Hansard Transcript 1985-Dec-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

When I became the Premier of Ontario, one of my first objectives was to do everything I could to rebuild the bridges between the people of the governments of Ontario and Quebec, bridges that had fallen into some disrepair during the past 10 years as a result of constitutional and other differences.

Geography has made us neighbours, economics has made us partners and history has made us friends, and I am determined that our two provinces should take advantage of our common interests by sharing our experience, our expertise and our ideas. If Canada is to meet the challenges of a post-industrial society, the two provinces with the greatest capacity to play a leading role must work together. As new governments attempting to develop new approaches to public policy issues, the Ontario and Quebec governments have everything to gain by working closely together.

Je connais M. Bourassa depuis longtemps et je sais que nous pourrons travailler ensemble pour améliorer tout le Canada.

The events of yesterday and of the past five years have shown that Quebeckers want to remain a vital part of Canada. We in English Canada, especially in Ontario, have a responsibility as Quebec's closest neighbours to do our utmost to respond to this trust by working to make Quebeckers and Ontarians better known to each other in all parts of our activities.

Je viens d'avoir un échange téléphonique avec M. Bourassa. Il m'a invité à aller à Montréal, jeudi soir, pour dîner avec lui, et j'ai accepté son invitation.

I am looking forward to the opportunity to dine with him on Thursday night to express the congratulations of all the members of this Legislature and to express to him on behalf of all my colleagues our intense desire to work together closely with Quebec to build a stronger and a better Canada.

Mr. Grossman: The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, of course, would like to join in the greetings and congratulatory message to be sent to the Premier-elect of Quebec. I know it will be a source of much envy and admiration to the current Premier of Ontario to note the kind of majority a government can get and what a public can do when it truly does want a clear change of government.

As we begin what I hope is a new era in the role of Quebec in our country, and in the relationship between Ontario and Quebec in particular, I want to take this opportunity to note the long tradition, in sometimes very trying and difficult circumstances, of relationships -- cordial, important but honest relationships -- between the governments of Ontario and Quebec.

I had the honour to serve in the government of the day during what were perhaps some of the most difficult times for Canada, Quebec and Ontario during the past decade. Those of us who had that opportunity -- with the support, I might say, of the then opposition -- know how difficult it was on some of those days to stand for the national interest and to take some difficult positions, which were not always comfortable politically in Ontario but which were the right and required positions to take in the best interests of Canada.

It was through those tough times that the skill and art of knowing how to deal with another government with which one disagreed dramatically, but to do it in a manner in which relationships were open, fair and respected, first came to the fore. It is not a skill or an art that is easy to learn or easy or convenient always to practise. However, we know the government of the day in Ontario will understand the need to exercise the same kind of care and caution as a new government once again takes charge in Quebec.

I might say in bidding farewell to the former government of Quebec that it certainly changed a great deal during the years I had the opportunity to deal with it. One should note that no party and no government could disagree more dramatically than ours did with the then government of Quebec. None the less, its contributions, quite apart from its separatist approaches and its nationalistic beliefs, were contributions that I am sure all of us will want to note at an appropriate time.

I assure the Premier of Ontario that this party will ensure that it and the government of the day stand with the federal government when it is appropriate to ensure that this new watershed in the history of Quebec is one that once again serves the best interests of all those persons living in this country, not just those in one province.

Finally, I think it is an appropriate time for all Canadians and all members of all assemblies in this country to take some modest degree of pride in the fact that Quebec has weathered some of the most difficult years for itself in terms of its aspirations and its relationships with the rest of Canada. I well remember the debate in this assembly on those issues. It was one of the best debates any of us here has ever participated in, and all members who participated then should take some pride in the small but important role we all played in ensuring that Canada would survive the crisis that began in November 1976.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: I would like to join my colleagues in their brief statements with respect to the vote in Quebec. I suppose I should note first the emergence of the New Democratic Party as the third party, a strong and vigorous emergence out of the field. I suppose I should lament the choices that faced the people of Quebec: the choice between separatism on the one hand and the Liberal Party on the other. What a terrible paucity of choice. However, a clear mandate was given to Mr. Bourassa.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, we extend our warmest congratulations to Mr. Bourassa and our best wishes that he soon finds a seat in the assembly and takes his place among the other Premiers of this country.

I do not expect that Mr. Bourassa will be any less tough or uncompromising in fighting for Quebec's rightful place in the sun of Confederation. Any thought that there is going to be some kind of fundamental change in attitude or in relationship is probably delusory. Historically, the Premiers of Quebec have fought for their province and have given very little quarter. I expect that tradition to continue, and I am sure many challenges still remain for our Premier (Mr. Peterson), for the Prime Minister and for the other Premiers, because the question of where Quebec fits into our Confederation is very much yet to be determined.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. I wonder if the Premier might entertain the idea of automatically reducing the Ontario tax on gasoline when and if the price paid by motorists at the pump goes down.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has seen the proposal of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). We have advocated getting rid of the ad valorem tax, and he has done that. He has brought forth legislation to this House, and that matter is before this House for discussion. That is the position of the government.

Mr. Grossman: In spite of the fact the Treasurer whispered to the Premier that the price would go up, he none the less did not answer the question. We know it is before the House.

Leading analysts predict the price of oil may well and is likely to drop over the next six to 12 months, as reported in the Financial Times two or three weeks ago, for example. It is predicted that because of the falling apart of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other market conditions, the price of oil seems set to fall by at least $6 a barrel before 1986 draws to a close.

Given that, how does the Premier purport to explain to consumers that under his proposal, those consumers will pay a set rate of tax even when the price goes down, which would not be the case currently?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In response to the question, our government brought in a flat tax that will be legislated upon by this Legislature if and when there are to be changes. The member has some experts who say the price is going to go down. I assure him there are other experts who say the price is going to go up. How can one predict those things? He cannot say that with any certainty. I say to the member with great candour, if he was predicting the price was going to go down, why did the previous government buy Suncor? It made all these decisions based on various --

Mr. Hennessy: Up and down, just like free trade.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have brought certainty to the situation. We got rid of the ad valorem tax, as we said, and any changes will be discussed here in this House. We believe that is the fair way to tax.

What happened under ad valorem was that the tax kept going up like a retail sales tax and people were not aware of what they were paying. Now it is all out in the open and people are fully aware of the taxes they are paying on retail gasoline.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has given three answers in six months that did not have Suncor as part of his answer.

Let us talk about the consumers of this province. My question to the Premier, now repeated for the third time, is this: he has acknowledged it is sometimes difficult to predict what the price of oil is going to do. If the price goes up, then he is saying he is content with a certain level of taxation. If the price goes down -- and we on this side of the House believe it will go down -- is he prepared to entertain a fair break to the consumers of this province by making sure the tax goes down exactly in proportion to the decline in price?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to my friend, he now is advocating lower taxes when it was his government that snuck in the ad valorem tax, which went up automatically. We did not run around every three months putting it up on a survey of prices. We brought in a clear tax for this Legislature to adjudicate on. If the member has ideas as to how it should go up or down, he should bring them forward. We have nothing to hide. That is why we brought it forward in this way. The member can see the fair way in which we have done it.

It was the member's government that brought in the ad valorem tax, which dramatically raised taxes. As I recall, and I am going by memory, when he took over the tax was about four cents per litre, and he raised it to more than eight cents per litre. He doubled the gasoline tax and now he is telling me to give the consumers a break. I do not want to be unkind, but the casual observer would say that looks a trifle hypocritical.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: Now, with the price going down, we will give the government the opportunity to be consistent. We will give it the opportunity next week to vote against a decline in the tax on gasoline for consumers. I want to see it vote in favour of higher taxes.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the question?

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Was the minister prepared to offer an interest-free loan, grant or any other financial incentive to a Canadian firm to have it purchase de Havilland?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, I would like to say that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) had questions of myself and our government about our involvement with de Havilland. Might I review some of the facts. In 1981, de Havilland, which was having a lot of problems securing jobs, explored the possibility of provincial assistance in the area of direct financial aid for a number of capital projects, such as the five-axis, numerically controlled milling machine --

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We are clearly getting, as the minister has indicated, an answer to a previously asked question. That is not the question we are asking today. We are not interested in the answer to a previously asked question. There is a mechanism for that, and if that is what it is, fine; let the minister be honest and say, "I have an answer to a previously asked question," and you can rule on it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I also remind the honourable member that there is another method if a member is not satisfied with an answer. I believe it is under standing order 28.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I began to say, in leading up to an answer to the honourable member's question, when the previous government was asked to give direct financial aid to de Havilland on several occasions, one of the areas in which it was asked for aid was in direct financial aid for a number of capital projects, such as the five-axis, numerically controlled milling machine with associated computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing hardware and software.

That company also asked for direct financial assistance in new aircraft development. It also asked for concessional financing assistance to aid sales in the domestic market to meet offshore competition from Brazil and France. The former government took no action in those areas.

In 1983, de Havilland explored the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary question.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: I invite the minister to answer a question, preferably this one. Was the minister prepared to offer interest-free loans, grants or any other financial incentive to a Canadian firm? My question to the minister is not what happened in 1980, 1981 or 1982. Was he prepared to offer any assistance? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I really believe the Leader of the Opposition is very afraid of part of the answer I am going to give.

Is he aware that during March and April 1985, the former government, which was the member's government --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I will try once more. During March and April of this year the former government was approached by a Canadian consortium which requested provincial involvement in the potential purchase of de Havilland. The former government chose not to participate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: At the start of his statement, in response to a previously asked question, the minister took about seven minutes. I ask you to consider whether that should properly have come as a statement; there is a vehicle in this House for that. He made a statement of seven minutes. He has not attempted to address the question. I ask that seven minutes be added to the question period.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member's suggestion. However, I was on my feet a number of times trying to get order. On previous occasions when I felt there should be time added, I have added it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Can the minister explain to us how the workers in Ontario will benefit from this deal? Can he guarantee that the contracts of Ontario workers who are currently under contract with de Havilland will be kept in force under the Boeing arrangement?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I thank the member for that question. As I mentioned yesterday, when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) wrote to the Prime Minister, several of the things he asked for were Canadian ownership, research and development, job guarantees and a world product mandate. We are very displeased to see that one of the things that was not included was the job guarantee. That was one thing for which we had asked.

Mr. Grossman: Would the minister be kind enough to send over a copy of the Premier's letter to the Prime Minister? Could he do that now? Could he send over a copy of the Premier's letter to the Prime Minister right now?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: This is my final attempt to get any answer out of the minister. The federal member for the area, Robert Kaplan, has said there were 130 companies that had either contacted or been contacted by the federal government regarding the potential purchase of de Havilland. Did the minister approach any of those 130 companies and tell them this government might be prepared to offer a loan, an interest-free loan or a grant? He did not contact those 130 companies and he has not done anything with companies --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Grossman: -- such as American Motors (Canada), Hyundai and the movement of Petro Canada --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Actually there were 135 companies, not 130. Yes, we were involved in dealing with some of those companies to make sure they had proper representation before the federal government.

Mr. Grossman: How many did he offer? How many did he contact? Zero.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Premier. He said yesterday: "I do not know the details on job guarantees, we have not seen those, but the federal minister will courier the specific contracts today. We are going to look at the contracts very carefully with respect to job guarantees and research and development in Ontario; that is our number one concern."

He added: "I do not know all the details on the job guarantees; that is something we want to see. We will look at it this afternoon." That was yesterday afternoon.

My understanding -- and the Premier should correct me if I am wrong -- is that he still does not have the contracts. The courier did not arrive. Is he still on his bicycle somewhere between here and Ottawa? Am I correct that the Premier has not even seen the contracts 24 hours after the sale? Has he seen them? Are there or are there not job guarantees?

Mr. Speaker: Premier.

Mr. McClellan: What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry to tell the honourable member that I have not seen them. We were promised yesterday that they would be couriered -- I believe that was the expression -- by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have not arrived. We have been phoning all morning and for some reason only the general public documents that the member and I have both seen have arrived.

We have not seen that information and, frankly, I have no explanation. I do not know whether they mailed it by Canada Post or sent it by the RCMP or someone else.

Mr. McClellan: It is embarrassing to have to stand here and listen to the Premier of Ontario admit that 24 hours after the most silly sellout of a major sector of the economy in our history, the Ontario government still has no documentation and no knowledge of the details of the agreement or of the sale and is still completely clueless about the consequences for a major sector of our economy.

Assuming there are no job guarantees and no research and development guarantees, what does the Premier intend to do about the sale, if anything?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point the member raises. It speaks to the reason this province and others had to take pretty strong stands with respect to participation with the federal government. When they tell me or my colleague at noon that the information will be couriered at three o'clock, I accept that at face value. We have not seen it. We have checked everywhere it could possibly be in this government building and we do not know where it is.

I am as bewildered as the member is. I do not know why it did not happen. It is not the level of co-operation I prefer. I am sure the member can appreciate that we are somewhat frustrated, as is he.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier said on November 25: "We have been assured that a deal has not been made and we will be given a chance to look at that before it is consummated, if it is. I understand there were two or three different bids. I am not sure of the details of each." The Premier said on November 25 he had been assured that a deal had not been made and that he would get a chance to look at it before it was.

2:30 p.m.

The Premier was very good at standing up and yelling at the federal government on free trade when the TV cameras were there in Halifax. Not only was he not consulted on de Havilland, not only did he do nothing to contact prospective purchasers, but today he also knows nothing about the deal when it comes to 4,000 jobs for Ontarians.

Does the Premier fight as hard quietly for Ontario jobs when the cameras are not there as he does blindly on free trade when the cameras are there?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Leader of the Opposition is far more sensitive to the cameras than I have ever been. My honourable friend is the one who talks about being fierce. Those are his words, not mine. That is not my approach.

There have been a number of discussions over a long period of time, in telephone calls and in other ways. I shared the information we had with this House when it was available. Let me ask this question: in fighting for Ontario's interest, is the member as dramatic on the telephone with his kissing cousins in Ottawa as he is here in this House? Will he save some of his fierceness and ferocity for fighting for our interests with his federal cousins in Ottawa, who have been so helpful to him? Perhaps if he turns some of that venom on them to make sure they protect those jobs we would be better off here.

Mr. McClellan: Would the Premier please try to use his good offices, pick up the telephone and phone, to ask Mr. Mulroney if he could send him the contracts? Would he then table them in the House so that we could see them?

