role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 26, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L042 - Mon 26 Apr 1976 / Lun 26 avr 1976

HIRING OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL BY UNIVERSITIES

ONTARIO LIBERAL PARTY PRESIDENT

HIRING OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL BY UNIVERSITIES

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

PRIVATE LABORATORIES

MINAKI LODGE

PAPER SHREDDER

BLOOD LEAD LEVELS

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

ITINERANT SELLERS

FEDERAL REPORT ON WOMEN’S WAGES

PRESIDENCY OF ST. CLAIR COLLEGE

RUTHVEN PUBLIC SCHOOL EXPANSION

COST OF SABBATICALS

LOANS TO MILK PRODUCERS

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

PRIVATE LABORATORIES

HOSPITAL CLOSINCS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

HIRING OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL BY UNIVERSITIES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Legislature about developments in the matter of the citizenship of faculty at Ontario universities.

Because of the concern expressed by hon. members of all parties, my ministry has been monitoring the citizenship of new and existing faculty members through the data provided by the universities to Statistics Canada. Following receipt of the latest data from Statistics Canada for 1974-1975, I discussed the number of foreign professors being hired with representatives of the presidents of the universities and expressed my concern that little or no progress had been made.

I am pleased to report to the House that the university presidents have responded constructively to the concern about the low percentage of newly appointed professors who are Canadian citizens by establishing the following new procedures to govern appointments:

1. Each faculty opening will be properly advertised.

2. The procedures employed in the review of candidates will result in fair consideration of all Canadian applicants.

3. The qualifications for the particular post will be clearly identified.

4. Each president will be personally responsible for the implementation of this agreement.

Strict adherence to these procedures will ensure opportunities for qualified Canadians to compete for appointments. I have emphasized to the presidents that these procedures must significantly improve the performance of the university system in hiring Canadians.

The universities noted that the citizenship data provided to Statistics Canada on professors already on staff was not being revised each year and was, therefore, not accurate because a large number of foreign professors had become Canadian citizens. All the universities have updated their citizenship file by canvassing each faculty member to ascertain current citizenship and to establish an accurate base year. In future years this updating will be done automatically.

Before the update, the figure for the system in 1974-1975 appeared to be 66.5 per cent. I can now report that in 1975-1976 71.7 per cent of the faculty members at Ontario universities were Canadian citizens. These figures by institution are: Brock 67.1; Carleton 74.4; Guelph 73.3; Lakehead 75.2; Laurentian 82.1; McMaster 63.2; Ottawa 78.8; Queen’s 77.9; Toronto 72.8; Trent 70.6; Waterloo 68.3; Western 72.7; Wilfrid Laurier 80; Windsor 63; York 62.1.

The five per cent improvement is due almost entirely to foreign professors taking out Canadian citizenship. It is encouraging to note that so many professors who came to Canada in the 1960s have chosen to make a permanent commitment to this country by obtaining citizenship. We should not lose sight of the fact that many students would have gone without post-secondary education if these professors had not been recruited.

It is also true that our universities have also made a permanent commitment to foreign professors by granting them tenure. I believe that this might lead such individuals to obtain Canadian citizenship as a reciprocal expression of confidence.

If present trends continue, and there are good reasons to believe they will, two per cent or three per cent of the existing faculty each year will obtain Canadian citizenship.

For 1975-1976, the percentage of new professors appointed who were Canadian citizens was 63.5 per cent, which is about the same as it has been for the previous two years. The figures by institutions are: Brock 50; Carleton 48.6; Guelph 54.8; Lakehead 73.2; Laurentian 80.4; McMaster 54.2; Ottawa 70; Queen’s 73.7; Toronto 64.9; Trent 50; Waterloo 45.6; Western 68; Wilfrid Laurier 63.6; Windsor 60; York 70.

The hon. members will note there is a very wide range among the universities. Some institutions have made a commendable effort to recruit Canadians and I am sure that in future years this policy will bear fruit as these promising young Canadian academics reach intellectual maturity. However, the performance of other universities demonstrates a failure to respond positively to a longstanding concern.

The percentage of Canadians hired by all the universities is eight per cent lower than the percentage of Canadians already on staff. Only one institution hired a larger percentage of Canadians than it already had. This means that 14 universities might have experienced a decline in the percentage of Canadians on faculty if some foreign professors had not obtained citizenship.

The percentage of Canadians joining the professoriate in Ontario needs to be substantially increased. In my meetings and correspondence with the university community this has been my message.

At the moment the universities are in the midst of making appointments for the 1976-1977 academic year. The universities have agreed to provide data on the citizenship of the new appointments by the end of this September. Our position on this matter will be greatly influenced by this data.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is also concerned about the number of foreign professors entering Canada. Currently, foreigners with a job offer from a Canadian educational institution are exempted from the usual immigration procedures and can enter Canada freely. The federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Robert Andras, has invited provincial ministers with responsibility for higher education to participate in a review of this exemption. We welcome this opportunity to participate in this review because it is obviously advantageous to have a co-ordinated national policy.

I am sure hon. members would agree we must not fall into the trap of becoming chauvinistic and isolationist. This can be avoided by ensuring our policies accommodate arrangements for visiting professors and exchange professors. This should become the pattern for keeping up to date with international scholarship, rather than the massive importation on a long-term or permanent basis of foreign professors.

Some sceptics have claimed it is too late to Canadianize our universities. The fact is, however, that Ontario universities hire between 800 and 1,000 faculty members each year. These represent about eight to ten per cent of our total faculty complement. If a substantial percentage of new appointments -- well in excess of the existing 72 per cent Canadian -- were to be Canadian in future years, then progress would be made.

In order to accomplish this, the universities must ensure that they plan and manage their graduate schools to produce enough highly qualified people to staff the professoriate. In 1974-1975, Ontario universities awarded about 1,000 doctorates. A compounding factor is that only 54 per cent of these were to Canadian citizens. The reasons for this are complex and varied, however, the result is that in some disciplines not enough Canadians are available. I am urging the universities to review carefully the trends to ensure that Canadians are not being denied opportunities for graduate training.

We have a commitment from the university presidents to improve their procedures. We have seen the improvement achieved by the naturalization of foreign professors. We have an accurate base year for citizenship data and a mechanism for rapid updating each year; and, we have insisted for the last five years that when university boards of governors are reconstituted they be composed entirely of Canadian citizens. These facts, combined with this statement of government policy, provide the basis for optimism that the universities will improve their performance in hiring Canadians.

I am sending copies of this statement to the chairman of the board and the president of every university to ensure that the government’s expectations are clearly understood. I am sure that these expectations are shared by the public. As responsive and autonomous institutions, universities must respond to a greater degree than in the past.

As I mentioned earlier, we will have the data on the 1976-1977 appointments by the end of this September. If at that time a tangible improvement is not evident, then we will be forced to consider a variety of sanctions to strengthen the universities’ resolve in dealing with the problem. The experience of the next five months will determine if more direct action is to be taken.

[2:15]

ONTARIO LIBERAL PARTY PRESIDENT

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, before the oral question period I know the members on this side of the House would like me to express our congratulations to the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) on his new role as president of the Ontario Liberal Party, which I understand is separate and distinct from the Liberal Party of Ontario, which is now defunct.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know that he will give a great deal of commitment to his new responsibilities. He might begin by advising his leader that the policies of the Rt. Hon. John George Diefenbaker were popular for quite some time in the Province of Ontario, a fact that may not be known to him.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you federal or provincial, Pat?

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to advise the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that I didn’t receive an invitation to Keith Davey’s birthday party, a fact which distresses me as much as it does him, I’m sure.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The government wouldn’t let you go anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions; the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party are happy for the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) that the Liberal-Labour Party has finally come into its own.

It’s a long evolution but a happy one.

HIRING OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL BY UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Colleges and Universities based on his pleasing statements. It’s in two parts: First, can we have a guarantee in the Legislature that the statistics, university by university, will be tabled formally year by year from here on? Can the minister also explain to us how the severe cuts in post-graduate training which characterize the restraint programme this year can do anything other than prejudice the emergence of a greater number of Canadian professors?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer to the first question is yes. That was one of the points I made with them. I thought in fairness to the system, really, that it should be a very accurate and yearly updated statement and I’m prepared to commit myself and this government to this presentation of the facts to the Legislature.

On the other part of the question, I think the member’s information is incorrect. We have indeed frozen the number of positions in graduate training this year but we have not reduced the numbers. The BIU value for each graduate position will increase; the number of BIUs to be generated by graduate training has not been, nor will it be, reduced this year.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: In view of the fact that the select committee recognized there had to be an increase in funding for graduate studies and Canadian studies in order to prevent what occurred in the 1960s from recurring, is it this government’s intention to add additional funds to graduate studies to guarantee that doesn’t occur?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As the member well knows, we were increasing funds to graduate schools in the last years since the select committee reported. This year, it’s an increase in funding; it’s not an increase in numbers. I think, given that fact and the need for review, which is a part of the recommendations at the same time, that is --

May I make that a little clearer? There is both a freeze and a review mechanism and one without the other would not be nearly as valuable. Given both a freeze and a review, with increased funding for students, I think we have allayed the member’s concerns.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary of the minister: I noticed the figure he gave us was something like 71 per cent for all professors but the information I have is that as of Oct. 1, 1975, the percentage for social sciences faculties is only 64 per cent. It strikes me that that is much more significant, in a particular faculty of that nature. Is he taking this into consideration? Is he giving special attention to certain faculties over other faculties because they have a greater impact upon what the universities are supposed to be doing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it would be incorrect, at this moment, to attach too much importance to one aspect in itself.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: That is the whole point.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think we must definitely have a very accurate base year and that’s what we’ve established. I was not convinced in the past that the statistics from Statistics Canada were accurate enough, not for reasons of attempting to obscure information, but many details which Statistics Canada want -- for example, the rounding of numbers which isn’t appropriate in such detailed information -- led to some misconceptions. I thought the important thing to do was to establish a base year.

Given that, and given a very clear statement that we will look at the total picture, I think then we will respond, as I indicated in my statement, about the various questions as they pertain to the total picture rather than one at a time.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George with a final supplementary on this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ladies first.

