L024b - Wed 10 Jun 1998 / Mer 10 Jun 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
Mr Baird moved third reading of the following bill:
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.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please verify if we have a quorum.
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'll say at the outset of my remarks that I'll be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton and - good news for the opposition members - the member for Durham East as well. I know they'll be sitting with bated breath. I know the members would probably like to hear from the member for Northumberland because he's given a number of excellent speeches in the past. I could say I'll share my time with the member for Northumberland at the end if he has any thoughts he'd like to throw into this debate, because he always has a tremendous amount to contribute to the debates in this place.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today on Bill 16, which is designed to protect small businesses and charities. Amendments to the bill have been introduced to make the tools in the bill work better for municipalities and for taxpayers. We have consulted extensively with stakeholders and other interested parties on property tax issues and this consultation began very early on in the last session of the Ontario Legislature. We consulted on Bill 106, when we held 39 hours and 10 minutes of committee time and received 99 oral submissions and deputations before the standing committee on finances and economic affairs. On Bill 149 we held 25 hours and 56 minutes of committee time and received 44 deputations, before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.
As requested by our friends in the opposition, we held committee time on Bill 16 as well. During Bill 16, the committee hearings last week, we heard from a whole host of organizations, like Louise Verity of the Toronto board of trade. She came before the committee and said, "The passage of the capping component of Bill 16 is critical to Toronto's business community." Bob Sniderman from the board of trade said, "As a full- or part-owner of several small commercial properties and the Senator Restaurant in Toronto, I can assure you that the tax-capping provision of Bill 16 is absolutely essential to protecting over 17,000 Toronto business people."
We also heard supportive comments from the Ontario Specialty Tenant Tax Coalition, a group representing tenants right across the province in large, primarily commercial, properties. They came before the standing committee on finance and said: "We must have the protections that are inherent in Bill 16. Any threat to the 2.5% cap element of the bill I think is a fundamental threat to the viability of retailing in Ontario. So we look to you to continue to protect us and give us the benefit of that aspect of the legislation, because it's key to us moving forward."
We also had the opportunity to hear from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They said: "The legislative authority for landlords to pass on BOTs," the former business occupancy tax, "and business improvement area charges to tenants in gross lease situations is seen as necessary. We commend the government for incorporating AMO's previous recommendations in this area."
As a result of the extensive consultations prior to Bill 16 being introduced and then the consultations that followed first and even second reading, 16 amendments to the bill have been made, based on the input that we received from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers, who came before the committee -
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Who writes this stuff for you? Surely you don't do this yourself.
Mr Baird: The member for Dovercourt asked who writes this stuff. The input we received from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario was very helpful to the government. In addition, the input of MFOA and AMO was extremely valuable. We listened, we learned and we amended the bill on 16 occasions.
Mr Silipo: And you ignored all of it.
Mr Baird: I want to depart from my written text. The member for Dovercourt had a tremendous contribution to this committee. In fact, the member for Dovercourt was the only member for about five or six amendments that the Liberals presented. The Liberals didn't even vote in favour of their own amendments. But the member for Dovercourt, as usual, was there fighting. When the official opposition was at the switch, the member for Dovercourt was there. For your left-of-centre vote, you get more bang for your buck with the NDP. There's no doubt about it. I want to acknowledge that.
The Acting Speaker: Back to Bill 16, please.
Mr Baird: These amendments we presented to the standing committee on finance further improve the bill and make it easier for municipalities to implement. We recognize that the additional committee time may cause cash-flow concerns for municipalities. We heard repeatedly from the same opposition members who were requesting committee hearings that the delay in the passage of the bill is costing municipalities vital tax revenue. This very interesting argument came up at second reading and, to some extent, in the committee hearings, somehow leaving the impression that revenue was going down the drain. That is symbolic of the view that some of the members opposite take of the taxpayers' money, that if the taxpayers' money stays in their pockets, somehow it's being wasted, because the government isn't getting their hands on it. There will be a bit of an interest windfall to hard-working property taxpayers across the province.
I note that one Liberal on the committee, as I mentioned earlier, did not even vote for some of his own amendments, which was interesting, to say the least. But again, the member for Dovercourt was there, being the real official opposition, the unofficial opposition on the committee.
We've responded to cash-flow concerns by deferring the requirement of municipalities to make local service realignment payments for social housing, for property assessment, for ambulance service, for GO Transit and municipal policing; by promising to provide municipalities with their first community reinvestment fund payments well before they have to make any payments to the province; by promising to delay the June 30 school board remittance by municipalities; and by committing to consider further requests for assistance by municipalities to deal with cash-flow issues that arise from the delay between the passage of Bill 16 and the return of the assessment rolls. These measures will limit the potential for increased interest costs for municipalities.
1840
We have listened to the concerns of small businesses and charities in those communities. Greg Joy, the executive director of the Ottawa Food Bank, came to see me in my constituency office and he said that charities need protection. I, along with a good number of other members of provincial Parliament, took that message back to the minister. Mandatory protection for charities, all charities registered with Revenue Canada, is part of Bill 16. That is good news for charities.
As Louise Verity from the Toronto board of trade said: "We have consistently supported the province's efforts to introduce and modernize the property assessment system in Ontario. Not one significant study of property taxation has recommended anything other than a value-based system for business property. This is the first Ontario government since 1970, when the province assumed responsibility for property assessment, with the courage to act decisively a the critical area."
I'll tell you the concerns particularly of Toronto business owners who pay incredibly high commercial-industrial taxes as a result of a number of things. It is really important to put this issue in context. The member for Parkdale brought up at second reading debate that there are restaurants all along Steeles Avenue, I believe he said, on one side, on the north side, but not on the south side, because the taxes are so much more expensive in the city of Toronto. This situation developed over many years. Education taxes began to get out of control for the commercial-industrial sector in 1985, increasing on average 7% or 8% in many years - just out-of-control spending and taxing by school boards.
The Liberal government of the day sat by and did nothing. They were eventually encouraged to take some action to deal with these incredibly high taxes on business that were killing jobs in the province. The Liberal brain trust went to the drawing board and looked at some plans that could help provide some property tax relief for the business community in Toronto.
What did they come up with? They came up with the commercial concentration tax, a tax that whacked Toronto and the GTA, the greater Toronto area, a tax that was so bad that even our socialist friends in the NDP scrapped that tax. I want to acknowledge that. The NDP thought that tax was wrong and they scrapped it. When the NDP realizes that taxes are bad and when the NDP starts cutting taxes, you've got to know that they're very bad taxes. The commercial concentration tax, the Liberal Toronto tax, was gotten rid of by the NDP government, but still, taxes were far too high in this city, as well as in Hamilton-Wentworth and to a certain extent in Ottawa-Carleton.
What this government announced as part of the 1998 budget is that on commercial-industrial education taxes we would go down to the provincial average. That will see a tax reduction of 12% on one of the tax rates in my home community of Ottawa-Carleton. It will also see a $400-million tax reduction for those business owners in this community. As well, there will be a significant tax reduction for enterprises in the city of Hamilton and in Hamilton-Wentworth, the entire region, which were paying far too much. It was killing jobs and that was a real concern. In my community, if one city in the upper tier taxes too much, it does hurt job creation.
There was a study released in the Ottawa Citizen not too long ago that measured job creation over a five-year period. It found that in the city of Ottawa, with high taxes, the number of jobs created was actually negative, at 2,500, while in the city of Nepean we have seen an increase of 9,000 or 10,000 jobs over that same five-year period. As well, the city of Gloucester saw an increase in the number of jobs because the council in that municipality likes to keep taxes low, because it helps job creation, and they are creating jobs in Gloucester. That will undoubtedly be assisted by Mayor Claudette Cain and her council's decision to cut property taxes by 5% this year. That will make Gloucester even more attractive to do business in, as will the 2% property tax reduction in the city of Nepean.
Nepean had extensive debate on this property taxation issue when they dealt with their 1998 budget. There was a big discussion: Would they cut taxes by 0.5%, by 0.8% by 1%, by 2%, by 5%? Councillor Jan Harder from Barrhaven in my constituency was fighting for a 5% tax reduction. They settled, with the help of Councillor Rick Chiarelli and Councillor Wayne Phillips joining Councillor Jan Harder, and they were able to deliver a 2% tax reduction. We should acknowledge those three councillors for their leadership in trying to reduce property taxes for taxpayers in Nepean.
The real benefit of property taxes in Nepean is none of the tax dollars goes towards supporting debt, because Nepean is debt-free. That is something that taxpayers in our community have found a very important priority and they have insisted on their local representative making responsible decisions over the years. That leaves us in good standing to enter into the new millennium. It also makes Nepean a magnet for jobs, for investment and for opportunity. That's why in Nepean we're seeing substantial tax reduction for income taxes and we're seeing substantial job creation: Nortel, a $250-million capital investment going on in Nepean, creating 5,000 new jobs; JDS Fitel is undertaking a major expansion in the south Merivale business park, and that is good news for job creation.
What we're seeing in Nepean are substantial residential construction starts. They're up. In Stittsville, just outside of Nepean, 200 new homes are being built this year. That's good news because if you keep property taxes low, that helps job creation. When you get job creation, more homes are built and more people work. That's important to put on the record with respect to these discussions.
The good news is that Mayor Jim Watson and Deputy Mayor Allan Higdon are beginning to get control of the mountain of debt in the city of Ottawa and were able to bring in a zero tax increase this year, as they begin to clean up the mess of high debt, waste and wild spending that has gone on in that community over the last generation. It's not easy, but they're finally beginning to turn it around.
Ontario's economy is booming and this undoubtedly has a strong relationship to tax measures and particularly the effort to bring fairness and equity to our property tax system. Ontario's job creation trend continued in May with employment up by 13,300 net new jobs and the unemployment rate falling to 7.1%. That is good news.
Mr Speaker, you will know that in our community, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, we're seeing job creation come at a pretty brisk pace, unemployment falling to 6.8% after arriving at a peak of 10.8%.
Interjection.
Mr Baird: It was undoubtedly helped by the tax freeze brought in by the provincial government members and regional chair, in response to the member for Essex South.
Across the province we're seeing welfare reform working. From June 1995 to April 1998, the number of people depending on social assistance declined by over a quarter of a million, a drop of nearly 20%. That is indeed very good news for those individuals. We're seeing substantial job creation and a reduction of those on social assistance.
Consumer confidence remains high in Ontario for 1998. A recent Angus Reid poll showed that 44% of Ontarians expect the Ontario economy to improve in 1998. To assist in keeping business and consumer confidence high, this government is committed to creating an environment where small businesses can grow, thrive and create jobs. We are keeping our promise to protect small business from large property tax increases. Bill 16 gives municipalities the tools to implement property tax increases at 2.5% a year for three years.
I believe my municipality, both in Nepean and in Ottawa-Carleton, with our esteemed regional chair, will be able to hold the line on taxes, and that is good news for job creation.
1850
What we saw in some municipalities was commitment. The mayor of Toronto, Mel Lastman, has said that he believes that he will have no problem in bringing in a zero tax increase for each of the next three years. That was kind of funny, because we heard from representatives of the city of Toronto. It was most interesting. We had one deputation, an official from the city of Toronto, come before the standing committee on finance. I believe it was the treasurer of the municipality, I ask the member for Dovercourt, who came before the committee. She said, "Trying to guess where we're going to be in the year 2000 is very difficult." But in Toronto they have a mayor who is very easy. The mayor of Toronto has said that he will be able to keep property tax increases at zero. That is very good news. He'll do so at the same time watching taxes in his city for commercial and industrial education purposes go down by $400 million, because finally there is a provincial government that wanted to say, "Enough is enough. This is killing jobs," and to take some action and reduce the commercial and industrial taxes.
I want to acknowledge the member for Eglinton, who was a strong advocate to finally turn that policy around and see some fairness brought into the taxation system. He argued very strongly and very effectively and did a very good job on that. The member for York East was a strong advocate of reducing taxes, because he knows the effect those high commercial and industrial taxes have in East York and he wants to reduce that. There was finally a commitment, based on the education reform of last year, to begin to move over the next eight years to bring down those municipalities whose commercial and industrial tax rates were above the provincial average.
