The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is going to be any indication as to when the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), the Premier (Mr. Davis), the House leader (Mr. Welch), the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker), the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) and the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) will be in the House?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has made his point. Does he have a question of any minister who happens to be present?

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Energy, and I hope to ask it if he does show up.

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Education. Granted that she takes the very attractive position that she wishes not to coerce anyone into an apprenticeship program does she also recognize some responsibility on the part of her ministry to bring together those who would like to have apprenticeship programs with those who are in a position to offer these programs?

In particular, when she rises to her feet to answer this question, would she comment on the case of a young man in North Bay who called the industrial training branch in desperation to try to find a job in which he could serve an apprenticeship and was told it was not the job of that branch to find such positions, but that he should look in the yellow pages to find an employer and then call the ministry back?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of the responsibility to do that and we have managed to achieve that in certain areas. I would like the experience the Leader of the Opposition has just described available to me so I may investigate this. It most certainly is the role of that branch of our ministry to assist in any way to put the appropriate people next to the young person who wants to be involved in an apprenticeship program.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, even leaving aside the fact we asked for this in the campaign of 1977, does the minister not feel there is something dreadfully wrong in her ministry that in 1979 we still do not have a centralized mechanism by which those offering apprenticeships can be matched with those requesting apprenticeships? Surely nothing can be more elementary than that? Why is it not in place right now across the province of Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it will be in place across the province of Ontario in the very near future.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that one of the major problems in expanding apprenticeships in this province has been the failure of industry to co-operate in opening up apprenticeship positions, is this government prepared to insist that every major company in the province should provide a certain number of apprenticeships, and if they do not provide them they should contribute to those companies that will?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the mechanisms which is being examined right at the moment as a method of increasing the number of apprenticeships available.

Mr. M. Davidson: It will be once you review the Hansard report of what the member said.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Why is it we find ourselves in this situation now, when the government in 1963, in 1968 and in 1973 -- that’s 15, 10 and five years ago respectively -- commissioned reports which identified this problem, which recommended solutions and which warned what the consequences of inaction would be? How can that government possibly justify being in this kind of position at this time with all that warning?

Mr. Haggerty: It can’t do it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I can’t answer that. I don’t know, but I’ll find out.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister if she is satisfied with the rate of participation by industry across the province?

When she is commenting, would she also comment on the problem that exists in Windsor, where none of the three big automakers are part of the task force that has been set up to look into the problem and to organize the apprenticeship program in Windsor? One of the spokesmen for Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited has predicted that in order to get their skilled tradesmen they’re going to have to steal from the small companies in Windsor that have done the training. Does she feel that is an appropriate way for the big automakers in Windsor to behave? Where is their responsibility?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The answer to the second question, of course, is we don’t have a task force in Windsor, we have a community industrial training committee which is functioning --

Mr. Cooke: They call it a task force.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- and at the last meeting of which all three of the big auto-makers were represented. I am optimistic they are going to be participating. We are moving, I think, very deliberately, because of the enthusiasm of many of the employers in the province for involvement in industrial training, towards the development of many more places in both employer-sponsored training and apprenticeship. It is possible that this will be translated into a very widespread increase in numbers of places available within a very short period of time across the province.

Mr. Warner: A wounded turtle moves faster.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable the Leader of the Opposition with a final supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: It would interest the minister to know that after the industrial training branch in North Bay told the young man to look in the yellow pages, he also called Queen’s Park and was given no answer. But Queen’s Park called back very recently and said to the young man someone had noticed in Saturday’s Toronto Star that some firms were interested in apprentices, so they did him the service of suggesting he buy Saturday’s Toronto Star.

Is that what ministry people are doing? Could they not, themselves, have called the various firms and put the young man directly in touch with them rather than sending him to the news-stand?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that is indeed what happens in many instances; that the members of staff do contact various firms in order to try to find appropriate places; but with instances such as this being reported I shall most certainly look into this and report to the House.

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. S. Smith: I have an important question for the Minister of Energy, but I’ll ask him in the rotation if he appears later and I’ll now direct my second question to the Minister of the Environment.

Can the minister tell us why it is there would appear to have been no water quality monitoring of surface or ground water at the Fort Erie site? That is one of the sites which came to light as a consequence of the federal study we brought up in the House, which the ministry has failed to mention as having received hazardous wastes. According to a Ministry of the Environment inspector at the Welland office, there has been no water quality monitoring at the Fort Erie site. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I didn’t hear it in the question; the Fort Erie site of what?

Mr. S. Smith: The dump site.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The dump site; that report is coming and that will be included, if you wish, at that time.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since another site that came to light in this way which the minister failed to reveal in his report to the committee, the Stephen township site, can he explain why there has been no water inspection for the past five years at a site which has previously been listed as accepting hazardous wastes?

On the subject of the Fort Erie site, given the presence of the Hooker Chemical Corporation of Fort Erie, is the minister in a position to guarantee that no waste from that company has ever been dumped into the Fort Erie site?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I suggested to the member that those details would be forthcoming when we report on those sites. I might suggest to him that part of the delay, in fact most of the delay in giving an answer to the question asked previously, was in consultation with the legal department of the ministry. As the member knows, part of that earlier question related to Hamilton; we are not sure, but we think it’s wise to delay that information. What has withheld it or made it late in coming was that we wanted to be sure of that point before we commented here in the House or to the member personally.

[2:15]

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: I appreciate the minister’s answering my request for the site inspection reports on the Upper Ottawa Street site by saying he is seeking legal counsel with regard to whether they can be released, but that has nothing to do with the 13 sites that came to light as a result of my question of some weeks ago, based on a report which his ministry seemed not to know about; two of which sites accepted hazardous wastes, and yet there is apparently no water quality monitoring going on. Could the minister please look into those and report back to the House?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It isn’t cast, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe, some long time ago. I think it was two weeks ago, not more.

Mr. S. Smith: I said a couple of weeks.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That isn’t an undue length of time.

Mr. S. Smith: I didn’t say it was.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: At that time I said, and again today I would like to say to him, that we were talking about different lists and we were co-ordinating those lists.

Mr. Mancini: Answer the question. Just tell us when you’re going to clean it up.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Somehow or other the inference is always made that we withheld this information. Where in the world did the member get that information if it wasn’t supplied by this ministry?

Mr. S. Smith: The minister didn’t know about it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That’s not the point. I don’t pretend to have an intimate knowledge of all of the hundreds of thousands of vast reports that are made by the ministry. I’m sure the member doesn’t have them.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister wrote to the committee and said --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is just not so.

Mr. S. Smith: It is.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The Leader of the Opposition was asking for specific reports. We promised we would correlate them, and we will. I do have information today about the one on the township he mentioned. I thought the member would accept that we would correlate them all at one time. I said they’d be coming very soon. I also said the reason for the delay was centred on one specific one. I think that’s a fairly complete answer for the member opposite.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), I am reminded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) that we have a distinguished visitor in our gallery, Dr. Emanuele Cimino, the mayor of Pachino, Sicily. Would you welcome him to our gallery?

Applause.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier, arising out of the government’s assurances that it would protect consumers against the cost of metric conversion in the stores. On February 28, 1979 this can of evaporated milk was bought in Sudbury. It contains 15 fluid ounces of milk and it cost 46 cents. A week later, the new metric size was brought into Sudbury and this can, containing 13.5 fluid ounces or 385 millilitres was bought, costing 45 cents.

Can the Premier explain why consumers should get 10 per cent less milk and pay only two per cent less in price as a result of the switch to metric sizes in the case of Carnation evaporated milk?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure the honourable member’s mathematics are totally correct, but the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will be here. I know he has this matter totally under control and that he will be delighted to answer.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since with metrication the price per fluid ounce has risen from 3.1 cents per fluid ounce to 3.33 cents in a week -- that’s an increase of 7.4 per cent -- can the Premier say what action the government will take in order to protect consumers against hidden price ripoffs as a result of metrication?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t recall the government guaranteeing total protection of the consumer with respect to metrication.

Mr. Warner: We wouldn’t expect you to protect the consumer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But in terms of the interests of the consumer, I think the minister who has responsibility in this field has demonstrated his ability to deal with these issues. He will be here very shortly and I’m sure he will be delighted to debate it with the member.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, a new question. When a minister indicates that the question will be taken as notice or referred to another minister who is not here, I think it is counterproductive to continue to place supplementary questions that will be addressed by a minister who isn’t here.

Mr. Cassidy: If I could have a page, I could send these over to the Premier and he could decide whether he or his Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) is going to carry the can for rising prices to consumers in Ontario.

Mr. Rotenberg: Who wrote that joke, Michael? He needs a better joke writer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really think it is so typical of the leader of the New Democratic Party to send a totally empty can.

It is so typical of everything he does, totally empty.

Mr. Swart: A point of order: When I sent over some full coffee cans to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in the last session he didn’t return them to me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I assumed they were a gift from the honourable member. How could I refuse?

Mr. Cassidy: The cans are empty. That’s because many consumers can only afford to buy empty cans with prices the way they are these days.

KINDERGARTEN CLASSES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question of the Minister of Education. In view of the fact this is education week, and in view of the fact 7,500 places in full-day kindergartens across the province are going to be eliminated because of changes in the province’s education grants, can the minister state the educational grounds for the government’s decision to eliminate its support and bring these full-day kindergartens to an end?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There are a number of studies which have been carried out on early childhood education in terms of the value of specific educational programs at the junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten level. Unfortunately, the results of all the studies leave one with a somewhat ambivalent feeling that no one is quite sure of the value of the educational program.

It is certainly of value in an area in which an immersion program is established for a language which is not the native language of the child. It is obviously quite possible to continue that kind of supportive immersion program in a half-day kindergarten program, it does not require a full-day kindergarten program to do so.

Faced with the twin problems of decreasing availability of funds for many programs by governments, and the increased responsibility for attempting to resolve the difficulties of declining enrolment, having looked at all of the studies the decision was made that in 1980 there would be a discontinuation of full-day kindergarten programs.

We looked carefully for arguments to support the continuation of those programs on an educational basis and have found insufficient argument in favour of maintaining the programs.

Mr. Cooke: Why don’t you let the school boards make up their own priorities?

Mr. Warner: No respect for the local school boards.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact half of these full-day places are being eliminated in the Ottawa and Carleton school boards; and that the school boards, under the optional arrangements that prevailed until the changes in grants, found there was educational value in many parts of the province for these particular programs, and that this was supported not just by parents but also by a whole ream of educational experts such as Fogelman and Gorbach of London, Dr. Burton Wright of Harvard University, the Windsor Early Identification project and even Dr. Biemiller’s study of the Institute of Child Study; can the minister say why the government is not prepared to continue to allow school boards to have the option of providing these full-day kindergarten places where they see it is justified?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would invite the honourable leader of the third party to read some of the studies to which he has just referred. Burton L. White -- not Wright -- and Dr. Biemiller are not in fact as supportive of the concept as he seems to think they are, nor are some of the others who have been so reported, the documentation of which I can bring to this House.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister prepared to honour the commitment made by her immediate predecessor last May that those bilingual immersion full-day kindergartens would not be affected by the decision to discontinue the funding for full days? Is she prepared to honour that commitment?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not know there was any such commitment. I shall look at this.

Mr. Sweeney: It is in Hansard.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is it in Hansard? I am sorry, I have not seen that.

I recognize the concern which is expressed in terms of the development of immersion programs; and I recognize that immersion programs, particularly in French language for anglophone children, can be very well supported by the kindergarten process, but it does not require a full-day in kindergarten in order to support it appropriately. The kindergarten program may be delivered in the alternative language, instead of in the language which the child usually speaks at home; that does nothing to detract from the kindergarten program.

Mr. Grande: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister admit that the only reason the full-day kindergarten classes have been discontinued is a financial reason; and will she admit that really there is no evidence, there is no research upon which that regressive decision can otherwise be based?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I would not admit either of those things. Certainly the financial situation has an impact upon the decision, but it was not the only matter considered. I certainly would not admit the last statement of the honourable member, because it’s untrue.

GAINS PAYMENTS ERRORS

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question asked previously. On Friday, April 20, in response to the question asked by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), I replied that the details were on the Order Paper not very long ago. In fact the answer tabled was regarding a similar question for the Ontario tax credit program, and I want to correct that error.

The member requested details regarding people who have received Gains payments to which they are not entitled. Before addressing this question, I want to explain briefly how the system works.

In order to qualify for Gains, the recipient must qualify for the federal OAS-GIS program with respect to residency and income. The old age security office provides details of the federal payment for the pensioner to my ministry via computer tape. The Gains system then computes the amount of the Gains payment and issues a cheque to the pensioner. In some cases the federal payment is incorrect, creating a Gains overpayment situation, because the Gains program is tied to that information. In most of these cases, the federal authorities forgive the overpayment if the cause of error was not a deliberate attempt to understate outside income. Where the federal authorities forgive the overpayment, it is our policy to also forgive it.

For the period April 1978 to March 1979, the following statistics that the member asked for are available. The number of people receiving excess Gains payments amounts to 15,500. The amount the ministry is attempting to collect as of April 1, 1979 is $638,000. The average amount that the ministry is attempting to collect comes to $248.

The honourable member also asked why a system has not been developed to automatically inform recipients in advance when they should apply for federal benefits and when they will no longer be entitled to full Gains payments. Such a system has existed for some time. Six months prior to the anticipated federal eligibility date, a letter and application kit are mailed to those individuals who are receiving Gains only.

RAINY RIVER PROJECT

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. Can the minister indicate why the proposal of the Rainy River Ontario Federation of Agriculture unit for a land-clearing and draining project of some three years ago has not yet met with any considerable, concrete program by his ministry or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and why, in reply to my question to him by letter, he indicates that it’s going to be further studied by another outside consultant?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don’t think I can add any more to what I put in the letter. We’ll have another look at it. I think it’s fair to say that we’re as anxious as the honourable member is to get some program going in the Rainy River area. There is some concern as to the size and the costs, and a few other items we’d like more information on.

Mr. T. P. Reid: By way of supplementary, in view of the fact that the two studies that have already been done support the contention of the OFA, that there will be hundreds of jobs created and the value of the land and the land available for agriculture will improve and grow, why does the minister want another consultant to look at it instead of starting some kind of program, even slightly modified if necessary, rather than studying the program to death when the results of the other study show it’s a viable proposition?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it is fair to say there was some concern with the other report. It is not as thorough as we would like; we just want more information before a final decision is reached.

C.A.T. SCANNERS

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of a recommendation coming out of a coroner’s jury in Sudbury last week? How does he respond to the recommendation that special consideration should be given to supplying Sudbury with a CAT scanner which would better serve northern Ontario residents?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, a CAT scanner was approved for Sudbury on June 13, 1978.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact the moneys are not forthcoming in the budget of the Sudbury General Hospital, and in view of the fact the Sudbury Health Council did recommend to the minister some six months ago that consideration be given to funding of the CAT scanner, when can we expect an answer, which has been awaited for some six months now, from the Health ministry?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When the scanner was approved it was one of a number. I can’t recall the exact number which were approved on the basis that they could go ahead and install the scanners.