Mrs. Campbell: Can the minister advise me as to whether or not there has been discussion with the presidents as to the prerogative of heads of departments to choose as between the finalists, as it were, in the competition for the jobs? Is he aware of the fact that in the matter of the department of sociology and the department of music at the University of Toronto, where there have been Canadian applicants, the prerogatives have been exercised by heads of departments so that the advertising might not be very effective?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will be pleased to supply the hon. member with a copy of this statement, and I think on page 2 it very clearly identifies the position and the commitment from the presidents of the universities. We recognize that perhaps there wasn’t a fair enough system of advertising positions. We have discussed this problem with the presidents of the universities and they have given me the commitment that they will take it as their personal responsibility to see that a full opportunity will be given to all Canadians who apply.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier if I may, Mr. Speaker: Is it not time that he intervened personally with the senior civil servants in the Ministry of Health to see if they could somehow overcome their inclination to error in the activities they pursue, particularly since there is now the very embarrassing question of the way in which the ministry endeavoured to close the hospital at Durham, running directly contrary to the specifics of the statutes passed by this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to get into a discussion of a matter that I gather is still before the courts in terms of the Durham Hospital, where I think really there are two things being assessed. One was whether or not the letter suggesting that there be no further patients taken in on such and such a date had any foundation in law; I gather the judge has questioned that. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should know that the question of the closing, which was supported by an order in council, as I understand it, pursuant to the Act, is quite a different issue.

While I am always prepared to discuss any matters with the senior civil service of the government, I am also quite comfortable in the knowledge that the acting Minister of Health (B. Stephenson) has great capacity to deal with the problems in that ministry.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: The Premier, however, will also have noted, I am sure, that whatever the undoubted capacities of the acting Minister of Health the judge was obviously offended -- in fact, he used the words “mending fences in haste” -- at the way in which the order in council was thrust to the courts on the day on which Durham made application, and the feeling that somehow due process was not being observed. Is it not possible to get the Ministry of Health, in the sensitive areas of hospital closings and cutbacks, to behave in a civilized and rational fashion rather than an arbitrary one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think what was done by the ministry in terms of the closings was both rational and, to the extent it is possible in these difficult situations, humane and reasonable.

I am not going to debate the views of one of the judges of the High Court in this province, but the fact is that Durham Hospital knew and there was no hiding of the order in council. I announced it myself here in this Legislature. So, while I am not going to comment on what the judge said, I don’t think anybody was taken by surprise or did not know of the facts as they existed.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, as I say --

Mr. Singer: It is not a question of whether you are taken by surprise. The question is whether you did what it says.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- not only have I confidence in the capacity of the acting Minister of Health, I have confidence in her capacity to deal with any problems within her ministry.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary: Surely the Premier will admit that it isn’t a question of taking people by surprise, but that of all people who should observe statutory provisions the government is the most obvious one that should? After all, it is the government’s statute. Is the Premier saying that as long as the government’s heart is pure, it doesn’t matter what the statutes say?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the government has followed the provisions of the statute.

Mr. Singer: Yes, later.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no.

PRIVATE LABORATORIES

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Attorney General: Now that the College of Physicians and Surgeons has suspended the licence of one doctor dealing with Abko Labs for six months, reprimanded another four and tied directly together the receiving of favours from Abko Medical Laboratory apparently in return for services rendered, is it not time to reintroduce the principle of equal justice equally applied in Ontario and point to that part of the Criminal Code which has also been violated?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t really understand the Leader of the Opposition’s question. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting there is a criminal offence that has been committed and that we are not prosecuting, I would like to have further particulars in that regard. As I indicated last week in this Legislature, my position is that if responsible information comes to my agents or my ministry in reaction to the commission of a criminal offence, we certainly wish to prosecute.

There may well be unethical behaviour, or behaviour that is contrary to a certain professional standard of conduct -- and there seems to be little doubt that there is some evidence of that -- but that standing by itself does not necessarily amount to a criminal offence; although it may amount to such, and if we have that information, we will prosecute. I hope and expect that the College of Physicians will supply us with any information that would indicate a criminal offence has been committed.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I admit to being perplexed. Since the college has indicated publicly in its judgement the conferring of favours in the case of one doctor and in the others says specifically: “The discipline committee was convinced that the payments were indeed some form of remuneration for revenues generated to the laboratory by referral of patients;” since

section 383 of the Criminal Code says, “Everyone commits an offence who being an agent, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as a consideration” for doing certain things; since there is, at least on the face of it, even to a layman clear evidence of the need for the application of justice, can he as Attorney General pursue it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, we will pursue the matter, Mr. Speaker.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier again: Since there remains in the estimates this year $1.5 million for Minaki Lodge, and I believe another $400,000 for operating expenses, what will happen to that money; and how does he possibly explain the public investment so far and the fiasco of Minaki today?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should properly be directed to the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Lewis: Well, alas, he not being here, I turn to his mentor. Does the Premier want me to wait to ask that question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get the answer if the minister is not here tomorrow.

PAPER SHREDDER

Mr. Lewis: One last question, of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: I wonder if the following has been brought to his attention from the pages of the New Yorker: “Automatic paper shredder, ideal for home or office, lightweight, compact, it renders illegal, confidential correspondence records so that they won’t be read by the wrong people. Totally electric and automatic, it shreds cards, negatives, cellophanes and bond paper and sells for only $89.95.”

Has the minister investigated its value?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, that particular ad has not been brought to my attention because --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- the 1969 model which I have in my office is perfectly suitable for the purpose, and I don’t happen to need a new one. It sounds like a good buy, though.

Mr. MacDonald: How much did you pay for yours?

Mr. Martel: Maybe you could buy a dozen.

Mr. Shore: Tell him it is not in the budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West with his questions.

Mr. S. Smith: It is going to be hard to top that as a matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Speaker, but we will try.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: I was going to ask the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) whether his predictions with regard to our party are any better than those with regard to his budget, but alas, he has taken the opportunity not to be here; so I shall have to turn instead --

Mr. MacDonald: Is that a matter of public importance?

Mr. S. Smith: -- to the Minister of Labour, who is also the acting Minister of Health.

Interjections.

BLOOD LEAD LEVELS

Mr. S. Smith: Is the Minister of Labour aware of recent information which indicates that workers who work in areas where lead is being smelted can in fact be carrying the lead dust home in their clothes, and that the lead can then find it way into the bloodstream of members of the family, including young children? And if she is aware of this information, is there any programme in force at the moment to test the blood of the children of those workers who are in atmospheres where lead happens to be in the atmosphere, such as Canada Metal Co. Ltd. and so on?

Hon. B. Stephenson: There have been at least two programmes in which children of such families have been tested on an ongoing basis, and this is continuing. This information, as the hon. leader of the third party has stated, has recently been released. I think that it points up yet another area of concern for the clothes-changing and bathing procedures of workers in those specific plants after they finish their shift, which is the area I’m looking at specifically right at the moment.

Certainly with this kind of information we shall have to look most carefully at the children of those workers who work in lead smelter plants in terms of the possibility of some infusion of lead into their bloodstreams.

Mr. S. Smith: Just by way of supplementary, and I appreciate the answer, do I take it then that there is a programme whereby all the children are going to be tested, if their parents are working in lead smelters, and that the results of these tests will he tabled in the Legislature?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I didn’t say that. What I said was that we will attempt to develop a programme in order to have this done. Most certainly the results will be given to the families of those children, which is where they should be, and if they agree, then certainly we can table them in the Legislature. But this depends upon the confidentiality desired by the families and the children.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: I don’t want to make this into a give and take, but basically, when are we going to know if this has been done? It is a hazard and we are worried about it. When are we going to know that this has been carried out? Can the minister give us some undertaking in this regard?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As soon as it’s humanly possible to do so.

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Attorney General: Has the audit of Browndale been completed and presented to him? Is he prepared to present it to us at this time?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know whether the audit has been completed. I do know that it has not been presented to me.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Continuing on that topic, could the Attorney General give an opinion in terms of whether he thinks it is appropriate that a non-profit institution, Browndale, Ontario, should have been considering in February, 1974, the purchase of shares in one of the Brown private companies, namely Browndale International Ltd.? Does he feel that this is proper and can he tell us whether those shares were purchased?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It’s not my role to volunteer legal opinions on a few bare facts presented to me by any member of this Legislature, with the greatest respect to all of the members. I indicated to the leader of the Liberal Party that an investigation was under way, and that information relating to the audit would be made available to members by staff as soon as this information is available. As a matter of fact, I believe that members of my staff met with the leader of the Liberal Party at the end of last week to ascertain what information might be of assistance in such an investigation. I don’t think I have anything more to say at this time.

Mr. S. Smith: Just one more supplementary: I did meet with the Attorney General’s staff, and can he explain to this House how it’s possible that he could have had in his possession for some considerable time an affidavit from one Mr. Sorbie, pointing out, in paragraph 15, that there was one particular person, a Dr. Wong, who had important information to give and would give it under oath; and that by the time the minister’s people spoke to me on Friday none of them had gone to speak to that particular Dr. Wong, even though he was the only person singled out as a person having important information to give?

Could the Attorney General explain what kind of an investigation that is, that nobody in fact spoke to the man?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They indicated, to the House, the affidavits have been in the possession of the Ontario Provincial Police for some weeks; I’m confident that they are quite capable of making a proper investigation. I have no intention of directing the investigation on a day-to-day basis, if at all.

Mr. S. Smith: What about a week-to-week or a year-to-year basis?

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

ITINERANT SELLERS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations may remember that on April 1, I asked whether he could give us information as to how many itinerant sellers in the Province of Ontario have in some way had a penalty applied to them because of not complying with the Act respecting itinerant salesmen in this province. I haven’t received that information yet. Could the minister give us that information, please?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the member for Hamilton West asked me how many unregistered itinerant salesmen were in the province -- and I replied to him that I didn’t think I could tell him how many there were unregistered. We have done some investigation. The number of registered salesmen in the province has jumped from 1,286 in 1973 to 1,625 in 1975. We have processed approximately 5,000 complaints and the number of prosecutions is quite low, mostly because we have been able to solve most of the problems by conciliation.

At the present time, we are trying to get more information as to the number of sellers who should be registered and are not. We are asking local authorities to co-operate with us in that respect. We are also considering measures to improve the present legislation.

The number of prosecutions in 1975, as I recall, was down to five from 48 in 1973; we have managed to reduce the number of prosecutions by better policing of the Act.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the minister for that information; I appreciate him digging it out.

