Hansard Transcripts 1982-Nov-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before starting with routine proceedings, I would like to deal with a matter which the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) yesterday asked me to look into regarding his submission that his privileges and the privileges of the House had been abrogated by exchanges across the floor between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

I must confess that I have been unable to find one of the recognized privileges of the House or of individual members which governs this question. Rather, what the member is alleging is that the exchange offended the sub judice rule and that, of course, is a matter of order, not of privilege. However, what occurred on the occasion to which he referred was that he, the member for Riverdale, interrupted the exchange to raise the sub judice question.

As I stated yesterday, I must rely on the House to provide me with sufficient information to convince me that there is a danger that a citizen's rights in the court of law may be prejudiced. As soon as sufficient information had been brought to my attention, I ruled that the matter could not be further pursued while before the courts. This is, of course, the usual and regular procedure in such cases and I am therefore satisfied that the matter has been properly dealt with and that no further action is open to me.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, this morning a brown envelope arrived on my desk and I am sure it was destined for someone else. Inside the envelope was a calendar from the Ministry of Correctional Services. I am sorry the minister is not in the House because I would like to know the cost of producing this particular calendar. In order that I may determine that, I would like to send it to the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. It was hardly a point of privilege but it was an interesting point.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LICENCE PLATES FOR DISABLED

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to provide the House today with the final details of my ministry's initiatives to assist handicapped drivers throughout the province and, as a side benefit, make the public more aware of the special needs of these drivers and those who transport them.

As of February 1, 1983, all Ministry of Transportation and Communications vehicle licensing offices will have available our new disabled symbol licence plates, and our privatized outlets will have applications for the plates which can be mailed to the MTC for processing.

The plates will be issued without extra charge to any handicapped person whose mobility is seriously restricted for medical reasons or who requires the use of a wheelchair, crutches, etc., and will replace their current passenger plates. They also will be available to anyone who regularly transports a disabled person.

The purpose of the new plate is to provide an easy means of identifying vehicles eligible for the reserved parking spots which are being offered more and more these days.

While my ministry and organizations representing the handicapped have tried to educate the public on the importance of respecting these parking areas, a degree of abuse still continues. I am certain most of the honourable members here today have seen a reserved parking spot taken by a driver who clearly had no physical need for such front-row privileges.

These plates are a direct response to requests by the handicapped and their organizations to help eliminate this abuse and to accommodate our disabled citizens. They will carry the internationally recognized symbol for the disabled in place of the first two letters of the usual plate.

Any person requesting a disabled-symbol licence plate from my ministry will be required to sign a statement attesting to his or her handicap or the driving services he or she provides to the handicapped on a regular basis.

At the present time, some of our municipalities already issue special handicapped placards or permits. However, changes are needed in Ontario's Municipal Act so that communities also can recognize the provincially issued plates as giving their owner the legal right to whatever standing, stopping or parking privileges an individual municipality chooses to extend.

I expect these changes will be introduced some time early in the spring session by my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett).

Our aim now is to have all municipalities involved in special initiatives to help our handicapped drivers. That is why last year, during the International Year of Disabled Persons, the need to help these communities devise the necessary bylaw was made a priority project. Now MTC staff have finalized a model parking bylaw to assist municipalities that will be adopting legislation in the future to extend special privileges to the handicapped and/or their drivers.

It is my hope that the municipalities will adopt the major elements of the model bylaw such as eligibility, enforcement and scope; for example, on- or off-street parking, use of no-stopping zones, etc. In this way, we will be extending our disabled drivers the best helping hand possible by creating at least some level of consistency in our laws.

It is, of course, also my hope that municipalities currently without these special bylaws will move as quickly as possible to enact this needed legislation. I will be sending a letter to every mayor and reeve in Ontario within the next two days with a sample copy of the proposed bylaw which we would like the municipalities to consider passing.

Mr. J. A. Reed: That is a good thing the minister has done here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ACT REVIEW COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Snow: In May of last year, I announced in this House the formation of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act review committee, which was charged with proposing principles upon which new legislation regulating the trucking industry can be built.

The committee is composed of 24 people whose wide range of experience related to truck transportation assures that all points of view are considered thoroughly. Their productive meetings and wide consultations have done much to advance our understanding of the many issues involved in the regulation of this important industry. In fact, it has progressed to the stage where it is desirable to have public discussion and comment on their work.

10:10 a.m.

I am pleased to table today the PCV Act review committee's interim report, a Discussion Paper on Responsible Trucking. On reading it, I think members will agree that what the committee is setting forth is a comprehensive new direction for regulation in Ontario as an alternative to the present scheme.

As I do not sit on the committee I have not had a chance to study thoroughly the interim report or the discussion paper. But it seems to me that the report identifies and addresses the problem in a creative and thoughtful way.

The committee's first accomplishment is the way in which it has focused and narrowed the debate by deciding on the fundamental issues at the heart of trucking regulations and by articulating the objectives which follow from them. The first part of the discussion paper spells these out and is an invaluable aid to anyone grappling with this complex question.

Then, the committee has proposed a new conceptual approach, a comprehensive new framework for dealing with the problem of creating realistic legislation.

I cannot pretend to do justice in this statement to the committee's long, hard hours of debate. But I, in my brief acquaintance with the report, have noted several themes which seem to underpin its proposals.

The committee, I am happy to note, is not advocating deregulation, but regulatory reform, in keeping with this government's comprehensive efforts in that direction; but the regulation which it proposes would certainly mark a change in emphasis from the old, or from the present.

The thrust of the proposals appears to be that government should seek to regulate the quality of competition, not the quantity. The committee emphasizes responsible performance in the sense of compliance with the law and with the principles of good business practice.

As I read it, while competition might well be stronger under this new emphasis it would also be a fairer and a more responsible form of competition. The intent of the proposals seems to be to ensure that all competitors comply with the same set of rules and that those rules be realistic enough to make compliance palatable.

The PCV Act review committee has provided an excellent basis for discussion with its interim report, exemplifying the kind of original thinking so necessary in dealing with this complicated problem.

The government believes the current law must be changed, since it is clearly out of tune with the 1980s, and this discussion paper appears to be an innovative approach to that change. I know the committee is looking forward to comment from the people involved with trucking in this province, so its final deliberations can accurately reflect their concerns.

Even when the committee's work is completed, there will be much to do before the recommendations can be translated into legislation, keeping in mind each will require careful examination, since the ability of the industry to adjust to any new scheme is critical to its success, especially for the smaller carriers.

Certainly, it is the government's strong concern that the process of change will minimize any disruption or unfair burdens to existing businesses.

Having now seen the direction of their thinking, I feel confident that the committee will produce a final set of recommendations in April 1983 to which we can all look forward with considerable enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be a higher level of noise than usual in the chamber this morning. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members in limiting their private conversations.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, before I commence, I wonder if I could have your indulgence to inquire of you or anyone else who may be aware of the presence of the Attorney General, is he coming or is he not coming?

Mr. Foulds: He's in the back room.

Mr. Peterson: May I request your permission, Mr. Speaker, if he does not show up by our second question, to stand down our second question so we could address some questions to him?

Mr. Foulds: Here he comes.

Mr. Peterson: Here he is; good.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will start with a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware that Mr. Williams, the chairman of the Residential Tenancy Commission, announced on Wednesday in committee under questioning that he had formed a special SWAT unit of the Residential Tenancy Commission to co-ordinate any information on applications from some of the companies involved in the great complicated series of transactions, looking particularly at the names of Greymac Credit, Kilderkin Investments, Crown Trust or Seaway Trust, in order to coordinate --

Mr. Bradley: Did the Premier find that in a brown envelope?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, as a matter of fact it came in a box and it wasn't $200 either.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed with your question, please.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As a member from eastern Ontario and an avid Ottawa Rough Riders fan, I would ask you to rule whether the Premier's attire this morning is in tradition with parliamentary rules.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would join the sentiment of my colleague the member for Carleton Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and say to the Premier and to you, Mr. Speaker, if he walks into the House this week with this jacket on, is he prepared to walk in with an Ottawa Rough Riders jacket on after their win this weekend?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if I could reply to that point of privilege: I assure the member that if by some remote possibility Ottawa wins on Sunday, which is extremely remote, I would be delighted if he would give me an Ottawa Rough Riders jacket. I would be prepared to wear it here next Friday morning.

I would also say in responding to the point of order raised by my good friend and colleague on this side of the House that I am pondering a cabinet shuffle at this moment.

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the original point of order raised by the Provincial Secretary for Justice, I have to say that nothing is out of order. I would further say that if he or the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) feels threatened, I would be happy to see them come in with the appropriate attire if they so wish.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does this not constitute a demonstration?

Mr. Speaker: No, it does not. There is no message contained. Now back to the Leader of the Opposition with his first question.

Mr. Peterson: Are you quite sure Mr. Dress-Up is finished, Mr. Speaker? Do they need any more time with the Premier? Go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: This is oral question period.

Mr. Peterson: That is what I thought it was too. That is why I came here this morning. This is an extraordinary day; the Premier is dressed like that and the member for Ottawa East is here. What more could one ask for?

I assume the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has forgotten the part of the question I asked him because, if he has not, I have. May I repeat it to him?

The minister is aware that on Wednesday of this week, Mr. Williams of the Residential Tenancy Commission announced in committee that day that he would be forming a special SWAT team to co-ordinate all the information on rent applications from a variety of companies, including Greymac Credit, Kilderkin Investments, Crown Trust and/or Seaway Trust.

The minister is also aware that yesterday in the House he announced that the Morrison inquiry into the various trust and loan companies has been expanded beyond just the initial trust companies and will look at Greymac Mortgage also.

10:20 a.m.

It appears that we now have four, five, or even six investigations looking at this whole matter from a variety of different angles and each day they are being expanded a little more to incorporate the new and unfolding information in these circumstances.

Does the minister still not believe that it would be far more efficient to have a single judge with a team of investigators looking at all aspects of this series of deals from one point of view rather than from five or six different points of views?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that I like to believe we are not operating at cross purposes. May I just clarify a couple of things? It was the Leader of the Opposition who called it a SWAT team, not Mr. Williams. What Mr. Williams said was, "In view of the size of the transaction and the fact that there would be many common issues with respect to the transactions, those who are involved in it should be acting in a co-ordinated way so there would not be a duplication of effort."

With respect to Greymac Mortgage and my indication to the member that it would also be part of the Touche Ross examination, he should recall, and I am sure he does, that Greymac Mortgage is a federally incorporated company. But, in view of public interest in this issue and my concern about the public interest, I asked the superintendent of insurance if, in view of the fact that there was now concern that the sale of Greymac Mortgage might indeed be a part of or have had some influence on the other transactions, we could not include it in the Touche Ross endeavours. That has been done.

I do not think that I have excluded other options. I have said that in committee and I have said that to the press. What I am really saying is that we are carrying out, with our own staff, a broad investigation. We are carrying out, through the Touche Ross examination under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, a very detailed audit and examination into the books and general conduct of the business. I am satisfied that those particular types of approaches will give us the kind of information we want. As I said in committee and as I have said to the press, I am not excluding other options in the event information becomes available that requires consideration of other options.

Mr. Peterson: One of the problems with the minister's SWAT team -- I guess he is right, I did name it that, whatever he wants to call it; the team that is going to assemble information from the various groups that are requesting rent increases -- is that it is going to be some considerable time in the future, it could be six months, before there is a rent application. As a result of that he will not have that information into the pot until that time and it is going to create such a complicated financial omelette that he will not be able to unscramble it. He has to start now to look into all aspects of this deal rather than six or eight months from now.

Is it not true, and would the minister not agree with me, that we have already collectively learned that by delaying, by not getting to the bottom of these matters in the first instance, we are seeing more and more complications being piled on to the heap, compounding the difficulties, and that we will never get to the bottom of it if we do not look at it from one point of view now?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, I really believe we are not talking at cross purposes because I am determined to get to the bottom of it. I think we have to understand what happened. It is my belief that with the Touche Ross examination starting now and with our own full investigative force working on the issues, we will be able to determine whether or not there are reasonable grounds for having the belief that there has been some wrongdoing in these transactions. That is really what we want to get at, isn't it? If we differ on that, then let the member say so, because I am interested in finding out if there is any wrongdoing.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us his opinion with respect to the Touche Ross auditor appointed under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act? Can he tell us what authority that auditor would have to investigate the books and to cross-examine the directors of Cadillac Fairview, Kilderkin Investments and all the numbered companies when none of those companies comes under the jurisdiction of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is my present belief that in their endeavours to determine the value of properties, which is fundamental to this issue and the possibilities that arise from that, and in the general conduct of the business, they will be able to examine most, if not all, aspects of the business. That, in conjunction with our own investigative work, I believe will give information as to whether or not there is any wrongdoing.

