Legislative Assembly of Ontario

L048 - Thu 21 Nov 1985 / Jeu 21 nov 1985

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 50, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981.

Mr. Sheppard: I rise to take part in this debate on Bill 50. I am glad the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is in the House, because his riding is much the same as mine. Last week I understand he was away for a week's holiday, and the rest of us were home working hard trying to make an honest dollar so we could look after this extra fuel tax he put on gasoline and diesel fuel that he should not have put on.

There are several things in my riding that I would like to speak about. We have what we call Northumberland forests and we have loggers who cut wood for pulp. They are so concerned about the extra tax the Treasurer has added in the budget that they are coming to me and asking me to get up in the House and bring to his attention that this is ridiculous.

We also have a lot of beef farmers. You know you like beef, Mr. Speaker, and if we do not get some assistance by lowering the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, we are going to be short of beef and we are going to have to import it from Australia or New Zealand.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: A very good beef support program was announced today. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) did it for them.

Mr. Sheppard: Yes, but he did not go far enough. The Treasurer knows that.

I would like to bring to the attention of the Treasurer that we also have a lot of hog farmers in the great riding of Northumberland.

Mr. Breaugh: Do the hogs use diesel fuel? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Sheppard: They use diesel fuel and they use gasoline.

Mr. Breaugh: What kind of diesel fuel are you feeding the hogs these days?

Mr. Sheppard: A lot of these hog farmers grow a lot of corn, and we know they cannot get diesel fuel out of growing a lot of corn; so they have to grow this corn and feed it back to the hogs. However, in order to do that, they have to plough the land in the fall, and that takes fuel. Most farmers today have a couple of diesel tractors, or maybe they have a couple of run-down gasoline tractors.

Mr. Breaugh: They do not pay any taxes at all.

Mr. Sheppard: It would be better if they had one good tractor that worked and used gasoline, provided it was cheaper than it is.

I want to bring to the attention of the Treasurer that regular unleaded gasoline has gone up by 4.76 per cent in his budget and diesel fuel has gone up by 6.45 per cent. This creates a lot of problems, because I also have tobacco farmers in my riding, as does the Treasurer. Where did he go? He is over there visiting; he is not paying any attention to me. I am glad the Treasurer does not smoke or he would be making a comment about the tobacco farmers, saying it would be great if they did not smoke because he would then have to tax another cent on gasoline.

I want to bring something else to the attention of the Treasurer. Just last June, when we were in power, Highway 401 was going to be repaved from Cobourg to Trenton because it varies four inches; it is terrible and it is going to cause a great many accidents. On the other side of Oshawa there are signs saying, "Rough road for 73 kilometres," and down the road a little farther there is another sign saying, "Rough road for 43.3 kilometres." What I want to emphasize to the Treasurer is that when his party took power, the government withdrew those tenders, and now it is not going to pave that road until next spring.

If the government were going to raise the fuel tax and put it into repaying some of the highways that are badly in need of it, I could support the increase, but the way it is, the government is not doing it properly. They should have repaved Highway 401 so that when the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) comes up that road -- some day we are going to run into the ditch.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Maybe before the next election.

Mr. Sheppard: Just at election time?

We have 15 municipalities in the great riding of Northumberland, and we have a lot of construction going on there. All the reeves and deputy reeves have come forward and said to me, "We cannot afford that extra tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, because it filters right back to the individual taxpayer; we will have to increase our taxes. Would you mind taking that back to the Treasurer?" I have said to the reeve or the deputy reeve, whatever the case may be, "I will gladly get up in the House."

I want the Treasurer to know that I have done my duty on behalf of some of the municipalities in the great riding of Northumberland by getting up in the House and telling him that he should remove this extra tax on gasoline immediately.

In the Toronto Sun today, I read that there is a possibility the Treasurer will remove the tax and raise $10 million in some other way. I wish he would get up in the House and tell us how he is going to do that. Then we might not have to get up in the House and tell him how badly we want him to remove that extra tax.

Also in the great riding of Northumberland we have many great apple orchards, and those growers have tractors too. They are complaining. The Treasurer is not paying a bit of attention to me.

Mr. Breaugh: There is a reason for that.

Mr. Sheppard: It is because he knows it is the truth. We also have a lot of custom workers, such as those on combines. Before I left home on Wednesday morning, just as I was going to the barn at 6:45 -- I slept in; I usually get up at 5:45 -- the guy was coming in with his truck to pick up the combine to start doing corn. He said to me, "When are you going back to Toronto?" I said, "In about an hour and a half." He said, "Would you mind telling that Treasurer I just cannot afford to pay the extra tax he has put on diesel fuel and gasoline?"

8:10 p.m.

I want the Treasurer to understand that the people in eastern Ontario are very concerned about the extra tax he is proposing. If he would get up in the House and tell us he is going to raise $10 million in some other way, I would sit down. However, I do not want to sit down until he realizes how important this is and how difficult it is going to be for the farmers in eastern Ontario with this extra tax. We cannot afford it.

Besides that, we have the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education. With bus operators in the great riding of Durham East and Northumberland, the board has an escalating clause with the bus operators. Every time the price of gasoline fluctuates, they are in trouble, because the board is talking about taking that escalator clause out. If the Treasurer would tell us he would hold the price of tax at one level, we would be happy. Then they would not have to have all those negotiations for weeks on end and they would be happy.

Also in the great riding of Northumberland, we have dairy farmers. I know the Treasurer was a dairy farmer at one time. They are very concerned about the high price of gasoline. They have to cut their hay, bale it and draw it in, and in the fall they have to do their ploughing. If the Treasurer would tell us how he is going to raise this extra $10 million, we would not have to debate this. However, since he is sitting there smiling and will not tell us how he is going to raise this extra money --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would feel badly if the honourable member were going to send this Hansard back to all his reeves, deputy reeves and wardens and all the farmers who, according to him, are worried about paying the tax on the fuel they use on their farms, because there is no tax payable at all. The school bus matter is something different.

There is no tax payable by the farmers. They either get it tax-free, or if they do not want to use the coloured fuel that was imposed upon them by one of my predecessors from Mississauga who is smiling at me across the way, waiting to make a speech in the next few minutes, they can send in for a rebate. We will be glad to send them a cheque. I will sign it myself.

Mr. Sheppard: I would gladly take this Hansard and give it to all the reeves and deputy reeves in the great riding of Northumberland. I would also be glad to take it back to the bus operators and to the director of the board of education.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The director could pay for the gasoline tax out of his salary and never even notice the difference.

Mr. Sheppard: If the Treasurer wants to raise some money, why does he not put a little extra tax on people who make $50,000 a year or more? Now he is in that category -- I see him smiling over there -- he would not miss that money.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My friend just voted against that.

Mr. Sheppard: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My friend just voted against that. That is part of the Income Tax Act -- three per cent on incomes over $50,000.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are some great suggestions being made across the floor. I hope the member for Northumberland will get back and discuss Bill 50.

Mr. Sheppard: I have only a couple of more points to make.

The Treasurer is trying to get the extra tax from the poor, but I have just suggested to him how he should get it. I would hope that in the near future he would find a different way of taxing the people of Ontario so we could get down to business.

I want to say to the Treasurer that I am sorry but I cannot support his bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Has the member not spoken already?

Mr. Villeneuve: No, I am sorry; this is my turn. I am addressing the fuel tax also, and it is rather sad to have to address such a situation.

Let us get this into the Queen's English. It is 9.3 cents per litre going to 9.9 cents per litre. That is 2.75 cents a gallon in the Queen's English, the language that is spoken in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How does the member think it got to 9.3 cents? It was the Tories who did it.

Mr. Villeneuve: I very often hear all sorts of excuses and promises from the other side. It is starting to wear thin, and I speak for 50,000 constituents, most of whom are farmers. I realize there is coloured fuel and there is clear fuel.

I suggest there are literally hundreds of trucks that drive up and down the concession roads with the sign "Cold, beautiful milk" on them. What do members think is the biggest cost to run these trucks that go up and down our concession roads 363 days a year?

Mr. Callahan: The driver.

Mr. Villeneuve: They have New Year's Day and Christmas Day off. Two days a year they do not run. Outside of the man at the wheel -- the honourable member is correct -- fuel is the biggest cost to these truckers. They are hauling milk, nature's most nearly perfect food. They are taking it to a processing plant that will prepare it for its use by our urban counterparts either as fluid milk or to be transformed into cheese and other dairy products.

I was privileged to be invited to attend the annual meeting of the Ontario Milk Transport Association, which occurred two weeks ago on Saturday night. They are very concerned about the increase of 2.75 cents per gallon on the fuel that will be powering these trucks to haul nature's most nearly perfect food. It will be borne by the dairy farmers of this country and it will then be passed on to our consumers. The Treasurer must remember that.

