GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, as some of the members may recall, at the time the debate was adjourned we had just started into the speech made by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa. Although that speech was rather well dissected by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), there were certain salient points he left out and I would like to bring them to the attention of this House. He did mention that the government is trumpeting the second lowest tax rate in this country. We all know that is when the rates we presently pay for OHIP premiums are not included, which bring us up to number one position across the country.

I would like to talk a little about the Treasurer's comments to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa. He talks specifically about the ad valorem tax increase. He says: "We have been accused of cashing in on oil price increases because under our new indexed price system we will benefit from price increases for oil. Quite simply, the cost of government justifies an increase and with inflation, unit prices were not working well."

Here we have a minister of the crown explaining that the reason he is bringing in this very inflationary tax is because the government has not been able to balance its budget because of inflation. We have a problem of inflation already. He is bringing in an ad valorem gas tax, which is an inflationary technique, and he justifies it by saying that the government cannot cope with inflation. I say this is a catch-22 argument and the minister could have chosen many other ways to cope with his inflationary problems that have been created by the very government he purports to represent.

Likewise, he talks about the situation in the United States: "A person in the US whose income did not go up as fast as inflation found his or her taxes going up in actual dollars paid. We in Canada did the opposite, indexing the tax rate as incomes were raised to match inflation. As a result, revenues for the provinces do not go up as quickly as inflation, yet costs often do, and to meet them I have to stand up and announce periodically that I am raising taxes."

Heaven forbid that he should have to stand up and announce that he is raising taxes. I was under the impression the reason we people were elected to the Legislature was so that we would stand up once in a while and say what we were going to do rather than hiding it in the insidious form of a tax increase that merely takes advantage of inflation. Here we have the very minister whose remarks imply that he does not like to stand up and say he has to raise taxes. Nobody likes to stand up and say he has to raise taxes. In this case, we have a government that lacks the guts to do so and instead has chosen this form of taxation so that the average taxpayer will not know that this government has chosen to profit from inflation.

Then the Treasurer goes on to say, and I find this rather questionable to say the least, "It may not be as popular a method as President Reagan's but I believe it is more honest and fair to the taxpayer." What is honest and what is fair about an ad valorem tax which permits the government to raise taxes without actually standing up in the House and telling this Legislature what it intends to do to accrue the funds and what it intends to do with the money it is getting?

This is a very unfair form of taxation. For the minister to say it is not a popular form of taxation -- it is a hidden form of taxation. It is a form of taxation against which the people of this province have no recourse. If this government had to stand up in the House every year over the next four years and say, "Yes, we are going to raise the taxes," the people of this province would know what it is they were voting for or against. As it is now, they do not even have the choice, because this government has chosen to build in an inflationary ad valorem tax which merely rides on the backs of the already burdened taxpayers of this province.

"As we pointed out in 1976," the Treasurer goes on, "the deficit can and should be eliminated, but it must be reduced gradually and that is what we are doing." That was 1976. This is 1981. I do not know whether five years is not gradual in government terms, but my understanding was that a previous minister had promised to balance the budget at this time, but that promise has gone the way of the other promises that this government made to the taxpayers of Ontario prior to March 19. The moment it got its mandate it zapped them with an increase in personal income taxes, zapped them with an increase in OHIP premiums and zapped them with an increase in the ad valorem tax.

The Treasurer calls it part of his balancing act. In fact, that is a balancing act, but the only time I have ever seen a balancing act it was done by a clown in a circus. I think that reference made by the minister is a very apropos reference, because that is what he is attempting to do. He is attempting to create a balancing act which is another illusion for the people of Ontario, an illusion that this government says it is doing a good job when we all know it is not doing a good job.

Mr. Stokes: The member is calling him a dishonest clown.

Ms. Copps: I am calling him a clown who has a balancing act which is not allowing the truth to be known to the people of Ontario.

That is what the Treasurer had to say to the Men's Canadian Club. I think we can hang him with his own words. That was post-election. Let us hear what the Treasurer had to say pre-election.

On February 20, speaking to the Niagara chapter of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, he said: "As Treasurer of Ontario I am the person responsible for balancing the books and reducing the deficit. In that role, if I may be permitted the opportunity to crow a bit, we have been extremely successful, beyond our own expectations. I think it is wrong and ultimately self-defeating to preach or practise the economics of doom and gloom in Ontario."

I would suggest the economics of doom and gloom are just what this government has brought in with the ad valorem tax. It is certainly a woeful day for Ontario when this government has used its majority to usurp the mandate that it was given by the people of Ontario by bringing in a base of taxation which is not accountable to the taxpayers and is not accountable to the Legislature.

On April 22, 1980, in his budget speech he said: "Stability in our major tax rates is an essential part of the government's fiscal strategy. The dividend flowing from the sound fiscal management of the government of William G. Davis is that I can announce that there will be no tax increases in 1980-81."

That was terrific. In 1980 he was trumpeting the philosophy of sound fiscal management with no major tax increases, but we must remember that 1980 was the leadup year to the election. It was important for the minister and the government to let the people of Ontario know that they were going to keep the promise. They were going to keep the promise of no tax increases and sound fiscal management up until March 19. As the Premier is prone to say, "We are now experiencing the realities of March 19." Those realities are that sound fiscal management and no major tax increases have gone right out the window and are being replaced by the very kind of taxation that we see in this ad valorem tax.

I would like to continue with the Treasurer's comments. In a statement to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on April 29, 1980, he talked about the deficit, and I quote:

"I felt comfortable in allowing this increase for a number of reasons, because we are well within the deficit reduction targets I laid out last year. In a year of sluggish, economic performance, I do not think it is inappropriate to allow some increase in the deficit" -- and this is in 1980 -- "because the deficit is well within our capacity to finance from what we call nonpublic borrowing sources, for example, the Canada pension plan and the Ontario teachers' superannuation fund."

I think there are many recipients of the Canada pension plan who would not exactly call that nonpublic borrowing. Nevertheless, he has announced his intention to increase the deficit because he feels it is well within our capacity to absorb in a year of sluggish economic performance. That was in 1980. In 1981, it is with that very sluggish economic performance that he justifies the need to bring in major tax increases, including the ad valorem tax increase on the people of Ontario.

8:10 p.m.

On June 2, when the minister was addressing the Automobile Dealers Association of Ontario -- obviously an association close to the minister's heart -- he said, "Having gazed into my crystal ball, I can assure you auto sales in Canada are bright and prosperous."

I would say the Treasurer and this government are just using a crystal ball. They are trying to bring in new revenue sources by the kind of magic, trickery, balancing act and crystal ball they have been using over the last four years and no doubt will continue to use and abuse with their majority.

On June 23, 1980, the minister spoke to the Meals on Wheels provincial conference and said, "The most important area that poses a major threat to the income security of our senior citizens, the number one priority for this ministry and this government in 1980" -- pre-election -- "is coping with inflation."

If that was the number one priority for this government and this ministry in allowing seniors to cope with inflation in 1980, why is it in 1981, as soon as they get a majority, a mandate from the people of Ontario to carry out good government and to apply those principles of coping with inflation, one of the first things they do is add an inflationary tax in the form of the ad valorem tax?

I am sorry the Treasurer is not here tonight but I am sure his representatives on the other side of the House will carry our remarks to him. On November 5, 1980, he stated, "Our overall financial position" -- and remember this is pre-election -- "is still strong despite the slower economic conditions which have prevailed so far this year."

Why is it a mere five months before the election, a mere five months before the realities of March 19, the minister can stand in this Legislature and say our overall financial position is still strong and yet a mere five months later he feels the position is so weak he has to increase personal income tax, strike an insidious ad valorem tax and increase the Ontario health insurance plan premiums merely to make ends meet?

I can only anticipate from this that either the minister was misleading the House when he spoke on November 5, 1980, or he is misleading the House today. I would like to know what the true financial picture of this government is. Is it strong or is it weak? Do we have to dig deeper into the pockets of the taxpayers of Ontario or is our position strong enough that we would have been able to carry on without the increased ad valorem tax and the increase in personal income tax?

It upsets me a little because I have always heard people talk about how they cannot believe what politicians say. I was one of those people who did believe that when politicians spoke in the House they meant what they said.

I cannot understand why on September 4, 1980, the minister said: "Our number one concern is an adequate supply of new jobs in the right place at the right time. Our second concern is the problem of energy pricing and the third pressing problem is the need to curb inflation." The minister articulated three priorities for his government. The number two and number three priorities include grappling with the problem of energy pricing and curbing inflation.

Yet one of the first things done by the new government is to increase the inflationary spiral by bringing in the ad valorem tax without even taking a look at what this government is doing or not doing in terms of energy pricing. There is no provision in the tax to allow consumers of Ontario to expect renewable resources to be available in the near future.

There is no provision for development of alternative fuel sources, renewable and nonrenewable. There is no provision for any fuel guarantee for the people of Ontario. In fact, all there is is an increase in the tax which will add to the inflationary spiral. I am getting two messages here and I want to know which message is the one this government really believes in.

On October 7, 1980, the minister stated to the Legislature, "Control of inflation is critical to economic performance." It is beyond me how a minister of the crown can stand there on October 7, 1980, before the election -- we must remember that we are gearing up to the writs -- and say that is his government's number one priority, when in fact the first step he takes as a minister in the new sitting of the Legislature is to increase inflation.

Mr. Stokes: If I were the member speaking now I would take exception to the fact that the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) is occupying the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) when she wants his undivided attention.

Ms. Copps: Very well spoken.

In 1980 the minister also stated, "I put forward three priority issues for discussion: the need to curb inflation, the resolution of the energy issue and the need for selective economic stimulation to create jobs."

I know most of the people on the government side are not very interested, because they will pass this bill regardless of what we think. But I think I am speaking for the people in my riding and many people across Ontario when I say they are not happy with this proposed tax. I ask again why the minister stood in the House on October 7, 1980, and stated, "Substantial personal and corporate tax increases are not appropriate to this recessionary period and will not contribute to national economic growth".

The minister stands in the House on October 7, 1980, and says substantial personal tax increases are not appropriate to this recessionary period, and a mere five months later he stands up in the House to speak in favour of those very inflationary and difficult taxes for the people of Ontario.

I might recall to mind the words of the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who says he wonders whether the government had an alternative motive in the comments that were made in this Legislature last October leading up to the by-election. The minister said on October 30, 1980, "I am happy with the fact that the government" -- that is, the federal government -- "has chosen not to increase direct personal income taxes." He is very happy that the federal government has not chosen to increase personal income taxes, because it has allowed him the opportunity to do it himself.

But contrast that to his comment in the budget speech, his version in 1981: "The province's revenue needs are not being adequately met by our current tax structure. The inadequacy of revenue reflects, to a considerable degree, the many tax reductions implemented in recent years."

On the one hand, when the federal government introduces its budget the minister says he is very happy there is no personal tax increase; on the other hand, he decries the fact that the province's revenue needs are not being met because of the many tax reductions in recent years.

