Mr. LYONS: What we want is to be assessed no higher than farm lands adjoining us —the rate to be no higher than it is in the township.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Did you buy that land yourself?

Mr. LYONS: I did.

Mr. MCPHERSON: Were you aware of the taxation when you bought it?

Mr. LYONS: No sir, by no means; the village was not incorporated; I bought it twenty-five years ago.

Mr. MACPHERSON: It was incorporated against your will?

Mr. LYONS: It was against my will, certainly; and there is another thing that will hurt us considerably, that is the school rate in incorporated villages. I pay from forty to forty-five dollars a year school rate in that village and parties in the village that pay no rate whatever have far more benefit, because I have no children going to the school and they have four or five and pay no tax whatever. I am educating their children. Now, I don't dispute whatever of paying a tax for schools, but there is such a difference in incorporated villages to what there is in the township. The farmer adjoining me has a school in his section, and he sends the children to this school I do, and I am paying for the education of his children. The law is such that the school you are nearest to you are privileged to send your children to, and here I am paying for his children and in his own school section he only pays a trifle in comparison with what I do in the village school.

Mr. McKAY: Do the trustees charge him any rate?

Mr. LYONS: They charge him fifty cents. a month for each child.

What I want and what the rest of us farmers want is to be brought on a par with those farmers adjoining us. Not only that, but if in incorporated villages our property has been depreciated in value, and if we wish to rent we cannot rent within one third as much as the farmer adjoining us.

The CHAIRMAN: It would serve your pu pose to have the limits of the corporation reduced, confined to its properties?

Mr. LYONS: Yes, it would so. I think farm lands ought never to have been Included in incorporated villages. We have nothing as a rule in common with villages. Mr. Wright is here from the town of Beeton, and he represents Beeton and he has been warden of the county of Simcoe in his day, and probably he can relate the matter better than I can.

He

Mr. JOSEPH WRIGHT, of Beeton: Gentlemen, I agree pretty much with what the former speakers have said, and it is a detriment to a great many farmers having farm lands inside of incorporated villages, for they are taxed, and taxed heavily for what is no benefit to them. In the village of Beeton they have the electric light and water works, and they have built a large town hall, and I do not think they are any benefit to the farmers. I could quote several instances. One man has ten acres of land inside a village corporation; for that ten acres he paid eight dollars and forty cents. taxes. had forty acres adjoining in the township, he had a brick house and a good barn upon it, all under cultivation, and for these forty acres he paid sixteen dollars and forty cents. taxes. Another one had fifty-one acres inside the corporation, and one hundred and twelve acres in the adjoining township. He paid thirty-one dollars and fifty cents. taxes for the fifty-ore acres, and for the one hundred and twelve acres he paid thirty-four dollars and forty cents. Another gentleman has nineteen acres inside the village, and one hundred and seventy-two acres in the township. In that village he was assessed for one thousand dollars at twenty-one mills on those nineteen acres, and he pays twenty-one dollars taxes. In the township he pays fifty six dollars for the 172 acres, and on one of the farms there is a good house and outbuildings, and on the other farm there is no house but good barns. I might say there is another man, his farm buildings are inside the corporation; he has seventeen and a half acres, and he is assessed for one thousand four hundred dollars, and he pays twenty-nine dollars and forty cents. taxes, and the other portion of his land is assessed at about thirty five dollars an acre.

The CHAIRMAN: You had something to say when the limits of the corporation were fixed?

Mr. WRIGHT: I had, and I opposed the incorporation.
The CHAIRMAN: You opposed your land being taken in ?

Mr. WRIGHT: Yes, sir, and so did, I think, every farmer that is inside the corporation of Beeton, and more than that, at the time it was incorporated it was appealed against and the by-law quashed, but certain members had such a pull with the government that they got a special Act to legalize it, and made us pay a portion of the expenses for legalizing the by-law as well.

Mr. MCKAY: Is there any complaint that the assessment of the village lots is not high enough.

Mr. WRIGHT: No, not in regard to the village lots, but the complaint is that the farms in the village are assessed too high in relation to the farms in the township. Now, I would not complain over the school rate. as Mr. Lyons does, for we have several hundred acres of land outside the corporation that is in the school section, and was at the time Beeton was incorporated, and I think it just that we should pay our school taxes, but I do not think the farmers on the farm lands should have to pay electric light and water works and town ball rates.