That will be good for the city of Toronto. It will be good for Nepean and Ottawa-Carleton, who will see a modest reduction to go down to the provincial average. It'll be very good for Hamilton-Wentworth businesses. The member for Burlington-South, who is here, the minister, knows that will be good for job creation in his community. We on this side of the House want to do everything we can do to help job creation, to make it absolutely as easy as possible for small businesses to create jobs. Small businesses are the economic engine of Canada. They're driving the Ontario economy now: 82% of the jobs created in Ontario were created by small business.
That's why one of the measures we brought forward in the provincial budget of 1998 was an eight-year plan to cut the corporate income tax for small business in half. That is an eight-year commitment. We even put it in legislation to mandate it, so that small businesses can have some confidence that those tax reductions will be there. We want to make it as easy as possible for small businesses to create jobs. That's why we got rid of the employer health tax, propose to do that by July 1, for small businesses with a payroll of under $400,000.
We listened with great interest to small business owners from right across the province and we received a very good report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business - the provincial policy director, Judith Andrew, who also appeared before the committee, as I mentioned earlier - research entitled, Silent Killer: The Impact of Local Property Taxation on Ontario's Small and Medium-Sized Businesses. This is a call to action, that government has got to do more to help small business. That's a call this government has gone to the wall to help address, because taxes are a particular strain on small businesses. We want to make it as easy as possible for them to create jobs.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is very helpful in letting the government and the opposition parties, and indeed each of us as members of provincial parliament, know the views of the owners and operators of small and medium-sized enterprises in Ontario. They regularly send us information. Unlike many organizations of that size, they regularly, routinely and specifically poll their membership to ensure that their advice is representative of the members they serve.
If you look at the relative tax distortions across property classes, looking at Toronto, Ottawa and London, there are just gigantic differences, which are a real impediment to job creation in certain parts of the province. That is important. That's something that creating an equitable and fair property tax system will help, reducing the commercial and industrial education taxes by more than $500 million over the next eight years. It's putting the school boards out of the taxing business. It will stop the 8% tax increases we became used to during the Liberal years in the late 1980s. That is indeed good news for job creation in Ontario.
We are keeping our promise to protect small business from large property tax increases. Bill 16 gives municipalities the tools to implement a 2.5% cap, and that's important to ensure that all small businesses can be protected. The 2.5% limit would also apply to businesses that lease their premises; for example, an office building, a shopping centre, an industrial mall. We know that small businesses create more jobs than any other sector, and the government recognizes the important role that small businesses play in our economic growth figures. They have been the backbone of the impressive job creation numbers we have seen in recent years. We recognize that.
We also recognize the important role that charities play in our communities, and this bill makes mandatory protection for charities, to ensure they are treated equitably by these reforms. That's incredibly important.
I'd like to yield the balance of my time to my good friend the member for Eglinton, followed by the member for Durham East.
Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): I'd like to first of all thank the member for Nepean for his very good words tonight. I'd like to follow along and build on what he has said, but before I do, I'd like to just thank him for coming to the riding of Eglinton last night and meeting with some taxpayers who were interested to hear more about what he had to say, which he has gone through in the House tonight. They were very happy to have somebody from another part of Ontario come up and compare his region to the region of Toronto, so I want to thank him for coming to Eglinton.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight about and in support of Bill 16, An Act to give Tax Relief to Small Businesses, Charities and Others, and there are many excellent proposals in this bill, but I want to speak first to the provisions affecting the small business community in my riding of Eglinton.
Eglinton has a large and diverse small business community; in fact, the member for Nepean and I drove through that last night. We're talking about Yonge Street, Eglinton Avenue, Mount Pleasant Road, Bayview Avenue, to name just a few. These are shopping areas which not only serve the local community but also attract clientele from well beyond the local neighbourhoods, in other words, from all around Toronto. These neighbourhood shops provide a focus for the community. Eglinton riding is representative of many communities in the city of Toronto. Indeed, Toronto is known as a community of communities. We're proud of those communities. We want them to continue.
These small businesses are the backbone of any community. They help to make Toronto the kind of community of which Ontarians are so proud. Last winter, when the new assessments were released, I heard from many businesses in my riding of Eglinton. Many of them expressed concern about the impact of possible property tax increases on their operations. I believe they understood the need to address the imperfections of the former, outdated property tax system, and they were willing to pay a reasonable fair share. In our conversations, I assured all of them that the Minister of Finance and this government were both committed to protecting the small business community from unfair tax burdens.
Indeed, I visited many of these businesses in my riding, and I attended meetings with some of the business associations, at all hours of the day. In this connection, I was particularly impressed by and want to mention Davis Hardware, which is located at 3231 Yonge Street. It is run by Norm Davis and his son-in-law Ian Sone. Davis Hardware is the quintessential small business retail shop. With two employees, it is one of the last real old-fashioned hardware stores in Toronto. I think you know the kind I mean. It's the place where you can buy nails by the pound rather than buying them in a sealed package. However, Davis Hardware is a progressive store and one that uses current marketing practices to attract people into the shop. You would be impressed to see the kind of work they are doing. Shops like this are the backbone of Eglinton riding. I have lived in Eglinton riding since 1961. I have watched businesses like Davis Hardware and many others like it grow. I think it is important that we have listened to them in this whole process.
1900
I was distressed to learn from Norm Davis that his taxes would increase from $8,000 to over $40,000 per annum with the new plan. He was prepared for a reasonable increase, but he told me that he could not remain in business if this increase came into effect. Small wonder that he felt that way. This is typical of what I heard from my small business community. So I was determined, just as the member for Nepean was, to work towards some realistic solution to this assessment problem. I should add that all the members of our caucus from the greater Toronto area were certainly involved and concerned, as I was.
Along with these other members, we met to discuss the situation and then we met with the Ministry of Finance to seek some relief for our constituents, to eliminate the difficult problem that Davis Hardware would have had, had things not been changed. But I was pleased that we were listened to and that changes were proposed.
I would like to add that it is not the small business community that created the imperfections in the former property tax system, for these are hardworking operators who have carried more than their fair share of the tax burden for years, without any complaint.
I am pleased to say that Bill 16 addresses fairness, reason and small business entrepreneurship. Those are characteristics in business which I admire greatly.
I want to give you another example of how this government listens and responds. There was extensive consultation with municipalities and stakeholders' groups as Bill 16 was sent to committee for hearings on June 3, and a number of amendments were proposed. As mentioned earlier, the government filed 16 amendments to Bill 16. I guess it's 16 for 16, in baseball parlance. Many of these amendments were in response to concerns expressed by municipalities and stakeholder organizations. Indeed, there was a good discussion as we went through these amendments. So the government is listening and it is responding.
Bill 16 provides all municipal governments with the tools to protect small businesses in a way that reflects local priorities. Municipalities can choose to cap the tax increases on all business properties to 2.5% per annum for three years. Municipalities which do not apply the 2.5% limit will be able to rebate property tax increases for businesses in the commercial and industrial classes.
This is exactly how the democratic system should work. Since the legislation was introduced, the government has been working with municipalities to implement property tax reform in a fair and manageable way. The bill provides additional measures to manage the transition and to provide enhanced protection for small businesses and charities. In other words, the government proposed, the government listened, and then it made changes to proposals based on considered reflection. This is the established framework of political debate, which I have been proud to be a part of since being elected slightly more than three years ago.
I also want to speak to the provisions for charities tonight. There are many charities that have their headquarters in my riding of Eglinton. I have met with a number of these organizations and I'd like to tell you just a few of them. The organizations that I'd like to cite include Youth Assisting Youth, where young people help other young people. I've also met with the Anne Johnston Health Centre. Named after one of our distinguished Toronto councillors, it is a health centre that provides good health counselling for the membership of Eglinton. The Geneva Centre For Autism: Autism is a very damaging disease not only for a child, but also for the family of that child. Also, Mood Disorders: I've been told that we spend about one third of our health budget on mental and other disorders related to them, and I think it's important that Mood Disorders exists in our riding; it is the headquarters for this great organization throughout Metro. The Delisle Youth Centre is a haven for children from homes that have caused trouble for these children, and the Delisle Youth Centre provides a great service to these young people. They come from all over Ontario, not just Toronto.
These organizations need a provision to allow them to control their overhead and focus on the delivery of the essential services they provide.
Fortunately, Bill 16 gives municipalities the tools to assist these charities and others by either capping the property tax increases for them to 2.5% for three years or providing mandatory property tax rebates of at least 40%. This is good news for these charities. Also, I'm pleased to see the amendment allowing municipalities to rebate taxes to charities located on residential property, because they are not always where we find shops.
Landlords of commercial, industrial and multiresidential properties also came to me to express their concerns. Some of the properties represent the lifelong savings of these owners, providing retirement income. This is where they have made all their investment, in these properties, and to deprive them of a proper rate of return with a very high tax would really put them out of business and drive them to the poorhouse. I'm pleased that this bill proposes a 2.5% cap for these small businesses as well as the others.
Obviously Bill 16 addresses many of the concerns that my constituents in Eglinton have voiced to me.
Although not in Bill 16, the government proposed in the 1998 budget to cut business education taxes over eight years in municipalities with above-average business education taxes. In 1998, the industrial tax for education in Toronto will be cut by $14 million and the commercial tax by over $16 million - further aid to business. By 2005, there will be a cut of over 50% in the industrial tax and 25% in the commercial tax, a saving for Toronto businesses of more than $402 million out of a total cut, province-wide, of about $500 million. Toronto is being well looked after with these changes.
Despite these huge reductions in education property taxes, funding for education will not suffer.
The government is also proposing to increase grants to school boards to offset the impact of cutting education taxes. This would ensure that adequate funding for education is maintained. That is very important in Eglinton riding, just as it is in all parts of Ontario.
In the 10 lost years, from 1985 to 1995, under Liberal and NDP governments education taxes in Ontario went up by a staggering 87%. On February 5 this year, Finance Minister Eves announced that these taxes were frozen after many years of increases. Now taxpayers are actually going to see some significant reductions. Relief at last. Once again our government is showing its commitment to economic growth and opportunity.
In my role as chairman of the Ontario International Trade Corp, I have heard from businesses across Ontario as well, because they know that if they're going to be able to export, these small and medium-sized enterprises would have to get the tax relief about which I am speaking tonight.
As an aside, I would like to thank members from both sides of this House who have spoken in support of the Ontario International Trade Corp's initiatives during recent debates. I'm pleased to hear this consensus on the need to encourage and develop a stronger trade focus.
1910
Ontario's 300,000-plus small and medium-sized businesses make up 96% of the companies in Ontario and they create well over 80% of Ontario's new jobs. They always have and they always will. This is consistent throughout Canada. Small businesses are the backbone of this country and of the jobs that are created.
These companies need a fair and equitable tax system to compete with businesses in other jurisdictions.
The 30% cut in the provincial personal income tax rate, once fully implemented, will inject a total of $1.2 billion into the economy of Toronto. The last instalment of course will come into effect in July of this year. Toronto is being well considered by this government.
With only three budgets, the Harris government has implemented and proposed a total of 66 tax cuts. This is in stark contrast to the 65 tax increases that were carried out and presented in the 10 lost years of Liberal and NDP government.
We have just had a task force to give further direction to the Ontario International Trade Corp. One of the things that was consistent from all sizes of companies that we spoke to, and we spoke to many, was the fact that we had to have lower taxes at all levels to be able to compete and attract investment into this province. Not only were we talking about corporate taxes, which by the way are now commencing to be reduced over the next eight years, but of course in the personal tax rates as well.
We know if we're going to hold our brightest and our best minds in this province, we're going to have to have lower personal taxes. That is one of the reasons we're seeing such good job creation by this government, because by lowering the taxes our young people are staying and filling the jobs that are out there for them. We do not have enough trained people in science and technology, and the companies we spoke to during the task force's hearings will be very happy to know that as a result of the last budget more people will be trained to fill the high-technology jobs that remain at present unfilled. That's again an example of this government listening to the suggestions of the business community. After all, without a strong business community, this province will be hindered, so we are very pleased that this is going on.