Why did the issue of tax reduction not arise before March 19? Why did the minister not trumpet it while he was on the hustings? Why did he not go to the people of Ontario, as he does to the people in this gallery, and say, "I am not happy with the many tax increases; they are cutting into our revenue resources"? Why was it not talked about during the last election?

This government does not have the integrity to talk about those kinds of things. As the minister himself said, it is very difficult and undesirable for him to stand in this House and raise taxes. He would rather do it in an indexed fashion so the people of Ontario are not aware that every time the price of oil goes up in Alberta and every time the Alberta government tries to profit in an inflationary fashion from its resource sector the government of Ontario is going to be right in there. Not only will it be right in there, but it will be profiting to a greater extent than the government of Alberta. It makes me laugh.

Si vous préférez je vais le dire en français, parce que je sais très bien que vous ne comprenez pas le français et si je parle en français, vous n'avez pas tant à dire que j'ai déjà dit cela. Alors je vais continuer en français. Il faut que je répète tout ce que j'ai dit alors. Commençant avec ce que M. Miller a dit le 29 avril 1980 à l'Association des manufacturiers canadiens. Il dit "j'étais confortable en laissant cette augmentation...

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That's the third time.

Ms. Copps: Je ne fais pas de répétition. Comme vous le savez, Monsieur --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Oh mais oui, la troisième.

Ms. Copps: Non, ce n'est pas la troisième fois.

S'il peut répéter, raconter trois fois ce que j'ai dit j'aimerais bien le savoir.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Quatrième, as a matter of fact.

8:20 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the minister has instances of where I have spoken on this bill in a repetitive nature, I would now ask him to stand and articulate them. He cannot articulate them because it is not true.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member for Hamilton Centre this is not question period. I was asking, as Speaker, if you would use your good parliamentary judgement --

Ms. Copps: I am using my parliamentary judgement in saying the government is repetitive in its hypocrisy across the province. I have to repeat what was said by some ministers on numerous occasions leading up to the last election. Again, it is the old changeover story.

Mr. Wrye: Go ahead, speak French. They don't understand.

Ms. Copps: We have talked about the budget speech in 1981 and the Treasurer's comments in contrast with 1980. I would like to talk about some of the things he said in his budget speech of 1980. One can say he is forced to respond to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Heaven forbid that he should go to the automobile dealer associations and say what he really thinks. So maybe he can make a case for saying something a little different outside the House than he says inside the House.

But let us go back to what he said in the budget speech of 1980, just one year before the election in which the whole story was changed:

"Stability in our major tax rate is an essential part of government's fiscal strategy. The dividend flowing from a sound fiscal management of government, the government of William G. Davis, is that I can announce there will be no tax increases in 1980-81."

That was terrific. The people of Ontario received that message with joy. There was going to be no tax increase because this government --

Mr. Brandt: That was the fiscal year end.

Ms. Copps: Yes pre-election. This government felt stability in major tax rates was an essential part of its fiscal strategy. It seems to me the fiscal strategy is not relating to the fiscal plan for the 1980s but the fiscal strategy leading up to March 19, 1981. Once that strategy was achieved, sound fiscal management went right out the window and it was replaced by the ad valorem tax and personal income tax increases and OHIP premium increases.

Let us contrast the comments from the budget speech in 1980 with the comments from the budget speech of 1981. In 1980 -- sound fiscal management; 1980 -- stability in major tax rates. In 1981: "The province's revenue needs are not being adequately met by our current tax structure." That very stable tax structure in 1980 which gave the minister so much joy to announce there would be no tax increases is the same tax structure. It is this same Legislature in which this same minister says: "Our revenue needs are not being adequately met by current tax structures. The inadequacy of revenues reflects to a large extent the many tax reductions implemented in recent years."

Members may think I am being too harsh, but after all, the only quotes I have used so far are from one minister of the crown. Maybe it can be said the Treasurer is an aberration -- a rarity in the Conservative Parliament. Maybe he is the only person who is a flip-flopper on tax issues, and maybe he is the only person who changes his very words and his very promise to the people of Ontario pre- and post-election. Maybe he is the only government minister who does that. Unfortunately, I had to search through my files and find out what other ministers and other members of the government were saying.

I would like to go back. We cannot blame him. In 1980 the heat was breathing down on him --

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Copps, just to remind you, I am confident you will work in other ministers' comments in terms of the bill before us.

Ms. Copps: Everything I have said to date has related to the ad valorem tax. Every statement I have made and will make is related to the ad valorem and the basic tax structure and the change in the tax structure that this government is advocating.

It can be said that in 1980, because the government knew the election period was breathing down on it, perhaps it had to modify its position or articulate a position that was a little less harsh and a little less difficult for the taxpayers of Ontario to follow. So let us hear not only what they said in 1980, let us go back to 1977. Let us hear what the former Minister of Energy, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), told the Legislature on April 1, 1977 -- and I will make no reference to the fact that it was April Fool's Day.

Mr. Stokes: Who?

Ms. Copps: The former Minister of Energy, on April Fool's Day in 1977. I quote: "We are opposed to any increase in the price of oil and natural gas because the stated objective of this annual escalation -- that of ensuring security of supply through expanded exploration and development -- has not been met. We are opposed because it will create further unemployment. We are opposed because it further fuels inflation. The public is fed up and rightly so. The public is prepared to make sacrifices, but only if those sacrifices deliver results."

Mr. Sheppard: No, it is not.

Ms. Copps: I am glad the member said that, because these comments were not my comments. They were the comments of one of the ministers of the crown. So I trust the member will express his position at the next caucus meeting.

Here we have a government and a minister who have said they will not --

Mr. Brandt: What year was that again?

Ms. Copps: April 1, 1977.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Not exactly current history.

Mr. Sheppard: What date was it? April Fool's Day?

Ms. Copps: April Fool's Day, right. The minister is stating that he and his government will not support any tax increases in the resource sector that are not tied into --

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: April Fool's Day. If the member is not familiar with that, I am surprised.

The minister and his government are opposed to any further increases in the resource sector unless they are tied to exploration of other sources of oil and gas and also because they add to inflation and stifle job creation. I would submit that the very positions articulated by the former Minister of Energy on April 1, 1977, apply to this ad valorem tax today. In fact, it is an inflationary tax. It is a tax that is not tied to the stated objective of ensuring supply through expanded exploration, and it is a tax for a public that is fed up, and rightly so, because the stated objectives of the tax will not deliver the kinds of results the public expects in terms of resource development.

I would like to talk about what that same minister told the federal-provincial energy ministers' conference. He said: "We are opposed to increases in the price of oil." The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) should listen to what the people of Windsor and Essex county who suffered all those layoffs were told. 'We are influenced by the expectations of the unemployed. We are influenced by the concerns of Ontarians hard pressed by persistent inflation, by the negative effect on the competitive capability of Ontario's industry and the effect on job creation of the worsened ability of industry to compete." That is the former Minister of Energy talking about increases in the price of oil.

Mr. Stokes: What is he doing now?

Ms. Copps: I do not know but he has been removed. Again, this may be the final comment that drove him out of that position. I am not sure because I was not here at the time. But on May 11, 1977, the former Minister of Energy says, and I quote, "It would be downright irresponsible to escalate prices at this stage of the economic recovery in Canada." The minister said it would be downright irresponsible, but I guess he was just waiting for the right opportunity; downright irresponsible pre-election, downright irresistible post-election.

8:30 p.m.

But it is not only the member for Prince Edward-Lennox. Let's face it, he paid his dues and his forthright and righteous comments were duly rewarded --

Mr. Stokes: He paid the price, he did not pay his dues.

Ms. Copps: He was duly rewarded, okay?

Let's hear what the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) had to say. So far, the Minister of Culture and Recreation has not gone the way of his colleague in cabinet, but I am not quite sure how he got away with some of these comments. On June 20, 1978, he said, "We have made strong representation against any price increases while the economy is soft, unemployment is high and inflation is still not under control." That was 1978. In my understanding, the inflation rate is worse than ever, yet this government sees nothing hypocritical and nothing dishonest in introducing the kind of tax that so many ministers were quick to condemn a mere three years ago.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. Carry on, Ms. Copps.

Ms. Copps: Peut-être que ça serait mieux si je continue en -- Excusez-moi, je vais continuer en français. Je vais continuer en français seulement pour donner un peu de différence. Il y avait un autre commentaire qui était fait par le ministre James Auld le 25 août 1978. Il dit que l'Ontario voit que l'augmentation de l'huile et du gaz naturel, qu'il n'est pas relié à notre sécurité d'approvisionnement, c'est inflationnaire, c'est contre la création d'emplois et c'est un autre facteur qui joue contre l'industrie canadienne et notre compétitivité. C'est ça qu'il a dit le ministre James Auld le 25 août 1978. Excusez-moi, j'ai du mal avec les noms parce que je parle tout le temps en italien. Ça serait peut-être préférable si je parle en italien, parce qu'en français je n'ai pas beaucoup de pratique.

[Remarks in Italian]

Let's hear what the Premier (Mr. Davis) told the Ontario Progressive Conservative Campus Association. This is a very right-wing group so it is understandable that he should have to tailor his views to the likes of --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Ms. Copps, I remind you that there are two languages that can be used. The third is not allowed.

Ms. Copps: Let's hear what Davis says to the Ontario PC Campus Association.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Premier.

Ms. Copps: Excuse me, the member for Brampton, I think it is, isn't it?

He may even be to the left of the Ontario PC Campus Association, but I am not sure. Would members agree that the member for Brampton is probably to the left of the Ontario PC Campus Association? He said, "There is only so much you can take out of the economy by means of energy price increases before that economy begins to suffer and to suffer seriously."

Them's fightin' words spake by the member for Brampton on September 15, 1979, with respect specifically to energy price increases. Yet a mere year and a half later -- and I do not know whether that was just more pre-election propaganda -- we lead up to these insidious ad valorem increases. I do not know; it is enough to discourage any new member, because one just cannot believe what people say.

Mr. Boudria: Do not be discouraged. We will cheer you up.

Ms. Copps: This is very serious business. I would like everyone to hear what the Premier said when he stood in the Legislature as the member for Brampton on October 16, 1979, and stated, as reported at page 3521 of Hansard:

"I could find no honest consensus that significant oil price increases by themselves lead effectively to reduced consumption ... The only thing we do know is that a massive increase in the price of oil can stall economic activity and slash employment growth."

Interjection.

Ms. Copps: Excuse me, if the member wants to direct the Speaker, he probably would be better to do it in another place or to speak out a little louder.

Those words of the Premier were spoken on October 16, 1979, and again on November 12, 1979. The member for Brampton went to the first ministers' conference on oil and natural gas and took a very tough position vis-à-vis the positions already being staked out by the other ministers.

What was the member's tough position? "An excise tax increase now would not complement a rational fight against inflation. It would only make matters worse. We will remain opposed to energy price increases until there is a plan in place to achieve national oil self-sufficiency, avert an unnecessary recession, avert undue hardship on the consumer and support industrial development."

Mr. Stokes: Who said that?

Ms. Copps: That was said by the member for Brampton on November 12, 1979, to the first ministers' conference on oil and natural gas.