The Ontario Milk Marketing Board works on a formula based on the cost to operate. As I said, outside of the man at the wheel, the next biggest cost is fuel in that truck. Most of them are diesel-powered because of efficiency. The Treasurer is hitting them right in the wallet, and I want him to remember that as these trucks haul nature's most nearly perfect food to those great processing plants in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I speak of places such as Nestle Enterprises Ltd., Ault Foods Ltd., Carnation Inc. and Kraft Ltd.

I must put in a plug for my colleague the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier). There is a great little cheese factory at St. Albert. It makes some of the best cheese going, and I am sure my colleague will agree.

This fuel tax is going to hurt all of these processors because it will increase their costs. Some will be borne by the farmers, but they will be passed on to the consumers.

I need not tell the Treasurer that agriculture is going through some of the most difficult times since the Great Depression. Do I need to tell the Treasurer that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The last time the Liberals were in power.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is when the Depression ended; when the 42 years of Tory government started, it ended the Depression. Oh, yes. We are talking about the fuel tax.

Secondary hauling: Many of our dairy products are semi-processed at certain places and then they are on the road again. There is a song about that, "On the Road Again."

Mr. McClellan: Why not sing it for us?

Mr. Villeneuve: The member for Bellwoods does not particularly like to hear this, because he knows nothing about agriculture; but he benefits from agriculture.

Mr. Breaugh: He knows nothing about a lot of things. So?

8:20 p.m.

Mr. Villeneuve: His colleague agrees with him over here.

In secondary hauling, we are hauling semiprocessed dairy products from one plant to another. Then the process is completed and these same products wind up in the great cities, such as the one we are in right now.

This great city uses these farm products. I do not believe the consumer realizes and appreciates the blood, sweat and tears that goes into the production of these products. The Treasurer is going after the basic producers and charging them additional moneys to bring their product to market.

I notice the Treasurer has slipped out for a minute. No, he is just behind you, Mr. Speaker. We have in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, a great number of cash crops being grown such as corn, soybean, barley, whatever else. There are lots of grains being grown. These grains all wind up on the road in diesel trucks to go to the elevator. Again, the increase of 2.75 cents a gallon that he is looking to impose is being borne by our basic producers. They have to get there -- and I am talking about wet grain. The Treasurer knows it is a lot heavier wet than once it has dried. The drying process also requires fuel.

He is hitting again the people who can least afford it. The Treasurer knows the agricultural producers have no say in their cost of production, nor do they have any say in what they receive for their product. They can decide when to sell. That is the only decision they have. The Treasurer knows that. He is hitting those people right in the wallet again for 2.75 cents a gallon.

I live close to an elevator. Day and night at this time of year, big semi-tractor-trailers are driving past full of wet corn. The Treasurer knows what that is. They are going to the elevator. The increase of 2.75 cents a gallon applies to just about every one of those tractor-trailers on the road that is pulling that wet corn to market.

Now the wet corn is dry. It may use propane, natural gas or whatever, but that is not where it ends. It has to be hauled to a secondary market and probably to a third market before consumption. Every time it is on the road again and every time it is costing. With an increased price of diesel fuel, it is going to cost at least 2.75 cents a gallon more.

When the Treasurer made his budget statement, many of the retailers increased the price of fuel immediately. The Treasurer knows that happens. It is a very convenient way of grabbing a little profit at the government's expense. Remember, when the Treasurer announces an increase in the cost of fuel, everyone talks about it the next morning. They read it in the paper. What happens? The price goes up at the retailers. The Treasurer gets blamed and someone is making a little more profit. That is not a situation that should be tolerated.

We have in the riding that I am so proud to represent a large area of organic soil. The Treasurer will know what organic soil is. It is called Tayside Muck Farms. It is just in the process of getting going economically. Do members know what its biggest cost is? Getting its produce to market. How does it get its produce to market? Via diesel-powered trucks. The markets are Toronto, Montreal and the east coast of the United States.

We have a potential. We have 7,000 acres of some of the most productive organic soil anywhere. However, this tax is driving the economic situation a little bit further away from being realistic.

I ask and plead with the Treasurer to reconsider this situation. He is hitting those who can least afford it.

This same Tayside Muck Farm is speaking of installing dehydration equipment. Such equipment is very fuel- and power-intensive. It may be partly electrically powered, partly diesel-powered, or partly powered by a number of other modes. Again, it is a question of diesel fuel costs. The additional costs of moving these products, 2.75 cents per gallon, just makes it all the more difficult.

Just adjacent to the great riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry there is a very large grain elevator situated along the water at Prescott. It has capacity for untold bushels of corn. The Treasurer should consider a gasohol plant there, situated along the water, and I will quote from a promise made by a certain party in opposition at a certain time --

Interjection.

Mr. Villeneuve: They happened to wear red ties, most of them. I will read from item 19, which says specifically: "Introduction of a major program to develop an alcohol-gasoline blend to replace leaded fuel. This low-polluting, high-octane blend would be made from alcohol produced in Ontario, which would be eligible for a provincial fuel tax reduction," and I emphasize, "a fuel tax reduction." I do not believe we are addressing a fuel tax reduction right now; we are addressing the exact opposite.

"In order to encourage development, assistance would be provided to lower the cost of energy source utilized in an alcohol production plant, so as low-cost steam from the Bruce nuclear complex...."

We have all the storage facilities in Prescott. The St. Lawrence Seaway is immediately adjacent. We have a good network of roads, if we overlook the ruts between Oshawa and Belleville. I must tell members that when I was coming back Sunday night, a week and a half ago, I had to stay overnight in Trenton because of the ruts. It was snowing and it was most dangerous on Highway 401 going east. It is dangerous, and the 2.75 cent increase in the cost of fuel should be applied immediately to correct that situation.

I will go back to the gasohol plant. The Treasurer should give that some very serious thought. At Prescott, we have all the facilities, not being used really anywhere near their potential; and, as I said, it is along the water, the rail line and Highway 401. It has all the attributes.

We import just about all of our fuel needs. This could provide us with 10 per cent of our required fuel in Ontario. The Treasurer knows the price of corn right now is so low it does not cover the cost of production. This corn could be turned into alcohol. It could be turned into gasohol that could be added to regular gas to provide the octane and be a clean-burning fuel. The Treasurer should give that some thought.

8:30 p.m.

Getting back to the business of being on the road again, I could bring the Treasurer to some hog farms and beef farms. They have to take their livestock to market. As a beef farmer, I market most of my cattle in Ottawa at a small killing plant, the only one of any scale in eastern Ontario. Do the members know the price I receive for my cattle? It is Toronto, less hauling. What has the government done to the price of beef? It has been lowered by 2.75 cents a gallon for diesel fuel. Those costs are being borne by some of the people who are not even meeting their cash costs in a very difficult and tough-to-operate economy, the livestock and red meat economy.

I appreciate what I heard from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It is a step in the right direction, and let us hope it does come to fruition and is not one more shallow promise made by a government that is floundering.

We in the county of Dundas have more senior citizens per capita than any other county in Ontario. From time to time, these people like to hire a bus to take them from place to place.

Mr. Haggerty: All the time.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is right. I tell my honourable friend that the increase of 2.75 cents per gallon to fuel the bus that these senior citizens will be renting, possibly to go to Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or wherever, will be built into the price of their ticket. The government has not given that any thought at all. Two and three quarter cents a gallon, in the Queen's English, is what it is all about. This is what we are talking about.

I have said basically what I had to say. I still find it rather strange to see the party on the left over here dancing from one toe to the other. It is going to be most interesting when we come to a vote a little later tonight, tomorrow or whenever, to see exactly which way they will leap.

It is rather interesting. They are faced with a dilemma. I go back to what the leader of the third party said in Cornwall just prior to the election: never, never would they associate with the Liberal Party of Ontario because they had seen the show before. It will be interesting to see what kind of show occurs here.

I do not believe, in the accord, that they promised to love, honour, obey and raise the fuel tax. That was a little extra the Treasurer threw in. Perhaps they promised to love, honour and obey. But raise the fuel tax? I do not know. We will have to wait and see.

Mr. Gordon: It is indeed an honour to be able to speak on this bill, although I do not think I can call it a very honourable bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Gordon: I thought perhaps a little play on words would be suitable on this occasion. I cannot help but think of that little story the Treasurer alluded to when he talked about sitting around with Earl and the boys talking about taxes and things such as this . I am sure he probably did kick the tires down at the corner store and "Aw, shucks" with the fellows. However, I am sure when they started to kid him a little about taxes and such things, even fuel taxes, being the astute politician he is, he managed to get them talking about some other subject, such as the corn being just about ready for harvesting or some such thing.

In this House we have all seen the adroitness of the Treasurer of Ontario when he was in the opposition, how smoothly and ably he was able to touch on practically any topic and, when necessary, deflect the lightning and thunder around him at any time. I noticed another thing about him, and I might as well bring this up right now, because I was a great admirer of his parliamentary skills. No matter how much one heckled him, when he was in the opposition one could not get him to answer. He would not take that bait.

Whenever we are talking about the Treasurer like this we want to make it clear we do have a great deal of respect for his political acumen, but I think his political acumen is beginning to wear a little thin around the edges. This fuel tax is a classic example of that. The residents of the north, particularly the residents of the Sudbury region, have felt the sting of the new taxes he brought forward in this budget.