As the member knows, the ministry does not put the capital money up front for any of the scanners in the province. When they are approved as part of the budget base, then a depreciation allowance of 20 per cent a year over five years begins. In the meantime most of the hospitals have gone ahead and done this. By being classed as a group “M” hospital in the regulations they are allowed to bill other hospitals which send patients to them. In most cases -- well frankly I don’t know of any hospital that uses 100 per cent of the available time on its scanner just for its own patients; it will vary from a very high percentage to a lower percentage of work being done for patients of other hospitals, and they could be funding it that way. In several hospitals, and we are reviewing that, until the funding is available the moneys come from the auxiliaries or from their reserves.

GARBAGE STRIKE

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of the Environment: Would the minister please contact the city of London and the union involved in the strike there to see if they could not come to an agreement to cover up that garbage which was left in the landfill site when the strike started? It is becoming a health hazard to residents in that area of Westminster township, who have nothing to do with the strike and have had to put up with the city’s garbage for some time.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will contact the city. If the garbage was there before the strike was called, I think there’s a lot of reason and justification to have it covered. If it was there after the strike, I think it presents some very serious problems, and there is no doubt about that. On the one hand we must consider the validity of the strike action and on the other hand the seriousness of having garbage left in our streets.

Mr. S. Smith: What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it may bring its importance to the attention of the members opposite -- and they treat it rather lightly on occasion --

Mr. Nixon: We want you to give him an answer.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: When I made the comment, about the day after I was appointed, that the most important thing to worry about in the Ministry of the Environment, was garbage collection and sewage treatment plants I was criticized for not paying attention to the glamour issues. I think one such strike as this --

Mr. Nixon: Nobody understands you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: My friend who represents a very small portion of the great county of Oxford, and I think the members opposite as well, should recognize how important those services are. They no doubt do, but let’s not underestimate that importance. On a day- to-day basis these matters are perhaps among the most important duties of the Ministry of the Environment at this time. I said at this moment I would contact the city relative to the garbage that was there before the strike started. When it comes to worrying about the garbage after the strike started, I am sure the member realizes that is a pretty involved question which he has put to me.

Mr. Eaton: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the garbage was there before and they can’t get in since the strike started, would the minister contact them about the garbage that was there before, before it becomes a health hazard? I am not questioning whether it is.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer to that is yes. I want to draw to the member’s attention the second implication, which is rather significant.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Since both the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee have requested the Attorney General, or the Solicitor General since he shares both of these portfolios, to bring in an amendment to both the Police Act and the Fire Departments Act regarding collective bargaining, is the minister now prepared to bring forth that legislation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.

Mr. Bradley: You must be taking lessons from Darcy McKeough, giving a no like that.

Mr. Roy: You are not going to make the same mistake as the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth) did.

Mr. Epp: I have a supplementary. In view of the fact both these organizations, representing 835 municipalities across the province, have asked for this legislation, which is very important legislation, does he anticipate bringing it forth later on in this session?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No. There have been ongoing discussions in the area of arbitration, and I think there is some misunderstanding, on the part of some of the municipalities at least, as to what can be accomplished by this. We will continue to discuss the matter, both in relation to firemen’s arbitrations and with respect to police arbitrations, but we certainly won’t have progressed sufficiently far to bring in legislation this spring.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with regard to the problems which have arisen in the city of Hamilton as a result of the assessment equalization program that has been implemented there. Can the minister assure this House that the solutions he is presently considering are something more than a postponement of the unfair tax increases which are being experienced by a number of home owners in that city?

Can the minister also assure this House that he will do something, so that municipalities like Stoney Creek can do something to straighten out unfair tax situations which exist in those municipalities without getting into the problems that have arisen in the city of Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You want it both ways.

Mr. Ruston: Call the mayor. Consult the former candidate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I presume that my friend means by “unfair tax situations” that the over 50 per cent who had their assessment reduced, and thus their taxes reduced this year are also being unfairly treated.

Mr. Bradley: He doesn’t mean them.

Mr. Laughren: It’s an unfair system. It’s a joke.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As he realizes, there are changes. Because of the section 86 reassessment, the majority of the people had their assessments lowered and their taxes will ultimately be reduced.

Mr. S. Smith: If it is so good, why didn’t you do it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Some of them had them increased. That is part of the equitable process that comes about through a section 86 reassessment. If there are inequities created by that reassessment, there is presently a section in the Municipal Act, section 505, which the municipality may apply to us to have put into force, and which we would gladly agree to if the city of Hamilton wishes to use it, which would allow them to phase it in over five years, either the winners or the losers; or if they wish, they can just phase in those whose taxes will be increased and raise the other revenue necessary from the general tax base. That provision already rests within the Municipal Act.

The member also knows that the mayor of Hamilton has approached us and asked us if we would give any additional money to assist in that particular process. We are going to get an answer back to him; but I draw to the member’s attention that the provision is already --

Mrs. Campbell: What is the answer?

Mr. Breithaupt: The answer is no.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- there for them to take and to put into effect a phasing-in mechanism that is there, Hamilton can do it and we would gladly give them permission to do it.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary: The minister is surely aware that the provisions that exist in the Municipal Act for the municipalities to take action are no more fair than is the whole process of assessment equalization.

Mr. Rotenberg: Where were you when Hamilton asked for one?

Mr. Isaacs: I would like to ask the minister when the provincial government is going to come to grips with the whole problem of property tax reform as it affects citizens throughout the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Talk to your neighbours.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If my friend thinks the provision of property tax reassessment under section 86 is unfair, let him ask his colleagues in that party who were on Hamilton city council and who voted in favour of asking us to make that reassessment why they voted in favour of it.

RAPE CASES

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Now that his ministry has revived what is affectionately termed by his assistant crown attorneys as “the rape squad” is he going to insist that a member of the rape crisis centre be present when his crown attorney is interviewing the victim and preparing himself for trial, or is he going to leave that decision to the discretion of that crown counsel?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think that should be properly left to the discretion of the individual crown counsel. Certainly, I do not know what the honourable member means when he states that something has been revived. I think it was over two years ago that I encouraged crown counsel to maintain a close working relationship with rape crisis centres, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, because of the very valuable work that was done by the people in these centres, and in the appropriate case involve them. But again, I think it would be most unwise to attempt to lay down any rigid guidelines as to when they should be involved. That really should be left to the discretion of the individual crown.

TUITION FEES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of a memo that was sent out on January 19, from E. L. Kerridge, that indicated a change in policy of the Ministry of Education to the effect that college students would now be charged for a third term in their tuition? Does this represent government policy or has it been changed?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is also a memo, that went out approximately a week or 10 days later, which in fact corrected that situation totally.

Mr. Cooke: Could the minister then justify the fact that at Mohawk College, in Hamilton, they have decided to implement the third term charge, and that the fee for a nursing student has gone up from $425 a year to $599 a year, an increase of $174 for a second year student? Would the minister check that out; and could she also indicate why the first memo went out and why another memo had to follow to change the policy? Was she aware of both memos; and did she originally approve it and then change her mind?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the first memo was an error and it was corrected. I am not aware that any college had decided to pursue the direction of the first memo after the second went out. I shall investigate and report to the House.

FRENGH LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Would the Minister of Health confirm that cabinet, on his initiative, has approved a new policy for French-language health services in this province? If he confirms that is so, could he give us a brief outline of what that policy is?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, our policies are very much in line with and in tune with overall government policies about identifying bilingual staff and making most effective use of them, about bilingualizing all of our forms and information as it comes up for renewal and reprinting.

[2:45]

We have discussed with a number of the health councils in areas where there is a concentration of francophone population whether there are any particular needs in that area. Members of my staff have been talking with the University of Ottawa, Algonquin College and various secondary and post-secondary institutions in the north as to what can be done to encourage more francophone youth to enter the health professions. Clearly, in the report Pas de Problème? essentially what it came down to was the question of access to bilingual staff. There we have been, through my very capable co-ordinator M. Leblanc, working to see what we can do to encourage more young francophones to enter the profession. We think that is ultimately the answer to any concerns about access to service on a bilingual basis.

That is essentially the direction we are following. It is one we have discussed in this chamber before. We have discussed it at estimates and with representatives of the francophone community.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that from the outline the minister has given this is a very worthwhile policy, one we should be very proud of in Ontario, why wouldn’t the minister publicize this to advise the population of Ontario that these services will come on line and that they will be available? As the Minister of Health knows, as a minister of this government, very often one of the problems is that the public is not aware that the services exist.

Secondly, isn’t it important in the overall context of Confederation, and something we should be proud of in Ontario? Why wouldn’t the minister brag about that sort of thing and give it publicity?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think we have, in fact, done that. Certainly, when M. Leblanc has been travelling around the province he has been interviewed at some length by media of all kinds.

Mr. Roy: He won’t get the press that you will.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I freely admit that my French, while it is improving, is still not as good as his. Certainly, wherever the question is raised we do outline, just as I have done today, the efforts that we are undertaking. We are very proud of that. There is undoubtedly more that can be done in the future, but we think that is a good sound base on which to work and from which to work in the future.

Mr. Roy: You should not be so subtle.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have never been accused of that.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate how the problem of providing people who are fluent in French as medical staff for the north contributes to the overall shortage we now have of doctors in the north, which amounts to about 52 vacancies unfilled?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the honourable member will know from correspondence that he and I have had, as well as the general information he has no doubt seen about the underserviced-area program, we have launched a number of new initiatives to try to fill the vacancies, both in the medical and the dental sides, of the underserviced-area program.

Where we have a community with a significant concentration of francophones, then we do as part of our recruitment try to ensure that the people we put in there are bilingual. Obviously, that is most important.

GARBAGE DUMPING

Mr. Eaton: I have a question of the Solicitor General. In view of the number of incidents of garbage being dumped on the roads in Middlesex county over the weekend, would the Solicitor General please instruct the OPP in the area to see that charges are laid against people from the city of London caught dumping garbage in rural Middlesex county?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would be quite happy, Mr. Speaker, to convey the concern of the honourable member to the Ontario Provincial Police.

TRANSIT BARGAINING

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. The Premier is no doubt aware of the open letter addressed to him by Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, as that union is now entering into negotiations for its July 1, 1979, contract. Is it the intention of his government to honour the collective bargaining process and permit that process to go through to if necessary, a strike, or does he intend to introduce legislation providing now for compulsory arbitration either for the TTC union or for transit workers generally?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to state that we are not contemplating the introduction of legislation. It is our hope that the collective bargaining process will proceed and that there will be an agreed-upon settlement.

An hon. member: If it doesn’t?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not speculate on what happens if it does not proceed; that’s a supplementary question from the honourable member’s colleague.

I would remind the honourable member, though, that at least we are consistent on this side of the House. We do not go out in the midst of by-elections, like members of his party, saying, “You’re going to have to pay a little more for your fares?” and “The government is doing this to you,” when three months earlier they had prohibited those same people from having access to the transit system. Whatever we do, we will endeavour to be consistent.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question -- ignoring the so-called inconsistency, which is not an inconsistency from my point of view -- does the Premier recognize that the course of conduct of his government towards that union has been such as to subvert the free collective bargaining process?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand the disagreement of the honourable member for Riverdale with my pointing out the inconsistency in his party’s approach to these things. I am not going to debate that with him today.

Mr. M. Davidson: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have already answered the question. We are not contemplating any legislation. We hope the collective bargaining process will work. I also make it clear that all of us in this House at some point in time have a responsibility to solve problems where a lot of people are affected, or even sometimes small numbers of people are affected. That does not mean there is going to be a problem.

I appreciate the open letter. Actually I have had some informal conversation. We do not plan legislation. I am very hopeful the system will work and that they will reach a settlement some time after the due date.

PATIENT’S TRIP

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister explain why an 84-year-old man, who had just had a pacemaker implanted at the Kitchener General Hospital, would have to be taken by ambulance back to Walkerton -- first of all to London, then to Wingham, then to Walkerton -- a trip of four and a half hours, when normally it would be a trip of one and a half hours?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I did not look after that patient myself, Mr. Speaker. Clearly there would be more information involved than what the honourable member has told me. If he will be good enough to give me the patient’s name, whether he was in Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital, St. Mary’s General Hospital, or wherever it was done, and the date, I will be glad to check into the matter and see what the problem was. I would ask that he send me the patient’s name; I do not like to drag people’s names through the public record.

SEPARATION OF COUPLE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of the case of Mr. Roy Misner of Welland, a First World War veteran, and his wife, Violet, married for 59 years, who have been forced to be separated for four years because she has been confined to a chronic care unit in the hospital and he has been in a nursing home? Does the minister know that the administrator at the hospital would be quite prepared, and would have been prepared, to have the husband there if there were a bed available?

I want to ask the minister, is his health system such that he cannot enable couples of this kind, who are in long-term care of similar types, to be together instead of in forced, cruel separation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member would agree that patients in need of care should be accommodated in facilities that are most appropriate to the level of their needs. In this particular case, one of the individuals requires simple residential care in a home for the aged, I understand, and the other requires hospital care because of a chronic ailment.

My staff did check into the situation this morning. I couldn’t help but be aware of it. I’m advised by my staff that in fact the home for the aged does have a vehicle that has been used from time to time to take the gentleman to visit his wife. The advice of my staff this morning was to this point there have not been any indications given to the administrator of the home for the aged or to the hospital that this was a problem.

I understand there are three or four daughters who live in the environs and there will be a meeting tomorrow with the family to see if something can be done on a regular basis to see this couple do keep in touch.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Might I ask if the minister is not aware this couple were told when they were separated that it was inevitable in their case? Would he not agree this husband could get adequate care within the chronic care unit if there were a bed available? He wouldn’t actually need the care; he would just need a bed in the chronic care unit. Is he not aware this is not an isolated case, that there are many of these cases across this province?

Would the minister table in the House the number of couples in long-term care who are forcefully separated in this way? What instructions has he given to the various hospital and nursing care units to endeavour to keep couples like this together?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the fact that in this case we have one individual in a hospital and the other in a home for the aged is really no different from having one individual still at home and the other in some kind of institution.

Mr. Swart: Or if one were dead, I suppose.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the problem is the same. The problem is the same, whether both are institutionalized or just one is.

What I’m telling the member is that in this particular case the reports are incomplete. I am advised there have been visits, using the vehicle from the home for the aged to transport the gentleman in question, and there have not been any complaints registered with the administration of either facility about this.

The family is meeting with them tomorrow to see what can be done on a regular basis. It is obviously expected the institutions will do as much as possible to keep people activated, whether their conditions are such they become disoriented at times, or not. We also expect families to continue to carry out their responsibilities. I’m not being critical in this case, I’m just answering the member’s question about the general situation in the province.

It is most important that children of whatever age and capacity do whatever they can to assist in keeping spouses in touch with one another and maintain the family unit, in spite of the fact some will, from time to time, require hospitalization or institutionalization.

