Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T12:24:03.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Constraints on Provincial Initiative in a Dynamic Context: The Case of Property Tax Reform in Ontario*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Frances Frisken
Frances Frisken
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ontario's attempt in the 1970s to reform its system of local property taxation aimed to make the local tax system more equitable and efficient in the interest of allowing local governments greater autonomy to act within their own areas of responsibility. In trying to implement the programme, the government used a variety of means to inform local officials about the objectives of reform and to secure their co-operation in achieving it. These efforts failed and the province abandoned the field to local and regional governments, having concluded that the economic and political costs of provincially imposed reform outweighed any advantages to be derived from it. The outcome attested to the influence that local interests and institutions can exercise over provincial policy-making despite their legally subordinate position in the governmental hierarchy.

Résumé

En 1970, l'Ontario a tenté de réformer son système de taxes foncières locales afin de rendre la taxation foncière plus équitable et plus efficace et de permettre aux gouvernements locaux d'agir en plus grande autonomie dans leur domaine de responsabilité. Au cours de sa tentative d'application de ce programme, le gouvernement s'est servi de divers moyens pour informer les fonctionnaires locaux des objectifs de la réforme et s'assurer leur collaboration dans son application. Ces efforts n'ont pas abouti, et la province a, en fin de compte, laissé aux gouvernements locaux et régionaux cette responsabilité, estimant que le coût politique et économique d'une réforme, imposée par la province, dépassait les avantages que l'on pouvait en tirer. Cette expérience a montré l'influence que les intérêts locaux et les institutions locales—qui sont légalement sous l'autorité du pouvoir provincial—peuvent exercer sur les décisions politiques provinciates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 351 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Honourable MacNaughton, Charles, “The Reform of Taxation and Government Structure in Ontario,” Budget Paper B. Ontario Budget, 1969 (Toronto: Department of Treasury and Economics, 1969), 63Google Scholar.

2 Legislature of Ontario, Debates, second session, 31st Parliament, June 8, 1978,3236.

3 Bird, R. M. and Slack, N. E., Residential Property Tax Relief in Ontario (Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1978), 26Google Scholar.

4 Dupré, J. Stefan, Intergovernmental Finance in Ontario: A Provincial-Local Perspective (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1967), 5Google Scholar.

5 See, for example, Ashford, Douglas E., Financing Urban Government in the Welfare State (London: Croom Helm, 1980)Google Scholar; Griffith, J. A. G., Central Departments and Local Authorities (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Grodzins, Morton, The American System, ed. Elazar, Daniel L. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966)Google Scholar; Rhodes, R. A. W., The National World of Local Government (London: Allen and Unwin, 1986)Google Scholar; and Wright, Deil S., Understanding Intergovernmental Relations (3rd ed.; Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1988)Google Scholar.

6 Goldrick, M. D., “Perspectives on Governing the Regions and the Metropolis in the Future,”in Lessons from Regional Government, Proceedings of a Conference at the University of Western Ontario,September 23–24, 1977Google Scholar; Hill, Richard Child, “State Capitalism and the Urban Fiscal Crisis in the United States,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 1 (1977), 76–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and O'Connor, James, The Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973), 89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Bish, Robert L., The Public Economy of Metropolitan Areas (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971), 140–144Google Scholar. Bish's work expands on the argument of Charles Tiebout that choice of community of residence in metropolitan areas (to the extent that choice exists) is dictated by household preferences for local public goods. See Tiebout, Charles M., “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy 64 (1956), 416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Peterson, Paul E., City Limits (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Constitution Act, 1982, Part III, 36(2).

10 Courchene, Thomas J., Equalization Payments: Past, Present, and Future (Toronto: Ontario Economic Council Special Research Report, 1984), 13–69Google Scholar; Dyck, Rand, “The Canada Assistance Plan: The Ultimate in Co-operative Federalism,” Canadian Public Administration 19 (1976), 587–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Smiley, D. V., Canada in Question: Federalism in the Seventies (2nd ed.; Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1976), 54–55Google Scholar.

11 Feldman, Lionel D. and Graham, Katherine A., Bargaining for Cities (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1979), 97–99Google Scholar.