The Treasurer talked today in the House about the very fine presentation that was brought forward by the regional chairman and his people. As a matter of fact, he alluded to the other guests who came along with the regional chairman. They were people who are very well known throughout Ontario, if not through all of the Sudbury region. He mentioned how they impressed him with their veracity and their political expertise and convinced him -- no, he did not say they convinced him of anything -- he said it was the regional chairman and his people who presented a brief much better than he had seen in a number of years, no, since he had become the Treasurer. That is what he said.

I must tell him I thought that was really excellent. I listen very carefully to what the Treasurer says because some day I might just happen to talk about it in other places.

Mr. Cousens: But he is Mr. Minister of Revenue tonight.

Mr. Gordon: Minister of Revenue, Treasurer, it is all the same, he is collecting money for raising taxes. I recall he said something in question period this afternoon to the effect that it was one of the best presentations he had witnessed since he had become Treasurer.

This Treasurer obviously has spent some time in this assembly, in this great room, because he left it open to tell other people their presentation was one of the finest he had seen since he had become Treasurer. I will have to admit that we have to watch this minister very closely.

The people of Sudbury and Sudbury region are very concerned about his budget, particularly his fuel tax. The fuel tax is disturbing them greatly, particularly since so many of them at the present time are unemployed. When one has to get into his truck or into his vehicle, if it happens to be diesel-powered, and one wants to go somewhere he is paying through the nose. He is going to pay more. It does not recognize the fact that while he is an employable person he is now on the welfare rolls. He is somebody who is unemployed and unable to find a job anywhere in that region. That hurts. I think the Treasurer should bear that in mind.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How did they like the $100 million for northern development?

Mr. Gordon: I do not think the Treasurer should interject when we are talking about a subject as serious as this one. Perhaps he should pull his horns in a little. Just because I am a little jovial right now it does not necessarily mean that we do not have any teeth on this side of the House.

Nevertheless, I am sure the message that Tom Davies, the regional chairman, brought to the Treasurer that day is beginning to sink in. I think he made it very clear that due to his government's failure to set out specific provisions as yet for make-work programs, there are people in Sudbury who are not going to have the opportunity of getting off the welfare rolls and, as a result, he is going to find that these people are not going to have the opportunity of driving their trucks or their cars if they happen to be diesel-fuelled because they are not going to have the money.

8:40 p.m.

The kind of action the Treasurer took in his budget quite clearly led to the credit rating of this province being downgraded. I know in his budget he tried to take one pass at the idea of the credit rating as being a very positive thing. On the other hand, those people had to do what they had to do. He made it sound as if what he was saying was: "There is medicine involved, and we all have to take a little bit of medicine. We want to keep the credit rating, and if we happen to lose the credit rating, we will feel bad about it, but it is going to go."

He did not say that by the time it was all over he would probably take close to $1 billion, when we consider the kinds of transfers that come from the federal government and when we consider that probably the tax that is involved in the Canada pension plan will go up a percentage point or so and he will have the benefit of that.

He did not tell those people in the Sudbury region or in the north who are suffering from this haemorrhage of jobs that he was raising a kitty of well over $700 million, which he is going to play games with a number of months down the road. I think people would be very hurt to think this budget was really established for sheer electioneering purposes.

I am sure the people on my left would never have signed that accord if they thought he was going to bring in a budget like this and take that money from the people of Ontario and use it against the people for the crass purposes of future elections. I am sure the people on the left would never have signed that accord if they thought the Treasurer was going to use that money to reduce the number of seats they hold in this Legislature. I cannot believe anyone in his right mind would have signed the accord under those circumstances. I am sure they never thought of that; so I will not hold that against those who sit to the left of me. They will have to bear that problem for some time in the future.

Let us make it very clear. The Treasurer lost the credit rating in Ontario, so he could raise an extra $700 million, which he will perhaps spend on an election eight, 10 or 12 months or two years from now, but it was not in the interests of the people of Ontario.

When Earl and the boys get together around the stove down at that corner store and the Treasurer kicks the tires and says, "Aw, shucks," he is going to have to talk about more than the price of corn and soybeans, because in eight or 10 months they are going to catch on. Now that we have changed not only the sign over the door when we talk about the office of the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure he will be looking forward to the next contest.

In the north we need jobs; we do not need more fuel taxes. We need jobs for youth. I am sure some of the people here in southern Ontario are going to give the Treasurer credit for bringing in youth opportunity programs that are going to employ some of those youths in certain business establishments around the great south. Of course, I have always been an admirer of the people of southern Ontario. I think they work hard and they certainly deserve whatever benefits they can get.

At the same time, the Treasurer has to realize -- and I hope he will take the time to think about it -- that the youth in northern Ontario are not going to have the same opportunity to get jobs as the youth in southern Ontario. I will come to that a little more in a few minutes.

The other matter is that this budget does not address the problems faced by those individuals in northern Ontario and in the Sudbury region between the ages of 24 and 50. I should not restrict it just to northern Ontario. I should say, in all conscience and in all truth, that it really does not address the problems of those who are employable, who are on welfare between the ages of 24 and 50 and who are living in southern Ontario, either.

As I indicated, it addressed the problem of youth, but only to a degree and really only for those youths who are living in southern Ontario. The Treasurer might ask how I can say that. I do not want to repeat things he has heard already. I do not want to do that to him.

They say that people can begin to suffer from Alzheimer's disease as young as 45. The early indications of that most unwanted disease sometimes turn up around 45. I know the Treasurer shows no signs of any of these problems, but I have to go over again what the regional chairman, Tom Davies, must have told him at that time about the problems of youth in Sudbury region.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. The debate is on the fuel tax.

Mr. Gordon: If I might just make this point, the youth in Sudbury region are not going to be able to pay that fuel tax. I want to tell you why, Mr. Speaker. I know you are listening very intently to me, You are taking down everything on that little clipboard you have and you want to hear about the problems of the north, particularly since you spent so much time in the north in your former portfolio preparing to come to this great assembly.

The problem we have in the north with youth is that although they represent a third of the labour force, they are half of the area's unemployed.

There is one thing that offends me in this House. I am not one of these people who flies off the handle easily. I am a very patient man, a very kind person. I try not to speak loudly or to antagonize other people, but when I am talking to the Treasurer, I do not want to be looking at the back of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). As members can see, I bear no malice to anyone.

Sudbury's economy is not growing, and that is one of the penalties of the lack of diversification. We had the opportunity today of hearing from the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines (Mr. Fontaine). That minister is trying to wrestle with the problems of the north. We have to give credit where it is due, but at the same time, I wonder whether he realizes what the problem is.

There is a great deal of talk about the $20 million a year, which has been generated in part by the fuel tax, just so we keep this on track. What is that $20 million a year going to be used for? As I said this afternoon in question period, it is quite obvious to all of us in this House, leaving partisan politics aside, that if we are going to have true diversification in northwestern and northeastern Ontario, we are going to have to have a conscious and written policy on the part of the provincial government.

The government is going to have to direct and channel new manufacturers, people who are interested in developing new companies, people from offshore and so forth. It is going to have to point them in the direction of the north and provide incentives, I can think of one incentive right off the bat when I look around this very fine chamber.

Perhaps for the first time many of us can actually see some of the very fine scroll-work that runs up and down the various columns. Just to think that scroll-work has listened to the Treasurer for a number of years --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does the member see the bust of Stalin right over my shoulder?

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: Does the Treasurer see the knives hanging behind him?

They have listened to many speeches about diversification and things that are needed, but until a government makes that very conscious written commitment to northern Ontario, the north is not going to develop. The north is still going to be that kind of a vessel out of which we keep pouring the profits. Those profits are used to build up the very fine buildings on Bay Street and to invest in other companies around the world. That is a known fact.

There is not much point in flying the poor Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines, that honourable minister, out across the north by King Air into various northern communities with his entourage of civil servants and parliamentary assistants to talk about the largess of this Liberal government, because the people in the north can see through that. They see it as a game, like going to see the people on a reservation and giving them some nice coloured beads to play with. That is not good enough.

To the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines, I say that is not good enough. He is going to be very disappointed and upset, because he will find the people in those communities will tell him to his face, or they will say it after he leaves, that it is all hogwash and that is not the way in which the north is going to develop.

What led me to this point is that those young people in the Sudbury region -- as an example of the north -- who cannot get jobs represent one third of the labour force and one half of the area's unemployed. Those young people cannot afford to get out in those diesel trucks or automobiles, nor can they look forward to buying those kinds of vehicles in the future under these circumstances.

If the government members are sincere and really want to do something in the north, they are going to have to change their policies. It is just not going to work. There is no point in going around, for example, in January or February and taking the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and seven or eight high-falutin ministers along with their aides in five or six King Airs to fly throughout the north.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member's party was going to have its own jet.

