CONTENTS
Thursday 11 June 1998
Tax Cuts for People and for Small Business Act, 1998, Bill 15, Mr Eves /
Loi de 1998 sur la réduction des impôts des particuliers et des petites
entreprises, projet de loi 15, M. Eves
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Bob Laramy, manager, corporations tax unit, Ministry of Finance
Mr Graham Stoodley, director, legal services branch, Ministry of Finance
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 0909 in committee room 1.
TAX CUTS FOR PEOPLE AND FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS DES PARTICULIERS ET DES PETITES ENTREPRISES
Consideration of Bill 15, An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget / Projet de loi 15, Loi visant à réduire les impôts des particuliers et des petites entreprises et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures contenues dans le budget de 1998.
The Chair (Mr Jerry J. Ouellette): I call this committee to order. I thank everybody for making it out this morning. We're here for consideration of clause-by-clause on Bill 15. Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any sections of the bill, and if so, which sections? As noted, I see section 37 and the title of the bill have amendments put forward.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Chair: Did you want me to bring that up?
The Chair: No, that's okay. I just took care of that. We'll proceed.
On section 1 through and including section 36 of the bill, are there any comments, questions? Seeing none -- yes, Mr Silipo?
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Chair, just briefly, because I don't want to belabour this, obviously these are the sections that contain, among other things, the last phase of the 30% income tax cut, something that certainly we, the New Democratic Party, have continued to object to and believe that is at the heart of all of the cuts that we are seeing in our health care services and in our education services. I will continue to express that opposition and vote against these sections.
I just wanted to be clear in terms of how far you're going with the actual first vote, because the Corporations Tax Act, part II, is that covered in the first -- if I could ask if we could have a vote separately on that part of it.
The Chair: You're asking the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act to be voted on separately?
Mr Silipo: That as well. I think the Corporations Tax Act is where the cuts to the small businesses are.
The Chair: You're asking for section 6 to be voted on as well as section 34?
Mr Silipo: I'm looking back at the table of contents and I think it's part II, basically.
The Chair: Okay. Shall sections 1 through 5 carry? Carried.
I now move to section 6 of the bill. Are there any comments, questions or amendments to section 6? Shall section 6 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 7 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 8 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 9 of the bill carry? Carried.
I believe we may be able to speed it up. Are there any sections that we're looking for specific votes on?
Mr Silipo: Chair, sorry to have caused the confusion. Maybe I should have done it this way. I just wanted to indicate that I personally and certainly our caucus is in support of the reduction to the small business tax and I just wanted to put that on the record, notwithstanding what I said earlier with respect to the overall huge income tax cut. Certainly we support the changes in the bill. We wish that some pieces had been done a little bit differently, but we do support the changes to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. Maybe I'll just put that on the record and then let the votes go as they've been going.
The Chair: Shall section 10 up to and including section 36 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 37: Comments, questions, amendments?
Mr Crozier: Do you want to go through those by subsection or shall we just bring up those that we --
The Chair: In the order of the numbering. I believe in the top right corner you'll see the numbering. That should assist. We can go through.
Mr Crozier: With regard to section 37 of the bill, subsection 8.3(2) of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, I move that subsection 8.3(2) --
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mr Crozier is not reading the amendment as tabled.
Mr Crozier: I'll ask the indulgence of the committee. I checked with the Chair to begin with, and I thought he said he had taken care of that. When this was drafted, you're correct, it said, "Municipal Act." It is the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, although the amendment refers to the appropriate section of the bill, and I would ask the committee's indulgence, that this doesn't at all change the intent of our motion.
The Chair: Are you asking for unanimous consent, Mr Crozier?
Mr Crozier: I suspect that's what I have to have.
Mr Young: Am I to understand you're saying this is a drafting error that is says "Municipal Act" instead of "Ontario Lottery Corporation Act"?
Mr Crozier: Absolutely. The rest of the amendments refer to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, and this one didn't.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to allow that change? Agreed.
Mr Crozier: Thank you.
I move that subsection 8.3(2) of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, as set out in subsection 37 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Required payments
"(2) An agreement referred to in subparagraph 3 ii of subsection (1) shall provide that, in each fiscal year of Ontario, the corporation shall use all of the net revenue it receives during the year from the table gaming activities described in subsection (4) to make payments described in subparagraph 3 ii of subsection (1)."