ACCIDENT CLAIMS FUND

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Attorney General. Yesterday we had some discussion about the use of outside counsel to select committees. Could the Attorney General advise us as to why we use outside counsel in matters dealing with the unsatisfied judgement fund? Has he, up to this time, discussed with the Law Society of Upper Canada why accused in these cases are denied legal aid because there are lawyers acting for the fund who refuse to act -- and quite properly -- on behalf of the accused?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I assume we’re talking about the motor vehicle accident fund and defendants in civil actions, not accused persons.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, no, in criminal actions as well.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t understand the question. It may have been the policy of the law society.

In view of the fact the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, as the member knows, is administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, uninsured defendants take advantage of the skilled counsel retained by that ministry to act on behalf of uninsured motorists. It would only duplicate the cost to the public purse to have the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund represented by counsel who is protecting the taxpayers’ interests, and having the same interests represented by yet another counsel acting on behalf of the uninsured motorist, when the money invariably comes out of the same pot.

[3:00]

I can’t be certain but I think the policy of the law society with respect to the administration of the legal aid plan is to encourage defendants in that position to utilize the counsel who are appointed.

With respect to utilization of counsel in the private sector, as the member for St. George knows I think, there is a large volume of cases. Many of them are outside Toronto and it would necessitate establishing government offices outside Toronto in relation to counsel who are retained to represent the fund in lawsuits that are outside the judicial district of York. We just don’t have government counsel in those locations. The only government counsel we have are crown attorneys, of course, whose work is limited to that of criminal counsel work.

In relation to the city of Toronto, there is a fairly high volume and it has been the practice to utilize private sector lawyers who have specialized in this type of work and who are familiar with motor vehicle accident claims and personal injury cases. I think the public interest is being well served by that practice considering the alternative would be to increase the number of government lawyers considerably. We don’t have the legal resources within the government at the present time.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: With reference to the answer given, has the Attorney General forgotten that I brought this matter to his attention some time ago? In discussion with the office of Mr. McMurtry, who handles many of these cases, it took the position that it was not that office’s function to act in any way on behalf of those involved, either as defendants or as accused, as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Thus, those people never have their case properly tried in the courts. Settlements are made by these outside counsel without any reference to the defendant in the matter at all.

Mr. Roy: He forgot a lot when he was in India.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the member is a little confused as to the process -- I really do. First of all, one has to keep the civil action and the criminal action separate. They’re often two unrelated issues.

Mrs. Campbell: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the member for St. George should be reminded that it involves only the individual who is served with a writ of summons in a civil case who decides not to retain counsel. It’s only at the point when there is a default of appearance that in order to avoid the judgement going by default the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund administrators appoint counsel to protect the public interest. I really think, with all due respect, the member for St. George is a little confused.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Ministry of the Attorney General’s estimates will be proceeding in the relatively near future, I believe, and I’m sure this is something we will again be able to discuss.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Gaunt moved first reading of Bill 67, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is very simple. It prohibits the sale of smoke detectors which contain radioactive isotopes.

LOCAL ROADS BOARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Local Roads Boards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to authorize a local roads board to erect and maintain traffic signs in the local roads area that could be enforced under the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Swart: That’s a sensible bill. Why didn’t you people over there think of that?

PROGRAM COST DISCLOSURE ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved first reading of Bill 69, the Program Cost Disclosure Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the public disclosure of the cost information upon which decisions to undertake certain government programs are based and the economic impact of these proposed government programs. The bill requires that the estimated total cost of each program be disclosed and provides for additional scrutiny of program operations if the estimated total cost is exceeded.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would like to table the answers to questions 17, 43, 49, 51, 52, 73, 77, 78, 79 and 80 standing on the Notice Paper, as well as the interim answer to question 137 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Grossman, moved second reading of Bill 41, An Act to amend the Ministry of Industry and Tourism Act.

Mr. Hall: I would have appreciated it if the House leader could have organized things so that the minister was here to comment on the legislation. I don’t intend to explain his bill for him. Until such time as he comes, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Laughren: Here he comes a lean and hungry minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have no opening statement. I would thank the person who moved it on my behalf.

Mr. Hall: Did the minister say he doesn’t intend to make an explanatory statement?

Mr. Speaker: That is what he said.

Mr. Hall: I don’t think that is very cooperative of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is nothing more to add than the explanatory note. It is just that simple. I would be pleased to expand after I have heard what concerns members may have turned up or discovered. I just don’t think there is anything to add to the explanatory note. That is everything there is.

Mr. Hall: Perhaps the minister will correct me if I am wrong on certain understandings which have been given to me as to why the bill is necessary and we will proceed in that manner.

It seems sensible, of course, to have an understanding with regard to personnel hired by the ministry in other countries and in other provinces in terms of their role as crown employees or not crown employees. To the extent that I am given to understand the auditor felt this step was necessary, it makes sense to me. I hope people like Mr. Shore, a former member of the House, are not necessarily given any special treatment as a result of this. I would be somewhat concerned if that were the case.

With regard to section 5(a) allowing the minister to enter into contracts and agreements and also authorizing him to delegate his powers to deputy ministers and officers of his administration, I am given to understand that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism was one of the last of the government ministries to have this power added. If the minister will satisfy the House that indeed that is the case, that sounds sensible.

[3:15]

I would express concern that the minister not delegate powers for the spending of money, such as the Economic Development Fund, and I’m assured that, indeed, he does not have that authority. Again, therefore, I’m satisfied as long as they’re bringing the administrative methodology of this ministry up to and in line with the other ministries of the government. I ask the minister to reassure me on these points, which are my concerns at the present time.

Mr. di Santo: This is a very simple bill, as the minister said, and I don’t think it requires lengthy comment. It is normal practice that employees in other countries do not become, for practical purposes, employees of the crown. In relation to the second part, as it was pointed out, it was the previous minister who introduced the power for the minister to delegate the signature to the deputy minister or to other officials of his ministry. I think that this is also normal practice and it should have been included when the act was introduced in 1972. For these reasons we agree with the bill.

Mr. Nixon: I certainly agree wholeheartedly with the views expressed by my colleague the member for Lincoln in support of the principle of this bill. However, I did not want to let the occasion go by without expressing a personal view on the growing practice of the government of Ontario to have offices and staff spread around the world in countries with which we do business.

This is a personal view, but I’ve always felt that in a confederation such as Canada it’s a shame we cannot rely to a greater extent on the efficacy of the employees of the federal government to represent Ontario and Alberta, Nova Scotia and Québec, without differentiation. That is industrial producers and agricultural producers of Canada. Once the various provinces feel it is incumbent upon them to have separate staffs representing their interests in these various countries, I personally feel that there is some argument that this is needlessly expensive.

I know the argument has been put forward here for years and I think Bob Macaulay, in one of his former incarnations around here, put it very strongly. Even in those days they were attacking the federal government. It was Conservative at that time and it didn’t seem to be doing all of the things that the provincial government expected. But, really, pressure could be exerted by this government for the trade officers, tourist offices and various representatives of the government of Canada to do that job for us. If we’re in competition with the province of Quebec as far as canned tomatoes are concerned, or if we’re in competition with France in selling our Niagara Peninsula wines in Paris, for example, it may be that we would not be entirely satisfied with the role that the government of Canada would be taking. Rather than simply establishing our own edifices with the expensive trappings and the additional facilities in order to entertain visiting cabinet ministers and all that baloney, I really do think it should be considered a needless duplication and an unnecessary expense.

I’m even concerned from time to time about Ontario House although it has a long and famous tradition. In some respects it sort of fits into the establishment of independent watering holes for touring cabinet ministers. It concerns me a little. I have wanted to express this view and I intend to do so because over the years I’ve seen the government of Ontario start up these various offices, these various employee requirements and the practice grown larger and larger. I wish we were in a position to rely on the facilities provided by the government of Canada for all of Canada. Frankly, I believe we could.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the bill is the rather housekeeping, last-ministry-to-do-it situation the members have referred to, and could well have been introduced at an earlier time. I just heard the remarks of the member for Lincoln with regard to the EDF and I would confirm the cheques in essence out of EDF will be written by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), not by me or my ministry. Therefore this is really a bill which gives us some more flexibility and makes the running of our foreign offices particularly more reasonable, less expensive and administratively a heck of a lot easier.

Having mentioned the foreign offices, I should refer to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk who no doubt has visited and been entertained in some of these foreign offices. May I say that we have conducted and are still conducting an extensive review of each of those offices. I happen to share some of his concerns although many of the concerns I had have been satisfied. I should point out too that we now have fewer offices than we have ever had. It isn’t an ever-increasing practice of the government.

Mr. Nixon: The budget is increasing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The ministry has closed in recent years only three I can think of offhand. At the same time, other provinces are dramatically increasing their representation.

Mr. Nixon: That’s a shame.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is something we just have to be aware of. Having visited some of the offices, I can say there is a concern that a federal government office, if we relied upon it, would be subject to budgetary constraints from time to time which could rather dramatically affect our position and other provinces in various markets. Of course the offices which would be important to Ontario might be different offices, and often are, than would be important, say, to British Columbia.

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister permit a question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, sure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As long as it is in order.

Mr. Nixon: Would it not be possible under these circumstances for the provincial minister from Ontario to negotiate with the federal authorities to assist, by way of money voted here, to have employees and even space in that other facility?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not a bad suggestion; it is one we talked about with them and it wasn’t a new idea we had. One of the concerns in that regard is that you might find a situation where the federal government is running a reasonably-sized office and the provinces want to piggyback on them. If they rent space in them, add staff to them or whatever then you find almost invariably 10 provinces, whether they truly need it or not, would be piggybacking on an office which essentially had three federal government people in it. It would end up with 13 because each province would add their representatives.

I don’t know if that’s an irresolvable concern but it is one that quite frankly we weren’t able to adequately answer for the federal government. Obviously I can’t speak for the other provinces and I would suspect that some provinces would find that a very attractive proposition.

In any case I just want to take this opportunity to assure the member that we are aware of those concerns and we share some of them. But we now have offices remaining only in those areas where we think they are making an important contribution and really adding quite a great deal to the efforts of the federal government. I think members will also find, not surprisingly, the federal government is happy to have our offices in those locations because they dramatically supplement the work they are doing.

We have reviewed that. I am rather satisfied with the numbers of offices we have now although we are continuing to look at them. One of the things I think we should be willing to do as a ministry is to close offices and open others in accordance with changes in the market out there. In other words where the action is is where you want to be, and that changes from time to time.

Mr. Eakins: Staff them with some of your own people within your own ministry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Victoria-Haliburton suggested we ought to staff them with people from our own offices. In fact, that is something we have just done. I don’t see the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) here, but we have just moved our very excellent man from the Kitchener office, Bob Halfnight, to our Frankfurt office. There is a whole series of changes. Dave Rodgers, who was formerly the general manager of the Ontario Development Corporation, is going to take over our New York office. One of our other directors has just moved to take over our Los Angeles office.

This is one of the things we think is a very important new development because it means the foreign offices will have much better contact with the programs we are offering here and the municipalities here. They will be much better plugged into the main resources of the ministry and the delivery capabilities of the ministry and the municipalities from which they have come. I might add it is also important, we think, that those offices be seen as part of the main industry programs and as part of the operation of getting experience and moving up the ladder in our ministry.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I reviewed my own views about the problems Bill 25 addresses in a statement some three or four weeks ago. I don’t see any need at this time to elaborate in any great detail.

The members well know that more than a year of discussion before the Kelly commission followed up by input from the people who were interested in the bill led us to the conclusion there were several areas in the grievance arbitration procedure in this province that needed addressing. There were problems with regard to the length of time it was taking to get the arbitration process in full swing and a final decision reached with regard to the cost and with regard to a certain amount of excess legalistic involvement and complication.

We have endeavoured to seek the best of all systems. We have tried to preserve in this bill that very important sector of arbitrators in the private sector who have over the years built up a great experience and a great knowledge and have contributed greatly to the system. We have tried to preserve that in this bill, so they will remain available to provide a service so well provided in the past.

We have also set up in the bill an expedited procedure for the parties, should the procedure under which they are operating in a collective agreement not be proceeding as expeditiously as one of the parties may deem advisable.

I want to make it clear this does not in any way suggest that if parties agree in a collective bargaining situation upon a grievance procedure they are not free to continue with that grievance procedure. All this bill does is provide an option to one of the parties to opt out of a procedure, which to their mind is not proceeding in an expeditious way. We see this as an important bill and a bill that can remove unnecessary matters from the bargaining table and remove friction from the work place. I would like members to support it.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the members of our caucus, I would submit that generally we are in favour of this piece of legislation. We do, however, have a couple of suggestions for amendment, which we will get to in due course.

[3:30]

I would say in my particular situation that this role is relatively new to me. I have had to reach out and get opinions for my background and also information that I might be able to pass on to our caucus. I have talked with a variety of people, including the chamber of commerce, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Labour Management Arbitrators Association, the Toronto Board of Trade and some faculty members at the University of Toronto law school.

In that group I have listed I think there is a considerable divergence of opinion. Certainly the academics, on the one hand, feel there should not be any interference in the process of collective bargaining and that any further intrusion from the government is of itself bad. I am not sure I perceive the bill to be an intrusion that is bad, but it is another dimension to the process and one which bears at least some further discussion. I would not like to see us summarily agree and dismiss the bill within a matter of just a few moments.

I will speak to the amendments we have to make at the proper time. Suffice it to say that in general terms we are supportive of this, although I have been told by my colleagues on my left in the third party that it would seem that the intent of one of the amendments would be to destroy the principle of the bill. That certainly is not our wish.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the introduction of Bill 25 into the House. It has been a long time coming. We welcome the fact that some of the recommendations in the Kelly commission report have been set aside, which is where they belong. We think it is important that this bill come up as soon as possible in the House. We would have gone all of the way to section 112(a), were we introducing the bill, and provided for whatever costs might be involved in the kind of arbitration staff that was needed. We feel that the proof is in the fast action and relatively satisfactory service that has been achieved in the construction union area. We would like to see an agreement within the bill that would allow the single arbitrator make an immediate verbal decision where both parties agree. That certainly would be an aim of ours.

Beyond that point, we would be willing to support this bill and we do urge the minister to bring it in as quickly as possible. There has been an awfully long delay at tremendous cost in terms of obtaining justice on behalf of workers who are forced to go the grievance and arbitration route. Costs of $700 to $900 a day, plus some other expenses, are now common. The time limits run into hundreds of days. This kind of justice delayed is in many cases justice denied. We feel that while we would have gone a little different route, the bill as set out by the minister is an honest attempt to come to grips with what has been a long-standing problem in the labour relations field. We would urge the minister to proceed as early as possible with the bill as presented to the House.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will bear with me. I want to speak to the principle of the bill, but it refers to a specific matter upon which the principle may impinge. It is a matter I brought to the minister’s attention by letter some weeks ago, which had to do with the arbitration proceedings. The minister may recall the circumstances at the Massey-Ferguson plant in Brantford where the management dismissed, I believe, five employees for trafficking in drugs on the company’s property.

