L058b - Tue 24 Nov 1998 / Mar 24 Nov 1998 1
The House met at 1832.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
FAIRNESS FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES CONTRIBUABLES DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Municipal Act, Assessment Review Board Act and Education Act in respect of property taxes / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation foncière, la Loi sur les municipalités, la Loi sur la Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'impôt foncier.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I was involved in this debate yesterday afternoon when 6 o'clock arose and in the 12 minutes or so that I've got this evening to finish the debate as far as my party is concerned, I would just like to once again reiterate some of the major points that have already been made, but I think need to be said again.
This is the seventh tax bill. The province of Ontario has created absolute chaos as far as the property taxpayer out there is concerned. No one truly understands this Bill 79. We've had situations where clerks and treasurers are going to have to hire consultants to deal with all the implications of this. Let me just quote to you something to give you an idea of how the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario feels about this. I'll just read to you from their latest publication in which they say:
"As previously mentioned, the AMCTO," the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, "cautions that administrative chaos was inevitable in 1997 due to the government's insistence on proceeding with Bill 106 at the time. By it's very nature, municipal property tax legislation is complex. However, with each subsequent piece of legislation amending the previously adopted legislation, the level of complexity is heightened. Bill 79," the current bill we're discussing this evening, "is by far the most difficult of the six acts passed thus far relating to property taxation to understand.
"We," the clerks and treasurers, "are responsible for the implementation of this legislation. We are current with the various pieces of legislation now in force, but even we have problems understanding this bill. How is the general population going to understand what is being proposed?"
The general population doesn't understand because as the member for Huron made so abundantly clear yesterday in the example she gave of a commercial taxpayer in this province where the taxes went up from $12,000 to $17,000 yet the assessment only went up by 5%, she couldn't explain it. The government line is: "Blame the local councils. They're the people who are increasing your taxes by 30% or 40%."
But we know better. It's a result of the accumulation of a lot of these activities, a result of the restructuring that's taken place in a lot of municipalities and a result of the shifting assessment bases within those municipalities, because even the taxpayer I was just talking about whose taxes went up from $12,000 to $17,000 is not going to find any relief under this act. What this act says is that if as a result of an increase in assessment value your taxes go up 10%, then there's some relief for you for the amount over the 10%. But this particular taxpayer talked about the assessment only going up by 5%, then there's absolutely no relief under this act.
Then of course there's looking at it from the view of the people who have to pay more according to the new assessment system that has been adopted by the province. What the province hasn't talked about at all are the people who have gotten a tax bill in commercial properties for lower amounts than they paid before as a result of reduced assessment, who are now going to get another tax bill yet in 1998 and they're going to be told: "I'm sorry, but remember your taxes went down by X number of dollars" - let's say $2,000. "We have to make up for the fact that a lot of people over and above the 10% are not going to pay that as a result of this new legislation. We have to make up that difference in money for the municipality by in effect clawing back the decrease that you were entitled to." I can tell you that the average business individual who is going to get a bill again after they've already paid their bill for this year is going to be mighty upset.
But let's go on and deal with another section that the clerks and treasurers brought forward. Here's another quote from their documentation - and you've got to remember, this is the organization that on a day-to-day basis deals with the taxation situation in a particular municipality. What do they say? They say:
"Bill 79 is a poorly designed tool that has been ill conceived for the purpose of solving a minority of problems for which the AMCTO, along with AMO and MFOA, has offered other, more manageable and less costly solutions. Our proposed solutions have never received a response from the government. Instead, Bill 79 was introduced and effective consultations on workable solutions were no longer an option."
You may recall, as was pointed out yesterday, the clerks and treasurers and the city managers' association of Ontario came to this government 19 months ago and said to them, "If you want to do something about the system, why don't we work with you?" As a matter of fact, they even set up a panel of experts to deal with the kinds of situations that all these various tax bills are addressing and they could have given the government the solutions. They could have eased it in in a much more rational and systematic fashion.
What did this government do? The government didn't even acknowledge that they existed. They didn't even acknowledge the fact that here were the bureaucrats who work with these things on a day-to-day basis, that maybe they could give them a hand in coming up with the solutions that they were looking for; they totally ignored them.
In the five minutes that I've got left, I want to just deal with one other situation and this deals with - and it's typical of what's happening in a number of different areas where amalgamations and annexations have taken place. I'm reading here from a document that was produced to me by the Rural Ratepayers Association of the Town of Greater Napanee. Greater Napanee was formed sometime last year and it included both Napanee, North and South Fredericksburgh townships and the township of Adolphustown. I have a chart here which deals with the change in taxation for 1998. Let me just show you what has happened here as a result of the assessment changes.
1840
In Adolphustown, for residential tax purposes, the amount that is collected by Greater Napanee this year is $279,000; I'm rounding these off in thousands of dollars. Do you know what it was in 1997? It was $108,000. In South Fredericksburgh the taxation that has been received from the residential taxpayers in 1998 is $243,000. Do you know how much it was in 1997? It was $33,000. That's an increase of 626%. In North Fredericksburgh the taxation received in 1998 is $644,000. What was it last year? It was $427,000. Who's the winner in all this? Napanee? Their 1997 level of taxation for residential purposes was $1.8 million. What is it this year? It's $1 million.
The total amount that has been collected for residential purposes is the same once you combine the six municipalities. But what has happened as a result of the assessment changes for residential purposes is that the outlying areas, the townships, are paying a much greater share than they did before. Remember, these individuals are not at all helped by Bill 79, because this bill only deals with commercial and industrial taxpayers; it doesn't deal with residential taxpayers.
You can well imagine the anguish that an organization like the rural ratepayers of the town of Greater Napanee feels about this kind of a situation. They simply cannot understand why the taxes on their homes in individual situations, where in some cases the assessment has even gone down, have gone up by anywhere from 80% to 100% to 120% to 150%.
Try to sell the benefits of amalgamation to those rural residents. They know they're not going to get the same services as you would in the urban part of Napanee. Some of these people live anywhere, and I'm just guessing here, from 10 to 15 miles, or 25 kilometres, from the urban centre of Napanee; maybe not 25, but let's say 20 kilometres from the urban centre. They are not going to get the average kind of municipal, urban services that you and I are used to, yet their taxes have gone up by 100% to 150% because of these assessment shifts.
My main reason for pointing this out is, first of all, the unfairness as to what has happened here and the absolutely poor way in which this whole program is being implemented. But the other thing about this is just the fact that it doesn't make sense, because these people are now paying for services that they're not going to receive. Remember, this was all sold to them on the basis that if we just allow for larger amalgamations, larger restructuring, then there will be all sorts of money saved, we'll get rid of a whole bunch of politicians, because, after all, it's the local politicians that cost all the money. They're the people who really spend all the money.
I bet you that the average salary of one of these rural politicians is probably somewhere around $10,000 to $15,000, just a drop in the bucket when you look at all the other costs that are involved here. But that's how Mike Harris tried to sell this: "We'll have these amalgamations, we'll cut out all the administrative costs, we'll cut the politicians down" - I think by about two thirds in this particular case, and in many other areas of the province as well - "because somehow we'll have the people of Ontario believing that that's where the real saving is."
Yet what has happened to these people? Their taxes have gone up by 100% to 150%. Don't take my word for it. Give them a call. Give the Rural Ratepayers Association of Greater Napanee a call, or give many of the other ratepayers' organizations in this province a call, and you'll find out that as a result of a lot of your restructuring and amalgamation in this province and as a result of these ill-conceived and badly implemented tax bills etc, you have been totally unfair to the people of Ontario, whom you theoretically wanted to benefit with all of the various tax savings that are involved.
I say, do what the AMCTO recommends and withdraw this bill. Don't cause greater confusion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Comments and questions?
Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): I would like to thank the member for Kingston and The Islands for bringing up some of the important points and important issues in and around Bill 79. As the member said, this government's mishandling of the property tax reform is almost getting out of hand. This is the seventh property tax bill they've put forward, each an attempt to correct this government's mishandling of the way they've downloaded on to municipalities in the province of Ontario.
This legislation once again means a lot of uncertainty to municipalities across the province. I take an example, as the member did, this time from northern Ontario and the regional municipality of Sudbury. A quote from them: "The proposed legislation is a broad-brush approach that is not applicable to all municipalities in Ontario." My colleague Mr Bisson will highlight some of the problems we've had in northern Ontario with another callous attempt at fixing something that wasn't broken and another callous attempt to download to municipalities. And who gains? It certainly isn't the people in northern Ontario. It certainly isn't the people of Chapleau, where they're talking about their property taxes rising by $600 per household for the simple thing of police services.
You will see as we debate this issue tonight the real implications of another mishandled attempt by the government and Mr Eves. I look forward to the debate tonight.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond not only to the remarks by my colleague the member for Kingston and The Islands but by the first speaker for the official opposition, Mr Phillips, from Scarborough-Agincourt.
The member for Scarborough-Agincourt went on at great length in his remarks and talked about the powers of the Assessment Review Board. I think it's important to put on the record that the powers for the Assessment Review Board contained in the act to deal with frivolous complaints are powers that exist in the parallel structure with the Ontario Municipal Board. It's part of the agencies reform commission report adopted by the government, chaired by my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau and on which I had the opportunity to serve. It was an opportunity to try to streamline the adjudicative and administrative justice system in Ontario, and that was one of the recommendations we came up with. But these are powers already contained in the Municipal Act, and it's important to put that on the record.
Second, with respect to the Supreme Court decision, I think what the Supreme Court said with respect to the probate laws was that they were called fees, not taxes, and that the fees set by regulation far exceeded the cost of doing them and amounted to a tax. That was the basis of the decision, not the fact that the tax rates were set by regulation. If you check the results, I think you'll find that to be the case.
Third, the member went on at great length about tax policy. We've seen nothing today with respect to the official opposition's tax policy. I saw the member for Ottawa West on television yesterday, very pointedly saying that the Liberal Party has no policies, that they won't come clean. We know that there are significant debates going on within the Liberal caucus on taxes. I have an article from Now magazine which quotes MPP Gerard Kennedy. "MPP Gerard Kennedy says he and some other caucus members favour a reconsideration of the position that they will `maintain the fiscal framework,' McGuinty's words for keeping the Tory tax cuts in place."
Mr Gerretsen: What's the date of that?
Mr Baird: That's from just a few short months ago, after your retreat in Collingwood.
Mr Gerretsen: No, that's about a year old.
Mr Baird: It's 1998. It's saying they're not coming clean, saying they really plan to raise taxes. Shame on them, Madam Speaker.
1850
Mr Blain Morin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Could you check and see if we have a quorum, please.
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 Algoma-Manitoulin.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm always delighted to comment on speeches made by the member for Kingston and The Islands, especially when it has to do with municipal issues. As a long-time councillor and mayor in Kingston, he brings to us an understanding of these issues that really assist members in the House in making useful decisions.
In talking about the bill, I'm sure Mr Gerretsen would want to know that in the town of Espanola, the clerk is apoplectic about this bill. This bill is going to cause the town of Espanola a huge amount of concern, as they have to reconsider all the commercial tax bills that have been sent out. For a relatively small town like Espanola, they may be on the hook for a large number of dollars as this all washes out, because in essence much of this will not happen until into the new year. There are some real problems in some of the smaller towns.
I bet that you over on the other side don't know this, but there are many townships I represent that haven't sent out a tax bill this year. They don't exist. I've had people call my office and ask, "Mike, should I appeal my assessment? How do I do it? I don't have a tax bill, so I really can't understand whether I'll be paying more or paying less." It doesn't exist. We are, what, five weeks away from the end of the year and they haven't received a municipal tax bill this year. It makes making decisions, on their part, almost impossible.
You guys can't get anything right. This should make you ashamed. This is mismanagement at a level that is just colossal.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to stand up and make comments on the presentation, the well-presented comments by the member for Kingston and The Islands, with his background as the former mayor of the city of Kingston. I have a lot of empathy for the municipalities, having served both at the city of Ottawa and the region. The municipalities are simply apoplectic about this now - and I have to correct the member for Kingston and The Islands. This is not the seventh initiative by the government to correct the property tax mess it has created; it is actually the eighth initiative. I'll go through the list later on.
I have here some quotations from some municipal officials in Ottawa-Carleton. The mayor of Gloucester, Mayor Claudette Cain, said: "They've really lost it this time," and she's referring to the government. "The ones who will be most upset are those expecting a tax decrease. They're not going to be happy. I can tell you that. They're going to freak.
"We have to start over. It's a total fiasco. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't get anybody anywhere."
Here's a quote from the chair of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.: "We will not be able to achieve a zero tax increase if there are no changes from the province. We can't be miracle workers under these circumstances." That's what the regional chair said.
The mayor of the city of Ottawa said: "We've worked hard to create financial stability in this city but this will have a devastating impact on our city and taxpayers. It's going to have a crippling effect on the city budget. Mr Eves doesn't realize how horrific this will be on our taxpayers."