Does the minister not agree, though, that as it stands at the moment, the Act basically penalizes those who take the trouble to get themselves licensed and bonded and who comply with its provisions? Does the minister not agree it offers them nothing by way of identification which they could then use at the door in order to identify themselves. It basically leaves those thousands of people who go door-to-door without complying with the Act totally unpenalized, and in fact rewarded for avoiding the Act with no danger of real prosecution?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I suppose you could say those who are law-abiding are penalized in comparison to those who violate the law. We are looking at possible measures to make any contract signed with an unregistered itinerant salesman invalid, which I think would provide sufficient penalty under those circumstances.

Mr. S. Smith: Just a final supplementary: Would the minister not agree that if he brings that in, it would also be a good idea to give them some identification to show they have been registered so as to protect the householder?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, many municipalities, of course, do provide itinerant salesmen with a licence, which can be used by identification; but certainly it is a suggestion worth considering.

FEDERAL REPORT ON WOMEN’S WAGES

Mr. S. Smith: One final, small question of the Minister of Labour: With regard to the minister’s statement that she was looking into the matter in Kitchener where a federal survey showed that women were being paid at a rate 17 per cent lower than men; can she tell us, first of all, whether she has any provincial survey information at all; whether there is any provincial survey now being conducted? And if so, could she give us the information? And if there are no provincial surveys of a similar kind being conducted, why is she leaving this whole matter to the federal government?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is not being left to the federal government. As I told the hon. member last week, the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour is at this point checking the statements which have been released by the federal government. There have been certain studies done by the Women’s Bureau of the Ministry of Labour, but they have not specifically been in relation to Kitchener. This is one which was released by the federal government. That information is being checked and is being pursued by the employment standards branch.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary, I may not have made myself clear: What I am saying is, that was okay for Kitchener, but are there any provincial studies for other places and could the minister please table the results?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have said there have been other studies done by the Women’s Bureau; and I will find the results and table them, yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

PRESIDENCY OF ST. CLAIR COLLEGE

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is the minister aware that the administrative staff, the teaching staff, the support staff and the students of St. Clair College all walked out today at 1 p.m., for the afternoon only, as an indication of their solid support for the president, Richard Quittenton, who was precipitously and unjustly asked to resign by the board?

Mr. Lewis: That’s a political witch-hunt.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can’t accuse him of playing politics. They must be all NDP on the board.

Mr. Bain: All old-line Tories.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s right; that’s the problem. Would the minister be willing to intervene at some future time, if necessary, to see that this president -- who has done so much, not just for St. Clair College but for the entire college system in Ontario -- is retained in his position and is given fair and honourable treatment, as is his just due?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first portion of the question is yes, but I do have a brief statement which I would like to give to the House in reply to the question.

Mr. Speaker: If it’s a brief statement it can be part of an answer.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It’s a page and a half. Is that brief, sir?

Mr. Speaker: Maybe it is; we’ll see how long it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A page for the answer and a half for the statement.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Over the past three or four days I have been in constant contact with many persons in Windsor and at St. Clair. I am sure that the hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich agrees with me on the value of St. Clair College and the close relationship between it and its community.

The relationship of St. Clair was achieved, no doubt, in large part due to the office of the board of governors and to the chief employee, President Quittenton. The board and president have worked very effectively together in launching and developing the college. Recently, I heard that the board and President Quittenton had discussed future alternatives. I understand there were some who felt that now, after 10 years, it was time for a fresh hand at the helm. I further understand that Dr. Quittenton was, himself, interested in tackling a new challenge. I know the board of governors does regret that in the course of these discussions --

Mr. Breithaupt: That didn’t work out.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- the whole situation was misrepresented locally, with reference to financial problems at the college as the reason for requesting Dr. Quittenton’s resignation. That was quoted in the Windsor Star on April 21, I believe. I’m assured by the board of governors that this allegation was totally false. I can also assert that this ministry, at least from our point of view, has no concern in regard to the financial management of St. Clair College. I personally regret this hurt to a person who has made such a significant contribution to this college and to his community.

As I said, I’ve been in touch constantly over the weekend. I was aware of the development up until 10:30 this morning, where I thought a statement was going to be made to resolve the situation, and I have just recently been informed, before coming into the House, of the actions of the students and the staff association. I’m very hopeful that the board and the president will continue to discuss their problem and come to a mutually acceptable position. I certainly will keep in close contact until that is achieved.

Mr. Speaker: That will be considered as a normal answer. A supplementary from the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister ask the board to lift the deadline of tonight as the time by which Dr. Quittenton must resign or be fired, so that the two parties can attempt to resolve the issue amicably?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I didn’t quite hear the first portion of the question.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister ask the board to lift the deadline, the time by which the president of St. Clair College must submit his resignation or be fired, so that there is additional time to resolve the issue?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I fully admit not having complete knowledge of the facts, because they have been changing almost momentarily, but to the best of my knowledge at this time there is not a deadline, at least one that is not acceptable to both. Therefore, I would not like to say I would intervene, because I feel it isn’t necessary on that portion of it.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s been done already.

[2:45]

Mr. Warner: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: This will be a final supplementary on this then, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Warner: Would the minister not agree that this situation could have been avoided had the board of governors been totally representative of every constituency, and that in the future it might serve well if the government could instruct that boards of governors will be comprised of students, faculty, support staff and other members of the community so as to avoid the kind of situation which has occurred at St. Clair?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Quite honestly, I think that is not the way it is. I feel there were factors that precipitated this situation that were not related to the board representing certain constituencies.

RUTHVEN PUBLIC SCHOOL EXPANSION

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the Minister of Education. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Education has been requested since 1969, and has been petitioned in 1975, to consider the request for a building expansion to the Ruthven Public School, I would like to ask the minister if he is going to make money available in this year’s budget for the expansion?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The request from Ruthven Public School will be considered with all other requests when we look at the 1976 capital allocations in the fall.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister if he has received a letter from the board of education in Essex county and if he has answered it. I would also like to give the minister these 500 letters.

Mr. Martel: Put them on the order paper.

Mr. Lewis: What have you got against Ruthven? It is a perfectly lovely school. Let them expand; open up your heart

Mr. Speaker: Is there an answer? The hon. minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is not so easy, as my friend knows, down there. Perhaps if he would lend a little support to some of the other building plans of the Essex county board he might serve the interests of that area.

Mr. Kerrio: I don’t think that is the question.

Mr. Sweeney: That is subtle blackmail.

Mr. Yakabuski: What are your priorities?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I get a lot of letters from the Essex county board, as he is well aware; in fact, I get a lot of letters from all the boards in the Windsor area.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The situation with Ruthven is the same as I just stated; it will be considered with other requests.

Mr. Shore: What about the letters?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Members might be interested in knowing, I believe, that the changes there entail the closing of some schools also, do they not? That is something which I am sure the board would want to take a look at.

Mr. Lewis: The government found $3 million for Minaki Lodge but nothing for Ruthven.

COST OF SABBATICALS

Mr. Yakabuski: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Since I did not have a reply a couple of weeks ago --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- from either the Minister of Colleges and Universities or the Minister of Education, I will approach them one at a time.

Interjections.

Mr. Yakabuski: Today I want to ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities have he or his staff done any research on what the taxpayers of Ontario would be saved if sabbaticals in the colleges and universities areas were discontinued and that ripoff was ended?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I must say I have done a great deal of research in that problem. One of the things I am researching most carefully at the moment is to see whether there will be a net saving to the taxpayers, because I’ve got to recognize that if we should ban sabbaticals it may mean that the opposition would be dissipated by 50 per cent. Whether that would be a net savings or not, I am not sure, but I am looking into it.

Mr. Reid: You rehearsed that one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: If the member for Renfrew South had a sabbatical he wouldn’t know where to hang it or how to play it.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: If the minister is contemplating a written response to the member for Renfrew South, would he include in that the statement that sabbaticals do save money for the taxpayers at the university levels since only 75 per cent of the salary is paid and no replacement is hired? In fact, the university spends 75 per cent of its money, not 100 per cent, and the remaining faculty members --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mancini: What is the question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: What kind of a question is that?

Mr. Breithaupt: Why don’t we dismiss everyone then?

Mr. S. Smith: Let’s hear from Laurel and Hardy then.

Mr. Speaker: I think we can have fewer interjections in this. Order, please. Has the hon. minister an answer to that?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can assure the hon. member that I will give him, the member for Renfrew South, all of the information he requires. I can also assure the House that I won’t accept all of the comments made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right, the member for Renfrew South with a supplementary.

Mr. Yakabuski: Could the minister inform the House if there has ever been a sitting member of the House on sabbatical?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Just the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston).

Mr. Conway: Is that the “progressive” part of the Conservatives?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Those interjections add nothing to the debate. Does the hon. minister have a quick answer?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’ll take the question as notice.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Singer: No, a new question.

Mr. Speaker: All right; we’ll get to you in a moment then. The member for Timiskaming with a question.

LOANS TO MILK PRODUCERS

Mr. Bain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On Friday, April 9, he answered a question concerning the industrial milk production incentive programme by saying that each farmer should go to his ag rep to discuss a renegotiation of his IMPIP loan. Specifically, what terms are being changed to favour the farmers? Can the agriculture representatives do any more than reduce by 15 per cent the amount of milk required to qualify for the 20 per cent refund of principal?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered at that particular point in time that if he goes to his ag rep we have an internal committee within the ministry that deals with the IMPIP loans. I realize the problems that many of the farmers are being faced with because of the new programme that has come in from Ottawa, the problems they’re faced with as far as repaying their loans is concerned. We have a special internal committee by Mr. Norm Watson of my ministry.

Mr. Bain: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Bain: The minister can correct me: Is there any consideration this committee will give other than reducing by 15 per cent the amount of milk required to be produced to qualify for the refund? And would he also inform us whether this committee or he himself is considering or prepared to consider a refund of 25 per cent per year instead of 20 per cent; or will he consider extending for a year or two the loan period for which the farmer would qualify for the 20 per cent refund?

Hon. W. Newman: The 20 per cent refund is geared, of course, to the amount of milk he was not allowed to have this year. There was a 15 per cent overall reduction in the Province of Ontario set up by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. I might point out that in the other provinces in Canada, it’s higher than that. I think Ontario is the lowest as far as the cut is concerned this year. As far as extending the IMPIP loans, a lot depends on the individual circumstances of the individual people who have been hurt.