Mr. Gordon: There is no point in the Treasurer saying he would like to buy a jet, now that the government has an extra $700 million.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I did not say that. It did not cross my mind.

Mr. Gordon: I would not want to lead anybody astray. If the Treasurer wants to correct the record, he should stand up and say so. I can remember very well what happened this afternoon in this House. The Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines very adroitly deferred to the greater wisdom of the Treasurer, and when the Treasurer was asked whether he was prepared to initiate a policy in this province to see that diversification happened in northern Ontario, he proceeded to talk around the question.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, I did not. I said specifically that was the answer to the question.

Mr. Gordon: If the Treasurer wants to correct the record, he knows he can get up in this House. He can do it now.

The members on the left would welcome a straight-arrow answer at this time on that subject. I could applaud him then and so could they. To give the devils their due, they have talked on that topic in the past. I would never take that away from them for a moment. The member for Sudbury East may go out around 11 o'clock tonight if he wants and put out a press release about that, and I will not say anything about it. I will not say for one minute he did the wrong thing.

One of the penalties of lack of diversification is that people cannot afford the fuel taxes the Treasurer is bringing in in the north. We see Inco and Falconbridge continue to reduce their work force. One can walk into any restaurant in Toronto and look around and that restaurant will have a preponderance of young people in it. If one walks into a restaurant in northern Ontario, one does not see a preponderance of young people. One sees middle-aged people and people older than that, pensioners, because the youth have had to leave the north.

Things are not going to change until the Treasurer changes. I would be the first to get up and applaud him in this House if he saw fit to change. He would be known as one of the greatest Treasurers of Ontario if he were to bring in a brand-new policy that was really meaningful for northern Ontario. I would be glad to talk to the Star this evening or tomorrow morning if he would so enlighten us.

An hon. member: Which party is the member in?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He has tried them all but one.

Mr. Gordon: I have to say I find that amusing. I do not want to rise to that occasion, but I will put it on the record. Someone just asked, which party do I belong to? I just want him to listen very carefully to this. I do not want to go too far because some people on the other side might begin to squirm a little; so I am not going to tell members about a certain member of this august assembly who paid a visit to my office when I was the mayor of Sudbury to talk to me of certain matters.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: The fuel tax; that is right. He did not mention anything about the fuel tax when he came to visit me, I can assure members of that. I am talking about a certain Mr. Peterson. I think he is referred to as Premier now. Because I think at times there are conversations that should not be repeated, I will not repeat the one we had, in all fairness, but if I did I think members would understand why I am standing here as a true blue Tory today.

Nevertheless, as I was saying, one of the things we notice in the north is the lack of young people because they have to move south. I think we all recognize that is a very sad thing to see, that people cannot remain in their home towns, their communities, but must leave their friends, parents and grandparents and work elsewhere. At least some should be able to stay, but that is not how it works at present.

The real tragedy is seeing men, in particular those who have worked underground in those mines and smelters, now faced with going off unemployment insurance because they have not been able to find any other kind of work and having to go on welfare. They are men who have families and homes and have worked hard and felt they had a dream for which they could live. That is the tragedy.

Until the Treasurer is ready to change his policies and put real diversification into northwestern Ontario, this fuel tax is not worth a hoot. Tell that to the boys around Earl's garage.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is Earl's Shell Service Station.

Mr. Gordon: By the way, I see we have a Speaker now in the chair who I hope will be a little more amenable to some of the things I have been saying. I am sure the fellows and perhaps some of the ladies who attend at Earl's Shell garage on some of the nights they play cribbage there would be very upset if they were told the community of Sudbury region has forecast a welfare bill $2 million higher this year than last year. Those individuals who are going on welfare are ready to work, but there are no jobs.

It is going to be a nice Christmas for those people, is it not, Mr. Treasurer? Your fuel tax is not going to do anything for them.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member address his remarks to the chair, please?

9 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: We can always count on the right to keep us on the straight and narrow. I must thank the Speaker for bringing me to that straight and narrow position.

As I indicated, another problem with this fuel tax is that it hits the truckers. As one who has driven Highway 69 on many occasions in the morning, in the afternoon and especially in the dead of night

Mr. Haggerty: The member is not moonlighting, is he?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, as Mr. Dressup.

Mr. Gordon: One thing about electronic Hansard is that it ignores all these remarks. Do not put him on camera whatever you do; it might break the camera. I take that back. I do not mean to offend anyone this evening, not even the Treasurer.

There are many independent truckers on that highway. They are finding it a little easier the closer they get to Sudbury, because about seven new passing lanes were put in during the past two years; but that was before the Treasurer's time. Those truckers are going to be a might perturbed over the news that came out of this Legislature not too long ago when the budget was brought in. The Treasurer said he was not going to be increasing spending on roads. The problem is that when the Treasurer goes home every evening -- now, with his increased responsibilities, it is probably every second evening -- the farther south he goes, the better the roads get.

If the Treasurer would take the time to drive up to northern Ontario some day, to Sudbury, he would see some of the problems those truckers face. Besides the fact that he has hit them with increased fuel taxes, they have all those bloody rock cuts they have to avoid in the most inclement weather, in the ice storms and the great snowstorms we have in the north, and the Treasurer is going to cut back on the amount of money he is going to spend on roads. I am sure those truckers are happy about that.

We will be looking for some of that $700 million the Treasurer is putting aside for the next great coming to be spent up in the north. I hope he does not think when that next great coming happens the voters are going to divide just as the waters did for Moses. He might be in for an awful surprise and get drowned.

It is really a hidden thing. In the city of Sudbury we have an excellent transit service, which uses diesel buses. In other communities across this province they have privately run transit services that all tend to be diesel buses. In one way or another, these increased taxes get passed on to those people who ride buses. It gets passed on to those people who cannot afford to own an automobile. It gets passed on to those people who might have senior citizen cards and want to go somewhere. Those are the people who get hit by this.

What happens when we increase the cost of fuel for truckers? Does the cost of food go down in northern Ontario? Does the cost of clothing go down in northern Ontario? Does the cost of automobiles go down in northern Ontario? Does the cost of operating mining machinery go down? All that stuff has to be transported in.

The Treasurer is putting it to us. I know he sat on this side of the House for a long time and he made some pretty fine speeches. Since I have been here, he has been one of the best speakers in this House, the most entertaining and the most interesting. However, I am surprised to see what he has done since he went over there.

I hope he will repent. I hope he will see fit to take some of these taxes, such as the gasoline tax, which we are probably going to talk about some time in the future, and perhaps change things a little to show that he has a heart. Big Bob Nixon's heart. Of course, February is not here yet; so we cannot talk about Valentine's Day.

Nevertheless, those people who can ill afford to pay more are the people who pay, and pay through the nose. It is the little people in this province, the working people in this province, the people who have to drive from Sturgeon Falls to Sudbury to work in the mines, the people who drive an hour's round trip from Espanola every day to work in those mines and smelters; they are the people who are going to be paying.

This is going to hurt those people when they go out to buy their work boots, their work socks and their work clothes. They are going to remember the name Bob Nixon. They will remember Nixon's budget. I think I am going to arrange to have somebody take the Treasurer a litre of fuel oil. No matter where he goes, we will have somebody deliver it to him just to remind him of what he has done. It is a real shame.

I can see that some of the members on the opposite side are becoming incensed. It is like when you are a child and someone says you did something wrong. Usually you feel a little ashamed, but at the same time you would be a little mad because you got caught. You do not like to be told you are doing something that is wrong. If the Treasurer feels shame and anger at the same time, he should be glad the Lord has put somebody on this side of the House to tell him what he is doing wrong.

When we talk about northern Ontario, there is one thing we have in northern Ontario that perhaps the Treasurer is not very aware of. When he was able to come up to the north, before this kind of fuel tax was introduced, back around 1967, I can remember first meeting the honourable gentleman; it was at the Caruso Club, as a matter of fact. That was the time I ran against Elmer Sopha. I ran as a Tory then, but of course some people have chosen to forget that.

I could not help remembering what a fine-looking gentleman he was. He was so tall and young-looking. Of course, he was quite young at that time; he was still wet behind the ears. But surely the Treasurer could see the rock in northern Ontario at that time. Surely he could see that we do not have a situation where all the roads can go at right angles to each other and it is easy to get around.

One of problems of the north is that we have to go around the hills, under the hills and over the hills, and we have to spend more money on fuel. We have to spend more money on our vehicles. There is more wear and tear on vehicles in the north.

Mr. Callahan: Is the member getting close to the end?

Mr. Gordon: I am not going to talk about this now; I will choose to talk about it later. However, increasing fees for licences --

Mr. Warner: Great stalling tactic.

9:10 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: This fuel tax really gets me. When I think that the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines talks about what he is going to do in the north for northerners, his idea of improving things for us northerners with the money from this fuel tax is tourism. He says: "What we need is more tourists in the north. Come on up to the north."

I am glad to see the minister has come back into the House. He is going to bring all these people up to northern Ontario. The answer for the future is tourism.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I never said that.