Between 1990 and 1994, 4.8% or 5% of the jobs in the greater Toronto area were lost. That's 8,000 jobs in 1994 alone, as an example. Since the end of 1995, there has been an increase of over 130,000 jobs in the GTA. That's approximately one third of all the jobs created in Ontario since we were elected in 1995.
In conclusion, we often hear that Ontario is the engine of Canada's economy. By the same token, Toronto is the engine of the Ontario economy. The Harris government, the government I'm proud to be a member of, is determined to keep Toronto's economic engine running smoothly and will continue to do that in the ensuing years.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is indeed a pleasure to follow the member for Eglinton and the member for Nepean, both of whom have made very insightful remarks. I would perhaps defer to them, being a bit more of a layman in discussion on third reading on Bill 16. We should understand that the legislation is of course an amending piece of legislation. Some might argue that these amendments were perhaps oversights in the original drafting, but it could also be interpreted as our attempt to respond to input from a variety of stakeholders. Indeed, all governments should do that. The member for Eglinton clearly indicated that during the public input period just recently there were 16 amendments passed, and those amendments of course will be incorporated in the bill we're debating tonight.
As a preliminary, just to outline the bill, its primary objective is to amend the Assessment Act, the Municipal Act and other statutes related to local government financing, and most of the amendments provide measures to deal with the changes in the property tax system, the Fair Municipal Finance Act and the Fair Municipal Finance Act (No. 2), two previous bills.
It would be well recognized that with a whole new assessment system in Ontario and a whole Who Does What activity and trying to determine a fairer tax assessment system, any rational government would have to respond with amendments. I suspect that much of this bill in its amended form will indeed do that.
For the viewer, it's important to recognize that the Municipal Act is amended by adding a new part which will restrict the changes in property tax classes for school and municipal purposes for certain classes, and that will be consistently rung in over an eight-year period starting in 1998. The application of the new part will be determined by the will of the local municipality or the upper-tier municipality. It's their choice. There is no requirement to do this, but many in the business community were saying that these changes were needed.
You have to look back a bit at what other changes took place in the small business community. The business occupancy tax: AMO and other organizations throughout the province had for years suggested that was an outmoded tax, that the tax had to be streamlined and the classifications within that. Eventually, the government decided to roll it in and give the option to spread it over the existing total tax base or spread it among the business property tax classes. So we've amended the number of classes and subclasses: large plazas, strip plazas and small plazas and other kinds of subclasses within a particular class, which I think is appropriate.
There was another small group which I heard from in my riding. I am sure all members in the House on all sides would speak to their mayors. I spoke to the mayors of all six or seven municipal areas within my riding of Durham East. More importantly, I chaired four budgets while in my time in municipal office, so I am well familiar with the treasurers. I met with the treasurers and the treasurers were bringing information to me. I would bring that kind of information and concern to the minister. I am sure all members were doing that, with the amount of change that is going on.
I met with the business owners, the chambers of commerce and board of trade people. I'd like to mention a couple for those who may be viewing tonight. The most important, right down at the very grassroots of Main Street business, I'd have to remember the BIAs, the business improvement areas, the downtown areas of all of downtown Ontario.
Ron Hooper has been a friend for many years, a small jewellery operation, a family operation, and provides excellent service in Bowmanville. Ron is the chair of the BIA in Bowmanville. In Newcastle village, a very old village in my riding, we have Ron Hope, who has a small complex variety store there, a small business. He is president of the BIA in that community. Murray Taylor from Orono - many of you would be familiar with Orono as you're going up Highway 35, 115. Drop in to see Murray Taylor. He has a small hardware operation there; it carries everything from nuts and bolts to perhaps even lottery tickets. Also, there's Gareth Grainger from Port Perry, a great community. The downtown area of Port Perry is famous, certainly all over the GTA. It's a destination point for people on weekends to go to downtown Port Perry with some of the finest - in fact, we had the marketing of the year, the old port business down there.
All those BIAs were saying to me, "You've eliminated, through changes in the tax structure here, the business improvement area levy," a very serious problem for them. Many of those businesses are tenants; they don't own the buildings. So the landlord then became responsible for collecting the BIA levy in the form of tax.
I can understand that the municipalities used to every year, when businesses operating a little video store or whatever went out of business - they were renters. It wasn't a tax, so they couldn't collect the money from the business owner; it was collected from the business operator. So it was lost revenue for the municipalities. The BOT, the business occupancy tax, was also paid by the business operator, so when they went out of business and went bankrupt, there could be no claim put on the property for taxes.
That's what this change is about. It's a very technical thing, but AMO has wanted it for years. The member for Kingston and The Islands would know that. When I was on municipal council, I wanted it. Now I'm in government and we're doing it.
1920
Is it going to be a complex arrangement of how that new revenue is picked up, shared and who pays it? Of course, and that's what Bill 16 is all about. I don't think any members here would disagree with some of those technical amendments.
I've got a couple of very important letters that I'd like to put on the record. I've got statements of support here from AMO, from Alex Ling, president of the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas. We were just talking about that. He says: "We're very happy that the Minister of Finance made the announcement of the 2.5% cap. We believe that if our business goes up because of the updated assessment we should be paying increased taxes. However, we also recognize that those who are in line for a large amount of decrease should be entitled to some relief."
He sees the fairness of that. What we have provided is a way to make the transition from where we are - that is, the tax they're paying today - to streamline the amount that will go up by 2.5% and similarly the amount that will go down. So there isn't a great loss of revenue for the municipal centre, whether it's Toronto or Durham East. It could be Oshawa, it could Whitby.
I've talked to the mayor of Whitby. There's a hardworking mayor. He wants to hold the line on taxes and I've heard him say it. Mayor Brunelle from Whitby is certainly a person I've worked with as a local councillor and is now mayor there. He is to be championed, trying to hold the line. Mayor Moffatt from Scugog is another mayor trying to hold the line. They want to hold the line at all costs. They realize that taxpayers are already up to here.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Wasn't he an NDP candidate?
Mr O'Toole: I believe he was a member here. Mayor Moffatt was a member in this House, so he knows. He has the rational thinking from the years of sitting as an NDP member that businesses aren't all rich. Our province is made up of small people with small businesses, working hard, so I believe he's supportive of no tax increases. I wouldn't want to quote him, but that's the impression I get. He is trying to hold the line.
I am confident that Mayor Diamond from Oshawa, a large centre all of us know, is trying to hold the line on taxes.
It could be argued that every person here is a taxfighter, but none more important than the Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves, and our Premier, Mike Harris. He is known as the true taxfighter.
What kind of support are we getting? It's broad, extremely broad.
I'm going to discuss for a few minutes the importance of the BOT, the business occupancy tax.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): AMO wanted that gone.
Mr O'Toole: A good point the member for York East is making. The member for York East often chirps in with extremely insightful comments.
This says: "The legislative authority for landlords to pass on BOT and business improvement area charges to tenants in gross lease situations is seen as necessary. We commend the government for incorporating AMO's previous recommendation in this area." There it is, very clear, from the AMO organization, and I've heard other organizations say precisely the same thing. It's not just the chambers of commerce, but people of all political stripes have said the BOT had to be rolled in. We're working through some changes in that area.
But I would say, from all my discussions, that not all mayors have caught on to the game. Some mayors still think it's tax and spend. But eventually the electorate decides what kind of leadership they want in their community. I appeal to every person, if anybody tells you they are going to increase taxes - they never tell you that. They say they're going to increase services. Over the next few months, perhaps 18 months, you'll be hearing various political positions from a provincial perspective, saying: "We're going to promise this. We're going to improve the number of teachers and nurses and doctors and hospitals." But they'll never tell you about the other side of the ledger.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I am going to quote - it's not word for word, but the leader of the NDP was quoted saying a few weeks ago, "Don't trust the Liberals."
Interjection.
Mr O'Toole: I don't know. He said it. I'm trying to abridge it for those who are watching today.
I'm disappointed that the Durham region most recently, in reading the local press - I've talked to Roger Anderson, the chair. I believe he's a fairly fiscally prudent young fellow. He's about the same age as I am, so he's a young fellow. All compliments to Roger. But I'm a little disappointed. It's my understanding they've decided to have a tax increase, and I am extremely disappointed.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. For example, I knew they were over budget in the police services budget by some $400,000 and there were a few over that -
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm telling the commissioner.
Mr O'Toole: This is the old police commission, though, that didn't really work, I suppose.
The increase I think isn't just that. Other services, perhaps, are being added. I think that's what the people have to ask: "What are we adding?"
I noticed in the paper today that they're going to spend I believe it's $125,000 for another study for a dump site or for handling waste. That must be about the fifth study they've had since I've been around. I was reading one of Mayor Hamre's comments. She said that it would be $125,000 worth of waste. So there you have a mayor who realizes you can't spend more money. You can't just tax and spend. The people are up to speed on that.
I've got a couple of other notes here that I wanted to refer to. I was interrupted there basically -
Mr Bradley: That Guy Giorno prepared.
Mr O'Toole: Well, actually, I think the government legislators prepared this. I'm reading directly from the act. This is one of the sections. It says:
"Property taxes are determined using adjusted mill rates" - they call them tax rates now - "based on the 1997 mill rates with adjustments to reflect certain reductions in municipal taxes. The adjusted mill rates are applied to the assessments on the frozen assessment listings to determine the 1997-level taxes. Adjustments are then made to phase in 1998 tax changes. Tax increase phase-ins are limited" - and here's the key - "to 2.5%...."
That 2.5% is the security that the business -
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): What page?
Mr O'Toole: This is just the introductory section. You mean you haven't read this? I'm surprised the member for Essex South hasn't read this, or at least he can't find it. It's the first page. The first page is often very instructive.
The point I'm making is that the phase-in gives the small business operator some confidence in this transitional phase of tax change in Ontario. I'm going back to the very fundamentals of not only this bill but this government. We are not about increasing taxes. You can count on it.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why are you allowing a 2.5% increase?
Mr O'Toole: Pay attention. Member for Kingston and The Islands, I would ask you to pay very close attention.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr O'Toole: You can trust the Premier of this province to not increase taxes. That's not his solution to all problems. It may be the solution for the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the NDP, to simply spend more money to solve problems. That formula's been tried, member for Kingston and The Islands, and it's clearly put us into $100 billion of debt.
This solution here is working with the partners. The bill that we're discussing tonight, Bill 16, is a very serious working together on the amendments to the Assessment Act, the Municipal Act and the Municipal Finances Act to ensure that we indeed adjust the mill rates and the tax rates for small business.
Mr Speaker, with your permission and the permission of the House, it's indeed my great pleasure to share some of my time, although I should have given him more, with the member for Northumberland, because this member here spends so much time working on every piece of legislation that I have to share my time. Respectfully, the member for Northumberland.
1930
Mr Galt: Thanks to the member for Durham East for sharing his time. I did want to make a few brief comments on Bill 16, a very important bill, one which the government is adjusting and changing because we've been listening to the public. Not only have we been listening to the concerns of the municipalities, but this government has been responding.
I know it's upsetting to the opposition to see that the economy is booming, that jobs are being created and taxes are down. Good news must come really hard for the member for Kingston and The Islands, because I notice he hasn't brought to our attention from Kingston This Weekend, the May 16 edition -
Mr Baird: What does it say?
Mr Galt: It says - it's slightly outside of his riding; it's probably in Frontenac-Addington - a $40-million expansion to the Cataraqui Town Centre includes 30 new stores. He never brought it to our attention. I'm surprised, but on the other hand I guess it's upsetting for him to have good news. I just wanted to bring it to the people in Kingston. It's 30 new stores, 210 man-hours of construction work - that should be people-hours, of course. It's just an excellent article. I expect the member for Kingston and The Islands hasn't been reading the local newspapers and has missed it. I just wanted to bring that to his attention.
I think one of the important parts of this bill-
Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like the member for Northumberland to know that I read my local newspaper each and every day.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Member for Northumberland.
Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your ruling.