The employees had been charged with the offence after a considerable investigation. The union grieved on behalf of one employee. The upshot of the whole situation was that, although these men had been found guilty of trafficking on company property and of course in work time, the company was forced to reinstate the individuals concerned, because a section in the collective agreement was that unless disciplinary action was taken within three days of the company management becoming aware of the situation, it was a breach of the contract if any disciplinary action was taken after that.

The process went through arbitration and to the courts, and I am not here to question the decision at either level, other than to say that we are the authors of the laws controlling these matters. We are amending the law right now. In my opinion, a circumstance which could work out this way indicates there is at least a weakness in the law.

I have been informed by the minister, very properly, that a collective agreement is binding, as it must be. But in this bill we are giving certain powers to the arbitrator to cover matters of the type I have described. My own feeling, and I certainly don’t reflect the view of everyone in the constituency, is that when employees are found guilty of a serious matter such as this, surely it ought to be within the competence of management to endeavour to get along without their services; that is, to fire them.

The individuals concerned, under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement were reinstated --

Mr. Wildman: Isn’t that double jeopardy?

Mr. Nixon: My honourable friend interjects, isn’t that double jeopardy? Maybe it is double jeopardy, but why should management have to employ somebody who is found guilty of trafficking in drugs on the management property? It doesn’t make sense to me. I have had at least some discussion with the minister in which I think his views were very moderate and indicated that there was some concern. He didn’t express his own view, but I wanted to express my concern.

A good many of my constituents are employed by this company; it is a very large company, indeed. It seems to me that the law in this regard has a weakness that concerns me. Since we are dealing with the bill in principle, I simply wanted to express these views to the minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate? If not, the honourable minister.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I thank members for their comments. I would like, if I may, to refer the bill to committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Maeck, moved second reading of Bill 53, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Brock have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I just pay my tax quite willingly and cheerfully, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: This bill has been before us in almost identical form for a number of years, establishing our share of the income tax pie. I notice that the former Honourable John MacBeth -- I guess he is still honourable; but he is no longer in the cabinet -- has a private member’s resolution before the House which calls for a rather dramatic change in the financing arrangements among the three levels of government.

Most people -- and these are the very days when it concerns them -- when they fill out their personal income tax return and send it away with a cheque to Ottawa, or perhaps even with a request for a refund, think entirely of the income tax as being a federal tax. I suppose in that sense it is, since we have an agreement, and a long-standing agreement, with the government of Canada to collect the tax for us. We use the structure and administration of government federally to collect the money for us and this is rebated to the provincial Treasurer on a regular basis. It seems to be a good arrangement.

There are a number of things wrong with it, I suppose, but the most important is it means people are paying the tax with the largest effect on the individual’s pocketbook to one level of government, the federal government, and then a large section of that comes back to the government of Ontario. It’s almost like having a rich uncle who is in a position to finance your requirements, your programs, and your activities.

I used to find this very difficult to bear when the present Premier (Mr. Davis), then Minister of Education, used to go around opening these William G. Davis schools. I felt he was building these fine schools at a time when the system was expanding with money that really the provincial government had not had the responsibility to collect in the real sense.

By passing this one-line statute we accept the responsibility for collecting the tax here in this Legislature, and in that sense, it is a provincial tax. In the minds of the citizens it is a federal tax, and for that reason I feel, although the agreement saves us money and is efficient, there’s no doubt about that, still it is in some regards misleading to the taxpayers for the reasons I have attempted to outline in a rather clumsy way.

The other part of this statute that concerns me is we are told repeatedly, and I think the Treasurer said it very recently, that we have the second lowest level of personal income taxation in Canada. That’s true until you take into consideration the fact we also have OHIP premiums paid directly by many of our citizens. The revenue from the OHIP premiums is a very substantial amount of money, $2 billion. It’s a very substantial amount of money which really should be considered as a part of the personal income tax.

A good many people, I suppose including ourselves, subconsciously think the services of OHIP are provided free.

Mr. Wildman: It’s not an income tax, it’s a health sales tax.

Mr. Nixon: All right, you can give it whatever name you want. When the Treasurer says we have such a low level of personal income taxation he should at the same time, to be fair -- and I don’t see why he doesn’t always do this -- say in the same breath that of course we have a very high OHIP premium. This is not the case in many of the other jurisdictions.

The third point I want to make, and I guess it’s the last one, is my concern with the levels of income tax across Canada. One of the most divisive influences I feel as a Canadian, one of those strong feelings I get is when I look at what is happening in the province of Alberta. You may have noticed a very large ad for that province in the Globe and Mail this morning. In banner letters across the top it says, “the province of opportunity.” It kind of makes your heart contract a little bit to realize that no longer applies to the province of Ontario. Certainly the honourable House leader remembers when that was a banner nailed to the mast and when many advertisements were paid for with tax funds bringing to the attention of the unwary taxpayers in this province that we were the province of opportunity and we had many places to stand and even some to grow.

We don’t hear too much about that now, particularly since Alberta’s income tax is substantially lower than ours. They don’t have any fuel tax. They have recently paid off all of their municipal debt. That’s only the beginning of the list of advantages. When you think of how these differences in tax levels are driving wedges between and among our provinces, I personally find it regrettable.

I suppose many of the provincial electorate, in the federal sense, are hanging on my every word. I should say I blame not only Alberta for this. After all, they find themselves hip deep in oil dollars, so why should they not try to keep them all to themselves? But I do feel the concept of a strong central government -- which already is used to equalize the impact of these costs and the advantages of these revenues -- might be carried at least a small step or two further to the advantage and benefit of all Canadians.

[3:45]

There will be another occasion -- perhaps some time in the next month or two -- when we can discuss this matter, when we get around to debating the resolution on national unity, when it comes forward.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and carry them on a little further and perhaps make them a little clearer.

This bill re-establishing the 44 per cent rate for income tax in Ontario is somewhat misleading. This point has been made a number of times, and it should be made as clearly as possible. It is true that Ontario has the second lowest basic income tax rate in Canada. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned health premiums. But he did not make it quite clear just how bad the situation is when we look at health premiums and at the income tax credits in the province across Canada -- which all ultimately work to establish the eventual effective rate.

It effectively leaves Ontario, not the second lowest at a 44 per cent position, as in this bill, but in fact as the highest province in Canada at some 68 per cent. The lowest is the province of Saskatchewan at 12 per cent.

The discrepancy is rather significant. Although this provincial government and the Treasurer of this province like to coo proudly from time to time about having the second lowest rate in Canada, the 44 per cent rate in this bill is very misleading to the taxpayers of this province. It’s not exactly right up front in terms of presenting the whole picture. And it leaves some questions about the validity of debating this bill in this fashion.

For example, last summer the select committee on health-care costs made recommendations, none of which we see before this House. They recommended an additional tax rebate on income tax in Ontario to replace the premium assistance system, which is not being fully or properly utilized by those people who need the assistance. We see none of that here today in this bill, and that’s unfortunate. All we see is a continuation of the same thing we have had in the past.

We also see health-care premiums being increased this year, and a number of other taxes being increased -- small amounts in each case, perhaps, but increases none the less -- while we leave the most progressive tax we have alone.

None of us on this side of the House could stand up and oppose this bill, and advocate an increase in income tax, unless a number of other things were included with it, probably including the withdrawal of all the other tax increases that have been presented in this budget. But I think it is imperative and important for members on this side of the House to express their concern about the nature of this bill and the way it does not fully represent the tax picture to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments made by my colleague about the personal income tax remaining at 44 per cent. I can perhaps see why it remains at 44 per cent.

If we go back into the past budget reports, in 1973-74 I think the revenue that was generated from the personal income tax was $1,236,000,000; the estimated revenue for 1979-80 is $2,971,000,000, an increase of 140 per cent. In the five-year period, that indicates it is quite a nest egg for the Minister of Revenue to obtain additional revenue from this source.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the present election campaign being carried out throughout Canada, one of the main issues to almost every individual across Canada is the matter of taxes. Perhaps the other most important one is the high rate of unemployment in Canada. I think the government should be looking at a personal income tax cut to provide extra spending for families who have to go out and purchase the goods. This is what is required to keep the economy going and I think this is the area the government should be looking at.

If you go over the last five years, the 140 per cent increase in revenue from personal income tax alone is large. I suggest that with good sound management we could have met that balanced budget the former Treasurer so often talked about in the Ontario Legislature -- that the goal would be met by 1980. I look at that and I look at the retail sales tax -- there is another area where the revenue in 1973-74 was $1,315,000,000 and in 1979-80 the estimate is $2,295,000,000. This is a 75 per cent increase over a period of five years.

Looking at that mass of revenue coming into this province, one sits back and wonders why, when the Treasurer introduced the budget here a couple of weeks ago, he had almost every tax increased to hit the working people in the province. The gasoline tax increased; tobacco increased; spirits increased -- he even went to the land transfer tax to generate another $20 million there.

I think over the years I’ve mentioned there has been poor management on the part of this government. I’m sure if we Liberals had been in power we would have met that balanced budget by 1975. With all the good years previous to that, we could have done it with the revenue that was generated by the province.

We have to support this bill because it isn’t actually an increase from 44 per cent to 47 per cent or something like that. But I do bring to the attention of the House that the extra revenue generated through inflationary cost increases in income to wage earners have generated this revenue for this province. When one looks at the other tax increases here it can be seen the government certainly knows how to hit home and make it tough for the average working man today. I think there are areas where with proper management we could have met full employment in the province by using this tax revenue base to bring it about.

We support the bill.

Mr. Laughren: As my colleague from Hamilton Mountain pointed out, we are supporting the bill because it leaves the system the way it is -- although I want to say that’s hard to support.

What disturbs me about the bill -- as it bothered the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and my colleague from Hamilton as well -- is the statement on page 18 of the budget. It states: “Ontario’s personal tax rate of 44 per cent of basic federal income tax remains the same for 1979. This rate remains the second lowest in Canada.” The Minister of Revenue wouldn’t make a statement like that. We expect it of the flimflam man from Muskoka but we know that the member for Parry Sound wouldn’t make such an outrageous statement because he knows that really is playing with the facts.

Mr. Makarchuk: He’s a little further north so he’s a little more accurate.

Mr. Laughren: I was looking at some figures on the different kinds of provincial revenues basically, the personal taxes in the province, which include provincial income tax, OHIP and retail sales tax -- those are highly personal taxes on people -- and comparing them with the corporate tax rates. Just looking at the Davis years, for example -- by the way, the Davis years are the Maeck years too, aren’t they?

An hon. member: They are the Laughren years too.

Mr. Laughren: And the Laughren years, yes, that is right. The Premier has been the Premier since 1971-72, which is when we were elected as well.

Mr. Nixon: Some people longer than that.

Mr. Laughren: Some people longer than that. It seems longer. Back in 1971-72 personal taxes accounted for 44 per cent of provincial revenues and for 1979-80 almost 47 per cent. That is up about three points, which is too much when it shouldn’t be up at all. As a matter of fact, as the wealth of society increases one would think the government could find other ways to raise revenues, whereas the corporate tax total has gone from eight per cent up to 9.9 per cent of the total. Of course, there are all sorts of other taxes which come into provincial revenues too. I am thinking of things like liquor profits and so forth. So the Minister of Revenue hasn’t done a very good job of changing the kind of system we have in Ontario.

I was thinking of some ways the minister could give us a different system. That 44 per cent rate, while the Treasurer says it is the second lowest in Canada, it isn’t, and the way the Treasurer could make that a meaningful figure -- could make it real so that provincial income tax was not so high -- would be to have flowing into the tax revenues in Ontario a capital gains tax.

I assume the minister knows there is a federal capital gains tax but it taxes only 50 per cent of a person’s capital gain, despite the fact that is income. That is income and should be taxed as income.

I am sure I don’t have to remind the minister the late Ken Carter thought that would be a pretty good idea too. That should be income tax.

Mr. Nixon: A buck is a buck.

Mr. Laughren: A buck is a buck is a buck, that’s right.

Mr. Nixon: We spent two years arguing about that.

Mr. Laughren: There are a lot of people who agree that any income you earn should be considered just that. Any income that accrues to you should be considered for income tax. There are a couple of professors at Osgoode Hall Law School who agree with that. They are Neil Brooks, an associate professor, and Arthur Teltomaa, who is a teaching fellow at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University.

Their argument is made in the journal, Canadian Taxation, January 1979. The minister might want to read that. I think there is more hope in us convincing him than there is in convincing the Treasurer that there needs to be a change in the tax system.

As a matter of fact, we are going to get to a bill later on this afternoon where the evidence of the persuasive abilities of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain are very evident. It took the minister a year but he listened and took his advice. I am referring to the tax on cigars. Remember?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I remember.

Mr. Laughren: It is very good of the minister to remember that. It is one thing to do it on cigars and it is another thing to do it on a much more fundamental tax, namely, personal income tax. I am going to give the minister a couple of reasons why income tax, which is the bill we are debating here, should include gains from the sale of capital assets, why that is an income tax and belongs in this bill. I quote:

“A dollar of profit resulting from the sale of capital asset increases a person’s capacity to consume or ability to pay by as much as a dollar earned through personal effort. Therefore a tax system premised upon ability to pay and upon the most fundamental axiom of justice, that people similarly situated should be treated equally, should tax capital gains in full.

[4:00]

“To the extent that income from capital is not taxed, it means that other income, income from labour, for example, must be taxed at higher rates. Thus, not taking capital gains at full rates causes a redistribution of the tax burden from investors to wage and salary earners.”

That point needs to be reinforced. Every time the government does not tax fairly or equitably, it is making someone else pay more who would not otherwise have to do so. One of the things that divides this party from that party is that we believe we have an obligation to create a more equitable tax system in Ontario.

I understand very well the position of that party over there; namely, that unless it has a tax system that goes gently on the high-income earners it will kill incentive. That’s the argument that’s always used, that we’ll kill incentive if we don’t have a proper kind of tax system, as they define a proper kind of tax system. We say, on the contrary, that unless we have an equitable tax system, we do not encourage personal initiative and growth at all.

From the way the government’s tax system works it encourages all sorts of initiatives by the John David Eatons and the Bassetts of this world, but what kind of incentive does it give for the people down at the $15,000, $12,000, $10,000 level, or even below that level of income? The government doesn’t give them much incentive. It’s a one-sided argument that it puts. The minister shakes his head. I know too that the minister would argue that one can’t include capital gains as income tax because that would discourage risk-taking. That’s what the Minister of Revenue would say. That’s what the Treasurer would say. We are saying that the government can’t have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Don’t second-guess me.

Mr. Laughren: I don’t. I’ve heard the minister and his colleagues over there talk so many times about the necessity for risk capital and the necessity for keeping incentive there. It’s a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Grande: It’s a myth.

Mr. Laughren: If we had a proper tax system and a proper return for investment, we wouldn’t need the kind of perks that the government gives to the top income people.

Speaking of income tax --

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That’s a good point. That’s what the member is supposed to be speaking about.

Mr. Laughren: -- which is what we are debating, I wanted to give the minister some figures as to what kind of people realize capital gains.