12 Altshuler, Alan, The Urban Transportation System: Politics and Policy Innovation (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1979), 29–49, 252–316Google Scholar; Beer, Samuel H., “The Adoption of General Revenue Sharing: A Case Study in Public Sector Politics,” Public Policy 24 (1976), 127–195Google Scholar; Danielson, Michael N., The Politics of Exclusion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Derthick, Martha, New Towns In-Town (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1972)Google Scholar; and Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavsky, Aaron, Implementation … (3rd ed.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

13 Dunleavy, Patrick, Urban Political Analysis (London: Macmillan, 1980), 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Ashford, Financing Urban Government, 15–21.

15 Clark, Gordon L. and Dear, Michael, Slate Apparatus: Structures and Language of Legitimacy (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1984), 131–152Google Scholar, and Nordlinger, Eric A., On the Autonomy of the Democratic State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

16 Bird, Richard M. and Slack, Enid, “Can Property Taxes be Reformed? Reflections on the Ontario Experience,” Canadian Public Administration 24 (1981), 469–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Paul, Diane B., The Politics of the Property Tax (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1975)Google Scholar.

17 MacNaughton, “The Reform of Taxation,” 61–69.

18 The Ontario Committee on Taxation (henceforth OCT), Report, Vol. 2, The Local Revenue System (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1967), 232–233Google Scholar.

19 OCT, Report, Vol. 1, 8–9.

20 OCT, Report, Vol. 2, 2–5, 550.

21 Ibid., 246–59.

22 Ibid., 111–19.

23 Ibid., 36–39.

24 Martin, Joe, The Role and Place of Ontario in the Canadian Confederation (Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1974), 34Google Scholar.

25 MacNaughton, “The Reform of Taxation,” 64, 67.

26 The Toronto Star, March 5, 1969.

27 Lettner, Jack, “How the New Assessment Act Will Affect You,” Board of Trade Journal, April 1970Google Scholar, and Ontario Ministry of Revenue, Taxing Matters: An Assessment of the Practice of Property Taxation in Ontario (1985), 136Google Scholar.

28 McKeough, W. Darcy, “Assumption of Administration of Assessment,” Municipal World 79 (03 1969), 787Google Scholar.

29 “Co-operation—A.M.C.T. Advisory Committee,” Municipal World 80 (01 1970), 18–19Google Scholar.

30 Smither, Michael J., “Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee—What Is It?” Municipal World 83 (07 1973), 171–172, 175Google Scholar.

31 Ibid., 171.

32 See the exchange between the Honourable André Ouellet, federal minister of state for urban affairs, and the Honourable McKeough, W. Darcy, provincial minister of treasury and intergovernmental affairs, “Municipal Fiscal Reform,” Municipal World, 87 (07 1977), 171–172Google Scholar.

33 Smither, “Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee,” 172; and Mosher, Peter, “Where the Local Politician Helps to Run the Province,” The Globe and Mail, May 13, 1974Google Scholar.

34 The Honourable White, John, “A Position Paper on Public Finance,”National Tri-Level Conference,Edmonton, 1973Google Scholar, cited in Bird and Slack, Residential Property Tax Relief, 93.

35 McKeough, W. Darcy, “And in the Beginning,”Remarks to the Pre-Conference Seminar of the Institute of Municipal Assessors of Ontario,Kingston,June 11, 1987.Google Scholar

36 Simeon, Richard, “Ontario in Confederation,” in MacDonald, Donald C., ed. Government and Politics of Ontario (3rd ed.; Toronto: Nelson, 1985), 145Google Scholar.

37 The Globe and Mail, February 23, 1970; The Toronto Telegram, March 6, 1970; The Toronto Telegram, April 24, 1970; The Globe and Mail, May 12, 1970, July 4, 1970; and Bureau of Municipal Research, “Market Value Assessment: A Study of the Theory, the Practice and the Results,” Civic Affairs (Toronto, Summer 1970)Google Scholar.

38 “A Matter of Liaison—Shall We Get Together to Discuss the Re-assessment Program?”, Municipal World 83 (10 1973), 261–262Google Scholar.

