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

November 2, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L018 - Thu 2 Nov 1978 / Jeu 2 nov 1978

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

RULES OF THE HOUSE

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

HIDDEN VALLEY RESORT

DOFASCO DUMP SITE

SAMUEL JOHNSTON CASE

ARDA PROGRAM

PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

JOB CREATION

SCUGOG ZONING APPLICATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OMB BOUNDARIES HEARINGS

BRAMPTON TRANSIT DISPUTE

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

ORDER OF ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS ACT

CAPUCHINS OF CENTRAL CANADA ACT

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

VISITORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROPERTY TAXATION

MUNICIPAL PLANNING GOALS

PROPERTY TAXATION

MUNICIPAL PLANNING GOALS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would report briefly to the House with respect to the discussion of the past three days in Ottawa. After hearing some of the discussions last evening and reading some of the press reports, I hope I can explain some of those things that were agreed to or not agreed to, and what the process is from this date onwards. I will also make available to the House and to the leaders of the two opposition parties the papers that were presented. I am sure some of the members observed in a personal way the discussions that took place during those three days and are quite familiar with the general direction of the conference.

I think it is fair to state that Ontario’s view as it went into this conference was to achieve two objectives. The first was to get a constitutional package that would represent significant constitutional change. I don’t think anyone anticipated that in that short space of time the constitutional matters would be totally resolved by any means; and secondly to establish some specific plan of action or process which would translate the general agreements reached into some specific plan of action.

It is fair to state that while we would like to have seen some more specific definition to the results of the conference, in many respects our objectives were met. The Prime Minister of this country put before the conference Tuesday morning around 11 o’clock, if I remember correctly, the federal viewpoint with respect to the distribution of powers, which has always been one of the fundamental concerns of this province and other provinces as it relates to the drafting or development of a new constitution.

The Attorneys General, the ministers of intergovernmental affairs have already established some tentative timetables, so from that standpoint I am optimistic that when the Prime Minister reconvenes the federal-provincial meeting in February there will be available to us sufficient documented suggestions to enable us to make final decisions to the extent these things are final.

One of the objectives of the Prime Minister which led to some of the debate yesterday morning, and there was a feeling he was tying some of the federal positions to this as a pre-condition, is the objective of patriation and establishing an amending formula. I think I’m right in my assessment that there is no pre-condition in terms of the meetings in February but that his objective is patriation with an amending formula, and I happen to share that point of view.

It is ironic and less than satisfying, in fact it is extremely unfortunate, that a nation that is 111 years of age cannot deal with its own constitution, that we aren’t in the position as Canadians to amend that constitution and to act like any other adult, mature nation in this world. So when the Prime Minister speaks rather strongly about patriation, I may argue with him on some aspects of constitutional reform or constitutional change, but I reminded him yesterday that our commitment to patriation, going back from my own personal experience to 1971, was as great as his; and I would like to think the vast majority of Ontarians feel the same way.

I don’t for a moment minimize the difficulties the ministers will face over the next two and a half months or three months in terms of their deliberations in the preparation of the suggestions for the next first ministers’ meeting on the constitution. There were some very sincerely and strongly held points of view on some basic issues. I think the members understood from our presentation that while one can argue the entrenchment or non-entrenchment of certain things in the constitution, we opted in some areas for entrenchment.

It is fair to state that two or three provinces felt that because of our tradition, because of our existing systems and the supremacy of the House and of the Legislature, that entrenchment was not the wise route to go. I say these views were sincerely held. I happen to think the process we would support makes greater sense, but I don’t question, shall we say, the validity or sincerity of the points of view of other provincial Premiers.

I don’t think there is any question that we are fairly close to unanimity on such matters as the entrenchment of the Supreme Court in the constitution. Where there will still be some differing points of view will be how the Supreme Court is appointed and whether it is to be representative in nature -- representative, that is, of the various regions of Canada. Ontario’s point of view, which is not inflexible, is that on this fundamental issue the appointments to the Supreme Court should be done through some form of committee of the Attorneys General of Canada to select from a panel. This would be the process which I think would be generally acceptable to a number of other provinces.

Where we get into some difficulty is the question of where the judges should come from. Some of our sister provinces have fairly strong views that there should be this representative or geographic characteristic -- regional I think was the term used. Our point of view -- and hopefully it isn’t parochial -- is that the Attorneys General, or whatever method of appointment is selected, very simply should select the best men or women available to discharge this very onerous responsibility. I don’t think this is a totally illogical point of view.

Where I sense there will be some difficulty in achieving unanimity prior to the conference -- hopefully we can resolve it then -- is with respect to the amending formula. That has been an issue debated for X number of years. There have been many attempts made. We are not inflexible here either as a government. We are prepared to see some alteration to the Victoria formula, which is our preference. We haven’t rejected other considerations, but we are very reluctant to accept the principle that there has to be unanimity.

This is difficult for Ontario to say, because under any formula obviously the central provinces are going to have a greater impact in terms of amendment than some of our sister provinces.

At the same time it is very difficult to understand in any democratic process that while the will of what in terms of population could be the vast majority of the people of this country is to see a constitutional amendment made, yet we have to have unanimity, which means that a province with a relatively small population would be in a position of keeping the will of the vast majority from finding its way into any constitutional change. As I say, I don’t minimize the difficulty in this, but it is one of those issues that at some point in time has to be resolved.

The position of the Premier of Quebec, I think, was clearly enunciated. For the information of the members of the House, Quebec will not support patriation or consideration of the amending formula at this point. The Premier -- I think I am paraphrasing him with some degree of accuracy -- made it clear that the province of Quebec wanted a total package there for discussion or decision before the question of patriation would be considered by him or his government. I understand that point of view. I think it is unfortunate and I don’t agree with it; I made that quite clear to the Premier of Quebec during the conference.

[2:15]

I think it is also fair, though, to report to the members of the House -- and I’m only trying to give a sense of what happened with respect to the position of the province of Quebec -- that while the Premier certainly didn’t indicate any alteration of his publicly-stated objective, while there was no indication that he had changed his approach or his state of mind with respect to his ultimate objective, it was encouraging from the standpoint that the province of Quebec was represented and that with respect to debate on all issues, with the exception of patriation and the amending formula, the Premier of Quebec and his ministers took

part in a constructive way in terms of the discussions that went on.

While I didn’t see him quoted directly on television last evening or in the press this morning, my impression was that he and his government would be part of the first ministers’ meeting in February and they would continue in the process towards ultimate change in the constitution of this country.

While I will not mislead the House, and I don’t for a moment say that we will resolve these issues in February, I am hopeful. I think the potential is there, I think the foundation is there. I think it will require a very great degree of commitment on the part of all Premiers of this country. I think it will require a certain measure of flexibility, a certain give and take, with the understanding that the end objective is important and essential for this country. It is time for us to recognize that we are now mature politically and economically. We are 111 years old.

It is time we had a Canadian constitution, able to be amended by Canadians, and one that reflects this country in a total sense.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It’s hard to argue with that.

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I rise to place on the record my feeling that, since the start of this session, the question period which we observe daily has been abused by the government.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Mancini: Day after day, we find parliamentary assistants to different ministers rising in the House to question --

An hon. member: Name one.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think one of the basic ingredients when a member rises is that he be able to demonstrate that his privileges as a member have been abrogated in some way. I know of no way, as a result of the conduct of the question period, that the honourable member’s privileges have been infringed on in any way. The question period is for all members of the House, and if members of the government side wish to take advantage of it, that is their privilege. It does not detract from your privileges as a member.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Miss Stephenson: On June 20 last my predecessor tabled part of the answer to question 97 on Order Paper 68 standing in the name of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner). That material was for the year 1977. I am now tabling for the honourable member the 1978 data.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that the Interflow company in Hamilton closed its incinerator facility on April 15, 1977, and yet this company continues to accept liquid wastes from all over Ontario?

Is the minister aware of that, first of all, and can the minister table in this House tomorrow or the next day the waybills that may pertain to those shipments made to Interflow so as to demonstrate the ultimate destinations of these liquid wastes and so as to be able to assure the House that the only wastes going to the Ottawa Street site are those generated in Hamilton-Wentworth and not those simply using Interflow as a transfer station?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m not sure whether I’m permitted to table those waybills or not, but we’ll certainly be prepared to give the compilation of the information they contain.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is the minister aware that his regional director in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, who is charged with the job of monitoring the Ottawa Street site to see what’s going in there, has said -- and I quote from the Hamilton Spectator -- when we said that he had said that he had no idea what was going into the site, he had a correction? He said his comment was taken out of context. Quoting from the Hamilton Spectator: “He said that while he hasn’t any idea what wastes are being handled at the site on a day-to-day basis, because of the need to rely on the waybill system the ministry does know what is going into the dump on an annual basis.”

Aside from the sleight-of-hand by which a person who doesn’t know what’s happening day to day somehow at the end of the year is able to find out what happened, how is he supposed to monitor what is going into that site if he really does not have access to this knowledge on a day-to-day basis so that he might know which loads are being delivered and what their origin really happens to be?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’ll be very pleased to talk to the regional director and get that information for the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: One more supplementary: Is the minister not somewhat puzzled by the fact that a company that closed its incinerator over a year ago continues to receive very large gallonages of liquid waste from around the province of Ontario? If, in fact, their job is merely to transfer these wastes to some legitimate place, like St. Lawrence or some other possible site, what is the need for them to act as this sort of transfer station? Why can’t the people getting rid of the waste send it directly to St. Lawrence in the first place? They must surely know where it is.

Is the minister not in some way suspicious or worried or concerned, and will he give us the waybills tomorrow or the next day to show what really is happening to those wastes being handled by Interflow?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If I may take a moment, the question asked by the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) a week ago today made some suggestions that upon investigation we found were factually not correct. I am prepared to look into this and find out the situation, but I’m not prepared at this time to accept all the hypotheses of the Leader of the Opposition.

I have given a commitment to find that information and bring it to the House. At the moment I’m not prepared to accept all the suppositions in the questions.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Housing: Does the Minister of Housing recall a meeting he had on May 5, 1977, when he was then Minister of Industry and Tourism, a meeting regarding the Cantrakon conference and seminar centre in Caledon? Does he recall the recommendation being made at that meeting by a senior government official that in the opinion of this official an official plan amendment should be processed prior to a resubmission of another development permit application?

The point is that the government could then act on the amendment and in that way provide guidance and direction to the Niagara Escarpment Commission from the cabinet level, not just from the Minister of Housing.