Mr. Stokes: Who is the member for Brampton?

Ms. Copps: The Premier. On November 12, 1979, the Premier told the first ministers' conference that he would only accept oil and natural gas price increases if they were tied to those factors: control of an unnecessary recession, control or aversion of undue hardship to the consumer, support of industrial development and a plan in place to achieve national oil self-sufficiency.

In this proposal to hike taxes through the ad valorem increase, there is no provision for oil or natural gas energy self-sufficiency.

We have four people now -- the Treasurer, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), a former Minister of Energy, the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), also a former Minister of Energy, and the Premier -- who are the only ones who have spoken out in such a double-talking manner in that they change their positions depending upon when the election will be held. That is only four, but we have 66 others, and I think I have most of them quoted here; so I trust the House will bear with me.

Let us hear what the other ministers have to say. Let us hear what the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) told the Canadian Energy Conference in Alberta: "Surely it is responsible to expect that our objective to attain energy self-sufficiency in oil as soon as possible will not be turned into a mechanism for simply expanding the cash flow of the government." That is what the Minister of Energy told the Canadian Energy Conference in Banff, Alberta: he would not use energy price increases to expand the cash flow of the government.

Contrast that with the comments made by the minister when he justified the ad valorem tax increase by saying the present tax structure did not allow them basically to profit from inflation. We have two kinds of points of view here: a pre-election point of view, a post-election point of view, a pre-budget point of view and a post-budget point of view.

It all points to one thing; it points to the fact we have a government that tells one thing to the voters simply to achieve a goal. The strategy is not fiscal responsibility; the strategy is re-election. I think the fact that the ad valorem tax increase was brought in in such an insidious way so soon after a mandate from the people of Ontario is testament to the fact that this government is not interested in good government; it is interested in ramrodding through its position soon enough so that, it hopes, the taxpayers will forget four years down the road.

8:40 p.m.

Let us hear what the Premier told the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce meeting on September 27, 1979.

It is interesting when the members opposite hear these remarks coming back at them, is it not?

"There may be evidence that the price increases we have experienced are encouraging more energy self-sufficiency in our society. However, there is no honest consensus that significant oil price increases by themselves lead effectively to reduced consumption. The only thing--"

Mr. Haggerty: If only we had the press here to take all this down, it would make headlines tomorrow.

Ms. Copps: This is not this member speaking; this is the Premier: "The only thing we do know is that massive increases in the price of oil can stall economic activity and slash employment growth. To choose that course when other options are available would be tantamount to restoring bleeding as the medical cure-all."

For those members who do not understand, the Premier is suggesting, I think by reference, that bleeding was not a medical cure-all. The implication is that an increase in oil or gas prices will stall economic activity and is comparable to the use of bleeding to cure medical problems.

That was an analogy drawn by the Premier when he spoke to the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce meeting on October 27, 1979. Far be it from me to stand in this House and tell the members the ad valorem gas tax is the kind of insidious tax I think it is. I do not need to tell members; I only have to quote the government's own ministers and their own Premier. They have hanged themselves with their own words. That draws me to the story I started off with, but I do not want to get into that now.

Again, when the Premier spoke to the Ontario Municipal Electric Association and the Association of Municipal Electric Utilities --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: This was not pre-election; this was during the election. This is where we hear the real truth, the truth and nothing but the half-truths.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: You liked that.

Ms. Copps: I did. I enjoyed it. I hope the members did too, because they will be hearing more of it.

This is what they were saying their broad policy and purpose was with respect to price and supply of oil and natural gas; listen to this:

"Our broad policy purpose will not change. It was and is the three-pronged objective of adequate and secure supplies at reasonable price. We did not compromise our position with the Clark government" -- although I notice the members opposite all got together at the picnic on the weekend.

Interjection.

Ms. Copps: The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) may not have known about it, but I think one of the members --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You certainly did a great job this weekend compromising your position.

Ms. Copps: Yes, there were a few noted in the paper who did get together with the very Clark government they did not want to get together with.

The Premier said, "We did not compromise our position with the Clark government" -- not the Conservative government, but the Clark government; obviously he could not say "Conservative" and "Clark" in the same breath, because he may have been echoing a political reality -- "and it would be an error to assume that we will compromise it with the new government. To compromise on that policy would be to compromise the future of the people of Ontario, and that we will never do."

Is that not lovely?

This is what the Premier said: "I have no doubt that prices will increase but, equally, no one will be left in doubt as to the Ontario position. Price increases without commensurate improvement in supply security and appropriate distribution of oil-related revenues will be opposed."

That was taken from notes for an address by the Premier on March 4, 1980.

He continued: "We will continue to resist windfall profits for provincial treasuries and petroleum companies." I submit that the ad valorem tax is nothing but that: windfall profits for provincial treasuries. Not only have ministers spoken out against them, but even the Premier in his comments has stated time and again that he will not support windfall profits for provincial treasuries. I do not know what he calls this tax, and it is unfortunate that he is not here in the House to respond, because I am sure he would have various and sundry ideas, depending upon the point of view that was being put forth and what he was expected to talk about.

I guess we will have to go back to the Minister of Energy and what he told the Canadian Energy Conference on November 15, 1979. This has to be the classic; this is really good -- and one wonders why voters and taxpayers get jaded and why they feel that governments and political people do not speak out for what they believe in:

"Surely it is reasonable to expect that our objective to attain self-sufficiency in oil as soon as possible will not be converted into a mechanism for simply expanding the cash flow of the government."

That is what the Minister of Energy said on November 15, 1979. He does not want the government to use oil and gas revenues simply as a mechanism for expanding government cash flow.

I submit that this ad valorem tax is simply that: a mechanism for expanding government cash flow with no concurrent responsibility. There are no strings attached. Every time the price goes up, the government will get proportionately more money (1) without having to stand up in the House and announce the tax increase and (2) without having to be accountable for energy self-sufficiency.

Let us listen again to what the Treasurer had to say when he was responding to the federal budget on December 13, 1979. And, my goodness, it fatigues even me to keep reading over and over again comments that are in direct opposition to the position articulated in this budget with respect to the ad valorem tax, to hear the same ministers in the House and in the streets of this country and this province talk about how they are going hold the line and how they are not going to let Alberta take any more oil and gas revenues out of this country, and then to see them turn around and do the same things themselves the minute they are elected.

Mr. Brandt: The money is going to the people of Ontario.

Ms. Copps: The money is going to the people of Ontario? I am happy that the former Liberal mentioned this point, because I am sure that the people of Ontario will be very happy to find out that when they are paying an extra two cents, three cents and five cents at the gas pumps, they are getting the money. I was under the impression that they were paying it, but I understand that they are getting it. Okay. Maybe the member can stand up on this budget debate and explain how they are getting it. The fact of the matter is that he does not have the guts to stand up in the House and articulate his position; so he had better not speak. I hope he will stand up and speak to this ad valorem tax and tell us how it is going to give so much money to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: I will debate with the member any time, anywhere.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: I am inviting the member to get up and speak to it.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: I am hoping that the member does get up and speak to this, because I for one will be very interested in the mental acrobatics that he will have to go through if he is going to justify to the people of Ontario the comment that this ad valorem tax is going to be giving them money. Forgive me if I have missed the logic, but I just do not grab it.

8:50 p.m.

Let us return to the question at hand, which is the ad valorem gas tax and how those comments are in direct conflict with Ontario's comments on the federal budget, as articulated by the Treasurer on December 13, 1979. He said, as reported at page 5460 of Hansard:

"The members are all aware of the stand this government has taken with regard to oil and gas pricing. We have strongly opposed, and continue to oppose, price increases which go beyond the current federal-provincial agreement without any changes made to the distribution of oil and gas revenues.

"Many of the proposals of the federal government will not help our economic performance and not advance the capacity of our economy to grow. In the view of this government, there must be a positive upfront offset or massive reinvestment of the enormous energy revenues to ensure that the economy of this country does not receive a mortal wound in the next year; that the excise tax increase ... while better than the predicted 30 cents, is going to mean an additional $2.5 billion annually in tax revenues....

"Ontarians will bear the brunt of these increases. We're going to pay $1.6 billion more next year." He goes on and on. That was fine when it was the federal increase but, when it is a provincial increase, it is justified because we do not have enough revenues to operate in this inflationary economy. So why not help out the situation by adding to inflation with the ad valorem tax?

Mr. Stokes: I thought they were both in bed together.

Ms. Copps: Somebody else said that; not me. I would not say that.

These are the impacts of natural gas and oil increases, as stated by the Treasurer at page 5461 of Hansard: "The first is higher levels of inflation. The federal Minister of Finance is predicting an inflation rate of 11 per cent next year." Heaven knows, we know it has gone much higher than that.

At this point, December 13, 1979, the Treasurer finds it "particularly worrisome" that the inflation rate will probably be up to 11 per cent in the next year and he is stating this is one of the reasons why we should not increase the natural gas and oil taxes. As we all know, the increase in inflation is almost double that, and yet the minister is the first one there to grab whatever he can from the taxpayers of Ontario.

"The second impact" of that same increase "is that we expect to see a drop in consumer and business incomes. For those who say that the energy price increases will not be hard to take, let me outline the impact that these increase will have on Ontario consumers.

"In 1980, most people will pay over $200 more for heating oil and gasoline." These are the Treasurer's figures. This $200 more that they will be paying for oil and gasoline is "about four days' pay before taxes. What does this mean for the average Ontario worker? After taxes, the family breadwinner is going to have to work six or seven extra days just to maintain his 1979 standard of living..."

So they are already in a catch-up situation.

The Treasurer is speaking out against it because he does not want to fuel inflation, he does not want to see a drop in consumer and business incomes, and yet the minute his party is elected with a majority, a mandate from the people of Ontario, he turns around and applies the very ad valorem tax that would do just that.

"There is even some question as to whether these measures will produce the energy conservation we are. looking for. It has been estimated by some that for every 10 per cent increase in the cost of energy ... consumption drops by only one per cent. That is hardly enough to produce the goal of energy self-sufficiency, yet it will place heavy burdens on our economy."

I am sorry that the minister was going on so long at that time but I guess, to articulate and elaborate his position, I will have to read all the four points.

"There are four other reasons why we oppose this imposition....

"First, there is a considerable time lag between the time energy price increases hit and federal offsetting programs begin to ease the burden ... It is not until 1981 the energy tax credit ... takes effect...

"As the members know, its original purpose was to subsidize the higher costs of imported oil used in eastern Canada...

"Mr. Speaker, that purpose has now been lost. The federal government" -- and here is the minister who is wagging his finger at the federal government for a tax increase -- "is now proposing to ease its budget deficit with those revenues."

That was what the Treasurer of Ontario stood on December 13, 1979, and told the Legislature. He would not tolerate a government that would use the revenues derived from energy sources to ease its budget deficit. Yet in 1981 that very minister stands in the House and says he has to use the ad valorem tax increase to ease our budget deficit. One wonders why he was saying one thing at one point in time to one group and something else at another time to another group, and one has to wonder about the motives of this government.