Would the Premier agree to allow the House to express its opinion on this matter by introducing an all-party resolution which would express our opinion of the actions of the federal government in this sellout? Would he instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to investigate and report back to the House on what options are available to Ontario to intervene in this situation and salvage it before it is too late? Surely he will agree to that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As far as I am aware, there are no options available to this province to prevent that sale. It is not our property. We will share all information we have. Members will know that we are forthcoming in all of those things. We shared it today. We have given the history of the relationship of de Havilland and this government, and of how it was turned down at the door on many occasions by the former government. We made entreaties on behalf of the Canadian consortium, the Rimgate group, to arrange for its proposal to be heard in Ottawa and members have heard the background in that regard.

I share the frustration of the member that the federal government has chosen not to share that information with us. If he and members opposite would like to join with me in conveying that strong message to Ottawa that they should share it, then I think that would be most constructive.

[Later]

Mr. Grossman: I have a simple and straightforward question for the Premier. He is unhappy there is an opposition party in the House now.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Come on in, I say to my friends on the left; the water is fine, guys. Feel free to try it.

The Premier has said he has had a number of discussions with the federal government about de Havilland. Before Thursday when the House reconvenes, I wonder whether the Premier would be kind enough to table for us (1) the list of companies contacted by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to purchasing de Havilland and (2) the list of dates of discussions he has had with the federal government about de Havilland.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no problem tabling whatever information we have. I have told the Leader of the Opposition that I have had private conversations with the Prime Minister. There are copies of letters we will share with him. There were other meetings. We shall also share with him the dates of the meetings in March and April when his government turned them down for any help at all. They approached his government and it turned them down flatly. We will talk about how we discussed matters with the Rimgate group and others. I am sure he will be satisfied this government has done everything it could to protect those people.

Mr. Grossman: We look forward to having that list before Thursday and we will chat about it again in question period. The Premier said on November 25, "We have been assured a deal has not been made and we will be given a chance to look at that before it is consummated ... ." Since I would never suspect that the Premier of Ontario would lie to the assembly, and I am sure he did not, is he telling us that the Prime Minister of Canada lied to him?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot believe the ferocity of my friend. My friend is used to using words such as that in trying to drag down the tone of this House. I will have none of it.

Mr. McClellan: Will the Premier table the contracts on Thursday? Will he introduce an all-party resolution that will express our view of the deal? Will he instruct his ministers to develop options to salvage what is left of our aircraft industry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology spoke at 12 noon or 1 p.m. today with Mr. de Cotret, the federal minister. We requested copies of those contracts. Mr. de Cotret said, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong: "I have to check with my staff. I am not sure whether I can give you that, but we will send you a letter from Salomon Brothers saying it was the best deal we could make."

I would like to share the information. I wish we had it ourselves. If we can obtain it, we will share it. Now that there is support by all members of this House that we should have this information, we will convey that clearly to the federal minister this afternoon. We will say that in the opinion of this House -- I assume I am speaking for all parties -- the information should be shared with the legislators here. I will proceed with that this afternoon. I hope I will have it for the members. I cannot guarantee it, however.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour on yet another overtime situation. I have here a copy of a letter dated November 25 which is addressed to the minister from the United Auto Workers' plant chairperson at Northern Telecom. The letter indicates that Northern Telecom in London has reduced its work force from 1,658 to 870, while at the same time the company has continued to receive overtime permits from the employment standards branch.

The UAW wrote to the employment standards branch last April and asked for a restriction on overtime permits. Could the minister explain why Northern Telecom has continued to receive the overtime permits?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not certain because the member has not indicated whether those are special permits or are simply the blue permits allowing 100 hours of overtime. As the member knows, these are given in a very matter-of-course way and it may be understandable and defensible that those blue permits were used for hours other than eight per day and 48 per week. I am sure the member is aware of that. I have not seen the latest letter. It has not reached my desk, but if the member wants to send me a copy of it I will have a look at it.

In August and September this year, the company received additional permits for almost 3,000 excess hours of work for certain skilled and salaried employees in Bramalea. The member appears to be asking about a Northern Telecom location other than that.

I finally had an opportunity to meet at noon today with senior management of Stelco to discuss these matters, and I hope we can move this matter forward in at least an interim way in the next few days. It is a serious problem, and I appreciate the concerns the member has.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister is aware the use of overtime permits is excessive; a 20 per cent increase in the last year alone, and in the reference week in September the equivalent of 188,500 jobs. The minister has said that anyone who wants one can get the regular permit to which he refers. He is quoted as saying he is thinking of coming up with some remedies.

Are we going to continue to handle this on a case-by-case basis? Would it not be better if the minister decided it was time to put a moratorium on overtime permits so that industry gets the clear signal we are not going to continue with this abuse of overtime permits?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not want to be provocative, but what the member has suggested is an unfortunately simplistic response to a very complex problem. I do not disagree with my friend that, on the face of it, we have a difficult situation, one for which a remedy might be provided that might create additional employment. However, I hope my friend and the members of his party would not want to do anything to industry or the workers in place to make them lose contracts, which would cause them to either reduce the work force or perhaps ultimately have to shut the plant because of the restrictive nature of our hours-of-work law.

I am willing to look at it, but we ought to look at it before we start drawing conclusions.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the minister will know the complexities of this issue are not lost on any member of the House, but he must be struck by the contrast. At a time when certain companies in the province are reducing their full-time employment and moving to part-time, such as A and P, there are other companies whose full-time employees are working overtime.

The minister has said he will consult with industry for a time, and if there is no response on this issue he will move within his ministry to restrict permits. Could he tell the House what his timetable is? How long is he going to talk? When is he going to act?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not want to be unfair to my friend. He is new in his critic's role. He may remember, as a parliamentary assistant, this issue was around even in those days. Unlike this minister, the minister of the day did absolutely nothing.

I would like to come forward to this House in the next short while with some interim measures, some of which I have discussed with industry.

They are achievable and workable in the short term. I want to be quite candid with the member and with the House. Over the long term, any study we undertake is not going to be a two-week or even a two-month study. The issues are very complex and need to be worked through very carefully. Also, it will not be a two-year study, and the government is quite committed to taking a careful look at appropriate action we might take.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will surely realize the figures I will give him shoot down the argument he has just tried to give us. He is talking a good line, but I wonder in what century he is living. British Columbia has a 40-hour work week, as do Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon. Can the minister tell us when Ontario is going to get a 40-hour work week?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think my friend would agree with me to some extent that he now has raised an entirely new issue. We intend to address it. Let me tell him why. I see my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). Surely he knows that the concerns expressed by him, by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) in regard to excess hours at Inco have nothing do with a 40-hour work week. I say to the member for Hamilton East that is exactly the complexity. We will not only be looking at overtime hours in excess of 48 hours; we will also be looking at the appropriateness of a 44-hour standard work week in 1985.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Foulds: I would like to move from the sellout in Mississauga to a mine closure in northwestern Ontario. Will the Premier tell me what action he and his government are prepared to take with Inco with regard to the complete shutdown of its mine at Shebandowan, some 30 miles west of Thunder Bay, entailing a loss of some 124 jobs? In particular, will he indicate what action he is willing to take to prevent the company from trying to weasel out of its responsibility under section 40 of the Employment Standards Act by terming this closure "a suspension of operations"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines will be able to give the member a more complete answer on that.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Inco announced this just last week. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and I are looking at all the details. If the member tells me that there was --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Would this be by courier too?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: No. We are working on that because we are still meeting with Inco. It is not over yet.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to go back to the Premier. If he wants to redirect to his minister, he may, but it is obvious the minister is not fully informed of the situation.

Mr. Speaker: The question was redirected. The supplementary must come out of the response; therefore, it should go back to the minister.

Mr. Foulds: All right; I will go back to the minister. Because he is so ill-informed, he may wish to redirect to the Premier.

Surely the minister will agree that the closure of a mine and the loss of jobs are tragic enough. We are losing more jobs in the mining industry than we are picking up. Does the minister not feel the same sense of outrage I do that Inco appears to be targeting a particular small local at this mine by refusing to offer early retirement and by refusing to pay severance pay that is due to these workers? Does he not think it is about time he had at least four or five days of discussion, that he bang some heads together at Inco and make it meet its responsibilities under the Employment Standards Act?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am repeating myself. We are talking with Inco, and the Minister of Labour is doing the same thing. I ask my honourable friend to wait a few days to see what we can do on this issue.

M. Pope: Le ministre a indiqué que ce n'est pas fini. Est-ce que l'Inco lui a indiqué qu'elle veut changer ses idées?

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Sur la question d'Inco, ce n'a pas été question seulement de Shebandowan. Il y a une question de Sudbury en même temps. On ne peut pas travailler sur les deux places qui ont mis des personnes à pied. On ne peut pas utiliser cette question-là avec l'Inco. On a demandé de réconsidérer certaines choses qu'elle a faites. C'est tout.

2:50 p.m.

COURT RULING

Hon. Mr. Scott: On Tuesday last the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) asked me whether a decision had been taken to appeal the case of Regina and Gayme and that of Regina and Seaboyer. Those were cases in which Mr. Justice Galligan of the Supreme Court of Ontario had held that section 246 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional by virtue of the charter. I am able to tell my honourable friend that a decision has been taken to appeal both cases to the Court of Appeal of Ontario.

Ms. Fish: As I raised with the Attorney General the other day, the concern that now rests, particularly among women, is the question of protection for those women who have been the subject of violent sexual assault during the appeal period. What steps will the Attorney General be taking to ensure that women who are the subject of such assaults are fully protected and continue to be encouraged to come forward to report these crimes with the full confidence of the protection that is their right before the courts?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, during the pendency of the appeal it is likely, though not inevitable, that the lower courts will follow the decision that Mr. Justice Galligan has made, with the result that the kind of evidence the decision contemplates may be led in court.

We will in the meantime continue with the policy we have had for some time of doing everything possible to ensure that complainants in sexual assault cases are properly prepared for trial and are initiated into the process in a way that makes them reasonably comfortable.

As the honourable member knows, special crown attorneys have been assigned to this task in each of the judicial districts in Ontario. We intend to monitor that program, particularly at this period of time, so that complainants in those cases will have every reason to feel they will be dealt with fairly.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. McFadden: I want to direct a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In the October budget, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced the government's intention to transfer the administration of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to the University of Toronto, an announcement that came as a complete surprise to all parties concerned.

At the time of the announcement, discussions were under way between the University of Toronto and OISE to do the opposite, OISE being considered a better vehicle because of its worldwide reputation to administer the university's faculty of education.

This particular proposal does nothing but create uncertainty among the faculty members and students of OISE and within the education community generally. I would ask the minister whether he is now in a position to indicate to the House how the quality of Ontario's education will be improved by this proposal in the budget.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would like to correct a point of information by the questioner. The exact opposite was not in the contemplation of the parties at all. In fact, it was the case that a long discussion was going on about a further affiliation agreement between the two institutions because graduate students in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education receive their degrees from the University of Toronto.

We believe as a government that the announcement in the budget of the union of the two institutions will enhance the viability of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and that is why we have proceeded. If the member wants details on the enhancement, I cannot give those kinds of details at this point but we are confident that if the two institutions work together each can be enhanced. In particular, the faculty of education at the University of Toronto can be enhanced and the institute, which is a world-class organization, can continue the work it does.

Mr. McFadden: In the budget, the treasurer justified the proposed transfer on the grounds of eliminating duplication. In order to remove the air of uncertainty for the hundreds and thousands of faculty members and students involved, can the minister now indicate to the House the duplications the transfer of OISE will eliminate?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Once again I am not prepared to give the member specific examples of duplication. We are of the view that the synergies that will result from those institutions working as one will make a more effective unit than those institutions operating independently.

Ms. Bryden: Is the minister not aware that the decision in the budget was arrived at without consultation with the heads of either institution and with absolutely no consultation with the faculty, the unions or the staff of these organizations? As a result, as my honourable friend beside me has said, there is great uncertainty among all of those people about what will happen within the next year or two.

Will the minister not provide a vehicle through which public hearings can be held in order to find out how these two institutions can work together and how we can retain the identity of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and its contribution to education in this province --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is enough for a question.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the honourable member will agree that life is filled with uncertainties. The fact is that discussions have been going on right from the day the announcement was made in the budget. I have met with the president of the University of Toronto and the director of OISE. I have met with the faculty. Indeed, yesterday I was meeting with the board of governors of OISE. Certainly, there is a degree of uncertainty that exists right now, but we believe that if each party discusses the union in good faith we can create a model that will be effective in implementing the decision taken in the budget, and we can do that in very short order.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Laughren: The Premier will know that a couple of weeks ago the Minister for Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) indicated in this chamber that he had met three times already with Inco concerning the planned reductions in the work force in Sudbury. Inco subsequently announced it was shutting down for two and a half months next summer.

He will know as well that the minister indicated the cabinet had dealt with the Inco question on three previous occasions to that date of November 21. Can the Premier now tell us whether he is prepared to deal with the long-term economic problems in Sudbury; and if so, in what way?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member raises a good question. Let me just start to address it. I wish I had all the magic answers for that. I do not, this government does not and I do not think any government that was here before had them.

We have started a consultation process, and there is a very active committee of cabinet working on these things. I have met with a representative group from the Sudbury area. I will be meeting again, I believe on December 19 -- or December 18 perhaps -- with a number of officials from there as well as union people.

We have seen a depressed world-wide nickel market. We have seen a dramatic drop in employment -- I am going by memory -- from 17,000 to 7,000 hourly workers. There appears to be no simple and easy solution. Therefore, we are working on alternatives to bring balanced growth. We are looking at the other natural advantages that community has to try to keep its economic viability.

We are going to need the talents of the honourable member and the talents of every member in this House to work on those co-ordinated plans. I recall experiments of the past, such as Sudbury 2001. The solution proposed by that one, as I recall, was to bring angora goats up to Sudbury. I am not sure that particular experiment met with a great deal of success, but we are struggling with that problem.

I can assure the member it is a very high priority for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and a group of ministers who are putting their minds and attentions to this matter. I can tell the member, in conclusion, that we welcome his advice.

Mr. Laughren: I am prepared to give that advice in the form of a question. Since the Premier has not taken my advice in the past, perhaps he will this time. He will recall that I asked that we invite Inco to appear before an all-party committee to deal with its long-term plan.

Since he would not do that, would he support an all-party committee of this chamber to look into three specific issues for Sudbury: (1) the establishment of a mining machinery complex there; (2) the utilization of phosphate resources in northern Ontario, combined with the sulphur dioxide emissions, to build a fertilizer plant which, heaven knows, we could use, and (3) the building of a much-needed smelter to process the precious minerals in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Perhaps they are constructive ideas. I do not know all the details. I know it was the dream of the previous government to make the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) the chairman of Inco, but this government is going to make the member for Nickel Belt the chairman of Inco so he can effect some of those. That is one of the changes we have brought.