In the way of comments, I refer to an April 9 news release from the Management Board Secretariat in which in one paragraph Minister Hodgson said that under the new model "charities will now receive 100% of the net revenue from table games at these charity casinos." I believe the bill infers that only 50% of the net revenue from charity gaming tables needs go to charities. We have submitted this so the minister will be able to keep a promise made.
Mr Young: We won't be supporting the amendment. The amendment, as tabled, changes the entire direction of the government's policy as outlined in the budget regarding distribution of table gaming revenues. Actually, as written, it would have the effect of preventing some very worthwhile not-for-profit organizations from accessing funds from the program.
My own riding and, I think, every riding, every community, has social service agencies and other worthwhile non-profit organizations that will benefit from the revenues. I think of the Halton Women's Information and Support Centre, the Halton Rape Crisis Centre, Halton Women's Place, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Oakville Galleries, Oakville Museums, those kinds of organizations. That's the intent in the budget, that they be able to benefit from those revenues. That's why we won't be supporting the amendment.
Mr Crozier: Just so we can clarify, then, where in the bill it says that merely 50% of the profits from gaming tables, "one half of the net revenue it receives during the year from the table gaming activities" -- just to make it clear, what Minister Hodgson said on April 8 in a press release, that "charities will now receive 100% of the net revenue from gaming tables at these charity casinos," that statement then is not correct?
Mr Young: I have nothing to add.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Just one comment. The actual term "charities" is considered registered charities. Haldimand-Norfolk Reach is not a registered charity, but would benefit from the funds. So when the minister says that 100% will go to charities, that was indeed not technically correct, but the balance of it can include things like Haldimand-Norfolk Reach and places that are non-profit but not registered charities.
0920
Mr Crozier: I'm sure the minister would be pleased to hear that.
The Chair: Seeing no further discussion, I shall put the question.
Shall Liberal motion 1 amending subsection 8.3 of section 37 carry?
Mr Crozier: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Crozier, Silipo.
Nays
Boushy, Rollins, Stewart, Wood, Young.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Next?
Mr Crozier: I move that section 37 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act:
"Municipal approval, casinos
"8.4 No person shall establish or operate a casino in a municipality unless the casino is approved by the council of the municipality."
Here again, I refer to the April 9, 1998, news release from the Management Board Secretariat, in which the comment is made, "A new model for charity casinos that scraps video lottery terminals means no charity casinos in neighbourhoods," and the minister, in quotation marks, has said:
"It will be up to municipalities to choose if they wish to host a charity casino. 'The province has stated repeatedly that no municipality will be obliged to host a charity casino," said Hodgson. 'No means no.'"
We are just suggesting that this should be part of the legislation.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I simply want to say I actually support the principle of putting the government's policy in this area into the statute. I don't think this amendment was properly drafted. I think it should be drafted as a condition precedent to a successful bidder commencing operations. I'm not going to support this amendment, but I think the principle has much merit.
Mr Young: I'd like to add as well, the minister has said repeatedly that no means no. That is government policy; that will be government policy. It doesn't preclude some better-worded section being included in some future statute or a private member's bill. I would likely support a private member's bill myself that was well worded in the same spirit.
The amendment is in the spirit of government policy, but there are problems with the wording. It's unclear whether the words "to operate" would refer to the existing casinos at Windsor, Rama and Niagara. There's no definition of "persons" or "casino" or the actual term "to operate." We can't support the motion for those reasons.
Mr Silipo: I just wanted to ask Mr Wood particularly if he would -- although hearing Mr Young's comments, that may be the answer -- explain further what he means by his comment when he says that what he would prefer to see is something that would be set up as a condition precedent to the whole process --
Mr Bob Wood: To commencing doing business.
Mr Silipo: So what would have to be done in terms of an amendment that you would be happy with? If this has the spirit of that -- it seems to me that it says very clearly what you were saying you support, so I just want to be clear what it is that you object to.