I did want to make a couple of comments about the charities and recognizing charities in this particular bill. I think that's an important part, to rebate the taxes that charities are paying.
I was responsible for the fund drive for the United Way in Northumberland county back in the fall of 1993, a tremendous organization. I've been a Lion for over 30 years. The organization is very involved with CNIB and raising funds for them.
Things like food banks - when they have space, they deserve to get those taxes back. This bill will guarantee that they'll get at least 40% back, and the municipality could increase it right up to 100%. No tax increases for charities, no taxes for charities, is the position that we could be in.
In winding up, I notice the member for St Catharines does a lot of talking about this little booklet, Are We on the Right Track? I can tell you that with Bill 16, we are on the right track. Because of this going out and the public getting a chance to see, "Are we on the right track?" they are convinced that we are. I regularly hear that we are on the right track in many respects, particularly as it relates to adjustment in a bill like Bill 16 to recognize the taxpayers, those who have property.
Some are bit concerned about the market value assessment. This is a government that had the intestinal fortitude to bring it in. It's fair. What's fair is fair. But during the transition period we do have to recognize that some of the taxes might go up quite a little bit. This bill certainly recognizes and accommodates those changes so there's not a sudden jerk in the taxes.
Because of this, I'm extremely pleased to be able to support Bill 16 in its third reading and look forward to its successful passage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?
Mr Bradley: I was glad that the member for Northumberland mentioned the political propaganda in his speech. The people of this province should know when they receive this pamphlet that it cost three quarters of a million dollars to produce and disseminate this across Ontario. The member mentioned that in his speech.
It is blatant political propaganda. That's all it is. If it were paid for out of the ample coffers of the Progressive Conservative Party, the coffers overflowing with dollars from developers and other very wealthy people in this province who are thanking the Conservative Party for gearing their policies to the wealthiest and most powerful people in the province, if that were paid for by the Conservative Party, then one might be prepared to accept it.
This is simply a pamphlet paid for by the taxpayers of this province, along with another pamphlet that came out about a month ago. This came from the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. The head of that board is the former principal secretary to Mike Harris, a former provincial candidate for the Conservative Party, the person who was in charge of communications for the Conservative caucus, who is now disguising himself as a civil servant, supposedly objective. If this is what he is producing, this again is blatant political propaganda from the Conservative Party.
I think the Conservative Party should pay back to the people of this province the amount of money it cost, three quarters of a million dollars for this one, three quarters of a million dollars for that one, for blatant political propaganda. This is not the kind of information that people need to conduct their lives; this is Mike Harris digging into the wallets of the people of this province to make himself look good, and that's all it is.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I did enjoy the contribution from the members for Nepean, Eglinton, Durham East and Northumberland. They appear to be in an exceptionally good humour, a good mood. They convey a sentiment of confidence. I just hope, with respect to the government caucus, that it doesn't turn into a big disappointment, the confidence of ignorance, for we don't know what the tax bills, the final levy, will be. What we know is that the 2.5% increase will be capped and it will be made up by a 2.5% - suppose they were to get a decrease - cap as well.
Who will be left holding the bag for the downloading to make up for the difference? There's no free lunch. The home owners will be asked to carry the guilt. Now you congratulate yourself, but you put everybody into this mess. Why are you making the correction at this time? With respect, it's quite simple: because you are shamed into it. People took to the streets. You wouldn't even answer your calls. You hid in the corridor, because a revolution, the kind of revolution when people are saturated by taxes, was about to take place.
I ask the government members to be most diligent and listen carefully. In the final analysis, when all is said and done, when Bill 16 is passed through your majority muscle, home owners will ask you to look at their lot, because they are the ones who will be left holding the bag. It's a sad legacy. We have six months to go in their fiscal year, and yet we don't have our final levy. People are confused and -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Comments and questions.
Mr Parker: I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleagues from Nepean, Eglinton, Durham East and Northumberland. I have to admit I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleagues from Durham East and Northumberland in particular. These are two very taciturn and reticent members. It's a rare occasion that we hear from them in this House, and it's always a treat whenever we can encourage them to come forward and share a few comments and some of their views on a bill that's before this House. I do encourage them to speak more often in this House. We don't hear nearly enough from either one of them.
The member for Eglinton was his customarily eloquent self, and he commented at some length on the degree of consultation that went into the formulation of Bill 16. I was there with him, because we represent much the same community, and the people he consulted with were in many cases the same people I consulted with, as our ridings are side by side and we deal with the same commercial districts. We spoke with the same commercial property owners and operators this spring as we discussed their concerns over tax reform and the need for making certain amendments to get it right. That's what Bill 16 is all about.
I notice that the member for St Catharines never misses a chance to raise some objection to this booklet, Are We on the Right Track? I think he's concerned because he knows that we are on the right track in this government and he knows that this booklet invites the taxpayers and the voters of this province to review what this government has done and to give their comments. There's a form and people are invited to return the form with their thoughts.
1940
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I am pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate and comment on some of the speeches made earlier.
It's interesting. I can forgive the government for getting it wrong the first time, so they went back to the drawing board and said, "Okay, we'll fix the mess that we've made in the tax situation," but this is the fifth property tax bill that this government has brought in during the last year and a half to correct the errors that they continue to make, and they're still doing it. Talk to the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers. They'll tell you you have made a mistake, but do you listen?
I just heard the member for York East talk about the consultation, how they're listening. They're not listening to the municipal clerks and treasurers. They're not listening to the home owners in Toronto who are saying, "Hey, you put the cap on, but it's a poison pill for municipalities." If you're going to go ahead and do it, you've got to put the tax burden on the residents.
I'd also like to address the comments of the member for Eglinton. He talked about the youth-serving agencies, and he's quite right: They do excellent work. But this government has consistently cut their funding, has consistently made it more difficult for these organizations to serve the young people of this province, and this bill is in no way going to assist those organizations.
I would say as well that I know in the case of one organization that he mentioned, Youth Assisting Youth, they're dependent upon charity casino revenues. That's their main source of funding, and the halt that you have placed upon them has put that organization very much in jeopardy.
So please do not try to fool anybody. This bill is not helping any of those organizations, and it is not helping the residents of Toronto.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean has two minutes to respond.
Mr Baird: I listened with great interest, and I want to thank the members for St Catharines, Lac-Nipigon, York East and Oriole for their comments.
I appreciated the comments particularly by my colleague the member for Oriole. He said this government hasn't been listening. I think we should go to a source of impeccable judgement on these types of issues. I'll go to Hansard, page 651. What does it say? "I will give this government some credit: They listened."
Mr O'Toole: Who was that?
Mr Baird: Who was that, member for Durham East? It was the member for Parkdale, Tony Ruprecht, who said that. Tony said, "They're listening," and on this issue I agree with Tony Ruprecht that, to give them credit, "They listened." Those aren't John Baird's words; they are Tony Ruprecht's.
Mr O'Toole: What page is that? I want to make a copy of that.
Mr Baird: Page 651. I'll bet you the Liberal caucus meetings must be quite colourful, and I would have liked to be a fly on the wall during that Liberal caucus meeting.
The member for Oriole also talked about residential rates, and we look across the province at the percentage of properties that are potentially facing a tax decrease. Ottawa-Carleton region, 57% are potentially facing a tax decrease; Kingston, 69% are potentially facing a tax decrease.
Mr O'Toole: What about Durham East?
Mr Baird: The member from Durham East asks about Durham. Indeed, Durham is potentially 51%; Toronto, potentially 54%, to the member for Oriole. That is indeed good news for taxpayers, because an up-to-date assessment system is important for fairness and it's important for equity.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Crozier: I think I look forward to the opportunity to debate this Bill 16 tonight, because it is on the agenda. The point we should all note is that if this government had not totally mismanaged this whole property tax situation, we wouldn't even have to be here discussing this bill tonight.
Before I get too far, I'd like to point out that I would like to share my time with the member for Yorkview and the member for Kingston and The Islands, if I could.
The member for Nepean mentioned earlier in his comments about waste and wild spending. I don't know whether the member for Nepean has had any experience at the municipal level when it comes to budgeting and watching the dollars of a municipality. I do know, though, that he did have extensive experience with a minister in the Mulroney government.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Who?
Mr Crozier: The member for Nepean. So certainly he would have had some experience with waste and wild spending.
Mr Bradley: Who was the minister?
Mr Crozier: I think it was Mr Beatty, was it not?
Mr Bradley: I didn't know he was a Mulroneyite.
Mr Crozier: In any event, I do know the member for Nepean has had some experience with waste and wild spending.
Also earlier in the debate this evening we heard a couple of members - the member for Nepean as well as the member for Eglinton - go on at some length about how the government has consulted. I too want to go to a source that's impeccable. The only problem is - it shouldn't surprise anybody in Governor Harris's Ontario - that you can't get a Canadian or an English dictionary; you get the American College Dictionary -
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to get a ruling from you, with respect to the speaker for Essex South, as to whether it is appropriate in this House to address the Premier of the province, whoever he or she may be, as "Governor." Is that a suitable appellation for this House?
The Acting Speaker: I'd like to address the point of order. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is perfectly correct. Members in this House are to be addressed by either title - so that would be Premier Harris - or by the name of their riding, which would be the member for Nipissing.
Mr Bradley: On a very brief point of order, Mr Speaker: I think if one were talking about an upper-case G, as in Governor, instead of Premier, that would be different, but when we're talking about a governor, we're talking about the small "g," which means he governs the province.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The Chair recognizes the member for Essex South.
Mr Crozier: Speaker, with all due respect, I accept your ruling and from this point on I will refer to him in another way. I hope I can keep that within parliamentary rules as well.
I do just want to point out that in this American College Dictionary, "governor" is "a ruler or chief magistrate appointed to govern a province, a town, a fort or the like." Perhaps the American dictionary, in saying that a governor rules a province, isn't correct. In any event, I'll refer to him as Premier Harris from this point on.
The members from Nepean and Eglinton made some points about this government consulting. Again, as I started out, I would refer to the dictionary. "Consult" is "to confer, imply taking over a situation or a subject," blah, blah, blah, "to seek presumably a qualified person or an impersonal source for advice." So in consulting, they did get some advice from professionals.
The first bit of advice they got was on May 25 when the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario wrote a 10-page letter to the Minister of Finance outlining their comments with regard to Bill 16, although their most interesting comment was saved for the end when it said, "A win situation is to let Bill 16 die on the order paper." Well, the government chose not to do that, although, as I referred to in earlier comments on second reading of this bill, after that letter came in, this bill was withdrawn from the order paper about as quickly as a dew worm shrinks back on the Kingsville golf course.
I realize that the minister of community and commercial services wanted me to explain further what a dew worm was, but anybody in rural Ontario would know that you shine a light on a dew worm at a golf course and that thing shrinks back pretty quickly. That's the way they took this bill off the order paper, which then resulted in further delays in the release of the rolls so that municipalities could collect their money.
The minister, I think, in the House has said two or three times: "Not to worry, municipalities. If it's costing you $1 million a week because you can't get your rolls out, we'll pay for it." "We," as we all know and as we've all said in here, is the taxpayer of Ontario. So all the Minister of Finance is saying is, "We'll pay it with your money," of course. In the end the taxpayer gets it because this bill is taking so long to get on the agenda.
1950
A couple of other things were mentioned earlier. I think it was the member for Eglinton who said that Toronto is the engine of the province. Most people wouldn't dispute that, but I just want to point out one further thing. If it wasn't for rural Ontario, if it wasn't for the likes of Essex county to feed that engine, to put food in the belly of the engine - the Minister of Agriculture is here tonight and I know he'll agree with me on this - it would slow down pretty quickly.
Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): You are absolutely right.
Mr Crozier: Thank you.
I just want to take you back a little bit. Those who have had municipal experience will understand what I am saying. At this point in time - we are almost completely six months through the year - most municipalities would have had their budgets set and they would have had their interim tax bills out. In fact, the final tax demands would probably be out.