He continued, as reported at page 5462 of Hansard: "My initial reaction to the energy aspect of this rather complex budget is that while some of the features meet Ontario's proposals in principle, they do not nearly go far enough. The consumer is really left with the prospect of financing the federal government deficit with higher taxes and higher energy revenues, while the producing provinces will get a large windfall again. We have no guarantees that the federal government will ensure the stability and growth of the national economy by planning for, and insisting on, the reinvestment of these large petrodollar revenue flows in our economic future."

That was what the Treasurer of Ontario said in 1979, and it was probably one of the reasons the very government that proposed that tax went down to defeat.

Members will notice it is not referred to as the Conservative government. It is referred to as the Clark government, which goes along with the Ontario government's policy of dissociation. It likes to associate when it is to its advantage and to dissociate when it is to its detriment.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: How much has it gone up under Trudeau?

Mr. Brandt: Tell us what happened to the price under Trudeau. Will you explain that to us?

Ms. Copps: I prefer to talk about what the Premier said at the special first ministers' conference on oil and natural gas policy, November 12, 1979: "Nor would the idea of indexing ourselves to massive increases in oil prices as they approach world levels present in practical terms any greater recognition of our Canadian opportunity but to tie ourselves--" but this is what the gas tax does.

The Premier also stated: "Having said all this, Mr. Prime Minister, I must say in frankness" -- chewing -- "that the oil pricing proposal that is being negotiated between your government and the province of Alberta appears, from what we know, to be an excessive and imprudent response to the claims of the producing provinces and the petroleum industry.

"Without equally massive income assistance to consumers, which does not seem to be under serious consideration" -- he could be writing my speech, and I wish he were; the Premier spoke out against the tax increases because they were not coupled with massive income assistance to consumers -- "such a decision would, in our opinion, constitute an unprecedented raid on the consumer, not a meaningful attack on our energy problems. Furthermore, an excise tax increase would not complement a rational fight against Canadian inflation; it would only make matters worse."

This is very statesmanlike. At an energy conference, the Premier stands and says, "The tough decisions before us certainly and surely do not involve finding new ways to squeeze the consumer, but effective ways to ensure real growth."

As far as I can see, and correct me if I am wrong, the ad valorem way is a new and unique way to squeeze the consumer in such a way that not only does the government get increased profits every time the price of gas goes up but also it does not have to stand up in this House and be accountable for it. There is no accountability, and the government is able to hitch its wagon to inflation and to profit from the increase in oil and gas prices without actually justifying it in this House.

9 p.m.

"Bearing in mind Canada's continuing capacity to choose its own policy in the present dangers already before our economy, Ontario has made it clear that it opposes any immediate price increase and that we will remain opposed until there is a plan in place that guarantees a basic change in revenue flows and energy and economic policies in order to (1) achieve national oil self-sufficiency, (2) avert an unnecessary recession, (3) avert undue hardship on the consumer and (4) support industrial adjustment."

Those are very laudable claims and laudable recommendations. Where were they in the budget? How did they apply to the ad valorem tax? Where has this government averted an unnecessary recession? In fact, it has contributed to it. Where has it made any attempt to achieve oil self-sufficiency? Where has it tried to avert undue hardship on the consumer? It is a doubletalk. It is a pre-election and post-election attempt to squeeze money from the consumers and taxpayers of Ontario, and they are gambling on the notion the people will forget. I can assure them they will not forget.

It is clear the people of Hamilton certainly do not make --

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: "If the new energy policy is to be credible, it simply cannot be used as an excuse to raise billions of tax dollars for general government purposes. Further, our government is not looking for windfall revenues from higher prices. It would be unconscionable for the federal government not to return honestly" -- I am using the term literally, because I certainly would not be using it loosely -- "all discretionary new revenues back to the people."

The Premier is saying it would be unconscionable not to return all revenues back to the people. "This cannot be fudged, particularly in the case of low-income families and those who have no immediate option but to continue to use the automobile and the oil furnace."

I do not know who is fudging, but it certainly is not this side. It certainly seems to be the very minister and the very Premier who had the gall to say those things at the first ministers' conference and then turn around and introduce the kind of budget that would institute this ad valorem tax. It is fudging. It is costing those very people the most who have no immediate option but to continue to use the automobile and the oil furnace.

"It would be wrong and tragic to lock in massive oil price increases," he said. Yet that is exactly what this ad valorem tax does. It locks in massive increases without any justification in the House, without any justification to the consumer.

It is a little like what they did a few years ago to the prices in the liquor store. I do not know if any members remember a few years ago before they had the ad valorem on liquor sales; we would be hit periodically with this huge increase in the price of liquor. It is interesting to note that the budget decreases the price of brandy. I do not know where all the brandy drinkers are, but it is certainly not among most of the common people. Anyway, brandy and cigars went down.

In any case, it is easy to see this government is really not interested in curbing inflation. It is not interested in staying out of the pockets of the common people, and through this ad valorem tax it is able to bring about legalized robbery of the people of Ontario.

Here we have the Premier again speaking with the Ontario PC Campus Association: "We also took the view that to have a price increase which generated the kind of cash for the government of Canada, the foreign oil companies and the government of Alberta" -- notice how he lumps in Alberta with the foreign oil companies, except when he is deciding he wants to be a national statesman. Yet after the election the first thing he does is increase oil prices and increase revenues to the extent that we will now be profiting more from inflation and more from the resource base than will Alberta.

"We also took the view that to have a price increase which generated the kind of cash for the government of Canada, foreign oil companies and the government of Alberta, which they could not possibly reinvest quickly enough to solve energy security problems, would be a mistake and a distortion and a clear raid upon the spending power of the average citizen of this province and of Canada as a whole."

I do not know who is doing the raiding now but I would submit the raiding is in fact being done by the government on the average citizen of this province through the ad valorem tax.

Again the Premier said, speaking to the Progressive Conservative association: "We have also argued that there is only so much that you can take out of the economy by means of energy price increases before that economy begins to suffer and to suffer seriously. I believe that if we were to have a massive move to world oil prices, the kind of harm that would do to our economy would not only ensure that we have followed the Americans down the road to recession but that we did considerably worse. It is not the kind of circumstance that I can accept," et cetera.

That was pre-election propaganda. Of course, with their majority the truth will out and we see that the very raid upon the taxpayers of this province that he is decrying is being carried out through his own fiscal policies and, in particular, through the ad valorem tax. His paper proposed "a national program to assist consumers to sustain spending power, to provide for appropriate economic investment and to increase activity in the area of conservation and alternative energy sources."

We also must consider other statements that have been made along the line. I would like to refer back to statements made in 1978 by the former Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Auld:

"Ontario views crude oil and natural gas price increases unrelated to improving Canada's security of supply as inflationary, a deterrent to job creation and a further factor in harming Canada's industrial competitiveness. The government has the fiscal and the constitutional capacity to permit only moderate price increases. It can allow prices to rise at a faster rate and capture the windfall profits which would accrue to the petroleum industry."

He is talking about the immeasurable damage that could be done to the Canadian economy and he says: "Surely, inducing a recession in Canada is not in your interests as it is certainly not in ours."

I would submit this ad valorem tax is, for the consumers of Ontario, a step towards just that, the kind of recession this government's fiscal policy is seemingly trying to generate.

Let us go back to Hansard, page 3517, October 16, 1979, and the Premier. We all know what he says in question period may sometimes drift from one position to another on the map, so it is perhaps not unusual that his position pre- and post-election has changed.

"Ontario is opposed to any immediate price increase. Comprehensive adjustment policy: If Canadian oil prices are allowed to rise substantially at any time there must be a basic change in revenue flows and energy and economic policies to (a) achieve national oil self-sufficiency, (b) avert an unnecessary recession, (c) avert undue hardship on the consumer, and (d) enhance industrial adjustment."

He is articulating his four-pronged attack, his four-pronged program which will permit the people of Ontario to live in an enhanced economy which does not include rapid increases in the price of natural gas and oil. That was again pre-election.

The Premier also said: "I have opposed and will continue to oppose any change ... that would generate windfall profits rather than oil security and economic recession rather than shared national growth."

9:10 p.m.

This is the same government that is now bringing in the kind of insidious tax upon a tax upon a tax, this inflationary program that is going to wreak havoc upon the economy of Ontario and upon the taxpayers and the consumers of Ontario, not to mention what it will do to small business, senior citizens, those on fixed incomes and the disabled.

"There may be evidence that the price increases we have experienced are encouraging more energy efficiency in our society. However, I could find no honest consensus that significant oil price increases by themselves lead effectively to reduced consumption. I do not think that just pricing alone is a sufficient vehicle for reduced consumption or conservation. The only thing we do know is that a massive increase in the price of oil can stall economic activity and slash employment growth. That much we do know.

"I will oppose this course so long as I am charged to serve this province. We are not a have-not province, but we are not going to be bled white in this process either."

That was the statement made in Hansard of October 16, 1979. I am sorry for the taxpayers of Ontario; I am sorry for the young people of Ontario who have been taught that governments are to be believed in and to be followed; I am sorry for those very people who now read in Hansard of 1981 that the government position has changed drastically, and that they are in fact at the opposite end of the fiscal spectrum.

The stark reality before all of us is that the differences over the pricing of crude oil really have less to do with energy policy than they have to do with conflicting aspirations and convictions about the management future of our Confederation.

"The single-minded free market advocates" -- and this is the Premier speaking now, not the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Smith) or the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Cassidy) -- "and provincial rights purists suggest that prices be allowed to rise substantially without any adjustment to revenue flows. That is what is being suggested by some. To me this notion does not make sense economically and depreciates what our Confederation is all about. Ultimately, if we are in fact one country, windfalls" -- get this -- "occurring to provincial treasuries can be no more exempt from national needs than those enjoyed by private companies."

Maybe the Premier is suggesting here a windfall tax on the provincial government ad valorem revenues. Frankly, I think it might not be such a bad idea. That is what he said in 1979.

Of course, in 1981 the story has changed. We have a new government: the same government with a different face, a different slogan, a different ad campaign and a mandate for good government. I am sorry to say that mandate is not being fulfilled. The very kind of windfall profiteering that the minister decried in this House in 1979 is being perpetrated by this government on the taxpayers of Ontario with this ad valorem tax.

I would challenge any back-bencher who feels strongly about this issue to please stand up and speak up, because I do not think they have the courage to do so. If they believe in this tax they should say so. If they believe in this tax they should stand up and let the taxpayers of Ontario know. I would be very happy to mail a copy of Hansard personally to their constituencies so their constituents can know how happy the members are with the ad valorem tax and how they feel, as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has stated, that it will be giving money to the taxpayers of Ontario. They should feel free to do so after I have finished my very brief remarks.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: When is that going to be?

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: Here we have the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) all over again on June 20, 1978. That is another place and another time. He said something else there. They are saying different things all the time. I have to make sure that the members hear all of them so they can have the full picture and can derive their position from it. I know no members have made up their minds yet how they are going to be voting on the tax, and that they are really susceptible to the kind of pressure we are bringing to bear on them through this discussion. I hope they will take all of the remarks by these ministers very seriously, because it is their government that is responsible for this tax, and believe me, we will be reminding them of it often over the next four years.