Mr Bob Wood: Because of the way the statute is generally set up, it should be done as a condition precedent to commencing doing business. I think that's the cleanest way, in a drafting sense, of doing it. Were the amendment framed that way, I'd support it.
Mr Silipo: I'm still not clear on what --
Mr Bob Wood: There are significant drafting problems which both Mr Young and I have referred to. I think those points are well taken. A different amendment would certainly attract my support.
Mr Silipo: Chair, we do have the ability as a committee, by agreement, to actually make changes, so if it's the kind of thing that could be done, I think it might be worth pursuing, but I don't know if there's interest on the government side to do that.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall Liberal motion number 2 carry? All those in favour of Liberal motion 2? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Liberal motion 3.
Mr Crozier: I move that section 37 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act:
"Municipal approval, charity casinos
"8.5 No person shall establish or operate a charity casino in a municipality unless the charity casino is approved by the council of the municipality."
The Chair: Further discussion, Mr Crozier?
Mr Crozier: No, it would be the same as the previous motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I just want to add that my comments are the same on motions 3 and 4 as they are on motion 2.
Mr Young: I want to reiterate that this motion is also in the spirit of government policy, and were it drafted better, I believe we could support it. In addition, in this particular motion there's no legal definition of a charitable casino, because there are none up and operating at this time. It's a further ambiguity, so we will not support it.
Mr Crozier: I'm interested in the point that there are none up and operating at this time, but I suspect, and I'll be willing to review other legislation, that there is a legal definition of charitable casinos. If there isn't, there should have been in some legislation that hss been passed previously.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question. Shall Liberal motion 3 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Liberal motion 4.
Mr Crozier: I move that section 37 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act:
"Municipal approval, slot machines
"8.6 No person shall install slot machine or make one available for use in a location in a municipality unless the person has the approval of the council of the municipality."
I think the amendment is clear, in that slot machines, really not being any different from video slot machines, should require the approval of the municipality at any time they are intended to be placed there. This again is in keeping, I believe, with what the government has stated on many occasions.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): This would probably hinder somewhat the direction of racetracks. Municipalities, under the racetrack, have approved these, so that's why I would not support it.
Mr Young: It's unclear from the way the motion is worded whether it refers to one slot machine or more than one slot machine. Also, it's unclear how it would relate to the three existing casinos. We will not be supporting the motion.
Mr Crozier: I simply can't resist this, because he puts it forward as an argument, but one slot machine would cover 100 slot machines. One is one; if you can't have one, you can't have 100. At least let's be realistic about the arguments we put forward.
Mr Bob Wood: I think there's a good idea in principle here, and I would invite all those who are interested in incorporating this in the statute to work with others who agree with them and come up with wording that is going to achieve consensus. I think there's much support for the idea of putting this in the statute.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I'd have to agree with what Mr Wood said. With the fact that there are some 20,000 illegal machines in the province now that are not being controlled, certainly it has some merit. But you're right; it's too open-ended at the moment.
Mr Young: I'd say to Mr Crozier that I could support a well-drafted private member's bill in the same spirit as this.
Mr Crozier: Thank you. I appreciate the comment.
0930
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question. Shall Liberal motion 4 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Liberal motion 5.
Mr Crozier: I move that section 37 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act:
"Establishment and operation of casinos:
"8.7 No person shall establish or begin to operate a casino in Ontario until,
"(a) a public inquiry is held into the process used by the government of Ontario for awarding a contract to operate the casino in Niagara Falls;
"(b) the inquiry is completed; and
"(c) a report setting out the conclusions and recommendations of the persons conducting the inquiry has been issued."
I think that's self-explanatory.
Mr Young: With regard to the request for a public inquiry, I believe the government has been responding appropriately in the House to questions regarding the Niagara Falls/Gateway selection process. The minister requested a report from the Ontario Casino Corp's legal counsel to determine whether a conflict existed and tabled that report in the House yesterday.
The report confirmed that no conflict of interest occurred in the selection process. The report concludes that the allegations set out in the Toronto Star and referred to in the Davies, Ward and Beck report are incorrect and that Mr French and Coopers and Lybrand complied with the terms of the contract and with the requirements with respect to conflict of interest.
As well, I have concerns about the appropriateness of enshrining a public inquiry process into legislation, so we will not be supporting the motion.