I spent two hours last Friday talking to the Ontario Milk Commission. We discussed some of the problems of some of the farmers who just got into the industrial milk field late last year, the problems they’re faced with and will be faced with in a matter of weeks. We are looking at the whole problem at this point in time. We’ve also asked the Ontario Milk Commission to discuss it with the Milk Marketing Board, because we know there are a lot of problems.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce with a supplementary.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary to the minister: In view of the urgent situation and the fact that many farmers, indeed most farmers, cannot purchase additional MSQ quota, is the ministry prepared to do anything to try to make available more MSQ quota so that farmers who are just establishing themselves in the business can buy more quota to tide them over this very difficult period?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member, the MSQ quota is set up by the Canadian Dairy Commission and by the federal people in Ottawa. It kind of annoys me a little bit, because we fought for and obtained what we were entitled to this year in the Province of Ontario as far as MSQ quota is concerned. But it does concern me when they hand out extra MSQ quota in other parts of Canada; I don’t feel there was nearly the need for it as there was in the Province of Ontario.

This is surely a year of consolidation, and to hand out any extra MSQ quota; and I know I’ve been criticized for fighting against that particular province getting extra quota. I felt it should be used in those provinces that already had a situation that needed to be corrected. All I can suggest to the hon. member is that we could borrow from quota or he could talk to his friends in Ottawa. We have talked at the federal-provincial conference about this; we knew some of these problems were coming.

An hon. member: We don’t have any friends there any more; we gave them up yesterday.

Hon. W. Newman: Certainly I am very much concerned about the industrial milk shippers in this province.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary: Since the whole purpose of the IMPIP programme was to increase milk production, and the current thrust of policy in the milk industry is to reduce it, has the minister considered eliminating the requirement of increasing production without any penalty on the 20 per cent forgiveness, in order that he reconcile the conflict between the old and the new policy?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the whole total IMPIP programme is not in place at this point in time; it was wiped out before.

Mr. MacDonald: No, but for those who signed IMPIP loans.

Mr. MacDonald: Can you answer my question?

Hon. W. Newman: Just a minute. So that effectively helped with that particular programme. Now we are in a situation where some of our friends down in Ottawa didn’t realize you can’t turn cows on and off.

Mr. MacDonald: We didn’t ask for his rehash. Answer the question.

Hon. W. Newman: What I am talking about is the IMPIP programme. We are prepared to reduce the percentage as corresponding to the percentage reduction in the total MSQ allocated to the producers.

Mr. MacDonald: He has not answered my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I can’t help it.

Hon. W. Newman: It would help if the member knew a bit about agriculture.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting Minister of Health. On April 22, she advised the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) that the interim new board for Laurentian Hospital was appointed partly on the nomination of the regional council of Sudbury. Can she explain how this worked, when at least one mayor who is a member of that council assures me that no such discussion ever took place and no such nominations ever took place on the regional council?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can’t vouch for the fact that the mayor who was supposed to be a member of the council was present at the time, but, in fact, that is exactly what happened.

Mr. Singer: He said he was.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The request was made of the regional council and of the hospital planning council of that area that each supply us with the names of three nominees to that board, which is, I will remind the members of the House, an interim board to function only until the meeting of the general corporation.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, can the minister tell us whether or not, of her knowledge and if she hasn’t got the knowledge, will she inquire -- the matter was ever brought to a meeting of that regional council?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that it was. If it was not, I shall inquire to ascertain the facts.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Is it not true that all of the appointments were made on the recommendations of the regional chairman, Joe Fabbro?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they were not. Three were made on the recommendation of the hospital planning council and three on the recommendation of the regional council.

Mr. Martel: Never.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has an answer to a question asked previously.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it’s as the acting Minister of Health that I have an answer to a question.

Mr. Speaker: Fine.

PRIVATE LABORATORIES

Hon. B. Stephenson: The leader of the Liberal Party asked me, I think three days ago, about a report of the Council of Health about funding for lab services which purported to recommend tendering for that service.

There have been three reports tabled by the Council of Health for the Province of Ontario and one other report, which is an internal document -- three of which are public -- and in none of them can I find any recommendation regarding tendering for laboratory services in the province.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that I never said anything about the Council of Health; I said within the Ministry of Health there have been civil servants who have produced between four and six reports which touched on the question of laboratory finances?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I will state again that, having perused all of the reports I can find, tendering for laboratory services is not mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister wish to give the answer to the other question?

HOSPITAL CLOSINCS

Hon. B. Stephenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Lender of the Opposition has made in this House, and outside, some interesting but very misleading statements regarding three hospitals whose names he has mentioned upon occasion, one occasion being yesterday in Hamilton. Mr. Speaker, the information regarding those --

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Is this a point of privilege the minister is rising on?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is in response to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition about whether we should not withdraw all of our claims regarding the other hospitals in the constraint programme on the basis of inaccuracies which he stated were the fault of the Ministry of Health. I should like to respond, if I may.

Mr. Lewis: The minister answered my question at the time.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I did answer it at the time. I will reiterate the answer now. In one instance --

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much. That’s what I thought --

Mr. Yakabuski: You don’t want the truth, eh?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I am glad that the minister, after the fact, has assembled information which she wishes now to give to the House in an additional response to a question she has already answered. It can appropriately come before the orders of the day as a statement by the ministry. It can come in the budget debate. It can come in the Health estimates. But it cannot come now -- or it should not come now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you telling the Speaker how to run the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: Speaking to the member’s point of order, did I hear the minister say that the statements that were made by the Leader of the Opposition both here and outside were misleading the House? Is that correct?

Mr. Yakabuski: Of course -- always.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the statement I made.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not intentionally of course.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. minister if it is just a general statement, then it probably should be given as a statement by the ministry before the orders of the day. If it is a question which was taken as notice, then this is the appropriate place for it. I will leave that in the minister’s hands to decide. I am just not sure which it is.

Mr. Lewis: She can make it tomorrow.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The oral question period has expired.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the Premier’s observation earlier in this question period, I have looked very carefully at his statement of April 12, when the hospital closings were dealt with, and nowhere do I see any reference to an order in council or the mechanism by which they were to be closed, as I think the Premier indicated. It again reaffirms that the approach taken by the Ministry of Health contravened its own statutes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a legal argument. In anything I said earlier today, I did not say that in the statement I made here, on whatever date it was, that I had referred to an order in council. All I said was that an order in council had been passed. In my observations here this afternoon, I said very simply that it came as no surprise to anybody. I announced it here in the House. That’s all I am saying.

Mr. Lewis: I see. So you can use the wrong name, as long as you announce it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Welch presented the annual report of the Royal Ontario Museum for the year ended June 30, 1975.

Mr. Cunningham: That’s where the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston) is.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the order for third reading of Bill 25,

an Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, be discharged and the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole House for reconsideration of those sections of the bill which were deleted by the committee, namely

section 3(4),

section 4(2), and

section 19.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Reid moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prevent the selling of personal information contained in consumer reports to persons outside the Province of Ontario. The bill would also prohibit the selling of lists of names and addresses of persons contained in consumer reporting files. As well, it requires that the form of security used to protect that confidential information be filed with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 11th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

On vote 903:

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with vote 903, guaranteed income and tax credit programmes.

Shall the vote carry?

Mr. Reid: Are we on the first vote? Not only that, the minister isn’t even in his chair.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 903, item 1. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the minister was going to reply to the questions I put to him concerning the first-time home buyer grant to those who purchased mobile homes with CSA approval but not necessarily CSA approval Z240. Many people, I understand, bought mobile units with the CSA approval, not realizing it had to be a specific CSA approval.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I was about to respond to the hon. member on Thursday night when the chairman hammered the gavel, announced it was 10:30 and it was time we rose and reported. I do want to outline the picture as we have seen it here.

Although hindsight’s great stuff, in short, the advertisement and the form of advertisement we used was intended, really, to acquaint potential purchasers of mobile homes with the fact that they had to meet certain standards. The advertisement said, “A mobile home which meets prescribed standards defined by the Canadian Standards Association.” It was not intended, of course, that that would mean that any CSA approval would do. It was intended to get people to contact our information centre -- which they did by the thousands -- to ask any questions and have those questions answered as best we could.

The weekend that intervened since last Thursday night gave me a chance to get some particulars on that and I would advise the committee that we received a total of 130,000 telephone calls about the grant in general and a very substantial number of those calls would relate, undoubtedly, to the mobile home situation. I guess it’s fair to say that the ad did get across.

When the ad was written, my people tell me that one of their concerns about inserting the Z240 was that people might forget that number and think of some other number; then, seeing a Z number of some designation they might have thought that that was the one. Rather than try to put in a number they indicated they thought it was better -- and that was the best advice we had at that time -- that it simply be drawn in more generic terms, inasmuch as we didn’t set out all the other criteria either. I suppose, from hindsight, it’s easy to argue that the Z240 might have been included. I am inclined to think it might have been.

The ad’s a pretty busy one as it stands -- busy in quotes; that’s an advertising term I have come across lately. It’s about as busy as one would want to have an advertisement. I suppose the addition of a little something more wouldn’t have been all that much more, but that’s where the decision was made. I am not convinced, frankly, that either of these actions -- the addition of this material or the addition of all of the specifications -- would have made a great deal of difference.

We did go so far as to mail a booklet which did contain all the qualifications, specifications and details required. We did go so far as to mail those to quite a number of park owners and dealerships. I suppose we might have directed a specific mailing to all owners but I suppose again, by hindsight, that’s something we might have done.

The fact is that although there were some applications which were denied, in retrospect it’s a hardship but I couldn’t see any way at the time when we made these rulings in which we could possibly have extended it.

It would have had a distinct disadvantage if we had amended the regulations to admit those purchasers of homes which did not qualify with a Z240 but, perhaps, had some other Z designation under CSA. There is a much simpler one, a much easier one to meet, which deals with electrical standards only; it doesn’t deal with structure and insulation and the like.

Had we done that, we would have wound up disqualifying some others who sold homes of that qualification and purchased Z240s or some other dwelling unit as their first home thereby qualifying, because we did not then treat a home which was not a Z240 as a prior residence. It would have wound up disqualifying quite a number who had previously qualified under the present arrangement.

From a logistics and practical standpoint it seemed that a difficult, if not impossible situation would be created had we gone back to rework the game or changed the rules during the course of the ball game.