We are prepared to work with all those alternatives and specific suggestions of the member. I can assure him, and I am sure he is persuaded of this already, that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is prepared to work with him in implementing those ideas.

We may come to the conclusion that a committee is the most appropriate way to approach the matter; I have no particular strong feelings one way or the other. Sometimes those things can get bogged down in discussion rather than having real action plans. However, I invite the member to meet with the minister, share his ideas and his proposals in that regard, and perhaps we can get going even faster on some of his ideas.

3 p.m.

Mr. Bernier: In view of the number of questions that have been advanced during this question period on the Inco situation at Sudbury and at Shebandowan, will the first minister undertake to inform the House as to what meetings were held between Inco and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Labour? Will he table the dates of those meetings, the names of the people who were at those meetings and the information on all that was discussed? There seems to be some doubt and some confusion as to the sincerity of the government.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell the honourable member that I do not share that. There may be some doubt as to the sincerity of his question and whether it is trying to accomplish anything.

When we meet with people it is always public knowledge; there are no particular secrets. I am sure he is one of those members who do their homework and know with whom we are meeting. Every time I go to Kenora he is there keeping an eye on me and he knows what I say.

I am delighted to share that with him, but the negotiations and discussions sometimes are private and sometimes they are not, as we are trying to reach some realization and some solutions to these problems. Let me tell the member that we are prepared to share it. We have nothing to hide from him.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has a response to a question previously asked.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the response is to a question asked by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who has had to go to another meeting. Perhaps we can hold it to another day.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Pope: I would like to ask the Premier a question, and if the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) comes back, I would not mind it being referred to him.

On November 25, the Minister of Health stated in the Legislature, with respect to northern health care programs: "This is an issue on which a number of promises were made by the previous government over the past several years. It is one on which the Peterson government will now act."

Mr. Laughren: In which the previous government showed no interest.

Mr. Pope: If the member for Nickel Belt would listen to this, he might learn something. Last Wednesday, on page 9 of the Instant Hansard of the standing committee on general government, the Minister of Health finally admitted that the previous government had funded a northern health transportation program in May and that he had not implemented it.

I would like to ask the Premier, will he make his northern health transportation grant program retroactive to July?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable member has seen that the minister has put forward his proposal, and we are not planning any changes in that.

Mr. Pope: In other words, this government sat on that program for six months for political reasons when northerners were being denied transportation.

Given that the Minister of Health, in the same statement on November 25, announced a northern specialist program and that he announced last Wednesday he would make that retroactive to July, why is he treating medical specialists in the north differently from northern residents with respect to the northern health initiatives?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter, but my recollection of history goes something like this: northern medical travel was something the previous opposition members supported; obviously the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) was one of the major proponents of that program, but our party in opposition then supported it. As I recall, the previous government did not support it.

I remember former Ministers of Health -- I am not sure whether the honourable member was one of them -- saying, "We are not going to treat the northerners like colonials." Was that not the line they used? They absolutely refused. The former Premier said, "Absolutely not." Then, under pressure I gather, during the campaign one day -- and I am only going by my memory, so I ask members to help me out if I am wrong -- he came up with a $1.5-million program, a picayune little program, to get the political heat off his back because he was changing his mind throughout that last campaign, as his party has done in opposition since.

Under the pressure of May 2 to June 26, the member's party came out with a number of half-baked programs, trying to buy a little time. His government spent $181 million in allocations all over the map, and that was one of the problems we had to deal with. The problem had not been thought through and people had not been consulted.

We took the information that was available, proposals from the honourable members opposite and from this side. We consulted widely in the north. The parliamentary assistant, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), travelled in all of northern Ontario and today we have a solid program that does the job: the politics of commitment, not just the politics of expediency.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: When the Premier wants to lecture the House about the facts, why does he not read them?

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of privilege?

Mr. Pope: What the Premier has just said is in direct variance with the facts that were indicated by his Minister of Health last Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the member's point of view.

Mr. Foulds: I would like the Premier to make a commitment to table in the House all proposals that have been devised by the Ministry of Health in the two years previous to the implementation of the government program.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is a fair commitment. We are an open government and we want to share all the information, be it nine drafts of separate school legislation or various proposals. I do not want to spend all my time trying to embarrass the previous government. We are getting on with trying to straighten out the problems. We are trying very hard to deal with the problems in a creative and courageous way, and I am not so anxious to spend all of my time in the past because, as someone has said so eloquently, every time one opens a closet around here there is a new skeleton we have to deal with. It is not constructive trying to clean up the messes. Let us get on with the future.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Treasurer. The issue of pay equity in 62 Ontario hospitals is going to compulsory arbitration, and specifically the arbitrator is going to be asked for an adjustment that will make the wages of the lowest-paid women's jobs equal to those of the lowest-paid men's jobs. The jobs are of equal value. If we can assume the government is committed to implementing equal pay for work of equal value, will the Treasurer indicate to the arbitrators that the province's fiscal policy can be interpreted as one that includes pay equity in a case such as this?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not believe the arbitrators have ever asked for the policy of the government in this respect. In most cases, they reject that matter and consider their arbitration responsibilities independent of the so-called ability to pay. The previous government, by legislation in the past, tried to change that. However, we are committed to the policy of pay equity.

The law of the province requires arbitration, and while I do not want to encourage the arbitrator to make a decision either way, other than what is fair, the Treasury will have to stand behind the decisions brought to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). We have to support our hospitals and medical services in a fair and equitable way, and that will be governed by the arbitration.

Ms. Gigantes: I wonder whether the Treasurer has forgotten that on the question of wage restraint it is precisely groups such as these women who have suffered a great deal. The wage gap between men and women has increased under wage restraint, and in that case the arbitrators were carrying out explicit government policy.

I would ask the Treasurer whether in this case he would be willing to indicate publicly and to the arbitrator concerned that he is willing to see some of the $132-million contingency fund in his budget extended for this kind of use.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The requirements of restraint legislation no longer apply. As far as I can see, the arbitrator has to make a judgement on equity and report it, and we have to respond in kind.

3:10 p.m.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Runciman: This is a question to the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) about his ministry's failure to represent Ontario consumers at recent hearings of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission dealing with Imperial Oil's decision to drop its dealer support system for gasoline retailers, a move that will hurt the small business people who run Esso stations as well as the consumers.

The minister indicated that he did not know anything about the committee hearings and that it was probably a federal matter. Since the minister has obviously abdicated his responsibility to Ontario consumers, will the Premier undertake that the commission is apprised of its concerns?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did not even know about the honourable member's question yesterday to the minister; so how can I be helpful?

Mr. Runciman: That is typical of the nonanswers we are getting from these people. As a supplementary question to the usual kind of nonanswer --

Mr. Gilles: Does the Premier also not know --

Mr. Runciman: Yes; does the Premier also not know? His government has already announced its wish to raise gasoline taxes, and now it wants to stand on the sidelines while options for reduced prices are removed. Will the Premier show some concrete concern, not the usual public relations fluff, and ensure that the best interests of Ontario consumers are safeguarded?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure the member we will always fight for the consumers of Ontario.

PCBS IN FOOD

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but I will direct it to you, Mr. Speaker, because you are so much better-looking than the minister.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: I am glad we all agree on something today.

Mrs. Grier: If the time has expired, I will wait until tomorrow -- no, I cannot do that. Yesterday the minister indicated that the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls that had been found in Ontario foodstuffs were, to quote him, "not all that hazardous." The average daily intake of PCBs in Ontario is 51 micrograms. The federal guideline is one microgram per kilogram of body weight. That indicates a 110-pound woman is exceeding the recommended intake on a daily basis.

In view of those figures, contained in the information the minister was reading yesterday, does he still stand by his statement that the levels are not all that hazardous?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: With regard to the concerns that were raised by Dr. Hallett of Environment Canada, a check today with the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare revealed that it has been monitoring the human diet for some time and is satisfied that PCB levels do not pose a health hazard for consumers.

Perhaps the honourable member noticed an article in today's Globe and Mail, entitled "Today's Action Will Help Tomorrow's Food: Destroying PCBs Called Only Solution." That is exactly what I indicated in my response to the member's question yesterday. These people did nothing about destroying the PCBs in the environment and we are taking action. It is the only way we can go to get the amount of toxins in the environment reduced.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report on the 1984 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Laughren: I have a few comments. First, I would like to express my appreciation to the members of the committee, all of whom worked extremely hard to enable us to present a report with recommendations on which there was a consensus of the three-party committee. I appreciate very much the work of the individual members.

The staff of the committee was extremely helpful, the clerks and our research person, Merike Madisso, who despite having a legal mind is able to write with clarity; she aided greatly in allowing us to present a report that is most readable.

There are a couple of brief points I should make to the House. First, the feeling of the members of the committee is that the level of frustration in dealing with the problems of the Workers' Compensation Board is at an all-time high.

The new members of this chamber were most helpful in expressing their surprise at how difficult it was to deal with problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. The members of the committee who were elected this year were an enormous asset in expressing their sense of frustration. Many of us who have been around here for a long time felt we were repeating ourselves; so it was refreshing to have new members express that view.

Second, there is an expectation by members of the committee that we will get a response from the Workers' Compensation Board and from the Ministry of Labour on our recommendations.

Finally, we also are hopeful that the recommendations contained in here will be debated in this chamber at an early date.

On motion by Mr. Laughren, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Andrewes be substituted for Mr. McCague on the select committee on economic affairs.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved, seconded by Mr. Offer, first reading of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Securities Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce the Securities Amendment Act. The principal purpose of the bill is to replace the existing provisions of the act related to takeover bids and issuer bids.

The bill represents the results of a review of the existing provisions commenced in 1982 by the Ontario Securities Commission in consultation with the securities industry and other provincial securities administrators. It constitutes the first comprehensive review of the Ontario takeover bid legislation since the 1966 Kimber report.

The bill contains the substantive provisions of Bill 159, introduced in the Legislature in December 1984, as revised in response to public comments and to intervening events in the marketplace.

The bill also contains housekeeping amendments, including an increase in the membership of the Ontario Securities Commission from nine to 11 and the recognition of clearing agencies by the commission.

INSURANCE RATE CONTROL BOARD ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Charlton, first reading of Bill 69, An Act to establish the Insurance Rate Control Board.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: The bill establishes an Insurance Rate Control Board which would have the power to ensure the availability and adequacy of all classes of casualty, property and liability insurance and to fix rates that are just and reasonable.

3:20 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This long-awaited bill, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, replaces the ad valorem taxation of gasoline and aviation fuel with specific amounts of tax per unit. Future tax changes will not be automatic but will require the approval of the Legislature. Utilizing this approach, the bill proposes that the new specific tax for all grades of gasoline be 8.8 cents per litre.

Upon introduction of this measure, statements were made on all sides of the House. The official opposition has opposed it, as it has opposed all revenue measures. Members of the New Democratic Party, particularly the Treasury critic, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), and some of his colleagues, have indicated they are not prepared to vote for it either. Being reasonably proficient in grade 2 arithmetic, I believe it is apparent that the bill cannot carry in its present form.

For that reason I have already given the Treasury and Revenue critics notice that if this bill receives second reading and goes to committee of the whole, I propose to amend the figure of 8.8 cents per litre to 8.3 cents per litre. That amount is selected because it is as close to remaining unchanged, as far as revenue is concerned, as we can get without splitting the decimal point even further.

Frankly, I am concerned about the revenue aspects of this reduction, but I do believe that, since the Legislature will now be seized of the direct responsibility to amend the tax whenever it is put forward by a minister of the crown, the Legislature may in the future have an opportunity to reconsider the amount of the tax. I will have an opportunity when second reading is completed to refer to specific comments made by honourable members, and I will then have a chance to compare our tax levels with those of other similar Canadian jurisdictions.

We are prepared to forgo the revenue, certainly for the rest of this fiscal year, by recognizing other sources of revenue and making adjustments in our expenditures, which I believe can be done in a responsible way fiscally and politically. Having made that commitment, I assure the honourable members that the amount of the tax will be reduced in committee from 8.8 cents per litre to 8.3 cents.

The new specific tax on aviation fuel will be 1.88 cents per litre, and these proposed rates will take effect on the day after royal assent.

To simplify the objections and appeals process, the time allowed for the taxpayer to object to an assessment is extended from 90 days to 180 days. Provision is made to extend this time limit where circumstances prevent the taxpayer from meeting it.

The provision in the act that grants the minister rights of entry, search and seizure for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of the Gasoline Tax Act is repealed. In its place the corresponding entry, search and seizure provisions in the Provincial Offences Act will apply. The warrant provisions of the latter act allow the minister to enter, search and seize only when reasonable grounds exist to believe that an offence under the Gasoline Tax Act has been committed.

Other amendments in this bill are administrative in nature and consequential on the replacement of the ad valorem tax on gasoline with a unitary tax. Such amendments include the repeal of the provision defining "taxable price per litre" and those authorizing the minister to make regulations prescribing the taxable price per litre of fuel.

Mr. Andrewes: I am pleased to make some comments with respect to the bill. At the outset, I wish to thank the minister for the notice he gave us on the proposed amendment after sober second thought, and certainly because of his ability to use a calculator. I am sure he recognized there were some very serious concerns among the members of the opposition with respect to this legislation.

I have a number of comments to make on the bill, as do other members of our caucus, so I hope the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) has taken notice of that and has appropriated sufficient time in the House to sign his mail, to write his Christmas cards and to do all those other things --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How about listening to what the member has to say?

Mr. Andrewes: We know he never listens to what we have to say. We have been around here long enough to have learned that. I would only want him to know there are a number in our caucus who have some very distinct concerns about this legislation which they want to bring to his attention.

This is a rather important debate because there are some basic principles at stake. The first and probably foremost principle at stake is the question of an ad valorem tax. I have discussed my point about ad valorem taxes with the Minister of Revenue and Treasurer before. It is ironic that we have a Treasurer now who brings in a change in taxation policy, a move from ad valorem to a specific tax, at a time when gasoline prices are likely to fall, a tax which he as a member of the opposition some 12 months ago attacked the government vigorously on for its apparent greediness by taking advantage of windfall gains as gasoline prices would rise. Yet at a time when gasoline prices are about to fall substantially, when that windfall would not fall to the government but to the consumers, he is changing it.