Let me give the member my firm assurance that if there is any evidence of wrongdoing I will be looking at options for a thorough inquiry into it. Let us understand that very clearly. I mean that.

Mr. Peterson: What the minister is saying is he needs proof of wrongdoing in order to look into wrongdoing. He wants it both ways in this circumstance.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Of course, he is. That is what he is saying. I suggest to him that there is prima facie evidence here, in addition to what we have been talking about in this House today and in the past two or three weeks, that requires a complete and thorough investigation. Let me remind him that this thing is spreading out very substantially.

Is he aware that the tenants at 99 Cartier Road in London, Ontario, formerly owned by Kay Properties, are now making their cheques payable to Kilderkin Investments, and that three other buildings in London -- 640, 650 and 660 Fanshawe Park Road -- have been sold to Seaway Real Property Ltd.? Is that going to be investigated?

I am sure he is aware that two of the directors of Seaway Real Property are directors for Seaway Trust, including one A. J. Reynolds Mastin. Even as we are sitting here today, there are probably more deals being signed and sealed and this is compounding, it is growing and it is getting beyond the minister.

I know this is repetitive, but so are his answers. They are not satisfactory; increasingly so every day they are not satisfactory. He should look into all aspects of it now to prevent this from growing, because he does not have the power he suggests he has to look into many of the aspects. He does not have that power and we are going to end up with a piecemeal inquiry -- unless of course he has something to hide.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, let me assure the member I have nothing to hide nor will I be endeavouring to try to hide anything, nor has anyone suggested I should try to hide anything. I want that very clearly understood. If I did not believe that the initial steps we have taken, in terms of the Touche Ross examination and the full investigative capacity of the ministry, including the Ontario Securities Commission looking into other aspects of it, were going to provide us with fundamental information as to whether there has been any wrongdoing, I would not be standing up and saying that I am satisfied with these moves. As I have said very clearly, if as a result of those things other options need to be looked at, I will look at them.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. I wonder whether he recalls that on November 9, a week ago last Tuesday, he made this statement in the House, which I will read from page 5037 of Hansard:

"As I said earlier, and maybe to assist you, Mr. Speaker, this trial" -- the Proverbs trial -- "hopefully will end in the not too distant future. I will welcome a very frank exchange with the member for Ottawa East, the leader of the Liberal Party or any other member of the assembly with respect to any comments I have made about this matter."

Can I ask the Attorney General, as chief law officer of the crown and as the officer whose sworn duty it is to defend the administration of justice, in view of his statements made on various occasions and this statement made just last week, why are we not getting a statement from him as to his conduct in this matter and as to why he has not set up a full, independent inquiry in this matter?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my staff to obtain a complete transcript of the trial as soon as possible, because I want to review the transcript in some detail. Most of what I know about the trial is what I have read in the newspapers or heard through the media.

After reviewing the transcript, I certainly intend to make a statement to this Legislature.

The member for Ottawa East knows this matter apparently is still before the courts. Again, I am relying for the most part on media reports that the accused has announced his intention to appeal the verdict of the jury. Obviously any statement I make to the Legislature will have to take that into consideration.

I have asked that the transcript be expedited. I intend to review it personally, and I certainly wish to make a statement to this Legislature when that transcript is available.

Mr. Roy: Having in mind the Attorney General's answer about obtaining the transcript, which may be wise, I want to ask him why he now wishes to have a transcript before making any comment when on various occasions during the trial -- in fact, just on November 4, he made a comment about the police officer's evidence and the background of the accused -- he did not have a transcript when he made those comments.

The Attorney General is quoted in yesterday's Toronto Star as saying with some reluctance that he wants to make comments "given some of the garbage we've heard" during the stock promoter's trial. How can he expect to have credibility in this matter if on certain occasions he makes comments outside the court and now, once the trial is over and he has made an undertaking to the House to comment at the earliest opportunity, he requires a transcript?

Does the Attorney General not understand that by delaying or by attempting today to invoke the sub judice rule when he knows full well the Court of Appeal will be considering law, not fact, there is a perception that, by taking this approach, he is hoping this matter is going to blow over or that time will solve his problem in this matter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am quite aware of the false perception the honourable member is trying to create outside the Legislature. Notwithstanding that, there is a good deal about this trial that is obviously of interest to me. I used the word "garbage" deliberately. I remind the member for Ottawa East, if he has been following this trial at all, that the accused's own counsel, Mr. David Humphrey, released a memorandum he had sent to the crown attorney prior to this trial, which he made public, in which he himself described as "garbage" the allegations that were made. That was David Humphrey's word.

If the member were attempting to be at all objective about this, he might understand the position of the Attorney General. The trial judge himself says the Attorney General of this province has been slandered; that means defamatory statements that are untrue. That might be another reason I would like to peruse the transcript. The member understands these things. Let us not play games.

The member probably has never been in the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Roy: I have been in court more than you have.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: One of the options open to the Court of Appeal is the possibility of ordering a new trial. I cannot discount that possibility. That is why I have to demonstrate some continuing care as to what I say, despite a considerable amount of nonsense coming from across the floor.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You are the man who made the statements.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There is nothing I have said that I would not say again. I want to have this transcript and I am going to peruse the transcript. Surely the member can appreciate that is the responsible way to proceed.

Mr. Rae: You've got to be kidding. Would you say that again?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You're in the big leagues, junior.

Mr. Peterson: I don't take personally remarks like that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not more than half a dozen times a day.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Riverdale has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the attention of the Attorney General, my supplementary question is keyed on his use of the word "objective."

A review of his comments as reported in the media with respect to the Proverbs matter and of the exchanges that have taken place in this House on the Proverbs matter raises in my mind, and I am certain in the minds of many other people, a reasonable apprehension that he may well not be able to take an impartial view of this matter when he reviews the transcripts or when he receives the police report.

I therefore ask him by reason of his displayed bias in this matter, in the legal sense of that term, to disqualify himself entirely from having anything further to do with this matter.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, such a silly statement hardly deserves an answer. No, the Attorney General of this province is not going to abdicate his responsibility in this matter.

Mr. Roy: Regarding that last statement by the Attorney General, does he not understand that what he is doing is perceived as exactly that, abdicating his sworn responsibility to vigorously defend the administration of justice?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Only in your mind. Albert.

Mr. Roy: The Premier had better stick to the Argonauts this morning.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: In view of the variety of comments and in view of his strange comment this morning, that he will not retract some of his comments made during the trial about the evidence and the background of the accused, which the Court of Appeal may well have something to say about and which the trial judge has said were unfortunate statements in view of all this, and in view of the fact that even the chief of police of Toronto is prepared to review procedures as to police conduct, does the Attorney General not feel that possibly it is time to have this matter investigated, not by the Ontario Provincial Police but by someone independent, preferably a Supreme Court judge, to review all aspects and all allegations of this?

Is the Attorney General prepared to undertake this morning to appoint someone to independently review this situation? If he is not prepared to do that and if he is not prepared to make some statement about his conduct, does he not think we should have someone else in the Attorney General's office who is prepared to defend the integrity of the system?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I say, I am not going to be provoked to responding to some very silly, irresponsible statements that have come from the member for Ottawa East. I am simply going to say that I am not going to say anything about this matter until I have a copy of the transcript. I will be quite happy to make a copy of the transcript available to the Legislature; it is a public document. When I have had an opportunity of perusing that, which the member knows full well is the responsible way to proceed, I will make a statement to the Legislature.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and Trade. If the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) is correct in saying in his press release of November 4, 1982, that the beneficial owners of the numbered companies involved in the Cadillac Fairview sale are Saudi Arabian investors, can the Minister of Industry and Trade tell us whether he, on behalf of the government, has expressed a view to the government of Canada under the Foreign Investment Review Act as to whether this purchase is, to quote the words of the act, "likely to be of significant benefit to Canada"? Has the minister taken a position on that and, if not, why not?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would have to presume that any information given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in a release on November 4, 1982, is the best information he had available at the time; and that is the best information the government had available at the time. I think the honourable member can assume that as far as he is concerned that is accurate and that as far as the rest of us are concerned that is accurate.

The member would have to ask the minister further questions, but I have read reports of his indication that he is not fully aware because he is acting on the basis of information provided to him. To the extent that information has been accurately worded to him, then that is the information he has supplied. He has qualified any of the observations he has made. The member will have to discuss with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations any of the views expressed there. We would accept the views he has provided and consider them to be accurate.

With respect to the matter of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, this matter was the subject of discussions I held personally with Mr. Lumley in his office last Monday in the course of a number of discussions on other topics. I am not prepared to discuss the purpose of those meetings or to discuss further what transpired at them other than to indicate that Mr. Lumley is having the matter looked into by the Department of Justice to determine whether FIRA is involved. When that information is available to him and once he reports on that, then our position will be somewhat clearer as to whether we will be called upon to make an observation on it.

Mr. Rae: I find it hard to understand how the minister can say the government has yet to take a view when this is a matter affecting 11,000 tenants and property and civil rights in this province. Subsection 9(d) of the Foreign Investment Review Act specifically gives to the provinces the right to make representations as to whether the investment is likely to be of significant benefit to Canada in the view of that province.

The minister has suggested that I should address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. When I did that in the committee, he suggested I ask the Minister of Industry and Trade, and that is why I am addressing the question to him.

Mr. Shymko: Why are you yelling?

Mr. Rae: The question is, if I could just complete it, why has the government of Ontario not taken a clear position with respect to this latest transaction affecting 11,000 tenants when the deal is at $500 million and just a few short weeks before it was at $270 million? Why has the government taken no position as to whether this is of significant benefit to Canada?

Hon. Mr. Walker: There is something the leader of the third party has to appreciate and fully understand. He knows full well that section 9 requires the matter to be before FIRA before the opinion of the province is sought. We do not go around offering opinions on things that are not within our domain. The issue will be whether it falls within the Foreign Investment Review Act and their purview. That will be determined by the Department of Justice in Ottawa. In that event, we will be asked our opinion and at that time our opinion will be given.

The member seems to be making some observation about certain Saudi Arabians; that seems to be the essence of it. I think he should appreciate that when people are prepared to invest whatever amount of money it is in Canada, he should welcome that and say something about it from a positive point of view rather than asking why those kinds of people should be investing.

We should be proud of the fact that there are people prepared to invest in Canada. If it happens to be Saudi Arabians or Germans or people from any other country in the world, we should be happy that people consider this country a place to invest money. That is the part the member is overlooking. When he starts to realize that and gets rid of the visceral attitude that foreign investment is bad, then for once he will have understood the nature of this country.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the minister is right at least about the procedure with respect to FIRA and that the first determination that has to be made is whether this is a reviewable transaction, will he take a strong and clear position that he would like to see the matter reviewed? It is obviously a matter of some question at present. I assume he agrees with that. Will he use whatever influence he has with FIRA to try to persuade them that it should be reviewed?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I have no intention of advocating to the federal government that it should break the law if the law is not now being broken. The Department of Justice will determine whether it falls within the Foreign Investment Review Act. If it falls within the act, it will be reviewed; so that answers the question. If it does not fall within the act, I will not be a party to advocating that the law be breached.

Mr. Rae: In the light of the second half of the answer to my question, in which the minister indicated he thought that foreign investment was a wonderful thing, can we assume from that answer that he regards the acquisition of literally thousands of units by foreign interests that have no obligations or interest in protecting the interest of tenants in this province as a good thing and of significant benefit to Canada? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Does the member honestly think that all foreign investors are bad? Is that what he is saying? When will his party appreciate that foreign investment is something that this country has been built on for the past century? Foreign investment is what has caused the member and others in this room to have the standard of living to which they have grown accustomed. That is something they are going to have to realize. All foreign investment is not bad.

We measure foreign investment on the basis of behaviour in this country, not on the basis of parentage. We are not interested in which country foreign investors come from. We are interested more in their behaviour when they are in this country. The part we take into account is whether they can conform to being good Canadian citizens. I do not think the member should be casting aspersions on foreign investment or any kind of investment that comes from abroad. Basically that is like saying immigration is bad, and that is not the kind of thing that should be said.