Mr. Gordon: To be fair, he said one of the really important answers for the north is tourism.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: No, sir.

Mr. Gordon: The minister might have said it in another language, but I do not know enough of the other language to say if he said it. I do not want the minister to become incensed, whatever he does. Some of the finest moments in this Legislature have come when people became incensed, but we do not want anybody incensed tonight.

We know on this side of the House, because we took the time to listen very carefully to what the Treasurer said the day he presented the budget, that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation budget was being slashed by 12 per cent. That hardly shows much commitment to this new goal of tourism in the north.

I am not going to say we do not have a need for tourists in the north. We have in Sudbury a very fine facility called Science North, built with provincial government funding, federal funding and funding from Inco and Falconbridge and a number of other companies. It is a welcome addition to the economic future of Sudbury, but that is not the answer for Sudburians. It is not a year-round facility and the majority of people who work in that facility are part-timers. Part-time jobs are not what we need in the north.

The Deputy Speaker: Is this directly connected with the Fuel Tax Amendment Act?

Mr. Gordon: Yes, it is.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please restrict yourself to the act.

Mr. Gordon: This fuel tax is not going to do anything to create full-time jobs in northern Ontario. If anything, it is going to create even more part-time jobs in northern Ontario, because people in the north are not even going to have as much money to spend on goods and services. Most of their money is going to spent on this ridiculous tax.

I have to correct the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines. I want to guide him and I want to be fair. He is a new minister, and to be perfectly fair, it is important that we on this side of the House give sound and constructive advice that will allow the new ministers to come out with programs that are good for all the people of Ontario, but in my case I would like it to be northern Ontario.

Part-time jobs are not the answer, because part-time jobs involve lower pay and people do not get promoted in part-time jobs. If anything, the job remains the same and the person remains the same. As far as the quality of life of a part-time worker is concerned, the scheduling is very bad. In the north they send the waitresses home. They come in for breakfast and serve the people; for the rest of the morning they go home. They come back at noon, they work and then they go home for the afternoon. Then they come back at suppertime. Those are hardly great working conditions, and I do not see how this fuel tax is going to help people up there.

Where in the private sector do people in the tourist business get pensions? Is there anything to look forward to when they are 60 years of age, apart from the Canada pension plan? They may have to ask for the supplement because the CPP is not enough. Is that what we are looking at in the north now? Fewer employment rights? Do part-time people have a lot of employment rights today in Ontario? They do not. I say to the Treasurer that exchanging part-time jobs for full-time jobs surely cannot count as economic diversification.

If the minister is going to spend less money on roads, what is he going to do about Highway 69? I would like to go on and talk about this fuel tax for at least 48 hours, but there is an airplane leaving shortly, and if I can grab a cab in time, I can get home tonight. I want the Treasurer to know that I gave up the opportunity this evening of being able to get back to Sudbury because I knew he would be looking forward to my advice and counsel.

Now that I know I have helped the new Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines to see the way, I am sure some of the policies he is going to bring out in the future will have some attributes of some of the things I have been talking about. I will be delighted to tell the people in northeastern Ontario how I have contributed to what the minister is bringing out. I will bend every effort and I will turn over every stone to make sure they hear about it. If he does not believe me, he can ask the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

Mr. Cousens: It is difficult to follow one who has inspired us as beautifully as the member for Sudbury. When he brings the wisdom from the north to the south so that we can understand something of the thinking of the north, we are all the better for his guidance and counsel.

I happen to believe the Treasurer will be influenced by our oratory and concern, because he will then know that the great majority of the people of Ontario, who are represented by us, will want him to respond with some kind of decision to their needs for the right kind of Ontario.

I have a number of points I would like to make. What we are doing is saying goodbye to the good old gasoline days in Ontario. The passing of an era usually gets people dewy-eyed and nostalgic, but alas, such is not the case with the passing of this era. Perhaps the lack of teary emotion can be understood by looking at a new study released recently by a management consulting firm, Runzheimer Canada Inc., which reviewed gasoline prices, not only through the period of price regulation a few years ago but also right back to 1965.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is reading his speech. That is against parliamentary law.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cousens: I will read parts, and then I will go spontaneously and follow my friend's good example.

The Deputy Speaker: Might I say to the member for York Centre that he has been speaking for just about two minutes and has yet to mention the Fuel Tax Act, diesel or anything on the subject.

Mr. Cousens: I am talking about gasoline, and I am just working up. If the Speaker will be so kind as to allow me to continue, I will tie these remarks into Bill 50, which is before us.

I was referring to the Runzheimer Canada report, which reviewed the price of gasoline in Canada right back to 1965. What I want to draw out is the fact that the gasoline price continues to go up, and how much it is going up is significant and interesting to all of us.

When Canada entered the era of Ottawa-Alberta price setting in 1980, a litre of regular gasoline was ours for 26 cents; that was the full-service price. Now the cost of self-serve gasoline, the whole cost of gasoline, is 44.9 cents. Just look what is happening to it. It has gone up by more than 9.9 cents a litre in the past four or five years -- no, it has gone up more than that, if I were able to follow my report.

9:20 p.m.

When Canada entered the era of Ottawa-Alberta price setting in 1980, a litre of regular gas was ours for 26 cents. That was the full-service price, not the cost of self-serve gasoline. Today we are brushing up at almost double the 1980 level. In the premetric days of 1965, we were paying 9.9 cents for a litre of gasoline.

To look at it another way, the 44.9-cent gallon of gasoline in 1965 now costs $2.34, a 421 per cent increase. It continues to rise. What we are seeing the Minister of Revenue do here tonight, what we see the government trying to do will cause the price structure within our whole environment to go up. The people in Ontario do not want that because they are saying: "If the prices of gasoline and fuel continue to rise, that will fuel an increase in price for everything else that is served by those who have to deliver their goods, their people and their products. Where gasoline is involved, that affects everybody in this province."

It is the most inflationary-stimulating activity the government could do. It stimulates inflation because everything we do in this province depends upon the delivery of goods. As we increase the price of fuel so too do we increase the cost of those services we are delivering. They have to be recovered more and more by the people who would deliver those goods and services.

We at this time should be looking at ways of controlling inflation. The whole budget that has been presented by the government increases our deficit by $500 million. We see no real addressing of those concerns. By virtue of having a deficit that large going up after only three or four months in office, when the previous government was trying to bring down the deficit -- we sought efforts to reduce inflation -- we see now a further effort to say: "Do not mind inflation. Let it go ahead. The people will pay for it."

The people have to pay for it because we are dependent upon petroleum products to do our business, to travel and to maintain the economy of this province. We are in that dangerous situation now where already our petroleum products are 10 cents a litre more in Ontario than they are in the United States of America.

This again affects our economy because Americans, whom we would like to welcome here as tourists and visitors, come up and have to pay so much for gasoline that it begins to take away some of the advantages of our dollar difference. We want to have every advantage we can in this province to make it attractive for people to come here to visit, to work, to prosper, and so we can establish an environment for success, an environment for business. It is government's responsibility to do that, not take away that incentive and undermine that whole purpose we have had in this province for so long. The people in Ontario have built up over a period of years that sense of knowing things would be okay. Now, here we start having inflation come back. We start having this basic undermining of the future of our province.

What is the tax for? If the money was going to be invested to promote more industry and high technology, if the money were to be used for seniors in this province so they could have more of the services they require such as nursing home spaces and chronic care beds, if the money was going to be invested back into the province in the ways in which it is most essential right now, then I could begin to have some satisfaction that it was purposeful.

Instead, we are seeing a pot being built, a pot of money which could be used by the new government at its own discretion, at its own disposal, to do what it wants. We have no idea how those moneys will be invested back into the province.

I am concerned that if we are going to tax such a fundamental product that is so basic to the future of our province, then we should not be doing it at the price of fuel. There is plenty of evidence of that when one looks at the old Liberal and the new Liberal.

I refer now to an article in the Globe and Mail which quotes: "The former opposition leader, who is now the Honourable David Peterson, asked the government back in December 1984 to investigate the increases in fuel at Gulf and Texaco stations in Metro Toronto. Mr. Peterson asked Consumer and Commercial Relations minister Robert Elgie in question period whether it appeared somewhat conspiratorial that they were all getting together at one point to jack their prices up."

I now ask the Liberal government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his friends, the Treasurer and the people there who are doing these things, is there something conspiratorial in what they are doing in jacking the prices up? I say there is because it undermines the very fabric of our province.

I am sorry the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) is not here. He was at the same time in the same question period pressing for a reduction in the cost of gasoline. He said that, "Lifting the tax on gasoline," which he said was 0.8 cents a litre, "would be a major step in making gas more economical." That is true. I am so pleased they quote him on such a basic thing. Reducing the gas tax by any amount would make it more economical. He was pressing the member for Lincoln, the Honourable Philip Andrewes at that time --

Mr. Andrewes: The former honourable.

Mr. Cousens: -- the former honourable, but still honourable in so many ways -- to remove that gas tax.