The people who daily go to the gas pumps to fuel their cars so they can drive to work, seek recreation and visit their sick aunts and uncles on the weekends are now being asked to forgo that windfall that would have been properly theirs had that ad valorem principle been in place.

Perhaps I carelessly and improperly described as a windfall the saving one would achieve as a result of this ad valorem application. It is a realistic measure. In the last decade we have gone through a very difficult period of price increases, particularly on petroleum products. We saw oil prices rise from a world price of roughly $2 a barrel in the early 1970s to about $34 a barrel now; a substantial increase, the bulk of which took place in that five-year period of 1974-75 to 1980.

We now face a situation where it is predicted those prices might decline. I would not want members to infer that my statement is made simply blandly and offhandedly in this Legislature. I want members to know I have properly researched this material. I refer members to such noted authorities as Mr. Philip Verleger --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Philip Verleger?

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Andrewes: The Treasurer will remember him well. He said the most extreme prediction of a possible slide in oil prices is that they would go as low as $10 per barrel starting next spring. Mr. Verleger put that position forward. He is an independent economic consultant from, of all places, Washington. Who could challenge his authority when he comes with those credentials?

He went on to say that the current world surplus of crude oil, which has meant members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries are shipping only 60 per cent of their capacity, could be made worse by the devaluation of the US dollar. He continued by saying that the devaluation of the dollar will increase pressure on oil companies to increase sales and this will add to the surplus.

Mr. Speaker, I will not bore you with a lot of the background and quotes from world authorities, but I want to refer the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) to one other authority. James McNabb, manager of the economics and policy division of Conoco Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware, sees a low of $20 a barrel for crude oil through the late 1980s with prices rising in the 1990s as increased demand uses up the surplus of the OPEC nations.

That is very clear evidence, in our view, that prices for crude oil around the world will fall and that the price of gasoline in Canada and in Ontario should fall by next spring. So we have put forward, on behalf of this party, a position which we will be inviting members of the Legislature to support.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated in question period today that he is willing to hear our input and give it his consideration, so we are inviting the Premier, the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue and Liberal House leader, the member for Port Arthur and the member for Ottawa whatever it is to support a position in which the tax on gasoline would be ratchetted down based on falling retail prices. We are going to invite those members of the government, those members of the third party and ourselves to support that very important position.

If there is confusion about the issue, I want this party's stand to be very clear. "The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party will be inviting members to support a position on a tiered tax system that will protect consumers when the price of gasoline drops at the pump." So said Larry Grossman, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Cannot the finance critic say it for himself?

Mr. Andrewes: The member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) recognized the quote, did he not? Yes, certainly.

The second very important principle at stake here is that what the government originally proposed was a tax increase on gasoline, a revenue measure which, by our estimation, would have increased government revenues by some $50 million to $60 million. It is now saying, by way of the Minister of Revenue's statement, that it is prepared to back off this position.

If one believes the media, if one is prepared to accept what the media tell us -- I am, for one -- one would have to accept that the government has backed off its position with respect to its proposed tax increase to honour the accord with the New Democratic Party. That is fair enough. I am not going to stand here and whine about a private agenda that has been struck by two political parties in this province that put one party in power, one party in government as its result.

Mr. Foulds: It is a pretty public document.

Mr. Andrewes: However, it was never put to the test of the voters.

Mr. Foulds: The member's certainly was.

Mr. Andrewes: I am saying I am not prepared to pursue that issue. Although the member for Port Arthur may provoke me, I am not going to take the bait.

The basic principle of amending budget bills, whereby those amendments were often viewed as votes of no confidence in the government, has changed as a result of that accord. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we suggest to you that the rules have changed. We would issue a caution to you, sir. We would put you on notice that we will be moving amendments to budget bills from time to time that you may not accept, based on precedent that was established in this House. Perhaps the Speaker can cite rules to substantiate his decision, but he must consider that these rules have changed and perhaps he must look differently at these proposed amendments.

The real principle at stake here is the fact the government has proposed an increase in tax. It has done that without spelling out the details of its programs. I mentioned that in my discussion with the minister last night. The budget does not address in any substantive way, certainly not clearly, the government's attempts at economic stimulus. It does not address the question of job creation. It does not address the housing crisis in this province, one that looms over us in this city right now as a threat to the very peace and stability we have come to expect in this country. It does not address the question of major municipal works projects, the needs for transportation or tourism promotion, a very important sector of our economic development. It does not address research and development and it does not address stimulus for small businesses in any substantive way.

Lest my colleagues think I am inviting them to embark on a full and exuberant debate on this bill by giving them some stimulus for their conversations, I want to say that we feel very seriously concerned about the lack of information in this budget, more so than about what information is there.

The government has now recognized its folly. It is prepared to back off its tax increase. I want to congratulate the government on this move. It is not often that a government backs down on a tax measure. This one has. However, I have to wonder, as I said at the outset, had the Tories and NDP not indicated their nonsupport for this legislation, would the government have made the move it did? My answer is no, and I am sure the Treasurer would agree. He has done his mathematics. He admitted that at the outset. So one says, democracy works; it is alive and well in the Ontario Legislature.

3:40 p.m.

Let me deal with another rather substantive principle. Prices for gasoline in Ontario are directly related to the price of crude oil in this country, the price that refiners in Sarnia, which is a great part of Ontario, in Toronto, in Clarkson, in Bronte, in Montreal and in parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan must pay. The price of gasoline is clearly dictated by what those refiners must pay for crude oil supplies.

In Canada something called the national energy program, a program implemented by the former federal administration under the guidance of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, provided for a highly regulated system of pricing for crude oil in this country. I suppose one could argue that this kind of regulated system was part and parcel of that government's interventionist policies and attitudes.

It successfully scared off investment in the oil and gas industry. It targeted what investment there was by offering cheques to those who could afford or had the equipment and the resources to go out and drill for oil in the Mackenzie Delta or off the shore of Newfoundland or of Nova Scotia.

It provided them with a cheque they could use to go out and do these things, but it scared off investment in the traditional industry in Alberta. It gave an advantage to major and multinational corporations, but it frightened off or simply starved out those smaller companies that did the drilling, the very important work, in the more traditional lands of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

It got into a very complicated system of talking about old oil and new oil and a different pricing level for those two commodities. I challenge anybody, including the Minister of Revenue, to tell me the difference between old oil and new oil. Nevertheless, it got into a very complicated and regulated system, where different prices were blended together for the same commodity, depending on the time at which the drill actually struck the reserve of oil.

The current government of Canada in its wisdom moved towards deregulating that system, towards getting rid of this blended pricing system, towards getting rid of intervention and away from what was known as a revenue-based tax system to one based simply on profit. The company goes out, drills for oil, finds that oil, refines it, sells it, makes a profit and pays its taxes. Those profits can then be reinvested at the discretion of the company.

It has the skill and ability to make those decisions, which can be based on some fundamental economic criteria, not on some airy-fairy dream that Jean Chrétien and some of his predecessors as ministers of Energy, Mines and Resources had that we would be drilling all over the Mackenzie Delta and would have huge oil finds, which would be transported by pipeline into the hungry markets of eastern Canada. Now those decisions will be made on the basis of dollars and cents and what makes good economic common sense.

We come to a point where now the price for crude oil in Ontario is set on the basis of the world market, with a few aberrations as a result of pipeline regulation, provincial government intervention in the taxing structure, federal taxes and a few other things. There are still a few modest interventions there, but for the most part the price of crude oil, and therefore it follows the price of gasoline, is set based on the world oil price.

What does that mean? What is the world oil price? Is it the price the commodity brings on the open market, on the free market? No, that is not true. It is not the price the commodity brings on the world market. It is a price that is established by a cartel, a cartel known as OPEC -- the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

There is no free enterprise system at work here; it is a cartel. It is a group of the big boys getting together, sitting down in a hotel in London and deciding what they are going to charge the rest of the world for the commodity they own.

It is a pretty loosely knit organization. They are all petroleum exporters and they include some rather well-knit, well-governed nations, such as Great Britain and Saudi Arabia. Then we move off into the more loosely knit groups such as Syria, Iran and Iraq. Many of these nations are represented by very unstable governments. Some are even at war, but all of them have a desperate need for currency to meet their obligations, to develop the infrastructure in their own countries to which they committed themselves and to pay back some of the loans they made when the world oil price was spiralling.

All of them have a desperate need for cash. They are, therefore, compelled to keep the oil flowing, the dollars flowing. It is a very compelling thing and that is the problem OPEC faces today. As this learned individual, Mr. Verleger pointed out, as the value of the United States dollar starts to fall, their need for dollars becomes more compelling. We all have heard and read about the efforts of the king of OPEC, so to speak, if I can use that term rather loosely --

The Deputy Speaker: I must ask the member if this will come back dead on the Gasoline Tax Act.

Mr. Andrewes: The whole substance of this is to set the scenario for the gas tax. As I pointed out to you, sir, the world price for oil dictates what the price for gasoline will be and to some degree, therefore, dictates what the Treasurer will do with this piece of legislation.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the work of Sheikh Ahmed Zuki Yamani, a great man. What the good Sheik Ahmed Zuki Yamani has done over the years is to try to keep the lid on things in this little group called OPEC. He has tried very hard. He has set a rather good example by cutting back production within Saudi Arabia, within his own country; where he is, I suppose, the counterpart to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio). He has tried to keep the lid on this cartel.

3:50 p.m.

He has tried to keep control of the OPEC pricing system by controlling its output and its production. He said to his counterparts, the oil ministers from Sudan, Syria and Great Britain: "Let us leave this product in the ground. Let us short the market; because when we short the market the price goes up. We can take this stuff out of the ground 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now. We do not have to take it all out this year or next year. We can hold back our supply, watch the price gradually rise and reap the benefits."

He said to those ministers: "Go back and tell your treasurers that they had better be very careful with their expenditures. Perhaps they do not want to pay back some of those loans and perhaps they want to hold back on some of their obligations until such time as they can spread out some of the costs. In the meantime, it will be to our eventual advantage all around if we keep some of the oil in the ground."

That is a basic principle of supply and demand. However, the cartel is weak and fractious, to say the least. It is very fragile and likely will not hold. Our view, supported by these noted experts, is that the world oil price will fall because the OPEC cartel will fall apart, and that is a benefit.

Mr. McClellan: This is silly.

Mr. Andrewes: The House leader for the New Democratic Party interjects and suggests it is silly. I have sat in this House for four and a half years now and I have listened to silliness for four and a half years, so he can listen to a little more. The point I am coming to with respect to this history of OPEC and world oil prices is that, in dismantling the national energy policy the current federal government has provided us with an opportunity to take advantage of falling world oil prices. In spite of the rhetoric we heard the Liberal Party offer us during the last provincial election campaign, when it said the federal government was threatening our very existence by new taxes on fuel -- no doubt you remember some of those comments, Mr. Speaker -- there is now an opportunity in this country to take advantage of that deregulation.

It is our contention that those advantages must be passed on to the consumers of this province. That is all we are asking. We are simply saying that if those prices fall and if gasoline prices fall, the dollars should go back into the pockets of the consumers of this province.

There is one more issue I wish to touch on, and that is the whole question of the continued east-west debate on energy prices that has been going on in this country for many years. On the one hand we have the eastern consuming provinces, with Ontario and Quebec as the predominant ones, and on the other side of the table we have the western producing provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Perhaps there will be some new players as the far northern reserves come on stream. At the centre of the table we have the referee, the government of Canada. The problem is that the referee sits there with two clubs, able to beat either party over the head at the slightest provocation.

That great debate between east and west raged on in the 1970s. Ontario consumers argued on behalf of their industrial activity and the whole economy of the province. Alberta producers argued for their future, and they were as protective of that future as we would expect them to be. However, this past weekend I noted that at that great Halifax conference much of the rhetoric that was an ingredient of the energy debates of the 1970s was missing; much of the acrimony of past conferences was set aside. Perhaps it was due, in some respect, to some new players around that table bringing with them some new attitudes.

I would like to think one of the reasons that rhetoric was not present, one of the reasons that conference was as successful as it was, was that at the head of the table the government of Canada was represented by a Prime Minister who had put away his heavy clubs. He put them under the table and said: "Look, provincial Premiers, we have issues here we need to talk about. We have issues we need to decide constructively."

That was not the case when dealing with natural gas pricing among Ottawa, Alberta and Ontario. The Minister of Energy for Ontario said he was ignored. He was not offered a place at the table. He was not invited to the party. They simply ignored him and said: "It is none of your business. You just buy all this stuff. You cannot participate in this debate."

He gave us a statement in the Legislature saying, "By golly, gas prices in Ontario should fall by a dollar." We heard fire and brimstone from that minister. We had the Premier claiming those money-hungry Druids in western Canada were going to sell gas to the United States at the expense of Ontario's economy. That rhetoric did nothing. It will do nothing towards any kind of national economic future.

Now that western Canada is able to sell its resource to the rest of Canada at the international or world price I talked about earlier the stigma is removed, the straw man is off the table. The whole question of blended prices and Canadian resources being sold to Canadians at something less than their true market value is no longer a point of debate in that energy dispute or in any other national forum. The gut issue of oil pricing can now be dealt with and meaningful discussions can proceed on this and other issues of national concern. These kinds of discussions can proceed as constructively and as hopefully as they did in Halifax this past week.

That is not going to happen because this Minister of Revenue, this Treasurer, has further aggravated that debate by increasing gasoline taxes. He has taken away the credibility that needs to be developed for his Minister of Energy and for his Premier as they go about and participate in these discussions. He has taken away their credibility. He has stripped it away from them simply for the sake of what? For the sake of half a cent per litre.

4 p.m.

I am delighted he has removed that stigma now. Perhaps that will restore some credibility, because he will find that when western Canadians participate in that energy debate they view that provincial gasoline tax as an obstacle to constructive energy discussions. Let me tell the Treasurer what their response is when one suggests that energy prices are too high in Ontario, that they are too high in comparison to neighbouring jurisdictions, that our industrial and commercial users of fuel products have to pay more for them and therefore are not competitive with their neighbours across the border or in other provinces. If the Treasurer suggests that to a western political leader he will say: "You have the power to do something about it. You have a gasoline tax. Take a little less, my friend, and you will see that it goes a lot further." That will be the response when this government wants to debate the gut issues of energy pricing.