That’s a rather long answer to a short question from the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville but I trust it explains the situation.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you. I notice your new ads do specifically mention Z240s, so you must have learned something from the error you committed earlier. Could you inform the House as to approximately the number of mobile unit buyers who lost out on their first-time home buyer grant as a result of not having the Z240 qualification, but simply having a CSA rating on the unit?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am advised that we don’t have any particular figure for that. The 400 or so applications which were denied were denied for quite a number of reasons and we do not have a breakdown of the numbers within that group who were denied it simply on that basis and who were otherwise fully qualified. What you would have to do is go through and see whether they qualified otherwise in every respect.

Certainly there are some. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who may have been misled, deliberately or otherwise, by a vendor who allowed that because it had any kind of CSA approval, that was fine, and “Go ahead and sign here and you will get your $1,000.” This, I suspect, may have happened. I just don’t know how many there are in that category.

Mr. B. Newman: I did discuss this with some of your officials and, let me tell you, they were most co-operative. They explained everything to me very well and I thought were a real credit to your department.

Mr. Reid: I want to speak to the minister concerning the same thing. As the minister knows, I have been in touch with him on one or two occasions or more in regard to the fact that some of the people who bought mobile homes were not successful in receiving the Ontario home buyer grant. They bought these mobile homes in good faith. The constituents I am speaking of, as the minister knows, are in northern Ontario, particularly in northwestern Ontario, where they wouldn’t have the opportunity to contact your regional officers to the same extent as the 130,000 callers or letter writers you had.

[3:15]

Many of them took it on good faith that if they purchased a mobile home which was being sold on the market it would qualify for the home buyer grant. I am informed by some of them that the mobile homes they now live in far exceed the standard of Z240. Some of them have had them inspected by the local Hydro people, for instance, and found that the wiring is more than adequate and exceeds the GSA standards.

The minister says he’s got some 400 applications which were turned down for one reason or another. I would suspect that a large number of those come from northern Ontario where the people, as I say, acted in good faith, thought they were doing the right thing but have been turned down because their mobile homes didn’t meet the Z240 standards. Again, perhaps because of the area they live in, they didn’t have the opportunity to get the confirmation that, perhaps, the minister felt they needed.

I would implore the minister to have his officials go through those applications, pull out those which were turned down because they didn’t meet the Z240 standards, look at those particularly from northern Ontario where they don’t have access to the information to the same extent as people do, perhaps, in southern Ontario and give your officials a chance to have another look at approving those requests.

I would think, for instance, if we take the minister’s comments that many of the 400 were turned down for reasons other than the fact that they weren’t in the Z240 series, you would find there might not be all that many which would qualify because they do meet the standards and those could be approved.

I wonder if I could have the minister’s comments on that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, the Act itself is very clear. It is not a question of looking at those in northern Ontario; it’s a question of looking at those for which the specifications of the home concerned do or do not meet the requirements of the Act. Whether it’s in northern Ontario or Windsor or wherever, the fact of the matter is that some of these cases may well be those we had to reject only because they did not meet the Z240 standards. I don’t know of a standard which is more stringent than the Z240; the hon. member refers to electrical -- that could be.

There are lots of other requirements, besides electrical, which have to be met before you get a Z240 rating. There is a much lower standard of mobile trailers which has a Z number.

Mr. Reid: Yes, I realize that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s 173 or whatever it is and that meets an electrical code which is quite a satisfactory code. The 240 may have an even higher electrical standard for all I know but it has all these others for mechanical, plumbing, installation, general structural quality and so on which are not proved nor disproved, I would suppose, by some of the other standards. They are just not met in the sense of ever having been inspected.

I am advised also that there doesn’t appear to be any economically practical way in which a home could now be assessed as to whether it meets or does not meet the Z240 standard. You could wind up by pulling panelling off and tearing the home apart in order to determine whether the installation and the structure were adequate and whether the plumbing met the requirements and the like.

There have been various ways taken by my ministry in order to try to help these people whenever we have had a case in which they haven’t met the Z240. I know of no way in which we can deal with somebody in the north; you are talking, in effect, of hardship cases -- how can we deal with somebody in the north any differently from someone in the south? The Act is clear, and I am obliged to live within the terms of the legislation.

Mr. Reid: With all due respect, I suggest that the next time you come out with a programme about which there is some question you ensure that the advertising is much sharper and clearer so that people particularly in the northern communities can get that information so they don’t think they are doing the right thing and then find out later that they are put to a hardship.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is one further point. I don’t disagree with that. I say hindsight is a great thing. This was our first venture into a home buyer grant, and mounting an advertising campaign in a few weeks’ time perhaps leaves something to be desired. It would be nice to have some precedents. I think it’s fair to say that we’ve all learned a lot in the course of administering this programme over this past nine months.

There was one point that I wanted to emphasize and that is that the people in the north, like people in the south or anywhere else in Ontario, have a Zenith 8-2000 line which is clearly set out in the advertisement and which says: “You can phone us free of charge by dialing ‘0’ and asking the operator for Zenith 8-2000.” It’s very clear, if they have any questions.

Mr. Reid: Have you ever tried to phone that number?

Hon. Mr. Meen: As a matter of fact, no, I haven’t. Is it difficult? We have quite a number of lines but, I suppose, at peak periods they can wind up being busy. In any event, as I say, hindsight is great stuff and next time we’ll do a little better.

Mr. Gaunt: If you have got two days, you might call it.

Mr. Reid: Next time you might use some more telephone lines too.

Mr. Grande: I have a further question of the minister, if I may. Out of the $138.7 million for transfer payments, is there $3 million or $4 million which you supposedly will be saving as the result of changing the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act? Is that reflected in that figure or not?

Mr. Chairman: Before the minister answers, that is actually item 2. Shall item 1 carry, then we’ll recognize the question of the hon. member for Oakwood under item 2?

Item 1 agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am advised the $138.7 million is the net calculation after taking into account the amendment to the GAINS legislation presently before the House.

Mr. Good: Are the sales tax credits regarding production machinery included in this figure?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, they are not.

Mr. Good: Whose ministry is that under?

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s under retail sales tax but we dealt with that in vote 902.

Mr. B. Newman: It is in the explanatory note.

Mr. Good: The explanatory note states the retail sales tax credit programme is included.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s part of the Ontario tax credit. That’s the portion of the tax credit programme where the claimant adds into his tax credit one per cent of his personal allowances.

Mr. Good: Under what ministry are the estimates of the refund on sales tax -- the credit on production machinery? Is none collected or is it collected and then refunded in the form of a grant?

Hon. Mr. Meen: It comes under the retail sales tax item in vote 902, and it’s simply a reduction in the revenues.

Mr. Grande: I really don’t understand here. Are you taking for granted then that that particular bill will go through and will be passed?

Hon. Mr. Meen: When one puts one’s estimates before the House he has to assume that the legislation proposed by the government will be passed. That is exactly why amending legislation of this sort is introduced immediately following the budget. That amending bill to which the hon. member is referring is a part of the Treasury budget.

Mr. Grande: So you are assuming that the Liberal Party is going to be supporting that amendment?

Hon. Mr. Meen: One assumes that the House will support the financial initiatives of this government.

Vote 903 agreed to.

On vote 904:

Mr. Young: The other day when we were discussing this whole matter of assessment, I spent a bit of time talking about the appeals that were now going through in respect to assessment of large properties in Metro Toronto and other places -- commercial, residential, shopping, industrial and so on. I wonder if the minister could tell us just what proportion of his budget -- what amount of money and what amount of time -- is being allocated to fighting those appeals at the present time. That is a situation which we are facing now because we do not have any definite basis upon which assessment is now made.

Perhaps the minister could give us some inkling as to what is taking place in that field and what resources are being expended to meet that challenge.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, there isn’t; I don’t have a precise figure, and I was going to say that there isn’t any, but I presume that somewhere in our calculations we have an allowance for the conduct of these appeals. The appeals to which the hon. member was referring are ones -- no, I may be mistaken; I must say that I directed my thoughts to the 30,000 appeals relative to condominiums. The other matters, the large industrial and commercial complexes --

Mr. Young: Hudson’s Bay, the banks.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes. I don’t have the figure. If the hon. member needs it, I’ll endeavour to get it. I take it he’d like to have it; he wouldn’t have asked me for it. I’ll endeavour to get it for him. I don’t have a breakout at the present time.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, one other question. With respect to the valuation file, could the minister bring us up to date as to its state at the present time? The file, I think, is a pretty vital part of the total assessment picture today in terms of revamping the assessment and bringing it up to market value. From what the minister said, I understand that file was started somewhere around 1974, with residential and vacant land first and the other properties coming in after that. How far are we from having that file completed? How much more work needs to be done on it?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I think it was in the hon. member’s opening comments last week when he suggested that we were having some troubles with the valuation file. I don’t think that’s quite the case; I don’t believe we have any problems.

The file itself is completed and is being updated to include new structures built in the late 1975 and 1976; in other words, that’s an ongoing process with the valuation file.

At the present time, I’m advised that each regional office has finalized what we choose to call adjustment factors or modifiers to adjust the valuation contained in the valuation file to current market value. Each region has received the computer run of the results of these adjustments on a property-by-property basis; in other words, they’ve got a completely detailed valuation run on every property.

These are presently being checked, which means a physical attendance at the site to make sure that they’re still there, that they’re right, that it is a building thus and so, and that something hasn’t been transposed, a number moved over or any of that kinds of things that can come up when you are going through such detail. When the check is completed, the valuation so developed will be merged with the standard assessment system.

I guess what happens after that is that when the merger into the standard assessment system has been completed, every one of the regions will receive a complete set of the assessment data sheets, which will include the old assessment on each property and the market value assessment, together with all pertinent details relative and relevant to that market value assessment. These data sheets will be distributed to the assessors on a neighbourhood basis.

Each one who is familiar with his own neighbourhood will take these sheets out then and they will check all the valuations and make any necessary adjustments that they may discover. The standard assessment system then is updated to reflect these adjustments.

All of this, as I understand it, relates to residential. By October or so this year, we ought to have the modifiers for the industrial and commercial areas. Those modifiers aren’t yet complete for the commercial and industrial areas; they are complete, as I am advised, for the residential. When the commercial-industrial and the exempt properties which fall in that general category are being finalized -- we hope that that will be completed by October, roughly, of this year and the modifiers for those worked out -- then the work will be completed, and it should be possible then to finalize the studies with respect to the tax shift.