What does Michael Power, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, say? "It's a mess." Every time we run into a mess you put on a band-aid. Every time you put on a band-aid the blood leaks around the other end. So we find another band-aid solution and another one and another one.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Gerretsen: I thank all those people who intervened. I would just like to correct the member for Nepean. If he reads section 29 of the decision he mentioned, the judge clearly states that you cannot have taxation without representation. He was not talking about fees; he was talking about the ability to tax. I would suggest to the government you take a look at your Bill 160 which allows you to get a whole bunch of, almost $6 billion worth of, tax dollars out of the education portion from the property taxpayer. You'll find out that's what taxation is.
I think the people of Ontario ought to understand that in your property tax bill anywhere from 40% to 60% of that bill is a tax levy set in secret by the Treasurer by way of regulation. He has to collect $6 billion for educational purposes from the property tax bill. There has been a suggestion made in many municipalities that the amount of dollars that the province is getting from the property taxpayers for education purposes is much more than what they used to get when it was levied by the boards of education.
This explains as well why, in some areas when assessments have gone down and the total taxation level for a municipality, let's say, has gone up by 5%, some people whose assessment went down are still paying 20% to 25% more than last year. It may very well be that in their particular case what they're paying for educational tax dollars is a lot more than what they used to when the boards of education used to charge those taxes. It's something that isn't talked about very much in here, but there are so many factors that go into this that clerks and treasurers are confused, the general public is confused. I would just say to the general public: "Don't be fooled. Don't blame your local councils. Put the blame squarely on the Mike Harris government. They've downloaded the whole bunch of services. It's their fault."
Mr Cullen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I fail to see a quorum in this House. Could you please check.
The Acting Speaker: Could you check to see if there is a quorum, please.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present.
Further debate?
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would ask for the following. We will be splitting our leadoff, and I seek unanimous consent to stand down the remaining portion of what will be left afterwards so our critic will be able to complete the debate tomorrow.
The Acting Speaker: Is there consent to stand down the second half until tomorrow or when we next debate this? Agreed.
Mr Bisson: I'm going to be really sad that members won't have an opportunity to comment on the dissertation I will give over the next 30 minutes. If I've heard anything in my riding of Cochrane South and other places - I was in Ottawa on the weekend and I met with municipal politicians there; I've talked to people from the Peterborough area; I've talked to people from all parts of this province, and they've all got one thing in common: They think you guys are absolutely nuts when it comes to property taxes.
Municipal politicians - and it doesn't matter what the stripe is, Conservative, New Democrat or Liberal - are looking at this provincial government and saying: "My Lord, what are these guys up to? They've messed up this whole property tax assessment system." It's to the point that even the people who are responsible for sending out the tax bills, the administrators and others who work within the tax department, at times don't know what the heck's going on. Because the government is changing the rules so fast, they've got no idea what the heck to do from one minute to the other.
Other members will talk about this. This is bill number 8 in a long litany of bills that this government has brought before the House to deal with property tax assessment. Do you know what? They don't even have it right after the eighth bill.
1900
I've got to ask myself what it is with this government, what is it that they don't get? They've gone ahead and they've changed the assessment system across the province to the point that most municipal politicians are saying: "We don't want it. This thing doesn't work. It's impractical. It's a problem for our municipalities." I'll lay some of that out in my 30 minutes. But more importantly, the taxpayers don't like it.
In my riding, as it is probably in Mr Cullen's riding or my good friend Mr Morin's riding, people in our community, such as in Tory ridings, are upset because they're seeing their property taxes increase as a result of not only what government has done in assessment but what they've done with the whole downloading agenda.
I think of people like Urgel Gravelle from Dumont motors, who called me up sometime earlier this summer when he was faced with his tax bill. He was going to get a 127% increase in municipal taxes over last year as a result of what this government did in property taxes when it comes to municipal government and when it comes to education.
I think of Mr Mascioli, the Mascioli family that owns Timmins Garage. I think of Mr Bazuik. I think of a number of business owners across the city of Timmins who are seeing their taxes going up anywhere from 80% to about 130% at the highest. They came to me and they said, "Gilles, what the heck is going on?" I said: "Listen, most business people probably have a larger affinity with this government than I do. You figure it out."
We in the NDP and the other opposition party have been trying to tell people that the government has messed this up, and if they're going to fix it, they've got to slow down, put the brakes on and fix this once and for all and take their time and do it right. But this government never did that. Every time another problem crops up, oops, they come in with another piece of legislation and they say they're going to fix it. I guess this is called the oops bill. This is oops bill 7. It's actually the eighth time we've had a bill in here, but it's the seventh bill to fix the original problem when they set it up eight bills ago. So I guess we can call this the oops bill.
I want to put on the record a letter that my good friend Mr Blain Morin got from the municipality of Chapleau. I know if he had had the opportunity to speak more fully tonight he would have raised this issue, because I had to rassle him away from here, as the deputy House leader, to make sure we had proper speaking order. Blain has gracefully given me, as the critic, his time. It's always good, as the critic, to get some time in these debates. I know Blain and other members of our caucus will be speaking on this later on during the debate.
I want to raise something. He talked about what's happening in northern Ontario. We're just going to give you one idea. This is a letter that comes from the office of the reeve of the town of Chapleau, dated November 4, and it's quite interesting. They say in here:
"With the passing of the October 31, 1998 appeal deadline, we have completed out first review of assessment settlement under section 39.1 of the Assessment Act." We're talking, of course, of the Assessment Act that the Tories have put in place. It says, "Of the approximately 50 settlements we have received we see none which leaves any grounds for the municipality to appeal. All of the adjustments are as a result of assessment errors." That's a pretty strong comment, coming from municipalities in northern Ontario, just one municipality. "On this matter we wish to make one point emphatically clear. We are not assigning any blame to the staff of the assessment office which completed this work. The fault clearly lies with those who set the timelines for the completion of the reassessment activity. It is clear that this problem arose as a result of inadequate time to prepare detailed reviews of the assessments generated by the exercise," and that was the decision of the Mike Harris government.
They're saying you guys wanted to change the assessment system overnight. You wanted to reassess the entire province of Ontario because you had to move Toronto to market value assessment. But oops, you couldn't call it market value assessment, so you called it actual value assessment and you imposed that on the rest of the province even though we were already assessed on market value. Boy, what a bunch of - I can't say the words that come to mind, Madam Speaker, because it would be unparliamentary.
The point is that municipalities like Chapleau, residents in communities across this province and other municipalities are saying the same thing. You guys have basically rushed this whole system through. You tried to change the assessment system in one year. You told the assessors to go out and do a job that they told you couldn't be done in a year. They told you: "Listen, if you try to force the assessment into a one-year period, you're going to get stuck with so many errors that you're going to have a whole bunch of people appealing their assessment. It won't be as a result of the assessment rules; it'll be due to the assessment being done too quickly and not being able to do it properly." That's what we're now seeing. As a result, there's a cost associated to municipalities, and they're having a problem, quite frankly, figuring out exactly how much money they're going to have at the end of this.
Some people watching are going to say, "What does it mean to me that a municipality doesn't know exactly how much money it has got?" Think about what your municipality pays for. They're the people who clean your streets and make sure that the snow is off them in the winter. They're the people who repair the roads in the summer and the sidewalks to make sure that we have somewhat of an infrastructure in our community. They run your parks, your swimming pool, your arena, your daycare in most cases. They now run public health because this government downloaded that to them. They run a whole bunch of services that people rely on because they are there to deliver the services to the people who reside in their communities. The point I make is, if municipalities are unsure about how much assessment they're going to have in the end, it's fairly difficult for them to draw up a particularly good budget.
I want to also get the comments of somebody else from northern Ontario: Austin Davey, who a number of you might know from the Sudbury region. I never thought I would see the day in this province where people like Austin Davey in any media anywhere in Ontario are saying bad things about the Tory government. I know there are a number of people out there who have a certain political persuasion - it might not be mine - and would like to support this Tory government, but even your own supporters are having a real problem trying to support you when it comes to the municipal assessment mess that you've created. I just want to put on the record - and this comes from, I believe, the Sudbury Star. It's actually Northern Life. I would think Sudbury Star, because we know that paper's very important in Sudbury, but Northern Life, dated October 30, 1998.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: It certainly is as well. Do you notice that all the local politicians are trying to get their newspapers into this thing?
You've got to listen to this because this is Austin Davey speaking. This is quite interesting. He says, "It's unfair to change the rules with five minutes left in the fourth quarter." He's talking about this whole fiasco in assessments. "It's like giving everyone a basketball and sending them into a hockey rink. Every budget in the region is now wrong. They, the provincial government, knew about this last February. I'm not going to pay for their stupidity."
This is Austin Davey saying this, and it goes on: "`It will be 100 years before any Conservatives are elected north of Parry Sound if this goes through.' Davey notes that, `This is the Harris government's second big lie. The first lie was revenue-neutrality.'" This is not me saying this; this is one of the local politicians in northern Ontario who's saying that this government - well, I can't say what he said because it would be unparliamentary, but I read it.
Mr Michael Brown: Go ahead, read it.
Mr Bisson: No, I can't.
Mr Blain Morin: You should read the quote again.
Mr Bisson: I can read the quote. "The first lie was revenue-neutrality," was what he said, because people heard Mike Harris, who said: "All of this is going to be revenue-neutral. It's not going to cost the municipalities any more money." Local politicians are saying, "Not only is this assessment thing all mixed up and the problems that's causing for everybody, but this whole process that you went into, the Who Does What, is not revenue-neutral, as you told us." You've really got to wonder at one point what the heck these guys are up to.
I thought to myself maybe the Tories made a mistake. Could it be that the Tories made a mistake when they introduced this legislation? I took the time and went and got the American College Dictionary and decided to look up the word "mistake" to find out so that I would properly understand what the word "mistake" means when it comes to this debate. If you read the dictionary, it says, "mistake: a mistake, grave or trivial, is caused by bad judgment or a disregard of rules or principles."
Is that what's happened over here? Has the government in this particular case exercised bad judgment and disregarded rule and principle when it came to how they dealt with the assessment system? I wonder. It goes on to say that a mistake is also sometimes called a blunder. Is it number two, a blunder? A blunder is "a careless, stupid or gross mistake in action or in speech suggesting awkwardness or heedlessness." In this case either the government made a mistake or they made a blunder. We've got to figure out which one it is before we go further.
We go on and it says: "A mistake can also be defined as an error. An error is sometimes interchanged with the word `mistake,' but in any event it means `an unintentional wandering or deviation from accuracy'" - that's interesting - "`or right conduct' or basically an error in judgment." Is it that you people, as they suggest in the dictionary, unintentionally wandered a little bit or had somewhat of a deviation from accuracy?
1910
That brings us back to the point of Austin Davey and his comment when he says, "The first lie was revenue-neutrality." I wonder if that was what he was getting at. Is it an error, or is it in the end, as they say here in dictionary - a mistake can also be defined as "a slip, usually a minor mistake made through haste or carelessness or a slip of the tongue." Could it be that Mr Harris had a slip of the tongue when he said all of this was going to be revenue-neutral?
Mr Cullen: No, no, his son looked him in the eye and asked him.
Mr Bisson: That's true. I'd forgotten. My good friend Mr Cullen reminds me. It was a pinky-swear. I remember. I was there, I was at the Ontario Municipal Association meeting, and I remember the Premier of Ontario saying that. Very good; I'd forgotten that. He said, "I looked at my son and my son looked at me and he said, `Is this really going to be revenue-neutral?'" Mike Harris went like that and he said, "Pinky-swear: It's going to be revenue-neutral." Well, it says here that a mistake - and we know that what the government has done is a mistake. They're eight pieces of legislation into the problem. The dictionary says "a slip, usually a minor mistake made through haste or carelessness or a slip of the tongue." Could it be that Mr Harris made a slip of the tongue? Could it be? I wonder, I just wonder. I again look at what Austin Davey has said. "Davey noted, `This is the Harris government's second big lie. The first lie was revenue-neutrality.'" So I really wonder.
But the point is that we certainly know the government has messed up the situation, and now they're once again trying to find a way to fix a problem after they created the big problem in the first place. We've got to wonder, what do we do in this case? On the one hand, we're kind of glad that they're putting the cap in place, because at least that'll protect some people, but what's the cost of the cap? Everybody in the Legislature knows what it means, but most people watching the debate will wonder: "What does this all mean for me? I am a working person," a teacher or a lawyer or whatever, "and I'm sitting at home today watching the debate and wondering what this bill means for me." Well, what they're doing with this bill is they're trying to cap the problem they created in property taxes by changing the assessment system as it relates to businesses. They're saying: "Oops, we made a mistake. There's been a blunder. There's been an error. We did something wrong."
We know that municipalities, because of this new assessment system now, were forced by the province to send out huge tax bills, 100% to 120% more than they paid last year. So the government says: "Jeez, we've got to do something. We messed up. What are we going to do? We'll freeze the property taxes. That's what we'll do. We'll pass a piece of legislation in the House, because we've got a majority, and we'll freeze those property taxes at 10% this year and 5% for each of the two years after that."
Mr Cullen: Who'll make up the difference?