Those prices are now market-related. There is no blending, no holding of those prices at lower than the world level. Therefore, I plead with this minister to consider answering that other argument about gasoline tax by simply saying: "Yes, we have in place a taxing system that respects falling prices. If you in western Canada have to take a little less, we are going to take a little less as a government. We are not greedy. We are not gouging. We are going to get this red herring of provincial gasoline tax, provincial fuel tax, off the table once and for all."

I know there are probably short-term blips in that cycle, but I am sure my other colleagues will want to address that. Let us get those red herrings off the table once and for all. Let us say: "When the prices fall we are not going to take advantage of consumers by still grabbing whatever we can away from them with the gasoline tax. When those prices fall we are going to respect those savings."

That is my contention. It might lead to an effective resolution of some of those national debates in which we are constantly engaged.

Mr. Foulds: I rise on second reading of this bill in some state of breathlessness, as I am sure the Treasurer is too.

First, with the Treasurer's announcement about his reduction of this tax, his conversion on the road to Armstrong, Attawapiskat and other northerly places in this province, we are prepared to support the bill on second reading so we can get to the clause-by-clause debate in which the Treasurer will introduce his amendment, which in effect carries out the tax freeze agreed to by the Liberal and New Democratic parties last spring.

I want to say very clearly that we were the first party to state publicly and openly in this Legislature, and in the corridors just outside, that we would be opposing the gasoline tax. We did not take a lot of time to make up our minds. We did not play a lot of games about that. We came out the day of the budget, right up front, indicating this tax was unacceptable to us in its original form.

It was unacceptable for a number of reasons. The first was that it was an increase in taxation. It was discriminatory, particularly against northern Ontario, where people, for reasons of which we are all well aware but of which I will remind us all, must use their cars more frequently over longer distances and therefore pay both more base price in gasoline and more in taxation.

Since that time, more than a month ago now when the Treasurer introduced his budget, there have been both questions in this Legislature and statements in the public domain indicating we would oppose the increase to 8.8 cents per litre. Now that the Treasurer has retreated, we find his retreat honourable and acceptable, and therefore, when the clause-by-clause debate comes up, we will support the figure of 8.3 cents.

I believe the people of Ontario have won a major victory on this bill at this time. The proposed amendment by the Treasurer will save Ontario motorists more than $60 million a year. As I have indicated, that is of particular benefit to residents of northern Ontario.

The second thing is that the proposed amendment will freeze the amount of gasoline tax currently collected. Most especially, the tax abolishes the existing ad valorem tax.

I want to talk for a few moments about the ad valorem tax. We have had the opportunity to debate that principle previously. The Conservative Party has debated the principle ad nauseam, twisting the nature of the argument and the definition quite considerably. The Tories' argument at present appears to be that it would be better to leave the ad valorem tax on. In other words, they appear to be still in favour of the ad valorem tax, which they implemented.

Let us indicate very clearly that when the ad valorem tax was introduced it was not introduced to benefit the consumer; it was introduced to benefit the public Treasury of Ontario as it was administered by the then Progressive Conservative government. It was introduced by the Progressive Conservative government of those days because they did not want to have the inconvenience of coming back to the Legislature with a new tax every year when they had to raise it. When they introduced the ad valorem tax they expected the tax and the base prices of gasoline and crude oil to rise continuously.

At present, they are using the argument that it would benefit the consumer because prices are going to go down. They quote three experts in their press release of today. I believe the three experts they quote believe what they are saying, but I do not believe for a minute that even the Progressive Conservative Party, with the intelligence it has at its disposal --

Mr. McClellan: Used to have.

Mr. Foulds: My colleague the member for Bellwoods makes a good point: the intelligence that the Progressive Conservative Party used to have at its disposal -- i.e., the civil service -- and now does not have it at its disposal, which may explain the peculiarity of its positions on this matter.

I cannot believe that the Progressive Conservative Party, with the rest of the intelligence it used to have, actually believes gasoline and oil prices will continue to go down. I cannot believe for a minute they believe gasoline prices will plummet in the 1990s.

Even as one reads the fine print of their release, they indicate today -- and we listen carefully; for my sins as Treasury critic for my party I must listen carefully to the statements of their spokesmen on this matter -- that after a couple of years oil and gasoline prices will rise again, and if we left the ad valorem tax on, the tax would continue to rise.

Mr. Stevenson: We froze it.

Mr. Foulds: They are in favour of that. Let it be clearly identified that the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) indicated clearly that they understand the base price will continue to rise, they will be in favour of the ad valorem tax and they will be in favour of nicking the consumer at that time without consultation with this Legislature.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Foulds: I am not yielding the floor.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Arthur totally misrepresented my words. He mentioned that in a couple of years gasoline prices will possibly go up. I nodded to that extent, but any of his comments about the ad valorem tax totally misrepresent anything I or my party stand for.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member will please continue.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ruling you made in this matter, clearly pointing out that it was not a point of order. Because I am not restrained by the objectivity of your office, I will go further and say that it is not only not a point order but also is not even a point of interest.

The Acting Speaker: Please come back to the topic and discuss the budget.

Mr. Foulds: I cannot discuss the budget; I must discuss this bill.

Mr. Gillies: While misrepresenting all the facts.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to ask the member for Brantford to withdraw that interjection.

Mr. Gillies: In withdrawing, of course what I meant to say was that the member was inadvertently misleading the House. The ad valorem tax was frozen and could not go up, regardless of price.

The Acting Speaker: I did not hear the comment from the member. I can refer to Hansard and come back and give a ruling.

Mr. Gillies: I withdraw it. He was inadvertently misleading the House.

Mr. Foulds: If anyone is inadvertently misleading the House it is not the spokespeople for this party. It is the spokespeople for the Progressive Conservative Party who have tried to be on all sides of all issues and do not know where they are when it comes to budgetary bills. They have argued about fiscal responsibility; then they have argued about and are going to vote against every tax bill we have had, including this one with the Treasurer's reduction.

I find it strange that after 42 years of inaction the Progressive Conservative Party, as an opposition party, now finds itself in a mode of obstruction when it comes to budget bills and will deliberately delay the passage of legislation, even legislation it used to introduce itself.

I was appalled and astounded last night when they told us they had not been able to determine their position on the Loan Act, a routine bill they introduced annually on the introduction of every budget. I found it not only passing strange but also unbelievable that after 42 years in office and 42 days in opposition they could not come to a decision about a simple piece of legislation they introduced annually.

I have been diverted and I will return to the substance of the gasoline tax.

Mr. Mackenzie: They do not have anyone to tell them now.

Mr. Foulds: My colleague the member for Hamilton East rightly points out they do not have anyone to tell them how they should vote on these matters. They actually have to read the legislation, find out what it does and then discuss it and make a decision about it.

I find the obstructionism with which the Progressive Conservative Party, the official opposition, is approaching these budget bills to be somewhat destructive and distressing. I have no objection whatsoever to the stands they take, because I know they are falling on their own swords all over the province with every stand they take. However, I do find it strange that they would obstruct the business of the House and of the public generally in this province.

I want to get back to this bill briefly. We opposed the first proposal of the Treasurer on this matter because of two things. We felt it was important that the Liberal Party as a government live up to the promises it made during the course of the election and to the promise it made to the public of Ontario as a result of the agreement with this party in the spring. That was a public document, a public agreement, and it was in the finest democratic traditions of both this province and the British parliamentary system.

It is no shame and no dishonour to retreat on a tax bill; there is no fiddling with the hoary tradition of precedents and confidence. As we all well remember, a former Progressive Conservative Treasurer found it necessary to retreat on the instruction of his Premier on a tax matter. That was a bill for a horrendous increase of 37 or 38 per cent in Ontario health insurance plan premiums, introduced by a former Treasurer, the Honourable Darcy McKeough.

Mr. McClellan: Shameful.

Mr. Foulds: It was a shameful and discriminatory tax. After a lot of outrage in the province and speeches in the Legislature, reflecting the efforts of both opposition parties, the Treasurer retreated on that taxation matter. There was no question at that time from the Progressive Conservative Party that this was a matter of confidence and that the British parliamentary tradition somehow had been shattered and smashed to smithereens. It was in the finest Tory tradition of manipulation and retreat, as had been done often in the past. When it suited their purpose, they found that to be perfectly in line with the British parliamentary tradition.

The outcome of this piece of legislation indicates not only that the New Democratic Party can vote against unacceptable legislation but also that it has the intestinal fortitude, the intellectual arguments and virtue on its side to persuade the government to withdraw unacceptable legislation. What is even more important, in one small way, since it refers to only one tax -- I admit that fully -- we have been able to take a minor step towards a fairer system of taxation.

It is our party's objective in debating all these budget bills, and our overall objective as a party in this province, to introduce a fairer taxation system for the people of this province. We believe, as the profound centre of our being as a party, that the present taxation system is skewed towards those with the louder voices, those who earn more than most people from one source or another. The major burden of taxation in this province still is on the average taxpayer, who earns somewhere between $8,000 and $35,000 or $40,000 a year. Neither the previous administration nor the present one in this budget has taken steps to redress that injustice. It is with some sense of satisfaction that in this one small way, on this one bill, we have been able to reduce the taxes that would have been unfairly levied against the average motorist in northern Ontario and all over the province and against the average family of this province.

4:20 p.m.

I want to point out briefly that the Treasurer's announcement this afternoon, which confirms rumours that have been circulating for about two and a half weeks, compared with his original proposal, decreases the taxation on unleaded and premium gasoline, and there is a minor increase in taxation of leaded gasoline.

Frankly, we see that as an acceptable sawoff because of the environmental concerns we have in this party. In the long run, I believe we should be moving more and more towards unleaded gasoline and working more and more towards eradicating the kind of pollution we face from a lot of use of leaded gasoline.

Even my colleagues to the right will note that their colleague the federal Minister of the Environment has indicated that leaded gasoline should be eliminated, by 1992 I believe he said. They would therefore find the slight increase in taxation of leaded gas acceptable in these circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It would be even more attractive in its former form.

Mr. Foulds: Certainly, but logic has never been the strong point of the speakers in the party to my right.

In conclusion, we will be supporting the bill on second reading only because the Treasurer has introduced amendments at this stage and has made the commitment that they will be brought forward in the clause-by-clause debate. We would not be voting for this legislation had it been in its original form and had the Treasurer not made the solemn commitment he made today in this Legislature to amend it.

There is no other way we can get the bill through, and through processing, unless it is voted affirmatively on second reading. From what I understand of the speeches made by the members of the party to my right, they will be filibustering this bill into next week. The leader of their party indicated they will not come forward with their firm proposal and amendment until next week. I assume that means they will drag out the debate and I find that rather sad and unacceptable.

I wish they would have three or four forceful and succinct speakers put forward their arguments, as we are prepared to do, and then let us have the vote on the second reading. In the clause-by-clause debate, my party, the Treasurer and the Conservative Party will all be able to put forward our proposals. I would like to see that clause-by-clause debate take place as early as late this afternoon or this evening so that we can proceed expeditiously with logic, tough debate and good arguments on all sides. I would like to see us move forward in that manner.

Mr. Stevenson: I was pleased to hear the member for Port Arthur saying that the amendments proposed by the Treasurer are a minor step towards a fairer tax system. We will offer him an opportunity to support an amendment that will be a major step towards a fairer tax system. Many of our members in this party have some major concerns about this bill and I am sure a number of them will want to speak to those concerns as they relate to individuals, groups, industries and so on in their ridings.

Quite a bit has been said about the ad valorem tax and the concerns people had about it as prices and revenues rose. I remember a number of comments from the Treasurer and some of his colleagues saying the government at the time was living off the avails and it was very unfair that government should be profiting from inflation or its results. I think it has been stated many times that this party realized the difficulties in the ad valorem tax system and froze it at a price for gasoline that is essentially equivalent to the level the Treasurer has agreed to introduce in the amendment.

However, it does not stop there. As the critic for the Treasury has pointed out so well this afternoon, there is some pretty good evidence that, at least over the next few months, there is likely to be a decline in the price of gasoline. There seems to me to be no clear reason the consumers of this province should not have the opportunity to benefit from that decline, so we can actually see the fairness of a system where at least the tax is allowed to float within certain limits, as we will be putting forward.

If the price goes down, the frozen gasoline tax will have an impact in the future on a great many industries in this province. I want to address just a few of those.

In the tourism area, we have the impact on the travelling public, not only in automobiles but also in pleasure boats. When we travel around this province, we see the very high gasoline prices, particularly compared to those in the United States. There is no question that, as travellers come in from the United States, they take particular notice of the cost of gasoline here. For many of them, that affects the number of times they visit, the length of their stay and how far they travel when they are here.

When we get into areas such as northern Ontario, where tourism is such an important part of the economy and distances are so great, the effects are even more pronounced.

I think it is a great credit to the current federal government that it saw the devastating effect the policies of the federal Liberal government had. The national energy program and government controls were simply not working to the benefit of Canada. It trashed that national energy program and to a great degree deregulated the energy industry. I am sure that will have some significant impact on the Canadian economy and should benefit the consumers of Ontario.

4:30 p.m.

I mentioned the people travelling in cars, but I want to spend a moment on pleasure boating. In the riding of Durham-York, the Trent-Severn system goes through Lake Simcoe and also ties in to Lake Scugog. We are seeing an increase every year in the use of the Trent-Severn system. Quite frankly, it is getting to the point where on weekends the system has great difficulty handling the boat traffic that is going through that area. Some of them own these boats, others are renting them and taking family holidays for a week or so on a houseboat or some other rented boat. The cost of fuel for those people is a very major cost, and it is even more important in the actual cost of travelling when one is talking of pleasure power boating as compared to travelling in an automobile on land.

In a province where tourism is so important to our economy and, depending on to whom one talks, is the second or third most important sector of the economy and employs the --

Interjection.

Mr. Stevenson: I am glad the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) is so solidly supporting my point of view.

Mr. Villeneuve: I am glad his sneeze is solid. He could have blown you right across the room.

Mr. Gillies: He was just barking his approval.

Mr. Stevenson: In some ways I wish he was not quite so much behind me, maybe a little more off to the side.

I believe I was talking about the importance of tourism, although I must admit I did lose my concentration there somewhat.

Mr. Cousens: It does not take much.

Mr. Stevenson: The member is right.

Mr. Cousens: It is such a good speech, carry on.

Mr. Gillies: Start again.

Mr. Stevenson: Maybe I should just start all over again right from the top?

Mr. Gillies: I would start again.

Mr. Cousens: It had to do with tourism.

Mr. Stevenson: Okay. I must admit I do not completely remember where I was, but anyway we were talking in general about boating and the significance of the tourism industry.