“The benefits of tax and capital gains of preferential rates accrue almost exclusively to a small minority of high-income individuals. In 1975, over 30 per cent of the capital gains were reported by people with incomes over $50,000 -- people who represented only 0.6 per cent of all tax return filers. The average person in the $5,000 to $10,000 income group received a benefit of about $4 because of the preferential tax rate, but the average person with income over $100,000 received a benefit of $4,222, or over a thousand times greater.”

That puts it in perspective. The minister should not be bringing before this House something he calls an income tax bill unless it indeed deals with all income. The minister would be hard pressed to justify that. All he would have to do is say that all income shall be taxed at the personal income tax rate. I don’t expect the minister will accede to my request; nevertheless the point does need to be made.

My colleague talked about the different kinds of tax rates among the various provinces. To give an example, the case of a person with a $15,000 total income with a spouse and two children under the age of 16, who owns a house on which he pays $800 in property taxes, using 1979 rates, gives us the following picture: In Ontario, we have a provincial income tax rate of 44 per cent. When we add health premiums of $1,079 on to that, it boosts the tax rate to 79 per cent of the federal tax payable. When we deduct the rebates and tax credits from it -- and, of course, the minister knows I would not talk about rates without subtracting the tax credits and the rebates -- we still end up with a percentage of the federal tax payable of 68 per cent. That’s the real tax rate, not 44.

When we do the same thing in other provinces, BC has a 42 per cent rate; Alberta has a 37 per cent rate. Saskatchewan has a 12 per cent rate; that’s what my colleague meant when he said by the time one added on the health premiums in Saskatchewan -- there are none -- and subtracts the rebates and tax credits, that’s the actual rate you end up with.

Manitoba has a 25 per cent rate; Quebec, 60 -- now Quebec is a very difficult one to compare and I wouldn’t do that; New Brunswick, 45; Nova Scotia, 52.5; PEI, 50; and Newfoundland, 58.

This means that Ontario has the highest rate of taxation as a percentage of the federal tax payable, not the second lowest as the Treasurer claims but the highest. The Treasurer is playing the old shell game only there’s no pea under any of the shells. That’s the game he’s playing with us and we know better.

Finally, the Minister of Revenue should know that he should be rolling the health premiums, into the income tax system as not only my colleague suggested, but as the select committee on health care costs recommended, a year ago. To be fair, they were talking about the subsidy system for OHIP premiums and this is what they said: “The current subsidy system be replaced by a tax credit system that would ensure, as the current subsidy does not, that all those entitled to premium assistance in fact receive it,” and they estimated that nearly 500,000 tax filers would benefit by such a system.

It’s fine for the Minister of Revenue to talk about the 44 per cent federal tax payable under his income tax system, but it’s not true. The minister is very proud of the OHIP system where he provides 50 per cent premium assistance to people, but that’s not working; people are not claiming it. The minister does not have the kind of tax system he is pretending he has and he has let the flimflam man from Muskoka con him into bringing forth this bill. The minister should have dug in his heels and said, “I won’t be party to a sham like this.”

Mr. Acting Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to speak to this bill? Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Laughren: Look how red his face is. He’s embarrassed.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: -- every year we bring in the amendments to the Income Tax Act --

Mr. Wildman: You haven’t been this embarrassed since you taxed away that telephone company.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: -- and for the last few years we have retained the same rate we had in previous years and every year we hear the same arguments, particularly from the third party.

Mr. Grande: You never answer the arguments. Give us some answers.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The simple answer is this: the philosophy of the NDP is completely different from ours. They would like to bring in taxes --

Mr. Grande: Oh, really?

An hon. member: You admit that.

Mr. Makarchuk: Your economic policy isn’t a philosophy, it’s a character disorder.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The difference between being in government and being in the opposition is that ours is policy but theirs is still only philosophy because they can’t make it happen.

Mr. Samis: Who gave out $28 million to Ford, $100 million to the pulp and paper companies?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: There’s the difference. And look at Saskatchewan. It is a good idea to look at those. My figures say that the income tax rate in Saskatchewan is 53 per cent. I don’t know where the member gets the 12 per cent figure. If he wants to start calling retail sales tax and other types of taxes income tax, maybe he can work it out, but my little book here tells me that the Saskatchewan income tax rate for 1978 is 53 per cent. I could tell you that Newfoundland is 58 per cent; Nova Scotia, 52.5; New Brunswick, 55.5; Prince Edward Island, 50.5 -- that will go down after yesterday, of course. There is no question about that.

Mr. Samis: Any bets?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Ontario, 44, which is a pretty nice round figure. You can divide it by two, Mr. Speaker. You can divide it by 11 or 4.

Mr. Grande: It’s in between 40 and 50.

Mr. Makarchuk: It sounds like a brand of beer.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Manitoba 54 per cent and Alberta, being the only one that’s lower than ours --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Manitoba is 54 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Isn’t that terrible? It really is terrible.

Mr. Ruston: A Conservative government too. After all that good management they had when the NDP were in, they still end up with a 54 per cent income tax rate. How did they do that?

Mr. M. Davidson: And there are no health premiums.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: If some of the suggestions of the member for Nickel Belt were adopted by this government, I am afraid he answered his own question when he said we would be stopping investment; we would be --

Mr. Laughren: The minister told me not to second-guess him.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I guess my friend has heard my story before.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I have.

Mr. Grande: It is a story.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, it is not a story.

Mr. Grande: It’s a fairy tale.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We in this province must remain competitive with other jurisdictions. We must create a climate where there is an opportunity for people to expand. If we take the penalizing system that my friend is talking about and bring it into this province, we will have people leaving the province instead of coming in; we certainly don’t want that.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk talked a little bit about the Ontario Health Insurance Plan premiums, as did I guess all the members who spoke: I seem to recall that the select committee on health-care costs could not come back with a recommendation that was acceptable to all parties in this House.

Mr. Nixon: It would take a change of government to set that straight.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I would not say that. It might take a majority government, but not necessarily a change.

Mr. Nixon: Heaven help us if we ever get a Tory majority; the 44 per cent rate won’t last very long.

Mr. Samis: What would Stan Darling do with that post office?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I don’t know what he would do with that post office.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk also talked about the province of opportunity being Alberta instead of Ontario. I do not agree with that; I still think there are many opportunities here in Ontario. The climate in this province is conducive to opportunity; it has been, and still is, after 35 years of Conservative government

Mr. Nixon: Thirty-five years? That’s too long; it’s undemocratic.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Yes, about 35; and another 35 coming up ahead.

Mr. Nixon: God forbid!

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I don’t like to make the members opposite feel bad, but they have to face the facts from time to time.

Mr. M. Davidson: Idi Amin was President for Life too.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: On most of the items we talked about, and particularly the OHIP premiums -- as I say, there is no agreement amongst the three parties as far as OHIP premiums are concerned; granted, there was an agreement as far as subsidy was concerned, but not about the premiums themselves at this point in time. I’m not saying that some time down the road they may not disappear -- but who knows? -- not right now.

Mr. Laughren: What? What would disappear?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: OHIP premiums.

Mr. Laughren: You are a magician.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: It could happen some time; I’m not saying it is going to happen today or tomorrow, but it could happen some time.

Mr. Laughren: Can we quote you on that?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Sure, they can quote me. It may happen some time.

The member for Erie talked about cutting the income tax rate, which of course is a completely different viewpoint from that of the New Democratic Party. I must agree with the member for Erie that in some cases income tax cuts do help the economy and do generate employment from time to time; but we do not feel this is the time it should be done. As the members opposite know, the Ministry of Revenue has been on the short end of the stick for the past two or three years. In terms of our budgets, we have not overspent on the expenditure end, but we have not been able to generate the revenue necessary to pay all the bills; so we have been running a deficit. In my opinion, to decrease the income tax rate at this point is wrong, and that is the reason it is not being done.

Mr. Speaker, I think that answers almost all the inquiries that were made in general terms. Of course, all the members who made them knew what the answers were going to be before I stood on my feet --

Mr. M. Davidson: You are absolutely right.

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. Maeck: -- but just to keep the record straight, I want to let the members opposite know we have listened to what they said, but we have not necessarily heeded what they have said.

Mr. Wildman: That is the way to make minority government work.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Maeck moved second reading of Bill 56, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains provisions to enact the changes in tobacco tax announced in the Treasurer’s budget. These changes include increases in the rate of tax on cigarettes and cut tobacco, and in addition simplify and restructure the rates applicable to cigars. I am sure the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will be very happy about that.

Mr. Samis: What about the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis)?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: In addition, several administrative measures are included to further simplify compliance with the administration of this tax. In the case of administration, amendments are included enabling faster action where there is a default in the payment of tax collected. In addition, a three-year time limit for refunds is proposed. This is the same limit as is included in the retail sales tax bill.

In the area of tax simplification, amendments with respect to security for tax clearance certificates and the elimination of the statutory lien are proposed. These amendments will bring both more consistency to our commodity taxes and contribute to the government’s goal of tax simplification.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, we on this side will be supporting Bill 56. As I mentioned previously, it certainly does hit at the heart of the working class people in the province of Ontario, and perhaps all those persons who may want to enjoy a cigarette or cigar at this time. I notice the Premier now has moved from a cigar to a pipe; it might be much cheaper, I do not know.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We will still catch him. He has to pay.

Mr. Haggerty: He is still going to pay.

Could the minister indicate to me if, with the increase in revenue here, and I suppose it relates to alcoholic spirits where we are going to raise $22 million in additional revenue to the province, is any of this allocated for research in the area of smoking habits in the province of Ontario as they relate to respiratory diseases, et cetera? Does the government have such a research program in this particular area? I know it does for alcohol, but is there nothing in the area to which I have referred? Is there just the advertisement on the cigarette package that this may be injurious to health, which does not say why?

Mr. Acting Speaker: I would remind the member we are not in committee. Would you make a quick answer, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I will make a note of the question and I will reply to it.

Mr. Laughren: Highly irregular.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Samis: The cigar smoker’s friend.

Mr. Charlton: This is the second year in a row we have had increases in tobacco tax. I guess we are in the same position again this year of not being in a position to oppose the increase, because as with the increases last year we would much rather see a tax increase on tobacco than an additional increase, for example, on OHIP or something much more necessary in our society; but this bill is somewhat of an abuse of those people in this society who happen to smoke. It’s also an admission by this government of very serious problems in terms of their abilities to find new revenues.

There is nothing wrong with an occasional small tax increase on liquor, or tobacco, whatever the situation happens to warrant, but in this bill, at a time when we are all talking about restraint and about four, five and six per cent wage increases for some employees, the government has increases that start out at 9.1 per cent for cigarettes, 20 per cent for loose tobacco for those people who are trying to be a little more conservatory in terms of their own income and make their own cigarettes. And 33 per cent in the case of cigars under nine cents.

Mr. Samis: Is that still possible?

Mr. Charlton: It just amazes me how the government can talk about restraint and talk about the kinds of things they are doing to restrain their spending, and then turn around and hit the taxpayers in a particular sector of our economy with increases like this. Although they work out in a very minor way in terms of dollars and cents, when the government allows increases like this in any sector at any one time, it’s no less gross in nature than the 37½ per cent increase we had to deal with in OHIP premiums last year. It’s just too much to demand all at once, and it reflects badly on this government and their ability properly to work their books and deal with taxation in this province in a progressive nature.

There is only one thing in this bill that I see that is useful. I hope the minister will take the time at some point to thank me for setting him straight last year, even though he couldn’t find it in his heart in the debate on the tobacco tax increase last year to be fair --

Mr. Samis: A great public service.

Mr. Charlton: -- and to apply an equal or higher rate to the more expensive and excessive cigars. Last year he saw fit to introduce a bill which limited the taxes on the more expensive cigars at the expense of taxpayers who went out and bought the very cheapest of cigars in order to try to save their money. This year at least the minister has seen the light and rectified that situation. I am glad to see that that has happened.

Mr. Wildman: On the other hand, perhaps he could tax them according to their odour.

Mr. Nixon: I certainly want to comment on the bill before us, not that we are in a position to oppose it for reasons that have already been put forward, but it concerns me that the level of taxation is so high compared with what the farmers themselves get for the tobacco. We are raising it from 1.1 cents to 1.2 cents per cigarette or something like that, aren’t we?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: By two cents for a package of 20. From 1.1 cents to 1.2 cents a cigarette.

Mr. Nixon: The farmers themselves, with their large investments in the tobacco-growing areas of the province, never fail to be amazed that the government makes so much more out of the tobacco business than they themselves do. We are not here to argue about the health aspects; this is done on other occasions. We know, however, that the market continues to expand, even though there are fairly rigorous controls on advertising.

The tobacco farmers themselves account for one of the largest sectors of the agricultural economy. Members who have travelled through the tobacco-growing areas in the counties of Brant, Norfolk, Oxford to some extent, and Elgin where most of the flue-cured tobacco is grown --

Mr. Makarchuk: Some of these are diversified these days.

Mr. Nixon: -- would never fail to be amazed at how well the farms are kept.

The member for Brantford is saying that some of them are diversifying. I don’t know what he is referring to, unless it would be that according to the reading I’ve done in certain American publications -- there was an article recently in Atlantic Monthly -- there is an indication, for example, that one marijuana plant will raise about $200-worth of leaves on the market.

I don’t know whether this has prompted a couple of letters from constituents of mine asking for information on research done by the provincial government in growing marijuana.

It is an interesting thing that in the literature from the United States the marijuana business there -- all of it illegal -- now amounts to sales of $10 billion. Evidently the smuggling of it through Florida is even larger than the tourist industry.

While I would be the last to talk about legalizing it, I am sure the Minister of Revenue must sometimes lick his chops when he thinks of how large that particular business, albeit illegal, has become. The article -- I believe it was in the Atlantic Monthly -- indicated that even the pressures on the revenue-raising institutions in the United States are very great. This article was predicting further moves towards commercializing this particular crop in the near future, a matter which I am sure we would all agree would be regrettable.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: The member for Brantford keeps making noises and it interrupts the flow of my speech.

As I say, in the tobacco-growing areas you will find some of the best farms anywhere. Certainly around Delhi, which in many respects, together with Tillsonburg, is the tobacco capital of Canada, not only do you find prosperous farms but very prosperous communities.

In the old days, before mechanization, for reasons that you can only guess at I suppose, many of the original Anglo-Saxon and Scottish landowners sold out to those who had immigrated to this country. The newcomers perhaps seemed to be more prepared to work very hard and very carefully with a crop that in those days required a good deal of hand work, in fact it still does.

So these areas have become centres for the most active ethnic groups. Certainly any time you want to go for a very interesting vacation, go down to the Delhi area at tobacco festival time and you will be very royally treated indeed. I recommend that to you, not only as the member for the area but as a person who has participated in that hospitality now for a number of years.

On behalf of the tobacco farmers in my area, I want to express their dismay that although they do the work -- and for the last year or two they have been reasonably satisfied with the profits they make -- it is amazing and appalling to them that the government, simply by the passage of a bill like this, makes far more revenue out of the crop than the farmers would ever hope to make in their greatest expectations.