Mr Bisson: Ah, my good friend Mr Cullen from Ottawa asks, who makes up the difference? Two categories: First, do you remember all those people who were going to get a tax decrease? There are businesses in my community that were going to get a decrease, especially in the downtown core. In the downtown core of the city of Timmins, they were finally going to get a little bit of a break when it came to their taxes, and quite frankly they were kind of happy about that. They said, "If I've got to pay less tax, I'm happy."
Now they're finding out that they're not going to get the tax decrease that the government promised them. Instead of getting a 40% or 50% or 60% tax decrease, as some of them were - actually, I'm kind of happy that this happened: The Bank of Nova Scotia in Timmins was going down from $120,000 a year in property taxes to $27,000, but as a result of this legislation - well, that's another point, and I'll come back to that later. My point was that the government is going to cap the decrease in taxes that people get, so that's one class of people who are upset.
I'm now getting calls in my constituency office from people who were going to get a decrease, saying: "I'm not getting my decrease. I've got to pay for this blunder. How come?" I say, "Well, you know, that's the Mike Harris government. They can't take the time to do things properly. They've got to rush everything through the House." They don't want to listen to anybody, including their own bureaucrats who told them originally not to do this, but they didn't listen. The association of clerks said, "Don't do this; it's a fiasco," along with a whole bunch of other people, but Mike Harris, Al Leach, they're smart, they've got all the answers. The bright lights of the Tory cabinet and some of the backbenchers, like Mr Johnson over there and others, they had all the answers. "Let's go, Mike. We're going to get this done. This will work."
But there is another group who loses in this big time. We've only talked about those businesses that now don't get their decrease. You know who gets it square in the eyes? It's the middle class. The middle class is going to get it right between the eyes when it comes to this here, because this government, the way they've done this legislation, has seen fit to cap the businesses but they're not going to cap what's going to happen to residents across Ontario. In some areas people's property taxes are going to go up substantially because of the reassessment. In some cases taxes will go down, there's no question, but in some municipalities individual property owners will see their taxes go up. Quite aside from what's happening with downloading, but because of the reassessment, they will find themselves in a position where their taxes will be going up.
One thing I'm hearing out there is that people in the middle class of this province are really feeling as if they're under threat by this government. They look at those programs that support them and their families, such as health care, where they see a system of health care that's slowly eroding, a system that's being underfunded, a system that is starting to respond less to the needs of the people and their families that are sick because of the problems.
I was in Ottawa last week and I remember meeting with I think it was M. Stéphane Émard-Chabot from the city of Ottawa, one of the aldermen, who said that apparently one of the reports that just came out showed that ambulance services in Ottawa have deteriorated as a result of what this government has done, and the response times are now really slow. In fact, somebody was quoted as saying, "You can order a pizza and get that quicker in Ottawa than you can get an ambulance," because of the response time.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: It was Mr Cullen himself who said that. I didn't know, but I thought it was a good line.
Mr Blain Morin: Shameful.
Mr Bisson: It's shameful. We shouldn't make fun of that. The reality is that there are people now in communities who are having a harder and harder time getting ambulances to come and respond to emergencies because of the downloading and because of the cuts the government has done to ambulance services and to municipalities.
I don't think the middle class will see that well come the next election. They look at the system of education and they say, "My kids are not going to be getting the kind of education at the primary and secondary level that they used to get as a result of what this government did." Over a period of time we're going to see less and less resources in the classroom. In fact you're going to see less and less classrooms. Why? Because you find yourself in a situation -
Mr Cullen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think the member here has an excellent speech but we do not have, I believe, members sufficient to sustain a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check to see if there is a quorum, please.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
1920
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South.
Mr Bisson: As I was saying, when it comes to the municipal assessment bill, this government has rushed this process. The process has been flawed right from the beginning. They've rushed the entire process, they've made all kinds of mistakes, and we find ourselves now with the eighth piece of legislation that deals with municipal tax assessment in Ontario. I was outlining before the quorum call, because government members for whatever reason decided to leave - I don't think it's anything I said. I think they probably have their minds calling back to their constituents and saying: "What is the member for Cochrane South raising? Are people really that upset?" Go make those phone calls. I won't make a quorum call. People are upset.
Like I said, this last week I was in Ottawa. I've been in Peterborough, I've been in Hearst, I've been in Cochrane, different municipalities, Iroquois Falls, you name it, and people are upset. Why? Because they're seeing what this government is doing vis-à-vis this whole change of assessment system and they're seeing that it's messed up. People will accept change. People are pretty resilient, they will accept change, but when a government can't get change right, I think the public loses its patience. That's what's happening in this particular case. I say it's the government's fault and I think the government should at least come clean and say: "We messed up. We made a mistake."
I was at the press conference when Ernie Eves was announcing what he was doing vis-à-vis this bill. One of the media people, I forget who it was, asked him, "Have you made a mistake?" He said; "No, no, I didn't make a mistake. It was all the municipalities' fault. We gave the municipalities the tools to fix this problem." My Lord, when the municipalities got the toolbox from Queen's Park and opened it up, they found a hammer and it said, "Hit yourself." That's the tool they got from the province of Ontario.
I don't know about you, Madam Speaker - as a matter of fact, I do know about you. I am sick and tired, as you are and a whole bunch of other members are, when it comes to this issue. People are sick and tired of the municipal level of government being told by the government of Ontario that this assessment problem and this tax problem are the fault of municipalities. They are sick and tired of it and they want this government to take responsibility for what it has done.
Was it the municipalities that changed the assessment system? No, it was the province. Was it the municipalities that started the downloading process? No, it was the provincial government. At every step, all of the problems that have been caused have been caused by the province, and you've got this government hiding behind the lines that Ernie Eves used when he announced this, his eighth, piece of legislation to try to fix the assessment fiasco, saying it's the municipalities' fault. I ain't going to stand for it; I don't think most members that are decent when it comes to their outlook on things will stand for a government blaming municipalities for a problem they didn't create, rather a problem that the government itself created.
It says something about this government, because this government tends to attack when it does something wrong or it's challenged. They're never wrong, but when they are cornered into finding out that maybe they did make a mistake, what do they do? They attack others. That's what they've done with these municipalities. They've said: "We attack you. It's your fault. It's you, the municipalities, and we've done nothing wrong." When I see issue after issue that's come through this Legislature, when people were upset about what was going on in education, they attacked the teachers. When people were upset about what happened with education, they attacked the trustees. They attack everybody out there to try to divert the attention from themselves.
What's really interesting is that we have the member for Norfolk, who's going to be bringing a bill into this House on Thursday, who is attacking his local regional government because they have had to increase taxes in his area of Norfolk by 17%. So this member, in the style of Conservatives that we have come to know in this Legislature, is turning around saying, "It's the regional government's fault if your taxes are going up by 17%." But again, was it the regional government of Norfolk that asked for the assessment changes? No. Was it the regional government of Norfolk that asked for all the downloading it got? No, not at all. Was it they who asked to have their transfer payments cut to the extent they were? Not at all. But as a result of all of that, they have had to increase taxes in that municipality, because of its unique situation, by 17% this year in order to maintain services in a municipality.
This Tory government member, the member for Norfolk, says: "I'm going to fix the problem. If the municipalities have a problem, have to do something about maintaining services, so they're increasing taxes" - if I was the member I would be at the cabinet table or I would be at the door of the cabinet, banging and saying: "Listen, we've got a problem. My municipality's in trouble. We need to do something to offset this problem. Is there some sort of adjustment we can make in their transfers." No. What does this government member decide to do? "Let's eliminate the regional level of government. That will fix the problem." He attacks his own municipalities as a defence for a problem that his government created.
Mr Cullen: He should talk to Ernie Eves.
Mr Bisson: That's exactly the point. I think what this member would be better doing is talking to the Minister of Finance, Mr Eves, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Leach, and the Premier, Mr Harris, and say: "Listen, there is a problem. I was elected to represent the people of Norfolk. I'm finding out that the changes we've made in government are having negative effects on my municipalities and the services they deliver. I'm not going to stand up for that. I want to do something. I want this government to respond to their needs."
The member across the way says, "What would you have done?" I remember when I was in government. I remember some of the policies we took and the effect on the Timmins and District Hospital, actually a negative effect. It turned out that if it had been implemented, the hospital would have had to shut down some of the services of the Timmins and District as a result of the decisions that were made by our Minister of Health.
I didn't go and attack the hospital. I didn't ask for a bill in the House to fire the hospital board. I didn't go out and try to attack the people who were running the hospital. I said, "There's a problem here. I see your point. There is a decision that has been made that on the surface looked pretty innocuous from our perspective, but that, when it comes to practice, doesn't work well. It's going to result in a problem." So what did I do? I remember I brought in the person who was then the head of the health board, Mr Alexander, who is from the community of Timmins. He was the president of the hospital board of the Timmins and District Hospital. I also brought the administrator of the hospital down. We met with - I don't think it was the Premier. I think we met with the Minister of Health and then we met with some bureaucrats within the Ministry of Health, and following from there I had a successive number of meetings with the Premier and with the Minister of Health, and as a result we red-circled that institution to make sure they kept the dollars necessary to offer services to our community.
I said, "Mr Premier, my responsibility is, yes, I'm a New Democrat and I'm elected to your government, but I have to advocate for my community." I went to the Premier and I got a deal for my community that benefited the people in my community. That was my job and that's what I did, and I'm proud of what I did. As it turned out, for those three years afterwards, our hospital didn't have to lay anybody off, they didn't have to cut services; in fact, they added services as a result of all of the negotiations we had between the government and the hospital board. And yes, the hospital board made some changes, but as a result, we strengthened our hospital.
But what does this government do? What the member for Norfolk is going to do is say: "There is a problem. The Tory government changes are going to negatively affect my local municipalities." Instead of trying to advocate for his communities, he is here with a bill saying, "I want to destroy the regional government that is out there trying to say bad things about our government."
It brings me back to this particular bill. This government has messed up. I think the least the government should do is, number one, admit they made a mistake. The path to recovery is always, first of all, to admit that you made a mistake. If you can acknowledge that you've made a mistake, you're halfway there. You're halfway to finding a solution. It opens you up to being able to discuss and to find solutions to what is the mistake.
But when you try to cover up the mistake by a barrage of legislation such as we've seen in this House over the last two years, eight pieces of legislation, it doesn't do anything to fix the problem. All they are doing is putting a band-aid on the problem, and people are still going to be bleeding once that band-aid has gone past its usefulness. It's going to be left to another government after this government is defeated, which I think will happen in the next provincial election. Hopefully, with the support of the people of Ontario, it will be Howard Hampton as the Premier of Ontario, along with the NDP caucus, and we'll have good members like Mr Cullen and Mr Blain Morin there in the government. It will be up to us to come back and try to figure out how to untangle this mess that the government created.
I want to put on the record that it ain't going to be easy. This government managed, through eight pieces of legislation, to totally muck up the situation, so I think we're going to have to have a good attempt to find ways of saying who should properly deliver what services and what services should possibly be re-uploaded to the province; for example, housing. I think housing should be something we should take the heck out of municipal hands, because they don't have the means in a lot of cases, or the interest, to be able to deal with housing. Throw that up to the province; let the province do it properly. Look at what services would be better administered at the local level, and if in the end the conclusion is that welfare, housing, daycare and public health make more sense to be up at the provincial level, which I believe they do, then I think the province should be doing so. We should not be trying to balance our books on the backs of the municipalities. We complain about what Jean Chrétien did, and Brian Mulroney before him, when it comes to downloading on to the provinces. We should not be, on the other hand, downloading back on to the municipalities.
I want to raise one other point in the minute that I have left, very quickly. That's the issue of what is going to happen as a result of this bill and as a result of previous bills when it comes to assessment on vacant units within multi-unit rental units such as malls and larger buildings.
1930
I had a landlord in Kapuskasing come up to me and say, "Gilles, I just found out that if I rent out" - he has three units in this particular building, and if he rents out, for example, a unit on January 1, and that unit is vacated, let's say, three months later, if he does not give notice to the assessment board by November 1 of the next year that the unit is vacated, he will end up paying the entire cost of assessment on that unit as if it was filled, and every year after.
You say: "Well, what's wrong with that? The onus is on the landlord to notify what's going to happen." The problem for most of these landlords is that they are in a position, quite frankly, of having fairly long leases with the tenants that come open every four or five years, and they have no way of knowing if that unit will be vacated or not at the end of the lease. If the lease happens to come open sometime in the summer close to November, let's say August or September, in that area, they will have no means of remedying the situation once their units are vacated. As a result, they will end up having to pay municipal taxes on leased units that are empty.
Under the former system of assessment, you had an ability to have that changed retroactive to the point when the unit became vacant. This government is saying, "No, we want small business people in the province who own buildings to pay full costs of leased units once they are vacated because we think we need to get the money to municipalities." Don't put this on the backs of the landlords in this case. I think it's your responsibility as a province to fix that.
That's all the time that I have. I look forward to the comments of other members of the Legislature, and I urge this government to do it right for once. Take your time. Try not to shove this legislation through so quickly that you don't have an opportunity to make amendments that might make this legislation a little bit better.