39 The Globe and Mail, March 21, 1970.

40 Blair, Willis L., “On the Reform of Property Taxation in Ontario,” Aspects, no. 21 (04 1977), 28Google Scholar.

41 Budget Paper B, 1969, 67.

42 O'Brien, Allen, “The Tri-Level Politics of Local Government Finance,” Municipal World 86 (10 1976), 261Google Scholar.

43 Smither, Michael J., “The Edmonton Commitment,” Municipal World 86 (01 1976), 4–9Google Scholar.

44 Ontario, Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, Local Government Finance in Ontario: 1975 and 1976 (Toronto, 1977), 29, 6.Google Scholar

45 The Toronto Star, October 19, 1973.

46 Ontario, Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, The Report of the Special Program Review (November 1975), Letter of Transmittal.

47 Ibid., 224–25.

48 Lyon, Vaughan, “Minority Government in Ontario, 1975–1981: An Assessment,” this Journal 17 (1984), 697–699Google Scholar.

49 The Honourable McKeough, W. Darcy, “Reform of Property Taxation in Ontario,” Budget Paper E, Ontario Budget, 1976 (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs), 3Google Scholar.

50 Ibid., 9.

51 Ibid., 3.

52 Interviews with Darcy McKeough, former provincial treasurer, August 1983, and L. J. Close, Executive Director, Corporate Management Services, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs, December 1, 1989.

53 Smither, Michael J. and Canaran, Nasreine, “Provincial Municipal Liaison Committee Report,” Municipal World 86 (06 1976), 162Google Scholar; and The Globe and Mail, September 15, 1976.

54 Ontario, , Report of the Commission on the Reform of Property Taxation in Ontario (Toronto, March 1977), 2Google Scholar.

55 Blair, “On the Reform of Property Taxation in Ontario,” 26–28.

56 The Toronto Star, September 28, 1976.

57 “Property Tax Reform” (editorial), Municipal World 86 (06 1976), 86Google Scholar.

58 Rooks, R. J., “Tax Reform in Ontario,” Municipal World 86 (12 1976), 319–323Google Scholar.

59 “Readers Comment: Tax Reform in Ontario,” Municipal World 87 (02 1977), 54–55Google Scholar.

60 The Ontario Municipal Board is a quasi-judicial public tribunal with wide-ranging powers to consider and rule on municipal planning issues, municipal capital spending and borrowing, and other matters.

61 Interview with L. J. Close.

62 Ibid.

63 “The Toronto Commandment,” Municipal World 87 (10 1977), 254–255Google Scholar.

64 The Honourable McKeough, W. Darcy, “Remarks on Property Tax Reform,” Toronto, January 4, 1978Google Scholar.

65 Hartle, Douglas G., Political Economy of Tax Reform: Six Case Studies, Discussion Paper No. 290 (Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada), 104–105Google Scholar.

66 The Honourable McKeough, W. Darcy, “1978 Budget Statement,” Ontario Budget, 1978 (Toronto: Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, 1978), 13Google Scholar.

67 Ontario, Provincial Local Government Committee on Property Tax Reform, Report (April 1978), 9.

68 Legislature of Ontario, Debates, second session, 31 Parliament, June 8, 1978, 3236.

69 The Globe and Mail, June 9, 1978.

70 “The Cancellation of Property Tax Reform,” excerpts from the Municipal Liaison Committee statement, Municipal World 88 (06 1978), 147Google Scholar.

71 Bird and Slack, “Can Property Taxes Be Reformed?,” 482, and MacKenzie, Hugh, “Ontario Backs off from Tax Reform,” City Magazine 3 (1977–1978), 10Google Scholar.

72 “Interview with P. G. Gillis [Executive Director of the Assessment Division, Ontario Ministry of Revenue],” Aspects, no. 26 (Fall 1978), 2.

73 Interview with Almos Tassonyi, Senior Economist, Taxation Policy Branch, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs, February 25, 1988.

74 Even if carried out on a regional basis, locally initiated reassessment does not address interregional inequalities in assessment practices.