Mr Silipo: Under normal circumstances, an amendment of this nature would not be required and would not be part of legislation, but given the attitude the government has taken on this issue, it's actually a very necessary amendment, and I'm going to support it.
The explanation that Mr Young has just given just doesn't cut it. You can't substitute the need for a public inquiry, an independent individual or person looking at what's been going on here with respect to the awarding of the casino in Niagara Falls, with the lawyers for the Ontario Casino Corp justifying or explaining their decision. That's not a public inquiry. It's not even an inquiry, public or otherwise. It's certainly not an independent review of what has happened. That's what the point has been behind our calls for a public inquiry. If the government isn't prepared to listen, then it does warrant no further expansion of casinos until that process takes place. Obviously, it's not normally the kind of thing you would put into legislation; I agree with Mr Young on that. But in light of the government's continued refusal, I think this is a good amendment.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Liberal motion 6.
Mr Crozier: We'll keep trying.
I move that section 37 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act:
"Casino operation
"8.8 No person shall enter into a contract to operate a casino in Ontario until,
"(a) a public inquiry is held into the process used by the government of Ontario for awarding a contract to operate the casino in Niagara Falls;
"(b) the inquiry is completed; and
"(c) a report setting out the conclusions and recommendations of the persons conducting the inquiry has been issued."
Mr Young: We will not be supporting the motion, for the reasons given with regard to Liberal motion 5. In addition, it is unclear in this motion how it would affect existing casinos, so we will not be supporting it.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, shall Liberal motion 6 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Liberal motion 7.
Mr Crozier: I move that section 37 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act:
"Slot machines
"8.9 No person shall install a slot machine in Ontario until,
"(a) a public inquiry is held into the process used by the government of Ontario for awarding a contract to operate the casino in Niagara Falls;
"(b) the inquiry is completed; and
"(c) a report setting out the conclusions and recommendations of the persons conducting the inquiry has been issued."
Mr Young: We will not be supporting the motion for the reasons given in Liberal motions 4 and 5.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall Liberal motion 7 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Any further discussion or comments on section 37 of the bill? Seeing none, shall section 37 of the bill carry? Section 37 carries.
Are there any comments, questions or amendments on sections 38 through 51?
Mr Silipo: I want to ask a question about section 45, the part that deals with the local telephone service, the 25-cent call being exempted from retail sales tax. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could tell us what the government will be doing to ensure that the money that Bell Canada will no longer have to pay in sales tax is going to be passed on to consumers.
Mr Young: I believe the rationale behind this is that the paperwork and red tape etc involved in collecting the tax was somewhat onerous, so it fits within the spirit of red tape reductions. But Bell Canada, as you know, is one of the few companies that pays a gross receipts tax, which is a tax unique to telephone companies. I can't remember the exact amount they pay annually, but it's a huge amount of revenue paid to the province.
Interjection.
Mr Young: Bell pays about $200 million a year in gross receipts tax.
The Chair: Prior to moving into further discussion, I'd like to move sections 38 to 44, inclusive.
Shall sections 38 through 44, inclusive, carry? Carried.
We'll move back to section 45.
Mr Crozier: I have a few additional comments. Certainly $200 million is a significant amount of tax, although in the end that's reflected, I'm sure, in the rates we pay; in other words, it ensures Bell and its shareholders of a reasonable return on their investment.
To pick up on the comment of Mr Silipo, changing this really is doing nothing but putting the amount of the retail sales tax into the cash register of Bell Canada. If this was really an attempt to save the cost to citizens of Ontario who use pay telephones, I could support it. But, to me, there's no other way to explain it to the constituents in my riding, that this money will go into the cash register of Bell Canada.
0940
As far as red tape is concerned, when it comes to provincial sales tax, any business in the province of Ontario that has to collect and remit retail sales tax would have some sort of system in which to record that and remit it. This is nothing new. It's been going on for years for small business and large. I was in the retail business for 22 years, and the method of recording and accounting for and remitting retail sales tax was as automatic every month as you could make it. There wasn't a stitch of red tape involved in it, because it was just like prudently recording any other part of the financial operations of the business. A company like Bell Canada would be sophisticated enough that they literally push a button, I suggest, and the remittances are calculated, accounted for and made.