Mr Blain Morin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Once again, on such an important issue, I don't believe we have quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Could you check and see if there is a quorum.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's wondrous to behold the so-called debate we've had on this subject, the number of bills that have been presented on Bill 79.
I would like to start some analysis of how we got to this situation. I think it's important to insert the appropriate context of why we are where we are today in the type of property assessment system in Ontario.
I found it interesting to go back and look at one of the expressed concerns made by members opposite, that is, how educational dollars are going to be spent and assessed today from the centre rather than from the school boards. One of the criticisms by members opposite is that there is sort of a nostalgic refrain to go back to the old ways. We can see it in some of the literature of the Toronto District School Board. It is interesting to note that when one looks at enrolment, expenditures, cost per pupil and general budgetary increases between 1970 and 1997, there are some very revealing numbers.
For example, under the old Metro school board, enrolment in 1970 was over 398,000 students. Gross expenditures back in those days were $419,298,000, which averages out to a $1,101 per pupil cost. Then we move to 1997. This is a fantastic, very revealing statistic. Enrolment in 1997 consisted of 305,000 students under the old Metro school board, yet expenditures amounted to $2,249,961,000, for an average cost of $7,698 per student.
If we look at the percentage increases between 1970 and 1980, we had a 170% increase. Every year for those 10 years it was 17%. From 1980 to 1990, we had a 14.3% increase every year, averaging out at 14%. In 1990 to 1995, for those five short years, we had 15% increases. From 1995 to 1997, we finally arrested this huge, billowing increase, down to a 0.75% increase. No wonder the taxpayers in the city of Toronto, or the old Metro, were terribly dissatisfied with the tax regime. Those numbers tell the story more than anything members opposite want to cry about when it comes to having seven or eight tax adjustment bills.
That's the context in which we operate and what we inherited today. When you have enrolment of nearly 400,000 students and it goes down to nearly 300,000, yet your expenditures, even if you take into account the inflation of the late 1970s and 1980s, end up at nearly $2.5 billion, no wonder the taxpayers were saying: "Do something. Remove the taxing power of the boards of education from being able to continue this kind of despicable attack on taxpayers." They talk about an attack on taxpayers. It was happening through all those years.
When we examine Bill 79 and we look for constructive suggestions, as the member for Durham East talked about yesterday, I went through the remarks by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He is the particular guru of the official opposition on finance policy. He crunches the numbers. I thought perhaps he'd have a good idea on how we should deal with these issues. But lo and behold, I searched high and low for a kernel of reality, a kernel of a good idea, and all we found in all the remarks of the members opposite yesterday from the official opposition was a concern about the cash flow of the municipalities in terms of the adjustment increases or decreases, depending on the types of classes of property you're dealing with, dealing with the techniques a given municipality might employ to deal with the shift in current value assessment.
Did we find anything else? Not really. Here's what we found in remarks, repeated just recently by the member for Cochrane South: a litany of and moaning about who is to blame here.
Mr Cullen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale should have a quorum in the House to hear his comments.
The Acting Speaker: Could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, go ahead.
1940
Mr Hastings: Thank you, Speaker. I shall continue. Hopefully the member for Ottawa West, now that he's in his new socialist positioning, can at least get the name of the riding correct. I don't think I'm asking for too much, or has it affected his brainwaves? I hope that doesn't continue.
Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, it seems to me that when you look for kernels of alternative ideas, proposals, amendments - granted that the official finance critic did make some suggestions in earlier bills, but when I go through his more recent comments, they are pretty bereft of solid public policy on property tax assessment. There really isn't much there. We get the usual litany of criticisms that this is the eighth bill or the seventh bill, which incidentally suggests that the members opposite in both parties are trying to have it both ways.
First off, they're saying, "Go slow, get it right." That's the member for Cochrane South; we just heard that a few minutes ago. When we do bring in sensitive bills to accommodate the difficulties that some municipalities are experiencing, they turn around and say these particular techniques won't work, they're not in touch with reality.
What we need to do is ask this fundamental question: Why is it that, despite many differences and disagreements I have with many members of the city of Toronto council, the city of Toronto, when it went through this exercise last spring in its first budget year as an amalgamated city, at least got right the capping exercise, the 2.5% cap on commercial-industrial properties for the next three years? Why was it so difficult - and this has nothing to do with blaming people. We're talking about a fundamental reality here. Why wasn't it possible for the clerks and treasurers in the respective municipalities and regional governments that face the same types of problems as we had in the city of Toronto to go and talk to the finance ministry or to the treasurer of the city of Toronto to see what they had done right and take some of their advice?
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, come to order. I can still hear you over there.
Mr Hastings: Why do the members opposite persist in ignoring that the largest population of the largest centre in urban Ontario did get it right in this particular case? They totally ignore that situation and go back and say the province is to blame for this, and we're saying no, it's the municipalities. Let's get out of the laying of blame situation and get down to cases on solutions. What are the most appropriate solutions that you can find in any of the bills? Capping, tax ratios, phase-ins, there's a whole set of techniques available to municipalities if they would do their homework, and that is where I think they have failed to some extent.
They have not done their homework. What they have done in varying situations, whether it's the city of Orillia, the regional government of Haldimand-Norfolk - the member for Norfolk is introducing a bill to deal with the problem, but the member for Cochrane South gets into this context that we blame somebody else. We're not blaming anybody. What we're trying to deal with is accommodating the complex shift in a new property assessment system, failing which, members opposite, when they were in power, what did they do?
Mr Bisson: We didn't do market value assessment.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South.
Mr Hastings: The members of the NDP sat over there on a Saturday afternoon in late November 1993. While members of the NDP caucus were working in good faith to try to implement version 2 of market value assessment, their own Premier was doing another dance jig in the Cabinet Office where they make these secret deals, as is alleged by members opposite trying to portray cabinet government as if it were some sort of conspiracy.
What did they do? They cancelled even the palest version of market value assessment, which means, translated into the suburban municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto in the old regime, it was adequately satisfactory that they continue the existing tax regime; which is, in the old city of Toronto, a large property portion - ownership properties; residential - were taxed at 1940 assessed values while the rest of Metro, with some exceptions, was being taxed at 1980, 1984 and 1988 rates.
What can one conclude from that kind of an analysis when you look at the performance of the previous government, and even the one before that, which made some attempts to come to grips with this problem? They gave up on the whole thing and said, "It's just fine to leave all those taxpayers in the suburban cities paying more of the freight for the next 50 years," like they had from the first 50 when Gardiner brought in Metro in 1953. "It's just great to leave that the way it is."
When we examine Bill 79 or any of the other previous six bills, we need to understand that there was a massive inequality in the taxing of assessment across properties not only in Metropolitan Toronto, now the city of Toronto, but in many other parts of Ontario. When you undertake such a massive reassessment, you are going to end up making some decisions that are not accommodative of some taxpayers because they are going to end up paying more money. Who wants to do that? Obviously, if you are satisfied with the status quo, then that's what we should keep.
What happened between 1950 to 1997 if you look at school board expenditures or municipal expenditures in Metro? The Metro government went from something about $1 billion in the mid or early 1980s up to over $4 billion by the time we put Metro to bed finally and got a new amalgamated city. What did we end up with in terms of bringing in some equity and tax fairness -
Mr Cullen: Why did you download?
The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Ottawa West.
Mr Hastings: - under these particular bills, whether it be Bill 79 or Bill 106? We ended up creating an equitable field. It will be proven over time that even if these members, God forbid, should end up running the government of Ontario again, I don't hear one of them saying that we're going to go back to the old system, as we at least have with the official opposition leader on education. He says he'll eliminate Bill 60 so we can go back to the old regime.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Nickel Belt.
Mr Hastings: Basically, what we have across the way is no alternatives, no ideas, no solutions. The only thing we have is to keep everything the way it is because that's great. If you happen to be the recipient of a lower tax base and you've had it that way since 1940, are you going to say, "Jeez, change it for me so we can have equity across all property classes"? Good gracious, no. "We'll just keep it the way it is."
When I go through and look for a comprehensive tax property assessment policy from either party, what do we get? We get basically zero. They're saying: "You shouldn't have done it. You should have kept everything the way it is." When we go into the next election, I'll be looking to hear members opposite advocate that we should go back to an old system so that people who had been paying the freight, whether it be in the new city of Toronto or the old Metro or other parts of Ontario, can end up having a system with built-in tax inequities, tax unfairness, simply tax status quo because everything is suitable that way.
These bills are designed to help the municipalities get through the problem. Whether they want to seize on some of the techniques, that's apparently up to them to make those decisions. But instead of bemoaning the reality, let's get on with the business case of what we have presented over the last year. Probably we could have done it better, but at least we undertook the task. What did we see from the two governments previous, from the two parties? Nothing. Not a thing.
1950
That's what I'd like to hear in the future: not nitwitting criticisms of the bill, but some alternative. Do they in fact advocate going back to the old system? At least we'd have a case for it, as we do with the official opposition leader on education. We know where they stand on education reform: They want to turn the clock back, basically. At least we know that. At least we'd know that from the NDP; they'd repeal it as well, probably.
What is their fundamental position on tax policy today dealing with property assessment? I haven't heard one solid idea. I'm really disappointed that we haven't heard specific ideas, not one.
So, Speaker, to conclude, Bill 79 is not as it's portrayed by members opposite. If you read through it, there are sections that are clearly laying out the bylaws, the methodology by which a municipality that missed the boat in the first round can get on with using some of the techniques, whether it be the capping on commercial-industrial or multi-residential property, phase-in, or other options of property classes. They are there if they want to take advantage of them, if the clerk-treasurers and the treasurers of these municipalities went home and did their homework, as well as the councillors, to come up with a solution. Instead of what we've been hearing for the last two days, bemoaning, "Oh, no. The sky is falling. I can't do it," let's get some resourceful imagination -
Mr Blain Morin: You are using your imagination.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Nickel Belt.
Mr Hastings: - and get some solutions into what was a classic inequitable, unfair tax injustice situation.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What's quite obvious is that the member wishes to project blame on the local municipalities for something for which the provincial government, and Mike Harris as Premier, are responsible. Here we have a government which has bungled on six occasions and finally has come back with yet a seventh bill to try to rectify what it bungled in the previous six bills. So there is no question that if you want to look strictly at property taxes, this government has continued to drop the ball on it. They are large as life when it comes to pointing the finger of responsibility at somebody else, but if you try to get them to assume responsibility when a problem is there, these people are in complete hiding.
Locally in the Niagara region, for instance, at the risk of being parochial, and I don't want to be that, they had a downloading exercise. The provincial government said, "You're going to get all of these responsibilities and all of the costs that come with that responsibility, and in return we're going to take some responsibilities." Unfortunately, the difference in costs between the two was $21 million. Now, they put on some pressure and there were some local initiatives to try to get the government to have at least some transition funds, and they took that down to $18 million. But now that the property tax has gone up and now that there have been further cuts in local services, municipal services, the Conservative members point the finger at the regional council. I've never been a defender of regional government in Niagara, but I can tell you that they have been dealt all deuces; there are no aces in the deck that has been dealt by Mike Harris to local municipalities. They are the ones who will take the brunt of the criticism when in fact the real problem is right here at Queen's Park, in the Office of the Premier.
Mr Blain Morin: In rebuttal to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, the problem we are facing today is with the changes of this government.
Some of the regional municipalities have played by the rules. Take, for example, the regional municipality of Sudbury and why they are against Bill 79. The regional municipality of Sudbury, in the mid-1980s, was the first region in Ontario to undergo a region-wide reassessment and has been on a four-year reassessment cycle at this time, resulting in an up-to-date assessment base.
What's the problem with changing the system now, and changing the system just for the sake of making change? Well, let's take a look at the Sudbury Star. What does the Sudbury Star have to say about it? "City Forced to Reverse Tax Breaks: About 500 businesses will not receive anticipated reduction in property taxes."
Mr Bradley: Is the Sudbury Star as progressive as ever?
Mr Blain Morin: It's unbelievable how progressive they are.
The treasurer of the city of Sudbury, Larry Laplante, indicates, "We think this announcement," made by the Tories of the day, "destroys the credibility of the new taxation system in the province." Unbelievable.
Interjection: What's the point?
Mr Blain Morin: The point is, we continue, without thinking, to pass bills. Is it seven? Is it eight?
Let me tell you, we talk about by-elections and about the upcoming general election. In the by-election I was just through, the people in Nickel Belt didn't buy the story. They didn't buy the hospital closures. They didn't buy what you were doing to education. They sent a message: "Enough is enough."
Mr Baird: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. He certainly puts this issue in perspective with respect to the ongoing taxation regimes going on at regional government.
I was particularly compelled when he explained the Metro level of government here in the new city of Toronto. It was the Metro level of government that went from $1 billion to $40 billion in such a short period of time, from the 1980s to 1996-97.
I was very interested to note on this issue of regional government, and I think the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has put the head on it, that my colleague the member for Norfolk, Mr Barrett, will be debating on Thursday Bill 80, An Act to eliminate the regional level of municipal government in Norfolk and Haldimand, to cut duplication and to save taxpayers' money. Mr Barrett, the hard-working member from Haldimand-Norfolk, will be presenting this bill on Wednesday.