Can the minister explain why he did not take that route of making sure that an official plan amendment application was made and in that way allow the entire government to be able to guide the escarpment commission with regard to this very important matter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I recall having met with the lawyers representing the firm and the architect, and I believe one of the principals. I could not confirm the exact date. I understand we now have in this House two dates that I might have had an opportunity of meeting with the principals.

Mr. S. Smith: April 21.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: April 21 was the date I had interpreted earlier, when I was Minister of Industry and Tourism. I do not recall all of the discussion that took place at the time. The principals, along with their architect and lawyer, did come into the Ministry of Industry and Tourism on the advice and recommendation of the tourism director, Mr. Boyer. We met with them. I believe they continued their meeting with the civil service; but I would not be in a position at this time to say exactly what the full discussion happened to be, nor do I recall going into the details as the leader of the Liberal Party has indicated this afternoon.

Mr. S. Smith: May I, by way of supplementary, ask the minister whether he recalls the following from the writeup of the meeting: “Mr. Farrow noted that the proposal was contrary to the Caledon official plan. It was his opinion that an official plan amendment should be processed prior to resubmission of another development permit application. In this manner, the government would act on the amendment, thereby providing guidance and direction to the commission at the cabinet level if necessary.

It was his opinion that the government, through Bill 129, the Niagara Escarpment Act, could provide direction to the commission and, should it see fit, could provide updated direction by approval or rejection of an official plan amendment. The Honourable Mr. Bennett agreed but reserved a final recommendation in the matter.”

May I therefore, by way of supplementary, ask the minister why he did not take that route, which would have given the cabinet a chance to guide the commission in this regard? Secondly, was he aware previously that there is a willingness on the part of the company to build the site elsewhere if an equivalent site could be obtained?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, as I said with regard to the meeting of April 21, 1977, I do not recall the minutes nor any indication by myself relating to the official plan amendment. Obviously the applicant took the route that he believed was most expedient for his firm in going to the Niagara Escarpment Commission and then on to the hearing officer.

The

article that appeared in the Globe and Mail today indicated the architects said they would be prepared to look at an alternative site providing it is equal and has as spectacular scenery as the one on which they made the original application. I was interested in the

article and I asked the people in my ministry to contact the lawyer representing the firm and others as to whether there had been any discussion with the president of the Caledon ratepayers’ association, who indicated this morning by way of the press that he has an alternative site. To the best of my knowledge there has not been any negotiation between those two parties. There has been a press statement by the president of the association, but I doubt very much, from what I’ve been able to ascertain, that there has been any direct contact made with the government to even indicate an alternative site such as the one proposed in this morning’s press.

Ms. Gigantes: Is the minister trying to find out?

Mr. Laughren: Is the minister telling us that neither he nor officials in his ministry sought out alternative sites or suggested to the Cantrakon officials that there might be other sites available in the area?

Mr. Kerrio: Do you know where the escarpment is, Floyd?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This is like the rehashing of my estimates. We’ve been through this two or three times in the last 10 or 12 days --

Mr. Wildman: It really is a hash.

Mr. Warner: Stop ducking the issue and answer the question. We’re still trying to get straight answers.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It’s been rehashed because we have gone through it time and time again.

Mr. Wildman: Another mishmash.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: But I have no objection to using up the question period; if that’s what you’d like to do, fine, I am willing to accommodate the members.

Mr. McClellan: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will certainly do that. So there is no misunderstanding, the application was before me and I think in the time of my estimates we explained that the application asked about a specific site. That’s the responsibility of the Minister of Housing, to respond to an appeal to a decision that’s either rendered by the Niagara Escarpment Commission or the hearing officer. Obviously when the hearing officer makes the recommendation I have the right --

Mr. Warner: You wouldn’t have any more imagination than that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- as the Legislature gave it to the minister in that act, to make a final determination as to the operation.

Mr. Nixon: In a case like this you weren’t even prepared to look at alternatives.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously I was asked for an opinion and for a minister’s decision related to a specific site. That doesn’t give me the opportunity of saying to industry, “Why don’t you go and look at some other site?”

Ms. Gigantes: Take off your blinders.

Mr. Kennedy: Just socialists do that.

Mr. Pope: What do you want, more government or less government?

Mr. Laughren: In other words, you didn’t.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would think that if there are others who wished to participate -- just hold on a minute around here, the member from --

An hon. member: From where?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- from downtown Toronto. She knows a lot about the escarpment. Downtown Toronto, she’s like the rest of them.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very obviously, Mr. Speaker, I was not asked to try to recommend an alternative site to the developer, nor did I.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I just wondered whether the minister just got his last pay there? I notice he’s got his pay slip.

Mr. Warner: That may be his last pay.

Mr. Epp: I wonder if the Minister of Housing would convene a meeting with ministry officials, with Cantrakon officials and with residents in order to find a suitable site, which has been aptly reported in the press earlier today and on other occasions.

Mr. Johnson: In Waterloo possibly.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At the moment, all of the discussions relating to an alternative site are by press. There has been no direct communication to my ministry whatsoever.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just a minute. There has been no direct communication to my ministry by any party that there’s an alternative site whose disposal they are prepared to negotiate or which they have the authorization to negotiate. We are prepared --

An hon. member: That’s why you’re losing your job.

Mr. Warner: You don’t have sense enough to negotiate one.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If members would let me finish.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh they won’t; they don’t want to hear.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I say to the member for Waterloo North, don’t worry about my last pay cheque. I read where his leader is going to reduce my estimates by $18,000. Let me tell him that I appreciate his concern, because he’s a great deal easier on me than the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who has taken $25 million away from me so far this year. So the opposition is a great deal easier on me than the Treasurer -- who is of my own party -- has been.

Interjections.

Mr. Eakins: We will help him.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If there is a direct communication to me from the president of the ratepayers’ association indicating that he has an alternative site which he wishes to meet with the company on, my ministry, through the appropriate division, would be prepared to try and facilitate a meeting with the Cantrakon people, with the Niagara Escarpment people, with whoever owns the land and, indeed, even with the Caledon rate- payers’ association.

Mr. S. Smith: Good.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me only add this, so there is no misunderstanding. If there is an alternative site and the Cantrakon people decide to move, the same rules of procedure will apply on that site as have applied to this site -- going to the Niagara Escarpment Commission for a development permit, to a hearing officer, to an appeal, and to have others oppose it as they see fit.

Mr. Warner: No one believes you any more.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It will go through the same process. If in the final analysis there is a decision to be rendered, we’ll make sure that the protection of the escarpment and of other surrounding operations -- as dictated by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, and Caledon town council in their concerns on an alternative site -- will be to the extent indicated in my letter issuing the development permit on this particular site we are dealing with at the moment.

Mr. Warner: No one believes you any more.

Mr. Wildman: I wonder if the minister is aware or not, either when he was Minister of Industry and Tourism or subsequently, if the Ministry of Industry and Tourism took any action to try to find alternative sites for this proposal, or was it just left simply to the Ministry of Housing to make a decision?

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: That’s right, sooner or later we’re going to get a straight answer.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What’s that got to do with it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously the member for Algoma is unaware of the fact, or doesn’t understand. I explained that the application that came before the Minister of Housing, and the appeal of the decision rendered by the Niagara Escarpment hearing officer, was on a specific site. That’s the one that I have to render a decision on, not some unknown site --

Mr. Warner: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- or some proposed site. I’m asked about a specific site on which I rendered a decision.

Our party does not try to tell industry that they are going to go to location A, Y or Z because industry has a desire to locate in a place where they think they are going to get some opportunity of return on their investment.

Mr. Swart: Even in the United States.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: if you don’t allow them to build on that site, they may very well find themselves locating in some other part of this province or, indeed, in some other part of the continent. That’s happening because a party like the NDP wants constantly to dictate to industry where they are going to locate rather than giving them the opportunity and encouraging them to come into the province of Ontario to benefit our economy.

Mr. Martel: You are going to sell them Minaki Lodge.

Mr. Speaker: Order, I take it the answer to that supplementary was no.

Ms. Gigantes: He doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I thought my description was extremely explicit.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary: the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: A brief supplementary for clarification because of the importance of this matter: do I understand correctly that the minister would be willing, if requested to do so by the Caledon ratepayers’ association, to call together Cantrakon, some people in his own ministry and other interested parties, to see if an alternative site can be located for this particular project? Do I understand that he is prepared to move on this in an expeditious manner? I want to be sure that is the commitment we have.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the Liberal leader would read the newspaper article, it was very clearly indicated by the architect that they themselves are prepared, without the minister or the government interfering in any way, shape or form, to meet with any group who thinks they have a piece of land that is equally as good, scenery-wise and so on, as the one they presently have the approval on for development of the type of operation they want.

Mr. Breaugh: This is not a swan song, it’s a turkey trot.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- wishes to come to me officially and indicate he has a piece of land which he is prepared and authorized to sell, or negotiate the sale of --

Mr. S. Smith: You didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Oh yes I did. The member should be very careful what I did say. No ratepayers’ president can start negotiating somebody else’s land if that person is not prepared to look at the potential sale. I said if he has the right to negotiate the sale of that land, I am prepared to call together all the parties --

Mr. Samis: That’s not unanimous.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- who could have a vested interest in what happens on this particular development.

Mr. Van Horne: Why don’t you just admit you are wrong?

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Premier. In view of the fact the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) has now confirmed that the Ontario government has made a submission to the federal government concerning the adjustment assistance program outlining Ontario’s real concerns about the state of our manufacturing sector and that the manufacturing sector will not be able to withstand any reduction in tariffs; and in view of the fact the government of Ontario spent the last year, through its former Treasurer (Mr.

McKeough), talking about the benefits of freer trade; would the Premier tell us why he and his government have been saying one thing in private, namely that our manufacturing industries will be in grave danger if there are lower trade barriers, and another thing in public when he is talking about the benefits of liberalized trade? And I quote for the Premier’s benefit from a statement made by the former Treasurer on April 26.

Hon. W. Newman: Is this a speech or a question?

Mr. Laughren: “First I believe that we must make up our minds on the basic question: -- ”

Mr. Kerrio: That’s an unfair question.

Mr. Laughren: “ -- Do we want to build a more protected society or are we going to face up to the challenges and opportunities of the wider world. For very pragmatic, and indeed for spiritual reasons, I believe we have no choice but to gear up for freer trade.”