Now what do we see. We see the same Minister of Natural Resources and Energy with his friends in the Liberal Party, the new friends, the cronies they all are, increasing the price of fuel. That is not where they should be going. It is not keeping the faith. It is not keeping the trust.

When we look at the price of gasoline around the world, here is a chance for us in Ontario to offer an advantage to other people and say to them, "Not only do we have a beautiful environment here," and we do, "not only do we have a good educational system," and we do, "and health and social services, but also the whole fabric of this province makes us proud to be Ontarians and proud to be members of the Legislative Assembly representing the people of this province."

We do not want to be leaders on the level that we are now coming to be, leaders in the price of fuel. Fuel prices are at such a level that we are now among the 98th percentile of those people who charge the most money for gas. It is such a basic ingredient to our success that if we went and offered an advantage by reducing our price of fuels instead of increasing them, then we would begin to attract more the business ventures and the opportunities for people to come and settle in this province.

Why do we not set an example along with some of the other provinces that have done something about gas tax?

The Minister of Revenue or the Treasurer, or whatever post he is in this evening, should know that Manitoba has a fixed rate of 8.9 cents for a litre of regular leaded gasoline. There is no fuel tax in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Why can we not bring that kind of advantage to the people of Ontario? Why can we not be leaders for a change in that kind of fundamental way? It would be a way that would promote more economy for the province and would generate more tax dollars through the increased business that would take place.

Canadians are paying too much at the gas pumps. We have higher taxes on gasoline in this province than we should have. We could negotiate with Ottawa to reduce its share of gas taxes and, through the leadership that could be given by our own Treasurer and Minister of Revenue, we could begin to move in a positive way to strengthen this province.

9:30 p.m.

There are key organizations that are asking for this kind of relief. The Canadian Automobile Association wants to see the federal and provincial governments lower gas taxes. Robert Erb, vice-president -- I wonder if he is any relative to -- no, it is not Herb Epp, it is Robert Erb -- said the CAA wants the federal and provincial governments to lower taxes. He says, "If you are depending on an automobile a high level of tax is unfair and creates a high level of unnecessary hardship."

According to figures from the US energy information administration, average gas prices in the United States are expected to fall from an average of 42.2 cents a litre, that is 32 US cents, in June to 40.2 cents, that is 29.8 US cents, a litre by the first quarter of 1986.

People who care and people who know are pressing for some kind of solution. We, too, should be pressing for that kind of solution so we can see the progress in this country that we want to have. Some people have the idea that the oil companies are the bad guys. They are not. The bad guys are right across from us here, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Peterson --

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member please refer to people by their cabinet title or their riding?

Mr. Cousens: The Treasurer and the Premier, these are the villains and the bad guys of the province. Anyone who is going to tax people for gas and for fuel really has failed to understand the needs of the province.

Let us look at the gas companies, and I am referring now to the Globe and Mail in an article on July 25. One starts thinking of these companies and says, "They are rich." The fact is that Texaco is spending between $75 million and $80 million for expansion and improvements at its refinery near Fort Erie and it cannot afford to continue losing money.

They are not making money, and if we again increase the tax people will continue to reduce the use of their cars; consumption will go down. Pretty soon people will not even be able to afford a second car. Pretty soon the economy will grind to a halt because the government will have discouraged them.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What doom and gloom.

Mr. Cousens: I do not want to be a doom-and-gloomer, but the province is going to be the net loser if we do not maintain a strong, viable climate for industry to succeed.

What will be the future of Ontario should we continue to have these price hikes in essential services and no relief in sight from some of the other taxes they have to pay? This province will become a second-class province, and there is not one of us who wants to have that. We want to continue to be viable and strong.

If the Treasurer were to consult more with the people who know and understand, with the taxi drivers who know they are going to have to increase their service costs, with the delivery people who are taking deliveries all across this town --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Taxi drivers do not like Tories in Toronto.

Mr. Cousens: They would like it a lot better if we brought the price of petroleum down. People would be using their services an awful lot more. We need to look at all the people who are affected by these taxes and, in looking at them, respond to the problem.

The Treasurer is an honourable man and a good man and, as I listened to the former mayor of Sudbury, a man for whom we have great respect. But we would have greater respect for the Treasurer if he were to make one significant move now and bring about a new look at the fuel taxes in Ontario so that the small person and the big person and every person in this province -- young, old or middle-aged like himself -- can benefit from a balanced approach to the cost of true services.

Government cannot continue to tax everything. If we were to begin now to look at a fresh way of gathering these taxes it would be a time for all of us to rejoice. I would join with the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) in toasting our grand and generous Treasurer, who will have reconsidered this tax, who will come back with an amendment to this tax when we go to committee of the whole and who will then have the unanimous support of this House and will know that he is responding to needs not only as expressed by my colleagues but as expressed by the people of this great province.

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome this opportunity to make a few brief remarks with respect to this bill, and I can assure my friends they will be brief.

I have heard with interest the very articulate and erudite remarks, comments and arguments made by many of the members of this House on this bill. It concerns me, and I am somewhat curious, that most of the statements made to date have been made by members on this side of the House, and particularly our party. I wonder why, with respect to such an important bill, it falls to us to carry the burden of defending the people of this province against its iniquities. The silence of our friends in the New Democratic Party and the members of the government is curious indeed. I am wondering when they will join the debate and either defend, in the case of government members if they think the provisions of this bill are correct, or oppose them on the record if they think they are incorrect, as we are doing. We are doing our duty in this party.

I heard with interest the arguments made by members as to the dangers of the bill, the inequities it will produce for elderly people, those in the north, everyone who owns an automobile and everyone who consumes goods and must therefore rely on transportation services to acquire goods and services. That means everyone in this province will be affected by the significant increases in the cost of transportation which will be brought about by Bill 50.

However, much has been said on these subjects and I wish to deal only with one section which is of concern to me as a lawyer and someone who has some experience and interest in the judicial system in this province. I refer to section 5, which repeals subsection 18(3) of the current act. For the benefit of all members, I will read subsection 18(3):

"The minister may for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this act or the regulations, with the approval of a judge of the Supreme Court, which approval the judge is hereby empowered to give upon ex parte application, authorize in writing any officer of the Ministry of Revenue, together with such members of the Ontario Provincial Police force or other police officers as he calls upon to assist him and such other persons as are named therein to enter and search, if necessary by force, any building, receptacle or place, or any motor vehicle powered by fuel, for documents, books, records, papers or things that may afford evidence as to the contravention of any provision of this act or the regulations and to seize and take away any such documents, books, records, papers or things and retain them until they are produced in any court proceedings."

We recognize the necessity of empowering officers of the Ministry of Revenue and others to search and seize documents and records in order to carry on an investigation of those who are alleged under this act to have violated its provisions. I am not concerned with that. That is a normal and necessary prerogative of law officers of the crown when carrying out their duties.

However, the important part of that section is that it empowers these people to do these things only upon the approval and authority of a judge of the Supreme Court; that is, a judge of the highest court of this province. The makers of that section, this Legislature, on previous occasions, in granting that power only upon the authority of a Supreme Court judge, must have concluded, and logically so, that to search and seize under the provisions of this act was a serious concern, and a possible serious deprivation of the rights of people who owned and occupied the premises which were to be searched and who owned and had possession of the documents which were the object of the search.

9:40 p.m.

It was considered such a serious concern that only the highest judicial figure in our province was empowered to authorize such a search. When this kind of infringement of the rights of our citizens is to be allowed, it must be done so with considerable concern, only with the authority of a judicial figure of the highest order who has examined the need for such search and has, after due consideration and application of his judicial wisdom, authorized such search. This bill proposes to repeal that section. The effect of that repeal, for purposes of enforcement of this section by way of search and seizure of documents and other matters, is to leave us with only the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act.

If we read the relevant sections of the Provincial Offences Act relating to the powers to search and seize, specifically section 142 and following, we see such powers are granted in circumstances authorized by that act upon the authority of a justice, who is defined under that act as a justice of the peace or a provincial court judge.

A provincial court judge does not concern me to any great extent. A provincial court judge is a judicial figure. He is a lawyer who is fully involved in the judicial system and tries and hears cases on a daily basis. I have little concern with that provision. I note, however, in my experience, that provincial court judges very rarely, if ever, become involved in the administrative end of the process, in other words the examining of applications and supporting affidavits for search warrants.

The traditional method of obtaining a search warrant in the lower court system, the provincial court system, is upon application to a justice of the peace, who, upon hearing evidence of what is said and presented by way of affidavit, usually by a police officer, will in appropriate circumstances authorize the issuance of a search warrant.

The provisions of the Provincial Offences Act deal primarily with things such as parking tags and minor offences under statutes other than criminal statutes. While justices of the peace are well-meaning, hard-working, honest people, for the most part they are not even lawyers. They are sometimes gentlemen or ladies who have been appointed on a part-time basis to carry out a quasi-judicial or semi-judicial function.