The CHAIRMAN: But your school tax is upon a high assessment, so you are hurt there.

Mr. WRIGHT: Yes, we are hurt, but I am not complaining of that portion of it. Mr. PRATT: You do not complain your land is over-assessed?

Mr. WRIGHT: Yes, I do, according to the land adjoining in the same school section. Mr. PRATT: It is not over-valued ?

Mr. WRIGHT: I will not say it is over-valued, but according to the adjoining lands and in the same school section.

Mr. PRATT Is the outside land adjoining assessed the same as yours?

Mr. WRIGHT: No, we are assessed double the amount of farm lands adjoining us. Mr. FARRISH: I have here a little diagram of the town of Mitchell. (Diagram produced, showing that by running the lines east and west Mr. Parrish would be outside the limits.) I would prefer to be out if it was in the power of the Commission to let me out, that would be my desire; but if not, I would like some way of redress. Commission adjourned at 1.15 to 10.30 a.m. to morrow.

SECOND DAY, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14th

The Commission resumed at 10 30 a.m.

All the Commissioners present except Mr. Butler.

CHAIRMAN: We are now prepared to hear further discussion of the first question. Mr. MACKELCAN: Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, with regard to the assessment of Real Estate, section 29 of the Assessment Act deals with the matter in this way: "In assessing vacant ground or ground used as a farm, garden, or nursery, and not in immediate demand for building purposes, in cities, towns, or villages, whether incorporated or not, the value of such vacant or otherground shall be that at which eales of it can be freely made, and where no sales can be reasonably expected during the current year, the assessors shall, where the extent of such grounds exceeds two acres in cities and ten acres in towns and incorporated villages, value such land as though it was held for farming or gardening purposes, with such percentage added thereto as the situation of the land reasonably calls for."

That section was the subject of a good deal of discussion in the Legislature in the session of 1895, and the clause was repealed there, or rather the amendment as it now stands was rejected; but when the matter was finally passed in the House the question came up about three o'clock in the morning when there were only a very few members present, somebody who advocated this change in the law to ease the assessment of vacant lots was on the watch and had this reinserted just in the dying hours of the Legislature and nobody has disturbed it since.

CHAIRMAN: What year was that?

Mr. MACKELCAN: That was in 1895. The reason I say 1895, I have the draft bill here in my hand with the amendments as made at that time, because I was taking part in the discussion of the matter. Upon discussion which took place in the House on that bill, Mr. Howland, who then was one of the representatives of the city of Toronto, contended that the clause really meant nothing, because of the words, "the assessor shall. value such land as though it was held for farming or gardening purposes, with such percentage added thereto as the situation of the land reasonably calls for." He said the result of that was that this was to be assessed for its fair value according to its situation, so that the section "really made no change in the law, although it has led to considerable difficulty. Now, as that has been interpreted in Toronto by Judge McDougall, I understand no difficulty has arisen because he has given full meaning to those words, and in a note to the "Assessors' Guide" published by the Municipal World it is said, "Judge McDougall, in considering appeals from the Court of Revision for the City of Toronto under this section, held that the true test was the actual value of the land." So that so far as Toronto is concerned they have no present fault to find with this section as it stands, simply for the reason that it is interpreted in the way that I have described; but there are other municipalities where a different view is taken. I know in our municipality a somewhat different view is taken, and land that was laid out in blocks, in which you could not buy & block except for a pretty high price, was under this section valued as farm land and assessed at a great deal less than the owner would be willing to take for it. In one case I know lots were bought for $30,000 and then assessed under this class at $13,000. In that way there is a different interpretation upon the meaning of those words; and it seems to me that clause has been a hindrance rather than an assistance. If, as was suggested yesterday, all property is assessed at its fair value, then these last words of the clause would be given their full effect: "Such percentage added thereto as the situation of the land reasonably calls for." Then when one considers in connection with that the oath that the assessor has to take as per schedule "E." it is seen that that differs entirely from the valuation that he might place upon it under this clause or might consider that he ought to place upon it under this clause as interpreted by some of the local anthorities; and therefore it seems to me that this clause, together with others that only hamper the mode of arriving at what is the fair value, should properly be eliminated from the Statute.

The CHAIRMAN: Do you suggest the repeal of the clause altogether.