Could the Premier tell us how he pulls together those contradicting viewpoints expressed by ministers of his government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have no difficulty whatsoever. The member may have difficulty in my explanation of this reconciliation, but I’ll make an effort.

I didn’t see all the documentation, but I think the member probably would understand there would be documents that would contain points of view that wouldn’t always be the same, although they would not necessarily be contradictory.

There is a feeling in this country and in the United States that whether we like it or not, we are moving toward the possibility of freer trade. I can assure the member I made it abundantly clear in my discussion with one of the negotiators that we are not hiding our heads in the sand, and this is really the thrust of the Ontario submission.

The honourable member himself, without careful research or a lot of deliberation, can enumerate certain sectors of the competitive marketplace today that are in some difficulty. I am sure he can name one or two right at this moment; we all can.

We are interested in getting our point of view explained during the GATT negotiations, which point of view I indicated to the House -- and this is one of the problems for the federal negotiators -- is not consistent with the view of one or two of our sister provinces. I haven’t seen their submissions -- the submissions are confidential -- but there is no question, I would guess, that the submission from the province of British Columbia would be for much freer trade, if not for free trade, because so much of their economy relates to the natural resource industry, particularly in terms of its trade with, say, Japan or other countries in the Far East.

As I discovered in my brief visit to the Far East, when you talk about Canadian figures, the Japanese will tell you there’s a fairly significant surplus on the Canadian account. When you talk about Ontario figures -- and they don’t totally recognize that we are a country of provinces -- we know there is a substantial deficit with respect to goods produced here and goods we consume from Japan.

I would only say to the honourable member, because he has debated this with the former Treasurer, that I know some would take the point of view that in the world community -- that is, in the free world; and perhaps that part that is less free as well -- we’re in a more competitive situation. There is the possibility of freer trade. I don’t think anyone can hide his head in the sand and say that isn’t a possibility emerging from Geneva.

But I can assure the honourable member that the federal negotiators completely understand our desires to protect -- and I use that word in its enlightened sense -- the manufacturing sector here in Ontario. That was our position, it is our position and it will continue to be our position.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Ontario government simply does not have a consistent position.

Could I ask the Premier if he has confidence in the federal government, through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Homer, to protect Canadian manufacturing, largely based here in Ontario, against lower trade barriers? If he does have confidence in the federal government would he tell us why? And if he doesn’t have confidence, would be please tell us what contingency plans he has arranged in Ontario to get us through a very difficult period in the years to come?

Mr. Breaugh: And don’t say “sovereignty association.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, and I won’t even use the Magna Carta today either; I’ll leave that to the member’s colleague.

As I explained to the honourable member, they also have to reconcile the point of view of several other provinces. I might even suggest that the province of Saskatchewan, in its observations to the federal negotiators, might want a position of freer trade as it relates to the resource industry because -- it may come as a bit of shock to him -- that might be in their best provincial interests.

The honourable member asked me about Mr. Homer and his commitment to trade and the development of the economy. Obviously he may or may not be --

Mr. Laughren: His trade record is pretty poor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, look at his record. His record, and I think we’ll take a bit of the credit here, includes the fact that we are in the process of creating a plant in Windsor-Essex -- and I never hear the Windsor members in this House say anything about it -- that will give 2,500 jobs to members of the UAW and 2,000 jobs elsewhere. He helped develop a very major plant in that part of Ontario. The members opposite can say all they want, but I’ve got to tell them this: The rank and file of the UAW are very delighted that we did it.

[2:45]

Mr. Warner: We have no equity.

Mr. Breaugh: Now, go easy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are pleased with it, and they are in support of it. The member’s leader can travel across this province and say Ford shouldn’t be doing it. I’ll give members of that party a little political advice. If they were wise they would drop the issue and give the government some credit for --

Mr. S. Smith: Which government?

Mr. Warner: That is probably why Darcy quit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- job creation in a meaningful way in the Windsor-Essex area. I just wish those fellows would get up and talk against it.

Mr. Breithaupt: It wasn’t quite this government’s idea.

Mr. S. Smith: Horner had to drag you guys. He practically gave up on you for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River with a supplementary?

Mr. T. P. Reid: We would have been much more appreciative in Rainy River had the plant gone there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In spite of the advice of the leader of the Liberal Party we have brought a Hydro plant into the member’s riding which will affect the economy in a very positive way.

Mr. S. Smith: On a matter of privilege and to set the record straight --

Mr. Speaker: Neither one of you has a matter of privilege.

Mr. S. Smith: -- the Premier is well aware that at no time have I suggested that plant should be built anywhere other than in that riding. It is unworthy of the Premier to besmirch the record in this way.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s the best place for that plant.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: Since the Premier himself has indicated that we are not able to compete as fully as we should be able to without some kind of tariff protection, which indicates that our industries are not all they should be; and since it’s been indicated by the Science Council of Canada and others that we need a fundamental restructuring in the province of Ontario and in Canada; can the Premier indicate what steps the government is taking to direct that fundamental restructuring into those areas where Canada can be competitive in the international market?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s a very complex issue. I’m not trying to avoid the question because I think it’s a very important question, I accept that. I don’t think the honourable member, in suggesting a lack of productivity, was in any way relating it necessarily to efficiency or the capability of our work force either.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Old equipment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it’s not just equipment. Take the textile industry. I think most people would agree that in terms of world competition we’re vulnerable. With respect, I don’t think that relates to the talent of the people in the textile industry or necessarily to the equipment that is being used, but it does relate to the standard of living we enjoy in this province, the salaries and wages being made by people in that industry as compared to Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines -- you name it.

It’s important for us to make that clear. I’ve always taken this approach, because there are those who attack our productivity or the abilities of our labour force. I am one of those who doesn’t accept that proposition. I think in terms of confidence and in terms of efficiency we can compete. But there are some industries where on a world basis I think the potential for difficulty is there, and I just single out the one.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: The Premier indicated there was a secrecy requirement on submissions to the Canadian trade and tariff committee. I believe that is incorrect. In view of the fact that the private sector, including the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the western provinces have made their submissions to the federal government public, why will the Premier not table, not just one submission but all the submissions that have been made to the federal government concerning the negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think if the member were to ask for that at some future point, perhaps when the deliberations are concluded, I might give it consideration --

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: We have a right to be part of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t intend to do it.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. Laughren: The second question is for the Premier as well. In view of the rather dismal record of the Minister of Housing’s performance on the whole Cantrakon Affair, would the Premier himself be willing to intervene and negotiate with the officials of Cantrakon, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the local groups to select an alternative site?

Doesn’t he agree that the requirement by Cantrakon that it be an equally scenic site is somewhat selfish in view of the fact that it shouldn’t have to be exactly equal, because there is probably nothing more beautiful than the scenery there, and that should not be allowed as a way out of the responsibility of selecting an alternative site?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I won’t become more provocative on this issue. I clearly heard the Minister of Housing state to the Leader of the Opposition that he was quite prepared to discuss it if the Caledon ratepayers’ group or Cantrakon, if that’s their name, or whoever, suggest there is some other alternative. I heard the minister saying that he would be quite prepared to do that. I think it is important to point that out, because the honourable member can say that Cantrakon is being selfish; I don’t know Cantrakon.

Ms. Gigantes: Is that their name?

Mr. McClellan: You don’t even know their name.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I noticed who their architect is -- I didn’t know this until this morning -- Mr. Zeidler, who was the architect of Ontario Place and so on; I think a man of some talent, quite honestly, and some integrity and who, I have got to say this, knowing him just a little bit, has a very real awareness of environmental concerns and the aesthetics of them. That’s really what we’re talking about in many respects.

So I would say to the honourable member that the minister has given this commitment. I think it would be misleading the House to suggest that the government can or should force any private organization that is in process of developing a centre of this nature to accept a site that it doesn’t think would be appropriate for the kind of activity it wishes to pursue. The member’s party might do that sort of thing. They love to dictate to everybody. They want to do everything to everybody from the cradle to the grave. They would lead us down the garden path of total economic --

Mr. Renwick: Now you are being provocative. You said you were not going to be and you are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m being provocative? I’m just saying we don’t do it that way. If the minister, through his efforts or through the local municipality can in some way achieve their objectives of developing whatever it is -- a conference centre -- that is I economically viable, that is the attraction they wish it to be in terms of the business they wish to attract, if that can be done in some other geographic location where there is a willing seller, it makes sense. This government would have no objection.

I cannot say to the honourable member that we will, by some edict for which we have no legislative authority -- I’ll even use his colleague’s Magna Carta -- I mean, we just can’t force people to do things the way he’d like to do it.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Perhaps the Premier could recall a short sentence in a letter that was written to him by the chairman of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Mr. McMullin. He says in the last paragraph: “The commission’s concern about establishing precedents of this nature is based on the belief that there exists in the vicinity of the escarpment substantial land holdings that were acquired with a view to future intensive development.”

If the Premier is aware of that, if he recalls that statement being made, could he tell us whether or not he has done any investigation to see whether that’s the case? If he has, would he table any documents that provide information contrary to the views expressed by Mr. McMullin?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m just very curious. I don’t know how we deal with this in the House. What does the member think Mr. McMullin is saying in that last sentence of the second-last paragraph?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I’m asking the Premier if he is not worried that the Cantrakon development could be the beginning of future intensive developments there, given the performance of the Minister of Housing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I happen to be pretty familiar with the area. I know that some land up there has been owned for many years. There have been some people who are anxious to see development. This will come as no shock to the chairman of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, who happens to be a former mayor and reeve of that municipality. Caledon has been one of the more desirable areas in terms of potential for residential development.

One can debate the density that was perhaps in the minds of some people, but I can also tell the honourable member in terms of the potential and partial Caledon official plan, in terms of the views of the council, at this moment at least, while Mr. McMullin is stating there are other lands there where people might like to see development, I can assure the honourable member -- I can’t speak for the municipality -- that I don’t envisage major development taking place in that area. I have a feeling that if Mr. McMullin were expressing a point of view he wouldn’t see it happening either.