I can recall that when I was on the council in Leamington it was our effort to have our budget done before the fiscal year started, and therefore the only thing we had to wait for was the assessment roll to be released. Here we are now with this bill, the fifth tax bill that we've been dealing with - each one of course trying to correct the other - and the rolls still aren't out, and they're not likely to be out for another couple of weeks. And then a couple of weeks of a 30-day period in which municipalities will have to make up their minds on this particular tax bill or series of tax bills will have gone. Municipalities are really being put in the crunch.
Again, the government speaks very often about business; they like to run their government like a business. I suggest that in many businesses in Ontario - and in this case I'm afraid the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance have to share in this - if a responsible individual had messed up a particular task this many times and taken this long, they'd be fired, because it's totally incompetent to have allowed this to get to this point, and we aren't done yet.
When I spoke on second reading I said, "You know, folks, when this bill goes to third reading it still isn't going to be right." And what do we have now? We have another letter from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, addressed to Minister Eves, on June 8. It said, "The changes made to the bill" - that is, the amendments that have been made in the last week or so - "will not have any positive impact on municipal operations this year, nor will they provide municipalities with relief from flawed legislation."
As was suggested, if you consult an expert and an expert comes along and tells you that this is still flawed legislation, then we've still got the problem. I don't know how many more bills it's going to take to fix this. I do know that municipalities are anxiously awaiting for you to get the thing straightened out. Get the rolls out and let's get on with business. I'm sure these municipalities have been waiting for weeks and months on end. They've got cash-flow problems because of this. We think it's well past the time that we should have gotten on with this. But it's still flawed legislation. The municipal clerks and treasurers of Ontario have told you so.
It says, "In addition, the implementation of this section" - and they're talking about the "40% of the taxes payable for the charity's premises," and I'll get to that in a few minutes - "will require significant administrative resources, the cost of which is entirely left with municipalities." When they say "significant administrative resources," that sounds an awful lot to me like red tape. This government brags about getting rid of red tape, yet what they've created with a certain section of this bill is more red tape. It says, "Municipalities will need to develop another administrative process to identify eligible charities, to track their continued eligibility...."
Finally, the municipal clerks and treasurers say, "As we have previously cautioned, Bill 16 risks administrative chaos and has revenue implications that could jeopardize the financial stability of many municipalities." It ain't fixed yet. How much longer is it going to take the incompetence - and I don't know who it is. All I know is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Finance have to share this condemnation by the municipal clerks and treasurers.
The part they refer to there was about charities. Again, several of the government members have had to defend the amendments that were made to this bill. They've gone on at some length saying how great it is that one of the amendments allows tax rebates for charities and is replaced with a provision that makes such programs mandatory for single- and upper-tier governments. In an earlier piece of legislation, I had to send a letter to every charitable group in my riding and warn them that what they had to do under the previous pieces of legislation was go to their municipal governments, either the lower or the upper tier, and beg, ask if they would give them, as a rebate, up to 40% of what was their business occupancy tax. I warned all of them that they'd better make sure they did that or they wouldn't get it.
This government finally got it on that particular issue. They're saying now, and bragging to some extent about it, "We've made it mandatory." You should have made it mandatory in the first place. These charities shouldn't have to come and beg this government or the municipal government for something they had in the first place. I wouldn't be very proud of the fact that you've had to make that amendment. That's another case of simply either a poorly written bill or that the drafters of the bill were not given the proper direction in the first place.
We talked a bit about the BIAs. BIAs are in danger. What if the landlord doesn't want to belong to the BIA or is not particularly anxious to be a member of the BIA? That may matter little, because he's going to have to collect those fees anyway. It was suggested by one of the government speakers that when a business went out of business before, the municipality was stuck with any unpaid BIA dues. Now the landlord is stuck with them. He's still a taxpayer and he's stuck with them. It may have fixed it for the municipalities, there's no doubt about that, but the landlord is now going to have to take it in the ear. I suggest that what is probably going to happen then is that it's going to be passed on to the next tenant.
2000
Business occupancy tax was another one, and we all agree. I both worked and was a part-owner in a small business for 22 years, so I certainly understand what business occupancy tax is. I was on municipal council; I know what business occupancy tax is. They're right. It was difficult, or in fact sometimes impossible, to collect if a business went under. But what is going to happen now is that it's merely going to be, I suppose, either passed on to the residential property owners in the municipality or put right back on to the businesses anyway. It may have made the collection of it different, but it doesn't really change the problem. The taxpayer still has to take it on the chin for anybody who doesn't pay their business occupancy tax.
I just hope that when this bill passes - and I suspect it will because I think the government has gone to the point where it can't do anything. They've been given advice by the municipal clerks and treasurers of Ontario to simply withdraw the bill, take some time and let the municipalities work this thing out. I suspect the government won't do that because it does have to save face. I make the same prediction I did the other night, that Bill 16, even as it's amended, is not going to solve the problem. This particular endeavour by the government through five bills now has been made a mess of. I still think it's a mess. I agree with the clerks and treasurers of Ontario and I suspect in the fall we're going to be back here trying to fix it again. I just hope that in the meantime you at least get on with it, get the rolls out and let the municipalities start to do their job, as they've always been most competent to do.
Thank you, Speaker, for allowing me these few minutes this evening to address this bill.
Mr Sergio: I am also happy to contribute to the discussion on Bill 16. This is the fifth bill the government has introduced with respect to the supposed, as it was entitled, Act to give Tax Relief to Small Businesses, Charities and Others. I believe that after the fifth bill the government still has introduced 16 amendments with respect to the changes that the government, after having heard the opposition and others, is now considering making to Bill 16. It makes you wonder why the government hadn't been listening originally, when we told the government, when the business community told the government, when the various reports done by people hired by the government - and I could mention a number of those reports, especially the Trimmer report and the Golden report, and then of course we have the latest one, which the government did not take into consideration either.
The government would have done itself a favour, would have done the taxpayers a favour, would have done the small and the general business communities a big favour as well, if it had listened as it should have and had acted on what it was being told the first time. We are here, not four but five bills behind, thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars wasted, not only in this House but also to provide documents such as this one here. Even the fifth bill has a total of 76 pages. Can you imagine, a bill introduced in a rush by this government, that after four bills we still have another one with 76 pages and 16 amendments?
Having said that, this was supposed to be what everyone was waiting for, especially the small business community. It turns out to be nothing but a hoax perpetrated by the government on the business community and the taxpayers of Ontario. Why is that? Because no sooner had the bill been introduced, and municipalities and the business community found out what was in that particular bill, than the government took notice of what was happening in the streets, what the business community was saying, and was saying the right thing. Why is that?
I want to bring to the attention of the House what the minister himself said on March 10, 1998: "Recent speculation in the media about commercial taxes on small business is causing unnecessary confusion and fear in the community. In Toronto, this speculation has raised the spectre of small business property taxes being suddenly doubled or even tripled as a result of the recent reassessment of property to actual value as of June 1996." The minister said, "This is totally inaccurate."
What happened three or four days later when the minister couldn't take it any more, when the heat was getting to be unbearable, when the pressure was getting to the government, to the Premier and the minister? Within three days of this announcement, he had to backtrack. What did he say? That the business community was right and the opposition was right, that those 17,900 businesses in Toronto were really facing increases of up to 100%. That was three days after having said that this was not possible, that this was totally wrong.
What did he do? He took a little Band-Aid and said: "Okay, we're going to keep you quiet for a period of three years. We are going to limit those increases to 2.5%." So the story went. He introduced Bill 16 with that amendment, and we can find that amendment with respect to the 2.5% cap on certain types of properties, for the benefit of the members of the House, and especially the government, on pages 32, 42 and 31 as well. But what has the government, what has the minister done with the 2.5% cap on those certain types of properties? He has done two major things. He has given notice to the small business community that even today is struggling to stay alive. He has put those people on notice, saying: "We're going be hitting you three years from now, so if you can, make arrangements and leave town within the next three years. Because three years from now we're going to hit you." He has told the local municipalities: "Hey, Mayor Lastman, Mayor McCallion, you're on your own. You cannot touch those types of property, those classes of property, mainly industrial and commercial. The 2.5% is there. It stays. It's frozen." You can find that on page 42 of Bill 16.
2010
What does this do to the local municipalities? Are they going to be holding the line for a period of three years? What if they need money to maintain existing services? Where do they go? Will they have to borrow money? Perhaps, or they will have to spread those increases required to meet those financial needs on to other classes. Let me tell you something, and let me tell the same thing to the Premier and the Minister of Finance: If they think they have seen a riot on the streets of Toronto with respect to the business community, they haven't yet seen what the residential community may do when they finally get the final bill.
The local municipalities still have not been able to set the final tax rate and send it out to property owners. Those property owners, especially the residential portion, are still waiting for the amount of fairness, for the amount of tax assessment equity, for the amount of reductions they are entitled to, that this government said they were going to get. Now, once they get the final tax bill, they will see that instead of getting that much-waited-for tax rebate, they might even be getting a tax increase. Can you imagine that? Just because of the government's inability to deal with the inadequate tax system, of which they said, "We will have to reform it and we will have to come up with a uniform tax rate for all properties throughout Ontario."
I don't think it's very fair that the business community in Metropolitan Toronto continues to pay business education taxes for education throughout the rest of Ontario. Why do I say this is unfair? Because with Bill 16 the present government of Ontario is continuing to perpetrate the same inequity that has existed for the last 40 or 50 years. They said: "We will change it. We will make the system more equitable."
I'm asking the government how they see this equity when a small business in Toronto, let's say valued at $500,000, is assessed for business education tax purposes at $21,600 and in another neighbouring municipality, and I'm giving you Richmond Hill, which is a thriving, growing community just above Toronto - and so the advertising says, "the city above Toronto"; it is the city of Vaughan that actually says that - up there they only pay $11,100. Richmond Hill is just up the street, right? When we compare Richmond Hill and Toronto to, let's say, Thunder Bay or Parry Sound, we say Richmond Hill is just up the street.
So what is the difference? The difference is because this government continues to refuse to bring equity to the tax system. I don't think it's fair that the business community in Toronto and the people of Toronto, all the taxpayers, suffer because they have to bear the consequences of this continuous inequity. For example, Toronto is $21,600. In the Treasurer's home town of Parry Sound, the same type of business with the same value - we are talking the same value - pays $5,000. That is why the system fails to bring justice where there is no justice at present.
Just to give you another one: In North Bay it's $12,900. Why is that? Why should it be? We don't have to go that far. On the north side of Steeles they are paying $12,000 less than on the south side of Steeles. Why is that? We've been telling them that. Not only us, but the business community, organizations, the Toronto board of trade have been saying to the government, "This is wrong." The government did say, "We will bring fairness and equity to the tax system in Toronto."
It's worth repeating some of the things that have been said previously, but before I do that, I want to address one particular aspect. As I said, it is important to know what is going to happen, not today or next year but also three years from now, in the year 2000. According to the bill as presently written, it only applies to the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. What are municipalities going to do in the year 2001?
It's also worth noting on page 32 that the minister himself, on behalf of the government, has given himself total power, total control over when, how and how much those education tax rates are going to be. I don't think the public, especially the business community, is fully aware and can get hold of that, can comprehend what that means; that behind closed doors, without coming into this Legislative Building, the government, the minister, with a few members of their caucus, can decide how much and when they are going to raise. Parents have no control and no say and we in this House have no say on behalf of our taxpayers, and I don't think that is fair. That is only one of those issues.
As has been mentioned by the member for Essex South, anyone who has had some municipal experience knows they are very limited in the income they get; it only comes from one particular source, the taxpayers. When that source starts to dry up, what do they do? They have to increase taxes. God forbid, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, if the city councillors have to say: "You know what? We won't give you that 3%, 4% or 5% reduction that we said we would just a couple of months ago, when the new assessment bill went out." Even the government was holding seminars in many parts of the province, many parts of Metro. Those were the provincial assessors, hired and paid by the provincial government to go into various communities and say, "Yes, your property is going to go down by whatever percentage, and you will be credited with so much when the final bill comes." They're going to be in for a shock. I feel for a lot of those people, especially the single homeowners, the pensioners, the unemployed, the single income, the ones on welfare, the poor people, the low-income people. I wonder what they are going to say.