"I should like to advise the members that during the last few weeks I have had discussions with the Minister of Energy for Alberta," et cetera. "At these meetings we have made strong representation against any price increase at this time while the Canadian economy is soft and unemployment is high, and when inflation is still not under control." So those are the three provisos that hold the key to the provincial government's commitment to holding the line on energy increases. They will not increase the price of energy while the Canadian economy is soft, while unemployment is high and while inflation is not under control.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think some of those variables are still in effect and it is something this government should have borne in mind instead of doing a flip-flop on its position from 1978 to today.

I am going right back now to May 11, 1977. Some of the members may not remember that far back.

An hon. member: What does the gas tax mean for the farmers?

Ms. Copps: I am getting to that later. That is in the latter part of my speech.

"On leaving a federal-provincial meeting of energy ministers in Ottawa today, the Honourable James Taylor stated that on behalf of the government of Ontario he had vigorously opposed any increase in the price of crude oil and natural gas." These are the realities of 1981, but that is what he said in 1977. I have not actually noticed the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) vigorously opposing this tax in the House, but I hope he will be one of the speakers to --

Mr. Breaugh: I doubt it.

Ms. Copps: I am sure we will be hearing from him in the future. I certainly hope so. He goes on to articulate the reasons he is opposed to any increase in the price of oil and natural gas.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox has never articulated. Stop that nonsense.

Ms. Copps: I know. I have to drop that. I am sorry. I am trying to switch it around a bit to make it interesting.

He said, "I have stated the reasons for the opposition of the government of Ontario to such--"

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The farmers want this.

Interjection.

Ms. Copps: I would like it read into the record that the farmers want this tax because they, like the constituents in the riding of the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), feel they will benefit. They will actually be getting from this tax rather than giving. It is a good thing they have stated it on a number of occasions, because it has given me lots of material.

In 1977, the then Minister of Energy said: "I have stated the reason on a number of occasions. It is not the time to increase inflationary pressures in Canada. It is not the time to further decrease job creation. It is not in the interest--"

Mr. Kerr: You are talking about four years later.

Ms. Copps: I am under the impression that the inflationary pressures in 1981 are equal to or greater than those of 1977, but please correct me if I am wrong. They are greater. Hence, because of these inflationary pressures, the comments made by the minister in 1977 stand as an even greater reality in 1981. "It is not the time to increase inflationary pressures in Canada. It is not the time to further decrease job creation. It is not in the interest of Ontario or Canada to reduce the competitive capability of our export industry."

The minister added that in his view it would be downright irresponsible to escalate prices at this stage of the economic recovery in Canada. In 1977 the inflation rate was lower than it is today. In 1977 the minister was asking the government to stop the inflationary pressure by not increasing resource revenues. In 1977 he said, "It would be downright irresponsible, in view of the inflationary pressure, to escalate prices." Yet this is exactly what this government has done in 1981.

Mr. Boudria: There is nothing inconsistent in Tories being irresponsible.

9:20 p.m.

Ms. Copps: The former Minister of Energy talks here about the fact he is very disturbed that sufficient information is not available to the consumer of Ontario on the additional money, I quote, "extracted" from the consumers of Ontario and elsewhere from previous oil price increases. "Until such time as I am fully satisfied that the enormous sums paid by our consumers every time the price is increased is in fact effectively invested in Canada for the purpose of assuring long-term supplies" -- this is beautiful stuff, is it not? It is terrific -- "for energy consumers, I will continue to oppose price increases of any kind or any amount."

That was said by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox on May 11, 1977. Unfortunately the government's words have come back to haunt the members opposite. That member went to his just reward on the basis of his progressive policies. It is not only that member but also the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), et cetera.

I am thrilled to have had an opportunity to speak in the House when the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) was here and that he thought enough of what I was saying to state to this House that the farmers of Ontario are happy about the ad valorem tax. I am glad he said that and hope the farmers of Ontario will be reading that in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture news along with other items that have been raised by the federation. We will not get into them now since they are not related to the ad valorem tax.

Let us talk about what the former Minister of Energy had to say --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Our government excludes the farmers. The farmers do not pay the tax.

Ms. Copps: No, the farmers like the tax. The minister said the farmers like the tax.

Mr. Boudria: What do you mean, the farmers don't pay the tax? Don't they drive cars like everybody else?

Ms. Copps: I guess there is not a farmer in Ontario with an automobile. I guess no farmers drive. If the ministry's information office cannot handle it -- I am not sure they are allowed to put out information without the minister's seal of approval -- I will send a copy of tonight's Hansard to all the farmers of Ontario. That will clear up what their position is.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No problem. Send them a copy. See if there are any left-wing farmers --

The Deputy Speaker: Carry on with the debate, Ms. Copps.

Ms. Copps: The former Minister of Energy said:

"We are opposed to any increase in the price of crude oil. We are influenced by the expectations of those million unemployed Canadians whose prospects of finding jobs will be worsened by an increase in crude oil prices. We are influenced by the concerns of Canadians hard pressed by persistent inflation whose situation would be worsened by a price increase. We are influenced by the negative effect a price increase would have on the competitive capability of Canadian industry and the effect on job creation of the worsened ability of industry to compete.

"We are influenced by the frustration of those Canadians who have experienced a four-year sequence of price increases in the expectation of an improvement in the security of energy supply and have paid heavily for a security that has not resulted. We are influenced by the fact that Canadians have paid immense additional sums for crude oil and natural gas and have been offered no explanation as to the final disposition of this money and no evidence it has been used in their best interests."

He said there has been no evidence that it has been used in their best interests and no explanation as to the final disposition of this money. "We are influenced by the negative effect that a price increase at this time would have on the fiscal balances between the provinces. The effect of the price of crude oil products on consumption continues to be uncertain while the negative effect on our national economy of a crude oil price increase is measurable and acknowledged.

"One of the highest priorities, the highest policy priority," said the former minister, "is to take the fierce pressure off Canadian consumers rather than intensifying it. The highest priority of all, I suggest, is to restore the confidence of Canadian citizens and consumers in all parts of Canada as to the commitment of all Canadians to the social and economic restoration of our faltering Confederation."

That is pretty heady stuff. It is stating a position that this government will not move ahead with crude oil increases. We saw where the member for Prince Edward-Lennox got his reward. He was a minister. He stood up and spoke out, and what happened to him? It is the same thing that happened to the taxpayers of Ontario. It was those people who gave this government a mandate who are now being treated with the same kind of respect that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox got when he had the courage to speak out on the kind of energy position that this government should be taking.

"The people of Ontario have been mugged in the park," to quote the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

I have the member for Prince Edward-Lennox again. I would rather be listening to the music of James Taylor but I have to talk about what James Taylor, the member, said.

Interjection.

Ms. Copps: No, I said I would rather be listening to the music of James Taylor but I think that might be after the member's time. I do not know. The other James Taylor. The real James Taylor. Will the real James Taylor please stand up? Oh, he is not here. Okay.

This is another minister speaking out on April Fool's Day. They must all come out on April Fool's Day.

He said: "First, we are opposed to any increase in the price of oil and natural gas" -- again, this is Mr. Taylor, the one who went to his just reward -- "because the stated objective of this annual escalation -- that of ensuring security of supply through expanded exploration and development -- has not been met. We are opposed because it will create further unemployment when the unemployment rate in Canada is the highest it has been in 20 years with nearly a million Canadians out of work."

Interjection.

Ms. Copps: No, no, this is the member for Prince Edward-Lennox's speech. I would not deign to speak myself. I need only quote what they said. I need only quote what the member's fellow ministers have said. Maybe he should continue listening to it because I think he will eventually espouse that position himself.

I think it would be incumbent upon the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) to listen to what his fellow ministers have said, and to wonder how those who are in are in and those who are out are out. It might be incumbent upon him to watch who says what and who stays where, because it might be a good training ground for the future.

"We are opposed because it will deal yet another blow to the competitive capability of Canadian industry in world markets at a time when there is little competitive advantage remaining. We are opposed because it further fuels inflation, places an unnecessary burden upon all sectors and individuals in our society..."

Mr. Rotenberg: Stop laughing, Sheila.

Ms. Copps: I am laughing because the kind of statements made by the former minister in 1977 are the exact opposite of what his counterparts are saying in 1981. I think the people of Ontario are probably in the same position. It is unbelievable that a minister will stand in the House in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, right up until March 19, 1981 -- a cabinet minister, a member, a Premier -- will stand in this House and state a position on oil and natural gas prices and the minute they are elected and given a mandate based on the positions they have presented to the people of Ontario, they reverse their position.

9:30 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Rotenberg: Why don't you give us your own opinion? Don't you have any opinions of your own?

Ms. Copps: I can only read what the member for Prince Edward-Lennox said and the member for Wilson Heights may consider the fate of that member. If he is really concerned about it, and I note he has many comments about it, I hope he will carry on speaking after I have finished, because I have only a few more hours.

Mr. Rotenberg: Finish it and sit down.

Ms. Copps: I have only a few more hours left.

Mr. Haggerty: Just like George telling us he is going to walk the Hamilton Bay.

Mr. Kolyn: He walks on water.

Ms. Copps: Instead they threw the Re-Mor investors into it.

He said: "We are opposed because it will deal yet another blow to the competitive capability of Canadian industry and world markets at a time when there is little competitive advantage remaining. We are opposed because it further fuels inflation, places an unnecessary burden upon all sectors and individuals in our society and places an intolerable burden upon those least able to bear it. Any increase in the domestic price of oil and natural gas at this time would be gouging the Ontario consumer."

Mr. Boudria: Did you say "gouging"?

Ms. Copps: "Gouging the Ontario consumer." That was James Taylor.

He said, "Mr. Speaker, these are some reasons why the government of Ontario is opposed to any increase in the domestic price of crude oil and natural gas. I would hope that the Ontario government's opposition to any such proposals is shared by all members of the Legislature because I feel certain that I have the support of the consumers of this province."

Bearing that in mind, and bearing in mind the inflationary gouging this ad valorem tax will have on the consumers of Ontario, I hope all members of this House, including members on the government side, will stand with the member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

He said: "I would hope that the Ontario government's opposition to any such proposals is shared by all members of the Legislature because I feel certain that I have the support of the consumers in this province. The public is fed up and rightly so. The public is prepared to make sacrifices, but only if those sacrifices deliver results."

He also said: "The public knows that for the past three years the government of Canada has justified crude oil price increases on the premise that those funds were required to ensure a secure supply by expanding exploration and development. The public knows this has not happened.

"But the public knows -- and this government knows -- that the lion's share of these price increases has disappeared into the consolidated revenue fund of the government of Canada and the producing provinces. Too much of this additional revenue is being used for purposes completely unrelated to energy."

He outlines the objectives of an Ontario government that would increase oil and natural gas only if they would "develop additional supplies ... protect the competitive position of Canada's industries ... strengthen fiscal relationships amongst provinces ... encourage the creation of new jobs ... alleviate inflation; and it should be equitable."