Why is he doing that? Because he is speaking up on behalf of the taxpayers in his community. Mr Barrett has collected more than 10,000 signatures of people who are against the downloading. They don't believe the region should have downloaded the tax burden to the taxpayers. Speaker, 17.9% is absolutely disgraceful.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Nickel Belt, order. Member for Ottawa West.
Mr Baird: The member for Cochrane South can check. That is his exact petition wording. I'm going to tell you that people in Nepean, like our good mayor, Mary Pitt, and the Nepean city council, are going to be watching very closely the debate on Thursday morning to see if there's a trend here. If they can get rid of regional government in Norfolk and Haldimand, perhaps they could do it in other parts of the province. In Ottawa-Carleton, we got a zero per cent tax increase, not a 17.9% tax increase like my colleague in Norfolk county.
Mr Michael Brown: I was very interested in the comments of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. One of the things that really struck me was, I remember the member who is now the chief government whip railing against market value assessment.
Mr Bradley: Mr Turnbull.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes, Mr Turnbull. He could not accept any form of market value assessment.
Mr Bradley: What about Al Leach?
Mr Michael Brown: And Al Leach; that's right, as our House leader informs me.
You know, the position of your party when in opposition was, "No market value assessment." That's what you said then.
Interjection.
Mr Michael Brown: That's what you said then, and to be unkind to my socialist brethren over here, claiming that they chickened out because of your pressure is a little bit unfair.
But I did want to speak for a moment about what this is doing to the communities I represent. One of those communities, Elliott Lake, is in the unenviable situation of having a rather low commercial-industrial assessment. They have a very excellent residential housing area that has attracted remarkable numbers of retirees, but the effect of that is that virtually 95% or 96% of the residential property is at relatively the same price, $40,000 to $50,000, a great deal. But what it means is that under your system, someone whose value had stayed up because perhaps they lived on a lake, and lakefront property is still at market value, is paying three times what you would pay in downtown Toronto for a similarly assessed property. That is unrealistic. That is crazy.
2000
The Acting Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, you can sum up.
Mr Hastings: In response to the points made, it seems to me that the motive for change was quite evident in the regime we've had and the inequities in that particular property tax assessment regime for the last 50 to 70 years. We're not even hearing from members opposite that they would do away with, say, a current value or modified market value assessment system for one that some proponents in the old city of Toronto wanted, which was what I believe they termed a locational type of property assessment system. From what we can gather from research -
Mr Cullen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.
The Speaker: Could you check for a quorum, please.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.
Mr Hastings: After that interruption from the member for Ottawa West, we'll get back to the real business, which is, what is the motivation for these bills? It is to bring in a system of tax fairness, tax justice and tax equality. Did we have it before? Not generally, when you look at many of the spiked inequities within the system, just within the Metropolitan Toronto region.
What should have happened is water under the bridge. It wasn't dealt with by the members opposite; it wasn't dealt with by the Davis administration. We're dealing with it. Certainly there are some improvements we could have made, but I do not hear one specific new proposal from members opposite. For example, would the locational system be preferable to the one we have? I don't know. We've never heard from them. They don't have a comprehensive tax assessment policy.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am delighted to continue to speak on the tax reform issue, which I believe began a few years ago, and we are still dealing with it. I have to repeat some of the things I have said, because we have been dealing with so many bills; I believe this is the seventh or eighth, including all the various amendments that the Minister of Finance has introduced to the original tax reform bill back in 1996-97. You'll recall, Mr Speaker, the point at which Mr David Crombie was supposed to come up with the answer to the tax reform here in Ontario. If you recall, he was not the only one.
I don't know if it's proper at this stage, Mr Speaker, to say congratulations to both of you in the race last night, winner and loser. From what I have heard and read, it was well conducted, and I'd like to congratulate you and Mr Ford as well.
To continue on tax reform, there is perhaps no other argument that taxpayers in general can recognize and attach themselves to, no other thing when it comes to taxes, be it residential taxes, business taxes or any other taxes. When you go out on a daily basis, whatever you purchase, there is tax, tax, tax.
So when David Crombie was retained to deal with the tax reform, we expected to come up with a fair and equitable reform, which we all demanded over the years. It is not that we didn't want it; we didn't want this particular tax reform, not only the original bill, Bill 106, I believe, but all the subsequent bills and amendments. Even today, two and a half years later, the government still cannot get it right. I wonder what Mr Crombie would have to say today, after two and a half years of dilly-dallying with the tax reform bill.
We saw Bill 106, Bill 149, Bill 164, Bill 16, Bill 16 with the amendments, and of course now we have Bill 79, which in the eyes of many is even worse than the first, original bill introduced by the Minister of Finance, because it does not correct mistakes - which, by the way, the minister has recognized. My colleague the previous speaker, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, did say, "We could have done it better." Yes indeed.
We were not the only ones to tell the members of the committee when we dealt with this bill, all the bills: "Get it right. Slow down and listen to the people and get it right." Well, they didn't, so we have been here dealing with eight bills, eight amendments, if you will, on the original tax bill.
What does it do? What does it really do? What are the consequences of Bill 79 now? We have seen the minister pacifying the business community in the city of Toronto. He wasn't going to budge. He kept on saying: "You people don't understand. We got it right. The bill is right. You got it wrong. What you suggest is going to happen is not going to happen." You'll recall the upheaval and commotion we saw in the city of Toronto here when the bill came to be. The business community said: "We are not going to take this. We will not accept these increases. This is not what we were promised by this government. This is not what we were told by this minister and Premier." So what did they do? They said: "OK. We're going to cap it for you. We're going to impose it upon you."
Did you ever hear of a government telling people in general, especially the small business community, "We are going to impose on you a 2.5% tax increase" or cap or whatever you want to call it, "for 1998, 1999, and the year 2000"? This is totally contrary to what the Premier and the Minister of Finance have been saying in this House, saying to the taxpayers in general and especially to the small business community in Ontario, which, according to them and of course everybody else, is supposed to be the driving force of the Ontario economy. We agree with that.
The only problem is that the government doesn't recognize that. If they had recognized that, they would have introduced tax reform; they would have listened to the many people who came and made submissions with good recommendations. Those recommendations were not included in any of those subsequent bills or amendments so that indeed the small business community would have benefited.
2010
But what did the government really do? They took care of the big bank towers, they took care of the big corporations and they downloaded on to the small operators. What does it represent now? They have told the small business community in Metropolitan Toronto and all over the place that they are going to have a three-year reprieve. "For the next three years this is OK, you're going to get an increase of 2.5%, and then, beyond that, you're going to be on your own again."
You know what is striking in all of this? When we hear the Premier and the Minister of Finance saying: "You know, we gave you the tools to do it. We gave you the tools not to give an increase to your taxpayers." Hold on a second, Mr Minister. Hold on a second, Mr Premier. You have retained for yourselves the power to do it behind closed doors without consultations, without input from anybody else. You have approved your legislation and you can set your own rates, at your own time, whenever you want without notifying anyone. We have seen what you did with education taxes. You came out and you said: "That's the way it's going to be. Take it or leave it." Well, isn't that nice.
This is indeed the continuation of the other seven bills and even now we are seeing continuation of the same inequities within the same system. So we are saying the government fails to get it and do it right. Even with all the problems that we brought forth to the attention of the government - and they went ahead and approved the various bills - even with all of that, municipalities did say, "We cannot efficiently operate under your guidelines incorporated within your various bills, including Bill 106, which is the first bill." But they went ahead, late as it was in the year. Municipalities were of course to wait because they couldn't get the necessary information. But, late as it was, the final bill went out and, of course, as in most cases, some were expecting increases - very large increases, as a matter of fact - and some were expecting some decreases.
With that, the government said, "We are also going to eliminate the business occupancy tax." They said that because municipalities, they said, requested it. With all due respect to the local municipalities, Mr Premier and Mr Minister, I have to say they did request it but not in the form that you implemented and forced upon the municipalities. What you have done now - and you have tried to correct it. The reason you tried to correct it is because you know now that the Premier was wrong and the minister was wrong, because with the elimination of the business occupancy tax they created another layer of nightmare, if you will, leaving multiple tenants and landlords in a nightmare.
You try and get a small business owner especially to find out from a landlord: "How much is my business tax? Last year I paid $1,000. How much am I paying this year?" Now the government has to combine both deals, realty taxes and business taxes, and the poor tenant does not know how much the landlord is passing on to the poor tenant.
Just to give you an example of what's happening in a mall in the city of Vaughan - it's a city now. I better be careful with that, otherwise Mayor Lorna and my friends in council may call me on that. In the city of Vaughan, one of the large malls had horrendous increases in business taxes, to the point that every tenant in that particular mall somewhere up in the Woodbridge area is receiving a $5 net net per square foot. On top of that, the landlord is charging a 15% administration fee. And you tell me this is fair? I don't think so.
I would ask the Premier and the Minister of Finance to go and speak to those people, because that increase represents for many of those small business people the profit they would have made over the course of a year. Instead of making it fair, they are perpetuating the same inequities as the previous system. On top of that, the thing passed fine within the city of Toronto with respect to the business taxes, what happens now? Now the municipalities beyond our limits, if you will, of Metropolitan Toronto, beyond Steeles and the other boundaries, are getting the true facts from their own municipalities and here comes the beauty. They are screaming murder. Not 10%, 20%, 30%; businesses were receiving increases up to 600%.
That is totally unacceptable and, Minister, you were told, Mr Premier, you were told, that this would happen. What did you do? You even had the guts to say, Mr Minister, "Fix your own problems." Isn't that nice? This is your own doing. You forced these changes on to the local municipalities and now you're telling them: "It's your baby. You're on your own. Fix it." But of course when push comes to shove, we get a reaction. The community out there did exactly what the business community in Toronto did before. They got after the Premier. The press of course had some input in that and, lo and behold, the minister says, "OK, I'm going to solve it for you and we are going to impose a 20% tax."
I really don't know when someone has received a 20% tax increase in their salary or anywhere else, other than the government saying, "We are going to impose on you a 20% increase: 10% in 1998, 5% in 1999 and 5% in the year 2000." Isn't it nice that those people who will be receiving a huge increase beyond those original three years will be receiving the original 30%, 40%, 50% increases? Is this how we are going to bring equity to an antiquated tax system? I don't think so. This is not what those business people, the small business community, expected from their government.
Just the other day we were doing hearings on Bill 70. I believe Bill 70 is the privatization of the 407. That's another wonderful piece of legislation, but that's for another time, for another debate. Making presentations on that we had the clerk, I believe, and the mayor from Halton and the town of Oakville, and what did they say? It is a nightmare because what they have done, based on the imposition of this government, they did rebate those businesses that were entitled to receive a reduction.
2020
Mr Cullen: Mr Speaker, I'm listening with great interest to the member for Yorkview, but I fail to see quorum.
The Speaker: Is there a quorum present?
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker: The member for Yorkview.
Mr Sergio: So I can continue, Mr Speaker, for the next two or three minutes which you have allotted me.
When the government says, "We have done what we have done because we have listened," let me tell you, not only we as members of the opposition in the House but one of the most important, most respected organizations in our province, and I'm talking about the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario - these people are the ones who on a daily basis keep our cities and towns and townships running efficiently. These are the people who direct the local elected people when they have to do their budgets how to cut, where to cut, how to be good administrators. You know what they have to say? I have to read you this because it's very important. Due to lack of time, I won't be reading everything, but this is what they say.
"The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario has been given to understand that you are placing serious time limitations" - can you believe that, on such an important piece of legislation? - "on committee hearings on Bill 16." This is the old bill. They've never been listened to since. "We have written to you registering our disapproval (refer to letter dated May 22, 1998).
"The association has grave concerns about several aspects of Bill 16. As a result of the lack of opportunity to present our concerns to committee, or otherwise to aid the government in refining an integral piece of municipal legislation, we offer the following comments." They go on to mention a number of concerns which they had with the bill but which this government refused to listen to.
This is how they conclude: "This bill, if passed as drafted, will embroil municipal councils in complex, confusing and inefficient systems of taxation." What they are really saying is that the present system will continue to be inequitable and will not offer any solution for the business, the residential or the other types of properties in our province.
I don't have time but I would love to touch on the education portion of the taxes as well, because it's all part and parcel of this supposed eighth bill, which is called Bill 79. But let me say to the members on the government side that again we are saying to you, take your time and do it right, because this is what the public expects from us.
The Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for Cochrane South.
Mr Bisson: The member for Yorkview, I thought, raised a number of really interesting points when it comes to this bill, but I think the most important point he raised is what members in the opposition have been saying right from the beginning of this debate: the government messed up. They went in with their heavy hands, they went in with their big boots and they decided they were going to mess around with the property tax assessment system across Ontario. Why? Because they wanted to impose market value assessment on the city of Toronto and the only way to do that and save face, given their position while in opposition of being opposed to the introduction of market value assessment in Toronto, was to change it to AVA and introduce that for the entire province. As a result, every homeowner, every business person who has property in Ontario, has had a reassessment.