[3:30]

That’s another reason why we are not in a position to advise, in every sense in every way, as to just what will happen with these tax shifts. The studies are going on, and when the modifiers are available in October or so, we should then be able to finalize our assessment of the tax shift within the industrial-commercial sector. That should be of assistance in the refinement of the 15 fundamental proposals which we have put forward in the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) budget statement as budget paper E, and should enable the commission to assess the 15 proposals and determine just how they should apply.

When all that’s been done, and if the commission endorses the proposals or modifies them, and the government then, in the later part of the fall, is able to assess the commission’s report which we want to have in by then, we should be able to take the necessary steps.

In any event I would expect we would be in a position to prepare assessment rolls at market value and issue the notices, so that everybody then will be able to see the assessment on his property, with an estimated mill rate, which would be calculated by my ministry, assuming the same number of dollars would be required by the municipality as were required in, say, this current year, 1976.

That taxpayer will then be able to look at all the figures; his market value assessment, the percentage applied to it -- we are suggesting 50 per cent in the case of residential -- times the mill rate that we would then calculate for each of the municipalities, to be the appropriate mill rate if they were operating on the same size of budget as in the preceding year. They will then be able to determine just how this affects them.

That’s the

schedule of things. I don’t think as the hon. member was suggesting, we are in difficulty with the files. They are complicated, and there are many of these studies still going on for these modifying factors, as I have indicated, but in the next few months when it’s completed for the industrial-commercial sector we should have that information available for the commission, and I think they should then be able to report to us on time.

Mr. Young: I take it for granted then that the situation is well in hand so there should be no further delays as far as getting to market value is concerned -- that the rolls will be returned for assessment for the tax year of 1978, without fail?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, that’s our best educated guess. We ourselves are on target, and premising that the commission can bring us in definitive recommendations with respect to our 15 points, then I think we should be in a position to move on as scheduled. At this point, I anticipate no delays that would alter that situation. And I frankly hope that none occurs.

I have already said I would dearly love to have been in a position to have this in place now, and get rid of a lot of the inequities we know exist. But I think in the interests of the dialogue that we want to have with the municipalities and the other people directly affected, and in making sure that when this is put in place it’s right, and that it works, that this delay is justified.

Mr. Young: We are glad to have that assurance that the programme seems to be now getting toward finalization. I suppose if another provincial election doesn’t intervene to mess up our plans again in some way, then can we look forward to this thing actually happening, and many of these difficulties being --

Hon. Mr. Meen: You know, I have a great affection for the member for Yorkview, but he really does get pejorative at times, and there is just another example. I want to say to him it was not the election that intervened; these are steps that we did not anticipate in their totality, at the time when we took on the assessment in 1970. I can tell you that these steps are being taken, not because of any possibility of an election, or no election.

Mr. Young: Again, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear the minister assure us that elections have had nothing to do with delay in this regard. We were suspicious that they had. Now, our minds are set at rest, and we have the minister’s word for it that the very thought of elections had nothing to do with this whole delay process. It’s good to have that on record and now we are clear.

Just one other question --

Mr. Warner: They are very inconvenient.

Mr. Young: They are very inconvenient when the time comes but I am not disputing the minister’s good faith in this. Of course, he doesn’t make the final decisions over there. Whether someone else may have ideas other than this minister’s as to the timing of this thing we are not certain on this side of the House.

I was just a little puzzled, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, as to where the electronic data processing work is buried in these estimates? There is no clear indication of where the expense of this process is. I suppose it occurs on various items in this vote and I wonder if the minister would explain to us where we can find the expenses which do occur in that field?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am told it is in field operations. Data processing has a sum of $993,000 and the development is $450,000; I take it that is also in field operations. That’s in the first sub-vote under administration. The $450,000 is part of the $840,900.

Mr. Young: Part of vote 904 -- the first part?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Right. The $450,000 for development is part of the $840,900. That’s sub-vote 1 of 904.

Mr. Spence: I would like to ask the minister -- I might say before I ask the question that in my riding I have a gentleman who has made a special study of site value assessment which is carried on in Australia and New Zealand. He has visited different municipalities, trying to sell site value assessment.

Did your department make any studies of site value assessment? I know you decided on market value assessment but this constituent of mine seems to have made a real study. What studies have you carried out on this or have you any ideas?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, Mr. Chairman, I don’t profess to know a great deal about the principles of site valuations. They are not practised here; I don’t think they are practised in any jurisdiction in Canada. I don’t know whether they are practised in any jurisdiction in the United States but I do understand that they are practised in New Zealand and in a number of other jurisdictions.

One of the catches in the principle of site valuation is that you just value the land; you don’t value the improvements. It is an incentive to develop everything to its maximum potential and to do it right away. We don’t think -- my advisers tell me they don’t think -- that this is really the way in which we should go at this stage.

The select committee and the Smith committee, I am sure -- I must say I don’t recall this clearly but I think that the Smith committee in the 1960s -- made some observations about site value as a method of assessment and concluded that it was not the way to go. They did explore all methods and they ultimately concluded that going the market value route, which they recommended, was the best way to bring some kind of equity out of the inequitable and highly chaotic kind of arrangement we saw in those days with the 950 municipalities. The select committee certainly endorsed that and, of course, what we are doing today is an outgrowth of it.

This whole question of site value assessment keeps coming up. There are people who really do think -- they are convinced themselves -- that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Really, I think -- and I don’t want to sound unkind -- it’s a rather simplistic approach to an extremely complex subject, that being of assessment.

A person who owns some vacant land next door to a large metropolitan area could very well be taxed into oblivion by site value assessment, because he would be taxed on the basis of what that property should be worth if it were developed like the properties next door, and if they happened to be 40-storey industrial or commercial complexes then he would be assessed accordingly.

The money has to be got somewhere to run the municipalities and our view has been that it should come based on the market value of the piece of bricks and mortar that happens to be there in the municipality, rather than by looking at it on the site value approach.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I gather that the progress in the reassessment pretty well covers residential but that the commercial is not yet completed. I don’t think the exempt properties have been assessed at market value yet. I understand the farm assessment is still on the basis of farm value rather than market value. I don’t believe unorganized territory has been covered and yet the proposal for the commission is that it be brought under the provincial assessment.

Since there are so many parts of the picture missing for a true impact study, it’s hard to understand how anybody can appear before this commission and discuss the proposals for changing the property tax base and the property tax system and the business tax system, with the little information that is available. I would just like to ask the minister if I am correct that all these gaps are missing and that the impact studies have not really been completed and will not be completed until October when the commission is supposed to report? How is it possible for people to appear before the commission and comment on the proposals to offset the impact if they do not know what it is?

In the budget paper there is a sample impact study given for the regional municipality of Niagara, but it would appear that this is only a sample and that other areas will not know what the impact is and how these possible shifts are going to occur. It seems to me that we would like to know why we have waited so long for these proposals of how to deal with the impact of the reassessment. For six years we have known that this shift was going to occur from commercial and industrial to residential, and yet at the 11th hour, six years after, we are given a few months to review some proposals for dealing with this without the information really being available.

In that time the department has spent $211 million up until March 31 of last year and is asking for another $43 million. Administrative costs have risen greatly. In 1973-1974, for example, the administration vote that we are looking at now was $217,000 and it’s now $840,000 -- almost four times as much -- and yet we still have nothing really to show for it in the way of reassessment and information on which we can base proper reform of the municipal tax structure. If it wasn’t the election, what was the cause for this long delay when we have known that this shift was going to occur?

Secondly, the minister has given us his complement reduction and shown with some pride that they have managed to reduce the complement somewhat -- since the results are so intangible, one is not surprised -- but he hasn’t given us the figures on the number of contract and casual employees, which seems to be always the missing link in any of these statements about reduction in complement. I would like to know if he could give me the number of contract and casual employees as at March 31 for 1974, 1975 and 1976, so we can compare and see whether they have gone up when the complement went down.

[3:45]

Thirdly, I would like to ask him if there is any consideration being given to provincial aid to the municipalities who are being asked under the proposals -- the 15 proposals for tax reform -- to phase in any tax increases that may come from the reassessment to market value. It would appear that the proposal is that the municipalities will pay for the phasing in or, in fact, the other taxpayers in the municipalities will pay for the phasing in -- because certain people whose taxes should go up according to the market value assessment will not go up as much as they should.

This means that other people’s taxes, which should go down, perhaps will not go down as much as they should because of this phasing in.

It seems to me if you are going to have a phasing-in programme, the entire population of the province should bear the costs, rather than just the particular taxpayers in a given municipality. There will certainly be resistance to phasing-in programmes if the entire cost is left to the municipalities.

And then, as far as those bodies going to be made taxable under the proposal -- those which have been exempt up till now; hospitals, school, conservation authorities and so on -- are there any proposals or plans for adding to the grants for these bodies? They are all non-profit bodies dependent on other levels of government to provide them with funds, or on the local taxpayer. The proposal that the tax base should be broadened by extending it to these exempt properties is really just taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other.

In some cases, it’s taking it out of a municipal pocket and putting it into the provincial pocket. It should be the other way around; if you are going to tax those bodies, the province must supply the extra money to cover their extra taxes and then the funds will then flow to the municipalities.

I think those are the three questions that I have at the moment, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Maybe my arithmetic is off, Mr. Chairman, but I counted four questions in all.

You are asking us about the cause of the delay -- and I don’t know how many times I have to talk about this. But I guess the hon. member wasn’t in the Legislature in 1972-1973 when we had to extend the time at that stage. You see, we had brought our assessment roles up to a virtually complete situation, but they weren’t computerized. They weren’t designed at that stage to follow any rapid escalation in market value. That, incidentally, is the reason for the apparent divergence of opinion on the part of my predecessor, and myself, when he stated in 1973 -- and I believe it was the hon. member for York who quoted it at this time -- that “assessment was complete.”

He was talking about assessment according to the mechanism where you did not use computerized systems. You did not have any facility at that stage for an ongoing update from almost literally day to day as the market values fluctuate through the course of the year -- I suppose peaking in May and June and dropping through the summer and rising again a little bit in September and tending to drop off and so on through the winter months and then swinging up again in the spring.

He was talking about just a straight mechanical system of assessment; and it was virtually complete at that stage, as he indicated. But beginning in 1972 and going on through 1973 and into 1974 we experienced -- we all know this -- an absolutely dramatic and almost frightening escalation in the market values of real estate. This was particularly evidenced in residential accommodation -- but not so evident, say, in the values of apartment houses and the like, which tended to remain constant.