Mr. Rae: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister mentioned something about immigration. I said nothing about immigration. My grandparents were immigrants. I want to make this very clear.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Get out the fiddle.

Mr. Bradley: Mine came from Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: In my view, the minister simply cannot get up and make that kind of an aspersion in the course of an answer that has to do with the foreign acquisition of a large number of rental units. It is just not the right thing to do.

RENT-GEARED-TO-INCOME CALCULATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Given the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Timmins case, which the minister will know decided that the Ontario Housing Corp. and the trial judge had erred in law in insisting that income from a Workmen's Compensation Board pension was income and not capital, can the minister tell us why he, his ministry and OHC are refusing to interpret this case as a precedent for other recipients of WCB pensions? In particular, why are they refusing to apply it in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Quesnel in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, a week or so ago the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) asked a similar question. I responded to the effect that this case had been through a great number of hearings. If the leader of the third party will look at the decision rendered in relation to the latest hearing in October, if I recall correctly, he will see that His Honour said very clearly that this was not to be taken as a precedent in a situation relating to the pensions of the WCB. To me and to the Ontario Housing Corp., which was making the decision, in his judgement that case was somewhat different from the norm.

Mr. Rae: I refer the minister to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in which it is stated quite clearly: "The trial judge erred in giving the word 'income' in the lease agreement between the OHC and the appellant the meaning he did, namely, the amount that comes in each year."

The Ontario Court of Appeal made it very clear that money coming from a workmen's compensation pension is not income but capital, in that it reflects benefits of a permanent nature relating to a permanent disability.

Is the minister saying to all workmen's compensation recipients in Ontario who live in Ontario Housing that they have to get legal aid and go to court to find justice? Does he not think that justice in the Timmins case means there should be justice in other cases as well?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am suggesting that the ruling, according to the legal advice given to me -- and I do not pretend to be a lawyer --

Mr. Kerrio: Do not apologize for not being a lawyer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Because there are enough around the province pretending to be lawyers, including the member for York South by the sound of it this morning. Let me suggest to him --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: He should pretend --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: With the performance of the member for Ottawa East, I would suggest that he is the greatest pretender.

My understanding, in reviewing it with the legal counsel to the ministry and to the Ontario Housing Corp., is that the decision rendered in the Timmins case was very clearly indicating to us that Mrs. Timmins's particular position was somewhat different and, indeed, had been analysed by the previous hearings on a different basis, but it was indicated, I understand from the judge in the latest case, that this particular decision was not to be taken as a precedent for all workmen's compensation pensions.

That is the advice given to me, and I will accept it, unless I am told by other legal counsel that we should do a further review of it in conjunction with the federal government.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, does the minister mean that he is going to continue to accept and encourage the form of disclosure as requested, for example, in the case of the Hamilton Housing Authority where they ask individual women over the age of 65 to disclose the number of jewels they may have so they might alter their rental accommodation costs accordingly?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre asks a very interesting question, because over the past number of months, indeed over the past year or two, this province has had a running battle with the federal minister and department.

Mr. Bradley: I knew that one was coming.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me suggest to the member for St. Catharines that --

Mr. Bradley: I knew it would be their fault. I wouldn't be satisfied with less, if you didn't mention the feds.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member will sit and listen for a moment --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have been through very long-drawn-out discussions with the federal government relating to this province and the way we determined incomes and how we --

Mr. Epp: You are the one who brought it up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg your pardon? If the member has an interjection he should say it loud and clear.

Mr. Roy: Go ahead and tell him. It is the feds' fault.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am suggesting to this House that for a long period of time going back about 10 or 12 years -- there had been some dispute as to how Ontario calculates the income of its seniors and others for rent in publicly assisted units. It has only been in recent months that we have come to a conclusion in our discussions with the federal government on how we calculate that rent. They have indicated to us that there are certain properties of owners and assets of individuals that should be calculated into the possible income factor. It has been very clearly enunciated by the Ontario Housing Corp. and, indeed, it was an agreement of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

I suggest to the member for Hamilton Centre that she can take the opportunity of discussing it with her local housing authority, and they will indicate very clearly to her how that is determined so that the individuals -- I say "the individuals"; the citizens of this province, the seniors of this province -- are dealt with in a fair and equitable fashion.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm that what he is telling us is that, regardless of any decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, this government is going to continue to regard workmen's compensation benefits as income rather than as capital, that it will not take into account the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in that regard and that OHC will continue to insist not only on payments but also on collecting arrears from people who are claiming their rights under the Timmins case? Is that the view of the government at this time?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will repeat the position once again. In our interpretation -- and I am referring to the legal counsel -- the case relating to Mrs. Timmins in Sudbury indicates very clearly to us that this is not to be taken as a precedent in relation to excluding workmen's compensation benefits for income calculations and rent based on income.

HOMES FOR SPECIAL CARE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. In July 1981, the chief social worker at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre was informed in writing of allegations of brutality at a home under the supervision of the ministry. I quote:

"The allegations relate to the manner in which discipline is handled in the home operated by Tom and June Jackson of Jackson's Point. This includes kicking and hitting, which, in my mind, constitutes physical abuse if not assault. My concern goes even further, however, as this particular home was brought to the attention of your field worker last fall by a group of concerned professionals. At that time, the group was assured that the home would be closely monitored and specific areas of concern resolved. Not only has this not been done, but it is my understanding that two new placements were made last week."

It is obvious that not only was the ministry field worker aware of the situation two years ago but also the chief social worker for homes for special care of Ontario was informed in writing a year before the death of Jimmy Black. Why did the minister not correct the situation before Jimmy Black died?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the home in question is inspected on a regular basis, as is every other home in the province. It has passed all the inspections done by the ministry inspectors. If the honourable member feels that the current operation of the home is not meeting standards, then she would be calling into question the capability and excellence of our field staff.

If the member wants to do that, she is free to do that. I can only tell her, from the ministry's standpoint, we support our inspectors. Inspectors who are there on a regular basis report that the home, as of today, is running in an acceptable manner.

Ms. Copps: I am not calling into question the work done by the field worker, but the work done by the chief social worker at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre who was aware of the situation a year and a half ago and has done nothing to solve the situation.

Will the minister take action immediately to force the revision of the homes for special care legislation so that we will avoid problems described in another letter listed as evidence during the coroner's inquest, including the facts that a cook who could not speak English was at one time responsible for administering medication, that one of the operators worked 47 hours per week in another municipality as a fireman, and that the person responsible for the care of up to 18 retarded adults was a 19-year-old girl with a grade 9 education?

I am calling into question the supervision by both the field worker and the chief social worker at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, and the minister should have some response to those allegations tabled at the coroner's inquest.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I have responded before -- though the member did not get enough coverage to satisfy herself so she thought she would take another run at it today; look up there, maybe the member will do better -- the member got in trouble here before for those silly and extreme statements the last time --

Ms. Copps: Jimmy Black died.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We know that. The last time the member rose on this question in the House, she was no more accurate than the leader of the New Democratic Party was about the calendar, or she was yesterday about the calendar.

Let me make it clear. The last time the member rose here she stood up and said the jury and the whole coroner's inquest procedure was a whitewash of the ministry. Today -- I will tell the member that if she wants to chat away over there I will wait until she is finished. I have lots of time; it is Friday morning.

The fact is, the member continues to go back to a situation reported by the coroner's inquest some time ago. I have indicated that with regard to the homes for special care area we are not doing nothing; in fact, the area is the subject of intense review by the ministry. I have also indicated to the member that I expect this review to be completed in a few months, and next year the whole homes for special care issue perhaps will be the subject of legislative change in this assembly.

I have also indicated to the member, with regard to close inspection of that particular premises and the other ones she wants to refer to, that there is close inspection being done. The ministry follows very carefully action that ought to be taken in each of those instances.

If today the member has specific allegations with regard to activities being carried on in specific homes for special care that she thinks warrant investigation and violate the law, then she should draw those to our attention; and only if we fail to remedy situations that do not meet the legal standards would she be justified in making the rather extreme statements she wants to make today.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary about the adequacy of the supply of decent and adequate accommodation, particularly for former psychiatric patients. In an effort to obtain housing this week for a day patient at Queen Street who had been living on the street since October 13, despite the fact that he was a day patient, I learned that Houselink Community Homes has a six-month waiting period, and that the accommodation situation appears to be just as tight and there are as many people on the street as last year.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

11 a.m.

Mr. McClellan: What action is the minister going to take to add to the inadequate announcement he made last spring with respect to the development of additional housing opportunities for ex-patients and put a decent supply in place?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary question to the answer which the minister supplied.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Attorney General and the Proverbs matter. His responses so far this morning have confirmed in my mind his bias in this matter.

Will the Attorney General, before he digs himself in over his head on this question, turn to the essence of what has been disclosed in the Proverbs matter, both in the course of the trial and in respect of the tapes? The essence, if I may say so, is that the disclosure raises very serious questions in the public's mind about the methods of investigation, interrogation and laying of charges by certain officers of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

Will the Attorney General not now objectively recognize the necessity of a public disclosure and discussion by way of investigation, in whatever forum he may choose, so that these matters of the methods used and disclosed by those tapes and in the trial will be reviewed publicly?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing to add to what I said earlier. I will be making a statement to the Legislature when I have had a chance to review the transcripts. These matters, I am sure, can be discussed on another occasion, but I am not simply going to rely on media reports alone as to what happened at that trial. The member for Riverdale, as an experienced lawyer, can appreciate the wisdom of actually seeing the official proceedings, a transcript of all of the evidence, before I make a statement to the Legislature about what is undoubtedly an important matter.

Mr. Renwick: Does the Attorney General not realize, as apparently does the chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police, that what has been disclosed on those tapes and in those trials has very serious reflections on the whole of the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, and that it is the obligation of the Attorney General to make certain that there is a public inquiry in this matter as expeditiously as possible?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Premier (Mr. Davis) mentioned once again in the Legislature yesterday that another fact which seems to have been forgotten, for the moment at least, is that some weeks ago Deputy Commissioner William Lidstone of the Ontario Provincial Police was asked to make a very thorough investigation into all of the allegations contained in this matter. We on this side of the House, and I really think all of the members on the other side of the House, have confidence in the integrity and the ability of the OPP to do a thorough and objective examination. It is rather premature to speculate as to what hearings might or might not arise as a result of this investigation headed by Deputy Commissioner Lidstone.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, does the Attorney General not understand that when serious allegations are made against himself, the chief law officer of the crown, they are made about the police themselves, or made about crown attorneys, or made about judges? In fact, the chief of police of Toronto is talking about new procedures for conduct of police officers. To have the police investigating the police, surely he will agree, is not adequate.

Can the Attorney General undertake this morning to give us a time limit as to when we can expect the response that he has reviewed the transcript and is going to make a statement to the House? Accepting his principle that he wants to review the transcript, does he not think the administration of justice deserves some explanation now about his conduct and his statements during the course of the trial about the evidence and the background of the accused?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to my earlier responses.

NORDAIR STRIKE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Regarding the Nordair strike which is now in the process of extending to four months affecting Thunder Bay, Dryden and Sault Ste. Marie, will the minister intercede in this strike and ask the Honourable Charles Caccia, the federal Minister of Labour, if he will try to get both parties back together again?

They are experiencing a great problem in the Thunder Bay area, especially with Christmas coming. It is difficult for the member opposite, myself and other members to try to get back and forth, along with the people who want to go skiing up there. It is hurting the economy and also the industry in that area.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the honourable member on the impact of the strike on northern Ontario, on Thunder Bay and even more so, actually, on Dryden and that area. I talked to my colleague Mr. Caccia a while back on an informal basis. I would be more than prepared to talk to him again on an official basis.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, when the minister does that, will he report back to the House and will he ask particularly that we be assured in northwestern Ontario that Nordair will continue to operate and we will have Nordair service in Thunder Bay and Dryden as well?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a mediator was appointed by the Honourable Charles Caccia last week and the mediator has brought the parties together. I have heard nothing at all about any termination of service to that part of northern Ontario. I am sure my colleague here who is very concerned about that matter would have been in touch with me if such had been the case.