We know that the reassessment was messed up. We know from letters we read into the record earlier that a number of assessments are wrong because the government hurried the process. We also know, as a result of the policies of the Conservative government when it comes to downloading of provincial services on to the municipalities, it means to say that people are going to be, as we know now because the tax bills have gone out, getting huge tax increases, which resulted in the municipality, business owners and people who owned commercial buildings seeing their property taxes go through the roof. This government is bringing in its oops bill to turn around and fix the problem.
But there's a problem yet again, a huge problem. Who are the people in the end who are not protected by this legislation? Individual property owners. They're the people, the middle class all the time, who are going to get it in the ear when it comes to this Conservative government because they're saying it's OK for a person to own the business and own the property that is the business, they get a cap of 10%, but they're not prepared to do that for individuals. What this bill basically does, I think, is favour the business sector over individuals and I don't think that's right.
Interjection.
The Speaker: I'd ask the member for Grey-Owen Sound to come to order, please.
Mr Baird: I listened with great interest to the speech by my colleague the member for Yorkview on property taxation. I suspect there's a fair bit of disagreement between him and members of his party and this member and members of his party. I wonder if there's the same disagreement in the Liberal caucus on tax increases because I read in NOW magazine earlier this year, when it talks about how the Grits pay for their health and education promises:
"Not surprisingly, the question of how to pay for promises like education equipment was not on the agenda at the Liberals' retreat in Collingwood. MPP Gerard Kennedy said he and some of his caucus members favour a reconsideration of the positions that they will maintain the fiscal framework, McGuinty's word for keeping the Tory tax cut in place."
We know just as the member for Ottawa West said yesterday - he was right, he was bang on - there is a fight going on within the Liberal caucus. Some people, led by Dalton McGuinty, want to hold the line on taxes and they want to keep the Harris tax cuts. Others in the Liberal Party are wanting the party to take a stand and when those members in the Liberal Party try to take a stand, they're kicked out the door. There's no room for them. They have to go to the NDP, the only party opposing this government to have a clear policy of this government.
The article goes on because, Speaker, I know you're going to be interested in this: "`We spent a fair bit of time talking about that in Collingwood,' says Kennedy. `That was certainly the centrepiece of a lot of the discussion. It covered a pretty good gamut of the points of view. I don't think we have a consensus yet.'"
They don't have a consensus yet, so the people of Ontario are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Will they or will they not get a massive multi-billion dollar tax increase as a result of the unrealistic campaign commitments of the Liberal Party? They don't know. We don't know. We just know that there's a lot of fighting going on in the Liberal caucus and that is really not fair to the people of Ontario. They deserve a realistic choice and a realistic alternative.
Mr Bradley: When I want to know what Guy Giorno is thinking, I just listen to the member for Nepean who tells me what Guy Giorno is thinking, because Guy provides the notes for those in the government who wish to simply ingratiate themselves through himself, the Premier of this province, so I'm glad. I know Guy can't speak himself in this House, but he certainly does have a chance to speak through various members who decide that they will use his script, and I'm always glad to hear that.
The member for Yorkview was excellent in his remarks this evening. He was right on in terms of his assessment of the impact of this particular piece of legislation. He was very good in pointing out, first of all, that the government has botched this on seven different occasions and keeps having to repair it. Now I know in that $4-million ad that the taxpayers of Ontario are paying for - it's off the air now, but it's the one with the Band-Aid. I know what that Band-Aid's all about because seven different Band-Aids that have been put on this problem. I think if you turned off the sound and perhaps rewrote the commercial, the child in that photograph or on that tape would be placing yet another Band-Aid on the government's efforts in terms of trying some way to fix its mistakes as they relate to the downloading, first of all, but most of all to the property taxes in this province.
2030
I'm pleased that the member for Yorkview recognizes that this government has attempted to blame municipally elected representatives for the mistakes that this government is responsible for. He was very astute and most accurate in that observation.
Mr Blain Morin: In talking about Bill 79 or, as my friend the member for Cochrane South indicates, the oops bill, and when we start looking at it and the effect it has had on communities, I'd again like to quote from the Sudbury Star -
Interjection: That progressive paper.
Mr Blain Morin: - that progressive paper - October 29, 1998, where it says:
"Clawbacks: The province's limit on commercial-industrial taxes is ill advised and should be withdrawn.... While such reassessments have a relatively small effect in Sudbury, where properties have been periodically reassessed, the reforms have had a dramatic impact on communities which did not conduct regular reassessments.... The reforms were intended to bring fairness to the property tax system, since cities such as Toronto had not updated assessments for 50 years."
The problem is, this solution does not work all over. The problem is that the people of the north that I represent are going to be affected by this legislation. I bring to mind from the office of the reeve of Chapleau, who indicates - and my friend from Cochrane South has already talked about the effects in Chapleau. When we look at it, it says:
"Given that the province has indicated it wishes to extend the appeal deadline to December 31, 1998, we can expect a lengthy delay in being advised as to the appeals which have been launched. The appeal process compounds the financial uncertainty by virtue of the fact that our 1999 taxation will be based on assessment data" which is incomplete because they're still in the appeal process.
The reeve also predicts a $16,000 shortfall thus far. Therefore, here we go again. We're going to spend the money on commercials, ripping Band-Aids off people and everything else when we should be reinvesting in communities in Ontario.
The Speaker: Response.
Mr Sergio: I thank you for the opportunity to respond to my colleagues the members for St Catharines, Nickel Belt and Cochrane South, and of course I would be remiss if I didn't respond as well to the member for Nepean.
Let me say to the members of the House, especially to the member for Nepean and the government members, that what the people of Ontario expect faithfully is good delivery, good service and good government from their government, and this is not what they are getting from the Mike Harris government. The member for Nepean wants to twist it around and say, "How are you going to pay for health care and stuff like that?" Let me tell you what we will not be doing.
We will not be spending millions of dollars advertising a pre-election campaign at taxpayers' expense and we are counting, we are up $48 million. One thing we won't be doing when Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals will be forming the next government, we will not be hiring consultants who ask for $57 million and the government says, "We will give you $180 million." This, I promise you, we will not be doing. We will not be paying consultants to the tune of $2,650 a day. There is no consultant who is worth that kind of taxpayers' money, and this is what the government is doing.
We expect the government to be more responsible. Evidently, they are not interested, otherwise they would have listened to the people of Ontario, they would have listened to the opposition and made the necessary changes that really would have made a difference and people would have appreciated outside over there and respected the government.
The Speaker: Further debate? The member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen: I'm delighted to stand on this now the eighth bill dealing with property tax introduced by the government. I look back to 1995 and I look at the Common Sense Revolution, that bible of policy that the government was elected on, and I search vainly for the words "property tax reform." I don't see them.
What's the first thing the government does? The Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, comes in and wipes out all that municipal support program funding that the province of Ontario gave to municipalities to pay for services to keep property taxes down. That was the purpose of that program, to keep property taxes down. Instead, they got rid of it and said, "You'll just have to make efficiencies." So what did the municipalities do? Some of them raised taxes, some of them laid off people, some of them had to shave off some park maintenance, some people had to shave off road maintenance, but oh, no, those were municipal decisions. Then the government got the bright idea that it should -
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. Member for Grey-Owen Sound, would you please come to order. The member for Ottawa West has the floor and it's important that we are attentive.
Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would be remiss if I didn't add that some politicians had to pay for salary increases for themselves.
The Speaker: That's not a point of order. Member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen: It's interesting the comments I'm getting from the other side, but let's go through the chronology here, because remember, the government was not elected on a platform to reform property tax. It wasn't.
So what did it do? I mentioned that it cut out the funding. But then it said: "Let's see here. We're going to take education off property tax and we're going to download all these other services that income tax and corporate tax are paying for: social housing, social assistance, ambulances, public health. We'll do this." And there was that famous pinky-swear of revenue-neutrality.
Then it discovered that it couldn't take education off property tax, so it brought in legislation so it could look after education but still levy it. Instead of having debates by democratically elected school boards to set the tax levy, it was going to be set by ministerial fiat through cabinet in the backrooms, without debate, by the Ministry of Finance. we have now a province-wide property tax levy whereby in my community people are actually paying more property taxes for education than before, and for less service.
But that's not the only thing they did. Then they decided that they were going to get rid of the business occupancy tax and they were going to just fold it into the property tax and let the chips fall where they may. Then, as my friends from Cochrane South and Nickel Belt alluded to, there was a Toronto problem, so they decided to bring in current value assessment at the same time as downloading, at the same as the province-wide property tax on education, at the same time they were going to get rid of the business occupancy tax, all these things, and current value assessment. The list went on and on and on.
It's amazing that they didn't take the time to consult with those that know property tax best, which are the municipalities which have been levying it. This is the first time that the province has been levying property tax. You'd think they would talk to the people who are elected on that basis and who know what property tax should be paying for, but they didn't listen to the municipalities. They didn't even listen to the municipal treasurers and clerks; not at all.
So what do we have today? We have today Bill 106, which was introduced on January 16, 1997. The sorry saga began 23 months ago with Bill 106, the Fair Municipal Finance Act. Now, if they had thought it through, it would have been a good piece of legislation, it would have gone through public consultation, the government would have heard from people to perfect their bill, because why come in with bad bill? It looks bad for the government to come in with a bad bill, because then you've got to come in and fix it up. There's criticism and taxpayers get mad at you -
Interjections.
The Speaker: If the member for Perth and the member for Peterborough want to have a conversation, there's ample office space in this building. You can go there.
Mr Baird: There's an empty office over in -
The Speaker: Member for Nepean. Continue, member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So on January 16, 1997, some 23 months ago, we have the first government bill on property tax, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, Bill 106. That was followed by the Fair Municipal Finance Act (No 2), because they didn't get it right the first time. That was Bill 149. Then there was Bill 160, which we all remember, which centralized education and set this province-wide levy for education, supposedly 50% for residential, still 100% for businesses.
2040
Look at this: Here's a province-wide levy. They didn't take education off commercial-industrial assessment whatsoever; the province took it all. That was Bill 160. Oh, they didn't get it right. Bill 164 came into play, the Tax Credits to Create Jobs Act, where they set down the rules for the Assessment Review Board. What does Bill 179 do? Oh yes, it corrects some of the rules on the Assessment Review Board. Amazing.
Then they came in with toolkits. Remember the famous toolkits to help manage all these tax increases that were going to come about because of the assessment change and downloading and property tax for education? They introduced a toolkit. But it wasn't in the first session when they did it. It was Bill 15, Tax Cuts for People and Small Business Act, followed right on the heels by Bill 16, Small Business and Charities Protection Act, and that was going to solve the problems of reassessment across Ontario, and it was going to solve the problems from downloading and all the other things.
Did it happen? Did it work? Oh, My Lord, not only couldn't they get it right, but the province of Ontario, this government, was responsible for the tax rolls, and the tax rolls they couldn't get in time. Normally, Mr Speaker, as you and I well know, the tax rolls are delivered by the province to the municipalities in the springtime so they can see what they're dealing with in that tax year in terms of the assessment tax base.
Mr Bisson: When did they get it?
Mr Cullen: Did it come in the springtime, my colleague from Cochrane South asks. When did they get them? It wasn't June.
Mr Bisson: Was it July?
Mr Cullen: It wasn't July.
Mr Bisson: August?
Mr Cullen: It wasn't August.
Mr Bisson: September?
Mr Cullen: It was September, nine months into that tax year. The tax year is on a calendar basis, and the government was so late that they had to come in with a bill, Bill 61, to extend the property tax appeal deadline to at least give property taxpayers the time to file an appeal, which they did.
Excuse me, was that the last time they extended? No, they're here to extend it again. Why didn't they get it right the first time with Bill 61? No, they tabled today the Fairness for Property Taxpayers Act. This is Orwellian Newspeak that just boggles the mind. It is the eighth bill.
I am so surprised. When the minister introduced the bill, which he did on November 5, it said: "There will be amendments to the bill. When this bill is at standing committee, we intend to introduce amendments that will protect multi-residential property owners and tenants under the same formula as commercial-industrial properties." So even when they brought in Bill 79, the eighth bill, they had to introduce amendments yet again because, by God, they hadn't got it right.
Not only that, but they're going to have to introduce other amendments again, because in Ottawa-Carleton we suddenly discover by virtue of this government's property tax reform - now, bear in mind that the government of Canada says it will play along with the rules for all property taxpayers. So when the government - let me see, how many bills back? - under 16, six bills later, the government of Canada said: "OK, you've done this change to assessment, you've introduced 80 tax ratios, eight to 10 property tax classes. We're going to have to pay for business occupancy tax. OK, everyone else has to play by the rules, we'll play by the rules." Then this government comes in and says, "No, we're going to change the rules and we're going to cap increases." So the government of Canada says "OK, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. You're capping tax increases."