There is a group of people, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, a well respected group. I call them the cornerstone of every municipality. No municipality, big or small, can function properly without the direction and expertise of those people. No politician could survive without the expertise and direction of those people. It's worth repeating what they have 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 end product is a political and administrative nightmare."
That is them saying that to the government. These are the people the government is saying they listened to. My goodness, if they listened, why haven't they acted?
This is what the clerks and treasurers have to say with respect to the capping of certain classes for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000:
"It further perpetuates an assessment system which the current government has time and time again said is outdated, inefficient, complicated and should be eliminated.... The argument for consistency in the province of Ontario disappears with the implementation of Bill 16."
How true. It is sad to hear from some members of the government that this bill is going to be the salvation. How untrue.
2020
With the 2.5% limitations on increases, it is abundantly clear that two major problems are created. I already mentioned these two points, but it's worth mentioning them again: (1) Municipalities will experience revenue shortages, and (2) to compensate for the shortage, municipalities will have to budget for those shortages. Undoubtedly they will distribute it to classes except those where the 2.5% applies, because the government said so. In other words, they are telling municipalities: "We have made a deal with certain types of classes to keep them happy for the next three years. But whatever you do, it's up to you." I don't think this is fair. If I am one of those pensioners with a single income, a single pension, I was counting on that reduction from my city, from my government. Now I will be faced instead with continuing to deal with a system that continues to be inequitable for me, unfair for me.
This is what they say, in conclusion: "This bill, if passed as drafted, will embroil municipal councils in complex, confusing and inefficient systems of taxation. Administrative costs will increase" and become "so complex" - it's the application of Bill 106, Bill 149 and Bill 16 - "that few municipalities in Ontario will be able to fully bill taxes before the year is ended with any degree of success within the parameters of the law. A win situation is to let Bill 16 die on the order paper."
How true. This is something we have been saying in this House, not only about this bill but all the other bills as well. Unfortunately the government is bent on continuing the march to push this through, the way they did with many other bills, without taking into consideration either what we say on this side of the House or what individuals and groups say from the outside.
In the minute I have left, let me say something with respect to being so charitable towards the charities in Ontario. If the government really wants to solve the problems of charitable organizations and those other organizations that are supported by charities, it could solve them very easily without pushing casinos throughout Ontario, in municipalities that don't even want them. From the existing casinos, from which they are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars, they could easily say: "We'll give you a couple of hundred million. Just disappear from our back. We won't install a casino where people don't want it." The people said so; municipalities said so, and therefore we will keep everybody happy. We'll be keeping the municipalities happy. We'll be keeping the charities happy. Even the government will be happy.
Having said that, I believe my time is up. I turn to my colleague, the member for Kingston and The Islands, for the conclusion of our time.
Mr Gerretsen: I am pleased to join the debate of my colleagues, the member for Yorkview and the member for Essex South, on this rather important bill.
It's interesting. The first thing the people in Ontario should know is that once again we're working under the restraints of a closure motion. Closure has become almost a customary thing with this government. This is the 23rd time that closure has been used to stifle debate on a bill.
There are probably a lot of people out there who might say to themselves, "What's so extraordinary about that?" All you have to do is go back about 20 or 30 years and closure was almost an unknown thing. It was understood within the parliamentary system that you could speak on a bill for as long as the opposition wanted to, in the hopes of bringing some sense to the government so it would change its legislation and the final piece of legislation that would come forward would be for the betterment of all the people of Ontario. That's what this process is all about.
That's very important, because we have seen with this government, in particular with this property tax bill, how this government is completely and totally incompetent. They're getting it wrong each and every time. Don't take my word for it, but let's listen to the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. People out there might ask, who are the clerks and treasurers of Ontario?
Mr Lessard: A special interest group, according to the government.
Mr Gerretsen: Someone says the government thinks they're a special interest group. They are the people who in each of our municipalities take a bill like this and implement it in that municipality. They are the people who are responsible for getting the tax bills out and making sure that everybody's tax bill is in accordance with the law.
What do these people say about the fact that this government hasn't been getting it right? As you well know, we received a copy of a letter addressed to the Deputy Premier, dated May 25, in which they state - I know it's been stated here before, but I think we need to state it again:
"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. Sophisticated systems and specialists will have to be developed to manage not only the complexities of Bill 106, 149 and 164, but now Bill 16 as well. Ontario municipalities will not be able to implement the complex taxation system without a substantial commitment of time, effort, resources and tax dollars."
Of course, we all know who is going to pay those tax dollars: the local property taxpayers.
Earlier tonight we heard the government members quote different interest groups from the business community who all say this is a good bill and that we should get a current value system going in Ontario. I know that different governments over the last 20 or 30 or 40 years have dealt with that, and I think we agree with the notion in general. The problem is that those particular groups don't have the specific knowledge of the clerks and treasurers about what should actually be in the bill to make the new so-called fairer system work properly. That's really what this is all about. The clerks and treasurers are a professional organization that wants to make sure that whatever bill is being brought down to their level for implementation is done in a proper and correct manner.
You may recall that originally the government, when it introduced its first closure motion, was going to allow absolutely no time for a committee to take any kind of representations from different groups out there. It was not going to allow any amendments to the bill whatsoever, because the government was under a lot of pressure to get this done as quickly as possible. We agree, by the way, that it should be done as quickly as possible, because the property taxpayers in this province have the right to know, now that we're almost in the middle of June, what their property tax levels and their property tax bills are going to be this year. We're kind of between a rock and a hard place. We all realize that we have to get to this system quickly. The problem is that this government has had a lot of time to deal with it and has had a lot of opportunities to do it right. They've done it wrong four times already, and now they're doing it wrong again.
2030
A meeting took place. The clerks and treasurers and other groups made their presentations. The government, which one day before the meeting had said, "We don't need any amendments to Bill 16," all of a sudden, as a result of these presentations, decided by 2 o'clock last Wednesday afternoon, "Yes, there are nine government amendments that we need," which is itself an acknowledgement that the government knew this bill was flawed. They came forward with nine amendments that the day before they'd said they didn't need.
They've amended their own bill, which is fair. I understand that bills need to be amended. You didn't think so the day before we had the hearings, but let's give you that one. You put the nine amendments in, they were passed, and you voted down every one of the opposition amendments, many of which dealt with the problems the clerks and treasurers brought forward in their rather detailed letter of May 25. So what happens? We now have third reading of the bill.
What happened two days ago? We get another letter from the same independent Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, who represent 97% of the clerks and treasurers in the province. What did they say? It's kind of interesting. I want to quote the president from a press release they issued. They say:
"`We wrote to Mr Eves detailing our concerns,'" and that was the letter of May 25. "`We held a press briefing. We warned of the administrative chaos and financial ruin if the government proceeded with Bill 16 as drafted. We got the government's attention and they promised to delay passage of the bill, hear our concerns and even decided to hold public committee hearings. We met with government officials" - these are the clerks and treasurers talking - "and went through our concerns and proposed amendments. We appeared before the committee and did it all again,' said Cathie Best, AMCTO president. `And what did they do? They focused on only two of our concerns, and their subsequent amendments certainly don't help and'" - get this - "`could even make the situation worse.'"
This isn't my propaganda. This is directly from a letter and a news release by the clerks and treasurers of Ontario.
Cathie Best goes on to say: "`We felt it incumbent on an organization such as ours to point out the flaws in Bill 16. That's why we took the unprecedented step'" - now, anybody who knows anything about clerks and treasurers knows they normally don't like to get involved in the political side of things. They may sometimes within their own council try to get the right thing passed, but that's another issue. They don't really want to get involved in politics as such, so this is not something that the clerks and treasurers do with every piece of legislation that comes forward.
"`That's why we took the unprecedented step of holding a press briefing last week. While we obviously got the government's attention, they obviously still don't get it.'" Those are her words, not mine. "`The amended Bill 16 is still a very flawed piece of legislation.'" I think that says it all.
If you're an average property taxpayer, like you are, Mr Speaker, and I am and many of the people I know, you're very confused in the province of Ontario. Usually by about the first of the year, or in some cases it may be the end of December of the year preceding, you used to get an assessment notice. Those assessment notices usually had numbers on them that the average person - and I include myself - didn't understand. They were just numbers. But most people would take the assessment notice and compare it to the previous year's assessment notice, and if the numbers were the same they knew their property wasn't valuated higher. Whatever those numbers were, you could usually make out, once the municipality had set its mill rate, what your taxes were going to be.
This year we got different notices. I should have brought one down with me but I didn't. That notice actually told people what the assessment department felt your individual property was worth. We all know that we anticipate across the province about 600,000 appeals to that system, but at least people have some idea of what the assessment department feels their property is worth. The problem is that the numbers that went out in the notices this year had no relationship at all to the notices we received before.
The net result is that when people got their first tax bill this year, most municipalities just took whatever they charged people last year and halved it and said, "That's what you're paying as the initial levy." But nobody will know what their actual property taxes are going to be for this year until they get their final tax bill. Then people will be able to take their two or three instalments of tax bills for this year and compare it to the total they paid last year and for the first time realize whether their taxes are going up or down this year.
That's really what this is all about. The government would like you to believe that they have introduced a current value system - actually a market value system, except we can't call it that because the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Mr Leach, and the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Ms Bassett, ran on a platform that they would never impose market value in Toronto. If we were to call it a market value system, I guess maybe their pamphlets weren't quite - gee, I've got to be careful. I want to make sure that I keep myself to parliamentary language. I think we all know what I'm talking about without my actually having to say it. It wasn't quite correct. The information that they were putting out in the campaign wasn't quite correct about what is being done here. So we have to call it something else; we have to call it the current value system.
The problem is this: As a result of this bill, we now have not just a current value system across Ontario but a current value system that has something like 18 different classes of properties. According to the calculation of one individual, you could have as many as 96 different tax rates depending on the class of property and various other factors. Speaker, once you get down to 96 different classes in the so-called current value system, I'll just leave it to your imagination as to whether that really is a current value system or a market value system.
The problem that comes in with the 2.5% cap is twofold. First, if a municipality wants to apply it in their particular case in the commercial area, they are going to be stuck with it for three years whether they like it or not. It's not something that municipalities can opt into this year and opt out of next year. So what's going to happen is this: As we've already said, as a result of the downloading of provincial services to the local level, according to our estimation and according to AMO's estimation, it is going to be about a $500-million to $700-million shortfall that has to be picked up by the local municipalities.
Let's for the moment say that's correct. Time will bear this out, but let's say it's correct. By setting a cap of 2.5% on four or five of the classes you've set up, that difference can only be made up in the other classes, and that is primarily the residential property taxpayer.
I know what this government is hoping. Obviously, you're hoping the local municipalities will do their best to keep the taxes low. Most municipal politicians I know of will try to do that in each and every municipality. Regardless of what you may have heard from the other side, most municipal councillors, of communities large and small, really don't want to boost their taxes in their communities. I know of very few people that way. As a matter of fact, I can probably count them on the fingers of one hand in the 18 years I was involved.
To make it sound as if the local councils and the local municipal councillors and mayors want to increase taxes is just absolute nonsense. What the government is hoping is that somehow the local municipalities, realizing there's a shortfall of money for the services they want in their municipality, are left with two choices: They can either increase taxes, which they don't want to do, or they can cut services. Those are the only two choices out there. That's what the government is hoping, that most municipalities will keep the tax increase to nothing or as little as possible, so the services will be cut. Then programs will be cut and user fees will be implemented, as they already have been to a much greater extent than they used to be. It's going to happen.
2040
When you add on top of that this current market value system they're talking about in this bill, realizing that any increases are going to be capped at 2.5% for the commercial property taxpayers, it means only one thing: Primarily the residential taxpayer is going to pay more.
It's still out there. The final tax bills haven't gone out. I even hope to be proven wrong, that that is not the case, but in a lot of municipalities that final tax bill, once people realize and put the two tax bills together, is going to be more.