In the case of residential accommodation, prices started to go right out of sight, and our assessment people just could not keep up. We then had to go into the computer system, which we now have in order to be able to keep current with the market, regardless of how quickly it may fluctuate. That is why we have had these two different dates, but it was one of the major reasons why my predecessor had to extend the time of the freeze and the time for bringing in the market value assessment, so that we could bring in that far more sophisticated arrangement for computer processing and generally handling all of the millions of assessed properties in this province.

So when the hon. member says, “If it wasn’t the election, what was it?” I don’t know how many times I have to tell her -- and no offence intended, Mr. Chairman -- but that’s the real reason, regardless of how cynically she may be inclined to look at some of the other things that have happened here in the province over the last while.

Ms. Bryden: Could I ask a question concerning that, Mr. Chairman? It seems to me that computer systems were used in assessment in other jurisdictions for a good number of years to use market value prices in order to update and keep assessments in step. Was the idea of using a computer system rejected -- I know that this was in your predecessor’s time -- at the outset and it took us three years to discover that a computer system was essential?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’m advised that it took us three years to develop the system, so it was really coming along. Perhaps it was inevitable that it would have been brought in, but ultimately, by 1973, it became essential that it be used for the purpose of market value assessment rather than the refinements that might have come along at a later time.

The hon. member was also asking about contract employees as of March 31 for each of the years -- what, 1974, 1975 and 1976? I’m advised that they were huge. There was all of one.

Ms. Bryden: Contract and casual?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’m advised, yes; contract and casual, one.

Ms. Bryden: In each year?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In each of those three years I’m advised that there was one contract employee as of March 31, 1976, 1975, 1974 -- and I don’t know about 1973.

Mr. Good: The same one?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I believe it was the same one.

Mr. Good: You get rid of them all except one by the end of the year.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’m advised that the gentleman has died so we don’t have him any more. So, at this moment, we have none.

Ms. Bryden: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, does that include casual employees too? You had no casual employees at all?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’m advised by the staff we have had no casual employees on those dates and in the assessment division, which is what we have been talking about.

The phasing in; I would like to get some advice from the commission -- we’ll be looking forward to their words of wisdom -- to suggest how the phasing in takes place. There are, and I mentioned this figure before, 270,000 properties that weren’t on the assessment rolls at all. There’s no phasing in for them; they’re already in now and they are being taxed like anybody else. There are others that are being assessed at a small fraction of what they should be assessed.

If one assumes that residential assessments here in Toronto run at, say, 10 per cent of fair market value, there are some properties that are running at, as a wild guess, maybe two, three or four per cent of fair market value -- maybe even less than that -- being frozen at those assessments based on legislation passed in 1919 giving recognition to returning war veterans. The city of Toronto still has some of those properties; I’m advised that there is no other municipality in Ontario though with that similar kind of, in effect, exemption.

Certainly it’s very beneficial treatment for those owners. Those owners are, in many cases, not the same people as the people to whom the benefit was extended in 1919. I guess the question comes up: Should you have a transitional period for them? They’ve been getting close to a free ride for quite a long time. Or should you not bring them right onstream instantly at a fair part of the market? These are questions to which the commission will, I’m sure, direct some thought.

I don’t know what the real answer is. There are some people, I suppose, who have paid a disproportionately high price for a piece of real estate because of its very attractive tax nature. Suddenly they’re being deprived of that tax benefit and they’re going to lose some inherent value in the property because of the loss of that tax position.

Of course, if one does not bring these in instantly the other people in the municipalities are bearing a part of that, but if one stages it over four or five years, which way is the pain worse? To those who bear a little bit of it, say of you’re staging it over five years, 80 per cent of it the first year, 60 per cent of it the second, and so on,

whereas with the individual you are raising his by that same amount? Or is it better to get it all over at once and raise his by several hundred per cent where you, in those instances, probably don’t reduce all that dramatically the amount of tax the other people are paying?

I’m sure my colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), and all my other colleagues in cabinet, will be interested in getting the views of the commission as to just how the phasing-in process should go. It might be that they would recommend that we treat some of these differently from others. There may be all kinds of variations on the theme which I haven’t thought of and which they may be able to think of when they have the benefit of the advice from the municipalities.

I’m told, incidentally -- and this was not a question raised by the member directly as a question, but she raised it in the course of her observations -- that the modifying factors for the exempt properties, industrial and commercial, which aren’t totally developed yet, will be available for the municipalities by Aug. 1. They should be able to move on with their own studies and the commission with its studies to determine the significance of any shift and just what should be done.

It’s fine for the member to talk about our knowing that there would be shifts from one class to another; knowing it for six years she said. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, we’ve known it for 10 years -- nine years anyway, since 1967 -- and that really isn’t the point. What we’ve known in that period of time is that there would be a shift from the industrial-commercial sector on the one hand to residential on the other.

The city of Toronto did quite a comprehensive study of the Smith report and told us the degree of the tax burden shift were there to be no factoring involved; in other words if everyone were just assessed at market. That’s an extremely simplistic thing in itself and we’ve known we couldn’t possibly do that.

So, recognizing, with the studies we did -- the hon. member referred to Niagara -- the studies we did of Niagara showed us that there would be a shift unless there were a factoring down of the residential class of something like 60 per cent, I guess, and we’re recommending or suggesting 50 per cent as the factor, to make sure that there is no significant shift in a municipality from the industrial-commercial sector on the one hand to the residential on the other.

We’re not setting out to burden the industrial-commercial sector with greater taxes, notwithstanding the fact that they can set off those taxes against their taxable income. We’re not setting out to that, but our goal rather is the other side of that coin, namely to see that the residences are not burdened with a higher percentage of the tax than is presently the case.

The hon. member was also asking -- and this was her fourth point -- about hospitals, schools, and she may have mentioned universities, otherwise tax-exempt properties. I believe the statement has already been made and confirmed that these bodies, the hospitals, when they pay their taxes in the usual way to the municipality, would show that as an expense and the provincial grants to the hospital in that case would be enriched by that same amount, so that there would not be any additional burden on the hospitals per se, or the supporting bodies, whatever.

[4:00]

I am not sure how that would work in the case of schools in a municipality, because it sounds as if it’s taking out of one pocket and putting into another of the same taxpayer. But certainly for hospitals and universities, in which there is a distinction that I think one can legitimately draw between the two, I am advised that there would be enriched grants that would take up the amounts of those payments that they would be making as taxes so they should not be additionally burdened in any sense.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, can we expect the impact studies across the province to be available in time for people to see whether the 50 per cent factoring is going to be adequate in all cases? On the basis of Niagara you may draw one conclusion, but it may be quite different in other areas. I think it is very important that the people concerned know what the impact is going to be in their own area.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I think the intention is that these studies would be available to the commission -- and the commission I expect, is going to be holding public meetings -- as well as, of course, to the municipalities; therefore I think one can consider that with the municipalities being advised of the significance of these steps, that it’s going to be public. I don’t think there’s any question of it not being public and I would hope that there is no such question.

I want everybody to be able to look at his assessment notice, along with the results of the commission -- this is the next step down the road, I suppose -- so that he will know just what is happening with his property and his potential tax liability. If he finds it is out of line, then of course he would have this information within an appeal period so he could take it through the necessary appeal steps.

Coming back to the basic principle that I think the hon. member is getting at; that is, that beginning in early summer -- no, I guess that’s not fair; I am told late summer -- the municipalities will have all the information they need, not just in the residential sector but in the commercial-industrial sectors of their municipalities too. They will have all the information, including these adjustment factors, so that they will be able to analyse it for themselves. I am sure that’s as public as one would ever need to have it get.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I think we have actually spent a great deal of time on this whole matter, both in the leadoff speeches and recently; the minister undoubtedly will have some input into the final results, but I suppose the final policy will rest with government as a whole. There are some things I would like to ask about and a few comments I would like to make.

It is significant to me that I still feel the same as I did back in 1968, when I think it was in the first speech I made after I came into this House that I said it was imperative at that time, the way assessment was going across the province, that there should be uniformity and that the use of certain assessment handbooks should be made mandatory by all those who are engaged in the assessment process, because it was obvious at that time that those municipalities that were doing their assessment according to recognized practices had no trouble with their assessments.

Within the taxation area, they had everything assessed on a basis where there was a degree of equity according to the social conditions of that area and the acceptability of the amount of tax that should be paid by residential, commercial and industrial.

The province saw fit at that time to throw the whole business out the window. Now we have messed around for seven years, and it is going to be eight years before we bring in a new system about which there is no guarantee whether there is any equity or not.

I shouldn’t be bringing this up every year -- but had the province at that time looked at the areas where people were not doing their assessments properly and enlarged some of the areas to a county basis for assessment, rather than have your kitchen-table assessments done by some part-time clerk back on the last concession of the township, I think all of this could have been avoided.

Considerable inequities and hardships have resulted to municipalities over these years by the freezing of not only the assessments but the freezing of the equalization factors that are used within county and regional municipalities, and by the freezing of the factors that are used by the municipalities for the grant purposes. And we still have a mishmash right now. You have market value assessment operating in certain areas of the province which, for two years or three years, have not had the advantage of your proposed factoring system. Now you say you recognize the shift.

It’s not too many years ago since the present Treasurer of the province called me and members of my party -- I forget what the words were -- in effect we didn’t know what we were talking about because we had mentioned there would have to be a modifying factoring system either on the assessment or on the tax levied within the municipality.

I don’t remember this government ever doing one thing about it at the time or raising any opposition to the great shift that occurred in the Peel and Mississauga areas when market value assessment went in. Nor did it do anything in my own region when market value assessment went in. You accepted the whole thing that market value was the be all and the end all of everything. Now you are beginning to admit that it isn’t; that things happen.

Now, I’ve a few direct questions. First of all, you mentioned that you are on computer and can push a few buttons and bring your market value assessments up to date. How then do you account for the fact that market value assessment all across the province -- not only in those areas where it now is a reality and has been a reality -- bears no resemblance to present market values -- nor did it at the time when the assessment was made? Secondly, why is it that those areas where they have had two or three tax bills already no adjustments have been made in those assessments for those tax bills?

I talk of Grey and Bruce and the Parry Sound area; I believe there is another one down in the Ottawa area which is already on.

