landlords with gross leases, landlords who did not have the option of passing the increased property tax down to their business tenants. This bill addresses that issue as well and it permits landlords with gross leases to pass any increase in their property tax arising from the removal of the business occupancy tax down to their business tenants.
2020
There's one other concern that I have heard from my constituents in Toronto on the subject of property tax, and that is the abnormally high business education tax paid in the city of Toronto. I know that my colleague from Nepean, representing the Ottawa area, faces a similar situation where their businesses pay a higher education tax than business taxpayers elsewhere in the province. This is a historical reality. This is a situation that has existed for many years, as those communities have had very high education costs and those costs have been borne by the property taxpayers of those municipalities, and the municipalities have put an abnormal portion of that tax burden on to their business taxpayers.
The province, as we have heard in this House, has stopped the spiralling increase in education tax. The provincial government has taken the capacity to tax away from the school boards and has taken on itself the authority to set property taxes for education, both in the residential area and in the commercial and industrial area. People have been saying to us all of a sudden, "Now that you're in control of the tax system, how is it you are allowing the commercial taxpayers in Toronto and the commercial taxpayers in Ottawa to continue paying a higher education tax than business taxpayers elsewhere in the province?" The shift from the old system to the new system was difficult to make all in one shot. We weren't sure that it would be possible to equalize business taxes all at once, and frankly, we can't equalize business taxes all at once. If we were to equalize business taxes simply by increasing the rate on business taxpayers elsewhere in the province so that we could reduce the education tax rates on businesses in Toronto and Ottawa, that would put vast communities out of business overnight, as their taxes would rise astronomically to compensate for the reduction in the education taxes on Toronto businesses. That's merely a reflection of how abnormally high education business taxes in Toronto shave been for these many years.
In the budget recently read by the Minister of Finance, he announced that this government is going to set about rectifying even that issue. In the current years there will be a reduction in business education taxes out of provincial revenues. In the Toronto and Ottawa areas and other areas where taxes are above the provincial average, those taxes will come down by $64 million. In 1999 the taxes will come down by a further $128 million, and over the balance, the ensuing six-year period, the business education taxes in those areas where business education taxes are currently higher than the provincial average will be brought to exactly the provincial average.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen: Mr Speaker, as you know, Ottawa West is the best, and that's how you will remember it, I'm sure, for next time.
I am delighted to stand up in response to the member for York East. I won't say anything about York East, but I do want to comment on the fact that he has spent a lot of time talking about the origins of this bill and what this bill is trying to resolve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure Hansard got it correct that because of the previous bills, Bills 106, 149, 160 and 164, that this government brought in just last year - did I not hear him correctly say that there might have been tax increases of 50%, 100%, 150%, and as a result of that, they had to bring in this legislation to correct these excessive tax increases brought about by their own legislation? Would this not teach somebody that perhaps they've zigged and zagged and simply gone too far?
You have to remember that this is all happening in the context of municipal downloading. In the one instance the member says they've listened to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, but when it comes to downloading, where we see nearly $3 billion worth of services landing bang on the property tax base and we see the municipalities struggling to deal with it and then we have property tax reform, not one bill but one, two, three, four, five of them, and then we have all these sudden tax increases going on all over the place, no wonder this government is scrambling and scrambling like crazy to try and make things balance.
But it's all a huge smokescreen because here the municipalities are dealing with the elimination of the business occupancy tax and the downloading of health services and social assistance and social housing and all these things, and what do they have here? They've got a bill that has 84 classes of property taxes, subclasses, up to 156 tax rates, on and on and on. It's a mess and they can't get it right.
Mr Pouliot: I must congratulate the member for York East on at least an attempt to put the best face, the best visage, on what is really a menu of misery. He took the better part of 20 minutes, and I can see why, hiding his embarrassment to name-drop, to tell us about anywhere from la Maison du Egg Roll, where Trudeau made a famous declaration at one time, to the downtown diner, and then said, "We presented our findings to the Minister of Finance himself, and the Minister of Finance immediately granted us the pleasure, the privilege, of an audience" - a member from his own party.
What he omitted to talk about is this menu, what it entails, that once you embark on an exercise of freezing taxes for three years, regardless of what the government has in mind, in future, more downloading, a dislocation in your welfare recipient rate, and you don't have the ability to respond by way of assessment nor by way of taxes. What he did say is it's not only assessment and reassessment, it's the downloading exercise, it's the compression of the fiscal year. We're five months into our municipal fiscal year and yet we don't have answers to more than 50% of our questions when it comes to assessment, when it comes to appeal process. Oh, sure, it's been pushed back to July 31 - of small consolation.