What does that mean for Ottawa-Carleton? If we had stopped at Bill 16, then Ottawa-Carleton would have had its businesses treated the same, the federal government treated the same, no exemptions. Everyone would have been fine and we would have had something in the order - and I have to find it here - of $116 million or thereabouts.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Take your time to get it right.
Mr Cullen: Oh, yes, I intend to get it right. Here it is; I knew I had it. The payments in lieu of property taxes the federal government pays in Ottawa-Carleton - and it recognizes that it has a role to play. It has to pay for the water and the sewer and everything else property tax pays for. Of course, they're contributing towards social assistance and hospitals and ambulances and all the rest of it, but I won't get into that. It would be $176 million that it pays in property tax, if we had stopped two bills ago. But now, with this bill, all of a sudden it's not $176 million, all of a sudden it's $44 million less because they're saying, "If we pay commercial and industrial, any non-residential tax, and the caps are there for businesses, for office buildings, for all those things, then we should be on the same playing field."
I'm not here to defend the federal government. Far be it from me to defend the federal government; not at all. As a matter of fact, as a sidebar, when the federal government brought down its cuts to the health and social service transfer, the HSST, I voted as a regional councillor to say this was wrong. In that I'm consistent with my friends here on this side of the House. Here we are facing a situation where this government's actions are now going to cause a shortfall of some $44 million to the property taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton. My Lord, we're talking about, for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, some $23 million; to the city of Ottawa some $14 million; all told for the lower-tier municipalities, 11 municipalities, about $21 million; for the region about $23 million.
What is this government doing? This government is now wrestling, going so hard so fast to try and catch up on that mistake and we know it's not the last. Here we are on 11th month of a property tax year. This process began 23 months ago, January 16, 1997. It comes in with the eighth bill, which still has flaws. The minister is going to come in with more amendments, not only to deal with Ottawa-Carleton but to deal with multi-residential as well. It just goes on and on. What do the municipalities, what do property taxpayers say? They say this is craziness.
I have to say as well that it boggles the mind. Not only are we dealing with these assessment changes, these property tax changes, these new ratios, these new property tax classes, but the final bills for the downloading that the property taxpayer has to pay for on this new platform aren't all in yet. What's going to happen? Here we are in the 11th month of a 12-month tax year. In other words, I'm sorry, guys, 1998 ends December 31, 1998, and these tax bills are still not going to be finished. They're going to walk into 1999, the beginning of the tax process, knowing that they're still going to have to pay for this, because if it's not done in 1998, the legislation said you can carry it over to 1999.
Well, how generous, but here in Ottawa-Carleton we're looking at a cap that goes for three years. I mentioned the $44-million problem in 1998. What is the problem in 1999? It's $37 million. What's the problem in the year 2000? It's $30 million. What's the total, cumulative impact over three years in Ottawa-Carleton because of this government's initiatives? Remember, the government of Canada said, "We'll pay what other property taxpayers are paying." This government said: "We're going to cap what this class of property taxpayers are going to pay, no shift to residential. Commercial-industrial, you're going to stay at 5, 10 and 10." Or is it -
Mr Bisson: It's 10 and 5 and 5.
Mr Cullen: It's 10 and 5 and 5. Let me understand it. Just look at the logic here. The government of Canada is in office buildings. Office buildings are 10, 5 and 5. Why don't they have the same access to the same thing? This is a big mess. That's all it is, a huge mess.
We go back to the Common Sense Revolution. Do we find property tax reform there? No we don't, not at all. Look at the poor property taxpayer now. Here's a government that campaigned in the Common Sense Revolution on all these income tax cuts, and what is happening to the ordinary citizen in the province of Ontario, certainly in Ottawa-Carleton, which I represent? They're finding that, on the one hand, the government gives them the reduction of four bucks or six bucks in a paycheque in terms of an income tax cut, but they're finding, with downloading, with what's happening on education, with what's happening in terms of the property tax reassessment and all this huge mess here, that what the government gives with one hand it takes away with the other. At the end of the day, the property taxpayers are finding they're getting less service at more cost, courtesy of the Mike Harris revolution.
2050
I will tell you, and it comes as no surprise to members of this House, that we know the number one issue will be health care, because of the government cuts to health care. We know the number two issue is going to be education, because of the government cuts to education. The number three issue is going to be property taxes. This government is so far down the road in terms of property taxes and what it's downloaded on to municipalities.
They didn't even listen to David Crombie when the Who Does What commission said, "It is wrong in theory and devastating in practice" to offload social programs like social housing, social assistance, public health - all those things are income transfer programs - on to property taxes. Why is that? Let's look back to why that is wrong in theory and devastating in practice.
In the 1930s, when all of Canada was going through the Depression, the responsibility for those things lay at the municipal level, and municipalities went bankrupt trying to pay for the programs they were mandated to do.
Just look at what happens in Ottawa-Carleton if we replay the recession that happened from 1991 to 1994. Because of this government's moves, property taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton will be on the hook for over $20 million more in property taxes because of the policies put down by the Harris government that they have to contribute so much from property taxes. It is wrong. It has been bollixed. It is a complete mass of confusion and the property taxpayer knows very clearly who has been responsible for this.
I don't have as a member of the New Democratic Party to say this is wrong. I have a whole panoply of politicians, properly elected - Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Reformers - at the municipal level who can trot out the numbers, trot out the report, as I have here, bring out the tables, show exactly what's happening in each of their municipalities. We heard from the member for Nickel Belt, who did that; we heard from the member for Cochrane South, who did that; we've heard from other members. Listen. What are your municipalities saying? What are the civil servants at the municipal level saying? "You have screwed up big time. This is wrong. Take it back. Rethink it. Go slower. Phase it in." You stand there and say: "It's the municipalities' fault. They didn't use the darn tools we gave them." They didn't use the darn tools you gave them because they were inadequate, incomplete for the tax. You did everything all at once and you're paying the price for it.
Let me see, do I have a loonie here? I'm sure I have a loonie. No, I have a toonie. Who wants to bet me that lousy toonie that this is the last property tax bill in the life of this government? Who wants to do it? There is not a taker. That's because they know full well that there's going to be another one.
It is amazing to me that the Minister of Finance is coming in with his eighth bill. As soon as he announced it - here he is, moving first reading of the bill - he said there are going to be amendments. I should hope so.
Quite frankly, we have not seen the end of it. Just wait till the budget process next year. Municipalities in January, February and March, before they set the actual mill rate, are going to be debating these things. This government's on tenterhooks: "Are the polls going to turn around? Are we going to be able to call an election in the fourth year of our mandate, in April 1999?" Their mandate runs out in June of the year 2000. Please remember that. In the fourth month of the fourth year of their mandate, will the polls turn around and show that they can march forward to another mandate?
I say to you, you hear the sound of hospitals closing, you hear the sound of schools closing, you hear the sound of municipal councils dealing with this mess you've made, and those property tax bills are going to be coming out. You have sown the seeds of your own destruction.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Baird: I took great interest in listening to the remarks by the member for Ottawa West. I certainly acknowledge the member for Ottawa West is someone of great principle, and he's standing by his guns. He disagrees with the policies of the Liberal Party. I wonder how you could disagree with them, because there are no policies of the Liberal Party.
He discussed the number of property tax bills this Legislature has debated and discussed. I guess his view is that we should pass a mega-bill. This government took a reasoned approach. We brought in the new assessment system in one bill. We brought in the assessment corporation, a separate piece of legislation on a separate issue. We dealt with education tax issues in a third bill. I don't think the member opposite would indicate to this House that we should rather have brought in an omnibus tax bill and put all the tax measures of the government into it. We simply wouldn't have agreed to do that, because that would have been the wrong way. This way, we can take the time to debate.
This bill certainly is the result of the consultations we had. We've given municipalities a good number of tools. Regrettably, far too many municipalities decided they didn't want to use tools and some didn't choose enough tools. That's why the provincial government is stepping in to protect small business.
Small business is the economic engine of Ontario. They're a big part: 80% of the 408,000 net new jobs created in the province of Ontario were created by small business. This government and this minister were not quite prepared to step aside and allow the lack of municipal action to hurt small business.
The small businesses in my part of the province, whether they be in Richmond, Stittsville, Greely, Nepean, Barrhaven or Ottawa - it simply would be unconscionable to stand by. That's why this government is stepping in to help small business, to ensure that they can continue to be the economic engine of Canada, the thing that helps bring jobs and prosperity to this province.
Mr Michael Brown: In Algoma-Manitoulin, this is quite an interesting debate. In my constituency, a large number of my constituents still have not received property tax bills. It is so confused. The government has not provided the information needed for unorganized municipalities to be able to send out these bills. Therefore, a large number of people don't have them. A large number of people don't know whether they need to appeal their assessment.
I was talking recently with some people who have a number of properties on Manitoulin Island. They told me they were trying to get a copy of their assessment notice. They had misplaced their assessment notice; they were looking for it but couldn't find it. They thought, "I should be able to call the assessment office and I should be able to get a copy of my assessment." That would seem reasonable. They were even willing to pay a small fee to have that.
You know, in this province, because of the way the software was designed, the assessment office cannot even give you a copy of your assessment. That is how bad it is out there, what a mess this system is in.
I was in Assiginack township. Many of you will know the capital of Assiginack: Manitowaning. The clerk in Assiginack was talking about the education portion of the tax. He said: "I don't quite understand the map here. Last year we paid half a million dollars' worth of education tax. Therefore, we thought we should pay half of that this time." That's $250,000, but amazingly, it's $340,000. When is $340,000 half of $500,000?
Mr Blain Morin: When we start looking at Bill 79 and the impact on municipalities, when we look at the rework and the cost of that rework as we go through the process again because of another ill-fated bill - as my friend indicated, we're already looking for amendments to Bill 79.
We talk about the cost of downloading. I'd like to share another quote from Northern Life of October 30, 1998, this time from Mayor Jean Robert. It says:
"If the province doesn't back down, local councils will have to rework budgets settled on months ago and perhaps send out another property tax bill.
"`We're short $280,000,' said Valley East mayor Jean Robert. `Where is the fairness? Where is the bottom line that is in Valley East? We will have to hike taxes 9%, adding on to the download. Quite frankly, we're broke.'"
Where is the fairness? Valley East, a community in northern Ontario - another double-whammy by this government to the people of northern Ontario.
It's not only places like Valley East. We've quoted tonight from Chapleau. I also have before me a proposal from the regional municipality of Sudbury which talks about the outlying municipalities in my constituency, the town of Walden, the town of Rayside-Balfour, the town of Chapleau. They've passed a resolution saying that the provincial government has passed legislation with a broad-brush approach that is not applicable to them. Bill 79 is another error, just like the continuous errors by this government. We're going to need a bigger commercial this time to correct this one.
2100
Mr Hastings: I tried to follow the logic, if there was any, of the member for Ottawa West. I'd just like to say, now that he has switched parties - I hope he stays where he is - he's going to have to make an addition to his wardrobe and get rid of the blue suit that's more associated with the traditional PC. A checkered one would be more appropriate, since you're now a good, solid socialist.
Speaking about the principles of Bill 79, the members opposite just don't get it. I guess they never will. We asked for alternatives; there aren't any. They just get up and quote some newspaper about how municipalities do not seem, in some instances, to apply any of the techniques that were offered in the bill.
But when we look at the largest area, the city of Toronto, the greater Toronto region, what did it do? It had some problems and it got down to work and used the 2.5%. Why is it so impossible for these municipalities to use that technique? If that one's not appropriate for their particular property tax assessment circumstances, then why do they not look at some of the other ones? They just hold up their hands and say, "Don't pass the bill."
Then again, if we don't pass the bill they're saying, "We need more money." You guys want it both ways consistently, if you can use the word "consistently." I wish we could hear one solid thought from the member for Ottawa West about an alternative. It would be a blessing, for a change.
The Speaker: Response?
Mr Cullen: An invitation like that I cannot help but respond to. I want to acknowledge the contributions of the member for Nepean, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, the member for Nickel Belt, who I thought spoke very well, and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. Let me just walk you down it.
I was a regional councillor in Ottawa-Carleton when we brought in market value assessment. Your current value assessment is the same damned thing. I can tell you that not only did we go through public consultation, not only did we bring in a phase-in program, not only did we subsidize and make sure people did not find themselves out on the street, did not find themselves with ridiculous tax increases, but we were able to do it with one piece of legislation.
Here we are on the eighth piece of legislation. The member for Nepean says: "These income tax cuts we've made will pay for everything. They'll create the jobs." They're not even going to make the Common Sense Revolution target in terms of job creation.
Why don't we go back to the simple property taxpayer, who gets this new bill and is trying to understand: "They changed my assessment. How do I figure out if they've done it right?" So he looks at the property tax bill, tries to figure out the changes - "Oh, no, the base has changed, and now there are new property tax classes and new ratios, and then there are all these other things that come on." He's trying to disentangle this and he's saying: "Who made this mess? Why am I paying more for less?"
That property taxpayer is not going to sift through eight bills to find out the nuances of why the government did this and then changed its mind and did that and something else and extended the deadline twice and all the other things it did. No. The property taxpayer is going to say, "Who made this mess?" There's only one body here that's responsible for making this mess. That is that government over there. It didn't run on this stuff; it's not found in the Common Sense Revolution. It's this government.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I'm awfully pleased to be able to stand tonight and defend Bill 79 and why it was brought in.
