The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

WIIITBY FREE PRESS,WEDNESDAYJULY 10. 1985, PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE 71 CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Our new premier Although he's only had the job for two weeks, David Peterson is already ac- ting and talking like a Premier. He's already behaving as if he has held the second most important political job in this country for years. And that's a good thing, for several reasons. The most important of these is because he is confident in his own ability and in that of his new cabinet, he can instill in others that same confidence. And that was something dearly lacking in the final years of the Bill Davis administration and in the short and lacklustre Frank Miller regime. Peterson has already moved to implement some of the needed reforms that the Tories knew were needed but failed to implement despite their 42 years in the driver's seat. During his maiden speech to the Ontario Legislature, Peterson committed his government to several major legislative reforms that will be enacted (unless he's undercut by a Tory-N.D.P. alliance) before the next election. Perhaps two of the most important will be the introduction of freedom-of- information legislation (which the Tories simply refused to enact despite inten- se lobbying from civil rights activists) and the creation of a legislative commit- tee to review parliamentary procedures and patronage appointments. "We will soon introduce freedom-of-information legislation," the Premier told the House last week. "The same bill will protect personal privacy and guarantee every citizen the means to protect his or her reputation." Such legislation, as far as I'm concerned anyways, is long overdue. The committee to review parliamentary procedures and appointments will have two tasks, Peterson said. "It will be asked to devise ways to make full use of the talents of elected members and determine what resourses they need to effectively represent their constituents," he said. "The committee will also be asked to develop means to attract and select the most dedicated and capable citizens to serve in government." Patronage appointments in the past, he noted, "have bred contempt among the public" because they were made to repay political loyalities and favors. "Cynicism has been justified in the past. We will see that there will be no grounds for it in the future." I just hope that Peterson can carry out these brave words because if he can he will have gained a major achievement. He will have restored some degree of faith in the system to the average citizen. The Tories, like their federal Liberal counterparts, used patronage as a means of solidifying their power base. Far too often, patronage appointments were purely political. How often did we hear that "So-and-so", a good friend of "So-and-so" was named to the XYZ commit- tee or board. Personally, I was pleased to see that one of his first official acts was the proclamation of the Spills Bill which was passed by the Legislature and given Royal Assent in 1979. The Tories, while introducing the bill and paying it lip ser- vice, refused to proclaim it. This bill will make the producers, storers and carriers of hazardous and toxic substances responsible in the event of a spill or accident. It's about time that those who produce this stuff were made com- pletely responsible for it. When asked why the Tories did proclaim the bill, former environment minister Andy Brandt gave us some tripe about the lack of insurance available to the carriers. Well, if the handlers and haulers have properly trained staff and are using the best equipment available, then insurance shouldn't be a major concern. After all, insurance is to protect an individual or a company in case of an accident. The risks of accidents can be effectively minimized with trained staff and proper equipment. If nothing else, government has the authority to ensure that. The Tories didn't want to exercise that authority but Peterson has. The new Premier also promised reformed in several other areas including a review of services for senior citizens, the banning of extra billing by doctors, ensuring that major provincial statutes are in keeping with the new Con- stitution, family law (giving the courts wider powers to enforce orders of sup- port and custody), as well as tougher measures to ensure workers rights to organize for collective bargaining. Most of us will agree that these measures are long overdue. The Tories paid lip service to most of them and despite their ability to do so, failed to implement them. The only areas where Peterson is going to have problems is with the ex- tension of both rent control and funding to the separate school system. How he handles those two issues will be the first tests of his leadership. In addition to the legislative and policy reforms, Peterson also promised more open and accessible government and a new attitude from those who ac- tually do the governing. In concluding his maiden address to the Legislative as Premier, Peterson said: "We must recognize that Ontario has come of age....This government will not shrink from its commitment to change, and to progress in every aspect of Ontario life. The principles we fought for in the election - principles that won us more votes than any other party - will continue to guide us. "We are determined to provide the people of Ontario with a government in which they can take pride and a lifestyle in which they can take joy." If he can fulfill these ideals, Peterson will have earned himself a place in the Canadian history books. WITH OUR FEET UP By Bill Swan Now that the Tories have been turfed out the Queen's Park garden gate, a number of problems remain for the new Liberal government to ponder. Chief of these has to be the funding for separate schools. But among the others, one issue alone con- tains the power to demolish any politician not wise nor patient enough to heed its perils: property taxes. I know, I know. Property taxes, you say, are a local issue, and judging by the way we turn out for civic elections, local issues must be boring. Tell that to any local politician who has dared to become involved in the change to market value assessment. Most would rather be tied to an ant hill slathered in Bill's strawberry jam. The issue of property tax came up this week when the Ontario Municipal Board rolled back an assessment increase on a Toronto home. The in- creased assessment had originally been due to home improvements, mainly installation of a recreation room in the basement, and a new fur- nace. So now David Peterson and the Liberals must decide whether or not to appeal that decision. In principle, you see, the Liberal Party favors tax reform and fairness and the principle of light amid darkness. The difficulty lies in the public perception of the matter. Most of us see as unfair a taxation system which makes us pay more taxes for investing more money in our homes. We won't take kindly to a government that appeals what we regard as a fair decision. But kindly Bob Nixon, now the treasurer, has been quoted as agreeing with the principle that property owners who fix up their homes should not have their tax bill increased too much. The decision to appeal or not to appeal this OMB decision still does not address the real difficulty. That lies in the political depths of that dark lagoon called "market value assessment". Efforts to tax property have been recorded as early as 3000 B.C. In England in the 14th century, royal agents raised money for wars and debauchery by assessing whole communities; the communities then turned around and assessed individuals, often on the basis of the value of the property owned by the individual. Most authorities agree that such taxation may be completely fair. The resident who owns the most land, of greatest value, pays the highest taxes. The shoelaces get tangled, however, when any such system is applied. Who determines the value.of any property? That's the field full of land mines that Peterson and Nixon stumble over at the present time. The Liberal thing to do -- that is, the rational, progressive thing -- would be to legislate market value assessment across the whole province. Professionals told that to the Tory government many times during its 42-year reign in Ontario. But the Tories did not rule Ontario for 42 years by rushing headlong into political suicide. Instead, they made market value assessment a local option. Politically, of course, that amounted to genius. The Tories had the credit for progressive ideas, and left the local politicians to carry the can. The local council could do nothing, and be seen to be reac- tionary; or institute market value assessment and watch the taxpayers, at least the one third who end up paying more money, line up at the door to the council chambers. Ask a few people who live in Newcastle about that. In practice, it will be the new homeowners who bear the brunt of the tax load, since the value of a new home can be pinned down to market prices ar. curately. So in general, new homes will be taxed at a higher rate than older homes. The provincial answer, obviously, would be to legislate market value assessment across the province. The Grits at Queen's Park are not likely to do that simply because David Peterson bas am- bitions of staying Premier for more than two years. And party policy to the contrary, Bob Rae would be unlikely to make it law if he were premier, for the same reason. In the meantime, most of Durham Region has brought taxation into line. Only Oshawa and Whitby have avoided it. Typically, Whitby is still tied to 1940 values for assessment purposes. and Oshawa is just plain confused. Sooner or later -- you can tell your friends you saw it here first -- Whitby will have to bite the bullet and change to market value assessment.