The clerks and treasurers are saying that as well. They say so quite clearly in their proposed amendments that they put forward, their very first one on May 29. "The fact that the option locks municipalities to a three-year program limits municipalities' ability to calibrate their tax policy to changing circumstances and requirements. The only option left to municipalities who adopt the cap will be to levy higher taxes on residential and farm lands." Again, those are not my words but the words of the professionals in this field, the clerks and treasurers in each of our municipalities.
Let me deal with one other issue very quickly, because I see I've got less than two minutes left, and that is the charity rebates. The government had to bring this section in or else charities would be paying an awful lot more on their properties than before because of the business occupancy tax situation. You had to do something. I realize you had to bring some legislation in, but what you brought in obligates a municipality to give rebates to charities before the taxes on their properties are even due.
With all due respect, for a government that likes to talk about giving municipalities more freedom and more power, to my way of thinking obligating municipalities to give rebates to charitable organizations for taxes that aren't even due is absolutely absurd and shows absolutely no trust in municipalities. Why didn't you let the municipalities deal with that situation? Do you really think municipalities in your communities would want to see charities pay 40% or 50% more in property taxes than before? Do you not think they would have come up with a scheme themselves?
The member across the way is shaking his head no, that municipalities out there would try to gouge as much money as possible from charities, which is absolute nonsense. It shows you have absolutely no trust in municipalities, no trust in the municipal politicians elected across this province, who, by the way, are much closer to the people on a day-to-day basis than you and I will ever be in this House.
Mr Baird: Speak for yourself.
Mr Gerretsen: No, no, no. Don't divert the argument, sir. What you're doing is wrong. You still haven't got it right. I'll take the word of the clerks and treasurers association any time over the words of this government.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: I wanted to compliment you up until the last minute or so. I would like you to ponder your future and where you'd like to be, because if you want to make the decision that you're in here, then that will be fine. If you want to leave the decision up to me, then I'll do it for you. Other than that, we have to insist on decorum and attention. I want to be able to hear the speakers. It's my duty to hear them and I really want to. I'd ask for your attention for that.
Comments and questions? The Chair recognizes the member for Lake Nipigon.
Mr Pouliot: The member for Lake Nipigon humbly thanks you and appreciates your wisdom and your leadership. Mr Speaker, le hasard est curieux.
It's certainly beneficial to listen to people who have been there at the municipal level, and to remind us that municipal politics is the most relevant form from the time you get up in the morning. The people know what they're talking about.
It's quite the opposite, of course, when it comes to the members of the first brigade, the spear carriers, busy fighting, eating their young regarding the next exercise, that of the next provincial election.
Mr Speaker, you can well acquiesce and understand and appreciate that from an opposition point of view, it is not a pretty sight when the greed of politics is exposed. And guess what? When the last levy, the final levy hits the doorstep, when the rubber hits the road, they will scatter. They'll be the first ones to dim the light and dissociate themselves from their very actions.
Of course, they'll try to cast a stone, pass the blame on to members of the loyal opposition, members of the third party, the councillors, the clerks, the administrators, the treasurers, alouette. They will say: "You're on your own now. It's not our fault. It is yours to administer."
It will not work. It is so transparent, it is so thinly veiled. The people are awaiting the last levy and they know that if you are a homeowner, people of moderate means, hard-working Ontarians all, you're about to get it, because they shot to kill. Your last bill will reflect their evil intentions. They will do at their own peril and pay dearly and profoundly in the course of the next election.
Mr Baird: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to comment on our Liberal colleagues' remarks. I would say at the outset of my remarks with respect to the member for Lac-Nipigon, John Diefenbaker once made a comment that I think I could paraphrase. The member for Lac-Nipigon has announced he's retiring from this chamber. The Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker said something I could paraphrase, "Parliament without Pouliot is going to be like hell without the Devil." Indeed, his speeches get better as he goes on.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the members opposite. The member for Yorkview talks about the number of restaurants on one side of Steeles Avenue as opposed to the other and I agree. That's a situation that has built up over years. It got particularly acute in the late 1980s when school boards raised the commercial-industrial education taxes by an average of 7% or 8%, which caused considerable concern. The issue became particularly worse.
This government is taking some measures to change that. There's a 2.5% cap and, most importantly, we're going down to the average of commercial-industrial taxes, which will see a $400 million reduction for his community of Toronto, and that's important to put on the record.
I also listened to the member for Kingston and The Islands. The member for Kingston and The Islands said the government members voted against every Liberal opposition amendment that was presented to this bill. He's right. But it was with great interest that I noticed - I respect the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I really do - there were Liberal amendments presented to the committee that the Liberal members didn't even vote for. They couldn't even count on their own members to support their own amendments.
The member for Dovercourt was left in a terrible position. He voted for the Liberal amendments and the Liberal amendments were only getting one vote - the member for Dovercourt's. So again, for your left-of-centre vote, you get more bang for your buck with the NDP.
2050
Mr Silipo: I'm not going to be able to comment on all of the things that were said by all of our Liberal colleagues, because I will be happy to admit that I wasn't here for all of those statements. I was out pondering my future, as per your suggestion, Speaker. I anticipated that you might at some point suggest that we do that. I came back, and what I want to tell you is I'd rather be on that side of the House than on this side of the House, even with all the difficulties that I know some of the members there incur on a day-to-day basis.
I was here long enough to catch some of the comments from the member for Kingston and The Islands. He and I may not agree on everything in this place, but I certainly know that he, not only as a former municipal politician but indeed as a former mayor of an important city like Kingston, knows what impact this kind of legislation is going to have. He knows, as he set out, that it's going to put municipalities between a rock and a hard place. They're going to have to decide whether they're going to cut services or increase taxes, and I think, as he said, the government is counting on the fact that nobody out there wants to raise taxes.
That's going to cause severe problems for municipalities because, as we said already, one of the pieces in this legislation, while it provides relief, the 2.5% cap for small businesses, the way in which the government has gone about doing this will cause severe problems for those municipalities that opt into it, for good reason; that is, if they find themselves a year from now or two years from now in a situation where they have to increase spending for whatever good, justifiable reason and in their collective wisdom as municipal councillors they should be able to justify themselves to the electorate, the only place they'll be able to go for those increases will be the residential property tax levy or, in the municipalities where it exists, the farm residential tax levy. That puts municipalities in a really impossible situation that is unfair and untenable, and AMO and other bodies have said that to the government very clearly.
Mr Galt: I was interested in listening to some of the comments, particularly those of the member for Kingston and The Islands, and I appreciated catching him up on the news. I know that the paper is roughly a month old, but he still hadn't read it, so it was good to bring that to his attention earlier.
The member for Kingston and The Islands talked about charity and that the provincial government - according to him, he thinks municipalities aren't trusted. But we are just wanting to ensure that charities renting commercial property are indeed looked after. We're here to help and here to ensure that they are looked after. We are leaving flexibility to the municipalities. If they want to be really charitable, then they can give 100% of the property tax back, but we're going to make sure, as a province, that at least 40% is recognized with those charities, and there are a lot of really good charities like food banks and they have to have some space.
We have them back in Northumberland. We have one in Port Hope and one in Cobourg, one in Brighton; there's a small one out of a church in Colborne and one in Campbellford. They're just doing a tremendous job for the community. Most of these started back in the 1980s when the Liberals formed the government. I noticed in the paper on Friday that the soup kitchen in Cobourg, which started back in 1992 or 1993, is indicating a big reduction in the need for it, a tremendous change because of the improved economy and the job creation that has occurred in this province. I know that the member for Kingston and The Islands really doesn't want to hear that kind of good news, because it's upsetting to him, but that is the kind of good news that's happening in Ontario because of bills such as Bill 16.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex South has two minutes to respond.
Mr Crozier: I want to thank the members for Lake Nipigon, Nepean, Dovercourt and Northumberland, who replied to the comments by my colleagues from Yorkview, Kingston and The Islands and myself.
Very briefly, the issue we were talking about, to the member for Northumberland, isn't the fact that charities shouldn't receive what they got before. The issue is that, on the one hand, it doesn't seem right that you rebate taxes to anybody before they pay them. That doesn't make sense in itself. Second, as I pointed out in my remarks earlier, if you had gotten this bill right in the first place when you had charities having to go to municipalities to beg to get their money back - you saw that and you had to correct it here.
All we're trying to do and all we're trying to point out, and I think we're all here for the same reason, is to get property tax right, to get property tax fair. We all want to do that, because we want to get on with other things. We want it to be fair. But what we have pointed out time and time again is that you're now on the fifth bill and it still isn't right and, as I pointed out earlier, that's total incompetence. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing share in this responsibility, and we feel that it's going to go on and that municipalities are going to suffer. We agree with the clerks and treasurers that this isn't right yet, and it has got to be done right, and then we'll all be happy.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Lessard: At the outset, I just want to advise you, Mr Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the members for Lake Nipigon and Dovercourt.
For those people who are watching on television at this very late hour, I just want to remind them that what we're debating here tonight in the final few minutes that we have remaining is Bill 16, An Act to give Tax Relief to Small Businesses, Charities and Others etc. This is the fifth attempt by this government to try to achieve property tax fairness in Ontario, after having messed it up terribly since they were elected three years ago.
This bill and the bills that preceded it really indicate to me a couple of themes that I want to dwell on during the short time I have left to speak about this bill, and the reason I have such a brief time is that, once again, this government has resorted to bringing in a time allocation motion to try and shut down debate, to try and close off the opportunity for us to provide any meaningful input into a very important issue that many are saying has been really messed up. It's an issue that could very well benefit from having further debate, but the government has chosen to shut it down once again and try and cut us off.
In the brief time I have, I just want to talk about some of the things that this bill makes me think of, and it really smacks of incompetence. It really demonstrates that this government is not only incapable of managing their agenda but also of trying to reach property tax fairness. After five attempts, they still haven't got it right, and they haven't got it right because they aren't listening. They don't want to listen to the opposition. They want to close down debate, use closure motions, and they do not want to listen to the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers, who have some very serious concerns about this legislation.
I started to become aware of some of the chaos and confusion that their previous attempts to try to fix up the property tax system were causing when I got letters a few months ago from people who work in various stores in my community. I received letters from people who worked at the Devonshire Mall, at the Tecumseh Mall and at the University Mall, and they were from people like Allison Hotham, R. Marra, J. Stewart, Lena Rawlings, Victoria Durocher and hundreds of others. I received literally hundreds of these letters that said, "I work in a retail outlet...and I need your help to protect my job.... I have just learned that as a result of legislation passed by the province, the store where I work could be facing a very large increase in its property tax bill."
2100
Obviously they were concerned about the impact this government's legislation was going to have on the ability of the small stores that they worked in. They were very concerned, confused, didn't know what was going to happen. The reason they were concerned was that it was their feeling, based on their review of the previous attempts by the government, that the stores that were located in malls were going to be taxed on a much higher level than stores that weren't, stores that were just located standalone on streets in municipalities. That's how I first became aware of the chaos and confusion that was being caused by this government's incompetence.
The government did introduce Bill 16 to attempt to deal with some of that confusion and to give tax relief to small businesses by giving an option to municipalities to put a cap of 2.5% per year on taxes for certain types of businesses and charities. I thought it was quite interesting that a government that prides itself on trying to reduce taxes and calls itself a taxfighter would introduce legislation that not only would encourage or force municipalities to raise taxes, but now they're saying, "We don't really want you to raise taxes but we're going to bring in legislation that will say, `You can raise them 2.5%.'" It does send out a confusing message.
One of the things that this government's incompetence to deal with this issue has done: This bill was introduced on May 7 and here we are a month later and it still hasn't been passed. Because of that, various municipalities in the province, Windsor included, have been unable to send out their final tax notices. A report dated May 29 from the commissioner of corporate services and treasurer of the city of Windsor, Gerry Pinsonneault, says that the initial assessment roll was to be provided to municipalities by April 30. That was one word they got from the provincial government, but he was notified on March 27 that the Minister of Finance said the date would be postponed to May 29. Here we are on June 10, long past May 29, and assessment rolls still haven't been delivered. Quite frankly, they are reluctant to believe whatever the Minister of Finance might have to tell them.