Mr. MACKELCAN: I think so. I think that it only creates difficulty where there need be none. If we have one uniform method of valuation of all classes of property, it seems to me it would simplify the Assessment Act very much. The complaint is made— and it is a very common remark made by laymen and also by lawyers-that the Assessment Act is so complicated that it is cumbersome, it cannot be understood, and that it is consequently unworkable, unpracticable, and so on. Well, it seems to me that it would be greatly simplified by simply taxing all property-that is, all tangible property, real and personal-at its fair value; and there you would get a rule that applies to the entire municipality.

All these complications with regard to distinction between one kind of property and another only go to make the Assessment Act unworkable instead of making it perfectly easy to act under, if we had one simple definition that applied to all classes of property.

Mr. JUSTICE MACMAHON: I suppose there would be no trouble in framing an Act that would be easily understood if you could prevent legislators from tinkering with it at every Session of the House.

Mr. MACKELCAN: Of course there are gentlemen who go there under the idea that they have a mission to perform, that is, to have some change made in the Municipal or Assessment Act. It might be of advantage to some one of their constituents and of course we know that of the amendments to the Municipal Act that are brought in by private members every session, probably four-fifth are slaughtered, but still some of those that do go through might better have been left out of the Statute. No doubt some valuable amendments are suggested by private members, from their local experience or from general experience as the case may be, but many of them are introduced for special reasons and to suit special circumstances of a particular constituency from which the member was sent to the Legislature.

The CHAIRMAN: Before you pass from that, Mr. MacKelcan, what would you say with reference to this clause and the position of those three gentlemen we heard yesterday from the country?

Mr. MACKELCAN: Well, I was very much impressed with that, and I must say that their land being occupied and used for farming purposes, and being of no greater value than the land outside the limits of the municipality, if those words were used that we have suggested, it would only be assessed at its fair value as a farm, and the value proportionate to that or the same as that of the land immediately outside of the municipality, providing the assessor in the township municipality was assessing land according to the law, on its fair value, and not at a low value for the purpose of giving his township a privilege over other townships in the county assessment. There is a difficulty with regard to township assessment that the local assessors are tempted to put down the taxation in order that their people shall have a smaller proportion of the county taxes to pay.

The CHAIRMAN: What ground is there for that temptation having regard to the equalization clause ?

Mr. MACKELCAN: It is very seldom that clause is fought. They have an advantage; they began at a lower plane, they are not likely to go so high as if they began at a higher plane and the others have to be lifted from the lower one. Of course, naturally they do endeavour to get all the privileges they can in the preliminary position before the equalization takes place, but it seems to me that that must be the reason why the township assessments are often lower than they should be, and it is difficult to understand how the assessor can take the oath that he does sometimes with regard to township assessment, because if he were called upon as valuator for a loan company to put an appraisement for sale he would probably put a much higher value than he puts down in the assessment, and he puts down a low value in the aseessment roll because all the other land is assessed in the same way.

Mr. JUSTICE MACMAHON: Are there not a great many market gardens within the city of Toronto? I suppose there are some within the limits of Hamilton. Mr. MACKELCAN: Then they ought to be assessed simply at a farm value. Mr. JUSTICE MACMAHON : Simply as farm land?

Mr. MACKELCAN: Simply for the purposes for which they are used. Of course, you cannot altogether ignore the fact that the farm land within the boundaries of the city of Toronto would be much more valuable than farm land 100 miles away. That element must to some extent govern the valuation placed upon the land by the assessor. Mr. WILKIE: How has this section been abused?

Mr. MACKELCAN: Well, it has only been in some cases. Land that had been laid out in lots, say two or three acres of land in a city where the lots ar, held at a good price, and which you could not buy for anything less than a fair price according to the location, the assessments have been reduced very largely upon an appeal on the ground that they should be assessed as farm lands. I do not think taere is ground for that appeal under the wording of the statute, but still it prevails, and a valuation lower than otherwise placed upon it has been in some instances placed upon it by the Court of Revision or the County Judge.

Mr. WILKIE: That being the case, the complaint of those three farmers that were here yesterday was groundless?

Mr. MACKELCAN: I think if the Assessment Act were properly interpreted, and especially if we had it in that simple form, if their land was simply assessed at its farm value, it would not be assessed at more than what it was worth for the purposes for which it was used, for its situation did not enhance its value at all.