This does absolutely nothing to save the consumer a cent, and I don't think we should disguise it as that. We should simply be up front and say that that's the end result.
Mr Young: The tax on local telephone cards and the 75-cent service charge for local calls is billed to the customer's telephone number. As you know, in the telecommunications industry we're moving towards electronic equipment and calling cards etc. The tax is collectible there. This is removing it off the local service charge paid at coin telephones only. It's in the spirit of moving towards higher technology, where these transactions can be recorded when you buy a prepaid card. For instance, every transaction is recorded and the tax can be paid. We're just moving into high-tech times.
I want to correct the record. I said $200 million was paid by Bell Canada. The gross receipts tax paid by telecommunications companies in exchange for them using public property for telephone poles and that sort of thing and underground facilities -- $180 million of that is paid by Bell Canada. They pay it in lieu of GST and other taxes. They are GST-exempt from the federal government, and they will now be exempt from this charge on coin telephones only.
Mr Silipo: Just to be clear on this, do we have a number in terms of what amount of the tax Bell is now paying relates to these 25-cent calls? Is that the amount Mr Young was talking about before?
Mr Young: It's about two cents on a 25-cent phone call.
Mr Silipo: That has been my understanding, so my point still remains: That is an amount that Bell has been remitting and will be remitting until this legislation is passed but then will no longer have to remit to the Ontario government. My question still remains. They have been collecting it on the basis of the law requiring that they collect it and then pay it to the government. If they no longer have to pay it, and that has been the rationale for the cost of the call being 25 cents -- I'm presuming Bell is not going to go to a 23-cent phone call. What is the government going to do to ensure that that money is somehow passed on to consumers, in whatever other ways Bell could legitimately and properly do? I didn't hear an answer to that question from the parliamentary assistant. If the answer is that the government's not going to do anything, that's fine, but I just want to be clear. I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth on this one.
Mr Young: What might be helpful at this point is if I can refer Mr Silipo to ministry staff to get a better technical answer.
Mr Bob Laramy: I'm Bob Laramy, Ministry of Finance. As Mr Young pointed out, the issue here is that the cost of collecting the amount of money on the 25-cent call is rather significant. As a matter of fact, all we're doing in Ontario is what other jurisdictions in Canada do. They don't levy the retail sales tax on the 25-cent call because of the practicality. It doesn't represent an awful lot of the overall, as Mr Young pointed out. More and more use of the calling cards is happening, and that's where the retail sales tax is still being levied. So the whole idea here is to simplify the process and essentially adopt what other jurisdictions are doing.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Crozier: The ministry has just said that the collecting of the tax costs a lot of money. I don't know whether you can tell us how much that costs. What does it cost Bell to collect and remit it?
Mr Laramy: Keeping the records, I can't divulge that type of information as it is confidential to this particular taxpayer. What we can point out is that the amount of money collected on those calls is not significant in relation to the cost of trying to collect it. As I pointed out, we in Ontario are the only jurisdiction that has continued to do that, whereas other jurisdictions have recognized that already and have stopped doing it. So it really is in line with and consistent with the idea of trying to simplify and trying to save on administration, again recognizing that the whole marketplace is moving towards a calling card approach and that is where the retail sales tax is still levied.
Mr Crozier: Chair, the ministry official has made the statement that it costs a significant amount of money relative to the tax collected. I'd feel some comfort, even if he couldn't divulge that confidential information, if the Ministry of Finance was at least aware of how much it costs in using the rationale they're using to reduce this tax. Are you even aware of what it costs? You don't have to tell me, if you can't.
Mr Laramy: Again, I'm not really sure where we're going with this. The point of the matter is that --
Mr Crozier: Where we're going is, you made the statement that it costs a lot of money to collect and remit it. I am just trying to get some comfort from the fact that you know how much that costs.
Mr Laramy: Trying to keep track of the retail sales tax levied on a 25-cent call based on the amount of money collected is just not a practical approach. That is the whole genesis of why other jurisdictions have done it already and that is why Ontario is doing it. It's relative to what is collected. It's not a lot of money collected on the 25-cent calls. The market has moved away from those calls, and the cost of recordkeeping and providing that information on those calls is just sort of out of line with what normally a taxpayer would be expected to pay in order to collect the money.