He talks about the plight of the Ontario consumer: "It will be the fourth year in a row in which the Ontario consumer has been duped in the name of ensuring security of supply."

Mr. Rotenberg: Are you going to hire James Taylor as your speech writer?

Ms. Copps: If the member does not want to hear it, why does he not move closure?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We have heard it 50 times; 25 from you and 25 from the others.

Ms. Copps: If he does not want to hear the kinds of problems facing the taxpayers and consumers of Ontario, then he should stand up and say so in the House. He can use his legislative powers to force closure. That is his responsibility and that is his --

Mr. Watson: That's what you want.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Now we know.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Ms. Copps has the floor.

Ms. Copps: The public has the right to expect that the government will reduce that special tax and relieve the consumer of this unnecessary burden. "Our economy and the average wage earner simply cannot afford another oil and gas price increase." That was not said by me; that was said by their minister.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: That was said by their minister, and their second minister, and their third minister, and their fourth minister, and their Premier. They all said it, and they did not have the guts to say it before the election, but they are sure saying it now. They are saying it to the taxpayers and consumers of Ontario and, lest they forget, we will be reminding them over the next four years of the insidious backpedalling, the insidious balancing act, and the insidious crystal ball that has been used and abused by this government as part and parcel of the reality of March 19.

Mr. Wrye: Ask the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) if he agrees.

Mr. Piché: I just came in.

Ms. Copps: I guess I better do some in French.

Not only do I oppose the ad valorem tax; woe betide me if I speak as a single individual. I would like to quote what the Toronto Globe and Mail has to say about this tax. "Notwithstanding the ad valorem tax" -- and let us talk about the situation in Metro. I am glad the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) is back, because this ties in with the housing crisis in Metro. Let us talk about the kinds of gas prices that are already hitting the consumers: "...in Toronto, gas prices are already rising at a rate double that of inflation." So with the ad valorem tax, this government's revenues will be increasing at a rate double that of inflation.

"A survey of more than 80 stations in and around--"

Mr. Rotenberg: Only if Trudeau raised the price of gas. Be honest about it.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Ms. Copps has the floor.

Ms. Copps: Is the member speaking out in favour of the increase in Metro gas prices of more than double the inflation rate? Well, I would like it on the record that the member for Wilson Heights is in favour of what I have just quoted here, according to the Globe and Mail, that Toronto gas prices are rising at a rate double that of inflation. Let us tell that to the Toronto taxpayer.

Mr. Rotenberg: No, I am not in favour. I am saying it is Trudeau's fault. You know as well as I do that Trudeau raised the price, not us.

Ms. Copps: "According to a survey of more than 80 stations in and around Metro" -- and probably even in Wilson Heights; I hope the voters of Wilson Heights are listening --

Mr. Rotenberg: Why do you not tell the truth?

Ms. Copps: Is the member for Wilson Heights stating that the Globe and Mail is not telling the truth? Is that what he is stating? This is a quotation from the Globe and Mail. Is the Globe and Mail --

Mr. Boudria: I hope they can hear this in the press gallery.

The Acting Speaker: We are debating the motion, Bill 72. Ms. Copps has the floor.

Ms. Copps: I would like it to be known for the record that the member for Wilson Heights has just questioned the veracity of the Globe and Mail, and I would like the member --

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was only questioning the veracity of the speaker, who is not telling us why oil prices are going up. I was not questioning the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I object on behalf of the Speaker. Is the member talking about the member who has the floor or about the Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Mr. Rotenberg, I did not hear you. Say that again. I did not hear your words.

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not questioning the veracity of the Globe and Mail. I was questioning the veracity of the member who had the floor and was speaking.

The Acting Speaker: Ms. Copps has the floor. Ms. Copps, please carry on, and we are speaking on Bill 72. May I caution you not to have long excerpts from the readings, but you are certainly allowed to use some resources.

Ms. Copps: Thank you for the rest, courtesy of the member for Wilson Heights. I might add for the record that when the member for Wilson Heights was challenging the veracity of the speaker, the speaker being the member for Hamilton Centre, the member for Hamilton Centre was quoting from the Globe and Mail. I can only derive from that that the member for Wilson Heights was questioning the veracity of the comments that were made, which were a direct quotation from the Globe and Mail.

9:40 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Make him withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: Ms. Copps, do not listen to the interjections. Carry on with your speech, please.

Ms. Copps: This is relevant, Mr. Speaker, because in a survey of more than 80 stations in and around Metro Toronto it was shown the cost of an imperial gallon of gasoline has already gone up between 50 cents and 60 cents a gallon in the last two years, depending on the type of gas station and the station location.

My point is that this gas is already going up at a rate double that of inflation, and this government is proposing a tax that will latch on to the back of that double inflation. So not only is it a tax upon the inflationary pressures already being exerted on gas, but it is a tax that is double that of the inflation rate of the cost of living generally.

Let us see how this gas tax is going to affect the people in the Metro area. In the 1960s and 1970s what is known increasingly as "the commuter phenomenon" developed. Again, quoting from the Globe and Mail: "Increasingly, in dozens of dormitory subdivisions, commuters are finding their incomes squeezed by the increased costs of fuel for their cars."

This is pre ad valorem. This is the normal double inflationary pressure being applied by the cost of gas increasing in the Metro area. These are people who are trying to buy the kinds of homes the Minister of Housing says they should buy. They are not in the downtown core but out in the suburbs, and already in 1979 they were facing an increasing squeeze in the cost of energy.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This is why we should build a light rail transit system.

Ms. Copps: I think since the member has brought up the subject of light rapid transit I would ask him whether he would like to have it in his riding.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In Ottawa-Carleton that is what they are looking for.

Ms. Copps: No, of course he does not want to have it in his riding because it is a guinea pig.

"Increasingly in dozens of dormitory subdivisions, commuters are finding their incomes squeezed by the increased cost of fuel for their cars. In some neighbourhoods, houses for sale are a common sight. A growing number of residents have abandoned their dream" -- the Minister of Housing says they should dream -- "of owning a home outside the city. Many doubt they can weather rising fuel prices much longer."

J'aimerais parler un peu de l'original. La section 3 dit que cette taxe doit fournir une contribution des usagers des rues en Ontario pourvu que ça fasse la construction et la maintenance, que tous les gens doivent payer au ministère pour avoir le droit de se servir des rues et des routes dans la province de l'Ontario. C'est une taxe au taux de 3 le gallon sur toute l'essence achetée ou livrée, de ce qu'il reçoit. Ça c'est l'original, la taxe qui a été imposée sur l'essence. C'était le statut de l'Ontario au chapitre 28 si vous êtes intéressés. Ça c'est le commencement et le début de ce texte terrible, ce texte déplorable de ad valorem.

Mr. Piché: Ils l'ont oublié!

Ms. Copps: Ils l'ont oublié! Je ne sais pas. C'est 1925. C'est ça. 1925 c'était le commencement de la fin. C'est pas vrai? C'est vrai, c'est vrai, c'est certain que c'est vrai.

Mr. Piché: C'est certain que c'est vrai, c'est toi qui le dis, c'est vrai.

Ms. Copps: Il faut être mis dans le record que le membre de Cochrane nord dit que 1925 c'est le début de la fin et que la taxe de l'essence c'est le début de la fin. Je pense que le membre de Cochrane nord à ce moment-là ait exigé de se mettre debout pour parler à tout le monde ici pour nous donner son opinion à propos de cette taxe, parce qu'après tout c'est les résidents du nord de l'Ontario qui vont souffrir le plus de cette taxe parce que ce sont eux qui sont obligés de se transporter en voiture de longue distance.

Nous autres, on peut toujours prendre les transport en commun, on peut toujours prendre l'autobus, on peut s'en aller de Hamilton à Toronto sans se servir de l'automobile. C'est possible. Mais au nord de l'Ontario on n'a pas ce luxe, on a besoin de son automobile dans le nord de l'Ontario. Je suis certaine que le député de Cochrane nord qui est un homme de valeur, je pense que c'est un homme qui n'est pas encore trop touché par le rôle qu'il doit jouer dans le gouvernement, qu'il aura le courage de se mettre debout pour parler à propos de cette taxe ad valorem et pour dire, pour parler et pour être la voix de tous les gens du nord de l'Ontario, pour exprimer sa position et celle du nord, pour dire qu'il est contre cette taxe ad valorem, parce qu'il reconnaît les répercussions que ça aura sur les résidents et les personnes qui ont besoin de l'automobile dans le nord de l'Ontario.

Je suis certaine que le député de Cochrane nord va y parler parce que je pense qu'il est, jusqu'à ce moment-là au moins, un homme de parole, un homme qui a le courage de dire ce qu'il pense. Même s'il prend quelque temps pour parler un peu de conseils et des choses comme ça. C'est intéressant, Monsieur, de noter que la semaine dernière, on était en pleine discussion du bill sur l'approvisionnement. On était en pleine discussion de ce bill et j'ai reçu un message des gars du dernier rang, et je dis dernier rang aux deux sens du mot.

Des gars de dernier rang m'ont envoyé un message qui disait: on fait un pari, on fait un pari et on veut savoir combien vous pesez, 130, 145, ou 140, ça c'est le pari. Ça c'est les députés comme ils se sont décrits, les députés de dernier rang, ce sont eux qui ont fait cette description-là, qui voulaient faire ce pari. C'est évident à ce moment-là qu'ils ne s'intéressent pas à la taxe ad valorem, ils ne s'intéressent pas au bill sur l'approvisionnement, ils ne s'intéressent pas à la question de la taxation en Ontario. Ils s'intéressent plutôt à combien je pèse. Et je ne peux pas tirer autre chose de cela, j'aimerais seulement le mettre dans le record pour laisser savoir aux gens du nord de l'Ontario ce que toute la bande qui est au dernier rang fait avec le salaire payé par les contribuables de l'Ontario.

I guess I should say that in English, but I think I will pass it up. I hope all the members will obtain a translation.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: I wanted it to go into the record that while we were in the full flight of discussion on the supply bill I was exhorting and pleading with the member for Cochrane North to stand up in this House and speak against the ad valorem tax, because I felt he was a new member, a new voice as yet untouched by the kind of whip-cracking that goes on in his caucus. I felt he might have been in a position to stand up in this House and speak for the people of northern Ontario and the people from my father's home, from Haileybury, and the people from Timmins, and the people from Cochrane North and Schumacher, and the people from Elliot Lake, and the people from Porcupine and the home of Petra Burka, et cetera.

I had hoped that the member for Cochrane North would stand up in this House and have the courage to take a position different from that taken by all his colleagues. Yet when we are in discussion of these very serious matters, such as the supply bill and the ad valorem tax, what are the boys in the back row doing? Incidentally, I did not give them that name, they gave it to themselves; they sent me a note signed "the boys in the back row" and they wanted to know how much I weigh. I had a choice of three responses, which were 130, 145 and 148. I sent back a note saying --

9:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: We are dealing with Bill 72. Would you please deal with the bill at hand?

Ms. Copps: I am pointing this out, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: Bill 72 is the subject under discussion. Thank you very much.