MINE SAFETY

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Given the apparent concern the minister has about costs involved with the mine rescue service operation within the mining health and safety branch of his ministry, can he give this House any assurance that this vital service for the miners of Ontario will not be cancelled or reduced?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the question as to my concern about costs. We have an overriding concern about costs in our ministry in meeting the constraints that have been placed on us, but to the best of my knowledge we have not reduced any of our operating costs in the mine safety area. In fact, the opposite would be the case. We are trying to improve our services in that respect. I would appreciate some clarification on that point.

Mr. Van Horne: My colleague had a supplementary but, for clarification, it was my understanding the Ministry of Labour had indicated to the people involved in mining that the cost of approximately $380,000 involved with this aspect of his ministry was being questioned by his officials with some view to its possibly being cancelled, reduced or something else happening. That was the reference to the dollars.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps the honourable member is referring to the actual inspection of uranium mines. As he knows, uranium mines come under federal jurisdiction. The Ministry of Labour of Ontario has been performing a service for the federal government in providing inspection services for uranium mines. I believe the cost approximates the figures the member has mentioned today.

It is true we have been negotiating with the federal government for it to take back the inspection services. In other words, we feel it should be performing those inspection services because it falls under its jurisdiction. We also feel we have come under criticism for the inspection services and that this criticism is not justified. If there is going to be criticism, we feel that if the federal government feels it can do it better it should take back the service and do it.

11:10 a.m.

That has been under discussion for quite some time, but I want to make this point abundantly clear: we would not save any money if that service were to go back to the federal government; there would be no savings to us at all. That is not the motive, in any case, because we are paid by the federal government for those inspection services.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, could the minister then explain to us why his ministry is considering privatizing the mine rescue service through the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is correct at all.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be willing to undertake the responsibility for inspection in uranium mines in Ontario should the federal government be willing to cede that authority to him? Would that not be a more comprehensive and logical way to administer the inspection of mines in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I just want to look for a moment at my calendar, because a rather important meeting has been scheduled within the next two weeks with the mining association. It is at 3:30 p.m. this coming Wednesday. At that time we will be meeting with the mining association, representatives from the mines and also representatives from the trade unions involved, and we hope to be able to reach a consensus on how this matter should be handled.

It is a very serious matter and we want to make sure that the inspection is done at a very high level of performance, whether it is done by us or by the federal government. I hope we will be able to come to some conclusions and some courses of action after that meeting.

FOTOMAT

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the disappearance of Fotomat. How is it possible that in August a company such as Fotomat could have cancelled with Excelsior Life a set of negotiated benefits and simply put its employees' Ontario health insurance plan coverage in jeopardy by not forwarding OHIP premiums, and then on October 28 simply closed its doors, leaving employees with no notice of layoff, with no separation papers to file for Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits, with bouncing cheques and with about 10,000 customers out there with their films simply in limbo? How can that happen in this province in 1982?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the company did not go into either receivership or bankruptcy, and this has added to the problems in trying to resolve the situation. I would also advise, though, that our employment standards branch has been in to Fotomat finally. There were some problems in getting in there. They are undergoing a complete audit at this very time and we hope we are going to be able to resolve the situation.

Mr. Breaugh: If, on the afternoon of October 28, the employees had simply dipped into the till to get what was owing them, that would have been called theft. What does the minister call it when the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce seizes a payroll, as it did in this instance? What is the polite name for that kind of theft?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not have any name for it. It is a matter of real concern to us and we hope we will be able to work it out in everybody's best interests.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, since these films are still in limbo someplace and there are thousands of people who would be glad to get them and would not miss the money, can the Minister of Labour not take some steps through the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) to have them distributed so that the money from them would help pay the people?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I must admit to the honourable member that I had not been worrying about the photos that were in storage, so to speak; I had been more concerned and worried about the benefits owing to the employees. But it is a good point, and I will follow up on it.

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. With respect to the Argosy situation, where there were criminal charges laid, does the minister know if this company has any assets remaining and if investors might at some point recover any portion of their investment in that firm?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information available to me. I will be glad to get it and report to the member.

Mr. Kennedy: At the same time, could the minister find out whether it is a receivership or bankruptcy situation and give details as to the status of either one of those situations?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will be pleased to report to the member on those matters.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not find it very odd that after 15 years of trying to settle with Atlantic Acceptance Corp., British Mortgage and Trust Co., Astra Trust Co. and Re-Mor Investment Management Corp., his government still has people in a position where God knows when they are ever going to get settlements? When is he going to do something to protect people who invest in some of these outfits? And when is he going to drag into the courts Re-Mor and these other people who are God knows where, maybe in Switzerland or some other place, with the investments of these Ontario people?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Vince, I may get asked questions from my bench that are not planted.

Mr. Speaker: You must refer to the member by his riding, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: All right. I think the member should discuss his questions with other people before he asks them because the facts are these:

Let us look at the Astra --

Mr. Ruston: Never mind the lecture.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, no, I know he does not like facts. He does not like people being responsible. He does not like facts, but that is what he is going to get. Let us look at the Astra Re-mor situation: Astra a federally incorporated company, Re-Mor a provincial one. What has this government shown by way of interest and concern with that issue? The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), as the member knows, is funding those trials.

We have indicated that we will not be doing what the federal government did with respect to those who wanted to sue Astra. Does the member know what they did? Does he know that the federal government has already invoked sections of its act to shut off those claims so that those people from Astra who have suffered as a result of that are not even going to be allowed to put their cases forward?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is the member ashamed of that? Say "yes" or no." If he is ashamed of it, then he should go and speak to his friends in Ottawa and get them to sit down and talk with us because I do not know anybody who can get them to talk to anybody. They are playing stonewall. They are even cutting off the rights of individuals to take their cases to court and be heard.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order -- I think this is appropriate timing, given the pugilistic attitude of the minister: Given the Premier's (Mr. Davis) arrival about an hour ago in the blazing blue jacket, I am wondering if the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) has anything to display reflecting her support of the University of Western Ontario, which is playing for the Vanier Cup tomorrow and obviously will beat the University of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order, but an interesting comment.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I give notice pursuant to standing order 28 that I am not satisfied with the responses given to me by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to my questions on the Proverbs matter this morning, including my supplementary to the question of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). I therefore intend to raise the subject matter of these questions on the adjournment of the House next Tuesday evening.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: For clarification, while the Attorney General is here -- because I tried to listen very carefully to what he said to questions put by the members for Ottawa East and Riverdale -- I was wondering whether or not he might tell me in this House or afterwards that I heard him correctly when he said that he would hesitate not at all in repeating anything that has been attributed to him with respect to the Proverbs trial if he had the opportunity to so do.

I wanted to know whether or not the Attorney General actually meant to suggest that if he had it to do all over again, he would actually say in the course of a trial that a particular individual centrally involved in that trial was "a con man."

Mr. Speaker: That is more properly a question and I would direct the honourable member to ask that question at the appropriate time.

[Later]

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to put on the record that I too am extremely dissatisfied with the answers given by the Attorney General this morning. I hope I will have an opportunity to raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity. For the record I give notice of that now.

11:20 a.m.

REMARKS BY NDP WHIP

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in regard to last evening's session: Normally I would not raise this and I do so only to correct the record. I want to quote from, I believe, the Canadian Press report which says:

"Ross McClellan, NDP member for the Toronto riding of Beliwoods and the party's deputy whip" -- they demoted him, I guess -- "agreed that his party's manoeuvres were basically an attempt to embarrass the government. 'Philip was our speaker and he spoke at great length earlier. It was the government's turn in the rotation to speak. There was nobody on that side prepared. In effect, they lost control of the House.'"

I am reading from the proceedings of Thursday, November 4, which is the last time this report was debated. At that time the speakers were the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was the last speaker and an NDP member would have been the next speaker. I am just wondering if the NDP whip would care to apologize for that remark.

Mr. McClellan: No.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would like to make a comment on the way I handled a question from the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne). I noticed some raised eyebrows and questions coming from honourable members.

The original question he put to the minister was not understood by the minister. He stood up and said, "Then, Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification," and proceeded from there to clarify the information he was asking of the minister. I next recognized the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) as a second supplementary, and then the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). I did not vary from my routine. That is the point I wanted to make.

PETITION

METRO TORONTO BILL

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from 447 constituents of the riding of High Park-Swansea who have expressed concern with regard to Bill 127. They have requested me to present this to the Legislature on their behalf. Of the three points they have raised in their petition, two have been met; namely, public hearings on Bill 127 were held in the fall, and the boards will be provided with sufficient funds to meet local needs. Two of the three concerns have been met.

MOTION

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be transferred from the standing committee on resources development to the committee of supply, to be taken up immediately after the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, on behalf of Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Wrye moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill Pr39, an Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

The Deputy Chairman: We have completed the statement of the minister. I call upon the member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be brief. I have a few points I wish to raise in my opening remarks. I want to put the minister on notice that I will be asking some questions about the actual expenditures of his ministry. I know we tend to talk about everything else except the money that is in the votes, but I do intend to ask about the $604 million that the ministry will be spending, an increase of some $80 million over last year. There are a number of items that have concerned us in the last little while and I hope we can get some response from the minister about them.

We on this side are concerned about the 35 per cent assessment the minister has come up with in regard to the urea formaldehyde foam insulation problem. We would be very interested in knowing on what basis the minister arrived at that particular figure; would he give us some background and the studies involved in arriving at that 35 per cent. I noted that the minister's response to some questions in the last couple of weeks was not very adequate. He seemed to indicate in the House that having UFFI in people's homes would not have a detrimental effect on the value of their homes.

I can tell you from personal experience -- I hold a real estate license -- that I believe it is a requirement that it be stated in the offers of purchase and sale whether or not the house has UFFI in it. If it is not a legal requirement, it is obviously a requirement of either the Ontario Real Estate Association or the Toronto Real Estate Board. I have seen a number of contracts where it has certainly been a requirement. If a person is going to get a mortgage, the mortgagor, whether it be a bank or otherwise, must be assured there is no urea formaldehyde foam insulation in your home or in the home you are buying. It is a serious problem which is seriously affecting the value of a lot of homes across Ontario. We would be interested to learn how the minister arrived at 35 per cent.

11:30 a.m.

Also, there have been some questions in the last few weeks about the minister's coloured fuel program. I have brought it to his attention myself and I gather there are other members whose constituents are experiencing some difficulty with this program. I would like to know how much this entire program is going to cost us by the time the minister provides grants and subsidies to bulk dealers, independent truck dealers and farmers.

Can the minister give us any indication what the scope of the problem was? How many were using the coloured fuel for purposes they were not supposed to, in other words using it in their cars and trucks on the highway rather than using it for farm machinery?

One can only wonder: In the minister's opening statement, he was so hep on deregulation and keeping things to a minimum; then he introduced this coloured fuel program. It is going to cost us millions of dollars; it is wreaking havoc on the bulk plan dealers and the independents who deliver it. We hear some stories that it is affecting farming machinery and so on. So we would like to know what the estimate of the ministry is in terms of how much tax was being evaded and what studies were done of the alternatives to bringing in this rather complicated and expensive program.

One of the things that might have been done was to have made the fines for the use of coloured fuel in the wrong vehicle much stiffer. There could have been an enforcement program for a while so that those who were caught would be an example to ensure it did not happen. Surely there were some alternatives to this program. We would like to know the rationale for it.

My colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) has asked the minister in the House about the problems adding the dye to diesel fuel is causing to the fuel systems in farm tractors. The minister indicated he had not heard that was a problem and seemed to indicate that technically it would not happen at all.

Mr. Nixon: It clogs their injectors.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Maybe I have the same problem.

We are also interested in the assessment part of the minister's portfolio. He spent a great deal of time in his opening remarks trying to justify the time, the effort and the millions of dollars the ministry has spent on computers for assessment in Ontario.

That is one of the things that sticks in my mind from my very earliest days here. Market value assessment was going to solve all of Ontarios problems; it would solve all of the problems of the municipalities in Ontario. Darcy McKeough and company were going to bring in this marvellous concept which would equalize assessment across Ontario and bring equity to the system.

I remember all of those marvellous speeches.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Where did Bob Nixon stand?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Did you support that, Bob?

Mr. Nixon: Yes, sure. What did he say?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Sure he did.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We all did. We are all interested in equity and fairness.

Mr. Nixon: We did not support the centralization of assessments; never.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That we didn't. We wanted to keep it at the local and regional levels.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, you're fudging on it.