My concern, and I think it should be the concern of this House, is that, whereas in the past this House has seen fit to allow the search and seizure in this type of case to be authorized only by the highest judicial figure in our system, we are now suggesting that personage be relieved of that authority and it be given to the lowest judicial figure, or semi-judicial figure in the case of justice of the peace, in the system.

I wonder what was going through the mind of the Treasurer when he felt this downgrading of the authorization was sufficient. We are in the era of the introduction of the Charter of Rights, and there is seeming agreement across this land to pay more attention to the civil liberties and rights of all of us, to enhance our rights and to upgrade them rather than to move in the opposite direction.

Investigations under this act very often involve very large amounts of money and assets. Trucking companies that allegedly have not filed the proper forms and paid the proper taxes can run into very considerable sums in important matters. I presume it was the intention of this House when it first passed this act to give recognition to the potential for very important matters and large amounts of money.

That is why the apparently unusual step was taken to protect those who were going to become involved in the system by requiring an infringement of their rights to be authorized only upon the authority of a Supreme Court judge. I therefore ask the Treasurer to be cautious. Perhaps he could explain to us in summing up what his thinking was in reducing this apparently previously necessary protection of the citizens of this province.

Perhaps there is an explanation. I would be interested, and I think the members of this House and the people of Ontario would be interested, in hearing that explanation. Certainly I will not be satisfied unless I can be convinced by some persuasive argument from honourable members opposite or from the Treasurer himself. For that reason, unless some explanation is given, I intend to vote against this bill because of that section.

Mr. Andrewes: Might I say at the outset I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate. Some concern was expressed by members in the east and west lobbies about an apparent black spot on the screen on which the members are now enjoying watching their colleagues speak. Mr. Speaker, if you look here, this is the second black spot. If members are deceived by one spot, then two will double their pleasure.

I am very pleased to be able to speak on Bill 51, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act. I do not want to give the Treasurer a litany of the poor roads in my riding; I do not want to give him a litany of the bridges that are falling down; nor do I want to give him a litany of the high costs of driving unless I am provoked into doing so. As I observe the clock, I am perhaps encouraged.

I have one or two examples of some of the disparity that exists in the Lincoln riding, a disparity that will be added to as a result of this burdensome tax increase. I would only remind the Treasurer of the constant needs of municipalities for the maintenance and upkeep of their roads and of the increased costs those municipalities will now have to bear for snow removal and for the maintenance of those roads as a result of this bill.

I would remind the Treasurer of the constant need for repairs on Highway 20 as it traverses the town of Pelham -- the Treasurer is paying strict attention; I know he is hearing every word -- and the constant needs of those of us who travel the Queen Elizabeth Way and who find it under continuing pressure as a result of lack of moneys to complete those three lanes to the great city of St. Catharines and on to Niagara Falls.

I have to say to the Treasurer that we are grateful for his government's expenditure on the Burlington Bay James N. Allan Skyway. I trust the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue will take some responsibility now for my loss of points as a result of being able to travel over that Burlington section at such a high rate of speed.

I will not be provoked to restate all the agricultural concerns, because there are occasions on which I, and I am sure the Treasurer, have been the beneficiaries of the rebate of a tax under this particular act. The previous government did spoil our fun somewhat, and I am sure the Treasurer would agree, by colouring the fuel we use on the farm and therefore spoiling some of the opportunities we had to travel on a less expensive alternative than is currently the case.

9:50 p.m.

There is one somewhat serious issue I want to raise with the Treasurer at this time, and that is the whole question of alternative transportation fuels. I think it was about 1981 that the previous government embarked on a program to encourage the use of alternative fuels. That was done at a time when oil prices were rising around the world, when there was generally great concern about diminishing oil resources and, therefore, diminishing quantities from which to produce gasoline.

Alternative fuels, such as propane and natural gas, were viewed as a reasonable opportunity to replace some of the gasoline that was used in transportation and to conserve those diminishing resources about which we were becoming so concerned.

The government, by rebating or withdrawing the gasoline tax on alternative fuels, or at least offering them for sale free of tax would be more accurate, provided some incentives for motorists in the province to convert to those fuels and use them on a regular basis. It was a useful tool, a useful measure. The previous government is to be commended for setting those goals. It gave a boost to the concept of using alternative fuels. It also provided many motorists with a significant saving, particularly those who were travelling on a round-trip basis so they could return to home base fairly regularly and renew their supplies of natural gas or propane.

Five years have now gone by. The technology is now proven. We know it works and that there is a saving in the maintenance of engines designed to use these alternative fuels. We know there is a saving to be achieved in the fuel itself. Perhaps it is time to reassess the forgiveness of tax on those fuels.

I am not saying this as an owner of a propane or natural gas-powered vehicle. I have no vested interest other than to say it bothers me a bit when I see taxis cruising back and forth to the airport on a regular basis, those Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs, those limousines about which the Treasurer will know nothing. I really doubt the savings the drivers and owners of those vehicles are achieving by using alternative fuels are reflected in their rates.

The lack of tax becomes somewhat punitive for those who are continuing to burn gasoline in their vehicles. I have said to the Treasurer that perhaps it is time he made that reassessment and gave some consideration to phasing out that incentive so he could avoid the tax increases he has imposed. If he moved in a manner by which he would phase out this tax, those who have recently invested in the technology would not be punished.

Some of my friends in the business of manufacturing propane or distributing natural gas might object to this change. If the Treasurer is listening, some of them may not invite me back for breakfast at the Park Plaza. Nevertheless, I am prepared to take that chance and I hope I can still go back to the Park Plaza so I can keep track of the activities of the Liberal Party in this province.

That brings me to a more serious point, and that is how the gasoline tax in Ontario is viewed in other jurisdictions, namely, those provinces of this great country that are producers of oil and natural gas, because the fuel tax becomes a point of argument in this great debate.

I do not want to rehash the principle of ad valorem versus the specific tax. I went through that in my comments in one of the other bills put forward by the Treasurer in this budget. The irony of this change from ad valorem to specific really is a bit obvious when it comes at a time prices of oil and fuel are falling and therefore the benefit consumers would derive from an ad valorem tax would start to flow to those same consumers. This negates the argument put forward by the present government, the former opposition, when it felt so strongly about the ad valorem tax.

The further irony is that the tax not only would have fallen under an ad valorem system, but this Treasurer has seen fit to increase it. What he has done has placed a further burden on transportation. He has placed a further burden on the spinoff sectors, the costs of transporting goods and services to other parts of the province.

More critically, by increasing this tax he has painted his government into an even narrower corner in its relationship with the energy-producing provinces and with the federal government. I have to ask the Treasurer what credibility remains in that national debate, particularly the national debate that now goes on about natural gas pricing, when his government goes to the table to discuss these prices at a time when it is taking advantage of an energy usage within the province.

We saw the puffery of the present Premier and the present Minister of Energy in April and May during that great period of time when we consulted the people of this province. We heard the puffery and we heard the words: "Who is standing up for the people in this province? Who is standing up for Ontario?"

That puffery has turned somewhat more muted -- perhaps purring would be a more appropriate name -- now that it is October and November, the election is over and the Liberal party has assumed its responsibilities as the government.

So I ask the Treasurer, and through him the Minister of Energy, where is the $1 reduction in natural gas prices he promised us? He refused to answer those questions when I put them to him in the House or to give me any basis upon which he was looking for this $1 reduction. He refused to say when he would implement some of the necessary regulations through the Ontario Energy Board that would allow industries in this province to take advantage of that gas agreement. He refused because he has been torpedoed.

The Minister of Energy has been torpedoed by his Premier and by his Treasurer in his efforts to negotiate this gas arrangement, and now the winter across the province is going to be as cold as it will be in the village of St. George around Earl's stove, which has long since gone out.

10 p.m.

I say to the Treasurer that kind of confrontation negotiation tactics may be politically attractive and may have caught the eyes and ears of people during the election campaign, but it really accomplishes very little. I do not feel at all guilty about perhaps musing to some degree on those tactics, because as Minister of Energy it was my responsibility to be a part of that debate until the change of government. I felt very compelled to work diligently to build a bridge between east and west, between the producing and consuming provinces and between the governments of Canada, Alberta and Ontario. I felt compelled to build that bridge because I felt it was in the best interests of the people of this province.

The Treasurer knows that Albertans are very protective of their resource, whether that resource is oil or natural gas, and rightly so. They are as protective of that resource as we might be of the automotive industry in this province. It is their lifeblood. It is their basis for economic existence in Canada, and when they come to the table they are tough, aggressive and well-armed.

I ask the Treasurer to simply carry the message into the cabinet room that if one builds that bridge it is a logical position to take. It is in the best interests of this province.

The Minister of Energy will discover there is a great invention called the telephone and we do have aircraft in this country. If he travelled to Alberta he would find the Minister of Energy there is a very approachable and affable individual. He might even spring for a lunch if the minister were to arrive on time.

The people in that province are willing to do business. The Minister of Energy in Ontario, if he were to travel to Ottawa more often or pick up the phone and call his federal counterpart, would find her, although very aggressive, an extremely competent and fair-minded individual.