I know the minister is concerned about this, as are we all, and we look forward with a great deal of interest to the next few years in association with revenues in this and related crops.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, there are not many taxes that I think should be allocated for a specific purpose. I think tax collection properly goes into the consolidated revenue fund and it should be the responsibility of government to take it out and spread it around. But there are a couple of taxes I think should have a portion allocated for a specific purpose. One would be the liquor tax, which would go towards rehabilitation work. Secondly, the tobacco tax should have a portion allocated to health-related research on diseases related to consumption of tobacco. I am not talking about Acapulco gold, as my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk I gather was.

Mr. Nixon: What’s Acapulco gold? What is that stuff?

An hon. member: That’s not his brand, Floyd.

Mr. Laughren: When I see the minister introducing a tax bill called an Acapulco gold tax then I’ll know he has changed his policy on the taxation of certain weeds.

I’m from the area the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk talks about. Originally I spent many years in the tobacco-growing area so I know the economic importance to that area of the province that tobacco represents. But I really feel there needs to be an allocation of funds to research.

[4:30]

Mr. Nixon: I think there should be an allocation to expanding the market overseas.

Mr. Laughren: One of my colleagues mentioned earlier some reference to taxing according to the degree of odour that emanated from a particular tobacco. If he ever taxed my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) according to the odour that emanates from his pipe, he wouldn’t be able to raise a family in the style to which they are accustomed.

Mr. Foulds: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I’m sure the member has confused me with his colleague from York South (Mr. MacDonald).

Mr. Acting Speaker: Undoubtedly.

Mr. Samis: What do you call a smoker of cigars as well as pipes?

Mr. Laughren: A pox on them both.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my remarks. I’m not happy with the way the Minister of Revenue once again is doing the bidding of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) without complaining about the kind of taxes he’s been asked to implement for the people of Ontario.

This Treasurer has a different style about him than the previous Treasurer. The previous Treasurer always gave you a large target. The present Treasurer gives you a whole bunch of little ones, and they’re always moving. It’s a lot different debating the budget of this Treasurer than the previous one. What’s not different is the way the Minister of Revenue so willingly implements the taxes the Treasurer imposes upon us.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a matter with the minister regarding the situation that exists in the liquor industry, where the Treasurer actually sets the price for the liquor that is sold in the stores. I wonder if a similar situation exists in the tobacco industry. If so, perhaps he is getting the blame which really should be apportioned to the Treasurer.

I wonder if in his reply he would explain to us how he decides on the amount of increase on cigarettes. Is it on the basis of some form of market research which makes him feel this is what he can extract from the consumer? Does he get the order from the Treasurer to raise so many millions of dollars on tobacco, in which case does he just apply the cents per cigarette to raise the number of millions of dollars the Treasurer wants? In effect, is the minister the tool that carries out the orders given by the Treasurer?

I wonder if the same situation applies to the tobacco tax with the final pricing of tobacco as is done in the liquor industry.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, first of all to answer the query from the member for Erie, there is no such program. There is no rehabilitation program within the Ministry of Revenue and there are no tobacco taxes specifically laid out for that particular purpose. Any taxes collected go into the general revenue fund, and any program that might be affected would be through the Ministry of Health. There is really no program in the Ministry of Revenue for that purpose at all.

I guess everyone complains about taxes going up too much. As a taxpayer I also complain about that, but I think we all have to understand certain revenues must be found to make this province operate. It’s a matter of deciding where you’re going to find those dollars.

Mr. Laughren: That’s why we are surprised you haven’t taxed marijuana yet.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: While we may disagree with where they’re found, I’m sure the members opposite realize the dollars have to be found somewhere. There are people proposing new programs and asking for more dollars; those dollars have to be found.

Mr. Nixon: Your colleagues are spending too much.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That’s fine, but when we start cutting back, if it affects the member’s riding he would be the first one to come to us and say: “Don’t do it here; do it over there.”

Mr. Nixon: Sounds logical to me.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Of course it does, it’s human nature; but by the same token we’re the ones who have to be accountable for these things.

Mr. Wildman: He nationalizes telephone companies.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I think members have to look at the overall budget and not individual items in isolation.

Mr. Charlton: That’s the problem; we are looking at the overall budget.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Obviously I don’t expect people on the opposite side to agree to what we’re doing. I don’t say they would do any better if they were over here; I hope in fact they don’t get the chance to be here. However we do make those decisions, and hopefully it’s done in a reasonable manner. So when we talk about two cents for a package of 20 cigarettes, that’s what it amounts to. It’s the second raise in the tobacco tax since I’ve been a minister, and that’s only been in 15 or 16 months. However, as I said, it has to be found somewhere, so that is where it is being found.

The member for Brantford wanted to know how the decisions were made regarding this type of situation. I’m sure he’s well aware it’s the Treasurer’s responsibility to set the fiscal policy of the province. It’s my responsibility to administer those tax laws after the Treasurer has set the policy.

I do have input into some of the decisions being made by the Treasurer; we do talk from time to time. He looks for recommendations from my ministry from time to time but the final decision is his and his alone. That’s the way the decision is made. He doesn’t say to the Minister of Revenue, “I want you to raise $200 million this year. You find it wherever you can.” That isn’t the way it’s done. It’s done completely differently.

We look at all of the possibilities of where the money could be found. Through the process of investigation, elimination, and all the conferences that go on between my ministry’s staff and his, the final decisions are made as to where these dollars are going to be found. That’s the system.

Mr. Laughren: What about the mining tax?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I have no input into the mining tax whatsoever; it is not under my jurisdiction. I would presume the same sort of conferences go on between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Treasurer, but I don’t know, I’m not privy to those. But that’s basically how it’s done.

The member for Nickel Belt also suggested this is one tax from which some funding should be specifically set aside for health-related research and so on. I don’t know whether I agree with that or not. I wouldn’t have any particular opposition to it, I guess, but the way our budget is set up at the present time and the way our financial policy is done, it’s a matter of collecting the taxes, putting them into the general revenue fund and then specific items are taken out of that to run this sort of thing the member is talking about. I think it’s a lot simpler way of doing the bookkeeping than taking it out from individual taxes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Maeck moved second reading of Bill 54, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I have a very short statement, Mr. Speaker.

This bill contains changes to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act announced in the Treasurer’s budget.

First, the tax will be imposed on fuel consumed in railway locomotives at a rate of 2.2 cents per litre. This means that all provinces with railways will have a tax on railway fuel.

An increase in the general rate from 5.5 cents per litre to 5.9 cents per litre announced in the Treasurer’s budget is also included.

Tax simplification measures are included to further the equity afforded taxpayers and collectors. The first amendment permits a taxpayer to object to the total amount of an assessment, including penalties and interest, which they were not allowed to do before. Also, the types of security for tax which may be accepted are broadened.

To further ensure that the taxes collected are realized in Ontario, a provision enabling the extension of power to assess where the tax has been collected is also proposed.

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to make a few comments on Bill 54, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act. I understand this is perhaps the first time the government has moved into the area of putting fuel tax on a public transportation system. Perhaps I am not quite clear on the word “public.” Does this apply to GO Transit and does it include all railway transportation? I am talking about hauling freight and so forth. I would like an answer to that.

I am glad to see the minister has tightened up in cases of persons who refund the province for collecting taxes. He may now require surety bonds. If I can recall, in the past there have been certain areas where the ministry has had difficulty in collecting its share of the taxes relating to diesel fuel for the trucking industry in the province of Ontario. I am glad to see that. It is not pleasant to stand up and say we support a tax, but if the tax is going to be applied to the certain areas that require it, such as for rebuilding of roads and other new road construction and to assist in the cost of operating the GO system instead of subsidizing it, then perhaps we can agree that we support the principle of increased taxes in this particular area.

Mr. Charlton: I rise to speak to Bill 54 and I will be relatively brief. There are a number of my colleagues who wish to speak to certain sections in the bill. I should say to the minister that although we bitched somewhat on the last two bills which were before this House we didn’t oppose them.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the honourable member could find a nicer way of expressing himself.

Mr. Charlton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word I used and modify it to say we complained and harangued the minister about those bills. We criticized them but we didn’t oppose those bills.

Mr. Wildman: He curred about it.

Mr. Charlton: We are going to oppose this bill to increase the motor vehicle fuel tax. This bill is inflationary. It is inflationary at the very roots and very heart of Ontario’s economy. It is not excessive, but it is part of an inflationary budget which has been put forward by this government.

This bill affects the transportation system right across the province and the delivery of goods and services right across the province. This tax increase will affect the price of those goods and services which are delivered by the transportation system. In addition to that, this bill, in our view, takes the questionable step of creating a new tax on public railways. This tax affects public transit across the province of Ontario; public transit which is run by municipalities and others and which has been under substantial pressure already for a number of years as municipalities fight to keep the cost of the fares in public transit down.

This bill is inflationary in nature. It is part of an inflationary budget from this government, and we are going to oppose it.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to say that we are going to oppose it too, but obviously we can’t. Somebody has to take the responsibility of keeping the ship of state afloat, I suppose.

Mr. Samis: You mean pumping it up.

Mr. Nixon: The NDP was quite prepared to have an election over a five cent increase in the subway fare in Toronto. All the members from the Sudbury area were so anxious to have an election over this terrible matter. Now they are prepared, I suppose, to rely on the modernation and good sense of the Liberal Party to save them from their own ridiculous position even in this bill.

Mr. Mackenzie: You wouldn’t understand principle.

Mr. Nixon: However, we are used to that. We are used to this sort of responsibility and we are prepared to take further responsibility for the taxation system of this province when we assume the responsibility of government in the near future.

[4:45]

Having said that, it does concern me that the Premier (Mr. Davis) so frequently expresses his concern, his public concern at least, for the increasing cost of gasoline and motor vehicle fuel in Canada and this province. He repeatedly has attacked the government of Canada which, over these many difficult years since the Arab boycott began in 1973, has been attempting to equalize the effects of these huge increases in price at the world level for the benefit of all the citizens of Canada. It has been a demonstration, in my view, of the very best concepts of the effects and purpose of a strong, central government.

The Premier is not here; I understand that he sits in his office, and usually listens to the debate, however, and rarely misses anything that goes on in that connection. But even though the Premier repeatedly has been critical of these increases, still he permitted his Treasurer to announce this increase, which is of course directly under our control.

The prices of gasoline and motor vehicle fuel are so volatile, changing without much notice as the nations of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries make their various unilateral, monopolistic decisions. Therefore, it is natural that in Canada -- with the policy that is well understood, although admittedly not enthusiastically supported by all -- the prices in Canada have been going up in a dramatic way.

I agree that it has in many respects fuelled inflation. But it seems completely unrealistic for the Premier, who has expressed his concern so frequently -- particularly when he puts it in terms of the unemployment he believes it directly causes -- to allow his Treasurer to go forward with this tax increase once again. It seems to me illogical as far as he’s concerned.

The reason I have said we are not prepared to vote against it is that we do not feel the people of the province are prepared to have an election on an increase in gasoline tax of two cents a gallon at this time.

Mr. Grande: Let the government do what it wants.

Mr. Nixon: If it doesn’t seem reasonable to the members of the New Democratic Party, then they can continue being an irresponsible rump occupying one corner of the Legislature.

Mr. Grande: You are here to provide opposition for the government.

Mr. Mackenzie: Thank heaven there is some opposition in the House; it sure doesn’t come from your party.

Mr. Nixon: As a matter of fact, there is another matter that does concern me, and I’m sure it would concern many people in the House; that is, the procedure whereby this tax is collected from those people who do not intend to use the gasoline or the public highways in any way. There is often a very lengthy period of time when these worthy people -- many of them farmers, fishermen and other working people -- finance what the government is doing by paying gasoline tax on gasoline that is in essence not taxable; it is not used on the highways or public roadways of the province.

I know that the people in the bureau of gasoline tax refunds, or whoever it is that I write to regularly, are quite efficient; I have never felt, as far as they are concerned, that they did not apply the letter of the law effectively and fairly. After all, it’s not their responsibility that the law is so balled up in this province that the farmers, already hard-pressed in many areas of the province, have to pay the tax on the fuel; that it lies in the consolidated revenue fund to the advantage of the Minister of Revenue and his colleagues for many months and in fact, sometimes for years; and that the farmers and others, who as I say are often hard-pressed, don’t get an interest payment from the government, which has had the use of these hundreds of thousands of dollars for this period of years.

It used to be, under previous administrations, that the gasoline was paid for without tax on the appropriate affidavits or whatever the forms would be from the farmers and others, stating that the gasoline was not going to be used in a way that would come under the taxation policy of the province. It’s really quite an unnecessary addition to the cost and the bureaucracy, and it is of particular inconvenience to the farmers, who must continue to submit themselves to what I consider to be an unfair, unnecessarily expensive and cumbersome procedure.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief comments on this tax bill. First of all, I want to say that I don’t mind being called “the rump” or “unreasonable” or “irresponsible.” But at least I can look you in the face and say with pride that I’m not supporting Pierre Elliott Trudeau in this federal election campaign.

An hon. member: With pride.

Mr. Samis: I don’t have to defend the Trudeau record over the last 11 years; with pride may I say.

Mr. Nixon: I’m quite proud to be supporting him.

Mr. Samis: Now getting to the gas tax, may I say personally, I think this tax is not the most equitable form of raising taxes. There are other sources I think would be far more equitable than this, for reasons I will give. If you combine all these new taxes with what’s going on in the economy and ask yourself who is really getting hit by it, obviously it’s the average taxpayer in Ontario. Those who have the income or the means can suffer very little consequence from this.

If you look at the overall situation: the cost of energy is going up thanks to our friends Lougheed and Trudeau, the cost of food has gone up 20 per cent in the past year, we are raising the cost of OHIP again, we are raising the price of gasoline, we have just voted to raise the price of tobacco, we have voted to raise the price of liquor and beer, we are talking about higher interest rates, we are talking about higher mortgage rates, we are talking about higher rents in Ontario; and now we are hitting them again in an area they haven’t been hit before, although we realize the cost of using railways has gone up. The cost per passenger has gone up just recently, there was another fare increase by CN. There was a fare increase in this metropolis. Maybe in Brant-Oxford-Norfolk they raised the cost of public transit. I know in my particular community we have a strike by the transit workers right now, and obviously the end result will be a fare increase based on the settlement, and even higher fares because of this.

I want to speak to this bill more, Mr. Speaker, as a somewhat romantic, nostalgic, user and reader of railway lore in Canada. It seems to me if there’s one source of public transportation in this country that is getting the short end of the stick, especially from the federal government and not quite as badly from the provincial, it is the railways.

Look at the investments in our society. We spend $1 billion on a complete white elephant called Mirabel. What do we give the railways? We are prepared to spend another $1 billion on the Pickering plum, with nothing there. What do we do with railways?

Railways are telling us all the time they have to cut back in their passenger services because they just can’t attract the passengers, therefore they raise the rates on the remaining runs to justify it. Mr. Bandeen goes before the federal government and says: “Look; black. Look at that colour; for the first time in 25 years, black.” He appears this year and says: “Two years in a row we have produced the colour black. Aren’t we doing great?” CP prides itself on how they have cut back on passenger services so they can go back to their shareholders and say: “Look at our piggyback service. Look at our other operations.”