Ms. Copps: I am pointing this out, Mr. Speaker, so that when the people of northern Ontario wonder why the member for Cochrane North does not stand to speak on the ad valorem tax they will know that it is perhaps because he is too busy ascertaining the weight of the various members on this side of the House. It is very interesting, when we are on the subject of weight, to note that this question should come from the member for Cochrane North, who is certainly amply provided in that department.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: Let us talk about how the Ontario budget and the ad valorem tax deal with the kinds of problems that this government is alleging to attack. These problems include inflation, unemployment, the economy, et cetera. Let us hear what the Globe and Mail has to say.

Can I have some more water, please?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Give her some more water. Maybe her kidneys will give out. If her voice does not, maybe her kidneys will.

Ms. Copps: I love water.

Let us hear how the Globe and Mail, on May 21, 1981, assessed the budget and how the ad valorem tax will affect the Ontario taxpayers:

"The Ontario budget totally undermines Premier Davis's long-proclaimed campaign against rising prices for domestic oil. It puts Mr. Davis on the side of rising prices. Every time the price rises, for whatever reason, his government will collect increased revenues." That is what the editorial in the Globe and Mail said.

Despite the alleged efforts by the members on that side of the House to stimulate Canadian unity, they certainly are prepared at every point in time to dump on Alberta for trying to increase the price of oil; but when it comes to profiting from those very inflationary pressures being put on by Alberta, the government of Ontario is the first to get in line. The Globe and Mail said it, not I. The Globe and Mail said, "It puts Mr. Davis on the side of rising prices. Every time the price rises, for whatever reason, his government will collect increased revenues."

I am glad the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) is speaking, even though he is out of his place as usual, because he talks about Ottawa --

An hon. member: You are out of place, too.

Ms. Copps: I am in place, because I am an elected member who has the right to speak on the ad valorem tax --

An hon. member: I wish you would.

Ms. Copps: I am speaking on the ad valorem tax. I might point out that the member for Wilson Heights, as usual, is not in his proper place. If he wants to yell and heckle I am sure I would be able to hear it very well if he did it from over on that side of the House, farther away from the front benches, even though we all know he is aspiring to further glory. Maybe he wants to hear me so that he can hear what his successful ministers have to say.

"Alberta and Ottawa will get all the blame." This is what the Globe and Mail says. It is talking about the ad valorem increase, just as the member for Wilson Heights has said. "Ontario will quietly collect an amount equal to 20 per cent of everything they are blamed for."

It is not only the Globe and Mail. After all, I know the Globe did have a slight aberration in the last election, and the government will probably never forgive it for that. But it is not only the Globe and Mail; it is the Toronto Star as well. The Toronto Star says: "Frank Miller has found a new way to profit from inflation. With oil prices slated to at least double over the next five years, Miller must have found the prospects of soaring tax revenues irresistible." Pre-election it was irreproachable; now it is irresistible. The Toronto Star again: "Move over, Sheikh Lougheed; make way for Sheikh Miller. Ontario may not have any oil but it does have the power to tax."

That is the essence of the ad valorem argument. Ontario does not have oil. In fact, Ontario is not even making any effort to investigate alternative renewable sources of energy, nor is Ontario making any effort to justify the increases that have been wrought by the ad valorem tax. The only power it does have and is exercising with wild enthusiasm and without restraint is the power to tax.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The only thing that is without restraint tonight is you.

Ms. Copps: I am sorry the minister was not here the other night when I read from her campaign literature to show this House the kind of doubletalk that she used pre- and post-election. It is interesting that the very comments she is disparaging are not comments made by this honourable member but they are comments written by a writer with the Toronto Star. If she is claiming I am off base, I guess she is claiming the Toronto Star is off base in its assessment of the ad valorem situation.

I have talked a little bit about what ministers have said. Let us move out of Toronto for the moment; after all, the whole world does not revolve around Toronto. I have talked a little bit about the north and about the kind of commitment that the member should make to the people in the north, but he is too busy concerning himself with people's weight.

I would like to read to this House what the Whig Standard has to say. The Whig Standard is the bastion of Toryism. In fact, last week the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) was very concerned when we were there that we would not receive a warm welcome because of the Tory roots. So the Whig Standard cannot exactly be called a friend of the opposition. Here is what the Whig Standard has to say about the ad valorem tax.

The Acting Speaker: Will you just be reading excerpts from that article, Ms. Copps?

Ms. Copps: Yes, I will just be reading excerpts, of course; very long excerpts.

"Premier William Davis delights in the realities of March 19. Treasurer Frank Miller waves away the harsh implications of his budget. 'Times are tough,' he says, 'and anyway the measures will not be defeated.' True, but by gloating he mocks the parliament and the people.

"This week, Liberal leader Stuart Smith, criticizing the ad valorem aspect of the gasoline tax, suggested that Miller was like a pimp who railed against prostitution while living off the avails. Miller yelled back, 'Ranting and raving I have learned from you; prostitution is something you can still teach me about.'

"Perhaps the opposition, now in the frustrating position of having no leverage, can be excused for its low level of debate, but the party in power cannot."

That, on the subject of the ad valorem tax, is drawn from the May 23 edition of the Kingston Whig Standard, which is probably the kindest treatment of the ad valorem tax this government is likely to see.

Let us see what the Bureau of Municipal Affairs has to say about the ad valorem tax. This relates to the whole concept of ad valorem taxes. In fact, it is about the newly inaugurated ad valorem retail sales tax. It says, "If the tax has built-in buoyancy of revenue" --

Mr. Rotenberg: She has got nothing new. She hasn't said anything new at all.

Ms. Copps: If the member for Wilson Heights feels he has so much to contribute to the discussion, I would invite him to join us if and when he takes the opportunity to do so. I suspect he will not do so because, like many of the members on his side, he does not have the courage to speak in favour of this tax because it would not go down very well with the voters back in Wilson Heights.

10 p.m.

The bureau says: "If the tax has built-in buoyancy of revenue, when the economy expands the yield is automatically higher. No special legislation is required to increase the revenue, as with the property tax. The tax attaches itself to all" -- like a slug. Actually, I threw in the part about the slug; it did not really say that --

Interjection.

Ms. Copps: A leech -- insidiously sucking blood from the people of Ontario.

"The tax attaches itself to all regardless of position or status in the community and, according to the way the argument is to be, this is either good or bad." That is talking about the introduction of ad valorem taxes.

The government of Ontario, again in the personage of the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis), spoke to a PC association -- I guess the Ontario PC Campus Association; I am not sure if these are all different campuses or whether they came together for one gathering --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The same things over and over again.

Ms. Copps: If the member is saying "over and over again," I have heard about the BILD program over and over again. It is all right to say it over and over again if it comes from the opposite side; if it comes from our side, it is unacceptable. I say the people of Ontario will be happy to hear over and over again the objections of this side of the House to the tax the government is about to perpetrate. "You ain't heard nothin' yet," because the members opposite will be hearing it over the next four years with or without their approval of this tax. It will come back to haunt them in 1984. It will be worse than Orwell.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: Nineteen eighty-four is the pre-writ, leadup year, and believe me, the members opposite know a lot about that.

The Acting Speaker: Carry on, Ms. Copps, on Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: I have already read the kinds of comments the government members made in 1980. They are the masters of the --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: They are the masters of the pre-writ period.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Ms. Copps has the floor.

Ms. Copps: They are the masters of the pre-writ perpetration. That perpetration is a scam; it is a scheme --

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: I believe it. I have stated it here. I have stated exactly what those people said in the one year leading up to the writ. On the other side, two months later, we have a complete flip-flop, a completely opposite position. I can only construe from that that the whole pre-election leadup was a scam perpetrated on the people of Ontario for the sole purpose of retaining power --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: In my understanding of the political system, the object of running for office is an effort to form a government. Obviously the government does not seem to understand that, in view of the kinds of policies it is bringing out.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have been around politics for 21 years.

Ms. Copps: It is obvious the Minister of Housing does not understand the concept of forming a government or even forming a housing policy, so it is interesting that he should bring that out here.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You are rambling. Go back to Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: I was not doing the rambling; it was coming from the side opposite.

September 15, 1979, to the Ontario PC Campus Association: "To have price increases which generated the kind of cash for the government of Canada, the foreign oil companies and the government of Alberta which they could not possibly reinvest quickly enough to solve energy security problems, would be a mistake and a distortion and a clear raid on the spending power of the average citizen of this province. There is only so much you can take out of an economy by means of energy price increases before that economy begins to suffer and suffer seriously."

March 4, 1980: "Price increases without a commensurate improvement in supply security and appropriate distribution of oil-related revenues will be opposed." The top priority then is the development of alternative energy supplies. But there is nothing in this current budget about alternative energy supplies.

Again: "We will continue to resist windfall profits." Yet this budget does not resist windfall profits; it contributes to them.

I would like to spend a little time -- actually I have some excerpts from the first gas tax in 1925 but I do not know that they would be terribly relevant.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: I have other material that is more relevant. I would like to talk a little bit about the kind of effect this ad valorem tax is going to have on the working people and those on fixed incomes such as the disabled. I am glad the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is here so she can take note that in the International Year of Disabled Persons this government has perpetrated a tax that will further deteriorate the already abominable condition of disabled people in this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is sheer balder- dash.

Ms. Copps: I guess Statistics Canada then is balderdash. I will read now from Statistics Canada, which talks about senior citizens and the amount of money they spend on gasoline-related costs.

Mr. Speaker: Confine your remarks to Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: It is related to the inflationary ad valorem cost. The average, unattached person over the age of 65 spends 2.2 per cent of his or her income on automobile operation. A couple will spend 5.2 per cent on automobile operation. Five per cent of a person's income is tied into this essential vehicle.

Now we have a tax that this government has seen fit to bring about, notwithstanding the level of income of any individual, not considering the kind of inflationary effect it will have on our disabled community, on our senior citizens, on our young people who are having a rough time finding jobs and getting employment. This government has brought in a tax which will hurt the poor much more than it will hurt the rich. It is a tax which discriminates in the sense that it applies across the board without consideration for levels of income and for levels of revenue.

The senior citizens are a case in point. They are a group that will be very heavily hit by the ad valorem tax because they use five per cent of their income to operate their essential automobiles.

I would like to read what one of the members from my riding had to say about tax increases on gas: "I think people should get that money back through lower income taxes, but I doubt the government could get that money back for us." So they are not happy with the situation.

The Ontario Federation of Labour president, Cliff Pilkey, describes the budget as "a crushing document that hits hard at the ordinary taxpayer while giving the corporate sector a free ride. The minister talks of job creation but I can think of no better way to smother employment growth than to reduce consumers' spending power by a further $600 million."

Another labour spokesman said the budget "should solidify the middle- and lower-income people to do something about a government that does not know what to do about inflation." This labour spokesman said the government's excuse that inflation is a federal problem is a cop-out; it is interesting to note that the Copps are speaking on behalf of the people. I notice that the minister is not speaking too much.

Let us talk about the kind of impact this ad valorem tax is going to have on women.