It is something we have to look at. If gasoline prices are going to be decreasing here they will most certainly be decreasing in the United States over a similar period of time. If we are not prepared to adjust the prices of fuel here in this province in line with those of our neighbouring states to the south, undoubtedly it is going to have some impact on the number of visitors we get in from the United States. Quite likely it will mean that some of our own people will take a serious look at travelling more into the United States rather than taking family holidays in Ontario or in other provinces here in Canada.

A price that is held artificially high because of government tax reasons can have a major impact here on the travelling public. As I say, it is very critical to the economy of this province and it is something I think the Treasurer must be very sensitive to if he wishes to keep tourism strong in this province.

I have some doubt as to the feelings this government has towards tourism. For example, in the last budget there was no mention of continuing the small marinas program which had been started by the previous government and was a very popular program.

As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with the York tourism people last Wednesday. There are six marinas on the south shore of Lake Simcoe that are planning to do work this winter in their off-season, and some of the work has to be done on the ice. They were planning to put in retaining walls to reduce the erosion of the banks in the marinas, putting in improved pump-out facilities for boats and so on, all the things that are necessary for a marina that is going to be favourable to the environment and minimize risks to the environment.

But the work necessary to do this is not of the type that necessarily increases revenue to the marina; hence, although that program was very popular, yet it has been stopped by the present government. This is another indication of its insensitivity to the tourism industry, which is so critical to the riding of Durham-York and to the economy of Ontario.

When the Treasurer sees our proposal to alter the gasoline tax system, I think he will be quite pleased with the variable tax, which is capped at 8.3 cents per litre; and as the previous speaker, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), suggested, the tax ratchets down as the price per litre of gasoline goes down.

I also want to mention very briefly the impacts on the agriculture industry. As the Treasurer will well know, all commodity groups in agriculture are under quite significant financial stress right now, and some are under extreme financial stress. Transportation is a very real cost in getting products to and from the farms in Ontario. In north central and northern Ontario, where distances from the producing areas to the markets are considerably greater, the costs of transportation are further increased.

I look at the situation of our beef and pork producers. Many of the smaller trucks that haul the livestock to and from farms are still gasoline powered. The pickup truck is a very vital piece of equipment on farms in Ontario, and most are gasoline powered. In just about anything the farmer tries to do, he is paying gasoline tax for his road vehicles.

In my own farming operation, we use a greater amount of fuel to run our road vehicles than we do in planting, harvesting and tilling all the farm property we run. We operate about 550 acres and it never ceases to astound me that we use more road fuel than tillage and harvesting fuel on that farm.

Anything the Treasurer can do to reduce the input costs to the farms in Ontario would be most favourably received by the producers. In situations where they are not getting a fair shake from the marketplace, it is important that the Treasurer do what he can to reduce those input costs.

4:40 p.m.

In a riding such as mine, which is located just a few miles north of Oshawa in the general Metro Toronto area, a great many of the residents who live in the riding of Durham-York commute to work. Their cost of transportation is a major component of their family budget. I repeat to the Treasurer that the commuters of Ontario paid an increasing tax on gasoline while gasoline prices were going up. It seems only fair that they should now have the opportunity to benefit from reduced taxes because gasoline price may well go down, at least for a while. I do not think any of us are suffering from any great illusion that gasoline prices will be down for a long time during the next decade or two.

The bill we are talking about relates to the budget. While we are discussing the bill, we have to look at the time scale that may well be in place while this bill is in force. We think the views we are putting forward are very realistic about the situation in gasoline pricing that is likely to exist during the next several months.

For many of the industries in the province, transportation is a major cost of doing business in a country as large as Canada, with a population concentration that in many areas is within 100 miles of the American border as one goes across the country. Transportation is absolutely vital to a successful Canada. As I stated earlier, in the cost of doing business transportation is a major input and the cost expands as one goes into the less populated parts of the province, particularly northern Ontario.

The Treasurer will have to keep in mind the impact on the economy. As he states, the economy is likely to slow down during the next year. His budget did nothing to improve that situation. While we are talking about the area of industry, I think it is very important we look at the situation of the 1984 budget that the former Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), brought in, and compare it with the current budget. In the 1984 budget no tax increases whatsoever were brought in. At the same time the deficit was reduced substantially, as I recall by close to $1 billion.

Now we have a situation where we have a grab for $700 million that will come out of the pockets of the people of Ontario. It will go to what seem to be very few worthwhile new programs put forward by the government. In addition, there is a $500-million increase in the deficit. We have to stand back and ask for what reason? The lack of imagination that was apparent throughout the budget is also apparent in this bill.

I know the Treasurer likes to comment on the ideas and the local culture he picks up in Earl's garage. The same sort of valuable advice comes to me when I go to the Leaskdale garage or Vallentyne Auto Service and Supply. There is someone at those establishments on a regular basis who is quite willing to give us advice and his views on government policy, on the economy and on how he sees things going in his sphere of business or activities in his community.

Certainly, these people put their ideas forward in a very sincere way. Their jobs are very closely related to the economic health of this province. When they speak, one knows they are speaking right from the gut. There is no feeling among them that the present direction of this government is improving their lot in life by any stretch of the imagination. Their feeling in general is that we are getting back to the economic policies of the Trudeau era. They are very concerned about what they see coming out of the first budget of the current administration here in Ontario.

The advice of these people has been very valuable in their area of interest, but I doubt very much that it takes the place of the advice that had been coming from the Ontario Economic Council. There is room for the inputs of people in all walks of life and in all locations of the province. It has certainly been my practice to listen to everyone and it will be a significant loss to me not to have the input of the Ontario Economic Council and its views on economic issues that relate to Ontario.

I know a number of members want to have the opportunity to speak. I could go on at considerable length on this bill as it relates to many other aspects of life in the riding of Durham-York and to the economy of Ontario. I know I will have further opportunities to expand on my ideas and on the views of the people I represent, so for today I will cease there on the discussion of the negative aspects of this bill.

I would certainly invite all members of the Legislature to join us in supporting the amendment that will be coming forward. It is an imaginative way of dealing with the tax on gasoline as the price changes in the future, and it would be a very fair way of assisting the farmers, the industry and the commuters of Ontario.

Mr. Warner: The democratic system lives, and is that not a little painful to the Conservative members sitting over here? Is it not a horrible thing to have thrust upon them? The democratic system is alive and well.

Some of the members either do not know or refuse to acknowledge --

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This member has stood up and has been on his feet waxing eloquent about nothing. Would he speak to the bill?

Mr. Speaker: I suppose that is a good question to the Speaker. However, the member has been on his feet for only 14 seconds, so will he continue?

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate the member does not like to talk about the democratic system, but I do like to talk about the democratic system, and this bill fits into that. Perhaps the member either has selective amnesia or just has not paid attention.

The fact remains that it was the former Conservative government that brought in a principle which is abhorrent to anyone who believes in the democratic system. That is the concept of ad valorem taxes. Is it not nice to raise taxes without coming to the Legislature?

In their typical, arrogant fashion, the Conservatives, when in power, saw fit to bring in taxation without having to come to the House.

Mr. Runciman: At least we have principles.

Mr. Mackenzie: What principles?

Mr. Wiseman: You sold your soul.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that at least I have woken them up.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening.

Mr. Warner: I know you are. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that before you were the Speaker and were one of the lowly members as I am in this chamber, when the Tories brought in their tax on the Ontario health insurance plan without legislation, there was a great howl from the members at that time, members who believed in the democratic system.

This offended the principle that one does not have taxation without legislation. It is a principle that has held very strongly through several hundred years of parliamentary history, a principle which should not be offended against by any party in this House. However, that did not deter the government of the day.

Mr. Wiseman: Tell us how much you are going to pay under the new tax. Tell us the good points about this bill.

Mr. Warner: If the member for Lanark wishes to participate I assume he will patiently wait his turn and try not to fall asleep.

Mr. Wiseman: Just tell us. I am not falling asleep; I am listening to what the member is saying.

Mr. Warner: Are you? Good. The member for Lanark is listening. There is a first.

Mr. Wiseman: Come on, tell us the good things. Are there any good things?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, you will recall, even if the Tory members do not wish to recall or wish to think about it, that a very sound principle of the democratic system of government, which we have inherited through the British parliamentary system, is that a government does not levy taxes upon the people without legislation.

It is a principle the Tories decided to abandon; first, when they introduced the OHIP premium increase, a tax increase without legislation; and further, when they decided through their massive majority, following 1981, to bring in an ad valorem tax. They believed taxes can escalate without any voice in parliament. It is a principle to which I certainly take exception and to which I think any democratically minded person does.

That did not stop the Tories, mind you. It was just too much trouble to have it debated, because if one debates it then maybe the public will get upset and will lend its voice. Heaven prevent that it should go out to committee and the public could have a chance at the bill; so let us have the ad valorem concept.

Thank goodness we are going to get rid of that. I understand the Tories, being true to form, are saying: "No, we want the ad valorem system. We like the idea of taxing people without bringing a measure to the Legislature. We think it is a wonderful idea." So the Tories will continue to take that position. Good luck to them, because I do not think the people of Ontario accept that principle espoused by the Tories.

It is a victory for the system. It is also a victory for minority government. While the Tories today appear to be engaged in obstruction, I would remind them of their new leader's comments just last week that as leader he was committed to making minority government work. This is some example. It is his first opportunity and he is engaged in obstruction. They have decided to filibuster. They have decided they are going to drag this one out as long as they can. That is not much of a commitment to minority government.

It is, of course, a victory for the historic accord, the fact that two parties that are opposed on many measures can intelligently come to an agreement on common grounds. It is an important aspect and one which bothers the Tories. They do not like to make agreements with people; they like to have things their own way.

They are not having it this time; the people of Ontario will win out and they have lost.

The Tories have an intriguing proposal to amend this bill. If it ever gets into committee, if we get past the obstruction they are putting up, they wish to bring in some kind of sliding scale.

Mr. Wiseman: Let the people in your riding know the good things about this bill.

Mr. Warner: Is that right? They have a sliding scale they are going to introduce, based on the decrease in prices, on some kind of silly assumption that prices are going to plummet over the next long while and therefore there will be savings to the people of Ontario. This is really an absolutely fascinating proposal because one should realize that, as of today, on average, people in the United States are paying to the penny the same amount for their gasoline as we are in Ontario. Do members realize that?

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: We hear the howls of outrage from the now-awoken members in the back benches. I direct the attention --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellsemere has the floor.

Mr. Wiseman: Since when did $1.08 a gallon get cheaper? It is $1.08 in Florida for unleaded.

Mr. Warner: If the member for Lanark would like to listen to the explanation, I will tell him exactly how to arrive at the figures. When we take into account the exchange rate, the conversion from litres to gallons and the conversion --

Mr. Wiseman: I just got back from there.

Mr. Warner: He does not want to hear the answer, so forget it.

Mr. Wiseman: Ask the Treasurer. He was in Florida. He knows the price of gas there.

Mr. Warner: The previous speaker, the member for Durham-York, acknowledged that prices were not likely to go down for a long time but rather just over the short haul. The Tories have a short-haul proposal, acknowledging that the cartel over here will decide if the prices will go back up, at which point their proposal to reinstitute ad valorem will mean an increase in taxes to the people of Ontario. This is hardly a progressive move for the Legislature, because if we accept this idea of a sliding scale downwards then since there is no lid put on it, we accept it when it goes back up.

This brings me to the point about the Canadian-American cartel. No one in this assembly, I take it, believes there is actually competition out there in the petroleum industry. It does not happen, and we understand that.

Mr. Wiseman: What about the same prices?

Mr. Warner: That is right. According to the Tory theory about why they are going to vote against this bill, competition will ensure that the price will go down, and as it does then the people will save money.

5 p.m.

Do the members know what competition is? A little while back, when prices were lower than now, Shell announced it was going to increase its price. The moment it did that all the other petroleum dealers matched it and raised their prices. This is competition in reverse. What kind of a silly system is this? The Conservatives want us to believe that somehow competition will dictate that the prices will go down. What stuff and nonsense. If we were to accept the proposal, the prices would go up, taxes would go up and the Tories would once again have hammered the poor consumers in Ontario.

As much as it hurts the Conservatives to think that a democratic system can actually work and that one-party rule is no longer in place, it behooves all of us to support the principle of this bill. It does two things. First, it removes a concept that should be quite odious to all democratically minded people, the ad valorem concept. Second, it establishes a more reasonable level of taxation than we had previously, yielding a saving to the consumers of Ontario of an estimated $60 million, which is not to be sneezed at, although we did actually hear a sneeze from the back row earlier.

Mr. Wiseman: Tell us how it is a saving.

Mr. Warner: It is a saving of $60 million. If one had trouble with the arithmetic on the conversion, one will have trouble with this one.

In an effort to allow other members to participate and so I may have an opportunity to explain a little basic arithmetic to my friend the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), I will conclude by stating that not only am I pleased to support the principle of the bill but also I urge the Tory caucus to abandon its plans to filibuster and cause a stoppage of the work of this Legislature and, instead, to attempt to co-operate with all of us so we can bring a measure of savings to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Barlow: I would like to take this opportunity to participate in and add a few words on the second reading debate on Bill 51. I want to begin by congratulating the Treasurer for suggesting he will move an amendment to the bill in the committee of the whole stage, changing the flat tax rate from 8.8 cents to 8.3 cents. That is commendable. I think it also requires an amendment to the accord, but I do not know whether that has to be in writing or whether the accord will be debated in the House. I understand that has to take place, but that is part of the democratic system.

The whole matter of the tax on gasoline and on the other facilities that serve the motoring public of the province has an extremely exasperating effect on the public. The cost of transportation, not only for personal use of passenger vehicles but also for transportation of goods and services throughout the province, is an extremely high proportion of all the goods we purchase. It is certainly to be considered as an expense we should do everything we can to control so we can hold down the cost of many of the products we produce, not only those in the south but also those in the north. I know the people in the north will concur with that concern.

All the tax on the transportation industry is still hitting the travelling public, the motorists of this province. Throughout the budget paper we had read to us by the Treasurer a month or so ago now there were several increases that are going to hit each and every driver in the province. Registration fees on our cars are up by 12.5 per cent. Commercial vehicle fees are up by 12.5 per cent on the lighter vehicles and by 15 per cent on the heavier vehicles.

The drivers' licence fees are up by a whopping 40 per cent. I realize that part, if not all, of that 40 per cent is to pay for the pictures on the drivers' licences, to which none of us can object. It is a good concept and we all support that, but still it is an increase in fees. Diesel fuel, which we debated a week or so ago, is up by an extra 6.5 per cent.