The CHAIRMAN: But even if the assessment had been accurate as to value, still do they not suffer a grievance in the rate? The village rate is higher than the township rate necessarily. Do they not suffer a grievance there, even if the assessment is correct? They get no benefit, according to your own argument, from light or other advantages from the corporation of the village.

Mr. MACKELCAN: Oh, no doubt it is a great hardship that some classes of property of that kind should bear taxation. We have an instance in the city of Hamilton. There is a portion of the land belonging to our city that is above the top of the mountain and it does not participate in the benefits of the city improvements, but it has to pay the same rate of taxation, although the assessment is lower. These gentlemen yesterday

THE CHAIRMAN: They have compensation in the landscape.

Mr. MACKELCAN: Well, yes, they have. That the gentlemen here yesterday did not have, but those gentlemen did not complain of the assessment; it was only the rate of taxation. They said they could not say anything against the assessment; that was all right; only they complained, as they pointed out to you, that they had to pay a share of the expenditure for purposes for which they derived no benefit. That would appear to be more a matter within the scope of the Municipal Act than the Assessment Act, but there certainly is an injustice in many instances in persons owning outlying property being compelled to contribute.

Mr. JUSTICE MACMAHON: That clause that was in the Assessment Act some fifteen years ago, where the gardens were exempted to some extent, was afterwards repealed, was it ?

Mr. MACKELCAN: No, that follows the one I was reading. It is section 30. "(1) Where ground is not held for the purposes of sale, but is bona fide enclosed and used in connection with a residence or building as a paddock, park, lawn, garden or pleasure ground, it shall be assessed therewith, at a valuation which, at six per centum, would yiela a sum equal to the annual rental which, in the judgment of the assessors, it is fairly and reasonably worth for the purposes for which it is used, reference being always had to its position and local advantages, unless by by-law the council requires the same to be assessed like other ground." I think in most municipalities the council has passed a by-law requiring lands of this kind to be assessed like other ground, so as to place the whole of the lands in the municipality on the same footing.

The CHAIRMAN: If a man took down his fence the clause would not apply at all? Mr. MACKELCAN: Well, I do not know. Practically it is a dead letter for the reason that the municipalities have availed themselves of the power to pass by-laws. They have passed one in Toronto, and one in Hamilton, so far as I know, requiring property of this kind to be assessed like other ground. Then with regard to section 29, I would call the attention of the Commissioners to sub-section 15 of section 71 of the Assessment Act, which is not altogether consistent with section 29 where, referring to the Court of Revision, it says that the Court may, in determining the value at which similar land in the vicinity is assessed. I may say that this is a very valuable clause as it stands, for the reason that the object of assessment is not so much to get at the actual value of the property as to get a fair valuation upon a like basis throughout the municipality so that all persons shall bear their fair share of their taxation.

The CHAIRMAN: Equality?

Mr. MACKELCAN: Equality, yes, so far as possible, and this enables the Court to to bring about that result. Sometimes there are some men, as some of the Commissioners may knew, who are chronic kickers. They appeal every year and against every assessment, and perhaps they might get the advantage over their more peaceable neighbors who have allowed their assessment to pass along. Say the land on a street is valued as $20 a foot for several blocks and one man says: "Well, I do not think I ought to be assessed for more than $15 a foot, that land is only worth about $15 a foot." and the Court says: "Here you find everybody else on the street is assessed for $20 a foot, and they none of them complain, and we will assess your land with reference to the value in which land in the vicinity is assessed;" so that in this way this man is not able to take advantage of his neighbours; the Court are able to do justice to the occupants or owners of land on the street as a whole. But that would also operate in considering any adjustment of vacant land, it seems to me.

The CHAIRMAN: It is the Court of Revision that is there spoken of;

Mr. MACKELCAN: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: You think that is a valuable provision ?

Mr. MACKELCAN: I think it is a very useful clause, and it serves to bring about the result that the Assessment Act is intended to aim at, that is, equality in the assessment of property.

The CHAIRMAN: The argument is this, that if all the adjacent owners are content with the assessment that is good evidence of the value?

Mr. MACKELCAN: Yes, and if all are assessed alike then no one has ground to complain. If property is assessed at a high value throughout the whole city, but uniformly so, nobody has the ground to complain, because the rate of taxation would be less; and if it