HIDDEN VALLEY RESORT

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that Hidden Valley Resorts Limited is making application to have the permanent injunction lifted to permit the company to pipe its sewage by way of a 3,000-foot pipe into a highway right of way, and thence into a large culvert? What position is the ministry taking in this respect?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker. Permission to do so has been granted recently. But I should point out that at the environmental appeal hearing, I believe, due consideration was given to the alternatives. If it does not proceed at this time, there is a very severe danger of untreated effluent being discharged this winter because of the over-taxing of that facility. Since the appeal board has ruled that the appropriate facilities and treatment will proceed, we have sustained that commitment and we think it is the viable alternative to the treatment of the waste in that area.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Since this matter has been going on for some seven or eight years, or even longer, why is it not possible to make Hidden Valley comply with the same requirements that apply to everyone else under the same circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If the member is suggesting that they have the privilege to discharge less than treated effluent, I would suggest to him that they must comply with the same regulations as other facilities. We do believe the treatment they will supply to their sewage will be of the same quality and will present less of a hazard than if they continue with their present method. There is a pretty significant danger there. I want to assure the member that the danger to the water supply of that area is less by this method than by any other method and it will meet all of our criteria and maintain the standards.

DOFASCO DUMP SITE

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Is the minister aware of the decision by Dofasco not to continue with their plans to dump some 350,000 tons of iron oxide waste in the Beachville area; and is he aware they are now reported to have located an alternative site much closer to their plant? Can the minister either confirm or deny that that site is in the Stoney Creek area? Has the site been approved by his ministry? Are the officials in the area, regardless of whether it’s Stoney Creek or not, informed of the intention of Dominion Foundries and Steel to locate a place to dispose of that iron oxide waste in their municipality?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There are many days when I wonder if I’ll ever be able to learn of all the various problems around Ontario.

Mr. Deans: That is why the others quit.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: However, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that those problems in the county of Oxford I am more than knowledgeable about. I hope that continues, I think it will.

Yes, I’m quite aware of that situation; and no, it is not in Stoney Creek.

Mr. Warner: Where is it?

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Where is it? And have the municipal officials been informed of the intention to transfer that iron oxide waste from the city of Hamilton into their municipality and have they given their approval?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe that at this time a private site, under careful scrutiny and supervision, is handling the waste from Dofasco, or at least a portion of it. A very large volume, of course, stays on site in Hamilton, as the honourable member well knows. There is a very large mound of it there.

Mr. Deans: Two million tons.

Mr. Warner: Where is the site?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe it is the site in St. Catharines run by Walker -- I think that is the correct name. What the capacity is of that plant, I don’t know at this time; I know it is sufficient for their needs.

I point out to the member that this is, to some degree, temporary storage. I believe the technology is readily available but not yet practical -- although it will be within a matter of a few years -- where this material will be reclaimed and indeed will be a very rich source of metals. It is not something we want to see discarded for the balance of time but indeed on a temporary basis until technology will permit use of this metal to great advantage.

Mr. Warner: Did you notify the municipality?

SAMUEL JOHNSTON CASE

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Epp: Another set up.

An hon. member: Anything goes here now.

Mr. G. E. Smith: What is the minister’s reaction to the telegram sent to him by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, criticizing the bill that he has before this House dealing with the recent decision of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board? I have had a number of phone calls from concerned residents in my area who have asked me to ascertain the minister’s reaction to it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern that was brought to my attention in the telegram from Mr. Borovoy. It was a concern of which I had been aware and one that I have shared for some time.

I was rather disappointed that the telegram did not address the other aspect of this particular issue, the question of the rights of the mentally retarded. It is one thing to articulate on behalf of the articulate, but it is another matter also to be concerned about the rights of those who may be less able to articulate.

The dilemma is not a failure to recognize the issues. The dilemma is to try to balance the rights of the mentally retarded on the one hand and of the employees of my ministry on the other. That is the dilemma, and I would welcome advice from Mr. Borovoy or anyone else on the satisfactory resolution of that dilemma. In fact, I think we have made substantial progress in that direction.

ARDA PROGRAM

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

In view of the fact that the federal-provincial agricultural and rural development assistance program has been an outstanding benefit to the growth of industry in southwestern Ontario in the form of the manufacturing of renewable natural resources; in view of the fact the federal government has withdrawn its share of support for new applications, thereby bringing the processing of new applications to a standstill; and in view of the fact the Ontario Development Corporation processes these applications for ARDA and is well aware of benefits of this program that establishes industry by granting $5,000 towards capital expenditures for each job created, would his ministry consider picking up the 50 per cent share dropped by the federal government, to go along with the 50 per cent share put in by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to continue the industrial part of this program?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In fairness, Mr. Speaker, as we too often see with the federal government, if they find that we will pick up the tab for those residents of Ontario who they leave high and dry as a result of their alleged cutbacks, then they will only make more of a habit of it than they have already made.

Mr. Kerrio: Handle it on your own.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Indeed, I noticed that at the conference of first ministers, which has just concluded, there was some reference to the federal government acknowledging the problem where some of their policies in terms of payments to the provinces sometimes upset, alter or change provincial policies and priorities.

The federal government having recognized that, I think it might be inopportune now to give a blanket commitment. Certainly it would be inopportune to give the federal government a blanket commitment that any time they disappear and leave provincial constituents high and dry the government of Ontario will be happy to come in and fix up the situation.

I am seriously concerned about the problem that’s been created, and I will review the situation with ODC and with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and make sure all the help that is currently available under Ontario government programs is being given to assist in that situation. I want to make it quite clear though that we are not going to get involved in a bail-out situation, replacing federal funds with provincial funds that otherwise would not be available.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that this $5,000 is less than half the amount per job the ministry granted the Ford Motor Company, and in view of the fact that this money goes into small companies in a more depressed part of Ontario than Windsor, and in view of the fact that new applications have been waiting since September and new industry is being held up, could the minister give some statement on this within the next two weeks?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course I will report back to the member as quickly as possible, as I always try to do, and I am sure we can have some sort of response in two weeks. I might say that the analogy you draw to the Ford plant is really not a fair analogy in many ways. I do have to point out that in the case of the negotiations between this government and the members’ friends in Ottawa, that was another example --

Mr. Kerrio: Why don’t you turn that off -- that’s sickening. Grow a little in stature.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: My, aren’t they touchy today.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Listen, if I read the headlines yesterday, I would react the way you have as well.

Mr. Kerrio: Just grow a little in stature and do your job.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The fact is if we had reacted in the same fashion in the Ford situation -- members will recall that was an instance in which the federal government wanted to go back again on a commitment with regard to their participation in terms of funds for something in Ontario.

Mrs. Campbell: They are learning so much from you and your mentality.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Had the federal government had their way again, they would have left the people of Windsor high and dry completely. saying: “It is up --

Mr. Kerrio: It’s not what the Premier said. Cut it out.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- saying: “It is up to the Ontario government -- “

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have not completed --

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South with a new question.

PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. MacDonald: My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Since this government rejected the recommendation of the Robarts commission for extending the boundaries of the borough of York and thereby denied the borough the opportunity to broaden its assessment base and do something about a tax burden that is as heavy, if not heavier, than any other place in Metro, what has this government got by way of an alternative solution to the recommendation which they rejected?

Specifically, is the minister willing to give a commitment that there will be an adjustment in the equalization grants that will come to grips with that problem which the Robarts commission recommendation was going to cope with?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to give any commitment on that matter. I think my friend knows that Metro municipalities have until the end of the year, as I recall, to submit briefs on the white paper that my predecessor issued about Metropolitan Toronto. At that time we will be meeting with them after the new councils are elected and discussing what ways can be found to alleviate some of the problems. We all agree that York and East York have problems, and that changing the boundaries isn’t necessarily going to help those problems. We are willing to look at ways to assist the people in those boroughs, but I can’t give you any commitments now.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: Since his predecessor indicated that the solution might well lie in an adjustment in the equalization grants as an alternative solution, is the minister in effect saying that he is backing off from that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just said I wouldn’t give the member any commitments. I haven’t announced, and the government hasn’t announced, any of the grants to municipalities for next year. So until those total grants and transfers to local government are announced, I can’t tell him what the situation will be.

JOB CREATION

Mr. J. Reed: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us what contacts he has had with the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) regarding the employment potential for renewable energy development and conservation in the province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Since the particular aspect to which the member has referred does not come under this ministry, I have had no contact with the Minister of Energy.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Is the Minister aware of a report of July 1977 by the Mitre Corporation of McLean, Virginia, entitled Labour Requirements for Solar Heating and Cooling of Buildings, and is he not aware that there is indeed a connection between the Ministry of Labour and its interest in employment and the Ministry of Energy as it pertains to this technology?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The Ministry of Labour naturally is concerned about employment, but the management and control of that aspect of government does not fall within my domain. I am interested in the report you have given me though, and I will be glad to look at it.

SCUGOG ZONING APPLICATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Premier. Given his government’s great record in planning matters these days, I would like him to share with the House the reasons why, in the matter of a request for a zoning bylaw authorization in an official plan amendment for one Charles J. Rush, in the township of Scugog, his cabinet overturned the decisions of the local municipality, the recommendation of the regional government in the area, and the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to provide for that application?

Mr. Nixon: Because Lorne Henderson recommended it, that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That question should be properly directed to the Chairman of Cabinet (Mr. Henderson), who is chairman of the legislation committee.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s what you call ordering the people about against their will.

Mr. Breaugh: I would be quite happy to do that, but as a farmer who believes you can grow cherries or apples on the side of a bill and in the middle of a snow belt on a pile of rocks, I don’t think he quite qualifies. Is he here so I can redirect the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would suggest the member redirect it anyway. There have been a lot of people over the years who have underestimated the talents of the member for Lambton; I would caution the honourable member not to make that same mistake.

Mr. MacDonald: This government orders people around.

Mr. Speaker: I understood you were redirecting the question.

Mr. Breaugh: I can’t redirect it if he’s not here. A supplementary for consideration: Will it be the position of the cabinet, either through the minister or the Chairman of Cabinet, to follow the same process when there is an application made for severance? That is also necessary before the gentleman could build.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure the honourable member would never ask the Premier or any minister of cabinet to make a judgement on a matter before cabinet has had a chance to discuss by way of appeal. That would be contrary to every decent instinct the honourable member has.

Mr Mackenzie: Whose friend was this guy?

Mr. Breaugh: Those are my instincts.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Given that a number of municipalities in Ontario have requested changes in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and given that several municipal politicians recently have been very critical of the regulations in the legislation governing the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act as it pertains to municipal politicians and given that Mr.

Lastman only recently called the legislation “utterly stupid” and indicated he couldn’t even vote on matters that come before the council regarding the University of Toronto because he has a son at that university and has been advised by legal counsel that he has a conflict of interest on that matter, and the same thing applies to the Toronto Symphony, I wonder whether the minister is seriously contemplating making changes in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and when we can expect to have those changes introduced?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’re looking at some of the more serious questions that have been raised about this matter, not some of the frivolous ones that my fiend has mentioned; obviously I think most people would view those as very frivolous and certainly not effecting the workings of the act. I think we all agree that the Conflict of --

Mr. S. Smith: Mayor Lastman is frivolous?