This group of people has chosen to go with action directe. They will carry the guilt. This is a five-year exercise, step by step? No, they've shoved things down people's throats. They will do so at their own peril.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is a real pleasure to get up and acknowledge the member for York East's insightful comments. I know just how hard he works for his riding of York East, and he's demonstrated here tonight on about three separate occasions during his remarks that he's effectively listening to his constituents, small business and the small taxpayer of Ontario.
I think the member for York East reflects a lot of what I'm hearing around Ontario. In fact, if I could just comment, with the permission of the Chair, the member for Yorkview, a Liberal member, was quoted in Hansard - I'm reading it here - saying, "I will give this government credit; they listen." I could go on.
I think this is what this bill is all about. The bill is really trying to achieve balance, and the balance has been missing. There's no question that with the two previous bills on municipal finance, 106 and 149, the government has taken the difficult step of reforming the system. I can tell you that in my time as chair of finance for the municipality I was elected to represent before my time here, on the tax problem, AMO - the member for Kingston and The Islands would know they've all been asking for the change for years. What's different with this government? We've not only listened and studied; we're going ahead and making the changes.
Just in the few remaining moments I have, two small portions of this bill. On the business occupancy tax, an outdated form of tax, that solution has been long overdue and long required.
But I think a more thematic vein of the current theme of this government is the acknowledgement of the problem it was for the local charities. For the viewer today, it's important to recognize that charities were going to be taxed like businesses. There are provisions in here to overcome that problem.
2030
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): This is the gang that can't shoot straight. This is a bill that has come in after two bills from just last year, just a few months back, that just didn't get it right.
This government loves these long titles to their bills. The title of this bill should be: Whoops, We Didn't Get It Right Last Time, So We'd Better Make the Changes to the Local Taxation in Order to Save Our You Know What, because all hell was breaking loose in the city of Toronto here. Small business people, who should be the natural constituency of this government, were having an uprising. I thought it was the Mackenzie rebellion all over again coming down Yonge Street. What this government had done to small business people in Toronto and in Ottawa was absolutely incredible. This is like you're trying to rebuild a building without any plans here, so you strike out on two bills last year. The fundamental mistakes of this government have just been horrendous, and this bill here is to correct them.
Really the crux of the matter is that while you can bring about some incredible change, you people can't manage. The Mike Harris government cannot manage. The change is coming so quickly, you're not managing. If there's anything the people of Ontario do not want to see in their government, it is the inability to manage, and that's what's happening. We've had several examples of that. We've had bills before us in the House that are amending bills still before us in the House.
I have never in my life, in my history in this House, seen a government so inept, so incompetent, as this Mike Harris government. That's the problem here. That's why we're going to be debating this bill all week to at least try to save the small business owners in Toronto and other urban centres that basically were at risk of being put out of business by the Mike Harris government. A government that should be looking after small business, this government was going to raise taxation and put those businesses out of business. This bill is going to change that and make sure those businesses survive.
Mr Parker: I want to thank my colleagues the members for Ottawa West, Lake Nipigon, Durham East and Timiskaming for their remarks.
I think in his remarks the member for Ottawa West underscored the difficulty and complexity of trying to bring about change in this field. He itemized the degree of detailed work that is necessary to take us from where we have been in the field of property tax to where we must be. He comments that it is a long and difficult process and it does involve a great deal of detail in doing so. So in his remarks he confirms the comments I was making earlier, and I'm grateful to him for the support.
I'm very pleased that the member for Lake Nipigon notes that the members of this caucus met extensively with members of our community, our business owners, business operators and residents in our community, and discussed with them their concerns, met with the minister, who met willingly with us, met with the Premier, who met willingly with us, and brought about the necessary change.
My friend the member for Durham East flatters me when he refers to me as a hardworking member. There is no member of this House who is more hardworking and more dedicated to the needs of his constituents than the member for Durham East, and I'm grateful to him for his support tonight.
The member for Timiskaming, unfortunately, doesn't like anything we're doing over here, calls us the gang that can't shoot straight. He doesn't like tax cuts, doesn't like health care increases, doesn't like education reform, doesn't like property tax reform.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Gerretsen: The first thing that ought to be said right from the beginning is that we've only got 10 minutes to debate this bill now as a result of the rule changes you brought in. Here is a 72-page bill and we've been given 10 minutes to debate the merits or otherwise of the bill. That's as a result of the rule changes that were brought in. I know this probably doesn't mean much to the people of Ontario, but it sure limits the debate that can take place on any meaningful legislation here.
Let's just talk for a moment about what this government is trying to do. They're trying to implement market value assessment - no, actually it's current value assessment, because you may recall that the Minister of Municipal Affairs ran on a platform that he was never going to implement market value assessment. He sent a little leaflet out to everybody in his riding, as did the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. So they call it current value assessment.
The system is supposed to be that you pay taxes, presumably, on what your property is worth, except we have now in this bill come up with what the clerks and treasurers call an immensely complicated situation where 84 classes and subclasses and up to 156 tax rates have been introduced. We've got a so-called market value system, yet there are 156 different rates and subrates and classes that have been implemented within that system. So you tell me, what is left of a true market value system or current value system? Absolutely nothing. That's number one.