The end result is it’s the person who doesn’t have a car or the person who needs public transportation in the small communities beyond Metropolitan Toronto who is deprived of services or has to pay increased rates. I would think the end results of this bill have to be higher fares for public transit in the urban areas and higher fares for interurban transit.

Coming from a small town not close to the metropolis of Toronto, we have to use those public services more than people in Toronto. That means a higher cost of living and it deprives some people of opportunities. I think it would be far better to resort to the income tax or some other form of taxation if we have to raise revenue in something so particular as that.

I know the minister will say, “We have raised the gas tax in the next bill so that hits at the guy who drives and doesn’t depend on it.” We are getting him both ways. I think the end result has to be, as my colleague from Hamilton has mentioned, we are going to pay higher prices for services, higher prices for goods and the government is going to come back and preach to us about the need for restraint in the economy.

They go to a worker and they tell him: “Don’t ask for more than six per cent. You put us in a difficult competitive position in the world.” The worker has to face reality. His energy costs have gone up; his food costs, his OHIP, his gasoline, his tobacco, his liquor, his beer, his interest rate, his mortgage rate, his rent and his transportation costs have all gone up. Then we say: “Restrain yourself. If you ask for more than six per cent, you are causing inflation. You are the source of the problem in the first place.”

Yet he has caused none of those things. In cases like this it’s government that’s causing the inflation, and that’s what I resent about this. It’s not a fair and equitable source of taxing. I think in terms of transportation services, particularly the railway, an interurban railway, this is going to cause further problems for the passengers and for the companies. On that basis I support my colleague from Hamilton and we will oppose this bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think as a sitting member I must put a comment on the record about legislation as regressive as Bill 54. As one who has been observing the actions of this government since 1971, I think the minister will agree this type of tax is somewhat cynical. It is especially cynical coming from this government.

First of all, as my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) mentioned, time and time again we have seen the Premier of this province stand in the House and be critical of the federal government allowing increases in the price of oil coming out of Alberta. He has made many statements in the House, and as my colleague said he has related the increase to loss of jobs in Ontario.

This hasn’t happened only on one occasion, but on many occasions. He has always had some reservations about attacking the enthusiasm or the aggressiveness of Peter Lougheed, but he has never had any qualms about attacking the federal government for allowing the increase.

At least the approach of the federal government had more compassion and equity in it in the sense they were distributing the money from the increase to the provinces; they were subsidizing the provinces which were getting offshore oil. The Premier has consistently criticized the federal government for allowing the increase. Yet here we are just a year or two later, and his own government slaps on a tax as they do in Bill 54. I really think it is a cynical way to be governing this province.

The second thing which makes this approach even more cynical, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, is the fact that in this bill one of the areas that will be hit the hardest is the area of public transportation. If there is one Premier of a province associated with public transportation it is the Ontario Premier himself.

Again we go back to 1971 and how the reputation was made and how the election was won in 1971; the medals that flowed from that and his Krauss-Maffei system and so on. The emphasis was on public transportation, how that was going to be the system of the future and how we should encourage that. In the light of the energy crisis and in the light of decreasing funds for other types of transportation again the Premier emphasized the area of public transportation. Yet here he is, just a few years later, and his government imposes a tax which will increase the rates for public transportation and will discourage people from using the very system he has emphasized and encouraged since his first days as Premier of this province.

So in that light the approach of the government, based on its past performance, based on its past utterances, is purely cynical. If the government wants credibility with the people of Ontario, surely it needs some consistency. It doesn’t have it, and I would think that this minister would be --

Mr. Grande: You are cynical and you are hypocrites.

Mr. Roy: We will talk about who is a hypocrite afterwards. I will be talking about my colleagues to my left.

I say to the minister that he should have some trepidation in proposing this type of legislation in view of the policy, at least of the past utterances by his leader about his support of public transportation and his criticism of increases in the price of oil; yet here is his government taxing it.

As my colleague has said, what do we do? Do we oppose it, defeat the government and have an election? Is that the solution to the problem?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: NDP grandstanding.

Mr. Roy: Is that the approach that should be taken? Is that a responsible approach to be taken in April 1979?

[5:00]

Just last week on television, CJOH in Ottawa, the leader of the NDP was on. He was asked this question, “Mr. Cassidy, when do you expect the next provincial election to take place?” He said, “In spite of our motions of no confidence, I do not expect another provincial election for another year and a half or two years.” He said this publicly on television so, no matter how they rant and rave to my left, basically they know that their leader, as themselves, does not want an election on this.

In fact, what is happening is that because of the responsibility of the Liberal Party in Ontario these people can afford to be foolish and irresponsible.

Mr. Samis: Remember the no-confidence motion of 1975?

Mr. Roy: The approach of this party is basically that an election at this time would be counterproductive. Our commitment on the distribution of income and fair taxation will take place when the people of this province accept a responsible opposition as being capable of forming the government. At that point they will not be looking to people who are bringing forward motions of no confidence every second day.

Mr. Nixon: No way.

Mr. Samis: December 1975. How did you vote in 1975?

Mr. Roy: They should learn a lesson from Bob Stanfield, who said on television recently that one of the things that hurt him in the 1974 election was that he brought forward too many motions of no confidence without enough merit between 1972 and 1974. It is just posturing and they know it. It is not the approach of a responsible opposition.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I was sent here by the people of Wentworth to tell the honourable members opposite what they ought to be doing and what they ought not to be doing. This is a bill they ought not to be bringing in and that is why I am opposing it.

I support, of course, the comments that my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) has made, but I want to concentrate specifically on the imposition of fuel tax on passenger train service. Passenger train service in this country and in this province is already facing serious difficulties. The Via Rail Canada system that the federal friends of those to my right have set up is a good idea in theory, but in fact it is just a masquerade for another series of cutbacks. We are seeing cutbacks in passenger rail service all the time right across the province.

Mr. Samis: How many stop in Parry Sound, Lorne?

Mr. Isaacs: The GO train systems, as set up in this province, is another good system but it is not run efficiently by TATOA, it is not operated efficiently by CN and it is not helped in any way at all by the government of this province.

Mr. Samis: What’s the Social Credit solution?

Mr. Isaacs: We need to make use of railway rights of way. There is plenty of opportunity to provide much needed passenger transportation, intercity and interprovince, on railway rights of way that already exist. If we concentrated on passenger train service then maybe we would not need the new airports that everyone seems to want to build, that is everyone on the other side.

One of the problems we shall face with this imposition of fuel tax on passenger train service is that within weeks we shall have another request for fare increases from the railway companies. Those fare increases will drive more passengers away from our train service, and then there will be requests for further withdrawal of service. We should be moving in the other direction. We should be encouraging people to use train service; we should be extending GO train service to the city of Hamilton and taking some of the buses presently running along the Queen Elizabeth Way creating congestion and pollution off the road and putting those same buses, in the form of light rail vehicles, on the rails to provide improved service over that which exists now.

It seems to me that unless we make positive steps in the direction of passenger transportation, we are going to run out of energy resources and be polluted to death. I think that imposing a fuel tax on train service is a step completely in the wrong direction. I think it is a move that is incredibly reprehensible and I would urge the government to reconsider.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support this bill. I would like to say that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has expressed far more eloquently than I could the apparent hypocrisy of the government in taking a position of derision. Whenever gasoline is mentioned, I hear them often talking to us about our cousins in Ottawa raising the price of gasoline and so on; and now they are undertaking to do it themselves with an increase in taxation.

I wish the government would become a little more practical and a little more reasoned in the position it takes on some of these subjects. The member for Burlington South probably realizes that his government is incapable of taking positions that are reasoned and practical, but I have to tell him this is one issue that is so critical and so fundamental to Ontario that it should be considered in a most reasoned way.

Petroleum is what the wheels of industry, the wheels of travel, individual wheels turn on all over this province. As a matter of fact, we are the greatest consumers of petroleum in all of Canada. We’re a consuming province, and we import 80 per cent of the energy we consume.

The petroleum reality is something that must be understood. If it’s not going to be understood this year, it’s going to be understood in five years’ time by every citizen in this province. The simple fact of the matter is that we as a country now are net importers of petroleum; that is, regardless of the import-export balance that we always maintain, the net result is that we bring in more petroleum into this country than we export. The result of that reality is that we have become extremely vulnerable, simply because we are dependent upon world forces and world prices that are well beyond our control.

The Premier of Ontario can rail away at us about the price of gasoline and the New Democrats in their total lack of understanding of the situation can talk about their warped concept of consumer protection, but the truth is that when the ayatollah, or whoever his counterpart is in the Middle East, decides he is going to tack a couple more dollars a barrel on the price of petroleum, that is exactly what we will pay for it coming into this country. If that’s not a reality we can face as Canadians, surely we can’t face any reality.

Mr. Samis: The ayatollah is not the only one.

Mr. Laughren: What about Alberta petroleum?

Mr. J. Reed: What disturbs me about this kind of politicking that takes place on the part of the government with regard to the price of gasoline is that there’s an alternative. If we were not net importers of petroleum into Canada, then we would not be the victims of world price fluctuation; we do have the power to overcome that, and we’ve got the power right here in Ontario. But what did we hear when the government of Canada authorized the export of two trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the United States over the next 10 years? Not a word from the Minister of Energy in Ontario about the utilization of that natural gas to provide us with a quantity of liquid motor fuel which would --

Mr. Laughren: That was a Liberal government.

Mr. J. Reed: Yes, it was, and I’m critical of them for that. Is it all right for me in Ontario to be critical of the government of Canada? I think it should be.

I am also equally if not more critical of the Minister of Energy of Ontario who knew that energy resource was available, who knows it is available now and who does nothing about it. When he’s approached about the alternative of turning natural gas into liquid fuel, somebody comes along and makes blanket statements about it being uneconomical. If anybody cares to check the wholesale price of methanol from natural gas at the present time, he’ll find it’s beginning to look quite attractive as an additive to motor fuel.

There are some who feel that an additive to gasoline can somehow be injurious to automobiles. One of the pages in the oil companies’ promotion papers has to be the effect of alcohols on internal combustion engines. Just let me point out that in Brazil up to 20 per cent of alcohol is included in all gasoline and has been for many years. There’s nothing new or revolutionary about that.

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes, but they drink it.

Mr. J. Reed: As a matter of fact, it makes the gasoline perform better. I should say there are also 300,000 automobiles in Brazil that run on nothing but alcohol. There are lots of politicians that run on that. The fact is that this alternative is available to us in Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: The minister should go to Brazil and check it out.

Mr. J. Reed: The fact is that we can make use of it if we make up our minds to just head in that direction. The government of Ontario is missing the boat, and as a result we are bound to the world price and world price increases.

Mr. Haggerty: Don’t mention that as a tax or they will be into it.

Mr. J. Reed: Until that condition changes, we will still be faced with price increases for which the Premier of Ontario will criticize those of us who have cousins in Ottawa, who according to the Premier allow that to take place.

Mr. Laughren: A Liberal is a Liberal.

Mr. J. Reed: It just isn’t so. The reality is that until we become self-sufficient once again we are still victims of this situation.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Should we abandon our taxing authority because of that?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate and to support the position taken by the member for Hamilton Mountain in opposition to this increase, especially in relation to the imposition of taxation on railways.

I represent a riding in the north end of which many of the communities are completely dependent upon the railroad; most of the people work for the railroad and most of them have a great deal of respect for the passenger service. The Speaker of this House would be able to explain very well the feelings most railroad men have about passenger service and their tremendous distrust of what governments in this country have done to discourage rather than encourage the maintenance and expansion of the passenger service in this country. This is just one more imposition that is going to make it even more difficult for rail to be a viable alternative to the high-energy-consumption types of transportation we have in this country.

I find this somewhat hard to understand in relation to some of the comments that have been made in the past by Conservatives in northern Ontario. During the last provincial election campaign, I believe when the Premier was in Timmins he made a statement that his government was committed to viable passenger rail service in northern Ontario. As a matter of fact, he stated the government would be willing to look at the possibility of using the Ontario Northland as a method of taking over areas of rail service the federal government abandoned if it were felt to be necessary. He made that as a strong commitment to rail service in this province especially in northern Ontario. Here we have a situation where the government is imposing a tax which can only have the opposite effect.

[5:15]

However, I don’t really find it completely surprising when one considers the response by the government, or lack of it, once it had been returned to a minority government situation after the election. As a matter of fact, just after the election, in the southern part of my riding, the CTC made a recommendation to eliminate the Budd car service between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie. At that time our caucus discussed this. As a matter of fact the federal member for Sault Ste. Marie, my colleague and I appeared before the CTC and opposed that; but they made the decision anyway.

Our caucus discussed it, and during the question period the former member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans), who has been very well represented here today by his successor, got up and asked the Premier what he was going to do to fulfil his commitment on northern Ontario rail service in response to the CTC’s decision to discontinue the Budd car service? The Premier got up and sort of waffled and weasled around, and then said, “We might consider it at some future date.”

We haven’t heard anything about it since. It’s obvious this government isn’t committed to the rail service, either in northern Ontario or in this province in general. We haven’t heard anything further about that, and now we have an imposition of a tax which can only have a detrimental effect on the rail service in general.

I talked to my people in Hornepayne who no longer have a passenger service running on the CN line through northern Ontario. If they want to go by train now they have to travel either by car, or I suppose hitchhike or something, for 60 miles along a terrible highway that is in need of repair to White River. Late at night, about 2 a.m., they have to pick up a CP train.

As a matter of fact, some of them have CN passes and they’re not sure whether they will be covered on the CP. When I tell them this government is imposing a further tax on the fuel for locomotives, I think they’ll understand how little commitment there is.

Mr. Laughren: You make a lot of sense over there from over here, do you know that?

Mr. Wildman: I seem to be driving my colleague to the other side of the House.

The other thing I find that position to be -- I don’t know whether it’s parliamentary but I’ll say it anyway -- is two-faced, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Right on.

Mr. Wildman: One minute they say they’re in favour of a rail service and the next minute, or few months later, they impose a tax which will discourage it.

Then I turn to my colleagues to my right --

Mr. Laughren: Far right.

Mr. Wildman: -- who are saying today they agree we should be encouraging the kinds of transportation in this province which will consume less energy and they deplore this kind of legislation but they must reluctantly support it.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Would you have an election over this?

Mr. Wildman: I don’t want that, I want them to make a decision on principles.

It’s interesting, the member for Ottawa East said that because we knew they weren’t going to vote with us we could be foolish and irresponsible. I think those were the terms he used.

Perhaps in his terms we could be foolish and irresponsible, but it’s obvious from what he said and what his colleagues have said that their position in this House makes it impossible for them to be principled.

Mr. Laughren: Right on.

Mr. Wildman: I wish they would stand up for their principles and vote for what they believe in instead of saying: “We’re against you, but we’re going to have to support you because we’re afraid of an election.” For that reason I’m going to oppose the government and I hope they get the gumption to live by their principles. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: What principles?