Mr. Nixon: We believe in local autonomy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have a long memory.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We seem to be spending a great deal of the taxpayers' money for a program that is in place in very few of the 838 municipalities in Ontario. It is interesting to note that under section 63 of the Assessment Act the minister has had a request from Metropolitan Toronto to do a simulation study of assessment in Metro. I am going to be asking questions about the number of people. I gather there are 165 of the 225 staff members working on this and it is costing $4.6 million or $4.8 million for a simulation study. Yet, as I understand it -- if I am incorrect, my colleague from Waterloo will tell me -- the city of Toronto wants nothing to do with it. We are spending almost $5 million on Metro's behalf to do a simulation study which the city itself has no interest in.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Believe it or not, there are six municipalities in Metro.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I realize that, but one of the major ones is opposed to it. I would like to know why it is costing us so much money to do a simulation study, especially under the circumstances.

We are also interested in a few definitions and a few matters relating to productivity. I presume that when the minister speaks about a man-year he means one person's work for one year. I think we would like some definitions. He spent some time talking about productivity in the ministry, and I would like some definitions on that as well. The minister spent, at the last count, about 20 pages in his statement talking about productivity within his ministry in one sense or another.

As we all know, one of the problems is to decide just what is productivity. How does one measure it? I would like to know what facts, figures and guidelines the minister is using when he makes those kinds of statements, that productivity has increased greatly within his ministry. If this is so and he is spending 15 per cent of his revenues on computers and data processing equipment, one wonders why his budget is increasing by $80 million. My figures may be incorrect because I have had to take them from different parts of the statement, but we are having an increase of 119 man-years in some programs and 108 man-years in others. I understand part of that is associated and related to the move to Oshawa. Perhaps the minister can fill us in on some of the details on that. Why are these requirements necessary at this time?

For instance, on page 22 of the statement the minister refers to tangible increases in productivity. I would like to know exactly what those tangible increases were, what comparisons were used and what definitions the minister is using in that regard.

Before I go too much further, I would like to surprise the minister and perhaps even some of his staff. In my copious notes here it says, "Good for you." I note, on page 39 of the statement, the minister says they are developing their computer and data processing technology using Canadian technology. I am glad to hear that. It certainly is a tangible example of what the government said it was going to do a few years ago about buying Canadian, but then we wind up finding half the things we see around this building come from Japan or the United States.

11:40 a.m.

I also think the ministry deserves some commendation for the improvement in getting out the cheques to senior citizens this year. We recall last year there were questions in the House every day. Members' offices and members themselves were being deluged with requests from senior citizens who had not yet received their tax grants. I am glad to see this year, at least, there has been a great improvement in the system set up. The minister referred in his statement to the fact that part of this was being done with computer technology because all the application forms that were incorrect could now be handled by a computer rather than manually.

We were talking about this very item in the standing committee on public accounts yesterday. I do not think I am giving away any secrets. It was suggested we commend the ministry for the improvement in this situation. One of the Conservative members took some exception to that and said at least in his constituency the cheques were not getting out.

I know this is a topic near and dear to your own heart, Mr. Chairman. I want to spend some time talking about the 15 per cent of the minister's budget which has gone into computer and data processing equipment. I know the standing committee on public accounts has asked the auditor to do some studies related to some questions we have and the fact that we, as a government, are spending on behalf of the taxpayers some $130 million in computer processing or data processing matters for the government as a whole.

We on the committee were somewhat disturbed and got the feeling to some extent that, while a lot of money was being spent, it was not necessarily being spent wisely or well and there was not always a focus on what this new technology or machinery was going to do for us. I hope we will be able to elicit some facts and figures from the minister as to what kind of equipment he is using, what it is supposed to do and what plans and programs the ministry has in this regard.

I would like to make two other comments. On the enumeration process, the ministry should probably be commended for the job it did in the municipal enumeration for the recent elections.

That is a record of which the minister and the ministry people can be quite proud. I gather there is the odd municipality and sometimes the odd loser who feels the municipal enumeration was not exactly what it should have been. One name comes to mind in York, Christie biscuits or something like that. But I think it is safe to say it seemed to go reasonably well this year.

It brings to mind the question that has occupied us provincially at times of having a permanent roll for elections. One wonders if we could not get into some kind of permanent assessment and enumeration roll which might, in some ways, even be able to combine the two, or at least have a permanent roll so we do not have to spend $4.5 million to do the enumeration at municipal election time.

Now that elections will be occurring every three years rather than two, there obviously will be a cost saving in any event but, given the fact the minister seems to have this sophisticated equipment, maybe between us we can explore that problem.

I have another question about the business corporations tax. Could the minister remind us how much his estimates were? I suppose they would be Treasury estimates. How much is going to be saved or lost to the revenues of the province? I suspect it would not be as much as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) originally figured given the state of the economy, but one wonders what one does with one's equipment and one's people while all of this is going on.

One presumes these people are being shifted or are being used in other capacities within the ministry. That being so, could the minister tell us how many people were working in the operation of collecting the corporation taxes? What will they be doing for the next two years while this tax holiday is in effect?

I have a number of questions, some related to information in the public accounts and certainly those matters referred to in the estimates. I intend to spend the bulk of my time talking about the actual expenditures within the Ministry of Revenue.

As the minister was giving us his opening remarks the other night, one of my colleagues said to me, "He certainly sounds like the man who is in charge of the cash register." It is one of the peculiar ironies. It is probably the Treasurer who sets the policy and it is the Ministry of Revenue everybody hates. But we on this side, of course, do not hate the Minister of Revenue. We realize he has a difficult job to do and it seems to me there have been many improvements made, to the credit of the minister and his staff.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I want to begin this examination of the estimates with a brief look at the minister's 126-page opening remarks. Although I have known the minister for some time both here and in another life on the region of Durham council, I have never heard him give that long a speech before. I know it is a milestone, or a millstone or whatever, in his political career so we have to respond to it in some way.

In addition to that, there are some things in here which I think it would be wrong to let go unnoticed. In particular, I am intrigued by some of the things he had to say at the beginning of the speech where he talked about an aggressive constraint policy. I am a little confused about what he means by an aggressive constraint policy when one looks at the expenditures of the government over the last little while. That seems to have been the centre of a great deal of controversy.

I suppose this is the same kind of argument where it is seen by some to be a great victory that the Premier (Mr. Davis) does not buy his executive jet and somehow we save money by buying two water bombers. I am a little at a loss to understand that kind of philosophy. In my mind, the net result of that is the water bombers themselves may be of somewhat more value to the people of Ontario, although I do not recall hearing a dramatic argument that we needed two water bombers. But somehow in my pocketbook philosophy I still think we spent the money.

I am not sure I can convince myself there was a whole lot of restraint involved. If I buy two items I am not sure I need, was I exercising a sense of restraint?

Somehow in the initial overview of the minister's statement, he has gone out of his way to say they have an aggressive constraint policy. I do not know what that is for starters, and I sure do not see a lot of recognition in the current policies of the government that it is all that interested in saving bunches of money in its expenditures.

It seems to me it is business as usual; what they want to do in the main they are going to do. Yesterday afternoon in private members' hour the House was discussing again: Do we like the idea of junkets for trade purposes? It appears the House does, the government continues to do those things and it has a semi-valid rationale for the provision of trade missions throughout the world. As most members here see from paper going across their desks, this practice continues regularly, and the expense of that, of course, is seen to be like a business expense: Just lay out some bucks here.

11:50 a.m.

So the definition of what this government means by restraint is certainly a good deal different from what most ordinary human beings in their endeavours would see as being restraint. This government seems to have adopted a policy now that it can spend whatever it wants for its purposes and call it restraint and that we are all supposed to accept it. I have a little bit of difficulty with that.

Even this minister in the beginning of his statement talked about an aggressive constraint -- not restraint, constraint. Again it is part of the philosophy of the government that if you want to confuse folks, just change the name a little bit and that will somehow achieve the purpose. This is a ministry that has gone into advertising hot and heavy and does so every day around Ontario: in every conceivable way that one can advertise, there is the Ministry of Revenue. I am not sure I find much justification for that kind of saturation advertising.

For example, last year and to a lesser degree this year one of the problems the ministry had with several of its programs was that it kept advertising that certain things would happen, and people sitting in their homes -- for example, senior citizens watching television every day -- were constantly reminded that there was this little tax grant, this giveaway program. So every day the ministry is spending large amounts of money advertising this program, reminding the population at large that they really ought to write in, phone this toll-free number, call the local member's office and get some of this free money the government was handing out.

Of course, at the other end of the system the government was falling all over itself handing out the cheques, giving them to the wrong people and then asking for the money back, sending people out to try to get the money back, unable to respond to the massive advertising program it had generated.

Somehow we are supposed to accept that this is an aggressive constraint policy. Well, when I examine the aggressive constraint policy that is at work there, it is aggressive: I give them that. It is certainly very aggressive in pursuit of certain items, but I find some difficulty saying that there is a constraint or a restraint program at work there.

I want to go on to some of the other things the minister had to say, and I will have to go through this quickly, as the minister did when he went through this statement. He went through it rather rapidly without a lot of feeling, but he certainly got it all on the record, so I will try to do much the same kind of thing.

One of the things I found notable, again dealing with an aggressive constraint policy, was that he plans to increase his level of staffing. He then went through a great rationale of precisely why he wants to increase the level of staffing. It seems to me that one thing he is really doing here is recognizing that a lot of the material that was put out by various ministries about having cut back on the civil service in fact never did happen.

What did happen was that they got buried among part-time assistants; some became consultants. We are all aware of stories of people who were full-time civil servants one week, somehow got chopped and came back the next week in another life as consultants, usually at an increased amount of money. And the only benefit one could see in that is they no longer appeared on the ministry staff as being actual employees of the ministry. The dollar value was more. It cost more money.

When the procedural affairs committee reviewed the work of the Civil Service Commission this year, one thing we wanted to know was how many of these folks were around. How many consultants and part-time people do the ministries have? We pursued that for the better part of a day and we were unable to get the Civil Service Commission, those people who are supposedly in tune with all of this, to give us a straight answer on it.

They did try, and they offered us some rationale, some explanations. But when you get to the bottom line of that little examination by the committee of how many people are sitting in government offices who are not counted as civil servants aligned to a particular ministry, no one appears to know. We assume that there are flocks of folks out there. Most of us have met them and continue to meet them on a day-to-day basis as we call different offices to try to solicit information from the ministries; but no one seems to know.

At least with this minister we are getting, I think, a small degree of honesty. He is admitting that we have to stop that game; in order to run the ministry efficiently and well, we need people who are assigned full time to this ministry. So I accept the arguments he makes in here in a rather long and convoluted manner. I do believe he is recognizing that game is not worth playing and, to maximize the efficiency of the ministry, we need to increase the staff complement.

Certainly if one looks at -- as I do every day when I am in my constituency office -- the operation he is setting up across the road from me in Oshawa, I have a little bit of difficulty in thinking that this is a restraint program at work. There is a magnificent white building and I think the minister said the other day, when someone was interjecting about what kind of furniture he was buying for this, that one does not buy Volkswagen furniture for a Cadillac. I have to say it is a Cadillac that is sitting across from me in a General Motors town, and that is probably not a bad move on the minister's part.

The other thing I will touch on a bit later is the increases he announced in here. I think he makes a rational argument, and I am not sure he is really talking about an actual increase if one goes through the man-years' concept he puts in here. I think he is simply acknowledging there will be a change of name. There is a level of staffing required to run the ministry efficiently and he is attempting to do that. I do not give him any problem on that. I think he is perhaps being a little more accurate in attempting to do that.

Of course, some of the things the ministry does lead to further problems. The coloured fuel program seems to me to be the kind of thing that is not too sensible to start with and that very quickly extrapolates itself into a real problem. We do have some sympathy, at least I do, with this minister, because, very often, he is going for coffee, so to speak, for the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). The Treasurer announces that some great thing will have to happen, like he did in his spring budget with the retail sales tax, and after he has made that grand and glorious announcement, the guy who has to carry the can, go for coffee and do the dirty work, is the Minister of Revenue.