Mr. Gillies: It is appalling.

Mr. Barlow: My friend the member for Brantford reminds me it is appalling.

At a time when all projections indicate there will be a decrease in the world price of petroleum over the next period, at a time when our amendment, which will be coming forth --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It says here gasoline prices are expected to rise.

Mr. Barlow: I am glad the Treasurer pointed that out. I happen to have a copy of the magazine that all of us received. It was on my desk this morning.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It says here, "New Gasoline Plan Will Raise Prices, Experts Forecast."

Mr. Barlow: This magazine is the Canadian Petroleum Association Review. It is volume IX, number 4, dated November 1985.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought the Tories had a window on the oil industry.

Mr. Barlow: This government has fogged the window.

This is the publication of the Canadian Petroleum Association. In it the editor, Peter McKenzie-Brown, interviewed two petroleum economists with Cambridge Energy Research Associates -- not Cambridge, Ontario, but Cambridge, Massachusetts; our research institute in Cambridge is much smaller than the one in Massachusetts -- Dr. Daniel Yergin, who is president of CERA, and Dr. Joseph Stanislaw, the group's Paris-based director of international economics. I will briefly read from this.

The interviewer asked Dr. Stanislaw: "I understand that your background includes work with the International Energy Agency. Are you willing to venture a forecast on the near-term future of world oil prices?"

Dr. Stanislaw replied: "Well, basically they are going down. In an effort to help stabilize prices, Saudi Arabia was until quite recently the last holdout among the OPEC countries -- the last to charge official prices. And now they're changing their course. The scheme they are now negotiating effectively lowers the price of oil by $1 to $1.50 to selective buyers. This move has effectively brought down world market prices. And there will be continuing downward price pressures for the next six to 18 months" -- which is the period of time this budget covers -- "with potential bottom weakness either in the next few weeks or in January or February."

The interviewer went on to ask: "Can you give us some kind of forecast of what the price might drop to? Will it stay in the $24 to $25 range?"

Dr. Stanislaw said: "Yes, right now the average internationally traded barrel is priced somewhere between $26 to $27. We see that price being ratcheted down by another $1 or $1.50 some time in the next six to nine months. We believe it will stay in the $24 to $26 range over the next few years. I would give it a low of $22 but most likely $24 to $26."

5:10 p.m.

I am sure the Treasurer is anxious to hear that quotation from those expert oil industry research people.

The fact that oil prices are going down only reiterates the importance of the amendment to be proposed by this party in the course of debate in the committee of the whole House. I am sure the Treasurer will want to consider it while he is considering his own amendment.

Normally, an increase in taxes should produce additional and increased services to the public, in this case the motoring public. However, in the budget that produced Bill 51, there is an actual decrease from last year of $34 million in the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The money that is poured back into the services of the motoring public has decreased.

In the same budget, there is a $523-million transfer from the Treasury to local governments for municipal roads; that is up exactly $15 million from the 1984-85 budget, which our leader brought in during his days as Treasurer. I repeat that $523 million is in there for municipal roads. When the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) was the Minister of Transportation and Communications, he proposed an increased transfer of $531.5 million for municipal roads. What has been proposed in this year's 1985-86 budget is an $8.5-million decrease of what had been promised to municipalities.

It has been said that there is a $60-million transfer in the budget to municipalities. I will quote directly from page 9 of the Treasurer's budget, under "Municipalities," where he refers to transfers to municipalities:

"The budget establishes a fund for municipal improvement. For the coming fiscal year" -- that is not this fiscal year; it is the coming fiscal year, 1986-87 -- "this fund will have $60 million for special road renovations and the transit capital program." It goes on to say, "Further details on the first year of this fund will be announced by the Minister of Transportation and Communications."

Municipalities are waiting anxiously to see what is going to happen to them in the way of transfer of payments in the year 1986-87. They know they are going to get $8.5 million less for the 1985-86 year than what was promised to them by the previous government, but they are also waiting with bated breath to find out what is going to happen in the coming year. I commend the Treasurer for committing himself to announce in advance what the municipalities are going to get; that helps them with their budgetary planning, and I commend him for that.

I should bring out a few other points we have not discussed as yet. I had the opportunity of being in the Treasurer's riding last Friday night and discussing with some of the tobacco farmers the increase in taxes, the removal of ad valorem tax on tobacco and the bringing in of a flat rate on the tobacco tax. Some of the farmers in his riding were not particularly happy with their member for proposing that after debating so strenuously in years gone by for fairer taxation for the tobacco farmers, but he is going to have to deal with that item himself. I am sorry; I cannot defend him in his own riding.

Mr. Gillies: We cannot do everything for him.

Mr. Barlow: No; but we are trying to be helpful to the Treasurer. We are just trying to pass along some helpful comments.

I have to plead with the Treasurer to consider the fate of the motoring public. The motorists of this province are hard hit when it comes to transportation costs. As he knows, we pay more in this country than they do in the good old United States of America. Some of us travel more extensively down in the United States than others. I have not taken my car into the United States for a couple of years now for any extensive travelling. Still, it is a bargain for those who live close to the border to cross over to the United States and buy their gasoline where they can get a much better deal and a fairer price on their gasoline purchases.

There are probably a few other things I should comment on, but other members of the assembly wish to take part in the debate.

What have I not covered yet?

Mr. Gillies: Perhaps the member should go over the major points again.

Mr. Barlow: Reiterate the major points? The Speaker might call me to order for that. I do not want to be accused of stalling, because I know everybody is extremely interested in hearing every side of this problem.

We want to protect the motorist and to help him in any way we can, and not only the motorist but also those who are buying goods and services. As we know, many trucking companies still use gasoline in their vehicles. Of course, a large majority of truckers are on diesel fuel, which has been hit quite hard, but there still are a few who are on gasoline. They are getting a break from this tax bill, but the bulk of the goods and services that we see delivered on our highways are transported by diesel-driven motor vehicles.

I will take this opportunity to bring my remarks to a close and pass the torch to the next speaker, who I am sure will also have a few enlightening remarks for our Treasurer.

Mr. Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I do not wish to tax your patience or your time, but as a novice I have noticed that good manners and decorum are not always the order of the day. I know we do not have the capacity, even when the wine is rancid to cap the bottles. There has been nothing of substance regarding Bill 51.

Mr. Barlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Throughout my remarks I referred to Bill 51 at least three times.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Barlow: I know; okay.

5:20 p.m.

M. Pouliot: Si je peux prendre peut-être une, deux ou trois minutes pour parler brièvement du projet de loi 51, qui est déposé en Chambre en deuxième lecture, j'aimerais débuter en disant que si, chez les gens du Sud de l'Ontario, le prix de la gazoline fait mal, eh bien, quand on arrive dans le Nord de l'Ontario, ça nous rend presque infirmes. Qu'on parle d'une augmentation, si minime soit-elle, chez nous ça fait plus mal que dans le Sud. Les raisons sont simples.

The riding of Lake Nipigon, which I have the pleasure and the honour of representing, is 114,000 square miles, fully 28 or 29 per cent of the overall area of Ontario. In fact, as I stand here addressing this House, we are closer to Miami, Florida, than some areas such as Big Trout Lake and Port Severn in the riding of Lake Nipigon.

When the Treasurer tabled the budget on October 24, the party with the social conscience analysed every proposal in the budget in detail. Bill by bill, we went along and we said, "Yes, we will be with you." Sure there was an attempt, but it was difficult at times.

One bill that comes to mind was the removal of sales tax for meals costing less than $1. We had some problems. Nevertheless we went along until we reached Bill 51, the removal of the ad valorem tax for a substitution. Our understanding was that a substitution was not to come forth with an increase nor, for the benefit of the Treasurer, even a decrease. We were appalled and shocked. We petitioned the Treasurer of Ontario and we said: "Please, Bob, say it ain't so. Tell us that for a few dollars, a fistful of dollars, you will not generate those supplementary $70 million or $80 million."

Although we fully realize that his philosophy -- and I am sorry, I do not wish to philosophize; the old parties have never adhered to a philosophy, but even as scavengers of the marketplace, if I may, those people on either side of the House have never intended to change the tax system that still lays favour or gives opportunity to the wealthiest and the more fortunate in our society.

The budget lacked imagination. It offered nothing innovative but it had that rare quality, by virtue or reason of not being innovative or imaginative, that it did not offend anyone.

In the spirit of generosity, realizing it was half a budget for half a year, our caucus, after consultation, rated it a C minus, a passing mark.

More specifically, when we talk about gas price increases, every sector of the northwestern Ontario economy is affected. There are people in this province, and I am referring specifically to first Canadians in some areas north of the 50th parallel, 85 to 90 per cent on some reserves, who have to exist and survive on social assistance.

While we claim to have a social conscience, to be our brother's keeper and to help the less fortunate in our society, while we preach those platitudes, because we do not have the political will to do anything about it, we ask them to pay $4.50, $5 and $5.50 per gallon at the pumps, a social climb of the highest order if nothing less. When we do this, the monopolies and cartels in this society, the people who grab, grab, grab and refuse to put more -- or anything, if they can get away with it -- back into the system, leave us holding the bag.

We have seen no capital gains tax in lieu of the proposed substitution, the flat rate tax. We have seen no sales tax on mink coats, luxuries, big-ticket items. Instead, there was a veiled attempt to substitute the ad valorem tax by what was to be an increase.

The Treasurer of Ontario should be commended for having had the courage to say: "What is being done here, what is being proposed, is wrong. We as the Liberal Party of Ontario, being aware of and respecting the accord we have signed with our friends for the time being, the New Democrats, will rescind this injustice."

Provided time is not of the essence for our friends from the far right, when it is time to vote I will be pleased to support the endeavour and the amendment of the Treasurer.

Mr. Villeneuve: Bill 51 is a most interesting bill, particularly with some of the recent events. It was interesting to notice that the Treasurer had some sort of guilt complex and remorse of conscience this afternoon when he put his bicycle in reverse and backed up, so that now we are back to 8.3 cents per litre. It is interesting that he does not want the Ontario consumers to benefit from what surely will be a slowly reducing price for energy and fossil fuels.

I find it most interesting that the people on the third party are taking credit --

Mr. Foulds: In the third party, not on it.

Mr. Villeneuve: In the third party; I am sorry. Some of them are on the third party. The people who are the government are basically on the third party; they keep them under control.

I find it rather strange that these people are so vehemently opposed to an increase in the price of gasoline when last week there was no problem with increasing the price of diesel fuel by almost three cents a gallon. I have a little problem with that, particularly when they speak out of both sides of their cute little mouths.

In the great riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, there is a transporter known as GTL, Glengarry Transport Ltd.

Mr. Callahan: We have heard this before, have we not?

Mr. Villeneuve: No, the member has not heard this before.

Last week I spoke basically about our farmers in the great riding of S, D and G, about cold, beautiful milk being hauled and all the rest of it. I now go to a fairly large carrier of 5,000 units. Would the members believe what happens? It hires individual people who own tractors, people who are not wealthy, people who are a bit like you and I, Mr. Speaker. They are down-to-earth. They own tractors. They hitch on to big rigs and go driving down the road for so many cents a kilometre.

I find it strange that the crew to my left saw fit to have those people pay almost three cents more a gallon for fuel. That was quite all right and there was no problem. The crew to my left jumped right into the bedroom, not the bed, with the government and went along with that increase.

Gasoline is basically the same. Small businesses use diesel fuel as well as gasoline. However, with gasoline, all of a sudden there was a hue and cry from our friends on the left that a great problem has been created, and our friend the Treasurer decided to listen to them.

5:30 p.m.

Our friend the Treasurer has good ears and his adding machine works well, so he decided that to make it look good he would ride in the middle of the road. He will reduce it back to 8.3 cents, but he will reduce the sliding scale, the value added or the value reduced. We are now in a situation where we will be going to a value reduced, and our friends on the left do not want to give our Ontario consumers the benefit of that. So it is okay to raise the fuel tax and not to give the rest of our consumers the benefit of a value-reduced tax, and I find that very strange from the people on the left.

Mr. Foulds: I never said that. His party has not proposed its amendment yet.

Mr. Villeneuve: The honourable member may have some trouble going against our amendment and he will find that most interesting.

In the great riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, among other things tourism is most important, and a reduction that is not allowed in the price of gasoline will inevitably hurt the tourist industry. We have a number of parks along the St. Lawrence River and Lake St. Francis. Americans come over here, and what do members think is behind their cars? They are right, it is a camping trailer. What happens when the price of gas is not allowed to go down, as it should? These are Americans and they come from basically all of the states in the United States.

I must tell members about a little experience I had not long ago. I had occasion to go in my own little compact car down to Ithica, New York. I went to the Cornell campus on business.

Mr. Mancini: What kind of car is it?

Mr. Villeneuve: It is a compact Chrysler product. It is Canadian made. I must tell members what amazed me most was when I stopped. The little fellow under the dash had told me, "Your fuel is low." I stopped and filled the fuel tank and it cost me $13 American to fill that fuel tank.

An hon. member: Excuse me, was that 13 US dollars?

Mr. Villeneuve: Yes. I am sorry. I have difficulty with the threes, because my native language is French. I hope members understand that.

Mr. Wildman: That is 18 or 19 Canadian dollars.

Mr. Villeneuve: In Canadian dollars, when that little fellow under the dash says, "Your fuel is low," it takes $22.50. That is quite a difference; almost $10.

Mr. Martel: If we had not had ad valorem over the years we would not be where we are now.

Mr. Villeneuve: If we had ad valorem now we would have a reducing tax.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let the member have the floor, please.

Mr. Villeneuve: I go back to our very good friends who bring American dollars up into the great province of Ontario.

Mr. Gillies: I see the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) is here.

Mr. Villeneuve: Yes, and I must tell him he puts out a very fine paper, a very fine annual report, and he has a very nice photograph of himself just inside the cover. I must compliment the minister on that.

I will get back to the subject at hand. I know Mr. Speaker is very particular that we must stay on the subject, and I am doing my best under some rather adverse conditions.

As members well know, when one is pulling a camper trailer, it may be the kind that does not fold up, folds halfway or right down to the ground, and it may also be a big Winnebago or whatever. However, our American friends stop and fill up with gasoline and it is, all of a sudden, $10 to $15 more per tankfull, and this government does not allow it to go down when a value-reduced tax should actually be bringing the price down.