Mr. Kerrio: Fine speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: That was the same member, you recall Mr. Speaker, who had all the eloquent comments on the by-election in Sault Ste. Marie.

I just want to make a couple of remarks.

Mr. Wildman: There weren’t too many Liberals there.

Mr. Mackenzie: Class comment, real class comment.

Mr. Peterson: There we have the one member in the whole House who can’t talk about class in any area. He is beneath it even when he goes to the union hall. He’s even an embarrassment to the working movement. He really is.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: I want to make just a couple of points, Mr. Speaker, if you can control the yapping behind me. Could you throw them a bone or something?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member would address his remarks to the bill.

Mr. Roy: He’s right on.

Mr. Peterson: The members think I’m making a wonderful speech.

Let me just say that what bothers me about this tax -- and of course particularly its introduction in concert with the other tax increases -- is that the whole budget was conceived, I think, by the Treasurer putting on a blindfold and by putting a dartboard on the wall with various categories and he threw them all blind and decided somehow, through no particular plan, though no particular rhyme or reason, to raise another $181 million extracted out of the public hide. As I said earlier, it was calculated only for political effect in trying to raise the least amount of hissing, to try to minimize the number of squawks and complaints. So it is a little bit here and a little bit there.

I must say, of all the tax increases, this is the one that I am personally least happy with, for a number of reasons.

Mr. Mackenzie: But you will still support it.

Mr. Peterson: I think the same Premier, the same ministry, the same government that runs around this country protesting vehemently about the price of energy and what it is doing to jobs and to the cost of living in this province, is the very same one sneaking this through, only because, I feel quite confident, he doesn’t feel he is going to be blamed in these particular circumstances. There will be a vague feeling, at least, that it is not the Premier’s fault, it is not the government’s fault, it belongs to some foreign government, i.e., the government of Alberta or the OPEC cartel. He is really riding that one through and taking advantage of a situation to minimize the number of complaints in this area.

I am not very happy about the Treasurer not being here. We are really wasting our time talking to the Minister of Revenue in these circumstances. He is just handed a sheet of paper which says, “Be a good fellow. We will let you keep your $10 licence plates in Parry Sound if you go out and extract this $181 million worth of revenue in the most regressive way we can possibly imagine, if you can extract that out of the public hide.”

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Jealousy will get you nowhere. Wouldn’t you love to sit on this side? Wouldn’t you love to sit over here? But you never will.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: You’ve got their support, it’s all right; don’t worry.

Mr. Peterson: I can say this, if it ever came down to a choice between sitting there and sitting over there it wouldn’t be easy, because I find, frankly, neither of the other parties have any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Mr. MacDonald: Do you know the definition of a Liberal? It’s a person who won’t get in bed with the Tories and hasn’t the guts to be a socialist.

Mr. Peterson: You see, more bathroom humour is coming out of the former leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Grande: You and Marvin Shore.

Mr. Peterson: In my judgement it is clearly an indication of the Treasurer’s confession that he developed his budget by impulse and by intuition. I wish I had seen some more clear direction in this budget. I wish I had seen a greater sense of vision. I wish I had seen him vigorously attack the energy problem in this province.

If he had done it as part of a package to encourage conservation, then one could possibly look at it from a different point of view. If he had finally admitted that we do have a problem, being the highest per capita consumers of energy in this province in the entire world and that we must direct the full scope of government policy into doing something about that, one may justify this kind of action as part of that package. But that is clearly not the case.

This is only a device to slip through another cent and three quarters or two cents a gallon on gasoline, exclusively as a revenue-raising device.

Mr. MacDonald: Your actions speak louder than your words.

Mr. Grande: Justify yourself; you have to be accountable some time.

Mr. Peterson: I certainly don’t have to address these braying hyenas over there on the issue. The issue is one that clearly we are uncomfortable with. We are not prepared at this point to have an election. When we are we will let the NDP know; because when we are we are going to win and they are going to be extinguished. Therefore, I say to them, it would be in their interest to support whatever the Liberal Party does at any given time, because we are going to keep their jobs a little bit longer than they will have them on their individual or collective merit -- given that that isn’t very substantial in either case.

I just wanted to make those two or three remarks because I am concerned about it. If this had been, again, part of a policy working with licence fees, working with certain kinds of taxes on energy -- inefficient vehicles as opposed to energy-efficient vehicles, one could understand some kind of new policies in this area; but coming as it is isolated, coming as it is only as a revenue-raising device, I think on balance it is quite unfair, it is regressive, and in the circumstances highly inflationary.

I would just pass this on to the Minister of Revenue, who is a semi-decent fellow, and I would just ask him to take this message back to the Treasurer. He should use his good offices in cabinet to address the energy problem and he should look at the many aspects of it. If he comes back to this House with a concerted plan of action to cut energy consumption in this province to enhance the provincial balance of payments in the energy area, then he will probably have the universal support of the members of this House -- even the real donkeys in the House, like the member for Hamilton, Hamilton East or whatever.

Failing that, I can just say only that I’m very disappointed. In other circumstances I would like to create an election on this issue, but it’s not appropriate although we will in due course.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the last speaker from the Liberal Party prophesying a bright future for themselves. They seem to have forgotten the lesson of last night, that there isn’t a Liberal government anywhere in Canada. King Canute over here is going to stand against the tide with his finger or something trying to keep it back.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to remind the honourable member we are the second largest Liberal caucus in this country, that’s how great we are.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s how rare they are; we have to recognize the fact there is not a provincial Liberal government left in Canada and he is prophesying something for the future.

I would also like to point out to the House there was another occasion when a tax on fuel was introduced by this government. The matter did not come to a vote but it was withdrawn. I would like to point out to the Liberal Party that if they had voted with us on the motion and the increase in taxes had been defeated, that does not necessarily mean it would have been a motion of no confidence in the government. The government still had the option to come back immediately after that vote and ask for a motion of confidence --

Mr. Wildman: As they have done before.

Mr. Makarchuk: As they have done before. The tax would have been withdrawn, the government would remain and there would not be an election. That option is still open to the Liberal Party, but the fact they have not taken that option says something about where the Liberal Party stands on this question.

I’d like to point out to the minister the result of the increase of fuel tax on rail transportation is something of concern to my constituents. They do not have the advantage of GO transport, which is subsidized to a great extent by the province, but have to use Via Rail to travel between Brantford and Toronto. I have had calls from them that perhaps Via is anticipating the increase and they have increased their fares from $6 to $8 for one day’s fare, that’s coming and going. That’s a pretty hefty increase. I don’t think it reflects the increase in the fuel costs, but that is what is happening and the people are quite upset about the whole thing. You have triggered off that kind of reaction by the railways in imposing this tax and it is causing hardships.

The other point of concern right now is that the big switchover from gallons to litres is going on at this time. The consumer is quite puzzled when he comes to the pumps and sees prices running from 18 point something to about 25 point something per litre. I suppose from the government’s point of view if it is going to slip through a tax in such a way the consumer really doesn’t know how much extra he’s paying, it has selected an excellent time to do it. It’s very difficult for the consumer to find out now exactly what he is paying in terms of what he used to pay when he was buying gas in gallons.

The other matter of concern evolved from watching the CBC program last night on the national election. After they told us all about the Liberal losses in PEI, they said there may be a minority government and there is a possibility that even Joe Clark may be Prime Minister. I could just see Ayatollah Lougheed sitting in the shadows in Alberta rubbing his hands with glee knowing that “let’s-make-a-deal-Joe” is the coziest thing he could possibly have in Ottawa to extract an additional amount of money from the people of Canada. He’s probably looking with some type of envy to see what Ayatollah Khomaini can extract out of the people of this world.

[5:30]

I have no reason to believe that there has been anything in the past to indicate that Ayatollah Lougheed has any concern for the rest of the people of Canada. Could one imagine the boy from High River, who as I understand from a story in the Sun today couldn’t figure out which is his spoon and which is his finger when he is eating clam chowder --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member come back to the province of Ontario legislation?

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes, I am getting right back to it, Mr. Speaker. Could one imagine him trying to defend the people of Canada from an increase in the price of gasoline and oil? It’s impossible to comprehend.

Besides the increase that this minister is imposing, I have a fear that we will have to deal with this increase that will come on in the future. It’s prudent right now to oppose this increase because we can’t take a chance on what’s going to happen in the future. Let’s deal with what we have right here. We have no choice but to oppose this thing at this time.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill to express the same type of frustration that my colleague the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), expressed. This bill is almost like trying to chase the tax collector off the front porch with a pitch fork. We are not really getting to the nub of the problem and yet it is frustrating enough to make one stand up and yell: “When is it all going to stop?”

The bill itself overlooks two very important aspects. It flies right in the face of an alleged or supposed policy of the government for conservation of energy. What happens is that the major producers in automobile industry invent a diesel engine. They put that diesel engine in a vehicle that Mr. Average Ontario can afford. I will come back to Mr. Average Ontario in a minute; he is the person who pays all the bills. Mr. Average Ontario buys a recreational vehicle to pull his trailer and to take his family on a vacation to a provincial park where the government has upped the prices so that he can’t even get in. He wants to explore Ontario and what happens? The government increased his gasoline tax right at the pump.

Interjection.

Mr. Stong: The diesel tax. The government increased the tax on the diesel fuel that goes into this vehicle that has been converted to conserve energy to a diesel engine that he buys to have a holiday. He pays that extra money at the pumps every time he pulls up. He will be remembering the government. Mr. Average Ontario is the man who is paying the bills and who wants to enjoy this great province and what this great province offers, and the government put another obstacle in his path.

I say that this particular tax and the next bill indicate an insensitivity to the demands of the people in the province of Ontario, and they won’t forget it. Our real difficulty in having to support this is tantamount to saying, “Why punch the cashier when the real culprit, the owner, is hiding in the back room?” In that sense we are forced to support it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the position of this party has been put extremely well by my colleague, so I will be most brief.

Mr. Nixon: Go over it one more time.

Mr. Laughren: I would say without hesitation that I stand in opposition to this bill.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You do? You promised me when you were sitting here that you were going to support it.

Mr. Laughren: It’s a dumb tax; of course we are going to oppose it and we are going to divide on it. I know full well why the government knew that it could get away with putting this tax increase through. The Liberals have told us already they don’t want an election. Therefore, I ask, is there anything that this government couldn’t impose on the people of Ontario until the Liberal Party feels it is ready for an election? There is probably nothing that it couldn’t impose that they wouldn’t accept.

Mr. Nixon: We stopped the OHIP premium increase. You people have lost your credibility by this procedure.

Mr. Laughren: Then going into oil and gas: my goodness, the minister’s federal colleague, Sinclair Stevens, had the definite line the other day I thought. He could have been talking about the Liberal policy on oil and gas pricing. I will paraphrase Mr. Stevens, the Tory finance critic, if I might -- I understand he will not be that for long. I am paraphrasing and these were not his exact words, but he said giving the Ontario Liberals a voice in the pricing or the taxing of oil and gas is like asking the Boston strangler to straighten your tie. He wasn’t exactly referring to the Ontario Liberals, but nevertheless the point is this party in Ontario simply doesn’t have a consistent policy on oil and gas except to support what the federal Liberals would do, namely to raise the price.

We have no hesitation whatsoever in saying we are opposed to this tax. We are opposed to it on any number of grounds. When you add this tax increase to the rent increases going on in Ontario; the liquor, tobacco, OHIP premium increases; the land transfer tax increase; the increase in transit fares and the price of food in the last year; the impact this has on public transit systems; the impact it has on rail service all across Ontario; the added burden for people in northern Ontario who must drive greater distances; and the failure to talk about conservation when it comes to the taxation of oil and gas; we have no hesitation in saying we are adamantly opposed to this bill. Therefore we are dividing on it, as well as the next one we will be debating in this chamber. This is simply another tax grab.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member who wishes to participate in the debate? If not, the honourable minister.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief; I think we want to vote before six. All of the questions posed by the NDP have been answered by the Liberals, and all of the questions posed by the Liberals have been answered by the NDP, so really I have a soft touch here.

I really don’t have much to say except that this, as I indicated in the last bill, is part of the overall package of the budget, and certainly it is to raise funds. Members opposite demand policy, they demand programs and somebody has to pay for it. We have to find it some way to finance and we have tried to find it in as many different ways as we can. We could have hit one sector or another sector for all of the money we needed.

Mr. Grande: You hit them all.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: So we hit them all for a little bit, right; and that is the only way a government can do it and be fair.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk referred to gasoline tax rebates. That really doesn’t come under this particular bill but we may discuss that in the next one. It will give the member something to speak about on the next bill, he can repeat it.

I believe the member for Erie wanted to know if the fuel tax on railways included all railroad engines. It includes CN, CPR, ONR, ACR and GO Transit, if they are on rails. It does not, of course, include railways within mine properties. Private railways are not included. It is on the publicly-owned railways.

Mr. Kerrio: What is the difference?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The difference is one is public and the other is private. Our policy is not to tax private ones, it’s that simple.

One of the things most of the Liberals have spoken about on several occasions is the fact we complain when the price of oil at the wellhead goes up and we criticize the federal government. I don’t think we should stand back and allow our tax fields to disappear in order to allow them to raise the price of oil at the wellhead. We don’t have to abandon our tax field because of that.

It has been a considerable time since any of these taxes were raised. The price of everything has gone up and there is no reason these taxes shouldn’t go up the amount they have.

Mr. Peterson: Are they going to keep going up every year?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, they will not go up every year. They have not gone up every year. The gasoline tax has not risen since 1972. This one had a raise of one cent in 1978. So we have not been consistently raising fuel taxes.

The honourable members must remember that the federal government put a 10-cent excise tax on. I would not want the federal taxes to be confused with the provincial taxes. I want to be sure the right people are blamed, so do not forget about that 10-cent excise tax.

It is obvious that this matter has to come to a vote. I think I have answered most of the queries that were not answered by each opposing party as the debate took place.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Maeck’s motion for second reading of Bill 54, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Belanger, Bernier, Blundy, Bradley, Breithaupt, Brunelle, Campbell, Conway, Cunningham, Cureatz, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Elgie, Epp, Gaunt, Gregory, Haggerty, Hall, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Jones.

Kerr, Kerrio, Lane, Leluk, Maeck, Mancini, McCaffrey, McGuigan, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Miller, F. S., Newman, B., Nixon, Norton, O’Neil, Parrott, Peterson, Pope, Ramsay, Reed, J., Riddell.

Rotenberg, Rowe, Roy, Ruston, Scrivener, Smith, S. Smith, G. E., Snow, Stephenson, Sterling, Stong, Sweeney, Taylor, G., Van Hrne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Worton.

Nays

Bounsall, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Davidson, M., Davison, M.N., di Santo, Dukszta, Foulds, Germa, Gigantes, Grande, Isaacs, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lawlor, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Makarchuk, McClellan, Philip, Renwick, Samis, Swart, Warner, Wildman, Ziemba.

Ayes 66; nays 28.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.