I happen to know this minister rather well and he is well equipped to do the dirty work. He can handle the snarly jobs pretty well. He is the only guy I know who had his heart removed and a dollar sign implanted in there and it fits. It goes right along with the personality. He can handle that kind of stuff with ease, no problem at all. If one looks at the programs the government has initiated in terms of tax revenue program initiatives and their expansion, and of improved tax grant systems, one gets into the kind of perverse logic this government really does like. This minister very often has to carry the can for the ramifications of those.

This government loves to take money from one pocket and give us back a little bit of money in the other pocket. The problem is they usually take a dollar bill out of one pocket and give us back a nickel. Somehow we are supposed to be grateful we got a nickel and forget that they stole 95 cents in the interim. This government is a great believer in the concept that it should take money from folks initially and then somehow roll it through the bureaucracy and at the other end of the process a cheque comes out from the government for which people are to be grateful.

If we look through these estimates and begin to examine the amount of money it costs to administer these things, we really begin to wonder after a while whether it would not be much more sensible to let them retain that money. Perhaps, aside from crass political purposes, we could dispense with this concept that the government will give us back some of our money a little later on and we should feel good about that.

For example, I tend to suspect a great many seniors like to get those tax grants. There is no argument about that at all, but they are in despair with the frustration of filling out the forms. For many of us who deal with forms and regulations on a day-by-day basis, that is not much of a challenge. We do that in our offices all the time. But a number of our citizens out there have a little problem sitting down and filling out forms.

I have to admit sometimes I have a little problem dealing with a form I have not seen before, because the first order of business is that one has to imagine in one's mind's eye what the bureaucrat who drew up the form really wanted in the first place. The words and the way the thing is laid out obviously make eminent good sense to that individual, but it may appear to me or to people in my constituency to be really incoherent. It is asking for information I do not have. It is asking for information I do not normally use in a format that is unfamiliar to me. So it does cause problems.

Even as one goes through the tax grant schemes and notes the kinds of problems people have, at first blush they seem to be a little unusual; for example, people forgetting to sign the form. Most of us who fill out forms all day and every day understand that normally the form must be signed somewhere. But perhaps there are many people in this province who do not make a practice of signing forms every day, so small things such as forgetting delay the process and cause further problems.

12 noon

I always like it when the minister says things like, "The ministry has held its staff levels to an overall increase of only 119 man-years for 1982-83 while dealing with steady increases in the volume and complexity of existing operations." There are people in this world who, instead of saying that we will hold our staff levels to an overall increase of only 119 man-years, would say that we need an increase of 119 man-years and would not bother with the foofaraw about holding our staff level to only 119.

I seem to recall when I was on the region of Durham council that the very same minister used to do a rather large number on the mayor of Whitby, who was forever doing this kind of stuff, and would say: "Why don't you just tell the truth? Tell it straight out. Never mind the fandangle of increasing it by only 119 man-years." I am surprised, and I suppose it is just a measure of the men he now has around him, a flock of folks who write this kind of language, because I know that those are not his own words.

There are a number of things in here that ought to be mentioned. Here is one that the minister had on page 11, where he is going over some of the work we had questioned earlier about "overtime pay for assessors working on regional reassessments and annualization of salary awards. Travel, services and supplies are increased by $10.6 million, of which $9 million is related to relocation expenditures such as the Oshawa moving and commuting expenses for employees as well as furniture and equipment required for the new building."

Again, after reading the first page, where we were talking about aggressive constraint, I would sure as hell hate to see this guy turned loose to spend freely. I mean, $10 million to get from here to Oshawa is a lot of cash. I want to say, before everybody gets too exercised about it, that I recall that in 1972 or 1973, when I was on the council in Oshawa, we began discussions with this government about the whole "Go East" stuff. At that time one of our concerns was cost matters having to do with the provision of services for a rather substantial influx of population.

To show members how long it takes this government to get something done, about 10 years after we began negotiations with the government of Ontario to actually move some office facilities from downtown Toronto into the Oshawa-Whitby-Ajax-Pickering area, it actually happened.

I suppose that probably a couple of hundred politicians played a role in determining whether go-east would really mean that things like the Ministry of Revenue would come to Oshawa and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario warehouse would go into Whitby. It took them about 10 years, but they finally are coming through.

I will believe that the Ministry of Revenue office is opening when I see the doors open. It has only been announced about six or seven times. The building is up and is pretty well done on the inside; but it is one of those things where, after you have been through about seven functions where the government announces its intentions, you begin to believe they might actually come through with it. In this instance, a few million dollars and a decade or so later, it appears that it will actually become fact.

One of the reasons we became participants in the go-east policy was that there would be this move of government offices from downtown Toronto into the region of Durham. One of our beliefs -- and I still think it will come true, though it has been a long time getting there -- is that an influx of a large number of people working in the downtown core of the city of Oshawa will in some measure assist our downtown core. It will at least put a population at work down there that is not there now, and for people who run small businesses in that area it will do some good.

I believe that if and when we ever get them out there and if we do not give them too much expense money to commute back downtown for lunch, they probably will help that community. There have been a lot of estimates, good guesses and not-so-good guesses about how many local people will be employed there, and I remain a little cynical about that. I would like to see when that happens.

I know the applications are there; the people there are willing to work in the Ministry of Revenue building, and I hope it does something towards employment in the area. However, even it if does not do that -- and I do not have high hopes that a lot of people will get a job there, at least initially -- perhaps after it has been in operation for a few years there might be greater employment capacity for local people there.

But, taking a look at the design of the building and knowing the kind of equipment that is going in there, I know there will not be a lot of automakers who will go off the line and into the Ministry of Revenue building. It looks like a pretty sophisticated operation to me, but at the very least it should have an impact on the downtown of the community, and that will be good. Once again, constraint or not, I am in favour of what the ministry is proposing.

To look at the amount of money that is in circulation here, if one looks at transfer payments to Ontario pensioners, the increase is $49.6 million in the form of grants for property and sales tax and home heating. That addresses itself to another substantial problem. This minister is responsible for the money flow through the system, and I think all of us would argue at some length that we are in favour of offering some relief to property owners. We are in favour of offering some relief to people like senior citizens who are on fixed incomes, and that is where there is a crying need in our society.

One also has to wonder, around the edges, about how a government that is so gleefully pursuing things like an ad valorem taxation policy on petroleum products, and more specifically on gasoline, can so gleefully go to work on that. Are we really getting a good deal in the form of tax grants, particularly for things like the sales tax on home heating? Would we not all be better off in the long run if we re-examined the taxation that puts those things in place initially? Would our economy be better if we did not have a retail sales tax? Who would be affected by that?

Is a donation of $50 or even $100 from the government of Ontario to a senior citizen really meeting that need? Is it fair? Of course, there are inequities which seniors will point out to members, and I imagine most members have heard them, about who qualifies for these things. Who gets them? Who does not get them? Does it meet their needs? Is it enough? There are problems there.

One of the things I would like to see the government do is to re-examine that concept of taking with one hand and giving back with the other. They should, particularly with this ministry, take a look at the cost of administering programs such as the ones they already have in place. I believe there is some difficulty there.

I will set aside some of the remarks the minister had about management techniques and give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. I know there have been problems in the ministry: perhaps they were not of his own making, but there certainly have been difficulties in that regard. I am pleased to see that he has, in a lengthy number of pages, addressed himself to that problem and that they will be overcome.

Part of what he is staking a claim on is technology. One of the things we will all recognize is that in the kind of business this ministry is in, technology is growing by leaps and bounds. Every business I know is faced with precisely the same problem. There are new sources of technology, and it is changing every day, which will revolutionize the whole business of collecting and dispensing money, as the ministry does so regularly. I am pleased to see that at least he has acknowledged that and is beginning to set up the kind of sophisticated technology that is currently available.

I think that when the full relocation to Oshawa is in place and the technology is there, even though it has caused a few problems initially in the construction phases, it should pay off. When it begins full production, we should have something that is substantially an improvement on the current situation. That goes right back to that concept of taking money away on one hand and trying to give it back on the other, perhaps in smaller amounts but still trying to return it. That is a very complicated set of tasks, dealing with a large number of people in the population. To try to get access to that information and to do it well and quickly demands the use of modern technology.

Let me move to another more substantial program of the ministry, the assessment program. I reread this portion of the minister's opening remarks, and I have to admit that I became a little uneasy as we went through it. The minister was basically making an argument that he is shortly going to have computer technology in place within the property assessment program. Since I hate them, I will not use the initial words, which do not mean anything, that the minister used: the Oasys project and things like that. I think we could live without those things.

I want to go to the concepts. The basic concept is that we are going to set up a computer somewhere which eventually will automatically whip up assessment programs and assessments on houses that can be traded back and forth among municipalities. Models will be structured, perhaps bringing the province whole-hog into some of the more questionable parts of computerized living.

12:10 p.m.

Members know right now there is a problem with assessment programs, reassessment programs and market value assessments. People complain to me that one of the problems is they do not really have a good idea why this is happening to them. One of the reasons it happens is, if one goes to city hall to get a building permit, sooner or later someone in the assessment department will visit and say: "You had a building permit. You must have improved something in your house and so we are going to do a reassessment." The guy says: "Yes, but the fellow across the street did something two years ago. Is he being reassessed?" He may or may not be; so there is unfairness there.

When one gets into whole-hog reassessments, as we have seen in certain parts of Toronto, one gets people saying, "How can I be reassessed when nobody came to reassess me?" There is visual reassessment and then one learns about the joys of going off to the appeal courts and seeing what a wonderfully fair system that is.

What the minister is making an argument for here is that he is eventually going to get away from all these interpersonal relationships which occasionally cause conflict on the streets, in the appeal courts and in the Legislature. If we do all this by computer, one may get stabbed in the back once again but the pain will not be felt until one gets his latest assessment notice. So there are problems here.

I am not making an argument against the use of computerized technology, particularly in this field, because I recognize its value. But I do want to say that potentially there can be a serious problem by removing personal relationships. As the government more and more gets into the use of this technology, in its sense and in a business sense, it will become more efficient; it will have the hardware to provide rapid information to a lot of folks.

I am making the argument that this is not always a good thing. There is a down side to it. If one forgets to explain to people in their houses and in the streets exactly what this information is being used for, exactly how much information one has and what the ramifications are, there is a problem. It may be more efficient to try to sort that out from the ivory towers of Queen's Park, but I think we are going to have problems in that regard.

I want to talk a little about some of the remarks the minister made about reassessment in 349 municipalities. It seems to me that some of what had been proposed by various ministers along the line is getting close to happening, particularly for the big nut, Metropolitan Toronto.

If that model is accepted by Metro, it does not really matter whether the city of Toronto does not want it; the ministry is on the verge of putting that whole reassessment program in place along with market value assessment. If the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto nut is cracked, that is almost the death-knell for everybody else. Most of us who have followed this program of assessment under section 63 know that, wherever that one has gone into place, there have been problems.

In accepting the global argument that it does not really matter what system is used, whether it is market value assessment or some other assessment; if everybody is treated the same way and if the rules are the same for everyone, one could move to almost any system of assessment. As long as everyone gets the same kind of treatment, it perhaps could be fairer than the current technique which, frankly, I have never understood and which I am not too bothered about moving away from. My concern is that the process be a fair one.

When this one hits full force, there are going to be a lot of folks really upset with the government of Ontario. I give warning that I reserve the right to be critical of the models that have been proposed, and of the amounts of money that are used up, to get to that new assessment process.

I always like it when one asks ministers questions about how much something costs, because one gets a good variety of answers. I seem to recall it was last spring we were asking the minister how much the preparation of the model here in Metro Toronto was going to cost, because we were getting reports that virtually the entire system had shut down to move into Metro to prepare this model. If I recall correctly, the minister said at that time that it would cost $1.5 million to $2 million and that the model would be prepared by approximately late August. Perhaps he could update us on where that model is and what the exact cost of it was.

I have seen estimates of the cost go from $1.5 million to just under $5 million. Having seen the preparation of these numbers at various stages coming from both sides of the table, I know it is not difficult to take a few costs out here and a few folks out there and move the numbers up and down substantially. I know the minister would never do that directly, but I am sure that he would yield to civil servants who are doing it indirectly every single day of their lives.

It would be interesting to get a second and third set of numbers on precisely what that little project really cost. Then perhaps we could all sit down with our own set of numbers, pick a median and come close to accuracy.

Mr. Nixon: You're doing a great job.

Mr. Breaugh: I thought so. I thought so.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That's right; especially for Friday of a tough week.