One of your candidates?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m not saying that Mayor Lastman is frivolous, but the suggestion that one might be in conflict of interest because one has a son at the University of Toronto or some such thing certainly doesn’t warrant us studying the conflict of interest legislation. It is pretty good legislation and was needed, and I would imagine it was supported by all members of this House when it was passed.

There have come to light, of course, some instances that have raised some grave doubts upon sections of that legislation and the way they operate. Those sections and those doubts are being looked at and when we have some resolution, if needed we’ll bring in some amendments to the act, but I can’t tell the members when.

OMB BOUNDARIES HEARINGS

Mr. Swart: In spite of some misgivings, I’d like to put a question to the Minister of Housing. He will be aware, will he not, that the Ontario Municipal Board hearings are proceeding on the urban boundaries on the unique land in Niagara above the escarpment, but the hearings on the urban boundaries below the escarpment are postponed at least until the Supreme Court rules on the Barrie decision?

I want to ask the minister, was it at his direction or suggestion or his ministry’s direction or suggestion that the Ontario Municipal Board has indefinitely postponed the hearings on a large

section of the unique lands? If the Supreme Court rules in the Barrie decision that the minister has the right to intervene and give directions to the Ontario Municipal Board at a hearing, what kind of direction is he contemplating giving to the Ontario Municipal Board relative to the boundaries in the Niagara fruit lands?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, on the first question which relates to asking the OMB to defer or postpone the hearings on the application of the boundaries, that was a determination of the Ontario Municipal Board itself, not on direction from our ministry or from the Attorney General. They took their direction from the fact that the Barrie case had similarities to the cases they’re presently dealing with in the Niagara area. As a result, they’ve come to the conclusion that to try to carry on a hearing when there appears to be some similarities -- and I only say appears to be some similarities -- they have decided to defer it until the decision is rendered by the Supreme Court.

In the second instance, I do not want to prejudge what will be the determination of the Supreme Court. I’m not in the position, nor will I be at this time or in the future, to suggest to this House before that decision is rendered what our recommendations might be.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that by his statement in the House last June perhaps the hearings on the land should wait where the government had made some decisions on those boundaries until after the Barrie hearing might have influenced the Ontario Municipal Board?

Secondly, would the minister not think that he would be distorting the independence of the OMB and in fact contradicting the assurance given by the previous Minister of Housing when he said that the matter -- and these are the urban boundaries in Niagara -- “will be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and we will allow it to peruse what has been done both by the region and by the ministry.” If the minister intervenes is be not in fact contradicting that statement of the former minister?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m not sure how the member draws the conclusion that I have intervened at any time. I clearly said back at the time of his question last June, or whenever it happened to be, that we had not offered any suggestions to the Ontario Municipal Board. I did say to the member very carefully that I have had representations by municipal councils and regional councils to reconsider the cabinet’s decision on urban boundaries in the Niagara area. That relates to two or three specific areas that the member and his friends at PAL have been raising Cain about.

Mr. Swart: Quite rightly so.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is a great difference of opinion at the municipal level as to who should be running this province. The municipalities are getting a little tired that some organization out and away from the municipal powers, who are supposed to make decisions -- and his party is the one that criticizes this government saying that we never make decisions. When we do make a decision they think we should back away from it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, very clearly the case is before the municipal board and if there are some alterations that have to be made because of some conditions that prevail, then the minister will recommend those. At the moment we have not interfered in any way, shape or form, and I’ve given the member that assurance before.

BRAMPTON TRANSIT DISPUTE

Mr. O’Neil: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on what success his ministry is having in attempting to bring the Brampton transit strike to an end?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows, I’m sure, conciliators and mediators from my branch have been involved in those negotiations right from the very beginning. Indeed, one of our very able mediators, Mr. John Dempster, has been very active all the way through those negotiations.

It certainly is a disappointment to all of us that there is a strike now, but I want to assure the member that in spite of the fact there’s a strike in place our endeavours continue. The director of the mediation and conciliation service will be meeting with the parties again next week.

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979:

Ministry administration program, $867,000; conventional energy program, $2,321,000; renewable energy program, $2,455,000; energy conservation program, $5,350,000; regulatory affairs program, $1,239,000; energy supply program, $15,119,000.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the follow-bills without amendment:

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the city of Hamilton;

Bill Pr28,

An Act to revive Beezee Foods Limited;

Bill Pr35,

An Act to revive the A. M. Crawford Company Limited;

Bill Pr36,

An Act to revive Moran Pharmacy Limited;

Bill Pr39,

An Act respecting the Brockville General Hospital;

Bill Pr41,

An Act to revive Ross and Ross Grains Limited.

Report adopted.

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private acts and finds the notices as published in each case sufficient:

Capuchins of Central Canada;

Five-O Taxi Limited.

Report adopted.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that in addition to the regular committees scheduled, the standing resources development committee meet on Wednesday afternoons for the balance of this session.

Motion agreed to.

ORDER OF ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that after the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services the estimates in the standing social development committee be considered in the following order: Social Development policy field and the Ministry of Health.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: By way of explanation, it’s our understanding that the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be completed on Monday afternoon, so that the estimates of the policy field would start on Tuesday afternoon next week in committee.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 166,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Motion agreed to.

CAPUCHINS OF CENTRAL CANADA ACT

Mr. Johnson moved first reading of Bill Pr46,

An Act respecting the Capuchins of Central Canada.

Motion agreed to.

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the bill is to amend the Mining Act to remove

section 170(2) which prohibits women from working underground in mining operations in Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr. Williams: On a point of privilege: As chairman of the statutory instruments committee, I would like to introduce to the Legislature this afternoon, and I would ask the members of the Legislature to welcome him, Mr. Rae Tallin, legislative counsel and a deputy minister of the government of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Tallin is in Toronto today assisting the statutory instruments committee in its deliberations.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought before too many members disappear I might take this opportunity to introduce another special guest to the assembly today. He’s here in Toronto pursuant to a Shop Canadian display of government purchasing, held by our ministry, with all levels of government participating. Our guest, fresh from a landslide election victory in New Brunswick, is the Honourable Harold Fanjoy, Minister of Supply and Services for New Brunswick.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Deans moved resolution 33:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should proceed with assessment reform to achieve property tax equity through the following modifications of the reassessment program:

1. Assure that there is no general increase in taxes to the residential sector or to the small business sector.

2. Adjust the excessively inflated residential values in the larger cities so that home owners do not pay a disproportionate share of taxes and so that municipalities receive a more equitable share of provincial grants.

3. Provide a phase-in adjustment program for home owners, with graded exemptions and other special circumstances, to prevent sudden and excessive tax increases as a result of the implementation of assessment reform.

4 Provide a mandatory passthrough to tenants of any property tax reductions on apartments.

5. Assess farmland at agricultural value, except where it is held by speculators or developers.

Further, the program must provide that the following measures form part of, and be implemented with, the reassessment program:

(

a) Legislate the revenue-sharing program between the province and local governments.

(

b) Apply the property tax credit directly to the payment of property tax bills at the time of payment.

(

c) Undertake a program to reduce the educational portion of the property tax.

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. Deans: I don’t intend to take all the time available to me since two of my colleagues want to enter into this debate. They both have responsibilities which touch on the matters that appear in the resolution.

I think it’s fair to say that the whole matter of assessment and property tax reform is one which even now is being considered by most municipalities across the province. I think we all understand that there is a disproportionate share of the overall burden of tax being carried by the home owners, that property tax in its present form does not take into account the ability to pay, and that many who are retired simply cannot afford to carry the excessively large burden that is placed upon them as the result of the existing property tax methods being used.

Even at this point in time there is a move under way which is transferring the burden of property tax from not only one class of property to another, but from properties within each class on to others as a result of the appeal system which is presently available and being used.

It’s suggested to us, and I believe it to be true, that in the recent past, a large number of commercial property owners are appealing and winning substantial property tax reductions. This can only mean that since the overall expenditure levels of the municipality have already been set, there must be at some point in time a transfer from I those who have appealed, quite rightfully so, the excessive assessment burden placed upon their properties That additional cost must then be borne by the other taxpayers. We are having even now, a transfer of responsibility and in some measure, I suppose, a changing of the whole property tax system. The unfortunate

part is that it is no more equitable when it finishes than it was when it started.

We have noted with some interest that property tax reform has been promised by this government for the better part of the last 10 years. Considerable controversy has raged from time to time over the method to be used in effecting property tax reform. I want to make it clear to the government, in order that they understand what it is we are saying, we believe it is better to proceed with property tax reform now and to bring about a more equitable situation than to allow the inequities which presently exist to continue or to allow the reform to take place piecemeal as a result of the appeal system being used.

We want to say to the government that in doing that they have to be sure the burden that is transferred is not transferred without due respect for the ability of the home owner and the small business person to assume whatever their legitimate share of the overall costs of municipal funding ought to be. We are saying, for example, that it would be unfair just simply to go through with a property tax reform and then allow the chips to fall where they may because the transfer of fiscal responsibility and the transfer of the tax burden would be most onerous on many of the persons who own older properties.

Many of those persons are in a position where they simply do not have the income capacity to carry any more of the burden.

When we laid out the conditions under which we as a political party would be prepared to support property tax reform, we did so hoping that perhaps the government would take those eight suggestions and incorporate them in one form or another into legislation which would guarantee that there would be no general increase in tax to the residential sector as a result of the changes which must take place or any of the other matters that we outlined as being necessary for our support for any move by the government.

The fact of the matter is that in Hamilton, as in many other municipalities, there is a general loss of revenue as a result of the present method of dealing with the inequitable situations which arise in property tax and assessment.

Recently, in fact in the last fiscal year, the city of Hamilton has lost revenues in excess of $3.5 million due to appeals. The city of Windsor is losing revenues somewhere in the order of $13 million as the result of appeals.

It is legitimate to appeal, and the reductions in the revenues in actual fact as a result of those appeals are legitimate reductions. The unfortunate

part is, of course, that the overall expenditures of those municipalities have already been budgeted for, and the expected revenues include, in Hamilton’s ease, $3.5 million, or in Windsor’s case, $13 million. So these municipalities will have to debenture that in one form or another, raising it by either loans or some other method, and then transfer that on to other municipal taxpayers in the forthcoming year or years in order to balance their budgets.

That is not fair, because certain property owners, primarily larger, commercial property owners, are able to hire counsel and gain the expertise of people in the field. Many of them incidentally are offering that expertise after having come right out of the Ministry of Revenue here. They are opening consulting firms and providing their services on the basis of what they learned right here, working for the government of Ontario.

Many of these people, because of their corporate status, are able to use the expertise that has been developed and therefore go and win appeals, the end result of which means that everyone else who can’t take advantage of that, because they can’t afford it or aren’t aware of it, are going to have to carry the additional burden.

We think that the problem in Ontario will get worse, that what we are seeing happening will continue to happen, and that the appeals system as a means of reforming the tax structure is wrong. We believe that what we are now seeing in these municipalities will become, if it has not already, widespread across Ontario, and that most municipalities will then he faced with the tremendous consequence of cost, not only in terms of the appeal system itself, but in terms of the diminished revenues that they would receive.

I want to suggest, as one of the areas that I feel most strongly about, that the item (

c) in the second part of the resolution is one which the government must pay particular attention to. It is vital that we recognize that as a result of actions by this government over the last short period of time, the portion of education costs being borne by the provincial treasury is rapidly being reduced, and therefore the cost to the local home owner is increasing. That flies in the face of, or is counter to, all of the things that we have discussed in this House over the last 11 years that I have been here.

I well remember the statements of John Robarts when he was the Premier, of a number of Ministers of Education when they spoke, of gradually assuming more of the burden of education costs, when in actual fact over the last year or perhaps two years we have seen the exact opposite taking place.

I want to say to the government members that as they take a look at the burden of property tax cost, they must recognize that if there was one area into which they could move fairly quickly, and could effect a general saving, and could reduce the burden on many who simply cannot afford to carry it because of inadequate pension levels or for that matter inadequate income levels, the undertaking of a program to reduce the educational portion of property tax is something that makes abundant good sense.

Mr. Nixon: I haven’t heard that phrase for quite a while.

Mr. Deans: I thought I’d use it today since I haven’t used it for a while and I like to keep it in mind. It seems to me it was used on numerous occasions by someone who is now on the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Nixon: That’s the man.

Mr. Deans: In any event, I want to say that the direct payment of the property tax credit at the time of the payment of tax -- recognizing that it is a little complex -- is something the government must look at. It is unfair to say to someone that at the end of the fiscal year you can then claim against your income tax and receive a rebate on your property tax. That, of course, assumes that most people can afford to carry that unfair share of the overall burden, a share which we all recognize is unfair, during the course of those 12 months.

Many don’t live long enough to get it and for others that $100 or $150 is the difference between being able to meet their obligations to their families and not being able to meet them. Many have to borrow the money in order simply to meet their commitment, even although we all know they are going to get it back. So I think it makes more sense that we should devise a program that allows for that to be paid at the time the taxes are paid and therefore reduces the tax immediately and acts much more equitably and fairly in terms of trying to accommodate the needs of people, taking into account their income potentials.

In any event I commend this to the House. I hope that it will receive the support of all of the members and that we will be able to proceed to have this matter reviewed by the government and that the government will come forward with some recommendations to meet the general thrust that we have put before it and that the government will not feel in any way inhibited from moving forward with a property tax reform, an assessment reform, subject to these particular modifications.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Wentworth wish to reserve the balance of the time?

Mr. Deans: No, I don’t, Mr. Speaker. I’m quite content.

Mr. Ashe: It is indeed a pleasure to speak on this particular ballot item. It’s rather difficult, I must say, because there is no doubt we are all aware of many of the points that were made by the honourable member. The government is aware of them and has so stated on many occasions; the joint committee of the province and local government that studied the issue further earlier this year recognized many of these same points and they’re brought forward here.

It is nice to finally put a tab, if you will, on the resolution in that we now recognize that it is the policy of the NDP, through the member that has introduced it. We were trying to really figure before whether it was a personal policy, whether it was support or otherwise, and whether it was party policy. Now we know.

Mr. Deans: You never asked. You could have picked up the telephone and asked me.

Interjections.

Mr. Ashe: The one unfortunate part about the particular resolution, Mr. Speaker, is the over simplistic way in which very difficult problems are being put forward. There are statements that have been made by the honourable member that aren’t exactly correct either, and hopefully I will be able to touch upon those from time to time.

There is no doubt that the government position in its proposals earlier this year recognized, and in fact stated, that it was the full intention and hope of property tax reform that the residential base, if you will, should carry a lesser load than it has been carrying. As a matter of fact, the proposal contained within the January 1978 white paper, if implemented the way it was projected would have reduced from an estimated 50 per cent to 42 per cent the share of the property tax as being paid for by the residential property taxpayers.

Mr. Swart: And put them up 15 per cent on single family dwellings in Toronto.

Mr. Ashe: The particular proposal put forward by the provincial local government committee would have changed that slightly from 42 per cent to 43 per cent but in both cases there would be a rather substantial decrease.

Where the simplicity of the motion comes in is really relating to the typical NDP motion -- and I now understand it as being a party motion -- with the lack of recognition that a dollar is a dollar and if you don’t raise it here you’ve got to raise it there.

Mr. Laughren: That is exactly what we are telling you.

Mr. Ashe: You hear the constant reference about, “We’ve got to lower the taxes here,” and, “We’ve got to cut down this,” and “We’ve got to lower that,” recognizing that if you do lower something in one place you have to raise it in another.

Mr. Deans: I pointed that out to you. It is happening now.

Mr. Ashe: Now, tying to realize and recognize that even the government and the local government proposals earlier this year indicated a possible cost to the province -- granted, depending on time of implementation and the phasing in and so on, and that’s fully recognized, but the cost implications to the provincial treasury, which in turn is the taxpayers of Ontario, would be something in the order of $400 million. There’s no doubt, in analysing the proposal being put forth here by the honourable member, that there is no lessening of that implication on the provincial treasury; as a matter of fact there could be and would be substantially more, for I think many and obvious reasons.

[3:45]

As is usual, there’s no real suggestion as to where this money should come from. Should we, for example, be raising the provincial income tax by 15 per cent, which would raise something in the order of $400 million? I don’t think so. I don’t think this is a very appropriate time to be doing that.

Mr. Laughren: I don’t think it’s the appropriate time to do anything.

Mr. Ashe: Also, there is reference made in the (

c) part of the last part of the motion, “Undertake a program to reduce the educational portion of the property tax.” There’s no doubt it is a commitment of this government to reduce property taxes to senior citizens, to those in need, and in fact this has been happening over a great period of time.

Mr. Swart: In the last three years they have increased.

Mr. Ashe: It is true that in the last couple of years there has been a slight decrease, and I’ll use the word slight --

Mr. Grande: Why don’t you read the budget?

Mr. Ashe: -- rather than using the words “rapidly reducing” which is incorrect. It slightly reduced --

Mr. Warner: Would you like the real figures?

Mr. Ashe: -- participation in the overall educational costs paid by the provincial treasury. It is not a rapidly reducing sum, it was slight. But on the other side of the coin --

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, it’s amazing how you can sit and give the honourable members an opportunity, but they don’t like hearing the other side of the coin. They don’t like hearing the facts. They don’t like holes being picked in some of their shortcomings, and their shortfalls. The figures speak for themselves. In property tax credits, for example, senior citizens and those in need have not only had in total the educational dollars in their tax bill credited but in many instances a much greater amount than that, depending on economic need.

There’s another suggestion in here that we as a government would probably love, from a political sense, to be able to much closer relate the property tax credit system to the tax bill. I think it’s acknowledged that we really don’t get all the credit that we should out of that particular program financed by the taxpayers of Ontario, because it does relate to the federal income tax form and hence I’m afraid to say that the federal government gets some of the credit for that. lt’s not quite as simple to just switch it over.

If the opposition could come up with any specific suggestions as to how to do this, to relate it to the time of payment, without duplicating the federal government’s income tax collection administration, if it can be done without unduly increasing provincial or municipal administration or credit costs, if it can be done without requiring a taxing back of credits paid at an earlier date hut still delivering a system only to those who need it the most, then we’d be glad to implement it. But these straight-across-the-hoard type statements don’t recognize the reality of our economic system in any way.

Last but not least, Mr. Speaker -- how much time do I have left?

Mr. Deans: You’re over time, just like the government.

Mr. Ashe: There’s no doubt that there are many areas within this resolution that are already recognized. For example, the pass-through to tenants. I think this has been acknowledged. Again, we don’t want to have to set up any great administrative system that would add costs and tax burden, but as long as the rent review process is in effect, I think that particular process is within the purview of that particular administration and, in fact, pass-through would take place and could take place.

I think it’s also recognized that the government is doing things. There was no consensus earlier this year throughout the province, through the municipalities, to go forward with the proposals either of the government or the joint committee’s proposals. There was no unanimity within this particular Legislature. This is the first time we’ve really heard anything specifically from the opposition and that’s, as usual, very simplistic, give everybody a tax decrease, nobody a tax increase, don’t worry about where the half-billion dollars or thereabouts would come from.

You’d just pick it out of the sky, and that’s a typical unrealistic NDP approach to any fiscal problem, because there’s no fiscal responsibility within many of their proposals.

Mr. Laughren: Read the resolution.

Mr. Ashe: I’ve read the resolution and we’re just --

Mr. Laughren: You don’t understand.

Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt it is so nebulous that it is hard to put a total dollar value to it. I acknowledge that. But I think it is safe to say that $500 million is not out of the ball park.

Mr. Swart: Tell us where we propose any massive increases.

Mr. Ashe: Going along with the fact that there is no doubt this is a very significant money type of resolution, we cannot support it and the government generally cannot support it.

Mr. Laughren: Your answer is to do nothing. You are running scared.

Mr. Warner: You’ve been doing nothing for 10 years.

Mr. Ashe: We are proceeding to look at the problem throughout the province in many and varied ways through

section 86 of the Assessment Act. We are looking at the feasibility of correcting equalization factors in the short term to help those with the greatest problems. We are also, of course, continuing to study the more comprehensive tax reform proposals and the problems related thereto.

Although the spirit of this resolution goes along with the thinking of the government in its recognition that there are tax inequities, this is not the way to solve the problem.

Mr. Grande: So you are going to vote against it.

Mr. Ashe: It also brings in some other items under the last part, items (a), (

b) and (c), which is the hooker to make it completely unattractive, because two problems are trying to be solved in a very simplistic way. For example, tax reform strictly addresses how much money should be raised through property taxes --

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Revenue supports this. Check with him; he thinks it’s a good idea.

Mr. Ashe: -- while grants talk about the distribution of and a different share of moneys from different tax sources. One can’t really bring the two problems in together.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the resolution, although the spirit behind it is very honourable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the resolution and intend to vote for it.

I would say that a good many of the matters brought forward in the resolution should be supported by all honourable members. It calls for a freeze on the expansion of municipal tax costs for most of the property owners -- and who can vote against that? It calls for a mandatory pass-through of any savings by landlords to tenants, and we have done this sort of thing in the Legislature before. We have procedures which can be monitored in such a way that we know it can work.

One of the most serious inequities in the proposals that have come from the government in the past has been in that very area where, if there had been assessment changes in some of the major urban centres, the benefits that would have accrued to apartment owners would not necessarily have been passed through to the tenants who are taxpayers in a very real way.

Many people think that tenants have a relief from taxation at the municipal level simply because they pay rent and the landlord has the responsibility. That is true, of course, but only insofar as the landlord must get his revenue for tax purposes from the rents and from no other source. We in this Legislature can use our undoubted powers in this connection to make certain that it is the tenants who deserve the assistance in this regard who get it.

I am surprised that the honourable member would indicate his concern that the government in Ottawa would be getting some kind of political credit simply because of the large amounts of money that are paid out through the provincial tax credit scheme.

The second point I want to bring to the attention of the honourable member who, except for the member for Durham East --

Mr. Cureatz: Thank you.

Mr. Nixon: -- is alone in the government benches; even the minister who was in here checking over his expense account for the last few weeks has now gone to hand it in to somebody in the Treasury.

Mr. Eakins: There are two government members in the House.

Mr. Nixon: Well, payday was yesterday.

Mr. Cureatz: From Durham, I might add.

Mr. Eakins: Two government members and both from Durham.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the thing that deeply concerns me is the fiasco in the whole assessment process that was introduced by the government more than a decade ago when it decided it would take the responsibility of assessment away from the municipalities, centralize it here at Queen’s Park --

Hon. Mr. Wells: A point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I just want to take great umbrage at my friend’s suggesting that I was checking over my expense account here.

Mr. Deans: You did that before you came in, right?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I want him to know that I was listening to the debate and studying the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs which we will be debating fully starting next Monday.

Mr. Nixon: I want to commend the minister because with his entrance -- and I notice he brought the policy secretary with him -- there are now four bona fide Tories sitting opposite, as well as two or three Tories sifting with the NDP who are still here.

Mr. Swart: Turn around and look at your back benches.

Mr. Nixon: One of them is just laughing. He wears a red coat but he wears blue underwear.

Mr. Deans: How do you know?

Mr. Nixon: What other colour could they be?

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making before the minister interrupted with his point of order, if in fact it was a point of order --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Point of personal privilege.

Mr. Nixon: -- is my concern at the damage and probably irreparable injury the government has done to the assessment system of this province when it decided a decade ago that only it had the good sense and judgement to impose proper, fair and judicious assessments in the province of Ontario.

They took it away from the assessment commissioners of the counties -- there weren’t any regions in those days -- and I’ll tell you, at that stage there were very few complaints about the assessment because there were proper and well-understood procedures for appeal at the local level, and these adjustments took place not in great wads of assessment appeals but year-by-year as values changed among similar properties.

The member for Durham West has indicated he is surprised there have been no pronouncements from the opposition in this regard. We have been calling for a return of assessment to the regions and the cities and the counties, as was promised by the honourable minister’s predecessor -- I think his predecessor about two back, and in those instances it was still Darcy McKeough -- who decided all he needed was to have it for a few weeks and set it straight, like the Great Creator himself readjusting the universe, and then sending it back to the municipalities where they would apply it only under his eagle-eyed supervision.

I have a feeling the present minister has not got such a puffed-up and strong view of his own abilities in this regard. Perhaps he even wishes it had never been brought into the provincial sphere in the first instance, because it was a bad mistake and the handling at the provincial level has approached the dimensions of a fiasco.

The member for Durham West, as I said, was wondering why we haven’t been saying anything. We have had a strong and effective alternative which we have put to the House repeatedly. The honourable member knows his government, about every eight months, comes out with a new study and a new pronunciamento about assessment which is going to be the be-all and the end-all as far as problems with assessment are concerned. But it has never come up with an acceptable solution as far as it is concerned, because certain special pressures are brought to bear, either through the caucus of elsewhere, and the government postpones it again.

It has been a subject much studied. Somebody marked down at one time the cost of these studies and it is a huge sum of public funds indeed. It has taken us nowhere, except to the fact that this government cannot come up with a fair, judicious and equitable alternative to what we had working effectively in the province until they got their fingers on assessment and decided that their judgement was better than anyone else’s.

[4:00]

I think this resolution is one that is supportable. It has been criticized so far by the honourable member, the spokesman for the government, as being one that is either going to freeze taxes or lower them in some respects without raising revenue.

There is a

section with reference to increasing municipal revenues. I do say that the member for Wentworth is a little careful when he talks about that. Under 3, he says: “Provide a phase-in adjustment program ... with graded exemptions and other special circumstances ... ”

Mr. Turner: What does that mean?

Mr. Nixon: It seems to me he has covered his back just about as carefully as was necessary there so that nobody could ever say that anybody is actually going to have to reach into his pocket and pull out some money and contribute it to lower taxes for anybody else.

Mr. Warner: It is good planning.

Mr. Nixon: I suppose this is a penchant for opposition politicians in the third party because they have got so much to lose after having lost so much.

Mr. Warner: The voice of experience.

Mr. Nixon: I do believe that is perhaps the only weakness in the resolution that is before us. I really think that the resolution, as far as it goes, can be supported. I would like to have had time to draw to the attention of the minister that fooling around with payments to farmers with respect to the tax reduction program that we presently have should not be entered into lightly because it might be found even more inconvenient for the farmers than it presently is, and we all know how inconvenient it presently is.

Mr. Ashe: Are you a bona fide farmer?

Mr. Nixon: Yes, I am.

Mr. Swart: I expect it will come as no surprise to anyone that I am taking

part in this debate and that I may have had some hand in the resolution that is before us at this time.

Mr. Mancini: Which side are you on?

Mr. Swart: I want to state right at the outset that this resolution is a deliberate attempt to have this House express the opinion that the government ought to move ahead expeditiously with reform of property assessment.

I suggest that the members on the opposite benches should not block it. This is not a bill. We should have within this House an expression of opinion on whether we should move ahead on property tax reform.

Mr. Ashe: Why didn’t you just say that?

Mr. Swart: It is not radical. It is not costly. The member for Durham West has been totally negative in his approach to this. Because of that I am going to speak, if he will stay, to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who is fresh on the job and perhaps would like to take a new look at this whole thing and perhaps move ahead.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I didn’t realize I looked after assessment.

Mr. Swart: I am going to be fairer than the member for Durham West was. I am going to be positive in this. We in this caucus recognize that assessment revision, as much as it may be needed to correct injustices, is not an easy task. Tories across the floor were probably smart politically to reject the McKeough proposal. Even though the reform, as he stated, might have lowered taxes for 75 per cent of the property owners, the 25 per cent who got the increase wouldn’t rush out to support the government that was in power.

The McKeough proposal, by shifting taxes for that many single-family dwelling units paying higher taxes, particularly older houses and those in the big centres, notably Toronto, created as many injustices as it solved. However, the member for Durham West, who would like to sit back stunned and immobile, as the government has been doing since last spring, is compounding the problem.

The present system simply is breaking down.

My colleague from Wentworth has mentioned the problem with regard to the loss of revenue by appeals by those who have the money to appeal. In Hamilton, last year the loss of assessment was over $8 million, plus more than $2 million in business assessment, almost entirely to the corporate sector.

That’s not the only loss. The former Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs pointed out in his report last January that in Sarnia, for instance, they paid $1.3 billion more than they should have paid because of improper equalization -- and we are going to do something about that equalization by itself, I want to assure you, a little later on in this session -- and that Windsor lost $13 million in provincial grants because of improper equalization, as have many other municipalities, including St. Catharines, where the Treasurer estimates they have lost $1 million.

We need to make changes to correct these injustices that exist. The injustices are being perpetuated and new tax shifts are taking place in a regressive and a perverse manner -- and that cannot be denied -- by not doing anything about it. In addition, and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk spoke on this, the government has spent over $100 million -- probably closer to $150 million -- on reassessment. The taxpayers have the right to expect something beneficial in return and we say that it can be provided.

The first thing that must be recognized if we are going to get a plan that is workable is that taxation directly on assessment at market value can never be applied. This became obvious years ago. Even McKeough had to agree to a reduction of 50 per cent in the market value on residences. Even then, single-family homes in Metro would have had average tax increases, if we had gone ahead, of 15 per cent.

However, market value as a base, with recognition of its problems and with appropriate adjustments, is workable and I want to talk about one of them. The major distortion in market value assessment has been the unconscionable increase in residential land prices. Obviously this has hit single-family dwellings the hardest. An examination of 15 major cities in Ontario shows an increase in lot prices from $5,350 to $15,800 between 1969 and 1977, a threefold increase in eight years. By comparison, residential construction costs have risen just 98 per cent.

Not only has this government allowed speculation to drive single-family homes out of the reach of most people, but even where they bought them years ago, the government is going to assess taxes against them and the new home owners on these phoney inflated values. The McKeough tax reform never ever touched on this land inflation issue.

That’s the whole reason why taxes on single homes in Toronto would have gone up an average $96 compared to an average $102 reduction elsewhere in the province, because Toronto has the greatest inflated lot prices and their assessment per capita on straight market value would cause them to lose more grants from government. A new lot in Scarborough now is worth something like $50,000.

Mr. Laughren: That’s the cost. It’s not worth that.

Mr. Swart: In Toronto, single houses are paying something like an average of $849 compared to $530 in the rest of the province, and it is perfectly understandable why they do. They get a grant of approximately 27 per cent for education. The average for the province is 51 per cent. They get that low grant because their assessment per capita is high because of inflated land prices, and we have got to do something to change that. Not only does this inflation distort provincial transfers but also single family versus apartments and all other types of assessment and the older homes, particularly the homes in the downtown area, pay a disproportionate share.