The net impact is that they've been unable to send out the tax notice that they should have sent out today and, because of that, they have lost $484,000 that they should have been able to collect. Because they don't have the money, they're going to have to borrow the money or they're going to have to delay capital projects. They have not been able to complete their budget deliberations. Somebody is going to have to pay the bill for that incompetence. This government says, "It shouldn't be the municipal taxpayer, we'll cover you for that," so what they're doing is paying through the provincial government's general revenues money that should have been collected from the property taxpayers. That isn't going to save anybody anything. Really, what it's doing is just trying to cover up their mistakes with the taxpayers' own money.
One of the things that taxpayers need to ask themselves is what the bill for their tax is going to be. They haven't got their final instalments, but most taxpayers are suspicious that the final bill is going to mean a big increase in their property taxes. They have no way of knowing what that is and people need to be aware that there is a bill that's coming, thanks to Mike Harris and the Treasurer of the province of Ontario. It's coming your way and you'd better be ready for it because what this government is going to do is say: "It's not us, it's the municipalities, it's the municipal councillors. They're the ones that levy the taxes. It's not us." There are going to be pointing fingers in every other direction but the direction of Mike Harris.
The municipal clerks and treasurers of Ontario had many concerns that they brought before this government, before the standing committee, and tried to get them to listen. This government didn't listen. One of the things they had to say was that the changes the government made will not have any positive impact on municipal operations this year. They said as well that the procedure they implemented adds a further level of ministerial control that bureaucratizes the process and detracts from municipal flexibility.
What they're saying is that the amendments the government introduced aren't going to help them out and that really, instead of giving municipalities more control over their own operations, that control is being centralized within the Minister of Finance here in Toronto, more control for the whiz kids over in the corner office to direct municipalities as to how they're going collect their money, what they can spend their money on, and then stick municipal councillors with not only the bill but arrange them to be the fall guys for doing the government's dirty deeds.
This government likes to say that anybody who has a criticism of them is a special interest group, but I'm not inclined to consider the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario as one of those radical organizations, a group that I would consider to be a special interest group at all. These are the people who are going to be stuck with having to try and make sense of this legislation. They are going to have to try and implement it, and When they brought their concerns to the attention of this government, they were told that their concerns were the result of misunderstanding. That's what they were told. If the clerks and treasurers, the people who have to implement this legislation, are the people who have to interpret it and they don't understand it, I think that we're all in big trouble.
Mr Pouliot: It's indeed an honour and a pleasure to follow the remarks of the member for Windsor-Riverside. He's quite right, there's so much to say about the incompetence, the ineptitude of the government. We will conclude our remarks with our deputy leader, the member for Dovercourt, Mr Tony Silipo.
A time to celebrate, when you're back with the majority muscle in our system if you're the government. Tonight the guillotine shall fall. We have used all of our recourse and resources. There's no place else to go. Third and final reading, and then they'll get the rubber stamp by way of royal assent. If you're a homeowner, it's coming to you. A time to celebrate.
If you're a member of the opposition, a time to weep, a time to cry. There is frustration. You've done everything you could, but with closure, with the guillotine attitude that the government has, you begin to die.
If you're a homeowner, a time to pay. The court of last resort, it has been decreed by the government.
There is a dramatic sense of the comical attached to the legislation when you look back from the day it was introduced. Mistake after mistake, drafting that wasn't done, people not consulted, focus groups bypassed. They listened to a few people in the back rooms who were going to make our lives easier. It is a tragedy. This is tragic.
You will recall in perhaps our younger days tricks performed, because this is tricky. Those are conjurers of illusions. A cirque, vaudeville, a tombola, a small circus about to leave town after having ripped off people. You recall they were selling all kinds of potions, all kinds of lotions. You perhaps thought that it was scented, that it was imported and it would make you or perhaps others feel better, but when you got home you found out that you had been had and you were too embarrassed or shy to tell anyone.
2110
Twice a year you pull out the chequebook and you make out a cheque to the municipality. That includes school taxes, it includes general purpose - recreation, people picking up the garbage, potable, fresh water, the fascinating world of sewer and water etc. Now you have some added responsibilities because they've thrown in policing, health care, a portion of the prescription drugs if you're on general assistance etc, and you might pick up the odd highway leading to your town.
There are six months left. Traditionally, most of the 800 or so municipalities in Ontario would have sent out the final tax levy, except for this year. Very few of them have done it because of the confusion. Here we are on June 10, on Bill 16 and they're still saying, "I'm sorry" - no, they don't say, "I'm sorry." They're still saying, "We made mistakes, mistakes, mistakes." When are they going to get it right? They couldn't cross the street without help. Hopefully they'll stand in the middle and get run over by both sides, but they're still determined to pursue their evil ways, because they're hurting people.
Anxiety leads to fear. When you don't know and you think you know, you stand by the fax machine. It keeps running through and it's different every time. Let's say if you do something - talk me to about "a promise made, a promise kept." Get it right the first time. Get all the whiz kids. I would invest my first or my last dollars. This is a dilemma. This is an impasse you have put us in and you're asking us to help you, to bail you out. We're waiting for the tax bill. It's going to go up.
The Premier has said - and we don't believe this because the homework isn't there; the substance isn't there to back it up - that each mayor should be able to enact tax savings of some 10% by the year 2000. We're in mid-1998. It's not going to happen at all.
Mr Speaker, I can see you rubbing your eyes, you have tears in your eyes and you're only about one third. Persevere. This is painful, this is difficult reading. You're only on page 12 and I've been watching you closely. Wait till you get to page 36 of this diatribe. This is not pretty. The shocking document is about to reach the doorsteps of more than three million units in Ontario. I hope that when you look at it, when you go back to your offices and taxes have gone up for Ms Jones in the privacy of her small cubicle, 74 years of age - it's not her fault. Because of reassessment -
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): She's still got the money in the bank.
Mr Pouliot: "Got the money in the bank"? No, most of them don't. It's a sad state of affairs.
En conclusion, avant de permettre à notre député leader, notre sous-chef, d'apporter son appui, son conseil en tant qu'avocat et aussi en tant que membre de Dovercourt, on va faire un bout de chemin ; lentement, nous allons le faire ensemble si vous allez permettre.
Je vous demanderais de vous placer dans la position d'une personne marginalisée faisant partie des tous petits, une personne, si vous voulez, non seulement victime de l'assurance social, ou une personne au salaire minimum, à petit salaire, comme des dizaines, des centaines des milliers d'Ontariennes et Ontariens. Je vous demanderais aussi de continuer le parcours, la randonnée, le trajet pour vous retrouver parmi la classe moyenne qui sont la majorité, encore une fois, des Ontariennes et Ontariens. À la veille de recevoir un état de compte sur votre propriété vous allez bientôt, si vous êtes parmi des démunis, si vous êtes parmi des petits salariés, si vous êtes parmi la classe moyenne, vous réveiller et être confronté avec la politique du gouvernement Harris.
Le gouvernement a fait preuve d'une incompétence jamais égalée dans les annales de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario. Ils sont les premiers, qu'il soit dit qu'ils sont les premiers, qu'ils sont les premiers à présenter des données fiscales en quatre différents projets de loi. Une erreur suit d'autres erreurs. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. C'est vieux, mais c'est vrai. Chez vous ça se répète. Le pire chez eux, ce n'est pas de commettre une erreur, c'est de sans cesse la répéter afin qu'elle devienne une habitude.
C'est un malheur qu'ils ont bâti. C'est un malheur que nous, Ontariens, Ontariennes, de façon périnéale et résiduelle, continuons d'endurer.
Je veux maintenant permettre à mon très distingué collègue M. Tony Silipo, qui est avocat et aussi qui représente la circonscription urbaine de Dovercourt, de clore le débat.
Mr Silipo: I want to thank my colleagues from Windsor-Riverside and Lake Nipigon for their contribution to this debate, but also for allowing me a couple of minutes as we finish off this debate.
I've had a chance to speak on this bill before, and I thought that when we got to third reading, I'd actually be able to say that the government had made some amendments to this bill that were worthy of the word "amendment." I know that the parliamentary assistant and other members of the government went to great pains earlier on this evening to portray this bill as something that has come about as a result of consultations and as a result of discussions, that does this, does that.
They may have paused somewhere along the way for a slight, small, tiny bit of consultation, but the reality is that they didn't listen, not only to the political forces out there from the municipalities, but they didn't listen to non-political forces. They didn't listen to the clerks and treasurers of this great province of ours who time after time said to the government, "Don't proceed with Bill 16 as it is, because it is flawed, because it has errors, because it's going to cause administrative and political chaos out there, because it can't be implemented properly as you've drafted it." The government has refused to listen.
The government at one instance seemed like they had finally heard. In fact, I congratulated the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario because I believed that they, unlike any other group in this province, certainly unlike those of us in the opposition, were able to get the government's attention. They sent the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for this bill, a 12-page analysis of this bill in which they pointed out mistake after mistake and problem after problem that the government was causing. This government prides itself on knowing what it's doing, this government that after four or five attempts at reforming the property tax system, depending on how many bills you want to count into the mix, still has bungled it, still is going to cause a situation which, while some small relief will be there for small businesses and others, will ensure that municipalities will only be able to turn to homeowners if they are interested or if they have to, as a result of the actions of the government, raise any additional funds.
In the few minutes that are left, I find no other more compelling argument to be made than the one that body which is the most non-political, and that is the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, has continued to make. I'm not talking now about before this bill went to committee, I'm talking about the position of the clerks and treasurers after this bill has come out of committee, after it has gone through second reading stage and is now in its present form in front of us.
What are they saying to us? They were still saying as recently as June 8 that they want to express their "disappointment and frustration with the amendments made to the Small Business and Charities Protection Act." They say, "The changes made to the bill will not have any positive impact on municipal operations this year, nor will they provide municipalities with relief from flawed legislation."
They still believe that this legislation is flawed and won't work, and they outlined again, the day after the bill went out of committee, their frustration with this bill by saying:
"`We wrote to Minister Eves detailing our concerns. We held a press briefing. We warned of administrative chaos and financial ruin if the government proceeded with Bill 16 as drafted. We got the government's attention and they promised to delay passage of the bill, hear our concerns and even decided to hold public committee hearings. We met with government officials and went through our concerns and proposed amendments. We appeared before the committee and did it all again,' said Cathie Best, AMCTO president. `And what did they do? They focused on only two of our concerns and their subsequent amendments certainly don't help and could even make the situation worse.'" They go on to say, "The amended Bill 16" - I'm talking here about the bill that's in front of us tonight for third reading - "is still a very flawed piece of legislation."
With that kind of judgement by a group such as the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, what more can be said of how incompetent and how unjust the actions of this government are to want to ram through a piece of legislation in this kind of disorganized way, a piece of legislation that's going to cause havoc out there not just because of the delays but because of what it contains and what it doesn't contain?
What it contains is some of the fix for some of the problems that only a few months ago the government said were not a problem, when they said the problem with respect to small businesses here in Toronto and elsewhere was of Toronto's own making and they had no responsibility for dealing with it. They certainly had to come to the realization that they had a role and a responsibility to deal with that, but then in dealing with that they caused a situation in which they now are shifting the burden of any tax increases on to homeowners.
This is the fourth or fifth bill that we've had on tax reform. I suspect that long before the term of this government is over, we're going to see yet another piece of legislation that they're going to have to bring in just to fix the problems that they have failed to admit are in this bill.
That's not a judgement I just make as a member of the opposition. That's based on the very sound, non-partisan judgement of an organization like the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, who are the people who have to implement this legislation. If they're saying that this legislation is flawed, then let me tell the government that this legislation is flawed and this legislation is going to cause the havoc out there that you want to pretend right now doesn't exist, but will exist.
It's going to be a hot fall, because that's when we're going to see the tax bills go out and that's when we're going to see the full implications of the Mike Harris tax revolution on property tax reform.
The Acting Speaker: It is 9:25. Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 1, 1998, I am now required to put the question.
Mr Baird has moved third reading of Bill 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
It being almost 9:30 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 2125.