Mr. Breaugh: Another case of tough restraint is when the minister talks about his prototype systems and the business system which, when he implements it, will involve a comprehensive training effort and orientation programs. He states that the estimated cost for developing this system is only $4.8 million. They always follow these estimations with a few words such as, "an expenditure already carefully justified in our Management Board submission." That is how one gets to spend $4.8 million; one says afterward that he thought about it for a long while and that it was carefully justified.

Again, once you get off the first page of this statement where he talks about his constraint program and you get into the details, it is hard to find out where he saved money or where he spent less than he did the year before. I want to discuss the tax revenue in particular and the arguments we had in the latter part of the spring session, just after the minister's budget.

We talked about how much retail sales tax he was going to generate, and I have not seen final numbers on that, although I will be interested in whether that spreading of retail sales tax to other items really succeeded in doing what the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) said it would do; that is, generate a lot more money for Ontario. Or did it accomplish what the people who were faced with the collection of this retail sales tax said it would, which was that some businesses would suffer and that while more people would be taxed, the volume was going to drop and the net effect would be that while retail sales tax was extended to include items that were previously not covered, the money coming in would not be greater.

I followed with some interest the organizations, such as the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association, which gave one set of numbers, and people like the Treasurer, who refuted their numbers. The Treasurer may be a very wise person, as is the Minister of Revenue, but I tend to think the person at the cash register is going to know a little more accurately how much money they took in. They may not have quite the sophisticated staff and hardware that the ministries have, but in my view, if I want to know how much a restaurant is taking in, the best person to ask is the guy in the restaurant. He is more likely to have more accurate information.

I want to follow that, if I can, through this wonderful system we are developing, to see whether the Treasurer was successful in gathering more money from more people or whether, in effect, he wound up with something that did something other than what he intended; that is, picking up less money perhaps from more people, but in actual cash dollars, fewer.

The minister went on at some length to explain the tax grants for senior citizens and how wonderful they are. I have to join with the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) in saying that I do not have quite as many people complaining about that tax grant system. But I suspect that is because the advertising program has eased up somewhat. If I were looking for a reason as to why I have not had as many complaints, I believe I would find that my people are not reminded of the programs quite as regularly as they were. These people do not understand how modern governments work, and that is the basic problem. None the less, that was not this minister's fault. He just is around to carry the pail and to see how things work out in the end.

12:20 p.m.

The other justification that I thought was really nifty was near the latter part of the speech when he was getting tired. He pointed out that the figure of $74 million "includes one-time funding for a number of items and projects which will not require further funding commitments in subsequent years." Again, that is the same technique being used. I just want to point out that somehow you believe you can justify an expenditure of $74 million if you follow it by saying, "We are only going to do this once." Somehow that makes it less than $74 million. I do not follow the logic of that and do not intend to.

On the next page, he whips through a couple of numbers, such as $1.86 million for implementation of the proposed farms and managed forests property tax reduction program, "which was subsequently deferred and the funding withdrawn from our budget." That is the cost you get into with that kind of program. I am always amazed at how much money it costs the government to defer, to reduce and to give back money; how expensive that business really is.

On the same page, the minister pointed out that $1.7 million is for the initial cost to produce a tax impact study for Metropolitan Toronto council. I would like to pursue that later on as we add up the other numbers that might be there other than the initial cost and the true ramifications of that.

I want to point out a couple of problems about using assessment rolls for generating revenue and the use of enumeration rolls for municipal elections.

A couple of things were brought to my attention about enumeration in this trip around the block, the usual kinds of problems everybody is going to have until you move to some kind of permanent roll. Every time you put together a group of people to do an enumeration, there is an on-the-street process that is going to have some problems. There is no way to get around that until you become a little more sophisticated. Perhaps when the minister gets some of this hardware in place and we have everything computerized, that will be a little easier and more accurate.

One problem was pointed out to me by people who are participants -- again, this is the way government likes to work -- participants by virtue of being separate school supporters. They were using a technique that allowed one member of the family to lease a portion or all of a residence for the purpose of paying separate school taxes. It is another little technique devised in the 1970s -- it was when I was teaching; so it must have been in the late 1960s or early 1970s. For purposes of taxation, it allows you to split the money between the public and separate school boards or to have people who are not Catholics direct their money to the separate school system.

One of the things pointed out to me was that apparently the assessment department has a ruling -- one I do not understand -- which says that even though you give your tax money to the separate school system, if you are not a Catholic you cannot vote for the separate school board. I was wondering how they determine whether or not you are a Catholic and whether the assessment department had devised something that has escaped the Catholic Church for centuries; that is, a means of determining Catholicity. I am sure they have. I would be interested in seeing their definition.

One of the things I might suggest to the minister -- and it would involve changing regulations, legislation or somebody's mind -- is to use a simple process. If folks are paying taxes to a separate school system, it strikes me they have a right in a municipal election to cast a ballot for a separate school board. I know that probably does not fit into a computer, and I am sure it is too simple; but it seems reasonable.

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has a thing that if you own property and you pay municipal property taxes, you ought to get a ballot for every piece of property you own. I do not want to be caught being consistent with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but it is reasonably consistent with some of his statements in that regard, that at least for this one small piece of work you do in enumeration and in your assessment offices, you might accept that principle: if they are supporters of a separate school system, they will be allowed to vote in a municipal election for a separate school board.

When one looks at the number of appeals the assessment department really faces, one gets some concept of what a big job it has to do. There are something like 150,000 appeals annually. That is something that points out there are problems in that whole field which may or may not be dealt with by the use of computers.

The other thing that gets to the argument of whether we have a fair municipal tax base is the use of the assessment program, to use the minister's words, "to improve the integrity of the assessment base, thereby reducing municipal tax base erosion." I must admit I had to run that by me a couple of times before I figured out exactly what kind of erosion he was talking about and what the relationship was between the two.

I assume the minister is saying the assessment system per se is not exactly perfection as currently practised but, the more one improves it to make it fair and accurate, the more solid the assessment base will be. That may well be true. You may be successful at getting a twofold market value and all that may happen. But, as I see it, the difficulty is that for some time now Ontario has been involved almost across the board in substantially moving to municipal property tax base programs that have never been there.

That is going to cause a lot of problems, because in different fields there now are mandated programs. Ontario is saying to municipalities, "You must do certain things," such as the provision of social services and policing. The municipalities do not have any choice; they must provide the services. Usually portions of the costs of those services are borne by all three levels of government, with the municipalities normally picking up the smaller percentage of the amount.

But we are still loading on to municipal property taxes, on a very large scale, programs that traditionally have not been there or have been there to some lesser degree than we are pretending to put on. Later on, I want to go into that a little, because I think that is a substantial problem Ontario is going to run into. I do not see any real move on the part of the government to alleviate that.

Let me touch on that for a moment. One of the things I have been looking at is the across- the-board basis of revenue. This ministry's revenue is affected by all the other players in the field. When the federal government changes some of its rules unilaterally, this province does a good amount of screaming, saying, "That is not fair." Yet the same minister will be collecting more money this year in licence fees, retail sales tax and in a number of ways than he has ever done before from the municipalities around Ontario as part of the Treasurer's budget announced last spring. We went through a set of hearings on that.

It strikes me that someone within the Ministry of Revenue -- and I cannot find them on the flow charts, but I am sure that group of folks is there -- is putting in place the obvious policy of the Ontario government of shifting these costs from the province itself to the municipalities. Maybe somebody deep in the bowels of some computer is pushing buttons saying, "Find me all the ways we can transfer costs to the municipalities."

For example, if one begins to put together the amounts paid for police costs, one begins to see that just letting the actual costs rise and holding on to the amounts of money the government gives get that spread working. I think that is what we are looking at. This government is very sophisticated about sticking it to municipalities and not being really obvious about it. It is rather nifty the way it goes about that.

Education costs are a good example. Ontario's share has slowly and gradually dropped from about 60 per cent of the average in most municipalities down to about 50 per cent. In addition, just to rub a little salt in the wound, it adds a few new programs. Every school board around Ontario is familiar with the concept: the ministry always says, "This will not cost you any money."

It is doing that with the new Health Protection Act, policing, fire protection, education and social services. It says, "Here is your front-end money in the first year." In subsequent years, the front-end money dissipates and three or four years down the road they wind up being stuck with the program and with the mandate of responsibility to carry out that program, but they are a little bit short in cash. Where does all that go? That goes back on to the only source of taxation there is, the property tax base. Then the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) enters, moving in wonderful ways behind the scenes, to change the assessment base to see whether he can extract more money from municipalities from that end.

12:30 p.m.

One of the things I have never been able to do is to get a definitive picture of the money flow back and forth among the province, the municipalities and the federal government. I suspect it is probably costing us a substantial amount of money to move that around between the province, the Minister of Revenue, for example, gathering up retail sales tax from everybody out there, and the municipalities, picking up licence fees and retail sales tax from them as well.

It used to be that in certain specified areas, the province would say to the municipalities: "Listen, to collect our retail sales tax from you is more bother than it is worth. Forget about it. You are exempt." In the last couple of years, I suspect somebody in the ministry said: "Listen, start picking up that money from them. Nickel and dime them. Get that cash back in your coffers." Then, of course, the ministry can do what it really likes to do over there, get a dollar out of them and give them back five cents and they will be happy. Send them out a cheque signed by the Treasurer, take the local member down and have him to present the cheque to the municipality, or to the hospital or the school board, or things like that, and everybody will be just fine.

I really do wonder what the dollar amount is in all of that. We are looking at an economy that is in trouble -- no question about that. What we are looking at, at the municipal level anyway, the first run in most municipalities -- Mr. Chairman, yours and mine are no different from anybody else's around the province that I can find -- is about a 15 to 20 per cent increase in cost locally. How is that going to affect the Minister of Revenue? I do not think there is any doubt we are nearing the limit of what can be squeezed out of the municipal property tax base.

I do not doubt for a moment that some time this winter the Treasurer of Ontario is going to have to turn to the Minister of Revenue and say, "We have got to get some more money out here because we have some legal obligations to provide social service programs." Those costs are escalating in most municipalities, and certainly in the industrial centres, between 15 and 20 per cent, and we cannot get away from them, because the municipalities have a legal obligation to pay those social services costs.

Here in Metro they are not really doing anything. They are putting a hold on all hiring, putting a freeze on new programs and not cranking up any new services. They are looking at a 14.5 per cent increase right across the board. That is about $90 million that has to come out of the budget and it is not there to come out. There is no question about it. Police costs, for example, will put them over the five per cent limit without anything else. Police costs alone will be about 5.3 per cent. The same is true around Ontario.

In our own municipality, the social services department is taking a first look at its costs and there appears to be about 16 per cent of an increase. All this is going to change the pattern of revenue flow from the province to the municipalities and dramatically increase, although we have not been able to get numbers on this, the number of people in their homes who say, "I cannot afford to pay taxes, period." We have seen, for example, in many of our industrial areas a substantial increase in the number of people who just walk away from their houses. There is no question about that.

In question period today I asked about Fotomat, one of the many businesses that has adopted as a practice almost what a number of my constituents have done. It said: "Close the doors. Get me out of here. I am going to go somewhere else and the rest of the world can figure out what we do with this particular property." In our area there are something like 1,500 quit claims, for the most part of residences that are condominiums and townhouses. Almost all of them were put up with the co-operation of this government in some sense.

People just back the pickup truck to the door on Saturday afternoon and say, "That's it, I'm leaving." I do not know where they go, but I know that many of those condominiums are still empty and that has to be a drain on the resources of Ontario. Unfortunately, that is going to be spread in this coming fiscal year to a lot of municipalities where people are just going to say, "I can't pay my property taxes."

On things like retail sales tax, perhaps they will be able to say, "I am not going to buy the goods or services and, therefore, I will not pay the tax in that way." I know, in the kind of economic mire we are in, more people who probably can afford to buy goods and services are saying they do not want to. It happens that I managed to coincide that need for a new car with that aged boyish perception I have that I would really like to have a new car, and went out and bought a new car this fall. Telling myself that I was doing my bit to stimulate the Canadian economy, I bought a Canadian car.

One of the things which really bowled me over was that it cost me almost $1,000 in taxes at different levels of government on this purchase of an automobile: $1,000. Wow. No wonder that people do not have jobs -- and in the Oshawa area, being the MPP is now one of the more solid types of employment. I used to feel kind of an endangered species there that I did not have any job security at all, but I have to say that if you have job security for another year or so in Oshawa, it looks pretty good. A lot of guys on the line who put in 30 years and thought they had job security are out on the street this winter.