This minister, the member for Niagara Falls, could make some attempt to bring these parties to the table -- stop the whining and the inflammatory rhetoric he brought to this House, to the annual meeting of the Ontario Natural Gas Association and to other forums which he attended; stop fuelling the war between the east and the west -- and sit down with these people to talk business.

If he starts being a statesman, if he starts acting in the best interest of all the people of this province, the home owners, the farmers, the industries and those who are attempting to run the institutions of this province, he will find he is also acting in the interest of all the people of Canada. He should be working towards removing barriers, not building them.

He will find it is a pleasant change. He will find there are people of goodwill, and people of goodwill can achieve a great deal. I appeal to the Treasurer not to leave the Minister of Energy out on a limb by creating tax increases that allow the focus of the discussions to move away from the real issues and get lost in all the rhetoric of debate.

Mr. Ashe: I appreciate the time on the clock. We want to give the Minister of Revenue lots of time to answer all the eloquent questions and concerns that have been put to him over the last two or three minutes, hour or two, or day or two, as the case may be. I only have a few minutes, and I am sure he has heard this before, but I felt it important enough and I feel strongly enough about it that I did want to put it on the record. It bears repeating.

This is what I am concerned about. I appreciate we are speaking now to the Minister of Revenue, the Treasurer with a different cap on. The problem with this bill, the problem with both the Fuel Tax Amendment Act and, as far as that goes, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, is the people opposite said different things over the last few years when they sat on this side.

I could say the Treasurer, and in turn the Minister of Revenue in the collection sense, has to set priorities and has to raise money in whatever way seems to be most appropriate to the economy at the time. Motor vehicle fuels, in one way or another, are always an appropriate way, as is tobacco, cigarettes in the general sense, and, of course, alcohol. But that is not what they said over the last number of years.

Earlier on my colleagues made references to times when the now Premier said: "Look at what that awful government over there keeps doing to the motorists and the truckers in this province. They have this awful ad valorem tax that keeps putting prices up." Even though the ad valorem rate has been frozen for a year and a half, that is the big puffery they went through.

They say, "We have a deal with the third party that says we are going to remove this." That is fair ball, but it has happened at a time when the chances are about three out of four, if not nine out of 10, that the projections for all forms of automotive fuels in the next two or three years, at least in the short-to-medium term, whether they be the diesel fuel part of the barrel, the gasoline part of the barrel or the aviation fuel part of the barrel, are that the prices are going to go down.

What does that Treasurer do? He makes headlines by taking off the ad valorem tax rate at a time when, if it were still on, the impact on taxpayers would be probably somewhat less. He not only has the audacity to make a big point of taking off the tax; he proposes raising it. That is just disgusting.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is what Ministries of Revenue do. Does the member not remember?

Mr. Ashe: I know, but at least when the members opposite are consistently singing out of the same hymn book and they consistently know what church they are in, it sounds all right. But that is not what those people have done, and that is what offends me.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member pretty well raised them all.

Mr. Ashe: It is not the fact they did it, but the fact they did what they were criticizing over the last two or three years.

My colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) just referred to the problem with the west. Let me quote from a recent article out of a well-respected Toronto newspaper. The columnist is Orland French, not a favourite of this party and vice versa. Let me quote a paragraph I am sure will make the Treasurer squirm:

"But Mr. Zaozirny has a few dry comments to make about the Ontario budget. If the Ontario government is so concerned about the welfare of the consumer, he asks, why did it raise gasoline taxes?" We could put in there: "Why did it raise diesel fuel taxes? Why did it raise aviation fuel taxes? Why did it raise the fuel that goes in our locomotives?"

The article goes on "And why did it remove the ad valorem tax at a time when oil prices are dropping, so that the gasoline tax" -- again we can put it in any form we want there -- "would remain fixed instead of declining accordingly?"

That is from somebody who was fairly supportive of the Liberal administration back in April and May, and the honeymoon still continues.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is when we needed them.

Mr. Ashe: That is true. But one of these times the press is going to catch on to the game over there and the honeymoon will be over. The taxpayers in this province will remember. Just keep that in mind.

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

10:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I certainly appreciate the advice and assistance given by the members on all sides in this important revenue bill, more or less the foundation of the whole revenue program for the budget, since it raises the tax on a litre of diesel fuel by 0.6 cents. At least I would have that impression from the emphasis given to it by the honourable members of the official opposition, who have spent many hours now describing how this is going to bring about the economic downfall of this jurisdiction.

It is hard to believe it is that bad since, to begin with, it was under their leadership in years gone by that the tax on diesel fuel got to 9.3 cents per litre. This is a small, in fact trivial, increase, hardly covering the cost of administration and, if the Conservative opposition had its way, probably most of it will be spent in increased indemnities and general travel allowances. It is hard for me to understand why they have made such a tremendous commitment of their oratorical capabilities, as well as the time of this House, to this bill, which is not of major importance in my view.

On the other hand, I do want to respond to the points that were made by some of the members. A number of my good friends on the other side from rural communities are worrying about the farmers being put to unnecessary additional expense. They should be aware, of course, that farmers are exempt from paying this tax, as they should be exempt from paying all taxes. I have not managed to engineer their exemption from all taxes at the present time, but certainly when they buy diesel fuel, I for one, as this Minister of Revenue, am not going to tax them. We do not contemplate any change in that connection.

Another honourable member indicated that the cost of diesel fuel for the generation of electricity would be increased in remote towns, such as Armstrong, Ontario, where connection to the Ontario Hydro facilities is not possible. Members should also be aware that the fuel is exempt from tax there. They should also recall that north of 51st parallel no fuel taxes are payable even if the fuel is used in vehicles on the road. Elsewhere in the province, if the fuel is used for road vehicles the tax is payable.

Many of the honourable members, particularly in the Conservative opposition, were indicating that our Liberal policies in raising this tax to such a high level were going to have a deleterious effect on our economy. Whereas ours is only now going up to what they consider to be the astronomical level of 9.9 cents per litre, they should be aware that New Brunswick, which has for the present time a Conservative government, charges 10.2 cents per litre.

Prince Edward Island, which has for the time being a Conservative government, charges 10.9 cents per litre. Newfoundland, where there is a Conservative government, sort of, and where its oil is running right out of the sea, charges 12.7 cents per litre.

Alberta, which charges extra of the people of Ontario because we use its petroleum products, has no gas tax whatsoever. The interesting thing is that if one pulls up a 16-wheel pickup truck into a filling station in Edmonton, where there is no tax whatsoever, one pays the same per litre as one does here. The government does not get the money; the producers get the money. I have no objection to producers getting the money, but members should not get the idea that if the tax were to be reduced the cost to the consumer would be reduced. Under the system those people so strongly support and advocate, which I also support and advocate sometimes, these prices go up pretty fast and pretty high. I think I will let that point go.

Just in the moment or two remaining to me, I am concerned about the additional burden this puts on the trucking industry, and that is a fact. In this connection, members will be glad to know we have assigned $1.5 billion for the maintenance, upkeep and capital costs of improving our highway system and that a special fund has been established to assist municipalities in improving their roads. This is not an earmarked tax, but I can assure members we are spending money on improving the roads. I should also recall that trucks and trailers themselves are exempt from sales tax and that we forgo $32 million in revenue that accrues to the trucking industry in that connection.

There is one other point, just in a second or two, on which perhaps I should respond to my honourable colleague who was good enough to come back from his busy schedule to vote tonight. It deals with a legal matter. We are changing the provisions of search warrants and allowing them to be issued by justices of the peace and provincial court judges rather than by Supreme Court judges.

I am informed by my very competent legal advisers in the ministry that this is really a much better and more appropriate procedure; that it follows completely the requirements of the Charter of Rights established by the government of Canada; and that anyone who is knowledgeable in the law in any way whatsoever would know about this and understand that this is a procedure that is to be welcomed by those who are interested in individual liberties and in serving the citizens in a fair and equitable way.

Having explained all the trivial objections put forward by the members of the official opposition, I would now expect the House to support unanimously second reading of the bill.

10:27 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Nixon's motion for second reading of Bill 50, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Bossy, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Elston, Epp, Ferraro, Fontaine, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Henderson, Kerrio, Keyes, Knight, Kwinter;

Mancini, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I, Morin, Munro, Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Offer, Poirier, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Sargent, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South;

Van Horne, Ward, Wrye, McClellan, Martel, Foulds, Mackenzie, Laughren, Cooke, D. S., Bryden, Philip, Swart, Charlton, Warner, Wildman, Grier, Breaugh, Hayes, Lupusella, Morin-Strom, Pouliot, Allen, Reville, Ramsay.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Harris, Brandt, Gregory, Johnson, J. M., Hennessy, Cureatz, O'Connor, McCague, McNeil, McFadden, McLean, Cousens, Gordon, Stevenson, K. R., Davis, Gillies, Leluk, Dean, Eves, Shymko, Sheppard, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Guindon, Marland, Pierce.

Ayes 64; nays 31.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 10:34 p.m.