Number two: It's always interesting to listen to the member for Scarborough East. He's accusing the members of the opposition of fearmongering. I can well remember about two or three months ago reading bits and pieces in the paper where the merchants along Bloor and Danforth and various other places here in Toronto were really, really concerned because all of a sudden they were getting their assessment notices, and once they transferred and added the mill rate on top of that or multiplied it by the mill rate, they came to the conclusion that their taxes of, let's say, $5,000 for this year were going to be $25,000 and $30,000. Those are the actual facts of what happened.
I'll tell you, those merchants certainly didn't think the opposition was fearmongering. Those merchants were scared for their livelihoods. So let's just forget about all this fearmongering. If there was any fearmongering that was done, it was done by you people by not getting the legislation in the proper perspective and in the proper way in the first place.
Next, I would like to refer once again to that letter I just received about an hour and a half ago from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. These are the civil servants who work in each and every municipality. They are not partisan politicians. They are not members of any political party. They may be in their own private life, but I'll tell you, from my dealings with most clerks and treasurers, they are usually very careful not to tell you what their political leanings are etc.
Let's just see what this group of people, who after all will have to deal with this new bill and will have to implement it in their local municipalities - these are the people who will have to discuss it with the various business people who come into the municipalities who want to know exactly what their taxes are going to be. They are going to have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis. Let's just see what this organization has written to Mr Eves today.
First of all they say, "We have written to you registering our disapproval." They start off by saying: "There are over 25 specific controls and directions through regulation" contained in the bill. "This amount of administrative discretion is excessive. It leaves administrators and municipal councils without certainty. Many of the regulations needed are key in proceeding with implementation of the act. Any delay in establishing and publishing regulations will place the financial stability of municipal government in jeopardy." This is what our clerks and treasurers are telling us is happening as a result of the bungled mess you have made of the entire situation.
They go on to say: "This bill is complicated, cumbersome, confusing and, too often, badly drafted. It serves to perpetuate the bad system that the government was so bent on eliminating."
The government said: "We want to make it easier. We want to cut out the red tape. We want to know where businesses stand as far as the taxation is concerned." But what have they created, according to the clerks and treasurers who will be administering this bill? It says "in effect, "The end product is a political and administrative nightmare and it will perpetuate a bad system that the government was so bent on eliminating."
2040
They go on for 12 or 13 pages, and since I've got less than five minutes left, I certainly won't go over each and every page, but I will refer to a couple of other items in their letter as well. I think the people of Ontario should know, particularly the small business community, what's awaiting them if this bill gets implemented the way it is.
They talk about the business rate factors. They say it perpetuates a taxation system that is supposed to be eliminated. It adds to the already complex system and creates further confusion, inefficiency and ineffectiveness due to the administrative bureaucracy necessary to implement and manage it. It should have nothing to do with municipal law. This I what the clerks and treasurers are saying about it.
The other thing you've got to remember is that as far as the business community is concerned, more than half of your tax rate is now set by Mr Harris and Mr Eves on an annual basis when they say how much education tax you're going to be paying on your commercial or industrial property.
What do they say about that? They say: "There is no education tax room for commercial and industrial classes, notwithstanding the announced industrial educational tax payment to be made by the province. Initial...calculations show that commercial properties will not benefit and industrial properties will not have sufficient reductions in education tax to accommodate the new tax policies and downloading of services. Commercial and industrial tax rates will increase by more than 2.5% due simply to the new tax system."
Finally they say: "Few municipalities will be able to defend taxes for these classes when facing legislation that limits increases to 2.5%. Municipalities will face serious revenue shortages." This is not political propaganda. This is from your Ontario clerks and treasurers. "If commercial and industrial classes are limited to 2.5% increases, municipalities will not be able to levy sufficient funds in 1998, 1999 and 2000 to pay for operational costs" that they are incurring in the municipalities.
Let me just go to the last page of this 12-page document to where it says "Summary." I think this says it very effectively as far as they are concerned and what the small business community should know.
"This bill, if passed as drafted, will embroil municipal councils in complex, confusing and inefficient systems of taxation....
"For many municipalities, tax bills will not likely be mailed until September or...October....
"A win situation is to let Bill 16 die on the order paper. Let municipalities proceed. If any municipality wants to proceed with the provisions of the bill, then let them apply for special legislation to do so without subjecting all Ontario municipalities to the pain and suffering inherent in implementation under the bill."
That is from your professional civil service here in Ontario that will be implementing this bill once you pass it. Why don't you listen to these people? I've heard so much tonight from the government members who talk about all this consultation that has taken place. Why haven't you consulted with the most important group of municipal civil servants who will have to implement this bill? You haven't spoken to them. This is probably one of the most damning letters I have read here at any time that have been written by a group of civil servants.
They know what they're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. Do what they ask: Let the bill die on the order paper and then let's get it straight for next year, because obviously you've made such a big mess of it that the problems are only going to get worse and worse and you, the government, are fearmongering the business community as a result of trying to implement this kind of legislation.
Mrs Boyd: It's always a pleasure to congratulate the member for Kinston and The Islands on the kind of passion and experience he brings to these issues of municipal affairs, and a real sense of how serious the changes are that the government is making in terms of how they're going to affect the different municipalities throughout the province.
It's interesting that here you have a 12-page letter from people who one would assume this government would have consulted quite thoroughly before trying to fix up its last error, which occurred because they hadn't consulted thoroughly. As we roll along from one error to another in this whole issue, it becomes very clear why governments in the past understood that it was important to do the kind of study and negotiation and to move slowly. The problem with this government is that it thinks there's a simple answer to very complex problems. As soon as they impose their simple answer and begin to see how the complexities roll out, they immediately rush back to the legislative post to try to correct the errors without doing their homework again.
That's exactly what has happened here. Virtually everything we've been discussing lately in this Legislature has been an effort by you to scramble and try to solve the problems caused by your own haste, you own lack of care and particularly your lack of consultation with people who know how your ideas will actually work in practice. That is the mark of very bad management. It is the mark of ideologues who simply will not listen to how things will work in the real world. People aren't going to be fooled at all as you go on in this way.
Mr Baird: I've got to wonder whether this issue has even been brought up with the Liberal caucus. To be a fly on the wall of a Liberal caucus would be quite an experience: Should they raise taxes, should they lower taxes, should they keep the tax cut or not? This issue hasn't made the agenda of the Liberal caucus and I can only assume. For those people who listened to the concerns of small business, particularly in the city of Toronto, I'll tell you they would be shocked to learn that the Liberal policy is to do nothing, just to hang them up to dry.
The member for Kingston and the Islands gets up in this place and says, "Let this bill die on the order paper." I can tell the member for Kingston and The Islands that those of us on this side of the House are not prepared to hang out small business to dry. We're not prepared to tell charities, "Sorry, but Mr Gerretsen of the Liberal Party said to just let this bill die."
We simply don't accept that notion. I wish the member for Kingston and The Islands had talked to the member for Parkdale, because the member for Parkdale gave a very insightful speech the other day, and I'd like to quote Hansard on page 652 from May 14. He said:
"I never said you were totally wrong" about this bill. "I will give this government some credit. They listened." He's a Liberal, the member for Parkdale, Tony the tax hiker, gives this government some credit for listening, and now the member for Kingston and The Islands says: "No, just let the bill die on the order paper. Let small businesses be hung out to dry." We on this side of the House say, "No, we want to protect small businesses."
I would indicate to the member for Kingston and The Islands, in response to some of the comments he read from a letter that was 12 pages, then 13 pages and now 15 pages, that nothing in this legislation requires the 2.5% cut. It is completely voluntary in the local municipality. If they want to adopt it they can, and if they don't, they don't have to.
2050
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): The government calls this Bill 16 the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, and really it is protecting taxpayers from previous bills passed by this government that basically went ahead in such a mad, reckless rush that they increased the taxes on an average of 100% on half the businesses in the city of Toronto. Half the businesses got an average increase from this government of over 100%.
The only reason they're back here with the fourth try at market value reassessment Tory style is because they had a revolution on their hands in the streets of Toronto. There were 10,000 people ready to march on the gates of Queen's Park because this government never released any of the information and rushed ahead with this crazy tax scheme that was going to increase taxes. For instance, on a little restaurant that was paying $10,000, this government was going to make them pay $50,000. That was what Ernie Eves and this bunch of radical extreme right-wingers were going to do. They were going to wipe out small business across the city. That's what they were going to do.
When they were warned that they were going to do this, they said, "Oh, don't worry, everything is okay." The small business people across this city didn't believe these guys. That's why they took to the streets. They took to the streets and told these people, "You'd better change that 100% tax increase." They were so frightened and running so much on their heels that they were forced into full retreat. They have the nerve now to come in with this Godzilla of a bill and say, "We are now listening." The small business people revolted and forced them to do something.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to thank the member for Kingston and The Islands for his comments with respect to Bill 16, the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, another one of those Tory anachronisms, another one of those doublespeak bills, a bill that doesn't really have anything to do with the protection of small business or with respect to the protection of charities. This is really just another of those examples of the Tories' phoney tax scheme. They plowed ahead with this bill without a whole lot of thought, without a whole lot of discussion about how the impact was going to be on small business, on residential taxpayers in the communities around Ontario, and now they're trying to fix it all up. I think that the member has really tried to outline that in his remarks.
In Windsor I've received hundreds of letters from people who work for small businesses in malls like the Tecumseh Mall, like the Devonshire Mall, like the University Mall, who are very concerned about the impact this bill is going to have on their businesses because they're taxed differently in a mall compared to if they operated their business in some other location.
However, when I've spoken to municipal councillors, they have had no idea about what's going to happen when this bill is passed. It's not going to leave them with any choice for three years about how they're going to justify this 2.5% cap that is being proposed to them through this bill. There are some disastrous impacts that municipal councillors are unaware of.
Mr Gerretsen: I would like to thank the members for London Centre, Windsor-Riverside, Nepean and Oakwood for their comments.
The government members just don't get it. I quoted extensively from a letter that wasn't their propaganda, wasn't our propaganda, wasn't the third party's propaganda. It was a letter written by the professional organization known as the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, which will have to deal with the consequences of this bill on a day-to-day basis. They are the people who will be meeting with the business people in their own communities, who will have to explain why the taxes went up by a certain amount, whether it's 2.5%, 10% or whatever it turns out to be. These people are saying that this bill is unmanageable.
How, for goodness' sake, can you talk about going to a current value system when you end up with 156 different classes, subclasses and rates? You don't have a system then. It becomes very arbitrary. In one given year they may very well pick on one kind of industry or another kind of business that may pay more or less than last year. People in business - and surely you, the business party, know this better than anybody else - want an amount of certainty in their lives. They don't want to be left with a situation where all of a sudden their real estate tax bill could go up from $5,000 to $25,000 or $50,000. You've got to remember, under this bill the 2.5% maximum increase is only going to be in effect for three years. What are you going to do at the end of three years to bring in the balance of that current market value system?
I say again, let this bill -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Further debate?
Mr Pouliot: I've enjoyed the remarks of the member for Kingston and The Islands simply because he's been there. For years he represented a rather large municipality, so if he says the attempt to fix Bill 106 by way of the side door, Bill 16, to fix the mess we were left with on 106, if he is filled with anxiety, I am filled with fear, because it's quite a mess indeed.
The government says, "We, the Mike Harris government, listen." You recall vividly - it's not too far back - about amalgamation here in Toronto. Some 76% of the people went to the ballot box and said: "No. Sometimes it's better not to change. We don't want this change. We don't want your melting pot, your one size or one solution fits all." The government did not listen.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which represents more than 85% of all Ontarians, is asking for public hearings. They want to go to the committee room and present their alternatives. They wish to help; not to oppose but to help the government. The government says no.
The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, more than 800 of them, are asking the same. They are asking for a chance to make their contribution. And again the government says no.
The opposition, both parties, are asking that public hearings take place so that collectively we can see some clarity, we can better legislate together collectively. Again the government says no. In fact rumour has it and we should know shortly whether they intend one more time - and it's happened here before only too often - to silence the opposition, to handcuff the opposition, to put them in a straitjacket, to muzzle them by invoking closure. They will use their majority muscle. We're not talking about chuckles here; we're talking about their muscle and the way they dictate to others. And, yes, the government listens? Of course not when you have a litany of examples which point in the opposite direction.
These people are on a mission. It's the Mike Harris so-called Common Sense Revolution. Revolutionaries historically do not listen. They act and react.
They blew things big time on the small business front. People took to the streets. There were many demonstrations. The phones were ringing off the wall. They said, "Look, we can't do it. We have just been reassessed. In some cases I pay more taxes than what I can generate in cash flow or in profits. I cannot even pay myself a salary. I must give it all to the great Satan, if you wish." That's what they said. That's what I heard. Revenue Ontario and some to Revenue Canada, the close cousin, Lucifer. They know these people quite well. The Minister of Finance, and some of the ensemble that make the majority muscle, said: "You can't do this to the small business people. All hell is going to break loose. People will not send you the contributions any more. The hacks refuse to talk to you. Canadian Tires are closing left and right." And heaven knows, Canadian Tires, like any other good citizens, first and foremost, want to pay their fair share of taxes.
2100
What happened? The government came in with this tentative Bill 106, regulations to reach your neighbourhood by Friday, and we'll see if the devil is indeed in the details, in the regulations. It says: "To all municipalities in Ontario: We realize, mea culpa, that we have made a mistake." Except that this government doesn't quite see it that way. "We will give you an opportunity regardless of reassessment," or assessment in some cases. "Regardless of these effects, you will have one month after you get the assessment roll, the tapes, to embark on a program, and please trust us. I, Mike Harris, am your main man. You must trust me and trust me for three years, because there is no turning back." Should you say, "I'm in, Premier," then the municipality cannot change its mind.
Oh, the welfare rolls may go up, the government may toss aside, towards you, responsibilities for a new highway, for a connecting road, more downloading. You have no protection. You said yes. With Mike you say yes for three years, no recourse. The municipalities have to make up the slack somewhere. They've got to pay for all the downloading. They don't know what the assessment and reassessment will be. There have been 3.8 million units. It has never been done in North America.
This is an endeavour, by all accounts, which should take anywhere from three to five years. If you are to conduct a reassessment of 3.8 million units, it's going to be done correctly. But the revolution does not have time. The Hummer was put in full gear and they all jumped on board. They didn't want to run out of gas - it's a long walk back to the barracks - and beware if you stood in their way. They did the exercise between 12 and 18 months. They rushed, they went too fast.
We know what they wish to do. They want to download and then they say: "It's your responsibility. It's your mess. We're not going to blame ourselves." The way with this, the more I read about it, this is the third attempt at doing it right. Everybody is saying: "We want to help you. Take your time. We're not against you. In this case, we're all parliamentarians." This thing is so messed up that it's going to take the New Democratic Party at least the next two terms to fix it up. This is how bad this is. We know we have a reputation for being able to roll up our sleeves. It's going to take us two terms because it is so messed up and you don't want to hurt people.
The tragedy of it all perhaps, what is the most telling, with all the seriousness and sincerity at our command, is that the homeowners have no protection. They pick up the slack, they pick up the downloading bills, because they don't fit the menu. They'll take to the streets and if any of them are listening, when they get their bills, I encourage them to appeal. There will be 600,000 appeals. Hopefully, it will slow things down because they're left carrying the bag. No, they don't have the same strong voice as the banks which benefit by virtue of the business occupancy tax removal, the decrease at the small business level.
But the homeowners have no protection. I want to remind the government, because it's the language that they speak, not that of social justice, there are a lot more homeowners in this province, thank heavens, than anyone else combined. When they see the difference between last year, their first tax levy, the interim tax levy, and the final levy, in unison people will take to the streets. They will organize, they will mobilize and they will say, "The government has not listened." They will say, "Mike Harris, another promise made, another promise broken." That's what they will say.
Ms Smith, Mr Jones, beware. Those people are moving up the food chain and you might be the next in line.
The Acting Speaker: The member from Canadian - I mean Scarborough East.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In fact, your inadvertent slip is precisely why I felt compelled to stand.
The member opposite, as part of the ongoing mantra of talking about negativity and trying to dwell on the shortcomings that may still exist in some small way across the province, created the suggestion that small business was in some jeopardy right now when in fact he should know that 82% of all the new jobs created in the last year were created by small business.
Mr Baird: How many new jobs?
Mr Gilchrist: How many? There were 265,000 in one 12-month period.
But what really struck me was, the member made a direct reference to my old employer, Canadian Tire, and I can't afford to let the suggestion that Canadian Tire stores are closing anywhere in Canada go unchallenged; in fact, just the opposite. He might be intrigued to know that across Canada, and particularly here in Ontario, Canadian Tire, showing the faith they have in our government, is doubling, tripling, quintupling in some cases, the square footage of existing stores. My old store at Lawrence and Markham was 15,000 square feet. They're building a new one a block away that's 85,000 square feet.
With Canadian Tire stores making that investment, as are many other retailers, the member knows, or should know, that comments about negative impact from this bill are totally untrue. It's the Canadian Tire stores that have not been fairly treated as all other small business have not been fairly treated by having a system that allowed municipal politicians to continue to avoid making some tough decisions. They can't any more because we've updated the assessment and he knows this bill is a necessary corollary.
While Canadian Tire stores out there are selling record numbers of 76-5119 tents or 99-0100 potting soil, who knows, even 85-3403 coolers, he knows that the province of Ontario is on fire and Canadian Tire of all places is not closing.
Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like your ruling as to whether it's permissible in this House to openly advertise for a company that's operating in Ontario. I would like your immediate ruling on that.
The Acting Speaker: I believe that it was a member of the opposition that made reference to the Canadian institution of Canadian Tire and the member for Scarborough East is merely indicating his employment with that Canadian company.
The member for Oakwood.
Mr Colle: I'd like to congratulate the member for Lake Nipigon for his, insightful comments. As you know, he comes from a community that certainly knows that the community is made up not just of the big box stores like Canadian Tire, that it's the small mom-and-pop grocery stores, the small, little restaurants. That's what he was talking about.
I know the member for Scarborough East stood up on his feet and gave this great commercial about Canadian Tire, and I guess that's where this party across the way comes from. Their primary concern is the big guys, and that's what they want to protect, first of all. That's why they got themselves into this tax mess because you know what they did is they increased - this government, all they talked to was the big banks. They didn't talk to the little mom-and-pop grocery store that was struggling, and they increased the taxes of the small, little grocery store from $10,000 to $50,000.
2110
They wouldn't do that to Canadian Tire, they wouldn't do that to the Bank of Montreal, and that's what this government is all about. That's why this government doesn't really care about small people and that's why they increased taxes on 17,000 small businesses in Toronto. They did it, and they were warned about it. They still thought they could get away with it so they could reward the banks with those big tax cuts, and Canadian Tire, God love them, could make money. But what about the small guy? I know in my own community at the end of my store I've got the big, giant box stores. I've got Home Depot, I've got Canadian Tire, I've got all these mega-stores, and the little store on the main street is dying. These guys are putting the little main street stores out of business, because they're in bed with the banks and the big box stores. That's where they are.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside. You have a Canadian Tire in your riding?
Mr Lessard: I don't know how Canadian Tire got dragged into this debate, but I know that the member for Lake Nipigon talked a lot about how the devil is in the detail, and we know that these details are going to reveal that the government made a mistake when they originally brought in this bill in dealing with the shift in property taxation and downloading on to municipalities, and now they're trying to fix it up. They're saying to municipalities: "We're going to try and do what we can to help you out in downloading this, so we'll give you this opportunity to put this 2.5% cap on commercial taxpayers. But not only that, it's going to be a decision you'll have to make in 30 days and it's a decision that you're going to have to live with for three years."
There are a lot of municipal councillors who don't realize what impact this is going to have. It's going to mean there is going to be less money for roads and for sewers, and the bill is going to fall on to residential taxpayers. There's no doubt about that. They're going to give a break to a few people. Maybe Canadian Tire is going to be one of those who will benefit from it. I don't know. The member for Scarborough East seems to think that giving a benefit to Canadian Tire is okay. Maybe he's got thousands of shares there. Maybe his RRSPs are in Canadian Tire. I don't know. But in my community people who are involved in small business really generate the jobs, and we don't want to see them suffer from the mismanagement this government has been involved in.
Mr O'Toole: It's always a pleasure to respond to the member for Lake Nipigon. He brings a very light-hearted approach to many of his comments in the House, and I'm sure everyone listens to that light-heartedness, but really I'm not too certain how much they take it to be genuine.
I have to look at what he said, and in fact I wrote it down. He says, "Sometimes it's better not to change." Well, in government it's very difficult. To govern means that you have to have the courage to make change and to moderate that change. It's clear that in 1993 the NDP were considering a market value assessment change, and we all know what happened. They ran for cover. They ran for cover because they didn't have the courage of leadership.
Mr Gerretsen: Get it right. Then bring the bill forward.
Mr O'Toole: It's not just that. If Mr Gerretsen from Kingston and The Islands is speaking up there, what did they say in their little booklet? They said the Liberal government would reduce the corporate tax rate for small business and reduce the number of small businesses required to file corporate minimum tax etc. I think this article in the Ottawa Sun on May 24 - the title here is, "Liberals Lie, NDP Boss Says." It goes on -
Mr Gerretsen: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I have heard this now three or four times tonight. I am positive that former rulings by the Chair have been to the effect that to even mention the word "lie" or suggest that anybody lies is unparliamentary. Again, I ask for your immediate ruling on that.
The Acting Speaker: To the member for Kingston and The Islands, I believe the member for Durham East was quoting from an article. He has not named a member of this House.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I'm asking you to come to order. Mr O'Toole, will you please continue.
Mr O'Toole: Respectfully, in good taste, to the House, I respect the comment of the member and I withdraw that I read that headline from the Sunday, May 24, article and go on with my comments.
It's not a case specifically of using a term. I think it's a question of having the courage and conviction to make the change. Mr Gerretsen, you were in local government and I think a member of AMO. You know that municipal tax reform has been on the books since 1970. The only difference is that this government has had the courage to make the necessary changes.
Mr Pouliot: Members for Scarborough East, Oakwood, Windsor-Riverside and Durham East, I thank you. I didn't think I was humbly able, with all due modesty, to generate such a debate among themselves. The members opposite were just about ready to eat their young. It was not a pretty sight.
Canadian Tire, yes, and we wish in Manitouwadge, in our proud communities, sir, that we had the population base to be the recipient of the good service, of the good deeds, provided by Canadian Tire. The way this government is going and the way it's borrowing at excessive rates on international markets to cover their folly, maybe Canadian Tire money would be something we can better relate to in terms of hard currency.
It's difficult for members of this government to believe anything that any member of the opposition says, but this is from the Toronto Star, their editorial page, and it came in after the ill-fated coverup, which is Bill 16, to try to fix up the mess. They were saying, "Once seen as a simple solution to provide tax relief to Toronto businesses, the idea of capping assessment-related tax hikes may now be unworkable - because" - get this - "of a surprise" twist - they say "move" - "by the province." Today, May 25, 1998, they are saying it may be unworkable.
What are we to expect after Bill 16, the son, daughter, offspring of this fiasco? It all started here with Bill 106 and then it was a mess out there, it did not work and then they came up with -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Further debate?
2120
Ms Mushinski: There was a time not long too long ago in the late 1980s and the early 1990s when Ontarians were growing accustomed to certain things. Yes, they were growing accustomed to the coalition of the NDP and Liberal faiths, and they had also grown accustomed to high unemployment rates, high deficits, high taxes and, more particularly, low expectations.
In the 1995 election Ontarians clearly indicated that they wanted change. They wanted to receive better service for less. They wanted a government that would be responsive to the needs of its citizens and ratepayers and taxpayers. They wanted a government that would fight the deficit instead of increasing it. They wanted a government that would create jobs and that would lower taxes instead of increasing them. Above all, they wanted a government that would keep its promises.
While there's no doubt that we have made some excellent gains, I believe, on all of these fronts -
Mr Gerretsen: So how many hospitals have you closed?
The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.
Ms Mushinski: On the issue of tax reductions, there is no government in living memory that has ever cut taxes like the ones that stand today. In fact the taxes that we have reduced have created so much confidence in this province that we now have created 345,000 jobs since July 1995.
As many of you know, some of our communities in this wonderful province of ours have had property tax assessment systems that were so antiquated that they dated back to the last time Canada was at war. Bill 16 and Bill 149, which was passed by our Legislature in the last session, create a fair and uniform tax system in Ontario where one did not exist before.
I just have to digress for a moment because I want to tell you of my own personal frustrations with the previous two governments, which I alluded to earlier, as a councillor in the city of Scarborough.
We had unanimously passed a motion in Scarborough that was brought about as a result of a coalition of homeowners called SHAFT, the Scarborough Homeowners Association for Fair Taxes. For many years that association had wanted a fair assessment system in Toronto. We took all kinds of amendments to the Metro level of government, and they in turn actually came up with a proposal that they took to the then provincial NDP government of the day, which also happened to have a commission called the Fair Tax Commission, which also recommended a number of initiatives to make the system much fairer province-wide. Unfortunately, I guess I believe in the old adage, "No guts, no glory." The fact is they didn't have any guts to implement what their own commission had recommended. Instead they put it on the shelf yet again, ignoring all the requests, including - I hear it very often from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt - where 80% of his own homeowners would receive tax reductions under a fair market value assessment system.
When it comes to the bill that's under question, which is the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, it's important to reiterate to everyone in this House that there isn't a government like our government that supports small business, because in fact it was small business we had in mind when we eliminated regulations that make it difficult to do business in Ontario.
We had that in mind when we eliminated one of those infamous tax increases. Oh, it's three terrible words to say, but it was called the commercial concentration tax. It was the commercial concentration tax which was the biggest drain on the economic development of the Metropolitan Toronto region and it was brought in by the Liberal government of which Mr Colle, the member for Oakwood, has spoken. It just boggles my mind when he stands up and berates our government for eliminating something that he created in terms of the biggest hole-in-the-doughnut syndrome we've ever seen in this province. You are the ones that tried to break the economic engine of this province, not us. In fact, what we're doing is fixing it, putting it in order. We have listened to the small business community that has asked us to make sure we mitigate the appropriate increases that we know a fair assessment system is going to create.
Mr Colle: Why did you increase 100% for 17,000 small businesses?
The Acting Speaker: Member for Oakwood, please come to order.
Ms Mushinski: So we had small businesses in mind when we talked about reducing the deficit and we certainly had small businesses in mind when we cut taxes in an effort to create job growth, and we're starting to see the results of that. On March 27, 1998, Ernie Eves announced at a restaurant in Toronto that small business and charities would be protected from skyrocketing tax rates. That's what this bill is all about. It was a promise we made to small business and charities in Ontario and it is a promise that is kept with the acts we debate tonight.
The Small Business and Charities Protection Act provides municipalities with the tools they need to fight taxes for small businesses and charities. The act protects small businesses from property tax increases of more than 2.5% for a period of three years, and no matter where a business is located in a municipality, the highest increase that a small business can have will be limited to that amount, something neither of the two previous governments had the guts to do. Moreover, to ensure that all small businesses are protected, the 2.5% limit will also apply to small businesses that lease their properties.
While our government is shielding small business from municipalities that are proposing large tax increases, we are also protecting charities as well. The proposed legislation grants further powers to municipalities to help small businesses and charities, particularly including graduated tax rates for industrial properties, four new optional property classes, extended powers to face tax changes - for example, graduated tax increases - and rebates on tax increases for commercial and industrial properties.
I want to close by saying that the proposed legislation will help small businesses by not allowing municipalities to increase property taxes by more than 2.5%. That was something that was proposed by the metropolitan level of government a number of years ago, of which Mr Colle was also a member, and which the NDP government didn't have the guts to implement. Not only is this legislation fair and reasonable, but ultimately it makes plain, old common sense.
The Acting Speaker: It now being almost 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until l1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2128.