Mr Cullen: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the honourable member should have a quorum to hear his comments.
The Speaker: Is a quorum present?
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker: The member for quinte.
Mr Rollins: I appreciate that the member across the way can continue to count like that. Moving to a closer row probably brought the numbers a little bit brighter in his mind.
One of the things we have to look at in Bill 79 is that when we started out as a government and as we campaigned through the Common Sense Revolution, we heard on many occasions that our tax assessment, whether it was in houses or commercial and industrial, was not even across the province of Ontario. There were a lot of inequities in it. It was not fair for people in one area to be paying a large amount of tax and yet have the same value of house or business as another area blessed with only paying half as much tax. We needed to bring some continuity and evenness to that.
We brought in Bill 106, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997, which started the process. In that bill, we allowed the municipalities to have a reasonably free hand to make some adjustments. In that bill a group of tools was set out that the municipalities could apply to their commercial and industrial and to their residential. The residential didn't seem to be as big a problem, because the assessments in most cases came in reasonably well levelled out. Yes, there were ups and downs, but when the whole thing was settled, most people, as far as their assessment on the housing part of it was concerned, were fairly well satisfied.
Over on the commercial and industrial side, we saw there was a big problem. One of the biggest problems in commercial and industrial was right here in Metro Toronto. They had in there a 2.5% cap to make sure they could phase it in over a period of eight years, to make sure those commercial places were not blessed with such a heavy increase in taxes.
I was called out to a meeting approximately a month ago, or a little more, in my municipality. I had about 80 or 100 people at the hall who were very upset because our municipality, Belleville, saw fit to raise some of those people's taxes by 300%. A 300% rise in taxes is very unacceptable. One part of my municipality had not put in a phase-in period. The city of Belleville did choose to put in a phase-in period of eight years; it was trying to deal with it. But Quinte West didn't choose to do that; they chose to put it in all at once. I had one person come up to me and say: "Doug, my taxes went from $28,000 a year to $62,000 a year. I cannot possibly stay in business with that kind of increase."
I know I wasn't the only one coming back to the finance minister here to say, "We've got to do something." We did have a program where the municipalities could use all the tools in that tool kit to phase it in, but at the same time as they phased in that tax increase, they had to put in classifications and they had to make sure those larger commercial and industrial areas were phased into that class and stayed there so they could cap their increase or decrease.
2110
But no, Belleville took the decision that they weren't going to do that, that they would try to phase it in over a period of eight years, and I give them credit for that. But what happened was, they also gave back a tax credit to large corporations - a $1.5-million rebate to Sears warehouse, some $300,000 to a pipeline - and then tried to pass those taxes back on through the municipal taxes that were in the new amalgamated area. In the new amalgamated area their taxes went up 200% and 300%. I had the Christopher family there that had an increase of over 250% in their taxes. I had Frank from Doef's Iron Works with somewhere around a 250% to 300% increase. Those people were just devastated. I think those were the conditions we heard. The finance minister heard it, our members heard it, and we had to bring back in some way of making the municipalities use all the tools in that tool kit.
Interjection.
Mr Rollins: They had that opportunity, but they didn't use them.
Mr Cullen: They didn't have the tools.
Mr Rollins: No. Bill 79 does not put in a whole bunch of new rules. It just makes -
Mr Cullen: The 10 and 5.
Mr Rollins: That 10 and 5 just puts a cap on it, but there was a cap of 2.5% there right from day one if they had wanted to use it. But they didn't use it and they didn't want to phase it in. They had to phase it in, but they also had to do some classification at the same time. If they didn't do the classification, they can't use the phase-in. They had to use all the tools in the tool box. It's not just like eating the sandwiches; you've got to eat the carrots and the other parts that you don't like too. If you don't put it all in together, it won't work.
There was only one way that we as a government could make sure we could guarantee those small, municipal people out in those areas that didn't choose to use the tools that they could make sure their commercial and industrial tax was capped off at 10, 5 and 5.
Mr Cullen: It allows the taxes to go up.
Mr Rollins: Yes, it does allow the taxes to go up by 10%, but it also allows the people, through the reassessment, to go down by 10%. Most municipalities, through the reassessment, did not allow them to increase the dollar value in terms of taxes coming in from that category. They were supposed to stay in the same category, but they did that shift within them, and when you do that shift within them you bring in the unfairness of it.
One of the things that we as a government must continually do is compensate for what happened in the past. In the past, we didn't have an increase in jobs. Under this government, we have 400,000-some-odd net new jobs since we came in. No, we're not at the 725,000 that we promised, but the end of the day is not here yet, and as time goes on, as each month goes by, the cash register rings a little louder and the number gets a little larger.
When you look back over the past, you see that in 1988 the sales tax rate was increased from 7% to 8%. I'm not sure who was in power in 1988, but I think it might have been the Liberals. That was $750 million a year, that one little thing.
I know Mr Cullen is defending the NDP now and wasn't there in 1990, but the OHIP premiums were replaced by a new employer health tax, something that was really going to help out. Well, it really helped out, to the tune of about $2 billion a year. And who did it hurt? Small business again. It whacked them again, another group.
Mr Cullen: How many hospitals did that help out? How many schools did that help out?
The Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, come to order.
Mr Rollins: Something that's awfully close to mind, way back in 1988, going over to those fellows on that side of the House: a fuel tax. That fuel tax in 1988, 1989 and 1991 amounted to another $1 billion. Who did it hurt again? Another group of small business people.
In 1989 the commercial concentration tax was imposed at a cost of another $125 million to the businesses of the province of Ontario. That was just another one putting down a little bit more.
In 1993 the retail sales tax was imposed on insurance premiums, raising over $700 million. A significant share was paid by businesses, there again sticking it to the small business people of Ontario.
This government, the Mike Harris government, is certainly going to try to help out small businesses. We have proven that in the past and our track record shows that.
Several new RST applications were introduced over the 10-year period, including newspapers, advertising inserts, concrete and asphalt mix, sand and soil and gravel. In 1993, the corporate maximum tax was introduced, raising another $100 million. One of the worst things that happened in all that time: workers' compensation rates went up 30%, and who did that hurt?
Those are taxes on jobs, on people, taxes on the small business communities out there trying to make a living, trying to put people to work, continually trying to pay those kinds of things.
We inherited a huge debt. We looked at close to $11 billion in the hole each year and we've had to ratchet down quite a lot of the spending, asking everybody, to make sure we can get a balanced budget to make sure we do not pass on to our grandchildren the inheritance of a debt that some other people have caused. Yes, we've going to have been part of the cause of that debt, but we will be responsible enough to make sure that we get that balanced budget and start paying off those debts that we have owed over the years. It isn't going to happen overnight but it is going to happen.
In Bill 16, the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998, there was another attempt to make sure that people at the bottom end of the scale who have to pay taxes are looked after more fairly, that they have the opportunity not to have those taxes put on, and to still be able to continue to do business, create jobs and keep working. I know that the maximum tax threshold was announced on October 23.
Mr Cullen: Which year?
Mr Rollins: In 1998. It was one of the best days as far as our office was concerned, because we had lots of phone calls: "Thanks for saving us. Thanks for looking after us. I know it's not been easy" -
Mr Cullen: Who created the mess?
Mr Rollins: I know the people who made the mess. One of the biggest parts of the mess was that the municipalities did not see fit -
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, this is not a discussion, this is a speech. I ask that you allow the member to speak and quit interrupting him. Thank you. Member for Quinte.
Mr Rollins: One of the things was the phase-in over an eight-year period. Most of the municipalities didn't use that, and because they didn't use that opportunity to phase-in over eight years, they put that hardship on to the people. People cannot stand a 200% or 300% increase. I know about the 10%, 5% and 5% increase, but I'm sure that within the next year and a half we can also look to the municipalities to try to encourage them to do away with that 5%, to force them into doing it with less money. We've run this place with less money. We've done a lot of things with less government, with less money, doing more for less, and we'll continue to do that. Also, in the year 2001 we again do a reassessment on the taxes. Once we've got through another of these reassessments on taxes, assessment will be able to look at it and balance it out at a much better level.
We've listened to many, many people, and most people, when the assessment notice came out, were not upset with the assessment because the assessment was reasonably fair. Yes, there are always some that have been up and down, but most of them, when they looked at it and watched their assessment on their house or their property, realized that it was within the realm of reality, that the assessment was close. It was getting their tax bill that really upset the whole apple cart.
When the municipalities failed to use all the tools that were there to make sure they didn't have that increase - and yes, the minister when he announced the bill the other day, said that multi-family residential places will also be capped because those places were allowed to decrease in taxes.
2120
I know that in the Quinte Mall in my town the bigger warehouse had a real tax decrease; the person who had a small operation had a huge increase. It's not fair. They didn't choose to classify, put those pieces of property in the right classification, and cap them where they were as far as their tax was concerned. As long as you allow them to be able to float back and forth and give away some of that tax money to the other people - somebody has to pay it. There's no question about it, no magic in it. That has to happen, particularly in the new amalgamated areas.
When we're in the amalgamation where they bring in rural Ontario into some of the amalgamated areas of larger cities, those rural areas do not have the facilities they have on the Main Streets of Ontario. Those places were built out in the country. Maybe there was a gravel road and maybe it didn't have sidewalks and all that, but they built out there because they knew their taxes were going to be low. Then to have the amalgamation take place and to have the municipalities fail to use all the tools they were given - if they had used those tools, they would not have seen that.
In my municipality I had three or four meetings with my mayor and the CAO of Belleville and also of Quinte west, and they said: "The 2.5% cap won't work. It won't work." If somebody would just wake up. Did it work in Toronto? By gosh, it did work in Toronto. Would something that worked in Toronto maybe work in the rest of Ontario? It will not work if somebody doesn't try. The municipalities just drew a line and said: "We're not going to try with that. Here's an ideal opportunity for us to raise the taxes and point at Mike Harris and Doug Rollins of the Progressive Conservative Party and say, `You're the guys who raised the taxes.'"
Shame on them, because that didn't happen. We had the fortitude to bring in a 10%, 5% and 5% cap, and that will help solve the problem. Once that reassessment is done again in 2001, it'll start levelling the playing field. Somewhere along the line, these municipalities are going to slowly find out how to do business in a better way and be able to cut back the taxes, and they're not going to need as much of a tax increase as what they have.
When we put that cap on and it stays there, I can't think of any reason why after the year 2001 we're going to have that ended, but at that time the municipalities might just wake up and say: "Hey, we don't need any more money. We've started to do things in a little bit different way."
How many municipalities have taken a look at their operations and downsized? Have they downsized by 25%, 30% and 40%? I don't think so. Some municipalities in our area have cut back a little bit - through attrition and everything they've cut back 2% or 3% - but they haven't taken a real good look at it and tried to do business in a different way than we have in the past. When we get through to 2001, with the time we have, with the reassessments those dollars will start to flow out and level out and it'll be much easier for the municipalities to make that a little bit fairer.
Bill 79 also extends to December 15, 1998, the deadline for landlords to be eligible for gross leases, to notify tenants of the obligation to pay property tax and business improvement areas. This is another area that yes, they have had meetings on. The municipalities knew what was coming off, how that was going to work, but it did take a little bit of understanding. On some areas, there was no problem at all; they understood what was going on. They had the CAOs in the city halls in the municipalities who made it work right, and when it did it was passed on to them and it hasn't caused any major problems. I've had a lot of people phone up and tell me that there hasn't been a major problem with that.
In my area, particularly in Hastings county, on the industrial we're some 17.6% above the provincial average. We've got to compete with every other industrial place in Ontario. We've got to be able to force that, to push that down so we can be the same as every place else in Ontario, so it doesn't cost more in my municipality to be in the industrial assessment.
When the tax cut is fully implemented, I know there are going to be some huge savings. But it has to happen over a period of time, and I think we as a government can see fit to continue to push to make sure that these things happen. As a government, we've had some 66 tax cuts over the last three years since we've been in. Yes, the personal income tax was probably the biggest thing, but the Ontario tax reduction, the two enhancements of that, Ontario child tax incentive, the landlord transfer tax - all these things do one thing, that is, take the pressure off people who are on fixed incomes. We lowered their tax rate, because every time the tax rate is lowered, it gives people a little more money in their pockets to spend. That's the thing we have continually got to have, to be able to help those people out.
The jobs for tomorrow, Ontario's new technologies tax incentives, the Ontario business research institute tax credit, capital tax reductions for R&D expenditures - all those do one thing: encourage businesses to do a better job in Ontario.
As a government, we can continue to work to make sure that those companies and those businesses and the people all save a little more in taxes and make them go a little bit longer and make it work a little bit better and being fair with it, but we cannot do it if we do no have the co-operation with everybody that's in the whole system.
It's a pleasure to have had the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on Bill 79 tonight.
The Speaker: It being nearly 9:30 of the clock, we can do questions and comments at the start of the next time. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2126.