Interjections.

10:10 p.m.

Ms. Copps: I am a woman, in case the Minister of Education had not noticed.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Really? I'm interested to hear the description.

Ms. Copps: In case many of you over on that side do not know, the average income of male-headed families in Ontario is $11,905 while the average income of female-headed families is $5,016, according to the latest census as quoted in the Sault Ste. Marie Star of May 22, 1981.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is 1976.

Ms. Copps: The minister can write to the Sault Ste. Marie Star to clear the record. If she would like to clear the record or if she is impugning the integrity of the Sault Ste. Marie Star, let her go ahead and write them a letter to clear the record --

Mr. Speaker: Let's get back to Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: -- because I am reading from the Sault Ste. Marie Star and as far as I know, and many people in the north know, the Star is a credible newspaper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Direct your remarks to Bill 72, please.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to the intervention because the honourable member is impugning the integrity of the Sault Star. The Sault Star is quoted as making these statistics. However its accuracy or inaccuracy may be stated, it was written on May 22, 1981.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. I would like to draw to the attention of all the honourable members that interjections themselves are out of order. Ms. Copps, will you please proceed, direct your remarks to Bill 72 and ignore the interjections?

Ms. Copps: I am using the latest census figures as reported in the Sault Star. Anyway, the point is -- and it is a point the honourable member well knows, as do most members in this House -- the people who will be hit most by this ad valorem tax are single families and particularly those single families headed by women, because this is a tax which does not discriminate against the level of income. The less one has, the more one pays proportionately.

It is an ad valorem tax which, while profiting from inflation, swelling provincial coffers and doing nothing to address the crucial energy problems in this province, will hit hardest at the single parent and the mothers who are already underpaid because this government refuses to adopt equal pay for work of equal value.

Let us see what this ad valorem tax does for the small businessman. Let us see what Brian Gray had to say about it. In case the honourable member does not believe in the Sault Star, I am quoting from the Ottawa Citizen of May 20, 1981.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was just reminding you the last census was 10 years ago.

Ms. Copps: I trust the honourable member will write to the Sault Star to clear up the inaccuracy. I am quoting Brian Gray, director of provincial affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He said that the introduction of the tax and the introduction of the budget was a poor night for the small businessmen strapped by the high cost of carrying inventories. He said that the federation represents 25,000 businessmen across the province and he also pointed out the fact that it will be bad news for retailers and it will have an adverse effect on consumers' purchasing power.

When I think of the groups that are truly hit by this ad valorem tax, it boggles the mind because I have many of them, many groups in my riding that are hit by this ad valorem tax.

Another group I would like to talk about is the tenants and the fact that tenants may be facing straining supplies of housing, which was mentioned in the House today, pre ad valorem. One can imagine what the ad valorem tax and the increase in the fuel cost is going to do the rent review commission. Those who bother to apply will be swamped with landlords' applications to justify superior rent increases simply to cover the cost of this ad valorem tax. Then this very Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) will be able to stand up in the House and say the government must justify slightly increasing the ceilings on rental accommodation increases in order to justify the very inflationary tax this government brings in through the ad valorem.

I am sorry to say that landlords will find ways of incorporating this inflationary spiral into the cost of housing and I will point to pre ad valorem, where early last year --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: What's that got to do with gasoline? You don't burn gasoline in the house.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: Yes, I would like more water, but the pages are gone so -- could I have some more water? -- give me a rest.

Early last year, and this was 1980, the latest period for which figures are available, Ottawa landlords who went to rent review were seeking annual increases of slightly less than 14 per cent and got an average of about 10.5 per cent. So this situation is existing pre ad valorem --

Mr. Speaker: I really do not see what the connection is with Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: The connection is that the kind of inflationary spiral being perpetrated by this government -- I am sorry that some of the people on that side of the House do not understand the principle of economics in that an ad valorem tax of this nature, which will increase the inflationary spiral, will have a ripple effect on all sectors of society.

Some of the sectors that will be hardest hit will be the small business sector, as I have stated, the sector of senior citizens and those on fixed incomes, and the sector of tenants, because landlords will be incorporating --

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that is all very interesting but let us get back to Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: -- the cost of the inflation. Landlords build buildings; landlords buy bricks; bricks are transported by trucks; trucks pay the ad valorem increase. Hence the connection.

Mr. Speaker: A very flimsy connection, if I may say so.

Ms. Copps: I think we all must extrapolate from this ad valorem tax that it will have a very serious ripple effect across the economy of Ontario. It is something we will be addressing over the next few years, and it is something we will be attempting to hang on the head of the government.

Mr. Speaker: We are specifically addressing Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: The ad valorem tax is inflationary. That is my point, Mr. Speaker. If the members on the government side cannot understand that, I would suggest they do not understand basic principles of economic policy.

The poor and the aged get less and less. This is according to the Toronto Star, May 20, 1981: "The very people who have caused inflation in the first place and are making it worse are getting more and more. The poor and the aged are getting progressively less and less. This is the kind of effect the ad valorem tax will have on the poor and the aged while those people who are able to profit from inflation and profit from the inflationary effect of the ad valorem tax will, in effect, be getting more without contributing anything to the economy. The poor will be getting less and less, and the aged will be getting less and less."

This gentleman, the Reverend James G. Macdonald, says he finds it very hard to believe that ours is the kind of society that allows this kind of thing to happen.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, that's a letter to the editor. That should be explained; it is not an editorial statement.

Ms. Copps: I am sorry, would the member like a further explanation? I will read the whole article in an effort to clarify it.

Mr. Speaker: Let us get back to Bill 72 please.

Ms. Copps: I have been asked for clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that you ignore the interjections and get back to Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: I just want to clear for the record that this was published in the Toronto Star as a letter to the editor. This gentleman is stating the problem that he sees in the spiral of inflation: "Everywhere we see current wage settlements and annual increases," et cetera, et cetera.

10:20 p.m.

I was happy enough to pull some information out from the legislative service, which has served the opposition quite well. It talks about the power of taxation and I would relate this to the ad valorem taxation. The headline on the article is "The Power of Taxation in Creating Poverty." Obviously the members on the government side don't have to listen to this because they will be happy with fat pensions when they retire, but there are some people in this province who are facing poverty. It is something that some of them may be a little bit concerned about, if not for themselves then at least for their constituents.

"Recently attention has been drawn to the power of taxation in creating poverty." This, my friends, is from Canadian Taxation of the winter of 1980. It is not a letter to the editor. It is not an article by some itinerant reporter which this government has been so quick in refuting. It is an article that is drawn from Canadian Taxation, the Bible of economists across this country. It says: --

Mr. Speaker: You are going to tie this in directly with Bill 72?

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is talking about attention that has been drawn to the power of taxation and I am referring it to the power of ad valorem taxation in creating poverty. "As well as taxing people at a lower and lower level of income, the tax burden has also been shifting from single people and childless couples on to taxpayers with children, irrespective of their level of income. Admittedly, taxation has increased for all groups of the population, but the increase has been placed disproportionately on households with children."

I would submit that this ad valorem tax places a disproportionate burden on the very kinds of taxpayers that this government is claiming to represent and to assist.

It is a sad situation when you have an article, again in the Globe and Mail, commenting on our provincial record in taxation and on the ad valorem taxation, the headline of which is: "Alberta's Provincial Tax Is About Half Those Facing Ontario." It is interesting that the government will use Alberta as the role model to gouge the taxpayers of Ontario by introducing an ad valorem tax, but on the other hand, it refuses to instigate the kinds of tax relief that exist in other jurisdictions, including the jurisdiction of Alberta.

I would like to draw a little bit from the Financial Post. I don't want to restrict myself to the Globe and Mail, the Kingston Whig Standard, the Sault Ste. Marie Star and the Hamilton Spectator. I would like to draw from the Financial Post, where the Progressive Conservatives were required to articulate -- and I use the word advisedly with all deference to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) -- their position on what specific tax changes they would incur if they were elected. This is another pre-election promise by the people on the opposite side of the House who make promises simply so they can break them.

I will quote from the Financial Post on what kind of tax changes the member for Brampton and the government had promised if they were elected. "Future tax changes must take into account the financing needs of the government, the economic situation, our competitive position and the taxpayers' ability to pay. The 1980 Ontario budget did not increase taxes and there have been no major increases in provincial income and retail sales taxes for several years." This is the Premier being quoted in the Financial Post: "Given the current economic situation, and the impact of inflation on the consumer, tax increases must be avoided to the maximum extent possible in the near future."

This was the kind of Tory propaganda that we read in the Financial Post on March 14, 1981, a mere one month before this government did a complete about-face. Not only do they throw aside their fiscal responsibility and their stated need to conserve the integrity of the Ontario taxpayer in their request that they not gouge the Ontario taxpayer by profiting from windfall profits on the resource sector, they do a complete about-face and they move in to perpetrate on the taxpayer the very taxation methods they have been decrying over the last four years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to carry on by reading from a newsletter I was lucky enough to receive. I have somehow found my way on to the Progressive Conservative mailing list and, believe me, it makes very interesting reading.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would you please get back to Bill 72.

Ms. Copps: "Keeping the promise of a bright future in Ontario means much more than an election slogan for the Davis government. It means a long-term commitment to better the economic and social wellbeing of every Ontario resident."

Mr. Speaker: Would you please get back to the principle of Bill 72?

Ms. Copps: "With the renewed vote of confidence from the Ontario electorate, the Davis government will be introducing legislation in the coming week to put this promised program into effect."

What is the legislation? What is the promise? Mr. Speaker, I have taken mere excerpts from the kind of obfuscation --

Mr. Speaker: Far too many, I might remind the honourable member.

Ms. Copps: Pardon me.

Mr. Speaker: Far too many.

Ms. Copps: Oh, excerpts. No, there are few excerpts. I have quite a few more. I will probably be going into them after the adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: No, you are clearly out of order, with great respect.

Ms. Copps: Okay, let us talk about the ad valorem tax then. The ad valorem tax is 20 per cent of the retail price. The government is profiting from inflation. Ontario gets more than Alberta from the ad valorem tax. From each $4.50 a barrel yearly increase, the Alberta government gets 80 cents, the Ontario government gets 90 cents, and the actual cost at the pumps will be $5.40 more a barrel.

The Ontario government is actually benefiting from oil price increases. Where are the disincentives? Where is the accountability? From the Toronto Star: "Tax increases mean an extra $603 million in revenues rising to $1 billion when the taxpayer is hit with the full annual toll. But in spite of this great inflow of revenue, in spite of this incredible consumer ripoff, the deficit will grow from $800 million to $997 million in this year alone."

Now that is what I call fiscal responsibility. That is what I call "keeping the promise." The Premier promised when announcing the election, "We will seek a mandate to combat inflation through smaller and more efficient government, avoiding tax increases and supporting those on fixed incomes, particularly senior citizens." If the minister or any government member will stand up and talk about the same kinds of positions that those very ministers and that very Premier --

Mr. Speaker: I direct the honourable member's attention to the clock.

Ms. Copps: -- who were so quick to talk about pre-election --

On motion by Ms. Copps, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.