Mr Crozier: Do you know how much it costs?
Mr Laramy: Personally, I don't have the number, but I'm sure that amount is available. It's just that I don't have it right now, and I know that the underlying rationale for doing it is what I explained to you.
Mr Crozier: You told me it wasn't available because it's confidential information.
Mr Laramy: No, I said I can't say it to you right now.
Mr Young: The same as they couldn't tell anybody how much tax you pay. It's an individual taxpayer.
Mr Crozier: I appreciate that.
The only other comment I want to make is that the gross receipt tax is a business tax. Mr Young has pointed out how much money Bell Telephone pays in gross receipt tax, and that's a business tax. This tax that we're talking about, the retail sales tax, is a tax that's paid by the consumer -- totally different.
It costs the business, and I will acknowledge this, it costs any business some money to collect and remit it, notwithstanding the fact that they have that money in some cases for the period of a month or 60 days, whatever amount of time they have to remit it in. But it's a consumer tax, and we're taking this consumer tax off these calls. I'm with Mr Silipo: How is the consumer going to win in this? The consumer isn't; Bell Telephone is.
Mr Silipo: I just wanted to make that point, and the reason I approached it the way I did is I wanted to be clear, first of all, whether the government was in the process of taking any steps that maybe I wasn't aware of. But I would conclude, and if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me, that what the government is doing here is simply reducing a tax for, in this case, Bell Canada, but the government is not taking any steps to ensure that that savings, that money that Bell Canada will no longer have to remit to the Ontario public coffers, will somehow be passed on to the consumers.
That's my concern, and that remains my concern, because I think the impression that the government has given through the budget on this is that they are somehow doing that. But I have yet to see any particular steps taken by the government to ensure that this saving is in fact passed on to consumers.
0950
I continue to look forward to the government telling us what it is they are going to do to make sure. I don't disagree with the logic of what the government is doing. My point is, if Bell is no longer going to have to pay this, if this is an amount that's gone into, over the years on the part of Bell, calculating the cost of a telephone call at 25 cents -- granted that it would be awkward to reduce the actual cost of a telephone call at a public phone booth to 23 cents to correspond with the reduction -- surely there's got to be some other way in which Bell then could pass on the equivalent amount of savings to consumers generally, to people who use the telephone system, in any number of ways, and I continue to look for what the government is going to do to ensure that that happens. So far I've heard nothing.
Mr Young: Mr Silipo, there is another way. As you know, for local service Bell Canada is a monopoly. The CRTC scrutinize any and all revenues they have and any and all return on equity at the end of the year and they determine what rates they can charge for monopoly services they provide. I don't know if you remember, back in the 1980s there was one time they actually ordered Bell Canada -- because the economy was so strong, they made a higher return on equity than had been approved -- to pay some money back to the local telephone subscribers. So they watch them very closely and that's the way that could be provided back to the consumers.
This section of the act simply recognizes that years ago, if you wanted to make a telephone call on a pay telephone, you had to put a coin in the pay telephone. We're in transition away from that, and there will probably be some time far in the future when you don't have to put in a coin at all; you can put in a code or even children will carry around a card they put in a phone or, for that matter, even a telephone in their own pocket with a personal telephone number.
Mr Stewart: I have just one comment. I keep hearing the word "Bell" constantly referred to. There are some 36 independent telephone companies in this province, and certainly many of them are struggling to upgrade their technology in some of the rural municipalities. To suggest that the taxpayer or the people of the province may not benefit -- I believe they will benefit by this type of a change and certainly the independents will benefit more to service some of the rural areas in the province.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question. Shall Liberal motion number 7 carry?
Mr Rollins: That was already done.
The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm going back to where we were.
Shall section 45 of the bill carry? Section 45 is carried.
Are there any comments or questions on section 46 up to and including section 51 of the bill? Seeing no comments or questions, I shall put the question for section 46 up to and including section 51. Shall section 46 up to and including section 51 carry? Carried.