The answer is really not difficult. My friend over there talks about being simplistic. I think it’s not simplistic, I think it’s fairly simple. If we use an inflation reductor factor on residential land, perhaps all land, we can bring that mess in some order. It could be applied in one of two ways. We could take a base year and say we will only permit the assessment to rise according to the cost of living, or something of that nature, since the base year, or let’s rather use even a more simple method, a percentage of the market value.

We are using this on houses, but we’re lumping houses that haven’t increased in value along with the lots. If you could have 50 per cent on the houses and 20 per cent on the lots, you would find that equalization across the province would be very favourably affected and people living in single-family dwellings wouldn’t have this great increase.

If the government took this kind of action in one fell swoop, it would remove the main obstacle to the tax reform program. It would remove the shift to single-family dwellings, and the greatest benefit would go to places like Toronto and the older houses in those places, which would have been hit the hardest. It would reform the assessment per capita ratio so that the larger cities would get their fair share of provincial transfers. And any assessment reform which is going to be workable must incorporate that land devaluation factor for assessment purposes.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Kerrio: Until the next election, Mel.

Mr. Acting Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Swart: That is the sort of thing that is envisaged in clauses 1 and 2 of the resolution you have before you. In the little time I have left I want to turn to the question of applying the property tax credits at the time taxes are paid. I suggest it is practical; I suggest it is reasonable. I have talked to municipal people about it. I know it is going to be something of an administrative problem, but I suggest the provincial government can evolve a tax table which the federal government can use to send to the municipalities so municipalities will know that when a certain individual comes in to pay taxes on his property a certain

section of that table applies.

If the individual had taxes of $500 to pay, he would get $240 back. If it’s $600 that year, he could get $280 back. If it’s $700, he could get more. I don’t have enough time to explain it here and I suggest --

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Swart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say, finally, the government has been timid, it has been inflexible, it has procrastinated, the whole system is falling down around it --

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Swart: -- it’s time it got on with the job.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not necessary for the mover of a motion in a matter such as this to be in the House for the debate?

Mr. Bradley: Is he not here?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let the record show, at least, that he wasn’t interested enough in the debate to attend it.

Mr. Laughren: What kind of nonsense is that?

Mr. Kerrio: Good point. Well made.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt on a point of order.

Mr. Laughren: It’s unnecessary to point that out. We could also point out to the minister that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who both have responsibility in this area, are not in the House either.

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, but they are going to block it.

Mr. Bradley: They will be here at 10 minutes to six to block it.

Mr. Laughren: This shows you what priority you attach to this topic right here.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, may I say how privileged I feel to be participating in this interesting debate. I am very proud to see that there are a number of Conservative members who have come back into the House, although it is a little lonely in the back benches -- here comes the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner).

It was good to see that the member for Durham West continued throughout this debate, especially in the context of his having such wonderful experience in the municipal scene -- as major of Pickering he has a great depth of knowledge of the affairs taking place.

I would like to say a few words about this resolution that has been moved by the member for Wentworth. I want to try to cover three basic areas: first to deal with the resolution in a general sense; secondly my remarks will review some of the specific proposals of the resolution; and finally, I would like to read into the record some statements made by the Minister of Revenue as they relate to property taxation in my own constituency of Durham East.

To highlight and to contrast the member for Durham West, it is interesting to note how closely the member’s resolution compares to some of the proposals made by my own government.

Mr. Laughren: It should be easy to implement them.

Mr. Cureatz: In that light, I won’t be as negative as indicated by the member for Wentworth. Unfortunately, I might say that I am not fully supportive of the overall package that is being presented this afternoon.

Mr. Laughren: You guys flip-flop all the time. One flip-flop after another.

Mr. Cureatz: In the first place, I would suggest that this bill is essentially a money bill. I’m sure the member for Wentworth agrees that the province simply could not afford such an outlay at this time.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Wentworth on a point of order.

[4:15]

Mr. Deans: Point of order: I wouldn’t want that the comment of the member go unchallenged. I would want that he would learn, since he is new, that a resolution is not a bill. Therefore, it can in fact deal with --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Would you state your point of order please?

Mr. Deans: My point of order is that the member’s comment was, at least, misleading.

Mr. Kennedy: That’s unparliamentary -- withdraw.

Mr. Deans: No, I just said the comment was misleading.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Would the member for Durham East please continue.

Mr. Bradley: Do you feel reprimanded now?

Mr. Cureatz: The provincial local government committee’s report and the reaction of municipalities throughout Ontario demonstrated there was no consensus on the overall matter of the problems facing us this afternoon.

Mr. Deans: There’s no consensus on a lot of things.

Mr. Cureatz: Indeed, all three parties in this House were less than enthusiastic about adopting the recommendations of the provincial local government committee. In our haste to replace an inequitable system, our government is keenly aware that the new system must not introduce a new set of difficulties. That is why the ministries of Treasury and Economics, Education, Intergovernmental Affairs and Revenue continue to work on the introduction of property tax reform and market value assessment. We can all agree in this House that when that overall package does come forward, it will be a pleasure to look again at the present taxation system.

My final introductory comment would be that it is a practical impossibility to force the province into this program on a province-wide basis in time for the 1979 property tax year.

At this time I would like to cover some of the specific points.

Point one of the resolution states: “Assure that there is no general increase in taxes to the residential sector or to the small business sector.” My comment here would be that there is no consensus on how to fund this proposal. The moneys would have to come either through an increase of the property tax burden on non-residential and non-small business property or from general revenues.

In either case, the business sector would be burdened with additional taxation which it simply cannot bear at this time. Moreover, problems may well arise when attempts are made at defining small business for the purpose of property taxation.

The third point of the resolution is not difficult to agree with conceptually. However, it is not helpful to those who are trying to hammer out the details of a phase-in program. Unduly long phase-in programs only serve to highlight inequities. Ratepayers whose taxes will decrease under property tax reform will be against any phase-in of these decreases; ratepayers who face increases will want to prolong the increase over a long period of time.

Ms. Gigantes: What you are saying is no bread is better than half a loaf.

Mr. Cureatz: Point four, which deals with mandatory passing through is in violation of the spirit of deregulation to which this government is committed as a long-term direction. Any additional government involvement in this area would be both costly and cumbersome because new administrative machinery would have to be set up and additional legislation would have to be passed.

Mr. Swart: I have you on record that you don’t believe it should be passed.

Mr. Cureatz: Looking at point five of the resolution, “Assess farm land at agricultural value except where it is held by speculators or developers,” the member for Wentworth surely understands that assessors value real property, not the ownership of real property. I draw the member’s attention to sections 3 and 27 of the Assessment Act which is very explicit on this point. In fact, when one looks at past attempts by assessors --

Mr. Swart: We want to change the act.

Mr. Cureatz: -- to distinguish between farmers and speculators, the courts have stipulated that the assessor must value land and its use, not ownership or intent of use.

Mr. M. Davidson: We are suggesting the act be changed.

Mr. Cureatz: I am no advocate of “go slow” policy on property tax reform and I realize if necessary changes are going to take some time, then interim adjustments are essential --

Mr. Swart: How about the 10 years you have already spent?

Mr. Cureatz: -- especially in those areas where the problems related to assessment are most pressing.

Mr. Grande: Millions of dollars to study it.

Mr. Cureatz: In my constituency of Durham East, the town of Newcastle passed a resolution asking the Minister of Revenue to invoke the provisions of

section 86 of the Assessment Act to remove inequities within each class of property.

Mr. M. Davidson: You’d better believe it. That is your answer.

Mr. Cureatz: I am pleased to read into the record an excerpt from a statement made by the Minister of Revenue regarding the town of Newcastle.

Mr. Grande: Let him speak for himself.

Mr. Cureatz: The minister stated, “I am confident that the judicious application of

section 86 will provide an appropriate solution to the assessment problems currently facing the town of Newcastle.”

Mr. M. Davidson: He said that in Cambridge, too.

Mr. Cureatz: The minister stressed that this approach to the town’s assessment problem will not result in any property tax shifts from one class of property to the other.

I might add at this point that the town of Newcastle council over the last three or four years has been attempting to come to grips with this problem. Over the last year, through contact with myself and in co-ordination with the appropriate minister, we were able to come up with a partially satisfactory solution.

In summation, I am generally in accord with the underlying concept of the resolution, as it relies so heavily upon established government policy. But the resolution does the difficulties of market value assessment a disservice by conveying the impression that they are amenable to simplistic and poorly timed solutions. Therefore, we can’t at this time support the resolution.

Mr. Bradley: I stand in general support of the resolution placed before the House this afternoon. It’s a resolution which is prompted by the obvious and long-recognized need for property tax reform in the province of Ontario. That there are inequities which require redress both within municipalities and between municipalities, I think is something that is known to all municipal politicians arid all politicians who reside in the province of Ontario. This is not something unique to the province of Ontario as other provinces have had to deal with this problem in the past.

It seems to me that the proposal for market value assessment in itself is not the solution. I know of no one, either on the government side or on the opposition side, who has suggested that market value assessment in itself will solve all the problems or will not create some other problems. Therefore, a number of committees and people within the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs have studied the problem to attempt to find a solution for implementing property tax reform in a way which is palatable to the people of Ontario.

As the member for Wentworth has indicated in his initial remarks, with the appeals, that are taking place across the province, particularly by large industrial concerns, we’re finding that municipalities themselves are losing required revenues and are faced with the dilemma of either reducing what they consider to be essential services or passing this tax burden on to someone else within the municipality. Often they are the people who are least able to afford this additional tax burden. So we see the consequences of the inequities which continue because of lack of precise action on the part of the government.

This problem has been researched and studied more than any other subject, I suppose, in terms of municipal affairs; yet we’ve had no real implementation of the suggestions and proposals contained in the various reports.

I think it might be fair for one to draw the conclusion that the lack of action on this particular matter precipitated the early exit of the former provincial Treasurer and member for Chatham-Kent who, to his credit, even though we may not agree with the precise proposals he made, was very concerned about the implementation of property tax reform in Ontario and obviously was concerned about the foot-dragging that was taking place amongst his colleagues who were not prepared to implement some form of package which could be altered or amended by members of this House if it was not suitable to the majority.

Municipalities have certainly been asked over the years not to make greater demands on the province and not to ask for adjustments in the various formulae for the allocation of provincial grants to them for library purposes or other specific purposes or the resources equalization grant. One of the reasons that has been used to postpone this adjustment in the formulae and to postpone the cost-sharing agreements and the agreements in terms of all grants available to municipalities is that, “We’re going to implement