The impact of governments on individuals is substantial. When you look at the cost of a vehicle and the amount of taxes involved in retail sales tax, tax on air conditioners, tax on this, and licence plates and all that stuff before you put the thing on the street, it does not matter what the United Auto Workers will do, or General Motors, the government of Ontario is going to grab you. Hidden away rather neatly in there is the federal government as well. We do not get to see very much of what they grab from you.

Then you put the thing on the street and have an ad valorem tax on gasoline as well. The Treasurer of Ontario and I imagine the Minister of Revenue smile nicely every time the price of a litre or, God forbid, a gallon of gas goes up. They are happy. They do not care; "a little more money in the kitty for us." That is the best kind of tax, as McKeough used to say, because you do not have to reintroduce it all the time. It is in place and it automatically escalates.

I think the government of Ontario and the Minister of Revenue are going to have to take a look at some of this stuff and the impact it has on how it gathers money and redistributes that money back and forth through the system. Some of it, quite frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I want to pursue that with individual questions as we go through these estimates, because there are a number of areas where I would like to take a little more time to elicit a few answers from the minister. As we go through the other votes I would appreciate the opportunity to ask those questions.

Mr. Chairman: That concludes opening remarks.

Mr. Nixon: Very good they were too.

Mr. Chairman: Yes. I noticed how attentively you were listening. Would the minister like to respond?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Dispense.

Mr. Foulds: It will be the first time, if he does.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I have been making notes, needless to say, very studiously as my two critics went through their opening remarks. You may be happy to know that I have about two and a half pages of notes and points and questions, etc. Possibly it might be in order to try to pick out a few of the items that were general in nature that I can respond to in that way, and leave the very specific vote items to the appropriate votes as we go through.

I guess one of the general items that was raised by the member for Oshawa related to my opening statement per se and the fact that I was going through it quite rapidly. I may just say that I had it timed to be something in the order of an hour and did not impose anything longer than that on the time allocated for my ministry's estimates, so I did go a little faster than I normally would. But it was for the benefit of the members opposite, because I did not want to impose more than approximately 15 per cent of the time on my opening statement.

Having said all that, I know the question would have been, "Why didn't you just cut it in half?" But I think many of the points I wanted to get on the record were necessary because they obviously were the foundation for raising some of the questions and points that have been made by the two critics. Last but not least, I may even have answered the odd question they might have posed otherwise.

12:40 p.m.

There were some general points made about the staffing of the ministry, and again we will leave that to the appropriate vote. Some confusion has arisen in areas to do with staffing to do the job that has to be done. How can I talk about constraint on one hand and increasing expenditures or increasing man-years on the other? The answer to that, in a very general way, is that obviously the biggest part of our increase has to do with the transfer of moneys to others through the programs we operate, particularly the property tax grant, the temporary home heating grant, which is new, and the sales tax grant. The actual increase in the operating portion of the ministry is somewhat more modest and accounts for a relatively small part of the overall increase in the ministry.

It was also pointed out, in terms of numbers, that I am talking about constraint and at the same time talking about more people, which is inconsistent. I agree, in a blanket statement that is probably so, but when we look at the realities of some very specific decreases in some of the ongoing portions of the ministry that have not had new responsibilities, they are there as well. Where we have increases there are new responsibilities assigned to the ministry, such as the coloured fuel program and the considerable expansion in the retail sales tax base, which meant an awful lot of new vendors who were not on the rolls before. Obviously it takes resources to work with these people and take care of their needs as they arise.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How many people did you have to hire to deal with the expanded retail sales tax?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I would just as soon we leave that to the specific vote. To be very honest, we set up a new area in the ministry to deal with this new group in the way of an ongoing service, which is not new because we have been working and servicing our retail sales tax vendors on a service basis much more in the last couple of years to implement further and get across to these people who collect tax on our behalf the voluntary aspect of much of our tax revenue system.

That is about all it is necessary to cover at this time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Two and a half pages and that is all we get.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No; as I mentioned before, if the honourable member had not fallen asleep temporarily, many of the issues were very specifically oriented to votes and I will leave them until that time. I did take note of them in the interval. I am sure the honourable members would not forget them, but I did not want to forget them either so that we could touch on them at the appropriate time.

If there was one other general observation made by the member for Oshawa, it had to do with the ministry's assessment function and the appeals, and he also referred to the erosion of the tax base. That deserves a little explanation. We have a great tendency around here when we talk about dollars to talk about millions. That is a lot of money, but you have to put the millions into the context of billions of dollars to see the relationship. Similarly, when we talk about appeals, 150,000 appeals are a lot of appeals that take men, man-hours and resources, obviously, to address. If we put that in the context of the total property assessments in the province, it is relatively small. To conclude that because there were 150,000 appeals there is an untold number of problems out there is a rather unfair conclusion to arrive at.

The same member referred to my comments on the erosion of the tax base and the advantages of having it as current as possible. Just to put a little clarity into this, what I was saying was that there is no doubt it is becoming much more difficult, particularly in the commercial and industrial category of properties, to defend some of the inequities in the assessment base, because over a period of time it has become more and more out of equity with neighbouring or similar types of properties. It is on that basis that there are now, and we foresee more and more, successful appeals in the industrial and commercial sector.

If the tax base, one or two classes of property, industrial and commercial for example, is eroded through successful appeals, what happens? Obviously if a municipality has to raise the same number of dollars you are pushing the revenue needs on to the residential taxpayer. This we foresee as being more and more of a problem where the tax base has not been or is not currently being updated.

Of course, we have offered many programs to municipalities to do that and they have been quite successful. What we refer to as the section 86 program -- it is now section 63 of the act, but we still call it the 86 program -- has been implemented, I would say quite successfully, in 349 municipalities; and we also have another 138 municipalities that, because of their nature, were able to go to a market value assessment through proclamation.

But there is a difference. There have been references to the idea that we have gone to market value assessment; and again, really we have not. We are going, through the section 86 program, to a market value based assessment, but that is considerably different from going to true market value, which would allow the various shifts that would inevitably take place between classes of property. I think this just further highlights and illustrates the concern I draw to the member's attention vis-à-vis the erosion of one part of the tax base, industrial-commercial, which in fact would impede and put a further drain on the residential taxpayer.

I think it is extremely important to have a tax base that is as up to date as is reasonable and feasible so it can be defended, so the base available to the municipalities to raise their necessary dollars can be done in a fair and equitable way. With those few general remarks I would appreciate it now if we could move on to the specifics of the various categories.

On vote 801, ministry administration program:

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the item I want to bring up today may in some sense be more appropriate under a later vote, but I want to raise it in the few minutes we have left on the chance the minister could perhaps have an answer to a question that I wish to pose to him when we come to the votes dealing with the coloured fuel program There is some urgency about it because there is a good deal of concern among users, so I ask that the minister consider the question at this time.

I would like to point out that I am not opposed, nor are the farmers and people who are coming to me opposed, to the coloured fuel program: we all realize that if there are violations and if people are escaping the tax, first of all it is unfair to everyone concerned, and second they have an unfair advantage in the competitive marketplace if they are avoiding that tax.

I might just tell the minister that when I mentioned to a particular fuel dealer I talked to on this subject some of the things that were happening in the marketplace -- and these things were revealed to us when we attended the minister's office on October 4 -- he exclaimed to me: "Now I know why I could never get a certain contract. No matter what I bid on that contract my price was always too high." I cannot be sure, of course, and neither can he, whether his supposition is correct, but he immediately jumped to that conclusion, "Now I know why I could never get that contract."

12:50 p.m.

We have had a number of people come to us, largely farmers, complaining about problems they are encountering in their fuel system. I am not saying at this moment that it is caused by the dye. However, it is only natural that when a person has operated equipment for many years with no problems or very few problems with the fuel system, and suddenly is confronted with problems in more than one of the pieces of equipment, and when he opens up the fuel system the first thing he sees is the dye in the filter, the assumption is that is the cause.

One farmer's combine died in the field. He walked up to the yard and found that the diesel tractor his son was driving between farms with a load of grain had died on the road too. Both were caused by fuel problems So it is only natural for him to assume the dye was the cause. We have press reports in the Chatham Daily News that it is a problem on the railroads. Following this up, it was found that the problem was not with one of the locomotives but with some of the diesel engines they operate.

I would like to ask the minister if he would, as quickly as he could, put together a team of people to investigate these problems to see if the dye is the root of the problem. Perhaps it would be well for him to bring to the attention of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) so that his department could investigate the matter rather than the Ministry of Revenue. I do not know where the particular resources are, but surely there are people out there who can do this work.

Because I visited the place a number of years ago and know there is a fuel laboratory there, I suggest going to the University of Western Ontario. I am sure our fuel companies have labs for this. They may even have them in the government. Surely there are methods of finding the answer to this problem and ending the uncertainty. It may very well be that something else has been introduced into the fuel system. Perhaps during the changeover from the clear fuel to the coloured fuel some chemical or physical reactions have taken place that we know nothing about.

I would also ask him to publicize to people who are nervous about this problem and who have thousands and thousands of dollars worth of diesel equipment involved that until we have solved the problem and have come up with a definitive answer, they can still continue to use the clear fuel, pay the tax on the clear fuel as they receive it and then claim a rebate and receive the tax money back; provided, of course, the fuel has been used in the proper way. That might be a method of gradually phasing in the operation of your current fuel program rather than bringing it in suddenly and causing apprehension, discussion and so on among the people.

I have other subjects that I would like to speak about but because this is of certain urgency I would again ask the minister to see if he can have an answer for us by next week as to whether he can go forward with an investigation. I will close on that and turn the matter over to other members, bearing in mind I hope for an answer on this next week.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate that I respond at least in an interim nature on this particular point that has been raised. First, there has already been testing through the Ministry of the Environment on this issue of dyes. Contrary to the views of some, this business of coloration is not new. We are one of the last jurisdictions in Canada to go to coloration. The kind of dye that we are using is not new.

If I remember correctly -- I will verify this -- we are using the same dye that has been used in Quebec for some time. We are not using exactly the same dye that is being used out west, but I would suggest that the equipment etc. that is being used in Ontario within the farming community, and diesel equipment generally, is not dissimilar to what is being used in other areas. I do not think the source of any possible problem is the dye itself.

We also did tests to prove that the dye is combustible at a lower temperature than the fuel of which it is part. In other words, it should be the first thing to burn off without any residue. I must honestly admit there have been more and more concerns brought to me in the last couple of weeks, by members on that side as well as this, that people are having some problems, particularly with tractors and usually related to filters.

The only thing that has been suggested, and it is the only thing we can put it down to, is possibly there have been some people at the distribution level who, when dyeing existing stock, have not been too careful to keep it to the 20 parts per million or very close thereto that is supposed to be the amount added. Frankly, I have even had a suggestion that a distributor came up and literally dumped dye and there was no relationship. Whether that proves to be true or not obviously remains to be seen.

Quite rightly, this is of great concern. I would presume that if, for example, a dye that is no problem at 20 parts per million suddenly became 200 parts per million, maybe that could cause a problem. We are trying to track that down. I would hope that next week I can get back to the honourable members with a better explanation than that. At the moment, it would appear that can be the only possible cause of problems.

I would also think that in some instances -- I am not suggesting all -- if anybody had any problem with a piece of equipment, say it gave a little cough that he had not heard the day before, it was very easy and simple to say, "Oh, that must be the coloured fuel now."

Mr. Elston: It is more than just a cough if they have to take 45 minutes to correct the problem.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, no; I have acknowledged the actual filters and so on seem to have been affected. We are investigating that to the degree that we can to see if that might be the basis of the problem. If it is, we hope it is a temporary problem that will be gone once the fuel that is coloured well back in the system is taken care of, because obviously there will be much more control in putting in the right quantities.

Mr. Elston: Would you comment on the health aspect?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As far as the health aspect is concerned, of course, that was part of the testing that was done. There was no indication whatsoever of any health problems, even if it was part of a fuel that was being burned internally; that is in a kerosene heater or something along those lines. We did take off the obligation to colour the kerosene that is sometimes being used in internal heaters until there can be even further testing to see if there is any indication of a problem. We have already done that. We did it some time ago.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Ashe, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

November 19, 1982