Section 52: Any comments or questions on the short title of the bill? Seeing none, I shall put the question. Shall section 52 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall schedule A carry? Carried.
Amendments on the long title.
Mr Young: We have an amendment on the long title, and I think I'm going to ask for unanimous consent and I'll explain why. There is a tradition or a protocol in Parliament that material in the bill should either be named in a general sense or should be named specifically. We want to amend the long title of the act to include "and to make other amendments to the Highway Traffic Act," because there are amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.
We want to make the bill perfectly clear with regard to the suspension of licences for certain Criminal Code offences, in addition to the provincial offences, and for any citizen or any lawyer or law student who wants to understand the law and is doing research on such matters, we think it will help them find the essence of the bill a lot more easily.
Mr Crozier: What is the unanimous consent for?
Mr Young: Why don't we just vote on the motion?
The Chair: No, otherwise the motion will be called out of order because the ruling is, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms states on page 209 of the sixth edition: "The title may be amended if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment." Similarly, one reads in Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, page 533: "Except in the circumstances described below, the title can be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment...."
Mr Crozier: We just learned something.
Mr Silipo: I don't want to be difficult about this, but I don't agree with the rationale for the amendment because if the point of the amendment is that you want the title to reflect the various changes that you're making, there are many other acts being amended. I don't understand the reason for picking out one more of the acts that you're amending as opposed to leaving out four or five of the others. If it's out of order, Chair, then it's out of order. I'm not agreeing to unanimous consent.
The Chair: So you're not agreeing to unanimous consent. Okay. Before I can actually rule it out of order, the motion has to be put forward. We have a little glitch here.
Mr Young: Do you want me to read the motion?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Young: I move that the long title of the bill be amended by striking out "and" in the second line and by adding the following at the end: "and to make other amendments to the Highway Traffic Act."
The Chair: I've already explained the reasons why I as Chair have to rule this amendment out of order.
Mr Crozier: Chair, just a question. Why wouldn't you name the other acts and then perhaps we can get unanimous consent? It's no stumbling block as far as I am concerned, but I understand Mr Silipo's point. The tobacco act is in there and the Ontario Loan Act is in there.
The Chair: It would be up to the individuals who put the motion forward to determine why they worded it the way they did.
Mr Crozier: Okay, I'm asking --
Mr Young: Chair, please, maybe legal counsel can explain the rationale to Mr Silipo.
The Chair: You may proceed. If you could identify yourself for Hansard.
Mr Graham Stoodley: I'm Graham Stoodley, Ministry of Finance. One of the reasons, I think, to amplify Mr Young's statement for amending the long title of the bill is not particularly to deal with other acts.
The present title of the bill is An Act to cut taxes for people and for small business and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget. Our main concern in proposing this amendment is that the budget's references to safety would not have been specific enough to deal with certain aspects of the Highway Traffic Act for driving while your licence was suspended. In one sense, they might be and in a possible sense, they might not be.
With respect to the other acts in the bill, those amendments, provisions, are in our view clearly dealt with and covered in the budget so that the long title saying, "and to implement other measures contained in the 1998 Budget" deals accurately with the amendments to the other acts that are referred to in Bill 15.
The only difficulty is whether the safety provisions -- we thought initially that the safety provisions in the budget would deal clearly enough with the driving-while-licence-is-suspended amendments in the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. Some doubt was raised about that and this amendment was intended to dispose of that doubt. If in fact, in the members' minds, there is no such doubt, then you just have overcautious bureaucrats here.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Young: Did you understand or did you hear what counsel said?
Mr Silipo: I understand, yes.
Mr Young: "The 1998 Budget" refers to all the other acts.
Mr Silipo: Yes, and it refers to this as well. If you're looking for a way to highlight this one, then you should be prepared to highlight all the other changes. If you're not going to highlight one, don't highlight them all. No, I'm sorry. I'm not going to agree to unanimous consent.
The Chair: I will ask, is there unanimous consent?
Mr Silipo: No.
The Chair: I have ruled that the motion is out of order.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall Bill 15 carry? Carried.
Shall Bill 15 be reported to the House? Agreed.
This concludes hearings on Bill 15. I thank everyone for their indulgence.
The committee adjourned at 1002.