Another question I would like to ask is if these assessments are not adjusted annually -- which they haven’t been -- is it your intention that assessments will change annually to keep in touch with market values? if they do, what do you expect to do about commercial and industrial assessments which, by your own admission, you don’t base on market value but on replacement cost less depreciation? How are you going to keep them up? If market value for residential properties keeps going up and should building costs remain static we are going to have greater inequities in there.

The other thing I would like to know is if the proposal as spelled out by the Treasurer in his notes to the budget were accepted, would the present market value assessments, which are now in force in areas like Grey and Bruce, suddenly be readjusted so that a residential assessment -- which now has an 85 per cent tax bill -- would be reduced to 50 per cent and the industrial would go up to 100 per cent? In other words, we would then have another juggling around of the assessments and a revaluation of the tax rates in those areas. I think that is important.

It has to be important to the people of those areas who have already had the trauma of being thrown on market value assessment with the shifts which did occur in that particular area.

When the minister answers those questions I have a few others I would like to ask.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I didn’t have any discussion with the people in Peel and York when they decided to go to market value assessment. That was sort of before my time -- in the ministry anyway; I was a private member in the House in those days. I think we all knew that there was the potential of a shift to the residential quarter if they did not have the benefit of factoring and, of course, without appropriate legislation they would not have that benefit.

I can tell the hon. members that roughly four years ago when I was in Treasury and Economics and Grey and Bruce came to see us seeking authority to go on market value, I pointed out to them that there was every possibility there would be some pretty dramatic shifts, in some cases, of the tax burden in some quarters. For example, in the town of Hanover it was evident to us that there would be a shift there and the taxes would go up.

In Muskoka and in any of the other districts in which we have permitted a return to market value assessment, we have been very careful to tell the people involved that we would expect a shift upward in the tax burden on the residential sector -- at least to some degree. And we would only authorize it if the percentage of commercial-industrial assessment in the municipalities concerned was low compared with the total assessment. Coupling that with the obvious gross inequities that prevail in these municipalities -- there were some terrible ratios of assessment for similar types of value of accommodation, particularly in the residential end.

So one weighs the advantages of going to a more or less even form of assessment at market value on the one hand against the unavailability for at least a two- or three-year period -- it didn’t look like that long when we did it; we thought it would be in, as you know. But it looked like a fairly short period of time in which there might conceivably be a shift of the burden from the industrial- commercial sector on the one hand to the residential on the other.

The hon. members have asked about what might happen with Grey and Bruce and Peel and York and so on. I wasn’t aware of the percentage which the hon. members for Waterloo North or for Grey-Bruce refer to. Did the hon. member for Waterloo North say 85 per cent for residential?

Mr. Good: No, that’s the rate levied.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I simply don’t know what that would be. If it’s running at, say, 85 per cent or something --

Mr. Good: I would say it’s less than 50 per cent now.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If it’s less than 50 per cent of fair market value, then at least the assessment would come in by way of a small increase.

Let me just illustrate the problem. Peel went to market value assessment in 1968 or 1969 and it purported to be reasonably even and consistent across that county. But then market values have gone out of sight there too.

Mr. Good: Texaco and those other industries -- their assessment went down something terrible.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Illustrating the same point I’m making, it might well be that we have to see that these assessments, when applied, are applied in such a fashion that they do not increase the tax burden on the residential taxpayer. He obviously can’t deduct his taxes from any earned income -- that is for the purpose of calculation of income or corporate tax.

The municipalities that went to market value assessment did so to overcome gross inequities within their classes. I presume they accomplished that reasonably well. But other factors entered the picture and that is why we’re having to do these studies -- to make sure that when we put the entire province on to this principle of market value assessment the burden on the taxpayers is equitable. As mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), we also must ensure that the transition period doesn’t hurt them too much, but is fast enough that it doesn’t leave the inequities outstanding for too long a period of time.

Mr. Good: On that question, if things are on the computer, why have there been no adjustments in those areas where you already have market value in operation?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I can give you an answer to that one. The fact is that if you’d asked for it two months ago we couldn’t have given it to you. The computer just now is into the stage where we are able to do this. So it’s not a matter of doing it in the past to determine these adjustment factors and the other information that must go into the computer. We are only now at this stage. I’m not even sure the extent to which we could do it across the province today. But it is only now coming on stream in that sense.

[4:15]

Mr. Good: What is of concern to me, Mr. Chairman, is that if you’re going to adjust market value assessment -- in my own region of Kitchener-Waterloo it was two years ago when the land speculation tax came in. At that time I was told -- and I think you agreed with the figure -- that the market value assessment represented about 65 per cent.

If there is going to be an adjustment in the residential market value assessment on a year-by-year basis, once we do get on it, what do you intend to do to keep industrial assessment in line with the changing values of residential properties? Let’s face it, residential property values do change more often and within greater limits than does industrial assessment.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The question might also be raised with respect to apartment buildings, the values on which don’t change as dramatically upwards as appears to be the case with normal owner-occupied residential accommodation. I think basically it is a question of the 50 per cent -- if that is built into the Act, is it engraved in stone or not? I would say no, it wouldn’t be.

We would have to review every while the percentage of assessment that was relative to residential accommodation as opposed to 100 per cent assessment for industrial and commercial properties and make sure that, as values rise and therefore new market values are applied, there is not an unjust application of the burden into the residential quarter. My colleague from York North (Mr. Hodgson) just points out that there could be a decrease too as well as an increase, which may not always go on the way we have become accustomed to seeing it over the last 10 years or 15 years.

Mr. Good: Market value is what a willing buyer pays the willing seller. You have those figures from your monitoring of sales within the various areas but obviously you don’t intend to keep your assessments at market value; you are going to keep them somewhere else. Within what limits do you intend to keep them, because --

Hon. Mr. Meen: The hon. member just doesn’t perceive the principle of market value assessment because indeed assessments will stay at market value, however market value moves.

Mr. Good: Look at the assessments in the places where you have it in operation.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, of course it doesn’t there, because they are not on the computer arrangement that reflects the values in the market today, where when the values go into the computer and we see the computer values spewing out the imputed market values to properties that haven’t been trading in the marketplace, we will see that it does reflect the way in which the values are going up and down, once this is all in place.

Mr. Good: That is the point. Then to clarify, if your theory is correct you are telling me that within three years from now, the assessment notice will show the actual market value as it is reflected by the sales of that type of property in that area. If that is what you are telling me, that is a totally new concept that has never been projected in this House before, and I just have difficulty believing it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Welland.

Mr. Good: He is trying to get out; that’s for sure. I have some other things too.

Hon. Mr. Meen: What I am trying to say is that the computer will reflect on an almost daily basis the value of any particular piece of real estate as reflected by sales of comparable pieces of real estate in the area as those sales go on.

When the assessments are made, and the proposal is that they will be made once every two years, then there would be a change in that assessment for tax purposes once every two years, and that change may be up or it may be down depending upon what has occurred at the time when the assessment is established and the line is drawn and the computer says that’s the assessment for tax purposes. It is good for next year and the year after that, or whenever, if we go to a two-year basis, as one of the proposals suggests.

Mr. Good: One other matter that I would like to discuss is the proposal that is shown in the supplementary papers of the budget as it relates to bringing business tax in line at 50 per cent. This has been talked about for some time and it is something which I am personally opposed to. I think the inequities that will result here will be equally as apparent as would the shift in regular taxation from industrial.

If we look at the Treasurer’s table on page 4, it’s obvious here that those who are going to receive the largest increase in business tax are the same people who are going to receive increase in their regular tax, and they would be your small merchants, professional retail merchants, the retail stores, and I’d just like to cite a few examples here.

If the present retail store business taxes increase from 30 to 50 per cent on an assessment of $10,000 as it exists now -- which would be $63,000 under new proposed taxable assessment -- business tax would increase from $60 to $630. Now that’s your small retail businessman; raising his business tax from 30 to 60. In other words, you want to level everybody out; everybody in business is going to pay the same amount of business tax related to his assessment.

All right, well, business tax is a tax for doing business, and in my view it can be more properly reflected in the type of business which is related to the amount of business and really the prosperity of that business.

On the other hand, the financial institutions and the wholesalers, along with industries, are going to see a tremendous reduction in their tax as they are reduced, from 60 per cent in the case of industries and 75 per cent in the case of the wholesalers and financial institutions, back to 50 per cent. So here you’re asking, under this proposal, to have the small retailer, business and professional man, bear the burden of industry and wholesalers and the banks and the trust companies. Just as an example, a wholesaler’s present business tax of $900 would be reduced by $370 and his total tax bill reduced by $510.

Industry on the average would receive a tax bill of about $570 less on a present $10,000 assessment.

The thing I want to really zero in on, which I think reflects the fallacy of the whole argument, is the present business tax on distilleries and breweries. We went through this in private bills committee six or eight years ago, when it was reduced from 150 per cent to 140 per cent. The proposal then was that it be reduced from 150 per cent to 100 per cent

The Province of Ontario has no feeling of guilt or no compunction in deriving great sources of revenue from the distillers and the brewers of this province in the form of tax and markup, and it’s our fifth highest source of revenue. The municipalities in which these distilleries are located have relied heavily on the business tax from these people to raise additional sums. How can one justify the fact that the province wants to make money on this type of business, but it’s not going to allow the municipalities to do it?

You’re saying that the distilleries, which now pay 140 per cent business tax, should have their business tax cut to 50 per cent, which, in the case of a present $10,000 assessment would mean a reduction of $1,230 in taxation.

At the time that that proposal was in the private bills committee -- to reduce the business tax from 150 per cent down to 100 per cent -- I did some checking and it would have meant, in my own municipality, for instance, something over a one mill burden to be borne by the rest of the taxpayers. The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) did some checking in his municipality and he found that it would have been more drastic than that in one of the rural townships in which Hiram Walker’s had great facilities.

There is just no way, in my mind, that you can justify the levying of a business tax. A property tax, all right, that’s related to the property. Business tax is really -- well, it’s just a gravy tax that one pays to the municipality for the privilege of doing business. In my view, the more prosperous the business, the more business tax should be paid. And certainly a bank or a trust company or a distillery or a brewery is a more likely and acceptable source of taxation than is the small merchant, or the business or professional office.

I just think you have to rethink that whole matter of standardizing the business tax at 50 per cent for every business across the board -- that means your little nickel and dime store, your “Mom and Pop” grocery stores, the retailer on the block, the hardware store and the florist. Everybody is going to be saddled with roughly a $330 increase in taxes on a