Regardless of how many nice brochures the Minister of Tourism and Recreation puts out, when it hits these people in the hip pocket, right where their wallet is, they may find themselves a bridge to go back across that little body of water to the United States instead of spending some of those American dollars, which we greatly enjoy, up here in Ontario. That is a small item among many I want to touch on today.

Agriculture is something you, Mr. Speaker, are very familiar with, as is the Treasurer. Agriculture uses a considerable amount of gas. I am not speaking of the coloured diesel fuel or gas on which one gets a tax rebate by applying to the government. One has to use this gasoline in tractors which work farm land-unlicensed equipment. I am speaking of farm vehicles that are licensed as farm vehicles, such as a farm truck with a farm licence on it which allows the truck to haul produce to market, to purchase some of the supplies needed to operate the farm, take livestock to market, take corn to market, etc. These farm licensed vehicles do not receive a gasoline tax rebate. They are subject to full tax, the same as everyone else is.

I respectfully suggest to the Treasurer that if he meant the many things he said about assisting farmers while he was in opposition, he would have at least looked at the situation and said to the farming public, "If you have a farm vehicle, a truck with a farm licence, we will allow you to be rebated on the tax for gas that is burned in that vehicle." Our Treasurer does at times speak with forked tongue.

The Deputy Speaker: That term should not be used in this House.

Mr. Villeneuve: It was a silver fork, like a silver spoon. If you take objection to that, I will withdraw the forked tongue.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine.

Mr. Villeneuve: At times he speaks with a silver spoon to those people who wish they had a silver spoon in their mouths.

If this Treasurer was honest and earnest about becoming a little more self-sufficient in the petroleum fuel we use here in Ontario -- I touched on this before and I am going to repeat it because it is worth repeating. We have a grain industry, in particular a corn industry, in Ontario that is on the ropes and reeling very badly. It is my humble opinion that the production of alcohol gasoline and alcohol gasoline blends should be looked into in the immediate future. In eastern Ontario we have a number of grain elevators in a well-located spot.

Mr. Mancini: In the member's riding?

Mr. Villeneuve: It is not in my riding, my friend the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), but it is very close to my riding. It is being under-utilized.

Mr. Haggerty: How close?

Mr. Villeneuve: It is close enough that if redistribution goes right I could well have it. That is how close it is.

Mr. Haggerty: That is close.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is being honest.

5:40 p.m.

If this government was sincere about being self-sufficient to some degree in the production of fuel we could be producing -- my friends on the left here mentioned today that we should be discontinuing the use of leaded gas -- the octane, clean-burning alcohol, which could be added to regular gas. We would not need lead. We would be providing 10 per cent of our fuel requirements and also providing our octane requirements.

Mr. Charlton: The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) will fight the member on that one.

Mr. Villeneuve: The member for Sarnia will have to accept whatever is economic. I do know that the federal government at this point is taking this very seriously.

There are a number of marinas along the entire southern limit of my riding. Marinas are very important not only to the boating public, but also as fuel suppliers to our watercraft. In that particular area are the St. Lawrence River, Lake St. Lawrence and Lake St. Francis, and many boaters use that particular waterway. Boaters from the Montreal area go to Kingston; then they take the beautiful Rideau Canal up to Ottawa, go down along my friend's riding, along the Ottawa River, and back to Montreal. They do the triangle. Some of these cruisers take upwards of $200 in petroleum every time they fill up.

This government does not allow the price to go down, as well it would if it left the ad valorem tax intact. It would certainly be a lot more conducive to these boaters' filling up in Ontario and doing the run, which they otherwise may decide not to do.

In closing, I go back to my friends on the left. Their inconsistency is difficult to accept, particularly when they say, "We can put up the price of diesel fuel, but we will not allow the price of gas to go down." I cannot understand that. Metric or otherwise, it does not make any sense.

This is basically what I wanted to touch on. I firmly believe the ad valorem should stay on. When the price of gasoline started to drop, then our consumers would benefit.

Mr. Ramsay: Bah, hooey! I have never heard a bigger pile of crap in my life than I just heard from that member over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the honourable member would use a little better parliamentary language.

Mr. Ramsay: I am the Agriculture and Food critic. I will take that remark back and use the words "farm fertilizer" or "manure. I am just incensed that the tiny, perfect little Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) got up on his desk today and told us that gas was going to go down. What am I going to do? Am I going to go up north and tell my people: "Hey, I am wrong. I have sinned. I said we had to get off this ad valorem, but I was obviously wrong, because the Leader of the Opposition says the price of gas is going down. We had better just hold it the way it is here. Wait for it and these prices will come down in the north."

I am getting a little note here. Oh, this is an unparliamentary note I just got.

Anyway, is that what I have to tell them? Do I have to tell them: "Wait for it. We were wrong. With all those high prices you have been paying for so long, we said: `Hey, enough is enough. We are going to freeze this. We have had enough in the north, because we use far more and consume far more than people do in the southern part of this province.'"

We wanted to have a price freeze. That was what we were determined to do. We did not want the price to go up any more. One way of doing that, with the power we had, was to freeze the tax and get rid of this ad valorem business.

It is the party to my right that decided to ride the escalating roller-coaster of price increases on gas. They decided that was the way to get a tax without going to the Legislature. They would just do it automatically, but we have decided that this is undemocratic. Not only that, we want a freeze. We do not want to have to pay any more, especially with the multiplier effect that when somebody else puts up the price the tax goes up.

We end up on this roller-coaster. It is like a big snowball going down the hill. They tell us it is going down, but I have not seen it go down anywhere. Where is it going down? I cannot go back and tell the people of Timiskaming, "We will just leave it the way it is, because it will go down and some day you will pay less." I want them not to pay any more today. That is it. We have had it.

If the price of gas starts to go down in the future, we are legislators, and that is what we are here for. We will look at the situation and we will say that possibly we have to tax this in another way. However, this is the situation we are looking at today. It is not going down, so what are we doing?

The party to my right wants to keep a tax on that is going to multiply. There is no point in doing that. Do they want the people to pay more for gasoline? I do not understand it. We cannot afford it where I come from, and that is what I am telling the people.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is why you put up the price of diesel, is it?

Mr. Ramsay: I want to address that situation, because the member thinks we are being hypocritical in that. Basically, what we are talking about here is a consumer product, a product that affects everybody on an everyday basis. His constituency is probably full of yuppies with their BMWs, and there is a lot of demand for diesel there. I know he is worried about them, I know he is concerned about them; but my people just buy gasoline. They need gasoline, and I do not want them to pay any more for it. I do not have a yuppie population. I have a yuppie wardrobe, but I do not have a yuppie population.

That is the difference. It is a consumer product, and we have got to keep it low. That is why we are here today and that is why we want to make sure the gas price is not increased any more. I hope those fellows are right and that the price starts to go down. We will look at it at another time, but it is not doing that now. This is what we are concerned about.

We have to use gas just to warm up a car, let alone get anywhere; so we really are in a burden, a sort of a trap, with this thing. We have to go out early and start the darned thing. It is much harder on the car and it takes more fuel when we do start it. We leave it running to get the thing warmed up when it is 40 below. I know the Treasurer used to. He went up the hill in the Sault to school.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right.

Mr. Ramsay: As I said before, we are on rubber today. We are in 1985 and we are on wheels and it costs us more up there in the north. We have to get the things going and keep them warmed up. As members know, the internal combustion engine is most efficient at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, but that is not usually the average temperature where I come from, especially in the winter months when it tends to be 40 below, Celsius and Fahrenheit.

Mr. Villeneuve: But they leave their diesels running all night.

Mr. Ramsay: That is right, but I do not keep my BMW running all night, so that does not bother me. It is a consumer product for the majority of our population and that is why the price has to stay the way it is. We are adamant about that, and there is no way I could stand up here representing the people of Timiskaming and say otherwise. That is why I speak in favour of this bill.

Mr. Hennessy: The tax on gasoline is very unjust for the residents of northwestern Ontario. As a resident of Thunder Bay in the riding of Fort William --

Mr. Foulds: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hennessy: Many people, including the member for Port Arthur, who just said, "Hear, hear," are going to suffer by paying more money for taxes on gasoline. We have to look at northwestern Ontario where the distances are quite a way if one wants to get down to the corner store. It is not like Toronto, Mississauga or some of these other places where there is a store within every footstep.

Mr. Haggerty: Port Arthur has them there.

Mr. Hennessy: Yes, but the member for Port Arthur is on the government side.

Mr. Foulds: A store on every corner.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: That is right. There are many farmers up our way who need a lot of gas to operate their vehicles, to go back and forth with their produce to the market, to go out on Sundays with their families and maybe use their car for other purposes as most people do. If one wants to go to Nipigon, that is 60 miles away from the city of Thunder Bay. To go on further, just to another town, it can be 25, 30, 40 or 50 miles. It is not like Toronto where, if one wants to go somewhere, there is no problem whatsoever.

There is a lot of trucking in northwestern Ontario and many people depend for their livelihoods on the produce and the products they transport from Thunder Bay to the United States, to Kenora or perhaps to Toronto. There is a great strain on their pocketbooks. If one operates a small company it is difficult to make ends meet. He may be kicked in the pants from one side and taxed from the other side. Problems arise such as trucks breaking down and things of that nature. There are a lot of problems.

There are people who use campers for recreational purposes and to take the family out, people who cannot afford to stay at a hotel. The camper is used for a cheap weekend or a holiday 40 or 50 miles away from Thunder Bay in one of the government parks. Campers are also used by people who go hunting or fishing for the weekend. Some people use campers all year around for their businesses. It becomes a little difficult for those people.

There are more cars per capita in Thunder Bay than there are in any other city in Canada, according to the report I received and the figures that are available. With the majority of the people in Thunder Bay using vehicles such as cars, campers, trailers or whatever they may be, a lot of people are going to be affected by raising the tax.

People use cars to go to work, for recreational purposes, to take their children to school and for things of that nature. They use their cars day in and day out, 365 days a year. That becomes very costly if they have to pay an extra token to the government of Ontario, perhaps to pay someone's salary or to take care of some expenses. I do not know what it is for.

School children are going to be affected. There are private organizations that operate two, three and sometimes 25, 30 or 40 school buses. The extra tax becomes a drain on the school boards. It gets back to the parents who are sending the children to school. Their taxes are a little higher when it is time to pay school taxes. All these things are a spinoff for people who are trying to send their children to school and who are trying to keep their heads above water.

We have to realize that gasoline is a very important commodity in northwestern Ontario where cars are used so much. From Kenora to Thunder Bay is about 450 kilometres. If it costs more it makes vacation time a little more difficult for someone with a family. They have to go into their pockets and come up with the necessary funds to pay for it.

Some people do not use their cars on certain days. Here in Toronto, people are very fortunate because there is the Toronto Transit Commission if they do not want to use their cars. Getting from an area to downtown and back takes no time at all at a cost of about 95 cents there and 95 cents back. In northwestern Ontario, to go somewhere costs $3 or $4.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are not raising the tax.

Mr. Hennessy: I know, but the Treasurer is doing something. It is never raised, but when one reads the paper it has been raised.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wanted to but I could not.

Mr. Hennessy: I know the Treasurer too well. The only way he can prove it to me is to swear on the Bible. What he says does not mean a thing. He will have to put it in writing.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Why do you not vote for this? At heart you are a Liberal.

Mr. Hennessy: I was a Liberal, but I saw they were not going anywhere.

Mr. Breaugh: That is it. The accord is off. The deal is off.

Mr. Hennessy: There is no accord here. The Treasurer tried hard. He drank all the coffee in my house, but it was nevertheless a nice visit. I appreciated it very much.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I felt right at home.

Mr. Hennessy: We treated him nicely, too --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would not say that.

Mr. Hennessy: -- but he never sent us a pound of coffee.

Mr. Speaker: Bill 51 is under discussion.

Mr. Hennessy: Yes, it is under discussion. In the long run, people cannot afford these increases in taxes we are bringing in from one side and another, from the left. They are taxing people to death. They keep on doing it, especially on the main ingredient of a car or motorcycle. I do not know whether anybody here could afford a motorcycle. Maybe the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) has one. I do not know. Hell's Angels.

It is far too costly. It may not seem much to a person as wealthy as some of the members on the other side, but to us poor people on this side it seems a lot of money. The minister can smile, but he is making it now and he is laughing.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am enjoying your presentation.

Mr. Hennessy: He does not pay for his gas any more. That is lucky for him. The only gas there is from his mouth.

With all due respect, the people of northwestern Ontario are not being treated fairly. If one looks at it in all its aspects, it is expensive for a person who wants to buy a car, figuring the cost of the maintenance, tires, etc. The minister brought in another tax on the driver's licence and another one on the plates. All these things keep mounting up, and it makes it very difficult for a person on a fixed budget who has a car.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is like the tax on food. Why does the member not talk about the tax his party put on food?

Mr. Hennessy: Did the minister say on food?

Mr. Speaker: That is not in Bill 51.

Mr. Hennessy: That is all right. He could do with a good meal. If anybody needs it, that minister does.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member address his remarks to the chair, please.

Mr. Villeneuve: What about the 89-cent meal?

Mr. Hennessy: Yes, that $1 meal.

I am very concerned. The people in the northwest are greatly concerned about the taxation to be put on gasoline. Last week I mentioned the fuel tax. There are also many farmers concerned about that. They run tractors, and many truckers use diesel fuel travelling from northwestern Ontario to Toronto and other areas in the province. People going across Canada with trucks use diesel fuel. It is a great handicap for people of that nature, especially if they are dealing in large quantities and find it very difficult to keep to a budget. A great many people could go bankrupt and have to lay off people. It could probably cost jobs. What is the minister laughing at now?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am enjoying every minute of this.

Mr. Grande: The member is very paranoic.

Mr. Hennessy: I think so, but not about the member, I do not worry about him. It is the guys over there I worry about.

Mr. Breaugh: The member's former friends.

Mr. Hennessy: He is still my friend. He will never tell.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Imagine the member going out to campaign as a Tory one week after I asked him to run as a Grit.

Mr. Hennessy: Now that is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hennessy: I want to register a complaint. The Treasurer came to my house, drank all the coffee and ate all the cakes and sandwiches and did not leave a tip. Then he had the nerve to ask me to run for the Liberals. How could I run for the Liberals if he was that cheap? And he is still cheap.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see how this has anything to do with the bill. The member may have some further remarks at eight o'clock.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

December 3, 1985

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

QUEBEC ELECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

OVERTIME WORKERS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

COURT RULING

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

GASOLINE PRICES

PCBS IN FOOD

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

INSURANCE RATE CONTROL BOARD ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT