[Report continued from volume A]

1805

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA / LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Continuing the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 86, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I want to have some fun here for a moment, at your expense, as long as it deals with Bill 86.

Mr Tilson: How much does that magazine cost?

Mr Cousens: I get it free. It is Maclean's magazine. They happen to send a complimentary copy to each member of the Legislature. I do not think I have ever thanked them publicly for it before, but I enjoy reading it.

I could apply all the major headings in the December 16 article to this sales tax. I could have a story under every one of the headings -- this is terrible, is it not? -- that is in this publication on the sales tax.

The first article is entitled "Christmas Shopping at the Beer Store." With the gasoline tax there will not be much Christmas shopping at the beer store, because the fact of the matter is people will not have the money; they are going to be putting it into the gas can.

"Judgement Day" is another of the titles. I would love to have a story. We could write a whole series of stories about Judgement Day and the New Democratic government's lack of restraint, their high taxes, their irresponsible spending. That would be the subject of a very good story that we could have a lot of fun with. That is the second subject.

Let me read the next major heading I saw on this.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: No. I do not want to miss.

"A House of Cards" is the next article. I can think of a wonderful story on Bill 86 and the New Democrats as a government of cards. It is funny, before the Minister of Northern Development got into trouble, she called us clowns one day. I would say the kind of thing we have seen with that minister really talks about a house of cards, a house that is falling apart because the integrity inside this government is non-existent.

It is there we have a tremendous sense of anguish on this side of the House when one cabinet minister can come out at a public function and slander a doctor. Whatever she says to excuse herself, it is inexcusable that the Premier has not removed her from office or that she has not resigned. The only way this house of cards can continue to stand and Bill 86 can continue to be an example of a responsible government is if it had integrity with what it is doing, and integrity means credibility.

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not see a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1807

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: What we are talking about is the sleaze of government. We see in this article the house of cards, and I just use it as an example where we are talking about the integrity of government. They would not need to have a tax increase. They would not need to have Bill 86. I am pushing it, but anyway I will just skip by that one. It would be fun article. We could do an article on Bill 86 just on the house of cards.

I will just deal with a few other ones. "A Grim Chapter Closes" is another title they had. That was really dealing with the Middle East, but it was a grim chapter that opened for Ontario on September 6, 1990. I would love it if the chapter could close and the New Democrats all resigned. We could have a fresh election and get rid of this government, get rid of Bill 86, get rid of all the taxes, get rid of the spending, get rid of all the things they are doing wrong and start fresh. Then we might have a chance to do something.

Another title is "A Courtroom Spectacular." I could see a whole article there where we take the Minister of Northern Development to court and this government to court for its irresponsible behaviour.

I just have a few more. "Exit a High Flyer" is another one of the lead articles. How can we do an article on Bill 86 on that one? I am not just sure, but I would like to see a few exits around here.

The last one I will mention is "Sweet Success." We could do a great story on the sweet success they had when they won the election and how bittersweet it is today, how bittersweet it is for the people of Ontario who had confidence in the New Democrats to do something right. They had a government that had a social conscience and a government that said it was going to be open, a government that said it was going to be really careful in what it did.

What we are seeing is the opposite to that. We are not seeing the things that lead to fiscal responsibility.

Mr Dadamo: You left us a mess.

Mr Cousens: They left you a mess.

Mr Dadamo: You left us a mess too.

Mr Cousens: Who left you a mess? You are talking about the Liberals that you helped support to get in.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a period of questions and comments afterwards. I would suggest again to the member for Markham that he address the Chair.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: My honourable friends, there is still some spirit of frivolity among the New Democrats even although I have tried to whip them into understanding that there is a grave problem that the taxpayers of Ontario have. That problem is, we do not want any more taxes. How else does one say it? I should have said it in one or two minutes, then I could have had my speech over.

Ms S. Murdock: You could never say it in one or two minutes.

Mr Cousens: I know I could not say it in one or two minutes, but I would like to be able to try it. Maybe, as I move to my wrapup in the next two hours, after I have completed my speech by 11 o'clock, the member will understand what I am really trying to say. Mr Speaker, you might have to call a quorum if they all leave, if they think I am staying on here. I have never asked for a quorum call because I happen to know my mother is watching at home, so I have at least one in the audience.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: I would like to reiterate the point that we do not want a tax increase. Ontario is already too heavily taxed. It ceases to make Ontario an attractive place to live, work and invest in and to be part of. We are in a position to do something to restrict government spending, to reduce government spending and stop making it such a punishment to live here.

Many of us have our homes, our families and our investments here. We are not going to move away to the States. I hear people saying, "I'm going to move south, I'm going to to elsewhere." Some of them do. I hope most people do not. I happen to believe in a model that tough times do not last; tough people do. We are into a tough time with the New Democrats running the government. If we can withstand them for three or four more years, or if it turns out they do not have a full turnout for a vote one day and we can kick them out of office, that will be a happy day and that will be another day where there would be a celebration. I do not think it is going to happen, though. They have such a good whip who gets everybody out there.

The issue is that the people in the province have no way of reacting to the New Democrats at the present time. One can allow a member of the opposition to stand up and speak for a short time on the issues of high taxes, government spending, government irresponsibility, nepotism, where the government is giving jobs to members of its families, government issues, where the government is removing for-profit day care centres in the province, irresponsibly spending $30 million. We can point to examples where the government and the Ministry of the Environment have made policy decisions that are going to cost us because it is going to be far more for tippage within the greater Toronto area than if we were to ship to Kirkland Lake, to the Adams mine site, if we were able to look at incineration as a possibility.

Government has set up a number of standards around itself that it will not allow to be explored, considered or investigated through an environmental assessment. They have set themselves up as the power brokers. They are really only technopeasants who do not have the technical knowledge to be able to make the decisions on these things. So we are stuck with them for three and a half or four more years. They will go right to the end. What can we do in opposition? We cannot stop them as a government from doing it, but hopefully some of them will have sense to vote against this tax bill.

This tax bill is a heinous example of government control and monopoly. The reason for our high cost of living, in part, is the high amount we have to pay for gas and gasoline. As of January 1, we will be paying the highest taxes in the province of Ontario on gasoline. I for one will not support this tax bill because it is just another example that sets Ontario apart from every other jurisdiction as being a high-cost place to live.

I was trying to make a point earlier that some people are moving south of the border because they are giving up on Ontario. I hope most people do not. I hope they are able to somehow believe in the future. I believe the options for the future are being well weighed out by our leader, the member for Nipissing, and the PC caucus. The member for Nipissing, especially, has a sense of understanding in a balanced way what is needed to get this government going. He would freeze government spending. He would put a limit on increases to employees' salaries of the government's civil service at 2%. A message would be sent out to all the municipalities and bureaucracies of this province that says, "If you overspend and build a deficit, we're not going to bail you out."

We in the province of Ontario are not going to continue to allow the high-spending expectations. We want to let the people of our province understand at last that there is a government in charge that says: "No, we don't have any more money. We are not going to increase the deficit. In fact, our project over the next several years, instead of allowing the deficit to increase to $70 billion, the largest ever in the history, we are going to fight to bring the deficit down so we've got our house in order instead of it being a house of cards, instead of it being a sweet failure. This is going to be a government that's run fiscally responsibly."

What we really want to start looking at is when Tax Freedom Day is. Tax Freedom Day for the province of Ontario is a statistic generated by the Fraser Institute; that it is a policy think tank that calculates what day in the year we stop paying taxes and start making money for ourselves. Do members know when that day is right now? Tax Freedom Day, when you have paid all the Ontario government taxes, federal government taxes and municipal taxes, used to be in July. Now it amounts to August 2, well into the eighth month of the year, before we stop paying taxes.

We have a problem. If we continue with this bill, which increases the taxes effective January 1, 1992, with an extra increase to our gas tax, it is a further example of our Tax Freedom Day being pushed further into the future.

I sense there are a number of other people who want to discuss issues on this bill, but there are a few issues I would like to touch on before concluding. Half of all the pollution caused by automobiles comes from 10% of the cars. Those people who have old cars are not going to spend the money on tuneups and improving those cars to reduce the emissions that are noxious and causing problems, because they are not going to have the money left over after they have paid the extra money for gas tax. I suggest, if this wanted to be an environmental government, it would have some incentives out there to help cars stay tuned better. Part of the lie of this government was that it said, "This is an environmental bill." There is nothing environmentally sensitive or sound in a bill that is increasing the costs of gasoline to consumers in Ontario.

The second thing I want to touch on in this bill is that if anything is encouraging cross-border shopping it is the fact that our gas taxes in Ontario are three times what they are in New York state. No wonder we are seeing people cross the border and buy their booze, groceries, clothes and other necessities -- not that booze is a necessity, but there are other things they want to buy because they are cheaper in the States.

There are a number of other things I can say, but I have had a chance to put on the record a few of my concerns about Bill 86. It is not needed right now. What we need to do is make it more of a prosperous province. It needs to be a province where we allow people to want to invest, to grow, to travel, to live. When the government starts increasing the taxes to such a level, people will not even be able to go out in their cars. They cannot afford to drive them any more because it is becoming so expensive. I would say to the government, please, for the love of the people of Ontario and for the sense that there is still a chance for people to enjoy some of their spare time, reconsider Bill 86 and set it aside so that we not have an increase in gas taxes again in the province of Ontario. It just makes us less competitive for the long term.

Mr Hayes: I would like to make a couple of short responses to the member's remarks. People, when they are shopping across the border -- not only the people in the province of Ontario, but people in every province that has an American border -- are shopping across the border into the States because it is the high Canadian dollar and the interest rates, even though they have come down slightly, as well as the GST and free trade that have caused these things to happen.

It is the same thing with these corporations that have closed. It is the economic policies of their senior friends Mr Mulroney and Mr Wilson in Ottawa that are doing these things. I have talked to business people who have closed and moved to the States where their mother company is. Those are the reasons, the inflated Canadian dollar, the interest rates: free trade and the GST on top of that.

Some of the comments made by people from across the floor have done more harm to the economy in this country and scared more people off than any deficit we could ever have. They are scaremongering. The members opposite talk about the integrity of their leader. They mention the leader of the Conservative Party. I think it is really a shame that the leader of that third party was down in Chatham a few weeks back and he publicly stated that we have people and families on social assistance who are making $17.50 an hour. I think that is very irresponsible. That would not be a lie, but I do not think he should have made that statement. This is trying to scare people off. They are doing more harm than anything with their comments.

1820

Mr Ruprecht: The honourable member for Markham raised a number of issues that are absolutely valid. What surprised me in a way was when he indicated that the price of gas in New York is three times higher than in Ontario. I thought it was two and a half times higher. He says it is three times higher. The surprise to me was that he discussed this matter in a very calm way. As I remember him, he would say even to the members on this side, "If you've got something valid to say, shout it from the rooftops."

In this case he has much to say that is totally valid. He raises the issue of competitiveness, an absolutely valid issue again. What is the NDP government doing about competitiveness? How are we going to be competing with the United States when the gas prices are going up? What about the tourist business? Obviously tourism is down as well. It is another nail in the coffin of the Ontario economy. I guess that is the main point of the honourable member.

This is the government that is going to increase taxes. This is the government that is going to look specifically at not the creation of jobs and the creation of wealth but the distribution of wealth. What the government ought to be looking at, and I put it to the members, is trying to ensure that this economy of Ontario becomes really competitive. Simply, it cannot become competitive under these kinds of conditions when we are raising the gas price to this unconscionable height.

Mr Hansen: I would love to vote against this bill but I cannot because of the former governments that put us in the position we are in right now. I have to talk about my friend the member for Markham. He was talking about the OWMC. He is a gentleman whose government straddled us with the OWMC on which we have spent $110 million to date. Taxpayers in the region have spent over $1 million to fight the OWMC. This is something that was introduced by former governments and we are expected to pay for it. Where is the money to come from? It is taxation.

I am not too happy to have to vote for it, but I am going to vote for it. It is not the whip who is telling me to vote for it. It is not the party that is telling me to vote for it. I have to vote for it to see that we have our programs in place.

The one thing I have to say is that since our government took over, the Minister of Energy has taken a look at the crown corporation so that it does not spend like drunken sailors, or like the OWMC. We are bringing the crown corporations under control. There is not going to be taxpayers' money wasted.

After the Provincial Auditor's report, the Minister of the Environment spoke to the OWMC's Donald Chant and told him that incidents of spending abuse outlined in the auditor's report are unacceptable. The Environment minister also pointed out that even if the Environmental Assessment Board approves the OWMC plan, it does not give the crown corporation automatic approval to commence construction. "Once the board makes a decision," she said, "cabinet will make the final decision on whether or not to proceed with this facility."

I have to say again, what we are standing up here and having to put in as new tax bills are actually coming from former governments that have not paid their bills. They used the credit card all these years. Instead of paying for it up front, they used their credit card.

Mr Johnson: I listened as carefully as I could to the member for Markham as he spoke. I have to say quite frankly, I was very disappointed because in my opinion the member for Markham was scaremongering to the people of Ontario. He does not look like a monger to me, but certainly he was scaremongering. His arguments were not balanced. He took some viewpoints that were not complete.

I would like to ask the member whether he has considered writing to his friends in Ottawa and suggesting to them that they not download on the province of Ontario. The federal government has withdrawn $3.6 billion in CAP payments that we in Ontario expected. These payments were to go for many of the programs that the province now is going to have to fund by itself. Somewhere we have to get the money to fund these. We are being very careful, in my opinion, and we are raising taxes marginally to try to cover the expenses of the province at this time.

There are many needs in the province right now. This is the worst recession we have had in 60 years. It is a very bad recession. The people of Ontario do not want to see their services cut. I ask the member opposite whether he wants to see, for example, 10,000 Ontario government employees laid off in order to meet the amount of money that would be raised by levying this tax on gasoline. Is that what he wants? Where does he want the cuts made? It is a very difficult time, and at this time we are trying to do the very best we can to make sure no one suffers during this very bad recession in Ontario.

Mr Cousens: People are going to suffer after we are rid of those guys. There are an awful lot of problems with the way they have been spending money.

I thank the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings for his comments. I would say that all the other provinces have had to deal with the cutbacks from federal government spending, and the Ontario government is the only government that has increased the deficit by as large an amount as this one has, and it is the only government that has not cut back on its spending. I say that with disappointment.

I say to the member for Lincoln, why not get off the separation of adversarial politics that we are in and revisit the Ontario Waste Management Corp to see whether it justifies itself? If it does, let it continue. But let us ask right now, is it a mistake based on what is happening today? Fish or cut bait. Is it a time to continue? Is it a time to stop? I would be prepared to say that if that is the case, stop it and let it go to private sector industry rather than continue to spend another $300 million and then find out we did the wrong thing. Now is the time to revisit it. If the Tories who started it were wrong then, everyone has been wrong in between if they did not stop and ask, "Is this still valid?"

I cannot believe the member for Parkdale was complimentary. I appreciate what he had to say. To me, the point is you can only scream so much and then your voice gives out. I really would have liked to have screamed on some of those points louder, one being that the tax in New York state is three times less than in Ontario. We will pay 23.2 cents a litre as of January 1 and they pay seven cents a litre. The cost of gasoline in the States is one of the reasons leading to far more cross-border shopping than ever before.

Finally, I say to the member for Essex-Kent that I cannot believe we had lunch together today and had such a pleasant time. That just shows that in this Legislature we can still have a good time outside of the House and yet come in here and treat each other as we have to. I have to say I think he missed the point and maybe we need to have another lunch.

1830

Mr Callahan: I rise to speak to Bill 86. One wonders why at 6:30 on a Thursday evening anybody would stay around to deal with a tax that would be indicated as being 1.7 cents per litre at the time of the budget, which was back in April, and another shot in the arm on of 1.7 cents January 1. What is that? That is peanuts in the life of the government and the spending that goes on in the province of Ontario and in the government of Canada.

I think to myself, why am I standing here on a Thursday night when I could be home with my family worrying about this picayune tax? What is that, a total of about 3.5 cents? Why should I worry about that? Why should I be here on a Thursday night even debating it? Why should this government or the opposition concern themselves about it? I am sure that will be the comments and the questioning of me afterwards.

They will say: "When your government was in power, you brought in taxes for gasoline and diesel fuel and tobacco and liquor and so on, the so-called easy hit taxes because you are hitting the little guy and gal who really do not have a lot of crunch. They do not have a lot of say. They do not know the system and how to work the system. Those are the people you hit." There is no question about it. It was done by the Tories and by the Liberals.

The fact of the matter is that we are now talking about a very special time in the history of this province. When I drove up University Avenue and saw five or six people sleeping on the street, when we see the numbers of the homeless in this city, when we see the numbers of people who have to go to food banks as a way to feed themselves and their young children -- that is why I am here at 6:30 on a Thursday night arguing what I started out by saying is really peanuts, absolute peanuts.

There is no reason for anybody in this House to get excited; it is peanuts. Three and a half cents per litre? So what? What is it? It is not a lot of money. When members look at the budgets around here, the limos probably use that much going to and from various events of the ministers of the government. They probably spend that much money buying computer equipment, as my friend the member for Markham said, that sits in the Premier's office unused.

I do not want to enter into a totally partisan discussion in this regard. I would like to bring it to a higher level. The question is, why are we here on a Thursday evening? I will try to answer that for those people who are watching our proceedings -- and I can hear the sets clicking off all over the province; they are not clicking off because of lack of interest but because somebody has probably just repossessed their television set.

One message that has to get through to the government of Ontario, whatever stripe that government is -- and it happens to be a New Democratic government at the moment -- that has to get through to Ottawa and the federal Conservative government, and to all those other stripes throughout this fine land of ours, is that things are not the way they were before. Politicians have to argue for that 3.5-cent increase in the tax of gasoline, because that 3.5-cent tax on gasoline can be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the average Ontarian who relies on his or her car, which is not one of the luxuries; at one time it was a luxury. At one time it was a luxury to have a television set; today it is a necessity. If you want to find out what is going on around the world and around the province and country, you have to have a television set. If you want to get to your job in my community you can take the transit, but unfortunately the transit does not yet give you ready access to Toronto, as I am sure is the case --

Hon Mr Ferguson: You had five years to solve that, Bob.

Mr Callahan: There is my good friend the Minister of Energy. He should put an apple on his head and let somebody shoot at it.

The thing I do not understand and the message I am trying to get through is this: A debate like this would not be necessary in good times, but it is necessary now because the people who I think every member of this Legislature who is worth his or her oats cares about are the people who are required to use their cars not for luxury but to get from point A to point B, to perhaps take someone from the riding of Brampton on a voluntary basis to Princess Margaret Hospital for cancer treatment, for various charitable groups and volunteer groups that use their cars, the St Elizabeth Visiting Nurses, the Victorian Order of Nurses, all these good people who do all these fantastic things, many of them for free, for Ontario.

What do we do for them in a time of tough economics? We say to them, "Hey, we're going to hit you." The thing I find really scary -- and it is not a condemnation just of the NDP government; I find it really interesting -- is that when tax measures are brought in, they bring them in in two hits. They have not enough guts to say it is going to be 3.4 cents per litre more now: "It is 1.7 cents per litre now, and when you've forgotten about that we're going to hit you again on New Year's Day when you probably won't really be that greatly cognizant. You'll still be throwing away the wrappings from Christmas. You'll still be in the Christmas spirit and you won't understand the government has just put its hand in your pocket again for another 1.7 cents per litre."

It does not sound like a lot of money, but I think people out there are watching politicians. They are watching the tax situation. My friend suggested that Tax Freedom Day has gotten to be August. We keep on doing this. It will soon become a situation where you will work all year and you will be in fact employed by the provincial government or the federal government, because all of your income will go to government and you will get nothing. So in fact we will all be working for the government. How is that? How does that sound? Does that strike members as a good idea?

Maybe what we will do is give all those people who are working for the government, because they will be paying taxes right up to December 31 of that year, pensions like everybody else has. I mean, it is only fair that they should get pensions like we all have and like all of the civil service has, because in fact they are going to be part of the government. Your taxes will just continue to spiral till they are paying right up to December 31.

You wonder why people are leaving this province. They are leaving this province for a whole host of reasons. I know, Mr Speaker, that I have to keep this in tune with the tax that we are debating, but there is a kind of interesting a report that was prepared for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in April, just after the budget. It was a survey of 800 people living in seven border communities: Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Sarnia, Windsor, the Niagara Peninsula, Kingston and Cornwall. One third of those people shopped in the United States in April. Members might say, "Maybe April was a time of blossoms and flowers and they wanted to go over and see Buffalo." I will bet members, if they took this survey, would find the same amount in May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. We are sending them there.

Mr Hayes: And you would find the same number the year before.

Mr Callahan: No, this is the current year. Trust me.

The one third of cross-border shoppers made an average of three trips in April -- not one trip but three trips.

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair.

Mr Callahan: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

They went across every time their gas tank became empty. It is clear. I mean, how many times do you fill your gas tank in a month? Maybe three or four times, maybe more if you are a business person or whatever. But three tanks is about what the average person uses in a month. So what that tells me is that these people, when they want to fill their tank, go across to the United States.

The average amount spent per trip was $86. When they go over there they do not just buy gas; they buy other things. Surely they did not pay $86 for gas, so it means while they were there filling up at the Texaco or the whatever pump at the much lower rate, they were buying things; they were buying commodities. Commodities, believe it or not, whether members understand it or not, means jobs. I think they understand; they are intelligent people.

So $86 was being spent; part of that is gas. For those people who took three trips in April and take three trips every month, that is about $260-odd going out of this province every month. That is something like $2,500 a year for each Ontarian in a border town going out of this province, some of it for gas, granted.

1840

I suppose we will not put too many people out of business by allowing them to go to the border cities of the United States to buy gas. I mean, these days most oil companies get somebody to sit in a booth and you serve yourself. That was a great gimmick on the part of the oil companies. They maximize their profits by putting one person in there and having you pump your own gas and charge you exactly the same price, if not more. It is the greatest scam in the speculation of real estate that ever existed. They buy all these lots up, they put a guy in the booth to sell gas to you, and eventually they will sell that property for megabucks.

Enough with the oil companies. I have great concern about that. I think that is a real problem.

In any event, let us get back to what the government is doing to these people: $86 per trip, $2,500 per Ontarian in cross-border shopping in these border towns.

Lost tax revenues, federal and provincial: How much do members think we lost? A total of $141 million. Do they know how many jobs we lost? Fourteen thousand jobs. That makes it important to me as I read through this, as I started out by saying: Why am I here on a Thursday night at 20 minutes to 7 --

Mr Hope: House duty.

Mr Callahan: No, I am not on House duty. Why am I here at 20 minutes to 7 on a Thursday night --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr Callahan: I realize the government thinks this is funny because 3.5 cents per litre is not an awful lot to charge the people of Ontario, but if the members listened to the rest of the facts and could follow the argument they would discover that the federal and provincial governments, as a result of these people going across the border, lost $141 million. More important than the lost revenue -- the revenue is important -- are the 14,000 people who are out of work. I find it passing strange that members of the New Democratic Party who are now the government, who are always for the little guy, can sit over there and yatter and yatter and laugh and make jokes when these jobs are being lost. That makes me feel very badly.

Is it the fact that once they get into power they throw away all their belief in the people and all the things they espouse, and they then become powerful so they can laugh at the loss of jobs?

The 3.5 cents or so of tax revenue tonight, if it was being debated back in a time when the economy was good, when we were not plagued by this cross-border shopping problem, might very well be something that would just pass through this House like the wind if you open the window. But I suggest to members that every tax bill that goes through this House, if we are carrying out our job in a responsible fashion, has to be scrutinized under a microscope, because we do not have the luxury any more of being able to just say, "Well, that's 3.5 cents; they'll never know about it. Won't miss it; no problem."

The facts I have read to members tell this government that in fact people are reacting to it. They are not coming down here and marching on Queen's Park to literally get even with us by telling us how mad they are; they are just taking a trip across the bridge in the border towns and they are solving their problem by buying American. Is that not marvellous? We are worried about our country being broken up because of the constitutional crisis we face, yet how much interest do we have that we are breaking up our province and our country by the fact that we do not give sufficient individual consideration by each and every member of this Legislature to the increases in tax?

I would like the members to go home to their ridings on the weekend and ask a constituent who is perhaps on the borderline of going broke, the borderline of just being able to provide food for his children, the borderline of a business that is going to go under, what an additional 3.5 cents per litre will mean in terms of him being able to survive. Put it in human terms. Put a human face on it. I think if members go home and do that they will understand that the vote on this tax bill is something they do not do just as a barking seal simply because their whip tells them: "It's good for the government; we've got to pass it; big stuff. This is something you do or you lose your job," like one of the chairmen of committee did.

This is a matter of conscience, believe it or not. I urge members to think about it as a matter of conscience.

Some members are leaving. Maybe they are going in the back room to salve their conscience. This really is a matter of conscience.

Let me give members some further statistics: 80% of cross-border shoppers --

Mr Arnott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am going to be speaking after my good friend and I am very concerned that there does not appear to be a quorum present in the chamber.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1846

Mr Callahan: I want to zero this down to specific areas. I do not like to say this because it is a Thursday night and I know a lot of members go to ridings that are a significant distance away, but I find it really interesting that the government, which has the responsibility to keep a quorum in this House, cannot keep a quorum in the House at a time when we are debating a tax bill. Do they consider it that insignificant that they can simply not be here?

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: My friend out there says, "Maybe some people are having supper." As a result of this tax the government is going to pass, it may well be that some people will not be able to have supper. They will not be able to afford it.

Mr Fletcher: Get off the wagon.

Mr Callahan: "Get off the wagon," the NDP member says. Is that the way the member considers his fellow human being?

The Speaker: To the member for Brampton South, perhaps if the member would be kind enough to direct his remarks to the Speaker. I was listening very carefully to every syllable.

Mr Callahan: I was provoked by that insensitive comment.

Just going to specifics, trying to bring it down to close to home -- is the member for Sarnia here? If he is here, I want to tell him a few things. Sarnia has the second-highest incidence of cross-border shopping of seven border communities, with 47% of the population going to the United States in April. Guess what they were going there for? In interviews, respondents were asked about the kinds of merchandise they purchased during their shopping trip to the US. A total of 20 product categories were probed by the interviewers, asking, "On an average trip in April, would you buy...?" Almost everyone, 81%, reported buying gasoline as a standard purchase during their US shopping trips.

When you think about it in terms of immigration rules, this is one area where Canadians have been able to escape claiming their purchases -- because there is not a customs officer who is going to stick his nose or head into the gasoline tank -- and possibly paying duty. It is unlikely. There is no way to prove where the gasoline came from.

If the government is going to tax anything, tax something that does not drive people across the border, with the result that they not only buy gasoline but, as I have explained before, they spend $86. I cannot believe that is all gasoline. I would figure that if you filled up at a pump in Ontario it would be about $30, so in the United States it would probably cost you maybe US$15 or US$20 maximum. That means $46 is being spent on something else. They are travelling, according to the statistics I have got, three trips a month. That is an awful lot of lost revenue in terms of merchants in border towns, in terms of keeping Ontario safe and competitive.

It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that we have young people who have university degrees and cannot get jobs in this province. We have jobs fleeing this province like there is a pox. There has to be an answer for that: cheap land in Buffalo, yes; competitive housing in Buffalo, much lower than ours, yes. But what are we doing? We are giving them that first trip or those first three trips across there to see all these goodies by having our gasoline taxed at the rate we tax it. We are really destroying our province and the future of our children.

Just to go back to Sarnia again: In Sarnia, as a result of cross-border shopping -- I think and I have already established through the report I just gave members that most people go there to buy gasoline, 81% -- if the people in Sarnia are listening, I want them to know they are losing a total of $148 million in lost local sales. These are not my statistics. They are from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. This is their government telling them what they are losing. The government itself is losing almost $21 million in lost revenue just for Sarnia because these people are tripping over to Detroit and whatever.

Annual jobs lost, I am sure, has to get to the government because the government has always said it is in support of the worker. It wants to make certain people have good-paying jobs. I think that is very admirable. But let me tell members that this survey shows annual lost jobs due to cross-border shopping in just Sarnia totalled 2,072.

If the member for Sarnia is here, is he or she going to go back to Sarnia and say: "I've got good news for you. The good news for you is that because our government with its major majority passed this tax on gasoline, you are going to lose $148 million in sales." I would say that if the member for Sarnia went back to his or her riding and said that, he or she would deserve to be tarred and feathered and ridden out of the city on a rail.

They should just watch. We are going to be watching too when the member for Sarnia -- I hope he or she is in the government, not in the opposition -- votes for this tax measure. I think what we will do is we will send a copy of my speech and the statistics along with his or her vote to the constituents in Sarnia so they can see just how that government member concerned himself or herself about the loss of $148 million in local sales and can show that the government was really neat because it gave away $21 million in tax revenue. Then they can try to defend why they cannot provide decent day care, cannot get rid of the food bank problem and cannot get rid of portables at schools. The reason they cannot is because they are throwing this revenue away.

Mr Sutherland: Gee, in five years those problems grew.

Mr Callahan: No, I would not blame everything on any one government.

Mr Sutherland: I am not.

Mr Callahan: He says five years, but the member is missing the point. Maybe we should take a break for dinner so they can replenish their grey matter. The point is that taxes are never acceptable, but we have a remarkable situation now. We have a bad economy, an outrageous economy, a depression economy. Linked with that we have the cross-border shopping problem that affects Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Sarnia, Windsor, the Niagara Peninsula, Kingston and Cornwall.

All those members are in trouble if they vote for this measure, because we are going to send a copy of the facts I have given in this speech to their ridings just to make their people aware of the fact of what they have done and the fact that they have not represented them as they have a sacred trust to do but have simply followed the government line to vote for this tax measure because they think it is the thing to do. If they do not do it, they lose their parliamentary assistant's job or their Chairman's job or they will not have a chance to get into cabinet. They will love them for this. They will say: "Why did I elect a member in Sault Ste Marie," or Sarnia or Windsor? "Why did I elect a member of the government? What was the point? They did nothing for me."

Mr Martin: Fifty-five million dollars.

Mr Callahan: The member for Sault Ste Marie is saying they got $55 million in that community. Is that a buyoff by the government? That is a buyoff by the government. They dropped that money in there because he is a government member. I will get back to it, Mr Speaker.

Let's go back to the taxation here. I want to tell members that Sarnia is at the top of the list in terms of cross-border shopping, so it must be the tax on the gasoline. Some 84% of cross-border trips in Sarnia involve purchases of gasoline. An average trip spends $47. Now, let's figure the gasoline in Detroit. I guess it is Detroit they would go to. It costs them $20. That means $27 of that money was spent on goods that would have been purchased in Sarnia to support local business. One can say this is Mr Mulroney's problem for free trade, for the GST. I am sure every straw we put on the camel's back makes it weaker and weaker, but this is the one that is going to hurt it or maybe break it. It is going to break it.

I begin to wonder, why would one be here at five minutes to 7 on a Thursday evening when the government members opposite do not even pay any attention? They are over there chatting away and have a grand old time. Why do they not go home and I will talk to myself or to the people of Ontario? I really find it very interesting that this government, which purports to be in favour of the working person, has such insensitivity that they would applaud and laugh about the fact that this is not important. That is what I get from them.

I would have to say that if I were a person in Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Sarnia, Windsor, the Niagara Peninsula or Kingston, and I had given a sacred trust to a member from there and discovered the government was that insensitive, I would say to myself, "Have fun, because this is your last trip to the Legislature." They will say that when they look at the vote on this bill and they see that the government of the day, that government that cares about people and purports to want to do things for people, has voted because it said: "It's only 3.5 cents or so per litre for gasoline. Who's going to see it? What does it matter? The other governments have created the same thing by bringing in these taxes."

I think you can only fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. I think of the people watching this telecast, the people who are affected by it. They do not have to be in those border towns. They could simply be people of Ontario who have said: "Maybe I live in Brampton," or, "I live in Toronto. My son or daughter cannot get a job," or, "My husband can't get a job," or, "My wife can't get a job," or, "We both have to go out and work because of these taxes that are put on us. Here is the New Democratic government thinking it is totally inconsequential to put an additional 3.5 cents per litre on my car, because it thinks my car is a luxury. They think every rich person has a car."

I have news for the government. To most people, a car is a necessity to get from point A to point B. It is a necessity to get to work. It is a necessity to take a child to day care. It is a necessity to take a child to school. It is a necessity to take a senior for health care. It is a necessity to volunteer to take cancer patients to the local cancer hospital. It is a necessity to take the kids to hockey and all these sports. What is the government doing? The government is saying 3.5 cents per litre is peanuts.

1900

I want to go to one other. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology did a consultation, also in April, of 400 people in London, Ottawa and Hamilton. Things are getting better there, because they are not that close. Only 20.8% shopped in the US in April, spending an average of $194 per household. So although fewer people shopped, they spent more in the US. Do members know the estimated annual lost sales because of that? Is anybody interested? Is anybody out there? Is anybody interested?

Mr Fletcher: Not in what you are saying.

Mr Callahan: The government member says he is not interested. That seems to be the attitude of the government. They do not care. But the opposition here is fighting this bill because we see this as a total sort of let them eat cake attitude. Does it go with power? I am really concerned, because I look over there and the NDP members are on the government benches and I remember all the years that I heard the rhetoric from the New Democratic Party that it was in favour of the helping the poor, the worker and all the rest of it.

I have to ask myself, can anybody out there really believe they have not been corrupted by power? Because they do not seem to care about that any more. They do not care about the fact that there was $1.24 billion of lost sales in London, Ottawa and Hamilton as a result of a small number of people, 20.8%, shopping in the US.

The days have gone when members of this Legislature, and particularly members of government, can try to slide even an increase as small as 3.5 cents per litre under the carpet and say, "It's insignificant, it doesn't matter, because we are in such a tough economy." The NDP made promises in An Agenda for People that were very admirable, that cannot be funded because the money is not there. They are breaking the back of small business because all this traffic is going across the border. Do they have a plan? Are they in control? Is anybody at the helm, or are we just going to sail merrily into oblivion because we are not looking at it, because we are not thinking about it, we are not debating it, we are not concerned about it?

There are a lot of people who perhaps are watching tonight who are terribly concerned about it, terribly frightened people, single parents, poor people, elderly, people who cannot get home care because there is not money in the budget for it. What do we do? We tax them to death on the one side, and on the other side we throw away $500 million annually for a political promise that the NDP made in An Agenda for People not to piggyback the GST on the PST.

I remember that debate clearly. I remember telling the Treasurer of this province: "Treasurer, you will regret having thrown away the $500 million in that straight political move, because it will back you into a corner. You will not be able to accomplish those good things that are needed." Of course, my good friend the Treasurer at that time thought the revenues that were going to come in would be sufficient to keep his deficit at some $9.7 billion and allow him to do all these good things. It has proved not to be the case.

The approach that members in this Legislature have to take today and may have to take for the indefinite future is that they have to weigh every tax measure that goes through this House in terms of: "What am I doing to my constituents? Can I go home and face them when they can't feed their children, when they can't take them to a hockey game?" I remember when my four boys were playing hockey talking to families in a dressing room where they told me that their vacation money was used to register their kids in hockey. That is how tight it was and that was a long time ago. I suggest today it is even tighter.

Members should not just think the 3.5 cents or whatever it is, the 1.7 per litre in April and the 1.7 per litre in January, is a drop in the bucket. It is not. It is very important, extremely important to those people who are marginal, businesswise or familywise.

I certainly hope -- and perhaps it is a rhetorical question -- I have not been preaching to the already converted in terms of following the government policy and voting en masse for this bill. If I have, then at five minutes after 7 on a Thursday night, I have wasted my time.

I have to leave members with this final word because I know there are other people who want to speak in this very important debate. I want to leave them with this one thought. They may pass through this House, they may be here for a very brief time or they may be here for a long time. But if they are here for a brief time, I would think they would want to accomplish one, two, three, four, five good things.

If they walk away from this place after the next election or perhaps if they are lucky enough to survive that and get on to another election -- and I am sure some of them will; they are good people -- but if they walk away from this place in four years, five years, eight years, and cannot honestly say to themselves that they have exercised their conscience -- not, with all due respect to the Premier or any Premier, what they are told by their government whip, who is a delightful lady -- if they cannot do that, if they are so frightened about losing their Chairman's job, like my good friend, I cannot remember his riding --

Mr Waters: He can't remember his name.

Mr Callahan: I have great admiration for that man because he had the guts to do exactly what I am asking these people to do, but he did at the risk of losing something like $10,000 in extra emoluments. That to me is a person who will be re-elected. He will be back in the next Legislature because the people of his riding will know that he represented them and did not care about the powers down the hall who allocate the jobs.

When it comes time for this vote --

Mr Fletcher: When did you ever vote against your government?

Mr Callahan: The member can check my record. You do not get into cabinet for that, and I never did. I have no misgivings on that at all, because the problem is this whole place has got to be cleaned out and reformed because the whole system is a crock, with the greatest respect, Mr Speaker.

The sooner the electorate understands, as I have said before and I will close with it, that it is an oligarchy -- the place is run by the Premier, about four or five cabinet members that the members opposite probably never get to talk to because they are in the inner circle and about six spin doctors who are not even elected. They are down there in that lovely side room, as has been the case since time immemorial, calling all the shots and the members opposite, like windup toys, as has been the case since time immemorial, stand over there and vote for each and every measure the government brings forth.

If the public can buy the fact that the government of the day, be it this government, be it the Conservatives or Liberals, has got so many perfect policies that it has convinced all members of its party that it is absolutely perfect and they should vote for each and every measure, if the public buys that one, then I have some swamp land not in Florida, which is too far away, but in Buffalo to sell to them. I am sure they do not believe that.

1910

Members should not kid themselves, television has changed this Legislature dramatically. It is no longer just an old boys' or girls' club. It is real business; it is the public business being done for the public's benefit and not the members' benefit. Government members had better decide before the vote is to take place: Are they going to do what they are told to do, or are they in fact going to do what they swore to do? They should remember that day down in the Clerk's office when he swore them in and they said some words to the effect that they would do the best for the people who elected them.

What about the prayer that we say every day in here? I really wonder about that prayer because it says all good things about what we are going to do. I would love to read it because it is an excellent prayer, and yet I think it is lipservice by many of the members in this House, because we do not do that. If we vote because we are afraid of losing our perks, or if we vote because we are told to vote that way without exercising the God-given gray matter we have got, then that prayer every day at the opening of this Legislature -- they may as well stay away and forget it because they are not carrying it out.

Finally, this bill, like many on taxes particularly, is one they should exercise their judgement on. They should not let them give them this junk about their losing their chairmanship or parliamentary assistant job. In unity there is strength. If enough of them have the guts to stand up against that tyranny, they will not lose their jobs. They should not let them rattle or pull their chains. They are here to represent the people of Ontario, not the Premier, not the House leader, not the whip, with all due respect, not the ministers, the powerful ministers; they are here to represent the people of Ontario. If they do that, I can assure them they will have earned their pay and they will have earned the respect of the people in their riding.

If they fail to do that, this will be their swan song in all likelihood and more important, when they go home on the weekend and attend events, I think people will start asking them questions: "Whom are you serving, the Premier of this province and his government or me?" Those questions are going to become more and more and they are going to get tougher and tougher as times get tougher.

I leave the government members with that. I urge them to give consideration to it and I will tell them something: I think that if that happens, if any of them have the guts to stand up and do that, they will have secured their right to be re-elected and they probably will be re-elected in the next election because the people will see that they have said: "I don't buy the system. The government is not going to fall because of this and I am going to exercise my right and my sacred trust that was given to me by the electorate to do exactly what they want me to do, not what the government wants me to do."

Mr Huget: I listened with interest to the comments by the member for Brampton South, particularly his very wise advice about asking myself, as an elected representative of my constituents, what I am doing to my constituents when I raise taxes.

The member for Brampton South and the opposition party must have asked themselves that question many times in five years. His party and his government, of which he is a member and now a member in opposition, increased taxes some 33 or 34 times in five years in the boom times in Ontario, and he has the colossal nerve to suggest to me that we are out of line in increasing taxes on tobacco, fuel, alcohol and making minor income tax increases on incomes above $84,000 a year in a recession. In a recession we have also managed to lower taxes to 120,000 low-income families in this province, something his government did not or could not do.

The member likes to quote statistics about cross-border shopping in Sarnia, Windsor and St Catharines and other areas of the province as all being gas-tax-related. The same report he quotes from and has selective amnesia about in some parts also refers to a 57% increase in cross-border traffic since the implementation of the free trade agreement, an additional 22% increase in cross-border traffic since the implementation of the goods and services tax, so for him to imply that this 1.7-cent-a-litre increase is the root cause of all of our problems is absurd.

This government has done more for border communities in tough economic times than his government ever considered. We have implemented the border communities' assistance fund, which is a $5-million fund to assist nine regions of the province to try and cope with a very difficult situation. We indeed recognize that it is a difficult situation and we will do everything in our power to correct it.

One thing that confuses me to this day is why the opposition party, the former Liberal government, called an election at all. They should simply have thrown in the keys. They had run the province into the ground.

Ms Poole: I could not let those remarks go by unchallenged. The member for Sarnia was very --

The Speaker: Would the member for Eglinton direct her remarks to the member for Brampton South, the speech we just heard?

Ms Poole: Of course, Mr Speaker. The member for Brampton South has made some very good points in his speech. I was watching him on television and he was very eloquent. One of the points that the member for Brampton South was making was in the area of taxation. The 33 tax increases brought in by the Liberal government were balanced by 29 tax reductions, but do we hear about any member of the government party talk about this? No, we do not. They like to give a one-sided picture. That is not what it is all about.

We have also had discussions about the effect of this government's policy of taxation on cross-border shopping and what it has done to those cross-border communities. I can tell these members across the way that one of the policies that has influenced the cross-border shopping enormously has been their stand on Sunday shopping, the fact that they denied these communities the right to be open on Sunday even though it is their lifeblood and even though it is driving people from those communities across the border.

Not only that, their policy on raising taxes on fuel, for instance, is ill thought out, particularly in this time of disaster for the cross-border communities, because people are going across the border to buy their gas and while they are there they buy their clothes, they buy their groceries and they buy their liquor. When this government raises taxes on those items, it is effectively killing those cross-border communities. I wish the NDP members would look at both sides of the equation instead of their biased rhetoric.

Mr Sutherland: I listened intently to the comment from the member for Brampton South. Once again he shows that his caucus and his party are somewhat all over the map. He talked about the impact of not having this increase, yet we have also heard from his party about the deficit. We have heard about them cutting back services. We certainly know that time and time again, when his leader was House leader and finance critic, has got up and talked about the CAT scanner for St Catharines and he has lamented the loss of the Golden Helmets and the OPP band. At one time he says, "No, you shouldn't be making these cuts," and the next time he says, "The deficit is too large and spending is out of control by this government and they cannot control it."

Now we have another member of that caucus saying, "Don't raise any revenue." That is what they are saying. They want to have it every way. Quite frankly, they cannot have it every way. The people of this province realize that we have very tough decisions to make. None of us enjoy the idea of increasing this gasoline tax by the amount we have had to, but the reality is that we did have to raise some revenue to keep the deficit to a certain level.

The member has talked about people being concerned, and I know there are a lot of people, especially those on fixed incomes, who are very concerned about this issue and about the impact it will have. But I have not seen or heard of a great increase in car pooling going on. There are a lot of people in major urban areas who could be doing a lot more car pooling. It takes a little initiative to get it organized, but it can save people a lot of money.

It is also like the issue of hydro rates. Many people are complaining about increases in hydro rates, and yet I have not seen any fewer Christmas lights on in my community. I have seen just as many. In some ways I know many people are affected, but we have to make those tough decisions.

1920

The Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Wellington.

Mr Arnott: I do not have any questions, sir.

Mr Bradley: So I get a chance. Oh, good. I am very pleased to be able to in the two minutes I think I have -- oh, it says one minute and 25 seconds. Do you want me to start again?

The Speaker: We have a little technical difficulty.

Mr Bradley: Okay, there it is. I can see now. That is fine.

I thank the member for Wellington because I know he is going to deliver a very good speech tonight on this bill. I want to compliment the member for Brampton North on his speech because -- is it South or North?

Mr Callahan: South.

Mr Bradley: South. He represents a lot of Brampton over the years, as everybody knows. He outlines some of the real problems that we in the opposition have with this tax, but I want to say that I was particularly pleased to note that he spoke about the effect on the automotive industry in Ontario.

All of us have received the news, and some members will recall that last week I questioned the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on the future of the automotive industry in Ontario, and how the Ontario government could first of all contribute to retaining that investment that is here and, second, encourage more investment.

The reason I asked it we can see this week. General Motors has made some ominous announcements, none of them official, but there are certainly ominous rumours out there that there are going to be some significant plant closings and job losses in Ontario, unless the information that is coming out is not accurate.

One of the reasons that can happen -- and just one of the reasons; I do not want to be unfair enough to say it is only because of the Ontario government -- is that I think this speaks to the fact that the Ontario government has to abandon some of the legislation it is proposing, some of the regulations, some of the policies, some of the taxes and some of the rhetoric some of the members are involved in. The reason they have to do that, even though they may believe the things they ran on, is that if we do not see this happening we are going to see those plants moving out of Ontario, with thousands of jobs lost in my own community of St Catharines and, of course, to the people of Oshawa and other parts of Ontario. So I urge the government to change its policies and encourage people to stay here.

Mr Callahan: I find it interesting that the member for Sarnia stood up and castigated me and tried to blame it on the GST and free trade, and yet he is not even here; he has left now. I do not blame him. I would disappear too if I were the member for Sarnia, because Sarnia has the second-highest incidence of cross-border shopping of seven border communities, with 47% of the population going over in April, local sales of $148 million being lost, lost taxes of $20.9 million, average cross-border trip purchase $47, annual lost jobs due to cross-border shopping 2,072, and 84% of cross-border trips involving purchases of gasoline. When he gets home on the weekend, if people from Sarnia have been watching this, they are going to send him over to Detroit on a one-way trip.

My good friend the member for Oxford stands up and says, "You guys put on taxes as well." Those people have missed the entire point. The point I was trying to make was that it was all right in the good times, perhaps, to put 3.5 cents on our gas tax, because we do not have any tolls like the US does. We are not in good times; we are in bad times. The minute the government does that, when it puts a tax on something that is important to the average Canadian -- not the rich, not the super rich, not even the average Canadian; poor people have cars too -- it breaks the camel's back. They deprive them of the ability to be able to do that and they force them to go across the bridge.

To the member for Sarnia and to those members from Sault Ste Marie, Windsor, the Niagara Peninsula, Kingston and Cornwall -- good luck.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to be here on a Thursday evening to debate Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, which was introduced by the Minister of Revenue April 29 for first reading. We have just gotten around to completing the debate on second reading this evening.

Of course we all know that Bill 86 is a tax bill, a revenue bill, a budget bill that implements the 1991 budget proposal, which is to increase the tax on unleaded gasoline by 1.7 cents per litre effective, I believe, April 30, from its level prior to April 30 of 11.3 cents, which makes the price as of today 13 cents per litre on a litre of gasoline. Of course this bill will hit us again January 1, 1992 with an additional 1.7 cents per litre, which will mean that the total tax on a litre of gasoline is 14.7 cents.

The other part of this bill that is not as controversial as this part is to increase the aviation fuel tax by 0.3 cents a litre, from 2.1 cents to 2.4 cents, and by an additional 0.3 cents a litre to 2.7 cents a litre, effective January 1, 1992. So the aviation fuel tax will be going up as well as a result of this bill.

There are a couple of other parts to the bill that will, I understand, combat tax evasion, such as a requirement that all importers and exporters of fuel and interjurisdictional transporters of gasoline, aviation fuel and propane register with the Ministry of Revenue. A provision is included in the bill that will allow for the seizure of gasoline or aviation fuel or propane for unlicensed interjurisdictional transporters. Additionally, I understand, there is a requirement within this bill that transporters provide security to the ministry in amounts that are specified.

I do not think too many people in this House during the course of this debate have expressed grave concern over the measures that will combat tax evasion, although, when we look at the bill and we see the increase in tax -- and, of course, the general trend we have seen over the last number of years is that governments increase taxes and increase taxes -- we find that there is some degree of concern over on this side -- in fact, a considerable degree of concern.

As part of my responsibility in this House as the member for Wellington, whenever a bill is introduced and I am asked to vote on it, I look at it and try to assess how it is going to affect my constituents. I feel that, without doubt in this instance, this bill will have a very detrimental impact on the people of Wellington county.

I look at the farmers in my riding. Wellington county, as many members will know, is one of the best agricultural ridings in the province. We had about a 10,000 farm population as of 1989. I hope the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food will find it within his power to give me more recent statistics. The year 1989 is the most current I understand the ministry has compiled. At the present time we have about 2,500 farms. We go through the breakdown and we have about 600 cattle farms, almost 600 dairy farms, about 400 hog farms and about 102 poultry farms, and then a few other miscellaneous ones.

Given the fact that these statistics are two years old, in all likelihood we have fewer farmers, but we do not need to get into that particular issue. There is a concern on this side of the House, and certainly in my belief, that the government is not supporting farmers to the extent it should be. This particular tax, this Bill 86, will have an effect on the farmers in my riding.

Naturally, farmers get a certain rebate on some of the tax they pay on the fuel they use, but certainly a farmer who drives a truck from, say, Arthur township, drives into town into Arthur, or a farmer in Minto township who goes into Harriston to get some of his groceries or goes in to buy a suit of clothes, whatever, certainly is paying a great deal of tax on gasoline that is consumed. Of course, as has been mentioned many times in the House in this debate, the people of my riding have very little access to public transport, certainly no access to public transport that is in any way subsidized by the provincial government. So they have no choice. They drive their trucks and they drive their vehicles. As a result, they are being hit very severely by this tax.

The seniors in my riding are going to be very concerned about this tax, and I know they are. I hear it from them quite frequently. They are very concerned about the general level of taxation. Many seniors in my riding are on fixed incomes, and they find it very difficult to make ends meet and to have hope for the future when they continue to see their limited incomes, their defined incomes which do not necessarily change from year to year -- perhaps they are fortunate enough to have indexed pensions but if they do not they are living within a fixed amount -- and yet they see their cost of living going higher and higher as a result of these sorts of measures.

When seniors in my riding have to go downtown for their business or to church on Sundays or to visit their families or whatever, they end up using their cars. As many of the members have spoken about earlier, many of the senior citizens do not have brand new cars. They do not have the most fuel-efficient cars because many of them are small-c conservative-minded people. They like to conserve their money and they do not want to spend a lot of money on these sorts of things.

1930

The small business people in my riding are going to be very severely impacted by this tax, because once again, they are involved in transacting their business and it is very difficult for them to find any other mode of transportation other than their own automobiles.

I have a great many commuters who live in my riding Wellington county and travel on a daily basis into Toronto, into the GTA and into Mississauga -- literally hundreds, I would think, if not thousands of commuters within my riding who travel up to an hour each way and probably up to 60 miles each way. I know that with this bill and the continued trend towards higher gasoline taxes and the continued trend of governments to not recognize that there is a breaking point for taxation they are going to continue to be hit by this sort of initiative, and it is a cause for great concern in their minds.

There are poor people in my riding. I find it difficult sometimes when I hear members opposite assume that the Conservatives do not know anything about the poor and do not care about the poor because it is absolutely false. I think where we differ with the government with respect to policies which will help the poor are the methods we would like to utilize in order to raise the poor up to a decent standard of living. In my riding I have a great many people who live below the poverty line. I find I have a great many people who exist on less than $20,000 a year household income. They do not consider themselves poor, and the cost of living naturally in my riding is quite a bit less than for people in Toronto.

Nevertheless, it can be a very onerous thing for the poor who once again have to get around if they are going to look for work or if they have a job. Again, they have some of the older vehicles on the road which are the least fuel-efficient vehicles and that unfortunately probably have less capacity to reduce fuel emissions. I find it absolutely stunning that this government would come forward with legislation that will have a very detrimental impact on the poor people in my riding.

That having been said, we know this bill will have a significant impact on the revenue side of the government. I understand it will in fact generate an additional $205 million this fiscal year and $410 million in a full year. This one tax will generate approximately an additional $500 million of revenue for this government. The government says when it discusses this with us: "We have to have taxes. We've got programs that have to be paid for and we've got programs that people are demanding."

We on this side understand that, but we also understand and we continue to put forward the view that there is a limit to the amount of money people can be asked to pay in the form of taxes. We have heard many times this evening about the concept of the Fraser Forum's Tax Freedom Day. I do not think the members opposite have too much respect for the Fraser Forum -- I understand that by their responses -- but nevertheless there is a factual calculation put forward by the Fraser Forum every year. It demonstrates how far into the year the average person has to go before he starts making money for himself. In this case, I think August 2 is Tax Freedom Day. It is the seventh month of the year I guess.

Mr Carr: Eighth.

Mr Arnott: The eighth month, the ninth month, where do we end? At some point do we declare Tax Freedom Day December 12 perhaps? Maybe at that point this government will assume that enough is enough and that taxes have to start to come down. I hope we can convince them in this debate tonight, but I dare say it is going to take a lot more effort than that. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, we will continue to try to bring this government to its senses.

Another aspect of this tax that concerns me greatly is the willingness I think in the last number of years of governments to categorize gasoline as almost another sin tax. Governments have found it very easy politically, in their own minds I guess, if they want to increase revenues or if they feel they are required to increase revenues, to just slap another tax on tobacco products, slap another tax on alcohol, slap another tax on this and that that they feel are sin taxes, and now gasoline is lumped into that category. The consumption of gasoline in my riding is no sin. It is an absolute requirement if you are going to have any mode of transportation. It concerns me greatly when this government seems to lump this tax in with its sin taxes.

It is not just this government because the Liberals have done it before and I dare say perhaps -- I do not know for sure, but I would not rule out the possibility -- the Conservative government in the 1970s and early 1980s has done that too. It has to end because we cannot continue to sustain these significant tax increases.

There has been a lot of back and forth in the last hour with respect to this debate between the Liberals and the New Democrats, each blaming the other for the state we are in. Something that bothers me very much in this place is that I still believe the Liberals bear a large degree of culpability for the severe economic times we are experiencing at the present time, and certainly for the $9.7-billion deficit.

The Liberals over their five years in power increased spending at approximately 10% per year, I believe. If I am not correct I certainly stand to be corrected. I believe it was, generally speaking, a double-digit increase per year in order to meet their spending requirements which naturally they felt were necessary and it was within their responsibility to take that position.

Interjections.

Mr Arnott: The member for Grey has come in properly attired.

Through the late 1980s we experienced an incredible economic boom. We found that our economy was quite --

Interjections.

Mr Arnott: The member for Grey has disrupted my train of thought here but I will attempt to continue.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understood it is the custom in this House for male members to wear ties.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member will know we do not have a dress code. However, it can be noted the member for Grey indeed carries on a very fine tradition and is most welcome to continue that tradition in this House.

Mr Arnott: Through the late 1980s we experienced an incredible economic boom. We had incredible growth and it became an overheated economy which has required, quite simply, some of the policies that have been coming forward from the federal government with respect to trying to eliminate the inflation pressures that were created by these incredible increases by the Liberals.

The government we had in Ontario for the past five years felt no restriction to keep taxes as low as possible because they had spending requirements they wanted to meet, but no government could sustain the incredible spending that the government of 1990 left for this group without the incredible economic boom of the type we saw in the late 1980s. Frankly, I firmly believe those times were extraordinary. We are not about to see them again, perhaps not for 30 years. We could not sustain that sort of spending, and that is partly the result of the $9.7-billion deficit.

1940

The new government came in. They were quite excited the first year and they had priorities of their own. They had people they wanted to assist and they went ahead with new spending priorities and they did not feel really all that compelled -- I do not think they felt compelled in any way -- to restrain spending until now, this year, when we find they do feel some compunction to restrict spending as much as possible.

At least, they have taken some steps. I would argue that they have not taken the steps that they could. They have closed a number of registry offices in this province, at a savings of $1 million, and I guess we found out today where that $1 million that was saved on the closure of the registry offices is going to be spent: the new outreach program, the program to provide more consultation and the animators, I guess, that we were talking about today. It has been criticized as being a measure that will in fact promote the NDP. I certainly hope that is not the case, although I suspect the opposite.

I find it very difficult to accept the arguments that are brought forward when it cuts spending and tries to do these things that affect my riding profoundly, yet spends money essentially on its own partisan political purposes, which is what has happened as of today.

I look at the 1.7-cent-a-litre increase in tax and part of what I look at is how it is going to affect me personally. I do not think there is anything wrong with that, but two increases of 1.7 cents per litre add up to 3.4 cents per litre. That is a 30% increase in provincial fuel tax. I am fortunate enough to have a fairly new car. It takes about 52 litres to fill it up. That costs me about $27 each time I fill up my tank.

This new tax increase will result in a $1.50-per-tank-of-gas increase in the price of a tank of gas for me personally, so when I look at a $27 tank of gas, after this bill takes full effect in 1992 I will be paying approximately, by my own calculation, about $4.50 in tax. I find that very difficult to accept. I probably buy two tanks of gas a week to meet the requirements inherent in my job, so that is about $9 a week in tax. I look at how it affects me personally, but many people in my riding spend more on fuel than I do. Many people do not have as fuel-efficient a car as I do. They are going to be hit very severely by this tax.

We have talked about the issue of competitiveness in conjunction with this debate and we have talked about how this tax and the fuel taxes and gasoline taxes in Ontario compare with other provinces in this country. I have here a comparison of the provincial tax rates between Ontario and some of the other provinces in this country.

We find that in Quebec, the people of Quebec pay 14 cents per litre in tax. The people in Quebec have long suffered under a very high tax structure. The people of Newfoundland pay 13.7 cents per litre, and of course in Newfoundland, where they have severe regional economic disparities, they have had higher costs of living historically and high taxes. In Ontario we have 13 cents per litre, which is something we are not used to paying, not accustomed to paying, because in the past, I would say five or 10 years ago, Ontario had a very competitive tax structure, so it is a new phenomenon for the people of Ontario.

In New Brunswick, the price is 12.7 cents; in Nova Scotia, 12.3 cents. Again, those are fairly comparatively high rates for the people of the Maritimes, in line with Newfoundland's. Prince Edward Island is a little better at 11.5 cents. Then we get out west where the tolerance for high taxes among the people of the western provinces is quite a bit less than it is here. As a result, their taxes on gasoline are not quite so high. In Manitoba, it is 10.5 cents per litre; in Saskatchewan, 10 cents a litre. When we get way up north, in the Northwest Territories, it is 9.1 cents a litre.

Alberta, of course, has a very low tolerance for high tax rates. They only pay about nine cents a litre, and they have domestic production of fuel, so that is something that is perhaps affecting that. In British Columbia, it is 8.82 cents, and the Yukon is the lowest at 4.2 cents.

As I said earlier, the people of Ontario are not accustomed to paying these high rates of tax on their fuel, but as a result of some of the policies that governments have undertaken in the last five or six years it is now the third highest rate in the country. That has a very damaging effect on this province's competitiveness, as I believe we all know, but the government will not recognize that fact. It refuses to recognize that fact.

When we talk about this issue in terms of the price of gasoline, we also have to think about the price of energy generally. One of the things that greatly concerns me is the general thrust of the energy policy of this government: the cost of hydro, the spectre of a 44% increase in hydro rates that has been talked about.

I see my friend the member for Sarnia, as the minister's parliamentary assistant, shake his head, although I do not recall anyone actually categorically denying that is going to be the case. It gives me great concern. It will affect my riding considerably if that comes about.

When I talk about the farmers in my riding who have fixed energy costs -- whether it be the diesel for their implements or the gas for their trucks or the electricity that helps them run their dairy barns -- it is a very significant cost of their production, and if they are looking at news where they see that possibly -- as I say, the government has refused to categorically rule out this 44% increase that has been discussed over three years -- that news to a farmer in my riding suggests that things are not going to get any better in the near term and that his cost of production is going to continue to go up.

As the government finds that its policies are still not in line with what farmers require, I suspect that many farmers in my riding, with the numbers I have given here in terms of 1989 farmers, are going to be significantly less in the near future.

I have another responsibility that I must bring to this House, and it is as my party's tourism and recreation critic. This is a bill that came forward as a result of the Treasurer's budget. Tourism Ontario, prior to the budget, brought in a document that it gave to the Treasurer. In a 1991 pre-budget submission to the Treasurer from Tourism Ontario, they made a number of very constructive suggestions for tax changes in this province and I think they did a very thorough job of it.

Even though none of these initiatives were addressed in the budget, I certainly hope that in the next budget some of them will be. They are not all asking for tax cuts either. They are asking for some tax changes that they feel will be beneficial to the industry, and I certainly concur. The tourism industry asks for these constructive specific measures, many of them revenue-neutral. None of them were picked up this time. Instead, this Bill 86 comes out through the budget, Bill 86, an Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. This bill will have a very damaging effect on our tourism sector. There is no question about that.

The people of Ontario, who choose to spend some of their tourism budget in their own province find that the price of gas gets higher and higher. If they are going to an eastern Canada destination, for example, and they have to drive, say, from Toronto east, they find it is much cheaper to drive through the United States because of the price, and that is the reality. We have to be very concerned about that.

I do not see too much happening over there with respect to the tourism industry. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has not made many announcements in the House. Frankly, his attendance has not been all that great in the last little while. I am not sure what he is doing. I assume he is travelling around the province. I hear he is travelling around the province. I know he is a good listener and I hope he is listening and I hope he is bringing back the concerns of the tourism industry to the cabinet in a very forceful and effective way, although I suspect that given what has happened in the last year, the Tourism minister is not being as effective as he should be.

I next would like to respond to some of the criticisms that have been brought forward during the course of this debate by the government members. They are suggesting oftentimes that we have no positive, constructive suggestions to offer, that we are only interested in running, that we are sort of on both sides of the issue, and I would suggest that in this caucus that is not the case.

We have been very consistent with respect to the things we have been saying. Certainly we speak up for our ridings when issues come to the floor of this House. I think that is a requirement that we have to do and should do. Certainly when an issue with regard to spending affects our riding, we are the advocates on behalf of those people in our ridings, and by the very virtue of the fact that we are standing up and indicating support for that particular issue, we see it as a priority. It is not inconsistent for us to talk about concerns about a $9.7-billion deficit, and then from time to time speak with respect to our own responsibilities as critics and suggest that government priorities might be different and in fact should be different.

This document, which has now been made public, is our party's Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario: New Directions.

1950

Mr Owens: I'd like to receive a copy.

Mr Arnott: I hear that one of the members opposite, the member for Scarborough Centre, is interested in receiving a copy of it. I certainly will arrange for him to get one, because I think he will find it very enlightening. I hope that he finds it interesting and will take these views forward within the government caucus.

We do not profess to have all the answers, but we do believe that these initiatives, if enacted by the government, instead of this sort of thing, which simply raises taxes in a short-term way, are not the sort of approach the government should be taking. One of the suggestions we have made is in fact a reduction of sales tax from 8% to 7%. We are not promising to do this. We believe the government should do it at this time. It is a little different from when the Liberals checked the polls and saw themselves falling like a stone during the last election. We saw the Premier come on television and announce that he would be prepared to cut the sales tax from 8% to 7%. At that point, I guess many of us knew that the Liberal era was finished. This is a suggestion that we believe would be timely, would be helpful, would stimulate the economy at this time. Certainly we put it forward in all confidence that the government will take a look at it. We hope it will.

We have talked about cutting gasoline and fuel taxes, not raising them by 30% over a period of a year or so. We believe they should be cut by approximately 10%, because we think this approach would benefit all sectors of the economy including transportation, including tourism and including manufacturing. There is no question that this sort of approach would be an immediate relief to many of the taxpayers in this province who feel overburdened. They would see it as a positive signal coming forward that this government is interested in keeping taxes minimized, is interested in spending restraint and is not going to bankrupt the province, although many of us in this House fear otherwise. We fear that the government will not have that incentive and over the course of the next three years will never acquire it.

We have brought forward many of these constructive suggestions and we will continue to do so. We have also talked about the employer health tax, which was brought in by the former government, a payroll tax which, as I think we all recognize, is an implicit killer of jobs. If you are a small employer and you are interested in exanding your workforce, hiring some new people, it has got to be a consideration. We know the more an employer pays out in payroll, the more he is going to pay in tax. It is as simple as that. It is simply a percentage of the payroll that an employer pays out. We have talked about the idea that what should happen is that the employer health tax should be phased out for small businesses with payrolls under $400,000. I think that would be an excellent initiative this government should undertake instead of the likes of Bill 86, once again, just a quick snatching out of the taxpayers' pockets for another $500 million approximately.

We have talked about public sector restraint, restraining government spending such that this sort of initiative would not be required. We have offered many, many suggestions to the government and will continue to do so in the hopes that it will pick up some of them.

I think I am finished with my contribution today, but I do want to reiterate that Bill 86 is the wrong tax at the wrong time. It is just not a constructive way to go today in this province when taxes are as high as they are. If the government would simply realize that it has to get taxes down, that taxes are already too high, if it could acquire that sort of perspective, perhaps this government would have a chance of getting out of the problems that have been created by former governments.

Mr Miclash: I too would like to congratulate the member for Wellington for bringing forth a good number of points in terms of this tax. One point that really caught my attention was the fact he was mentioning people travelling out of Ontario into the United States. Earlier on this evening, I mentioned that we had a good number of people from northern Ontario who were actually coming to southern Ontario but getting here through the United States.

He mentioned a survey done on the border communities and finding that a good 80% of the people were crossing the border to get gasoline at much less cost. You could almost see the pattern developing, from northern Ontario to southern Ontario, paralleling the Trans-Canada Highway but through the United States of America, and then as the member for Wellington has indicated, not only from northern to southern Ontario but again from southern Ontario farther east, whether it be to the eastern provinces or into the United States. Again, he is showing that same pattern where people are being forced across into the United States because of these gas prices. All we are doing is raising the tax on gasoline by 30%. I would suggest that 30% raise will again move more people across the border.

A figure of 80% was mentioned. I would say if we took a survey and took a look at the number of people travelling in that direction or travelling to the west, we would probably find that a good amount of people, maybe not 80% but a good amount, would be moving to that parallel route to take advantage of much lower prices.

Being the critic for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the member for Wellington did bring forth a good number of points that are related to tourism across the entire province. Earlier on I brought forth points regarding tourism in the north, but as he has indicated, it is not just the north; it is the entire province that will suffer when our American friends come across the border and see again this huge difference in the gas prices.

Mr Carr: I just want to thank my colleague the member for Wellington for a fine presentation. It is at this time of year that I guess we sit back, reflect and thank some of the people who have been supportive. Members heard some of the comments that were made in a well-thought-out and pragmatic manner tonight. Here is an individual who spent a great deal of time serving his constituents and working hard in the riding, but I think in the short year and a little bit since he was elected he has really come to grasp the issues that are facing this province.

I do not think he will mind my saying that as one of the youngest members in this House -- and Lord knows I am not that old myself, although in this business I am aging very quickly, by the hour literally; I certainly believe the future of this province is going to be in great shape; I think all members of all sides of all political stripes would say that -- it is nice to see we have a member like my colleague the member for Wellington who has shown leadership in this. Indeed this province is going to be in good shape. At this time of year, I just want to congratulate him on a fine job well done.

Mrs Caplan: As I comment on the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act I think the comments of my colleague the member for Wellington echo what my constituents in the riding of Oriole are having to say. At this particular time of year, in the midst of a recession, they believe it is the wrong time to increase taxes. People are losing their jobs. They do not have extra money, and not only that, people are suffering. A 30% tax increase in the price of gasoline at this time is affecting travellers, people from my riding who have to use their cars on business. It is increasing the cost of doing business and it is really placing a hardship on working families right across this province.

I share the concern that has been expressed by so many members of this Legislature, and on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole I would appeal to the government that this is not the time to increase gasoline prices by 30% and this is not the time to be raising taxes in Ontario. This is the time to understand that the people of this province are suffering. They are concerned. They lack confidence in the future. They have no confidence in this government, which is raising taxes at the very time it should be doing exactly the opposite.

I want to congratulate my colleagues who also have joined with me to urge the government to reconsider this ill-timed, thoughtless and very damaging piece of legislation, which will increase gasoline prices in Ontario at the very time we should be helping consumers and helping people cope with this recession.

2000

Mr Johnson: I listened with great interest to the member for Wellington. His presentation was done very well, I want to say, but some of the content of his debate was something that I could not agree with. There is an agenda that drives the opposition here. It is an agenda that quite frankly is very unfortunate, because we want to see Ontario do well. We want to see Ontario survive this recession.

I think the agenda that drives the members of the opposition is one based on information that is not balanced. They have chosen a side they want to express that would suggest to us that somehow it is the government's fault that this recession is happening and that these marginal tax increases are going to make things worse. Quite frankly, I do not think that is the case. It is unfortunate that this agenda that drives them causes them to stand on every occasion and blame us, the government of Ontario, for the circumstance in which we find ourselves. I think that is wrong, because I do not think that is so. I do not think that is correct at all.

There are many factors we have to contend with that have made the recession in Ontario as bad as it is. To blame the government and suggest that these taxes are going to make this situation worse is wrong. The federal government most certainly has not helped.

I do not think people or companies really want to go to the United States. The taxes that are levied against companies and people in the United States have not been well represented by the opposition. They would like the people of Ontario to believe that it is a better place to go. Quite frankly, that is not correct.

Mr Arnott: I am pleased to respond to the kind remarks of the member for Kenora, the member for Oakville South and the member for Oriole. I thank them very much for their very kind words and comments.

I was hoping we would hear some comments from the members opposite who represent border ridings. The member for Sault Ste Marie is here, as are the member for Sarnia and the member for St Catharines. I often wonder, when they go home on the weekends, how they justify to their constituents the increased taxes. I should talk to them about it informally some time, because I would be very interested in hearing how their constituents respond to that sort of thing. The prices go up and up and it is very difficult for those people, their constituents, to abide them. I find it very surprising that those members will indeed support this bill, this tax, although I dare say they will.

In response to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I thank him for his comment, first of all. The criticism that comes to our side from the government in this respect, that we are not balanced, I am concerned about, because it shows me that the member is missing the point of the parliamentary process to some extent, the parliamentary democracy, where we have a government that comes into power and feels it has the lion's share of the good ideas and brings forward initiatives.

The government is not one to tell us the downside of its policies. They never do; they never will. They always talk about the pluses. Every policy has good aspects and bad aspects, downsides and upsides. It is the government's job to tell us the upside, and it will anyway. It is our job to let people know what the downside is, and hopefully in a responsible way, hopefully in an effective way, but also hopefully in a fair way. We undertake to do that as best we can. I believe our remarks are fair in this respect, because the reality is that taxes of this nature are going to continue to pile up under this government until we can change its mindset. We have to get to that point or the province is in serious trouble.

Mr Carr: I want to take a quick minute before I get into the topic, just to, with a little bit of indulgence, thank all the fine people who have had to stay this evening as a result of our late sittings. To those people who have given up time with their families, particularly at this time of year when there are a lot of Christmas parties and numerous events going on, I think we should take a quick minute to thank those people who are kind enough to serve the people and do not get any thanks. When politicians are told they have to stay to midnight and they might have to get up and speak for about two or three hours, the politicians get very excited and it is like Christmas has already begun. But to the other people who have to spend the time here serving the people, it is a difficult task. On the way in, the fine gentleman who serves us here and protects these fine chambers was saying that he has had to be here since 9 o'clock this morning. So before I get into the very heated issue and the programs we have, I want to thank the fine people who have had to sit and put up with us, and the people of this province do thank you. So to those, thank you very much.

Way back just before the last budget I made it clear what I thought should happen in this province. I said to the Premier of this province that I did not believe there should be any taxes. Just before the budget I tried to impress upon both the Premier and the Treasurer, because as the Treasurer used to say: "Read my lips. No new taxes." I held this up to my colleague the Treasurer of this province, who does have a good sense of humour, and believe me, when you are Treasurer of Ontario in this day and age you need to have a sense of humour. As we often say, the signs and pictures are worth a thousand words.

"No new taxes," I think, says it best about what the people of Oakville South believe in. In fact, that was a big issue in the campaign last time, as members know. I would not for a minute pretend to speak for the member for Carleton East or for the member for Kenora or for Parkdale or some of the other areas of this province, but I do think I know the people of Oakville South and the southeast Burlington portion of my riding.

In September I sent out a document asking for input on what some of the people thought. I got some replies back, and I wanted to --

Mrs Y. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum present.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

2009

Mr Carr: Now that all 75 members of the government have come in, I am glad to see I will be able to speak to the Premier tonight. Is that how many of those guys won? Actually that many?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Seventy-four. Don't let them kid you, Gary.

Mr Carr: We do not and are not able in this Legislature to speak for all areas, although I did have, I think, without a doubt, one of the best opportunities in this job to travel around and visit various parts of this province. We had a chance during the summer to speak and deal in some of the areas with my friend, the member for Wentworth East, and spent some time visiting with the people of this province. Indeed, we do have a better appreciation of what some of the concerns are of the people in Thunder Bay where we visited.

Mr Tilson: Where are some of the places you went?

Mr Carr: Some places like Thunder Bay, and we spent actually my birthday in Peterborough. We spent some time in Ottawa. We did not quite make Kenora. Last week, I guess I had a bit of a chance to go back up to Thunder Bay again and speak to the fine Rotary Club up there.

We do not get a chance to speak for those people, but it does give us a chance to get some appreciation. I think we do know, in each of our own areas, what some of the concerns of the people are. Quite often, as you know, Mr Speaker, politicians will think they know what some of the big issues are. I had an opportunity to send out a bit of an information brochure to the people of my riding and ask them what some of the concerns were. When it came to taxes, it was very interesting. I want to thank Wayne Fleming, who put together some of the statistics on this for us and did all the hard work that it took to pile this together.

We literally had hundreds of replies back from the people of Oakville South and the Burlington portion of my riding. The question that was asked was very simple. We wanted it to be fairly non-political in this, so we asked, not particularly at the provincial government level or the federal government level or municipal, but we asked --

Interjection.

Mr Carr: Good evening to the member for Etobicoke West who, for those of you who are tuning in, will be the next speaker. It is eight o'clock on a Thursday night. For those of you who are just about to turn over to Bart Simpson when they saw me up, the member for Etobicoke West will be up speaking very shortly, so I will not be too long.

The question that was asked is, "For the taxes that we pay, do you think the taxes are" -- and there were four multiple-choice options; we did not want to keep it too complicated -- "too high; about right; too low; don't know?" We had hundreds of replies back. I know when you do surveys you will say the fact is that some people may reply and you do not get a pretty good cross-section, but I think you do, the people who were prepared to mark in the boxes. Of the people who replied back, 90.4% said that their taxes were too high -- 90.4% of the replies of the people of Oakville South and Burlington South said their taxes were too high. It was interesting that 8.6% said they were about right. It was less than 0.1% who said they were too low, and nobody said they did not know. There were no replies back on that.

I think there is a correlation between the fact that in this province, over the last five years, we have had one philosophy: Anything in this province that moved, we taxed it. Then, when it still moved, we regulated it. Then, ultimately, when it went out of business, we subsidize it. Tonight, as we sit here, this province is now the highest-taxed province in Canada and the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America. The problem and the concern for many of the people of this province is the fact that in many ways the quality of the services we get from the provincial government is deteriorating.

At a time when we are the most highly taxed, we have waiting lists. I had an opportunity to sponsor a blood-donor clinic for the Red Cross. I had a chap in there who needed a new artificial hip. I remember when he got asked about the surgical procedure and the doctor said, "We do have this procedure; you're going to need a new hip," he was looking at one year in advance. Twelve months later was when he was going to get it. When the doctor said it was going to be in December or November -- I cannot remember what it was, but it was a year later -- he thought it meant that month that he was going to get it. The doctor said, "No, no, it's not this year. You're looking at a new hip next year." So in spite of being the most highly taxed jurisdiction on this continent, the fact of the matter is, if you need some of the services, they are not there and available for you.

There is a correlation between government spending and taxes. It was interesting: one of the questions we asked the fine folks in Oakville South was, "Should the Ontario government pass a law limiting government spending?" Again, the percentage was close to 90% of the people believe that we should.

The fact of the matter is, in this province, we are not spending wisely. That goes beyond all political bounds. That is not just Conservative people. There are people of all political persuasions: the NDP, the Liberals, the people who are non-aligned, who are saying the government should limit its spending. Of course, the government says, "We had no choice."

The spending programs we are looking at really have no correlation with the taxes but, in fact, with the last government it was the case. In spite of all the taxes, do you know what they did with the money? They spent every last cent of it. Nothing was put away during that period of the 1980s when we had the best growth of all the industrialized countries, with the exception of Japan. Our growth rate was absolutely fantastic versus West Germany, France, Britain, the United States. We had the best growth rate, and during that period of time the previous government, the Liberal government of the day, decided: "This is what we are going to do. We are going to tax now that we have got this growth, and we are going to spend every last cent of it and then some." We all know the result of that.

I was thoroughly amazed in the campaign of 1990 when I went around talking to people -- I certainly am not now -- but so many people were saying, "We are fed up with the tax situation, we are going to Quebec, we are going to Alberta, we are going to Burnaby, we are going to Buffalo, we are not going to stay in this province."

Of course, the Treasurer believes very clearly that people will stay here. His feeling is that business and individuals will stay in this province because they have an aunt that lives in Aurora, or a sister that lives in Sudbury. As part of my critic's position, I go around and meet many of the industries. They say to me, "We know you are are supportive in a lot of ways. We know that you are one of the ones that are fighting to keep the taxes down. We do not need to persuade you. But we want the Treasurer to know we are going to leave because we cannot afford the tax situation."

It was interesting to note that in 1985 we had a 10% cost advantage over taxes versus the province of Quebec. The Conference Board study during that year rated us very competitive versus the United States and West Germany and Japan. Today, in a recent Conference Board study, it finds that that has completely evaporated. A Canadian Federation of Independent Business study shows that there are some surrounding US states that have an advantage of 20% to 50% when it comes to taxes versus the province of Ontario. And yet the people on the other side still think that people will try to live and work in the province of Ontario when we cannot compete with the surrounding areas.

This, for want of a better word, poll, survey -- call it what you will -- showed very clearly that the people are fed up with the tax and spend approach, the public policy that has been around for far too long.

I also put together some of the statistics that are out, and I think it is very important to look at where we are, because there is a correlation between government spending and taxes, and many of the members do not even, I think, spend much time looking at some of the Ontario finances.

The Ministry of Treasury and Economics who, probably as we are speaking tonight, are burning the midnight oil to prepare the next budget. As they put out some of the statistics you will see, and I think it is very important to note, where some of the revenue comes from for all the wonderful programs in this province. If you look at it on the revenue side and you go down about four or five points, you have the gasoline tax -- $1.5 billion on gasoline tax. That was during the period of June 1990. Then there was a report that came on December 31, 1990, then a report that came on September 30. Now we are we are looking at about $1.6 billion in terms of taxes.

This government believes that by increasing all the revenues you see here, whether it be 1.2% or whether it be 1.7 cents per litre, we are going to be able to generate all this revenue to pay for the programs. But what happens, and it is very simple, when they increase the amount of taxation, the bottom line -- and I know some of the members on the other side are not too familiar with bottom lines -- but the fact of the matter is, when you increase the taxation you do not necessarily get an increase because what happens is people leave. In this case, with the tax on the gasoline and cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, what they do is they have their own little tax revolt because they go across to the US to get the products. You increase the taxes and, lo and behold, guess what happens? The amount of money that you get back goes down.

2020

So this government looks to see where the revenues will be, where it is going to find the revenues. It is interesting to some of the folks who are here tonight to take a look at it. It has everything from the personal income tax to the retail sales tax. I venture to say that no one in here right now could tell us what we are looking at in terms of revenue. They stand up and say we need more revenue. When it comes to looking at the big picture, none of them can tell us how much we are getting out of the tax revenue in this province or even where the revenue comes from.

It comes from the personal income tax, the retail sales tax, the corporation tax, again an area that the Treasurer says he is going to increase. At a time when we have people fleeing across the border with cross-border shopping, when we have a mass exit of businesses and individuals leaving because this province has become like an economic Siberia because of the taxes, this Treasurer, in his wisdom, says he has a solution. His solution is to increase the taxes more. The last thing we need in this province is more tax increases. The Treasurer stands up and says: "We don't have any money for this. We don't have any money for the programs." People are leaving left and right from this province and now what we are going to do is increase the taxes.

The people of this province -- again, I will not speak for a lot of the areas, but the people of Oakville South and the fine Burlington portion of my riding repudiated that approach of tax, spend and borrow. This government is going ahead with that same approach. That is why we have in this day and age this cynical approach to politics, where politicians get in and -- in the last election campaign it took the now Premier, I guess, about half the election campaign. He finally said: "You know what? Mike Harris is right. Your taxes are too high and it is David Peterson's fault."

That happened about halfway through. He came to this revelation. But do members know what he said? "Don't worry, we can afford all the programs that are out there. And guess what? We can even afford $5 billion more in our Agenda for People." As he told every group: "There's somebody else out there. They're not paying their share of the taxes and we're going to get them. We're going to get those people who are hiding in the weeds out there, not paying their fair share of taxes." It was interesting that when he got off the bus eight or nine times a day, he never got off to the people who were going to pay the taxes, because everybody who was going to pay was anybody other than the people he was talking to at that time.

Do members know what? Everybody wanted to believe him. Even I wanted to believe him. I wanted to believe that there were some people out there, that we could have more money for all these programs and somebody else would pay, that there was somebody else who was not paying his fair share of taxes in this province, but the fact of the matter is that 14 months later he has found out very simply that there is no somebody else out there. In this province right now, which is the most heavily taxed, they are scurrying around, searching all areas.

I thank the Premier. He has sent a note saying he is reconsidering the tax increases. No, that really was not it. I only wish it was.

So there he was. He got off the bus every day and said, "Don't worry, somebody else is going to pay the taxes," the simplistic approach everybody wanted to believe. Then he got in here. I have been very critical of the Premier and the Treasurer. I honestly believe some of the members thought that the money was going to fall out of the big chandeliers in the Legislature, that somewhere along the line somebody had tucked millions of dollars up in the fine corners and that they were going to come in as socialists and pull the plug and it was all going to fall down and the money was going to be there.

Some of the members honestly, truly believed that. Some of them did not even know what a quarterly financial statement by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics was. Some of them did not even know what they were promising during that period of time, so I cannot blame them. They are learning now and we are trying to educate them. I know they are all listening intently and some of them may even be learning something. The Treasurer has been around for 20 years. The Premier, who is a Rhodes Scholar, should have, by any stretch of the imagination, known what was happening, but he made the promises anyway.

During that period of time it was ironic that he then called the Premier of the day, David Peterson, a liar. He said he was a liar for the reason he called the election campaign. Then he went out and made promises to every individual. He went around and said: "You can have what you want. You can have what you want. You can have what you want." He promised the nurses more money. He promised the day care workers more money. He promised the environmentalists more money. He was going to clean up the beaches. Billions and billions of dollars to clear up Lake Ontario. "We're going to do it. The money is going to fall out of the sky." Very clearly, Bill 86 is what the money is going to be about.

Mr Tilson: Now the sky is falling.

Mr Carr: Now the sky is falling. The beaches are not getting cleaned up and the government is scurrying for every last penny. When we look at the tax in the overall scheme of things, for those members who do not know, we are looking at a budget of -- this is a statement that is old because we have got the new ones. I am looking at the June 30 one. On September 30, 1991, the total revenue we were looking at was $43 billion. The tax that comes from fuel tax, which is part of this Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, which they are going to get to pay for all these programs, represents $1.6 billion. But they are still going to increase it. They are going to increase the taxes at a time when the people of this province are leaving.

Since 1985 we have had approximately 50 tax increases in the province of Ontario. Very clearly, all the programs out there cannot be paid for by any increased taxes, because these increased taxes will only mean more people will find any means of avoiding the taxes by going across to Windsor and Buffalo. The vast majority of the people in this province are within a period of time where they can do that. The government is going to increase the taxes. Can members guess what is going to happen? The amount of revenue they are going to get is going to go down.

I still think we should check and see where the Treasurer got his degree. Apparently he has a degree in economics. For this Treasurer to stand up and say there are going to be more tax increases at a time when there are going to be decreased revenues by doing that is nothing but voodoo economics. Here we are with this tax; $1.6 billion comes from this tax and they are going to try to increase it.

They are never going to have any opportunity for tax relief in this province until they start controlling spending. My friend the member for Wellington talked a little about that. I think it is helpful as we look at some of the areas of this Bill 86. Of course, the Premier gets up and, again attempting to be very simplistic, says: "There's nothing we could do. The big bad Liberals left us with this bad financial situation." He is half right. They were big and they were bad and they left them with a bad financial situation.

But the problem is that the government drove the private sector out of housing. Last night, the former Minister of Housing stood up and said, "Well, what would you do?" We would not bring in bills like Bill 4, which is going to drive the private sector out of rental unit production in this province. If we look at it and we see where the money is being spent, it looks like a rocket taking off. For those members who have not had a chance to look to see where the money is being spent, they should take a look at housing and see where the spending is going in housing. It looks at a rocket on a graph taking off when we see the amount of spending.

In 1985, 80% of the rental units used to be built by the private sector and 20% by the public sector. That is now reversed. Under the Liberals it went 80-20 the other way and it is going to be probably less as we go into it. They say there is no money. As my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel pointed out ironically, the private sector, which when it produces something, does it faster, better, cheaper and with no expense to the taxpayer, is being thwarted, pushed out and penalized because it does not fit in with the trendy doctrine political of both the Liberals and the NDPers, who as the government are the only ones who can do anything properly.

In the area of housing, the government pushed the private sector out. Then it increased the taxes. It is only going to hurt some of the poor, the disadvantaged and the seniors out there because they are the ones who cannot afford to get a new car that may increase some of the mileage.

Another area we looked at in terms of spending is day care in this province. This government said nothing could be done to avoid this deficit and then it tried to go out and throw the private sector out of the day care business. In some areas, I think the folks whom we met with during that period of time were telling us about a case in Sudbury.

If my memory serves me correctly, the lady said they spent $1.1 million in Sudbury putting in a non-profit day care centre when there were spaces available in the private sector. That is why Bill 86 needs to come about. Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, needs to come in: because they have penalized, thwarted and shut out the private sector.

2030

We have tried to be practical. They can say all they want, that it would not have mattered what government was in power. Quite frankly, we told them of other areas where they could save. They would not need to bring in Bill 86, the gasoline tax, if they had been able to control expenditures on the public service in this particular province, which went up 14%. The increases were anywhere from 5% to 11%, but they added all these new people as well, so when you look at the payroll of the public sector in this province, it has gone up since 1985 by about 10,000 new civil servants.

In one year, during a recession, the amount we paid for some of the public service people in this province went up 14%. At a time when General Motors is thinking about closing down because it is worried about having even any type of money coming in, this government spent 14% more. Then they say there is nothing they can do. There is nothing they can do with Bill 86. They have to come in with a gasoline tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. Until we control the spending in this province and get our spending under control, there will never be any opportunity for tax relief in Ontario.

As has been pointed out, we outlined in about 32 pages some of the things we would do. We talk about how we would bring the private sector back into housing, into day care. We would put caps on some of the wages during this period of time. As we all know, we put a cap on ours and virtually froze them. All we are asking is $1 billion -- that is with a B -- that would have been saved, yet what do they do? We have Bill 86, an increase in taxes.

The total amount we are receiving in taxes right now from the gasoline tax is $1.6 billion. We could have saved $1 billion and not needed this outrageous tax increase if we had had the political courage to make the hard choices.

As I look around and see this government, it did not make the hard choices, although now I think it is. Here is a party that has been driven by ideology and is now confronted with reality. One year later, we have the Treasurer of this province saying: "Guess what, folks? We're in trouble. We're going to have to cut back."

What did we say one year ago? "You are in deep financial shape." I think the euphoria of the victory went to their heads and when the transfer payments came it was like: "We won. Here is the pay day to everyone." They were happy. The transfer payments came out and the hospitals got 9.7%, the municipalities got 7.8% -- no, the municipalities got 5.7% -- the school boards got 7.9%. They were just happy to be alive and governing in Ontario.

We heard from a fine former member here, Richard Johnston, who is now with the colleges, and he said, "We are expecting zero to 2% in transfer payments to the colleges and universities in this province." He said that. As my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said, "I never thought I would see the day when a New Democratic member like Richard Johnston would ever be accepting zero to 2% to the colleges and universities in the province." But he did it. Then when they come out with 4%, they say, "Oh boy, that Floyd. We were expecting only 2%, but that Floyd is looking after us. He gave us 4%."

They did not make the tough choices. I suspect as we sit here maybe Mr Johnston, who at one point I guess was a senior adviser to the Premier -- he said it. Of course, he was at the left end of the spectrum, even for the NDP. He was so far left, he was almost on the other side. Here is this guy saying, "We are expecting only zero to 2% because things are bad in Ontario."

What a change from the summer of 1990 when the Premier got off the bus and said: "How do you do? What would you like? Here's what we're going to give you." To everybody who walked up, with no regard to whether anybody could pay, there he was, the Rhodes scholar, this brilliant individual promising anybody anything he wanted to hear to get elected. That is why we have the problems we have in this province today. We have a problem because, unfortunately, special interests that were there believed the man when he got off and said, "We're going to give you what you want."

Unfortunately, I do not think they heard his speeches. They heard only the ones where it affected them, and they honestly and truly believe him.

Now as we sit here today we have a Treasurer who says, "You've got to watch out, because the transfer payments are going to be very weak." Well, they are going to be weak, that is for sure. They are going to be very weak.

There are some other things that could be done. I listed them and I had the fortunate pleasure of talking about the sunset clause that I introduced that would have basically said any board or commission spending would have a review to streamline or improve or terminate the program. But this government voted against it. They did not think that was a good idea. They are not going to control expenditures. A year from now they will probably come back and say: "You know what, Gary? I wish we'd voted for that."

We tried to be constructive. We tried, as we often do. We think: "What are we going to do for a private member's bill? What can we do?" I tried to be constructive, researched all the facts on it, presented it in not a bad fashion, hopefully, and what did they do? They did not look at it. They said: "No, that isn't the way to do it. No, we can't do that. We'll increase the taxes. That's the way to do it, Bill 86. We'll find some more revenue. It's going to fall out of the chandeliers. We know there are thousands up there. It's just hidden there. It's been hidden by the previous governments, tucked away in a mattress somewhere." Very clearly, the people are being hurt by this.

We talked about some of the other things. We talked about some of the other provincial efforts to control restraint, some of the things that were announced. Some of the other provinces in fact have reductions in the number of civil servants; we have had an increase of 10,000. During that period of time, 1985, the federal government has reduced the civil servants by about 13,000. In this province we have increased it by almost the equal amount. So all that has happened is every civil servant got on every train, plane and Greyhound bus and went from Ottawa to Queen's park and got a job. The problem is, very clearly, there is one only taxpayer in this province.

All the levels of government, including the municipalities, blame the provincial government and say it is all its fault for downloading. The municipalities blame the federal government. The provincial government blames the federal government. Everybody blames the federal government. Every level of government blames the other level of government with what I call mindless finger-pointing. That is what it is -- mindless finger-pointing.

When I went to some of the all-candidates meetings for the municipal election, they all got up and continually rattled on about the programs out there. I was going because I wanted to hear from some of the people out at those meetings, what they thought about Bill 86, the gasoline tax amendment. The people were saying very clearly they do not want tax increases, but the municipal politicians of the day blame the provincial politicians, the provincial politicians blame the federal level, and there is going to be no solution by taxing the people of this province, because quite frankly what the government gets in terms of taxes with these bills is very, very little.

We talked about the fact that some of the things the other provinces have done, very clearly, are going to be disruptive to this province.

When we talk about spending, I cannot leave without talking very quickly about the big D, the deficit in the province of Ontario. Let's put it in perspective. The deficit of this province will cost us $15,000 a minute in interest payments by the end of this government. During that period in 1985 when the Liberals came in, it was about $30 billion. To April of this year, I guess, it is projected to go to $50 billion and is expected to double over the next four years. The interest payments alone are going to cost us close to $1 million an hour.

We sit here overtime from 6 till midnight, about six hours. We speak six extra hours in this Legislature as we debate Bill 86, the gasoline tax amendment, and during that period of time the province of Ontario, not to pay for health care or the environment or education, will spend $1 million an hour, or a total of $6 million, just to pay the interest on the provincial deficit alone -- $6 million in six hours. I want to tell members, that is why we need taxes like this: because they cannot control expenditure, they cannot control their own costs, so as a result they are scrambling around trying to tax all the people of this province, who are leaving in droves, going across the border, doing their cross-border shopping, because they will not take it any longer.

I will sum up. I know I have gone on too long, and I guess I would like to leave a little bit of time for my friend the member for Etobicoke West, but I will continue on a little bit, since I see he is not here. Oh, yes, he is. I will close up and say this: We cannot speak for other ridings in this province, but we can speak for our own ridings. I want to be unequivocal and very clear. The people of Oakville South and the Burlington portion of my riding say: "No new taxes, Mr Treasurer; no new taxes, Mr Premier. Bill 86 is no good. We want no new taxes in the province of Ontario." I will stand up and I will continue to carry that message forward until this government is either defeated or listens to me.

2040

Mrs MacKinnon: During my campaign, I said I would stand up for Lambton. I have got to stand up for Lambton county tonight. Never, in all the time that the honourable member for Oakville South spoke, did he once mention what this extra tax could do. It will keep up the best medical system that we have in Canada. It will keep up the best education system we have in Canada.

He complains that somebody did not get his or her knee for a year. It is no wonder. We have not got enough doctors to do it. There are not enough specialists. I really must say, I wish just once that one of the parties opposite would refer to the fact that we do have good medical services, but they need to be improved. We need more specialists so people do not have to wait a year for their knee or their hip or whatever it is.

I just wish they would once remember that some day they are going to be 65-plus and they are going to need a doctor and they are going to need a specialist, and, by gosh, they want it paid for.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: In my capacity today as Revenue critic, a piece of paper came across my desk that was entitled Community Education and Consultation Program Status Report. This is to do with the animation program of the Fair Tax Commission.

The bottom line of this paper says they are going to have as their goal developing organizational mechanisms that will encourage communties to dialogue with the Fair Tax Commission. We do not need animators in our communities to talk to us about Bill 86 and the new gas tax. I have had all kinds of people talk to me in all kinds of places about Bill 86.

The really difficult thing for us in the opposition to place in our minds at this moment in December 1991 is that the second phase of this tax could be prevented, that there is freedom in this government not to apply the 1.7-cent increase effective January 1, 1992. This tax, for every one cent, is costing the OPP $200,000. Second, it is costing truckers. Third, it is costing every single Ontarian, particularly those who have no option of public transportation, every single day.

This tax is regressive. I do not need a consultation or education process in my riding to have people discuss Bill 86 with me.

Mr Tilson: I would like to, first of all, compliment the member for Oakville South on the wonderful speech that he just gave this House. I think the people of Oakville South and the people of this House certainly appreciate the very good thoughts that he put forward towards this dastardly bill.

I think the issue that he raised, specifically with respect to past municipal elections that have gone on, is that the people of this province have simply had enough. They have had enough taxes. They have had enough property taxes. They have had enough gas taxes. They have had enough of all the various taxes. The worst possible time to raise taxes is now, and that is what the government is doing. I will say, with all the unemployment, the businesses that are leaving, the business that are going bankrupt, the people who are leaving this country, the government could not have picked a worse time to raise the taxes.

The previous speaker talked about cancelling this tax that is going to come forward on January 1. I would support her on that. Not only that, they could cancel the tax that was put forward on April 30, because that is a total of 3.4 cents. If this government had any guts, that is what it would do. I do not believe that it will. I think they are trained to vote on what is being put forward by this government.

The Treasurer tries to tell us that the recession is almost over. I do not know how he can say that when people are going bankrupt, when people are losing their homes, when people are losing their jobs around this province. It is because of taxes such as this gas tax that that is all happening. There is no investment in this province. There are more bankruptcies, there is more unemployment and it is because of the policies put forward with respect to this specific tax.

Mr Speaker, I thank you and again I think we should congratulate the member for Oakville South on his fine presentation to this House.

Mr Hope: It is my pleasure to stand up here today and to talk on some of the comments that were made today. There is a small businessman in my riding by the name of John Stowe. He has a car dealership there. We were talking one afternoon, just having a general discussion on what has been going on. He cannot understand why the Tories and the Liberals stand today, when they were the ones who caused most of the devastation to the small business community in their area.

I hear the members opposite get up with their little signs -- it is probably the first time they have ever held a sign. John Stowe who is in my riding, a dedicated businessman, has been very dedicated not only to the community that he serves but also to the people who work for him. But I sit there and I hear the Liberals criticize about taxation, when they introduced the employer health tax, which devastated small business. I listen to the Tories, and the Tories are saying it is the worst time. I remember 1980, 1981 and 1982 when the last recession was there. Then the coffers got a little better, but the coffers got better for the Liberals, and when they got better for the Liberals what did they do? They filled their pockets and offloaded it to the municipalities, which increased property taxes of the small businessman like John Stowe.

We hear the opposition stand up with their two-hour preamble to a speech and try to get to a point, when we ever find out what the point will be about taxation. Taxation is not a pretty thing for a lot of people, but there were comments, and I am very confident of the Fair Tax Commission, because there is an individual on the Fair Tax Commission like Neil Brooks. He is far from being a New Democrat, but he is out there and he is working to try to straighten up the mess of the Tories over here. They talk about, "There's no good time for taxes." I wish they would talk to the federal government, which implemented a devastating tax on a lot of the people of Canada.

But one of the important things is that we have to straighten the mess up. We are not going to straighten it up overnight. It took 42 years of them to implement the tax, and it took five years for them to destroy it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you. We have now had maximum participation. The honourable member for Oakville South has two minutes in response.

Mr Carr: I will be fairly brief to wrap up. I just wanted to comment and thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for his fine comments on my talk this evening. I appreciate that.

To the member for Chatham-Kent, I say that as I sit back and reflect on that car dealer I look back, and it is kind of ironic; he talks about the Conservatives. When we look across here some of the young people were not even able to vote during that period of time, going way back. Certainly my friend the member for Wellington was probably barely able to vote during that period of time.

But do members know what we did during that period of time, when the problems were there for the car industry? What we did is we reduced the taxes and it spurred an increase. They dropped the taxes on the car dealership in the early 1980s when the recession was there and guess what it did? We reduced taxes and it spurred the number of sales. It spurred the number of sales by reducing them. That is how he gets people to buy, by reducing the taxes, not increasing them, I say to the member for Chatham-Kent, who does not understand that or appreciate it. If he wants to help that individual, what he should do is he should help to reduce the taxes that are out there.

It is interesting that he talks about the car industry. The president of Ford, after the last budget came in, when they put in the gas-guzzler tax, said: "The St Thomas area plant that has three shifts that are going perfectly -- what do they do? They tax the Grand Marquis, the one thing that is selling. Three shifts, we are doing terrific. What does Floyd Laughren do? He turns around and he taxes it." He said, "We put all that money in that advertising campaign. It is selling well. What does Floyd Laughren do? He comes along and puts on an increase and ups it $1,800 on something that was selling very quickly." He said, "Mark my words, if that doesn't eliminate it, the people of St Thomas will be laid off and it will be a direct result of Floyd Laughren and Premier Rae." I am glad I fought that tax as well.

2050

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Mr Laughren has moved second reading of Bill 86.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members.

Order, please. I have correspondence addressed to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly: "Pursuant to standing order 27(g) I request that the vote on second reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, be deferred until 5:45 on Monday, December 16, 1991."

Vote deferred.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Mr Johnson moved, on behalf of Ms Wark-Martyn, second reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Mr Johnson: This bill, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, implements the changes announced by the Treasurer in his April 29, 1991, budget and his statement of June 24, 1991. The bill replaces the tax on fuel-inefficient vehicles with the new tax for fuel conservation.

The previous tax was meant to discourage people from buying vehicles which had high fuel consumption. The new tax applies to an extended range of vehicles, but also encourages people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles through a $100 tax credit. The tax will apply in various amounts, depending on the vehicle's fuel consumption.

New passenger vehicles, which consume six or more litres of fuel per 100 kilometres of highway driving, will be subject to the tax, as well as new sport utility vehicles consuming eight or more litres per 100 kilometres. Light and heavy duty trucks, vans, buses and campers will be exempt. Specific vehicles subject to the tax or the credit will be listed in a regulation.

Currently, the Retail Sales Tax Act exempts status Indians living on reserves from paying retail sales tax on goods and services. This exemption applies to purchases of tangible personal property and taxable services intended for use by a status Indian on a reserve. The purchases must be made on a reserve or delivered to a reserve. This amendment will extend the exemption to include similar purchases made by Indian bands and band councils.

This bill also contains a number of technical amendments required for day-to-day operations under the act. The amendments which I am presenting today will help our government promote environmental awareness and will ensure that tax exemptions are applied fairly to all Ontario taxpayers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I wish to thank the honourable parliamentary assistant for his opening remarks. Questions and/or comments.

No questions and/or comments. Further debate on Bill 130.

Mr Bradley: I am depressed to speak on this particular bill because it represents an assualt on the auto workers of the province of Ontario, the likes of which I have not seen in a good many years. I am surprised particularly that a bill of this kind, particularly the original bill -- this is a retreat, of course, from the original bill after all the public pressure put on the Treasurer by those of us in opposition. He retreated from his original draconian piece of legislation which would have ended the automobile industry in the province of Ontario, retreated to a position which, in the midst of recession, is still worth the condemnation of all objective and fairminded people in the province.

This is characterized as some kind of a gas-guzzler tax, or an amendment to the Retail Sales Tax Act. Whatever name you want to use, it represents a tax on the auto workers of the province of Ontario. Now, the Treasurer attempted to disguise this as an environmental tax, but I remember last evening when the member for Renfrew North, who sits immediately to my left in the Legislature and is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, talked about another tax and the Treasurer -- in 1988, I believe it was -- commented on an increase to the gasoline tax which was put forward as an environmental measure by a previous government. He suggested, and I do not have the exact quote, that anyone who would suggest that the tax could be construed as an environmental tax would be deceiving the House. That was as close as you could come, I think, to breaking the rules of the House in terms of using unparliamentary language, but he did use that strong language.

This evening, I will repeat for this particular bill what the Treasurer said, that I think anyone who would try to portray this as an exercise in environmentalism would indeed be misleading the House. So I know no one will try to portray it in that light.

Essentially, this is a tax grab. The Treasurer in his early days spent so much money -- the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board did not take the necessary time, effort and energy to examine the individual expenditures of each of the ministries to determine which expenditures could be trimmed, which programs in 1991 were no longer relevant, which new programs might be postponed, and which might be abandoned completely. Instead of doing that, the vault was opened and the various cabinet ministers charged into Management Board. Their civil servants, who are eager to see many things done in the ministry, advised them on some of the new things the ministry might need at that time, and instead of anyone exercising any control at all, we had in effect the vault opened and the money pulled out of that vault rather rapidly.

Mr Conway: No money for the Golden Helmets.

Mr Bradley: The member for Renfrew North says there was not even enough money left for the famed Golden Helmets of our Ontario Provincial Police. But they did still have to tax because the deficit got way out of control, close to $10 billion, and they knew that next year the deficit is projected at some $9 billion, the year after around $9 billion, and the year after that about $8 billion. So the Treasurer said: "Where can I get the money? Why don't I, because it's fashionable to do so, bring in an environmental tax or at least one that I can disguise as an environmental tax?" And what might the target be? Well, the Treasurer recognized that we were in the midst of a recession. Certainly, members from the rest of the province who represent communities where auto workers reside and auto parts manufacturers are located and their workers reside would know the automotive industry today and at the time that the tax was implemented in the province of Ontario has been facing unprecedented competition from Mexico, from the United States and from offshore companies.

Mr Dadamo: When did you become a champion for the auto workers?

Mr Bradley: As the member asks, long before he was ever in this Legislature, I stood up for auto workers and all kinds of workers in the city of St Catharines and in Ontario. The member can take a lesson from that and ask the auto workers of St Catharines who stood up for them. They will tell him who stood up for them over the years.

Mr Dadamo: I'll ask them.

Mr Bradley: The member should do so. He should ask the president of the union who stood up for auto workers in St Catharines and other workers in St Catharines, and he will find out.

Interjections.

2100

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections are out of order, please. The honourable member for St Catharines, please address the Chair.

Mr Bradley: Obviously there is some sensitivity to the fact that the government of which the members from Windsor are members is putting a tax on auto workers in this province. I can understand that uneasiness because I have some auto workers in the city of St Catharines who, I recall, had some rather colourful things to say about it when the tax was brought in. This is not the member for St Catharines saying this. This is members of the Canadian Auto Workers union.

I quote from an open letter to the Premier and the Treasurer from General Motors Local 199 bargaining unit in St Catharines. The letter said, "Lower emission standards are the answer to saving the environment, not higher taxes." I could not agree more.

It also said GM workers' jobs in St Catharines could be threatened because they produce the V-6 and V-8 engines for vehicles that are subject to the tax. "Auto workers, as individuals or through their unions, played a major role in the election of the government and contributed tens of thousands of dollars from their wages to that end. We don't expect special treatment, but we do expect fair treatment and not to find our jobs threatened by ludicrous tax policies."

That is what the Local 199 bargaining unit had to say, and I agree with it.

There is another person, and I must compliment him today, because Mr John Clout of St Catharines has received a promotion and will be taking on additional responsibilities for the Canadian Auto Workers here in Toronto. Mr Clout has long worked for people at General Motors as the president of Local 199 on occasion and as the chairman of the bargaining unit of Local 199. I want to quote Mr Clout, who, when this tax was introduced, had the following to say:

"While I still hope for some good things from this government, its stupidity and incompetence is quickly leading me to lose faith, as I know it is many of our members. This government, and in particular our local MPPs, had better understand that we are workers and unionists first and NDP members or supporters second. So they better get their act together and rescind this tax" and put it where it belongs.

John Clout was right.

Mr Mammoliti: He doesn't have any clout.

Mr Bradley: There is an intervention from the government side. The member for Yorkview says: "He doesn't have any clout." The member will find out that Mr John Clout has an awful lot of clout in not only St Catharines, not only with the Canadian Auto Workers, but with the Canadian Labour Congress and with the government of Ontario, because, as he stated, he is an individual who will represent the people in his union first and a political party second. I admire an individual who will do that.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I wish to continue. The member for Chatham-Kent is attempting to make me smile by suggesting certain things on the other side that I would not want to put on the record. But that was a quote from Mr Clout, who does not pull any punches when it comes to this.

He has further things to say. I remember quoting him on May 14, and he said the following:

"Imposing this tax at this time on an industry that represents the industrial base of our community and province and which is reeling already from the free trade agreement is mind-boggling to say the least, and this from a government that draws its support from workers' wages and votes. One can only assume that our policymakers are a bunch of incompetent so-called intellectuals who haven't got a clue of what goes on in the real world of industrial labour."

As I indicated earlier, he goes on to say, "While I still hope for some good things from this government, its stupidity and incompetence is quickly leading me to lose faith."

This was the reaction of people in the trade union movement who recognized that this tax, which was imposed in the midst of the deepest recession Ontario has been in since the Depression of the 1930s and at a time when we are facing unprecedented competition, was an act which could only be described as foolhardy and damaging to the automotive industry and to those in the automotive industry who rely on it for the various jobs.

When I would ask the Treasurer questions, he would say, "Well, you know, you used to be the Minister of the Environment. You must agree with this kind of tax." Anybody in the province who recognizes what the best solution would be would have followed the suggestion I made to the Treasurer at that time. What I said to the Treasurer was, "If you want to achieve both ends -- there are three things you can achieve. If you want to achieve greater fuel efficiency, if you want to achieve better emission controls and if you want to achieve a bolstering of the automotive industry in Ontario, what you will do is cut the sales tax from all vehicles sold in Ontario."

That has the following effects. First of all, with the better emission standards the new cars have, we have a situation where the air is going to be cleaner. If everybody in the province had a new vehicle or was somehow encouraged, whether through tax incentives or perhaps outright grants, to purchase a new vehicle, we would have in Ontario much cleaner air.

Second, those of us who used to drive the old cars in the mid-1970s remember that those cars were essentially fuel-inefficient. The car was fuel-inefficient because it got, say, nine miles to the gallon. It was a large vehicle. The various controls on it, the various extra items on the car, caused it to be fuel-inefficient. Along came the oil crisis and we saw much better efficiency so that today, the same vehicles that years ago would get very poor mileage get good mileage.

We have a situation where we save energy. We have a situation where we have better emission control standards, and we would have a situation, if everyone were encouraged to buy a new vehicle, where we would produce more jobs for Ontario.

The argument was made: "Well, you know, this does not affect very many people in Ontario. Don't you realize we make the following cars?" Those of us who represent communities which have auto parts manufacturers in them, such as General Motors in St Catharines, Hayes-Dana in St Catharines and Thorold, and TRW in St Catharines, would recognize that we in Ontario make parts for those vehicles. When there is a discouragement through a new tax to those who wish to purchase vehicles, and obviously there are not going to be as many parts made, therefore there are going to be layoffs.

For the life of me, with all of the -- I know the problem. One of the problems is budget secrecy. I am sure that if the Treasurer and the people in the Premier's office who run the show over there had consulted with the member for Chatham-Kent and the members for Windsor and some other members who represent areas where there are large auto parts manufacturers or there are dealerships, if they had consulted widely before advancing this tax, they would not have brought it forward.

I cannot believe that people who know what goes on in those plants would support a tax of this kind. Once he brought it in, of course, they have to rally around the government, and I understand that. That is something that happens.

My friend the member for Lincoln is entering the House at this time. I am sure my friend the member for Lincoln might be considering voting against this tax, because what can the Premier take away from him now? He cannot take away his integrity. His integrity is intact because he voted against the tax on tobacco. He used to work in General Motors. This is what John Clout is talking about when he says, "A lot of people who make these decisions have never worked in a plant."

Bud Germa, the former member for Sudbury, used to have a name for them that I do not think I can use in the House.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Renfrew North says I cannot use it. The first thing was "academic" and the second was --

Mr Conway: Blank heads.

2110

Mr Bradley: Something else, something heads. Anyway, that is what Bud Germa used to say about some of his colleagues who he thought were phoney intellectuals in the NDP caucus. I saw him at the special tribute to the Treasurer. There was a 20th anniversary at the Caruso Club in Sudbury. I saw Bud Germa there. I was pleased to see him and I recalled to him at that time his statement about some of his colleagues. I assured him that this statement would still apply today to those formulating the tax policies of this province.

Mr Conway: Not Bob Rae.

Mr Bradley: He may have been referring to the Oxford-trained Premier who referred to me as a neo-isolationist.

Mr Conway: What would Bud Germa say of that?

Mr Bradley: I would not want to say what Bud Germa would say of that, but I knew what an isolationist was. The member for Chatham-Kent is driving home. I wish him well and I know he will implore his Treasurer to withdraw this tax when he comes back on Monday. A neo-isolationist: I thought, "Where would that term come from?" I was a history teacher so I remember what isolationist was, but a neo-isolationist? Then I remembered the Premier had been to Europe. It was a lovely trip to Europe. He was in Paris, Oxford, London and places in West Germany. I think he was there as well. This is while our people were in London, Ontario, Paris, Ontario, and Oxford, Ontario.

Mr Conway: In Paris, Ontario, they talk of nothing but the by-election.

Mr Bradley: Yes, the by-election is what they are interested in in Paris, Ontario, says the member for Renfrew North. The by-election has not been called yet. He referred to me as a neo-isolationist. I thought, "Where would he get the word 'neo-isolationist'?" Then I remembered that while we were debating jobs in the Legislature of Ontario, the Premier was reliving his youth as a Rhodes Scholar debating heaven knows what at Oxford. That is where he picked up the word "neo-isolationist."

Mr Conway: He's been out with Buckley.

Mr Bradley: Yes, he has been out with William F. Buckley. That was another day. All these things, coincidentally, are when the question period is on. He is with William F. Buckley debating in Hamilton, Ontario, some strange subjects because the Premier is not one to turn down a photo opportunity.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we are all amused by the member's regaling us with the history and biography of the Premier and Mr Germa, etc. However, I believe the topic at hand is Bill 130.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member is absolutely right. The honourable member for St Catharines, please refer to Bill 130 and concentrate, please, on Bill 130.

Mr Bradley: I most assuredly will do so. I am trying to reflect the views I think Mr Germa might have on these subjects, because he was a man I admired when he sat on these benches. I think he sat on that bench over there. I am just trying to remember what Mr Germa would have said about this.

Several members of the cabinet I know are worried at this time, and justifiably so, about the state of the automotive industry in Ontario. I asked the Premier last week a couple of questions about it. The reason was that I have a great fear that in my own community -- and I see the Oshawa community is under some threat, about 3,800 jobs and losing a contract; I will get to that a little later. I know that workers in my community, in the engine plant, the foundry and other components of General Motors, are expressing some great concerns about their future. They really believe that, at this time when General Motors is restructuring, their jobs are really in jeopardy. They do not believe it is fearmongering to say so. We can try to pretend that is not the case, but if one walks through the plant, talks to the people as they are coming out and talks to the people in the neighbourhood, those people know their jobs could be in jeopardy.

Many people have had many years of experience in General Motors and have worked there for a number of years. Some are younger people who have just taken over mortgages on homes or started out in married life, attempting to make a go of it and put their children through school. They are afraid those jobs are going to disappear. I am not an unfair person most of the time, at least in this House. I do not say the only reason General Motors might consider closing operations in certain areas in Ontario is because of this government. There are a number of reasons. We have a restructuring taking place in North America. There is an overcapacity in the automobile industry. There is a situation where bidding takes place between various plants of General Motors. I understand the auto industry and I understand the ramifications of their experience at present and the competition they face. I understand as well what the effect of free trade might be on the general economy, although it does not apply quite as much to the automotive industry because we are protected by the auto trade pact negotiated by Lester Pearson back in 1965.

Another factor enters into it: the high interest rates which have prevented people from making those purchases. Those interest rates are down considerably now to some of the lowest levels they have been in a long time. And of course, I consider the unwritten part of the free trade pact to be the high dollar. The fact that our dollar remains, in my view, artificially high -- if it were genuinely allowed to float appropriately or if government policy were to move in this direction, it should be about 10 cents lower than it is at present and would allow us to be competitive.

There is another factor, however, because we are facing reality: why should they stay in Ontario? That is a difficult question to answer today because I look at the government -- and well-meaning. I understand why people ran on the other side of the House. I know what their philosophy is; I know what their agenda is and they were legitimately elected with 38% of the vote, but that is the way it works in the province of Ontario. We cannot change the rule afterwards and say, "We want proportional representation now." It is winner takes all in the plurality type of election and I understand that.

I understand what members have stood for, but I am saying to the House today that they may have to abandon some of that to retain employment opportunities in Ontario. That is going to be hard to take, because some of the people who supported members of the government most vociferously, perhaps putting up the signs and going door to door, are going to say, "You betrayed us," on certain pieces of legislation. I am going to suggest to members that a number of people in Ontario who work in automobile plants and automobile parts plants are going to say, "Thank you very much for pausing in your program, for not implementing certain things in An Agenda for People, because we believe to do so would place our jobs in jeopardy."

We used to have laws in Ontario which were unsatisfactory to working people in this province as they related to trade unions and so on. There have been some amendments over the years. The Conservative government made some, the Liberal government made some and the NDP in opposition were strong advocates for those kinds of changes in the labour laws. Everybody in the House can take at least some credit for those changes. Certainly people in the trade union movement themselves who made representations to governments of all political stripes can take a lot of credit.

But what we face today is a different circumstance. We face a situation today where people can and will pull their money out of Ontario and invest it elsewhere. When I talk to neighbours on my street and ask them, "What is your number one priority?" their number one priority is maintaining their employment opportunity, and not only for themselves. Some of them who are a little older in age and experience say: "That's fine. Probably if a plant closed I would have an early pension and I might be all right, but what I'm concerned about are my sons and daughters. I am concerned about younger people in the community or younger people in the plant who can't take an early pension." If those jobs disappear, I know it is going to take a human toll on those people. The mayor, the members of city council and the people they represent know the devastating effect if parts of the plant close.

2120

I know General Motors in Oshawa is not the only industry in town, but it is the most important industry in terms of the number of people employed. So when they lose a contract to a US plant and there is a potential for 3,800 jobs to be lost, it is not just those 3,800 jobs -- they are important to those people -- it is the suppliers to the company and the people who work in those supplying companies; the businesses and services in the community, those who sell goods and services who are also affected by that.

It means, as well, that the individual community will not have the money to spend on the kind of social services and social safety net required to look after poor and disadvantaged people in our community.

I implore the government and I would applaud it. Sometimes I talk about retreats -- the Minister of Education is retreating on a bill to do with religious education, but you can take credit sometimes for those retreats. Those of us in opposition will say, "Sound the bugles of retreat and perhaps we will have some jibes for you." A lot of people in the province look at you and say, "At least they are looking at the circumstances as they are and not the circumstances as they would like them to be when they are making that decision."

This government made a decision on automobile insurance. That decision was extremely unpopular with the left wing of the NDP and with a lot of members who ran on that basis, who campaigned in many elections, in some cases, on that policy. Yet I would submit to members of the government that the vast majority of the people of this province would say, "Good for you for abandoning that because it was not going to work in the present context in Ontario."

We in opposition will point out that it is a broken promise. We will ask what that shows about the ethics of government. I suspect most people, however, in the province will say, "We want our government to do what is practically best for the people in this province, and what would be practically best for the people in this province is to withdraw this tax on automobiles in the province of Ontario."

I look at another company in some jeopardy and it is hard because I know what is going to happen, I know the company is going to come to the union and say it wants concessions. One of the hardest things a union has to do is determine whether the company is bluffing and whether, if it grants concessions, in the long run those jobs are going to be there in any event. Talk to anybody in the trade union movement and they will say is one of the toughest things they have to do. They have to represent the workers. They have fought hard over the years, sometimes having to go out on lengthy strikes to win some of the good things for their workers in the plants. To ask them to give those up, to make concessions on the threat of a company pulling out, is hard for them to take and sometimes hard to sell to their membership. I do not envy their position at the present time. I am sure they will evaluate the situation as well as they can and make their decision and, indeed, that is their decision.

There is a decision this government can make -- a number of decisions:

First, this government can withdraw taxes which are going to make this a jurisdiction in which people do not want to maintain their investment.

Second, the government can withdraw, or at least postpone, the implementation of legislation which is going to discourage people from staying in Ontario.

Third, they can withdraw or amend regulations which are going to drive people out of the province.

Fourth, thy can tone down the anti-business or anti-industry rhetoric that sometimes emerges.

I know the Premier has been trying to tone that down. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has been given the responsibility to maintain a good relationship and cultivate business in the province. He will certainly want to do that and is attempting to do that now.

All those things have to be done because it is one more component. If it is the last thing, and you ask some of the people what would actually drive them from Ontario -- because in fairness you cannot say it is just the NDP government, can you? They will say it is probably the last straw, or they may say it just happens sometimes --

Mr Wiseman: Canada can't compete.

Mr Bradley: The member never listens. We are in the midst of an important debate and the member is busy trying to score partisan points. I guess that is all right.

Mr Wiseman: You do it. I learned the heckling from you.

Mr Bradley: The member for Durham West wants to score his political points this evening. That is fine. I will just say that it is all his government's fault. The only reason they are leaving is because of the NDP government. In opposition, that is the easy stance to take.

I am trying to tell the member that is not the only reason. I am trying to tell the people of Ontario that is not the only reason. But the government does not have to give them one more reason to leave the province. That is all right when you are a teacher. I am a teacher. When the economy goes bad, I still have a job. When the economy goes bad, I can still get a raise. When the economy goes bad, I am not directly affected by it. But by gosh, those people who work in the plants of Ontario have to live week to week, sometimes day to day. They know what a recession is, even if those of us who are in the public service do not know because we are not directly affected.

I see TRW is going to be eliminating 10,000 jobs worldwide. I have a plant in St Catharines that used to employ over 1,000 people. It is down to 750 now. They cannot say in TRW that the union is driving them out. They do not have the Canadian Auto Workers. They have an employees' association. They do not have a strong union in terms of part of the Canadian Labour Congress and part of the CAW, which has been noted as being a very strong union in this province. They have an employees' association that does the best job possible for them, but they would not be considered a militant union that is forcing a company out, yet I fear for TRW in St Catharines simply because I see this happening right across North America.

I remember when the member for Burlington South was on his feet one day talking about Ford in Oakville. It was generally presumed that Ford in Oakville was going to move out of Ontario a couple of years ago. They received some money from Ontario that kept them here. It was not necessarily Ford's investment by itself, and that move was supported by several people.

I see the Conservatives have departed. I think they are regrouping to think of what they are going to do next week in terms of what is happening in the House.

However, we see TRW facing this. Again, I look at people who have 20 or 25 years' experience and there is not another job to go to. These are people who have had a specific job over the years. They cannot pick up and go somewhere else. There are some retraining programs. That is mighty difficult. To be retrained at a certain age when you do not perhaps have the background yourself to be easily retrained becomes a difficult chore, an intimidating chore.

Therefore, I implore the government to keep this in mind when we look at the automotive industry. When I ask those questions, I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is in touch with these matters, understands the problems being confronted by the automotive industry in the province and is going to do his best to encourage them to stay.

The Premier said he had spoken to Mr Peapples, the president of General Motors, Mr Harrigan, the president of Ford, and officials of Chrysler. I was encouraged by an investment made by Chrysler, a decision made in Windsor. That I was happy to see.

Members on the government side may think that those of us in opposition hope for bad things to happen so we can criticize. I would like to find another reason to criticize and I am sure I can find something else. I hope things go well in Ontario. I hope I can take another issue and deal with the Premier or the government on it. I do not want to have to preside over the funeral of the automotive industry in Ontario.

That is why I implore members of the government caucus to talk to the Treasurer and the Premier. The Treasurer is a person who has a good down-to-earth knowledge of what goes on. He is not a highfalutin person who moves in some tower somewhere and is a rich person. He is a very down-to-earth person who understands people who work in factories and people who work in industries. He is going to understand what the members are saying.

2130

Members really have to convince the Premier and the people who sit as government advisers over there, the people who sit in the ever-expanding Premier's office and make these decisions, which often do not take into consideration what is going on in the real world. Let me tell members, every government encounters this problem of losing touch with practicality and reality.

That is where individual members of the caucus have to rise up -- I do not expect in this House. It is unfair to say that, because that is not how our legislative and parliamentary system works. But I hope that when they get behind the closed doors of the caucus room and whenever they are able to corner some of the people who are advisers to the Premier, they will tell them what the policies they are developing for the party are doing to industry in Ontario.

I thought the original tax was a terrible one. I thought it was ill-conceived. I was pleased to see that the Treasurer responded and I gave him credit. I said, "If you withdraw this tax, I won't say you retreated." He did not withdraw it, so I can still say he retreated, but I at least complimented him on moving part of the way away from that tax. Basically it is a tax grab, because he needs money. Every Treasurer wants to get money and uses various methods of getting money. But I am suggesting that a tax on automobiles for the so-called purpose of fuel efficiency is ill-conceived at this time. Members opposite should persuade him to take the tax off automobiles, persuade him to provide tax incentives for people to purchase new vehicles, more fuel-efficient, better vehicles in terms of emission controls. Members opposite should persuade him to do this. This will stimulate the economy. This will make for a better environment. This will be better for energy conservation.

I would love to see the economy booming in Ontario. It would give more revenues for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who I know is desirous of having money to help farmers in the Niagara region. The member for Lincoln was up today asking a question. He wants to see some assistance for farmers in the Niagara region. The Treasurer does not have the money right now to provide. This stimulus to the economy, even though it would be simply in Ontario -- perhaps it would be contagious and others would do it -- would be very helpful in terms of getting our economy going again.

I would applaud it. I am sure the trade union movement would applaud it, because even though Bob White, who was instrumental in assisting in changing this tax, said it was a better situation under the new tax than previously, I think even he would probably prefer to see the government follow the recommendation I have suggested, providing tax incentives to purchase new vehicles so that we can maintain this industry.

Hon Mr Hampton: Jim, we're going to get your old speeches.

Mr Bradley: As long as he has looked in the legislative records. One of the things I knew when I was speaking was that they do not destroy Hansard, so I was sure to have made the same speech 14 1/2 years ago as I have made today on this issue.

Hon Mr Hampton: Was it as long then?

Mr Bradley: It was sometimes as long, sometimes more impassioned, but perhaps not as solemn as today, because of the situation I believe we are confronting. I do not want the member for Lincoln to have to go back to General Motors to see the friends he worked with at General Motors and say, "I'm sorry the plant's closing down." Some of them will try to put some of the blame on the government and the member for Lincoln will say, "There are a lot of factors," and they will understand there are other factors, but I do not want to have to see him do that. I do not want to have to go to my neighbours and say: "I'm sorry your jobs are gone and there's nothing we can do with it. I've still got my job. I'm still in the Legislative Assembly and I guess I could be a teacher if I wanted to be a teacher."

I want to say to those people that we have a government now that understands and a Premier who understands we are down to the last inning of the game, if members want to compare it to baseball. We have to make some serious decisions. I want our Premier to speak to George Peapples, I want him to speak to Mr Harrigan, I want him to speak to officials from Chrysler, I want him to speak to officials from the various auto parts manufacturers in this province and tell those people Ontario is a good place to invest and list the reasons why: Because the government has withdrawn unwise taxes, because it has postponed the implementation of unpopular legislation that is not measurably going to benefit working people in the province but will have a detrimental effect on investment in this province, that it is prepared to alter regulations which are going to be tough on industry and that it is prepared to tone down the rhetoric and talk in terms of welcoming business. If they do that, if they withdraw this tax, they will find that they have at least a fighting chance of retaining jobs for auto workers in Ontario and perhaps even encouraging new investment. If they do that, I will be the first to compliment them.

Mr Drainville: I want to make a few comments in the very brief time allotted to me and address them very directly to the member for St Catharines. I have to say it was a rather even-handed speech he gave in the House. I want to acknowledge that, but I want to say there are some difficulties I have with that presentation.

For instance, he says how unfortunate it would be if he had to talk to his neighbours and see that the plant they were working in was shut down because of the economic policies of the government here. He has admitted that there have been problems in the economy. We know that he is speaking about this particular tax bill and that he is against this tax bill. The reality is that the people across the floor have been against all the tax bills that have come forward. The reality is that we have to find the revenues to do the work we have to do in the province of Ontario.

Mrs Caplan: Now is not the time for tax bills.

Mr Harnick: That's right, raise the taxes higher and slow the economy down even more.

Mr Drainville: The opposition members who are now blathering on know that is true, even though they want to say all the things they are saying. As FDR once remarked, and these are words worth considering, "Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privilege of membership in an organized society."

We are indeed at a crossroads. I agree with the honourable member for St Catharines when he says that, because he is saying that we are at a point in time when the whole restructuring of the economy is affecting government, business and unions. He is correct when he says that.

The reality is also that some very hard decisions have to be made on how we are going to maintain the services the people of Ontario have come to expect. What we have decided in terms of the direction of this government is to provide ourselves with the revenues we need to do the work the people of Ontario have expected of us. So we are doing that. That is why I will stand in this House and vote with the government on this tax bill.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to say I have been listening very carefully to the remarks from the leader of the official opposition, the member for St Catharines. In the years since I have had the honour and privilege of representing constituents of the riding of Oriole, I do not think I have heard in this House a better, more serious speech that contained the kind of good advice that the government should be listening to, particularly at this time.

My constituents often say to me: "Elinor, why don't you help them out? Why don't you give them some good advice or some good ideas?" What the member for St Catharines did today was a very important milestone. What he did was point out to this new government that the time for new taxes is during prosperity, that the time you increase taxes is when you are creating wealth that you want to redistribute. At this time, in this deep recession, as people are losing their jobs, as we are concerned about the prosperity of the auto industry, which has been the backbone of the Ontario economy, now is not the time to further damage a very fragile sector of our economy.

The member for St Catharines has given the members of the NDP government some very good and very sound advice. His debate was even-handed, as has been pointed out. His debate was thoughtful and considerate. Because he represents a riding which has many auto workers, he knows of the impact of this gas tax, which is purely a tax grab. He knows that will have a damaging effect on automobile jobs in parts and manufacturing and assembly. I urge the members of the government benches to take heed of the sage and wise advice and pay attention tonight.

Mr Harnick: I listened with interest to the reply from the member for Victoria-Haliburton. He talked about Ontario as being a club and taxes being dues.

2140

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the comments should be directed in response to the speech of the member for St Catharines, not to the comments of the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you. The honourable member for Willowdale, please address your remarks to the presentation by the member for St Catharines.

Mr Harnick: As I was saying, Ontario is not a club, and taxes are not dues in the club. To treat taxes on that basis --

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The response is to the member for St Catharines, not the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Please address your remarks to the remarks made by the honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr Harnick: Taxes are something that governments levy on people. This government is just heaping it on the people, pile after pile after pile. They are making it absolutely impossible for the members of the so-called club to create wealth and to limit taxes and to be involved without the government creating rules and regulations for everything that everybody wants to do.

Any ability that people have to get ahead is being taken away. Everybody is being brought down to the lowest common denominator. This government is just going to keep laying on the taxes and it is going to wonder why the wealth keeps leaving this province. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, with every tax they raise, more people are going to leave this club, and this club is not going to have enough dues because there are not going to be enough people left to generate the wealth to pay for those who need it.

Mr Hansen: My friend the member for St Catharines had a lot of good points. I listened to his whole speech. The one thing I have to say is that I worked 26 years at General Motors in St Catharines. I can tell the member that the tradesmen are the top tradesmen I know in the province.

Not only that, what we have to understand is there is a bidding process that goes on every so many years. In the bidding process, General Motors throws it out to all the GM companies throughout the United States and Canada. So it takes management. I know we have good management in St Catharines. We put good bids in on motor component parts. I know the management in Oshawa also. It is up to our management there to bid, because I know we are competitive. I see the member for Scarborough-Agincourt over there. He knows what competitiveness is. We are competitive because of our health costs, which are a lot lower here than in the United States. Not only that, I know we produce a quality product in St Catharines and also in Oshawa. If you have ever seen the autoplex there in Oshawa, it is the state of the art in building cars.

As I say again, I would like to thank my friend. A lot of names came forward; for example, John Clout. I know John Clout really well. I was surprised at the letter he wrote. He did not write a letter to me to explain that he had a problem, but he wrote to the St Catharines Standard for everyone to read. It is a funny thing that the Treasurer most likely does not buy the St Catharines Standard, so it would be nice if he sent it to the government up here.

Any time that the member for St Catharines receives a letter like that from Mr Clout and he has not copied me, I would appreciate that, because I think it is very important that all the members in the St Catharines area -- the member for St Catharines-Brock, the member for St Catharines and myself -- wind up knowing, and also the members from the Oshawa area.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for St Catharines has two minutes in response.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the intervention of each of the members on this particular intervention that I made on this tax. I appreciate particularly the member for Lincoln, who is knowledgeable and has appropriately pointed out that we are very fortunate to have in St Catharines, and I think in Ontario and Canada, a highly efficient, highly productive workforce and one which is competitive within the industry. Certainly that would bode well for us in terms of the future. What does not necessarily bode well are policies and legislation that governments might have at various levels that might influence this.

Here is what worries me. I had a Toronto-based analyst, Dennis DesRosiers, telling the St Catharines Standard today: "About 18% of North American vehicles are made in Ontario. That could fall to 13% to 14% by the end of the decade. The three big auto makers are likely upset by the Ontario NDP government's socialist policies and repeated border blockades by truckers, creating havoc for the auto industry's just-in-time parts delivery program." He went on to say, "You put that all together and they," meaning GM, "might be willing to walk away from a couple of billion in investments."

I hope that does not happen, because I know we have to have revenues in Ontario. The member for Victoria-Haliburton points out that he wishes to see programs continue, as we all do. I guess there is a little divergence in view in that I believe you have to create wealth before you can redistribute it. One of the problems I see happening is that the tax base is starting to erode, and if we keep eroding it by piling new taxes upon new taxes in a recession and in a time of great competition, I am afraid we will not have any money left for the very much needed social services in this province.

Mr Stockwell: It is a privilege to stand up and discuss what is a very important tax on not just the people of Ontario but, I suppose, many industries in the province. I come at this much differently, I think, than the member previous speaking from his experience, which I thought was a very informed speech, and it was clear that more than just a simple two-hour study of the tax and the issues was at hand at this time as given by the member for St Catharines. He clearly has a background that is rivalled by few in this House and it was very interesting to hear the comments made.

Much has been made of this tax. Much has been made of it for a number of reasons. It has been made a rather interesting tax because it was the first major fallout, I suppose, that this government had with a big union in this province.

I think we should start off very clearly. Much has been made of this because it showed very clearly that the socialists, in my opinion, were very politically motivated in their budgeting and very politically motivated in their decision-making.

I think it is very interesting to note that of any changes this $10-billion deficit budget went through, the only real substantive change that took place was the change in this tax. It did not get changed or reduced or deferred or any of those things I would have liked to see; it got changed, and rather than picking on a selective mid-sized-car market as was originally announced, under the guise of another environmental tax -- I used to agree with the Treasurer when he was on this side of the House when he said anyone who tries to pass off a gasoline tax as an environmental tax is, and I am paraphrasing here, misleading the public. I think the Treasurer was absolutely right when he sat over here. Now that he sits on the other side of the House, his mind has changed, as we like to say in this party, 180 degrees in the other direction. It is interesting to note the differences and changes that took place in his conversion across the floor.

Mr Mammoliti: Are you allowed to say that?

Mr Stockwell: I am sorry, I missed the interjection from the member for Yorkview.

Mr Mammoliti: Is he allowed to say that?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Overlook interjections. They are out of order. You have the floor and they will have an opportunity.

Mr Stockwell: I understand, Mr Speaker. When he is audible it is very interesting to hear him sometimes.

It is very interesting that Bob White probably had the most impact on this government and the change that took place -- a minor change but a change none the less -- in this government's policy. He asked the Treasurer to revisit this tax, with the eye, I hope, to reducing it or changing it in some direction. Then the big union boys filed into the Treasurer's office and they gave the Treasurer what for and the Treasurer, knowing whose drum he marches to, decided to make a minor adjustment in his budget -- it may be the worst budget in the history of the province -- a minor adjustment as in, I think as our leader said, it was like tuning the radio when your car is heading over a cliff.

This is what comes of his minor adjustment. Rather than a selective mid-sized-car tax, the Treasurer has decided to spread the tax out over practically the entire group of cars that are sold in this country today, and I find it offensive.

2150

As I said in the beginning, I come at this from a different angle than the GM, the Ford and the Chrysler workers do or members from the ridings that have huge plants. My riding in Etobicoke does not have huge manufacturing plants. I do not even really believe it has a tremendously huge parts plant to go into manufacturing cars. I come at it as a person who is out there trying to sell these products to the public. It is an interesting difference because the same dilemmas, the same difficulties today facing the car manufacturers, the union representatives, the parts manufacturers and the politicians who represent these neighbourhoods are also being affected by those who are closest.

Mr Mammoliti: That is where I saw you before -- I bought my lumber off of you. I owe you.

Mr Stockwell: There he goes again. He is grunting again, Mr Speaker.

In fact, we are very close to the consumer. We are the people who are trying to market these products. We can feel it. I think we feel it in the sales industry before anybody feels it, because if we are not selling the product, the orders slow down, and of course when the order slow down, they simply adjust at the manufacturing end to produce fewer cars or there are layoffs and so forth.

I took the liberty of travelling around Mississauga and talking to some of the car dealerships in Mississauga and some in Etobicoke. I asked those dealers exactly what their thoughts on this new gas-guzzler tax were. We have to remember that the car business at the retail end is subject to a considerable number of taxes, more so than I think most people realize or understand. If we really follow the car business right to the end and right to the sales portion, we find with this gas-guzzler tax added in that when a dealer sells a car, any North American car, probably even a Japanese car, the government -- and this is a very scary number -- collects more money in taxes than the dealer actually grosses or nets out for himself.

In some cases, with the taxes that would be included, the government would have this new gas-guzzler tax, the PST, GST. It would have the air-conditioning tax; it would have the tire tax. All these taxes are compounded one on top of the other. The governments in this country, in some cases on a new car sale, would collect twice as much money as the dealer who is in fact making the sale. That is, in my opinion, a very unhealthy situation, to think that on a product that is being sold in this country the government would collect in some cases twice as much money as a dealer.

If it stopped there, if that were all the tax we paid on a car and that were all the tax that was ever collected on a car, maybe that would be acceptable. Some would say not, but others would say maybe that would be acceptable. But we must remember that the average life of a car sees it sold more than one time. It is sold in some cases twice and in a lot of cases three, four and five times. Every time these cars are sold, the taxes are once again collected for a product that was taxed properly and adjusted properly in the first place. When the government taxes a car, we are getting taxed not just on the new car sale but many times over in some cases because those cars are resold and resold.

To be perfectly clear, most provincial governments have a cash cow when it comes to new car sales and, ultimately, used car sales. Having said that, I approached this and I spoke with the dealers in Mississauga and Etobicoke. They are very upset. They are in a very difficult period. There are a significant number of car dealers who have closed their doors, and that is a very dangerous sight.

When you see a new car dealer close his doors most people think, well, there are a few salesmen out of work. That is what most people think when they see a new car dealer close his doors. This gas-guzzler tax, in fact, impacts on new car sales. But it is more than just a few car salesmen who lose their jobs. Most new car dealerships include a parts division, they include a repair division, they include an accounting division, they include sales managers, they include secretaries, clerks, a whole variety of individuals from mechanics to lot boys, to accountants, to general managers, to presidents that maybe you do not see when you first go into that new car dealership. They do exist, and they exist and they make a living through the car industry.

If you added up all the dealerships in this province and you added up all the employees in this province who work in dealerships, I am not certain and I do not have any numbers to prove this, but it would seem to me that it would be so significant it may, in fact, rival the number of people who work at one of those plants or at a couple of those plants. There are literally thousands and thousands of people who have --

Mr Turnbull: But they're not unionized.

Mr Stockwell: Well, no, they are not unionized in most cases -- but there are thousands and thousands of people who are gainfully employed through new car and used car sales in the province of Ontario. So although members may see that there will be minor impacts from some of the statements across the floor, they should not kid themselves. When people look at a gas tax increase, when people look at a gas-guzzler tax increase on new car sales, these go into making decisions on whether or not to buy a new car. That is another point that I would like to bring up, and I think the previous speaker did just that, but I would like to re-emphasize it.

When you buy new cars, you are buying cars that are environmentally light years ahead of cars that were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They are much better designed, they are much better built, and they are far more environmentally friendly. So every car that you can pull off the road between the late 1970s and early 1980s, up even to the mid-1980s, is doing a service to the environment. What the government should be thinking about, more so than taxing the new cars harder in the name of environmental consciousness, is how it is going to get more new cars on to the road so they are not clouding and plugging up the environment the way the older cars are.

Having said that too, it seems to fly in the face of what this government has said is their number one reason for introducing this tax. Personally, I believe the number one reason was to get more money. Now, that is a cynical --

Mr Owens: Very astute. That is very astute.

Mr Stockwell: The member across the floor says it is very astute, although his Treasurer certainly was not saying that during question period when asked. His response was that it was an environmental tax in hopes of deriving more income to spend on environmental programs. I am astute by suggesting it was a cash grab, and the member for Scarborough Centre across the floor is agreeing with me, so we obviosuly have a small split. Minor as it may be, we have a small split in the socialist caucus.

I think it is important that we fan out from this House, fan out across the province and ask ourselves what were the editorials across this province when they announced this new gas-guzzler tax, because I think there can be in certain instances taxes that will go down better in some areas of this province and less so in others. I did not want to leave myself in the position of only speaking from a Metropolitan Toronto or a GTA perspective. Clearly, there are issues in North Bay, there are issues in Windsor and in Kingston -- well, there is a big issue in Thunder Bay -- that I think are very important today to discuss and analyse.

I picked up, to start off with, the editorial from a Toronto paper. Its comments were very interesting with respect to -- and that is not them, but they were also very interesting, if I can find them. It was rather interesting, the number of comments that came in from around this province from the home towns of many of the members from across the floor. They went back to their constituencies and they would come back to this House saying they really had not been hammered on these tax measures and budget-measure increases. I personally cannot believe it but they have suggested it is so.

2200

Then when I read the comments that were made in the paper in some of these instances, I thought to myself, "Either the newspapers are totally out of touch," which frankly I find a little hard to believe, "or the members are out of touch." I came to the conclusion that maybe the members were a little out of touch when it came to this particular gas-guzzler tax because it is a tax that affects not just those people who are wealthy -- it is certainly a regressive tax -- but it affects those people who have less money than the wealthy, obviously.

For instance, the point was made very clearly I think from the member for Renfrew North when he said that he has a lot of constituents who have to drive in to the small towns to do their shopping, to do any number of things, and when they have to pay the extra tax, first of all on their car to buy it, which they must buy, and on their gas when they are filling up, it creates a bit of a hardship.

I have often felt that the socialists that I have known over the years were diametrically opposed to a regressive tax. They have often spoken about the municipal property tax being a regressive tax and a tax that they would not accept. If there is a regressive tax, I say to my friends across the floor, clearly that tax will have to be the gas-guzzler tax because it not only hits big cars, this tax is hitting 99% of the new cars that are produced today. It is not as if they are letting anyone of the hook, and that is a regressive tax.

Not many people today can afford to pay that new tax so exactly what happens is that this government forces an industry that is already reeling and in very sad shape into increasing the price of its product, pushing any prospective buyers away and forcing it to (a) lay off union members, (b) lay off management people --

Mr Johnson: The recession caused by the feds is doing that. Nobody has any money to buy anything.

Mr Stockwell: The comments come from across the floor that the recession does it. Nobody has any money to buy. That is a fair comment but I think members have to finish the thought. Sure, it is a tough time but there are customers out there, and in some cases, when the government slams up to $4,000 worth of tax on a new car, it scares those customers off. The simple logic shows the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings is deluded in his thinking if he suggests that by increasing the taxes the recession has driven all prospective buyers away.

Mr Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member opposite has insulted some of my constituents in South Hastings.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: I guess that was an attempt at humour, Mr Speaker, as painful as you may see it.

What that kind of deluded logic does is say, "Well, it's a recession and nobody is buying so let's up the taxes." That is simply so ridiculous and so out of touch that --

Mr Harnick: I do not believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

2206

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A quorum now is present. Would the honourable member for Etobicoke West resume the debate.

Mr Stockwell: I did want to review this issue from a cross-province relationship, so I dug out some of the editorials from around this province. I think it is important for us to review some of the comments made by some of the newspapers around this province.

I dug out a recent editorial from the Oshawa Times. There is a newspaper in a good NDP city that voted in the Solicitor General, I believe. Their editorial went like this -- some of the province's editorial writers from the Oshawa Times:

"They couldn't get it right the first time, so they got it not quite so wrong the second time. And we're supposed to be happy about it. Ontario Treasurer Floyd Laughren took back a tax designed to discourage sales of Oshawa-built Buick Regals and Chevrolet Luminas and replaced it with a tax that will discourage sales of all domestically made cars and encourage sales of a few transplant models."

That was in an Oshawa newspaper, which I think probably has a very good handle on the car industry, on what goes in to make up the car industry and on those people who are affected by increases in taxes on new cars and how they affect their industry. They said very clearly that this tax by the Treasurer is, "designed to discourage sales of Oshawa-built Buick Regals and Chevrolet Luminas," two very solid sellers in the North American market. This newspaper has said that the Treasurer should rethink his position.

I would say a paper with the substantive weight of the Oshawa Times should have a little bit of sway in this government's thinking. If they are saying that this tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time on an industry that is in as sad shape as this industry is in, it would seem to me that I would listen to this newspaper. I am sure the Solicitor General listens to the newspaper, and when the Solicitor General goes back to his electorate, which I am sure is made up of a lot of people in the car industry, the Solicitor General is going to have to defend this decision and I do not think he would like to. In fact, I am almost certain that he would not like to defend this decision, because it is a regressive tax making an industry reel in a very sour and backward economy.

The other point I would like to make is, no matter what we talk about, when we talk about any of the taxes that this government has introduced or any of the deficit numbers, the parrots from that side of the floor chirp up about the federal government. I am not a public apologist for the federal government and I am not here to defend or enhance its political agenda. What I am here for and what I ran for was to represent the people of Ontario. If they are not going to start taking responsibilities for these kinds of regressive taxes, then I do not know what the heck they are doing here.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there are enough government people here to have a quorum. They are not interested in this bill, Mr Speaker.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A quorum is present. The honourable member for Etobicoke West can resume debate.

Mr Stockwell: So we are left with a government that is discouraging new car sales, we are left with a government that is wracking the gasoline market, we are left with a government that is watching its own union people in the GM and Ford plants get laid off and it really does not care. It is a very sad day when a socialist government can see the massive kind of layoffs taking place in this province, the massive closures and the massive number of people who are out of work and it really does not care.

That is really what it comes down to, because not once in this House has anyone from this government stood up and defended this tax. Along with the gas tax, they monkeyed around about the federal government and its inability to control the economy. They have complained about the federal government, they have complained about the opposition, but not once during this debate or during other debates have they ever tried to defend the decision-making of their government. That is simply because their government's decision-making is indefensible; that is probably the number one reason.

To carry on, I would like to move on to the North Bay Nugget. Here is an example, maybe, of a northern paper that had something of interest to say on this issue.

Mr Harnick: Tell us a bit about the town of North Bay.

Mr Stockwell: North Bay, I am certain, is another town in northern Ontario that is having a great deal of difficulty during this recession, as many of the northern towns are. Certainly it is not helped when the Minister of Northern Development and Mines goes up north and slanders and smears northern doctors. That is certainly not helpful in this economy.

That is another reason this government -- again, you can see very clearly here today that they are not prepared to stand up and defend and do the honourable thing and enforce their conflict-of-interest guidelines and those programs they have introduced. The Premier wrote what he considers to be acceptable actions that his cabinet ministers must live by. Very apparently in this House today and over the last few days, it is okay for cabinet ministers to stroll about the province, slandering and smearing doctors.

Mr Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The speaker opposite is not addressing Bill 130. I think this is in order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is in order. The honourable member for Etobicoke West should and must address his remarks to Bill 130.

Mr Stockwell: I was just speaking about northern Ontario. That particular issue from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines slandering and smearing a doctor from Sudbury jumped to mind. When you talk about the north, the slandering and smearing and untruths --

Mr Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know it was just a moment ago that I rose on a point of order and suggested that the speaker opposite should deal with Bill 130, but he continues to speak of other things.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): It is a point of order, and I will remind the honourable member for Etobicoke West that Bill 130 refers to, and I will specify, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr Stockwell: I apologize. I digress, but whenever you think about northern Ontario, you think about the member slandering and smearing doctors.

I am not sure if the North Bay Nugget has written an editorial -- probably it has -- asking the minister to resign. Anyway, the North Bay Nugget, which probably asked the member to resign because of her slandering and smearing ways, said of the Treasurer's new tax and rebate scheme, "The only signal it sends is that the consumer will pay more for a new car," which I think is very important. That is one of the very clear signals it will send. The consumer will pay more for a new car. It goes on: "It's another tax added with all the other taxes, and nothing more. At this rate, some day the taxes on a vehicle will be more than the cost of manufacturing it."

They mention a point there, and it is very scary to think about. If we continue in this tax and deficit and debt approach that the socialists have become professionals at, it seems to me we might be in the very unhealthy way of having taxes that will generate more money in the coffers of government than the cost to manufacture those products. Although I think they were being somewhat facetious in their comments, the way we are going -- I suppose if one wanted to retire the $45-billion debt and the additional $35 billion or $40 billion this motley crew across the floor is going to incur over the next three or four years, until they are ousted, if one was trying to pay that off through some kind of sales tax, one would probably be in the position of having to tax for more than the product is in fact worth. That is another scary thought. The North Bay Nugget, being facetious, may be thinking a little further into the future than I think my friends across the floor like to.

The government across the floor always suggests that with a $10-billion deficit, it would not want to see taxes go up any more than they have. I guess the real difficulty I have with this is that they included some $1 billion worth of new taxes, they are going to have to include some $4 billion or $5 billion in new taxes next year, and they still ran up a $10-billion deficit and they are on their way to another $10-billion deficit.

If they had simply raised the taxes without running a huge deficit, you could almost buy into it because they would be paying their way, but the great difficulty I have with the decision-making on the other side of the House is that they not only increased taxes to the tune of $1 billion over a full fiscal year and they are going to have to do another $4 or $5 billion next year, but they also ran the deficit up. So it was double jeopardy for the taxpayer and consuming public; not only are they seeing more of their hard-earned dollars being sucked up by a socialist government --

Mr Johnson: Where is the money going?

Mr Stockwell: I know where the money is going. It is going to 14% pay hikes for the civil servants over the last year. It is going to boost the salaries of pay equity programs that were introduced. It is going to hire thousands of more new bureaucrats this government has put in place. It is going to all kinds of places. I am not sure any of them are healthy spots, but they are places that this government would see the money go.

As I come back to my point, it is much like double jeopardy for the consumer and the taxpaying public out there. We have a government that is so spendthrift in April, it could not control its expenditures. We have a government that ran up a $10-billion deficit and looked at increasing the taxes by $1 billion. Included in this tax is this gas-guzzler tax, under the guise of an environmental tax, which borders on the hilarious. As I said before, I agreed with the Treasurer when he said that anyone who would suggest that this is an environmental tax is misleading the public. I think we should say that the Treasurer may well be doing the same thing himself.

That is the double jeopardy these consumers and the taxpaying public are paying. It really does not seem to bother the members across the floor but I think it should, because come next election there are going to be a lot of people asking why they did this. When they go back to the public, they are not going to be able to say, "The federal government is lousy." They will say: "Maybe the federal government is lousy. Why did you do this?" Their defence is, "The federal government is not doing a good job." They will say, "Maybe the federal government is not doing a good job, but why did you raise taxes?" That defence is not going to wash and they are going to have a very tough time explaining away why they have increased these taxes and run the deficit up. I am afraid that saying the federal government is doing a lousy job is not going to cut it.

Now we turn to the Windsor Star. We have covered Metropolitan Toronto, and we have gone up north to where their cabinet minister smeared and slandered a doctor, admittedly made it up, and now we go to Windsor. The June 26 editorial in the Windsor Star is another interesting editorial. We have talked about Oshawa, which is a car manufacturing giant as far as the cities in Ontario are concerned, and it was real interesting, and now we go to the Windsor Star, Windsor being another car manufacturing giant.

The June 26 editorial in the Windsor Star: "Ontario's re-jigged gas-guzzler tax is better than the scheme the government had proposed in its spring budget" -- they are giving them marks for opening their minds and letting the big union boys come in and muscle them off their original position, as bad as it was -- "but let's be honest. It is still nothing more than a new way to extract money from consumers." Here we go again. Another respected newspaper that sells its newspapers in a town that relies very heavily on the car industry is telling the government that this is simply another way to extract money from the consumers.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe the government has a quorum here.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

2222

Mr Stockwell: It is really a shame when a member has to call a quorum on such an important bill as a gas-guzzler tax, a tax that is going to --

Hon Mrs Boyd: You only have two members here.

Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Community and Social Services says we only have two members in the House. May I remind her that it is their job to keep quorum. The NDP did win the election. The government must take some responsibility, and the most limited amount of responsibility is to keep quorum. The government is not taking responsibility for anything else it is doing; maybe it could try to take some responsibility for keeping quorum. That seems like a pretty simple job that even the socialists could take care of.

To get back to my discussion, I was talking about the gas-guzzler tax and how it affected the people in Windsor. That is another big town. I have now covered Oshawa, a very important community that has relied heavily on the car industry. I have gone to North Bay, a northern town where -- I do not think it was North Bay; it must have been Thunder Bay where the minister recently slandered and smeared a doctor.

Mr Hansen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member opposite has continuously antagonized the other Speaker. Now he is starting again. The Acting Speaker has already made a ruling that he is not to mention the minister. He is supposed to keep on the bill.

The Speaker: It would be helpful if the member could, first, address his remarks to the Chair and, second, of course keep his remarks in line with the principles of the bill which is before the House.

Mr Stockwell: I was speaking about northern Ontario and I was mentioning that people in northern Ontario need their cars because they travel such great distances. People in northern Ontario travel to their specialists, their doctors, in many towns, and I was just suggesting that some of these doctors are leaving the north and coming south. One of the reasons could be that the Minister of Northern Development did slander and smear a doctor. That is all I was suggesting. I am sorry if the members across the floor find that unacceptable, but I am only repeating what the minister said. It is important that we have cars for the people in northern Ontario to travel to travel these great distances. If the government keeps sending the doctors south, they are going to have to even travel greater distances. That would include more taxes paid in the gas-guzzler tax, and even just for gas at the pump. I think it is important that we ask the ministers from the government side not to go up north and slander and smear reputations of doctors by making things up.

We go to Windsor where they have suggested it is still nothing more than a new way to extract money from the consumer. Here we go again with that double jeopardy for the consumer. They have to pay more at the pump because this government increased the gasoline tax by 3.4%, and when they buy a car they have to pay more at the dealership because this government, under the guise of an environmental tax, which everyone has snickered at, including even those in the environmental industry; they have snickered at this government for pretending this is some kind of environmental tax -- they are faced with double jeopardy because the government has increased taxes and has also run a tremendous debt and deficit during the year.

It is very discouraging to the consumer and to the business person and to the taxpayer in this province that so many people can so badly manage the economy of this province so quickly. That is one of the big concerns. The gas-guzzler tax has a lot to do with that because an industry that is reeling from difficulty in this recession is now even further behind the eight ball because this government has decided this seems like an appropriate time to introduce the gas-guzzler tax and even make it reel that much further.

We move on. Here is another town. We travelled the province from east to west and north, and we heard the same thing. We heard that all sectors of this province are very displeased with this tax; probably not just with this tax but this government, as the latest polls are showing. They are dropping very quickly and they are in very big trouble.

Mr Johnson: You're wrong. We've gone up. We are at 41%.

Mr Stockwell: They suggest they are at 41%. I suggest the member pick up a newspaper and find out what happened with the Angus Reid poll.

I refer to the St Catharines Standard June 26 editorial. Here we have gone to St Catharines. I am sure the members from St Catharines will be very interested in what the editorial said in St Catharines when they go back in three or four years and try to defend this gas-guzzler tax. I am certain they will have to because there is a lot of car manufacturing taking place in St Catharines. Those people are very interested in anything that is going to affect their livelihood.

It would be interesting to hear what they have to say to the taxpaying public and to the people who have jobs in the car industry about why they introduced this tax. All they have ever said to me is that the federal government is not doing a very good job, but I do not know if the taxpayers in St Catharines will be really pleased with hearing exactly that.

The St Catharines Standard, another quality newspaper, another newspaper that I think can represent the views and the feelings of those people who live in that general vicinity, said in its June 26 editorial -- I am probably not saying anything new for the members from St Catharines, the member for Lincoln or the member for St Catharines-Brock, but I will tell them anyway because we should enlighten the rest of their cohorts over there -- "A tax is a tax is a tax" -- well said -- "and what was a regressive tax on Ontario's troubled auto industry remains a regressive tax but is spread over a wider range of vehicles than was originally proposed, and the main victim is still our own industry."

On June 26 I think the St Catharines Standard summed that up extremely well. They said this tax's main victim will be their own industry. There are not many towns in this province, I do not think -- there are some -- that would rely on the car industry as much as, say, St Catharines would.

The June 26 St Catharines Standard editorial said that the main victim of this tax "is still our own industry." I can see why some members across the floor from St Catharines would have a very uncomfortable time supporting this tax. I think they should think long and hard before that fateful day comes when this vote is put forward in this House, because their political livelihood could be put on the line. I do not think the people in St Catharines, as well as the people in Windsor and the people in North Bay and the people in Oshawa, are going to be very excited when this tax hammers them. That is just some interesting stuff that maybe these members can take home with them over the Christmas break.

That has really covered the editorials from around the province. We went west, we went east, we went north and we were in the Metropolitan Toronto area. It was very interesting to see that they all generally agreed this government's tax measures are irresponsible and the victims of these tax measures will be the auto industry and the auto industry workers. It seems awfully ironic that this government is one of the prime movers for shutting down plants and laying off members. That is discouraging and disheartening not just for me but for those union jobs that are so hard to come by. They are going to lose their union jobs because this government decides to implement a gas-guzzler tax under the guise of an environmental tax.

What is also very interesting about this -- I would like to spend just a few moments on this -- is if this government was truly being forthright with the general public in its budget announcements and its tax announcements, I think it would have been a little more upfront when it came to its environmental programs in this tax. You would think if they were going to announce this tax as a way to improve the environmental programs they would have earmarked a portion of this money to the environmental program or proportioned an account or outlined where to what account the money would go and they would have and they would have taken the revenue from this tax and put it in that account and spent it on the environment.

If they had done that they might have gotten some small applause from perhaps the environmentalists and the Pollution Probes of the world, much the same as the Liberals did with the tire tax. They have not done that. The discouraging part about that is they are kidding the troops again. They are saying, "We're levying this tax because we've got concerns about the environment and we're going to spend this money on the environment." Yet this money, every dollar that is generated from this tax, simply goes into general revenue. It would seem to me there is no commitment on that side of the House.

I do not think we have a quorum, Mr Speaker.

2230

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is welcome to continue his contribution.

Mr Stockwell: I am happy to see the member for Victoria-Haliburton back in the House.

Mr Drainville: It's very nice to be back. I don't like listening to you, but it's nice being back.

Mr Stockwell: Oh well, I have an upset member for Victoria-Haliburton. I am finding more and more of them in my path -- the upset socialists -- so it is coming to be a regular program.

You would think if this government was serious about its environmental commitment it would have opened an account and outlined a place where this money could have gone to pay for the environmental programs it had initiated. I do not honestly think they have initiated any environmental programs, but if they had thought about initiating a few environmental programs they could have taken this money and used it to pay for those environmental programs. But once again this government said one thing and it is not following through. I used to think they just said what they were going to do during the election and then did something different once they were in power.

Here is another example of a tax the government introduced in its budget on April 29, 1991. They said they were going to implement this tax and they were going to pay for environmental programs from this tax. Once again they are not keeping their word. I have grown accustomed to that. It is almost on a regular basis that they come forward in this House and explain how they cannot keep their word. That is what we call rationalizing. They come forward on a regular basis and explain why they cannot keep their word.

It is very discouraging for the environmentalists out there because they worked really hard for these people. They spent a lot of time on their campaigns, they did a lot of work for these people, and they are left with a faceless motley crew of socialists who made promises they simply cannot keep in their budget and with the gas-guzzler tax. Once again this group of socialists cannot stop themselves. They have made another promise and it was not even an election, for goodness' sake. It was not even an election and they were making promises they could not keep or were not prepared to keep.

Maybe the Treasurer and the Premier should think about keeping this promise. When they are asking people to pay gas-guzzler taxes on a new car and telling them it is for environmental purposes, they should spend that money on environmental purposes. But no, not this government, not the holier-than-thou socialists. This money is going to general revenue to offset the enormous, bulbous amount of money they borrowed to run this province this year.

Those were some thoughts and editorials that were written around this province about the gas-guzzler tax.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I thank the member very much. I did not write those. The editorial writers did, but I am certain they will take that as a compliment.

There goes my friend the member the member for Durham West. How is the dump going? It is going great?

Mr Harnick: He's not sitting in his seat, I notice.

Mr Stockwell: No, he is not in his seat, but that is okay. I enjoy interjections from my friend the member for Durham West. It is matching wits with an unarmed opponent. It is most enjoyable.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Here he goes again. He does not know when to quit. He should just walk around with a bull's-eye on his forehead. It is so much fun.

This key provision of this bill relates to the implementation in a substantially modified form of the changes and increases to the so-called gas-guzzler tax proposed in the 1991 budget. It comes back again to that they could not stand the heat from the big union boys when they first announced it so they had to fall back to plan B, which was to stick everybody who buys a new car.

Mr Owens: Women work in industry as well.

Mr Stockwell: There may be some union representatives who are female in this industry. The ones I have seen go to the Premier's office have all been men, as far as I know. If there are, I certainly do not want to insult any of the women union members who have met with the Premier, and I am sorry for that. It is Bob White who had the meetings with the Premier and he was very clear in his -- well, actually not.

Even Bob White did a major flip-flop on this one. He was like a perch on the beach when it came to this issue. He started out in favour of the budget. The sun was hot and he flipped on the beach. He was opposed to this gas-guzzler tax, because it would wreck his industry, after he heard from his workers. Then of course the Treasurer said, "We won't just do it to this many cars, we'll do it to this many cars." Then the sun got hot again and like a perch he flipped back the other way and he was back onside with his socialist cronies at Queen's Park.

Some of the facts that we must take into consideration and that need to be examined when we are dealing with any new tax are some of the facts affecting the province as a whole, because you cannot deal with any tax exclusive from the general economic health of a provincial government.

Let's look at the general economic health of this province in October 1991. It is not too late; the government can retract the tax and help an industry that is flagging. Let's look at some of these things. Do you know, Mr Speaker, that today there are 135,000 fewer people employed in Ontario than in October 1991? That is a really startling number. So there are how many more people out there who are not in the new car market, as we like to say? Who is in the new car market?

We know 135,000 people are not in the new car market, so that means you have that many fewer cars you can market. What happens is you have less base with which to attract sales and you get a government slapping taxes on top of your product that shunts potential buyers who are not unemployed. It is a double whammy here. You have 135,000 fewer people employed and you have a government taxing the heck out of your product. That is not real intelligence.

The unemployment rate has increased from 6.7% to 8.9%, which is very discouraging because again here you have an unemployment factor that gets played into this gas-guzzler tax. How many people could you possibly sell a new car to in a year? That number is calculated and worked out in a very scientific manner: the number of people who are prepared to buy new cars. When you see the unemployment rate jump, that puts a major fly in the ointment if you are trying to attract new car sales.

There are 50,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, 42,000 fewer construction jobs, 81,000 fewer trade jobs and 4,000 fewer agricultural jobs. That breaks it down into sectors of areas where people will not be buying cars. We know these people are not buying cars. They look to the government and say: "We are in very tough economic times. People are getting laid off and unemployment is the highest it's been in years." What does this government decide to do? "The best thing we can do to help in this economic time is we'll increase taxes on cars." That is so naïve, shortsighted and unacceptable. Union jobs are lost. Sales jobs are lost. Mechanic jobs are lost. The members should not think they are not.

Mr Mammoliti: Since when do you care about union jobs?

Mr Stockwell: Union jobs are lost, I say to my friend.

Mr Mammoliti: Since when do you care about union jobs?

Mr Stockwell: I care about any job.

2240

Hon Mr Ferguson: You never had a real job.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: There is a member -- I think that is Dusty telling me I have never had a real job. Yes, there is is Dusty telling me I have never had a real job, Dusty the hauler. Is that not something? My friend Dusty the hauling truck driver --

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West would take his seat, please. It may not be helpful for us to start discussing who has a real job and who does not.

Hon Mr Ferguson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: According to the standing orders of the House and the rules of the debate, while it does not state it is a prerequisite that one should have a real job before taking a seat in this House, perhaps it is an item we should discuss at a later date in order to give some of the individuals in this House a real-life experience in what it is like to earn a real living --

Mr Harnick: That's a personal attack.

The Speaker: At best it is a point of confusion.

Mr Stockwell: That is rather interesting, the Minister of Energy standing up and suggesting that. I have often thought to myself that driving for Dusty's would be an interesting job. Only one person I know who has fulfilled a life dream: He can be a part-time hauler for Dusty's Haulage and Minister of Energy next week. Rather curious life this man leads.

As far as my not having a job, I have been gainfully employed for a number of years. I have been paying a number of taxes -- some taxes, I am quite certain, that some members across the floor have never heard of.

Mr Harnick: They are called income taxes.

Mr Stockwell: I have got great concerns with any --

Mr Harnick: Some people have never gotten a cheque, except from the government. Then there is George the bouncer, the Conroy Hotel bouncer, but he was a good bouncer. When they got drunk, he sent them for counselling. That is what he said in the transcript today.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has been yielding the floor to the member for Willowdale.

The Speaker: Yes, just relax. Perhaps the member for Willowdale would allow his own colleague to continue his speech.

Mr Stockwell: I will continue. I thought the member for Willowdale was doing rather well. Anyway, I will move on, after thanking Dusty for his comments.

There are a number of jobs being lost, and I am concerned about all the jobs out there, be they union jobs, management jobs, clerical jobs, secretarial jobs. It matters not. It is a significant number of people who are unemployed in this province. Those people who are unemployed -- 135,000 fewer people employed, some 200,000 unemployed -- are obviously not going to be in the market for a car. So clearly, that cuts a whole swatch of people out of your prospective market. That is my concern. Employment creates wealth, creates spending, creates good times. It all starts with employment and the creators of wealth.

I know the Minister of Energy was a major creator of wealth with his Dusty's Haulage truck, and I would never take that away from him. The biggest problem was whether he should clutch and go from second to third or second to fourth a few months ago. Now he is the Energy minister, I would never suggest there was any suggestion that there should be some kind of prerequisite to be a cabinet minister, because the Minister of Energy has obviously blown that idea.

We move on to some of the other issues I would like to bring forward today. Doubling the tax rate on the most fuel-inefficient cars, those fuel consumption rates of 9.5 per 100 kilometres or worse, the tax on vehicles in this category will now range from $1,200, which is a significant amount of money, to $7,000, up from the previous rates of $600 to $3,500. That is a significant increase with this gas-guzzler tax.

Mr Owens: Which cars?

Mr Stockwell: I am not suggesting for a moment that these are not expensive cars, some of these higher-range, $7,000 tax, but by the same token, there are a significant number of people in this province whose jobs depend on the purchase of those vehicles. Maybe across the floor they do not like people who drive the expensive cars. Maybe they are jealous, I do not know, but there are a number of people in this province who have a lot of time, money and work invested in trying to make a living by selling these kinds of cars.

Members can flip through this and they can see that --

Hon Mr Ferguson: Let's talk about your pension, guys.

Mr Stockwell: Here goes Dusty again. Something got under Dusty's nerves. Sorry, Dusty, I did not hear you. I would like to sit down and talk to you. I think it is your round. Is there something you want to say?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Let's talk about your pension.

Mr Stockwell: He is talking about my pension now. What pension, Dusty?

I think this government should try and keep quorum without Dusty and maybe he could go have a coffee and calm down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It might be helpful if the member would direct his comments to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: Some of those people who fall into those categories who are paying $7,000 in taxes would be doctors whom the Minister of Northern Development and Mines slandered and smeared and told untruths about. Yes, there would be doctors who would be spending this kind of money on cars. We are alienating doctors at a record rate, because the Minister of Northern Development and Mines slandered and smeared doctors, particularly the doctors in the north, and it seems to me that those kinds of people would be buying that car. There are people who rely for their jobs on the purchase of those vehicles, and here they go from a $3,500 gas-guzzler tax to a $7,000 gas-guzzler tax. That is a significant amount of money on any purchase, if you are going to pay $3,500 more for that vehicle.

I think their concern is less than honest on the most expensive cars, because I do not think they drive them, but there are midsize cars and less than truly very expensive cars that go from $600 to $1,200. That is an incredibly high increase, $600 on the price of a car that is not an expensive car. In fact, I have before me here some of the numbers on some of these cars and what they cost in the gas-guzzler tax. Here we go with a few of the Audis, here is the coupe, the Quattro, and $250 would be the gas-guzzler tax on that car, which I think is an expensive, unbelievable amount of money to pay for a gas-guzzler tax. It is an Audi, agreed, but there are people who drive Audis and there are people in this country who make their living selling Audis and there are mechanics who make their living fixing Audis, so yes, that is a very important tax to put on it because it is costing people jobs.

We can go all the way down to the Lumina, $75, to the Corvette, $1,200. I spoke with a member across the floor who drives a Beretta; $75 for the Beretta is the new increase in the gas-guzzler tax. The Chrysler Daytona is $75, the Shelby is $75. But it ranges in price and it can affect cars like the Topaz and the Tempo, for instance. Those are a couple of midsize cars. Many people would consider them small cars. Those cars themselves would be rated, I would say, as small to midsize cars. They get hammered under the gas-guzzler tax under the guise of an environmental tax.

It seems to me that a pretty unreasonable thing to do is to tax a car like the Tempo and Topaz, which I would not consider to be gas guzzlers in the least. Here is a North American car: $4,400 on the Lincoln Continental. That is a car that is produced in this country, a car that union members put together, a car whose parts are built in this country and assembled here. It is now $4,400 more money to buy that car under the gas-guzzler tax. Although I do not imagine many across the floor drive Continentals, it is still a car that sells very well in this province, a car that produces a lot of jobs --

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum.

The Speaker: Would the officer please count?

A quorum being present, the member for Etobicoke West may continue with his contribution.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor and may continue with his contribution.

Mr Stockwell: As we flip through this list, you will see the Dodge Spirit, for example, $75 -- I would hardly classify the Dodge Spirit as a gas guzzler. It is insane to suggest the Dodge Spirit would be a gas guzzler, another car that has been produced in this country and built by union representatives, and it seems to me that that would be one of the last cars you would classify as a gas guzzler.

Here is another one. Members have all seen the Ford Escort. It can hardly be classified as a gas-guzzling car, the Ford Escort, a four-seater car that is not sold as any sports car. It is not sold as a gas guzzler in the least. You are paying $75 as a gas-guzzler tax on the Ford Escort. I know the members across would know the Ford Escort would be one of the last cars you would classify as a gas guzzler. My goodness, it is not a big car. It certainly not a sports car, so where did the Treasurer get this figure, this number, to include the Escort as a gas-guzzling car? There has to be some explanation, and I do not think there has been.

I think the editorials are very clear around this province, in some of the home towns of some of the members across the floor. They do not like that tax. They think it is a tax whose victim is the car industry itself, and if the car industry suffers, everybody suffers. Branch plants and parts plants close. Union jobs are jost. Clerical jobs are lost. Management jobs are lost. And one for the Minister of Energy. The guys who drive the trucks, full of cars, back and forth from the dealers to the manufacturers -- they would lose their cars even, and the minister could appreciate that, shifting from second to third. That is something he would appreciate.

Here we have a government that has given little thought, I think, to this particular tax, and it has come up -- here we go with some of the other -- Honda Accord, $75; the Honda Civic SW for goodness' sake, $75 --

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

2254

The Speaker: A quorum being present, the honourable member for Etobicoke West may resume his contribution to this debate.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I just have to take this off, so I can figure out who is yelling across the floor. Most of them are barely recognizable, but I will do my best. To the member for Don Mills, it is nice to have her here. It is good to have her here. As we move on, clearly the heavyweights from the socialists have showed up today. These are the wellrespected members.

I was talking about the Honda Civic. We all know about the Honda Civic. It broke into the North American market in the mid to late 1970s as the small car, the fuel-efficient car, the car that was going to be the cheapest and the cheapest to operate. Here is the Honda Civic SW -- $75 gas-guzzler tax on the Honda Civic.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The suggestion is made that it is 0.5% of the price, but that plus the tire tax, plus the air-conditioning tax, plus the PST, plus the GST, all that gets folded into the price of the car. The government members may not think it is a lot, but when we start adding --

Mr Johnson: That's right. Nobody comes in and says, "Oh, my God."

Mr Stockwell: The member is telling me what people say when they buy a car. We should ask him how many cars he has ever sold. He knows what people say.

Mr Johnson: You'd be surprised.

Mr Stockwell: My friend across the floor would be surprised. People ask how much the taxes are all the time and, quite often lately, people are asking with the gas-guzzler tax and all these taxes. They are asking today, "How can I buy this car for cash?" because they want to avoid all the taxes which add up to such a huge amount of money.

Now a car is a hard thing to say it fell off the truck on the way to the shop, but there is going to be a huge underground market in many other areas if we continue to tax at the rate we are taxing. So --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: They are restless today, are they not? It is exciting when they can just speak whenever they want. It is not like caucus, is it? No. We will go on. We will move on.

Here is a Crown Victoria which is a good car, a solid car, a family car. In fact, I think a few of the ministers are chauffeured around in Crown Victorias. These cars would be classified as cars that families would buy. It is a little more expensive than average, but here we go with a Crown Victoria, another North American product with union jobs. They build better, they are number one Ford, clerical jobs, management jobs -- $250 on the gas-guzzler tax, and my friend across the floor says, "No one ever goes in there and asks how much tax is here." My friend across the floor does not sell cars, because a lot of people ask, "How much tax is involved in this?" A lot of people ask that.

We move to the Lincoln Mercury product of vehicles. Now Topaz --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please.

The member for Yorkview does not contribute to the debate. I think the member would want to withdraw. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Drainville: The member for Etobicoke West shows disdain for the House as well.

Mr Stockwell: It is clearly getting late. The member for Victoria-Haliburton is feeling a little antsy here, so I will move on.

I did want to mention the Topaz because I mentioned it earlier. This particular Topaz -- the engine size is 2.3 litres which is not a big engine, automatic transmission and it gets 8.4 to the 100 kilometres. Now a Topaz with automatic transmission is not a huge car. A lot of families buy Topazes to take their children skating and to take their families on outings. With this Treasurer over here, if you wanted to go out and buy a new Topaz with automatic transmission at Christmas you would have to fork up to this government $250. That is a lot of money.

2300

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Do not even begin to make noises like that. That is a lot of money to a hardworking person in Ontario. It is a lot of money for a dealer to put out and then to have to refund to them. It is like the Grinch who stole Christmas. The members opposite are suggesting here that $250 is something to sneeze at. They should be ashamed of themselves. That is a lot of money.

Let's move on. Again the suggestion is, let's go to Ottawa. My goodness, is there not some other party line they can start parroting? If they wanted to affect Ottawa policy, why do they not run in the federal election? They have an opportunity to shape this province during one of the worst recessions and all they can offer us is deficit financing and taxes that are killing any hope of recovery. That is very shameful.

We move on to the Plymouth. This company is in very serious trouble. There are no two ways about it, the Chrysler Plymouth operation. It is in very, very serious trouble, there is no doubt. In fact some people in the industry have said it is teetering on the edge and it is very, very dangerous. For anybody to slam a gas-guzzler tax on a car operation such as Plymouth at this time is only going to speed up any process that it is going to put it out of business.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Whose fault is it, the suggestion came from my friend across the floor. I will tell members opposite one industry that was not opposed to the GST. One industry that was in favour of the GST was the car industry, because it had a 13.5% manufacturing tax that it had to pay before and it does not have to pay it any more.

Mr Owens: Did their prices come down?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, prices did definitely come down and they offered incentive financing. They tried to work their way out of the recession by offering financing incentives. They brought the price down on most cars at substantial rates. The problem is with the gas-guzzler tax --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: The other point is, sure, prices came down on cars, prices came down on gas, but when the government kicked in with its gas tax, it just hammered them right up again.

The savings were accrued to the manufacturers by reducing the 13.5% manufacturing tax, taking it off and only applying a 7% GST. The government just sucked that money up in its gas-guzzler tax, and here it goes taking it again. It is really unfortunate, because the car manufacturers, if they needed an injection, something to jettison them through this bad economic time, it was clearly when the GST got lifted at the beginning of this year and they did not have to pay the 13.5% manufacturing tax. That is what they said was a great idea about the GST. They endorsed the GST. But now when the government included its gas-guzzler tax and its gasoline tax, that just flattened out any hope of recovery for the auto market.

If members opposite do not think I am right, they should go to see their local dealer and ask their local dealer what the GST did for the car prices. Their local dealer will tell them that the manufacturing tax being lifted, at 13.5%, cut the price of cars. He said that.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Now the suggestion is made, who came out ahead, the consumers or the car dealers? A minute ago, it was the federal government's fault, now it is the car dealers' fault. When are members opposite going to take responsibility for some of their actions?

Here we move on to --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Victoria Harbour is obviously getting excited again.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I guess they would have fed them in the big house by now.

Mr Johnson: Victoria Harbour?

Mr Stockwell: Sorry, Victoria-Haliburton. I apologize.

Now, Mr Speaker, we move on to the Oldsmobile, which is another good North American product. Some of these cars you would probably yourself think about buying, being a good socialist.

An hon member: Did you do all the Fords?

Mr Stockwell: I did not go through all the Fords. There are some I left out. I would just like to hit the highlights, the Topazes and the Civics, the ones that tend to shock the viewers to think that the Treasurer is going to throw a tax on, say, a Topaz or a Civic, and a $4,400 tax on a Continental.

There are Continental drivers out there who are probably saying, "I don't think I'll buy a new Continental this year because I'm not prepared to pay all that tax." So the Treasurer also loses. He loses all that tax he would have generated from new car sales all for this $200 or $4,400 worth of increase. They have to look at it very carefully when they start monkeying around with the tax system. The Fair Tax Commission is out looking at that now and it is going to report back probably before the year 2000.

We will move on. Here we have the Oldsmobile. Cutlass, now a Cutlass Supreme -- there is a car I think you would even think about buying, Mr Speaker. Anyone in this House may think there is a good car, a good-quality North American product that is well built. It is a little more sporty than most, but none the less it certainly carries, I think, five comfortably, possibly six.

I do not sell that product, but a nice car, there are no two ways about it, $250 of gas-guzzler tax on the Cutlass Supreme. That is unreasonable. That is absolutely unreasonable. I do not think this Treasurer meant, when he struck this budget, to hammer the car industry to such a degree that it would in fact include cars like Topazes and Civics and of course the Cutlass Supreme here.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: There they go again, Mr Speaker. I think what really this proves is that anyone can get elected, and they are proving it every day. It is the only time that all 74 have been gainfully employed at the same time. I think that is another important point to point out.

Pontiac produces a number of cars from sports cars to sedans to midsizes --

Mr Sutherland: What's the best one? What should we buy?

Mr Stockwell: Well, I think the Edsel would be up the member's line. But I will try to continue. The member would probably get it real cheap.

We will move on. The Firebird would probably not be for everybody, but a Firebird is a very popular car in this country. There are a number of people who would like to buy a Firebird. They find it a thrilling excitement, but when you buy a Firebird, there are a tremendous number of union jobs that are created because you buy the Firebird. There are union jobs created, clerical jobs created, secretaries, management, car dealers who sell them; there are mechanics and there are parts. When you buy a Firebird, you are employing a tremendous number of people in the parts division. The Firebird is one of those cars that is a high-performance car and costs more than your standard Civic or Topaz. It is a car that costs a lot but then again employs a lot of people to build it.

What was the Treasurer thinking that day in April when he announced that the Pontiac Firebird would be up to $1,200? That, to me, seems totally unacceptable. There are a number of people out there who own cars and want to buy Firebirds and Camaros and they are faced with a $1,200 --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I heard a Subaru over there. Well, a Subaru is an interesting car because of course it is the kind of car that would cost -- oh, here, a Subaru, sure. Subarus, for instance, are very good cars. I am glad the member brought that up. They are going to see a gas-guzzler tax of $75 on a typical Subaru.

I think members get my point. Right here is a list of all the cars in the province that are sold and all the gouging that this government does to scratch out more money from that unsuspecting public, the overtaxed dealer and the underemployed union member. It seems to me if this government had honestly thought this through, it would not have come forward with this kind of tax. Bob White could have probably brought a little more sense to bear in that cabinet meeting and it would have been a lot more helpful to the people in Ontario.

I think what we should do is ask the members across the floor to ask their Treasurer or maybe their caucus chairman or maybe even a cabinet minister if they can get his ear for a couple of minutes one day and see if they can get a copy of this. It is something everyone should read to really appreciate the devastating effect that the gas-guzzler tax has on the auto industry.

I want to move on now that we have discussed that. That is --

Mr Mammoliti: I want to know what you drive.

2310

Mr Stockwell: I am sorry, I have got another interruption. He wants to know what I drive. There is an inquisitive mind. He is going places, he should be in the second row pretty soon, I would bet. So he should keep it up; he is going places.

Mr Mammoliti: Is it a North American car?

Mr Stockwell: All my cars are North American. All the cars I drive are North American products, there is no doubt about that. The member has an inquisitive mind. He probably reads the Toronto Star, that is for inquisitive minds, or the National Enquirer. He probably picks those up on his daily sojourn to --

Mr Mammoliti: Frank magazine.

Mr Stockwell: That is right. We were both in that at one time, I think, were we not? So I move on. The inquisitive minds over there throw me right off my game plan when they say thinks like, "What kind of car do you drive?" Gee, heckling, I cannot take it.

The Speaker: We are back in the game plan now.

Mr Stockwell: My heart be still when the witticisms come racing across the floor from the member for Yorkview.

Mr Mammoliti: You still haven't answered the question.

Mr Stockwell: I will answer his question. Clearly he is not going to sleep right tonight if I do not tell him what kind of car I drive, so I will fill him in. I drive different cars. It could be a Taurus, a Crown Victoria, a Tempo or a Topaz. It could be any one of those.

Mr Mammoliti: You have the luxury of choosing.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, an Aerostar I will jump into every so often, but those are the kinds of vehicles I like to travel around in. My wife drives different cars as well. The member can probably phone her and ask her what she drives. Exciting weekends the member must have back in his home riding. The constituency office must be a barrel of laughs to be around I suppose.

It is really interesting. It is like the dog days of baseball, I suppose, in the summer, these December meetings closing in on Christmas, and the deep thinkers from across the floor drawing House duty. So I can only accept this for what it is.

I wanted to move on and talk about what this government should have thought about in the first place when it was thinking about its gas-guzzler tax. What I think it could have done which would have been a little more encouraging is much along the same lines as the member for St Catharines speaks of.

Rather than look at a tax on vehicles -- and I put this to the Treasurer, I think just a couple of days after the budget. I thought of this because, being in the car industry, I had a lot of people come to me and say there are two ways to create environmentally sensitive cars or newer cars on the roads. There is the punitive way which was adopted by this government, and the members across the floor know it full well, to tax. But it is not an effective way, because rather than buy new cars, which we should be encouraging out there because newer cars are more environmentally friendly than the older cars -- so we should be encouraging consumers to buy new cars.

But, again, as I said, there are two ways. There is the punitive way which is counterproductive. If the government becomes punitive or increases taxes on new cars, people do not buy them. People who were thinking of buying new cars choose not to buy new cars. What happens is it leaves the older cars on the road longer and they pollute the environment far more than newer cars would have.

The other method, which a lot of people in industry use right across the board -- particularly in the car industry or the housing industry if it is slow, or any industry if it finds it is in economic tough times -- is they give incentives. I am certain even some of the members across the floor will realize that some manufacturers are giving incentives on cash rebates, for example. If you buy a car you will get X amount of money back from the manufacturer. If you, for instance, buy a car, you can get a preferred interest rate from the manufacturer.

The government can do the same thing. If it wants to see newer cars on the road for environmental reasons, it has two options. It can give the incentive option, which would mean it gives tax reductions to people who bought cars that were more environmentally conscious or got better kilometres to the gallon, or it can be punitive. As I said, the punitive angle does not work, because it just repels people who are thinking of buying new cars. "No, I'm not going to pay that extra 48$"; "I'm not going to pay that extra 48$"; "I'm not going to pay that extra money for a new car, because I simply can't afford it," or, "I'm not giving another nickel to that socialist government in Ontario."

The other method the government could use, as I said, is the incentive method. This has been tried all over. In fact, in the last provincial recession that we had in the early 1980s the provincial government offered provincial tax holidays for the purchase of major appliances and so on and so forth, which was intended to spur the economy. As members know, to some degree it worked. Some will say in the industry that it only worked for the period of time they offered it. They did sell a lot of product, but after it was removed they did not sell nearly as much. But during those tough economic times when they lifted the provincial sales tax it did spur the economy in that industry. It spurred the economy in some of the industries. That is what we call an incentive.

Hon Mr Ferguson: So we should be doing that.

Mr Stockwell: My suggestion has always been if the government is going to run a deficit, which it seems intent on running, rather than spending more it should be offering incentives. If it was a deficit by running --

Hon Mr Ferguson: I guess that means yes.

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me. Yes. I am not in favour of deficits, but if they are going to run a deficit, it is a healthier deficit to run if they are offering incentives to the taxpayers rather than punitive measures to force them out of the market because they are never going to recover from a recession until the market starts regenerating. People go out with some confidence and buy. They not only buy cars, they buy appliances. They buy anything. It does not matter because that starts regenerating the economy. But they were totally punitive in their tax measures as far as jump starting this economy.

The $700 million that they spent in their program to jump start the economy through capital expenditures -- how much money was eaten up on the process road? How much was eaten up by provincial bureaucrats? How much was eaten up by municipal bureaucrats? How much was eaten by people who work in the industry -- senior people, presidents and secretaries -- who took so much out? If they offered incentive tax holidays they would not need to have all that money eaten up in the process because the people who spend the money would get the savings and they would go out and spend the money.

In the early 1980s that was the attitude taken by the government of the day in Ontario. I am not in favour of deficits. I do not believe in deficit financing, but I can almost hold my nose and look the other way if they are going to deficit finance if they offer incentives rather than being totally punitive. By being totally punitive, all they cost themselves is more opportunity for people to spend their money to buy cars that produce not just union jobs, but jobs all over this province.

When I speak about the punitive and the incentive, I know. I have read up on it. I know some little bit about it and it seems to me that anybody --

Hon Mr Ferguson: Very little.

Mr Stockwell: The member across the floor says very little and I guess that is his impression. I am sorry if I have left him with that impression, but I believe I know as much as he does which would make us a little bit.

Hon Mr Ferguson: We can't afford to lease cars from our own company.

Mr Stockwell: He is now suggesting you lease cars from your own company. They must have wonderful caucus meetings. Dusty and George having a deep-thinking conversation -- it would be something else to behold, I am sure. I am sorry I tried to explain it to Dusty, but one day he may think of this for a few months on end and it might bang home.

As we move on, the incentive process is one method and a punitive process is another. I am almost tempted to use the word "remuneration," but I may mispronounce it so I will move on. I suggested the punitive and incentive programs are two methods that they can use to hopefully jump start the sluggish economy. There are two industries that are very important when it comes to sluggish economies. I think right around this room everyone will agree the two industries that seem to be the leading inidicators for getting out of a recession are the car sales market and the housing starts market. Why? Because they seem to employ a broader range of people because of the amount of money they spend and the number of extras that go into it.

For instance, in the car business there are the parts manufacturer, the union jobs, the sales jobs and the parts jobs, etc. In the housing industry there are the carpenters, plumbers, roofers, electricians and so on. So those two are two very important sectors in the Ontario economy. In fact, it used to be that the car industry was number one, but during the 1980s boom the housing starts industry even surpassed the car industry as one of the leading indicators for slowdown times.

You will know, Mr Speaker, if you meet either of those two industries, that they are in very serious trouble. They have got very serious concerns. Those two industries, if you offered them some kind of incentive -- and you were going to run a deficit -- rather than a gas-guzzler tax, so they may sell their product, it may in fact help us get out of this recession. By helping us get out of the recession, you could employ a multiple of jobs. It would be exponential in its growth, because it would be a single house, but it would be exponential in its growth through the number of people that it employed and created work for, through the forestry industry, the union jobs in St Catharines and Windsor, and so on and so forth.

2320

But -- and there is always a big "but" at the end of these speeches when you have the socialists in power -- they have decided, "Oh, no, we don't want to jump start the economy through effective measures that have been time-honoured and proven. We want to run a huge deficit that we have absolutely no hope of paying off at all." In fact, they will never pay off one year's worth of deficit, even if they were in for 10 years, which they will not be. But they want to run up $45 billion and $50 billion worth of deficit in four years. On top of that uncertainty in the market and on top of all that lost consumer confidence they also want to tax you to death. They also want to hammer you at the gas pump. They also want to hammer you when you are buying a new car. They want to hammer you at every turn, and they think this is helpful.

They sit back and make smart remarks about leasing a car. You think that is helpful, Mr Speaker? It is not helpful in the least. It is just driving us further and further and further down a road where I am not sure economic recovery will ever be possible under these people. It is getting very dangerous to walk into a car dealership and see the owner, who has been there for years and years and years, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and all they can do on the other side of the House is snicker. It is not funny.

They should speak to their own members. I spoke to one of their members today and talked about one of the biggest dealers in Orillia. It closed. He has been in business 25 or 30 years. It closed.

Hon Mr Ferguson: Because there are too many people in the leasing business.

Mr Stockwell: There is Dusty again with all the answers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: There seems to be some suggestion --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I will have to tell them again, I guess. There is some suggestion across the floor from Dusty's Haulage that leasing does not create jobs. Mr Speaker, let me explain the leasing business as well, because I think it is important that we explain it slowly -- no question, very slowly. If Dusty listens very carefully, there may be a staff person back there taking notes, and they can explain it to him again tomorrow.

Mr Harnick: Don't leave out the banks.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, I will get to the banks.

The leasing business also creates jobs. The problem with the gas-guzzler tax to the leasing industry as well is, most people who lease today, due to tax changes a few years ago, are companies. They used to be individuals who could in fact lease, with some incentives from a tax position. Those tax holes were closed a few years ago, so it is mostly companies who do not want to get involved in the ownership of vehicles. They simply want to lease a vehicle they can return and not have anything to do with in three or four years.

The gas-guzzler tax is still applied to those leased vehicles. There is a blank look. The gas-guzzler tax is still applied to those leased vehicles. So when you sell those leased vehicles, someone must buy them, whether it be the leasing company or the dealership.

Mr Harnick: Where do the vehicles come from?

Mr Stockwell: They come from one of the big three vehicle suppliers: GM, Chrysler or Ford, or Honda or any of the offshore product as well.

Mr Harnick: How many people are involved in the construction of those vehicles?

Mr Stockwell: Involved in the construction of those vehicles would be many people, more, let's say, than would work for Dusty's Haulage. More people would be involved in the construction of those vehicles than would be employed at Dusty's Haulage.

Mr Harnick: Just who would be employed?

Mr Stockwell: Union workers, presidents, secretaries, parts manufacturers, all kinds of people.

Mr Harnick: How do those cars get from the place where they are made to where they are sold? Where do the cars go next?

Mr Stockwell: I do not want to treat this as an issue that is not important. It is important. It is also very important in the leasing business. Not only do we have people in the new car dealerships and union jobs having trouble; we also have leasing jobs on the line. Today you can see leasing shops all over. They have their own showrooms and all they do is lease all makes and models. This is another sector of the industry that is affected by this gas-guzzler tax.

Again, from a straight dollars-and-cents point of view, this government is giving up more money in taxes. It is a very important point. It may be one that is very difficult for the members to follow, but if they listen carefully, this government is giving up more in taxes with this type of tax, because the incremental increase this tax sees on the price of a car, to the effect it turns a consumer off buying a car altogether, the amount of money the government has lost is tenfold.

When they introduced this tax, they thought they would generate more money. They are not. They are costing themselves tax money because it turns people off of buying cars. That incremental amount on the price of a car with the gas-guzzler tax is how much they would have gained had they sold it, but it is this much they have lost because they did not sell it.

That is a very complicated process, but again, I have great faith in the members opposite that they will sit down tomorrow with Hansard and understand.

Let's deal with some of the concerns I have that the Treasurer -- my briefing notes for the Treasurer's announcement --

Mr Mammoliti: We're all going to read up about Bart Simpson tomorrow. I can't wait to read up about Bart Simpson.

Mr Stockwell: There goes the member for Yorkview again. He is audible again. It is amazing.

Mr Mammoliti: I can't wait to pull out Hansard and read about Bart Simpson.

Mr Stockwell: There he goes again. We will have to hear him out. It happens like this. He just goes on incoherently for moments on end. But he will stop. There. Do the honourable members know why he stops? He starts letting air out.

Pink Floyd is set to turn into Scissorhands, the deficit cutter. There are very interesting notes in here. It seems to me that if on September 30, 1991, the Treasurer of this province could find some areas he could cut that would save the taxpayers money --

Mr Mammoliti: Will you do the Bart Simpson dance for us?

Mr Stockwell: There he goes again.

Mr Harnick: He's talking about cartoons now. He was up early Saturday morning to watch cartoons.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, he was up early Saturday and he got to see all the cartoons. That is good.

Mr Harnick: He analyses them. It takes him all week to analyse them till he watches them the next Saturday.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, it used to be unacceptable, because they only let the member for Yorkview out on weekends, but now he has a full week to express himself.

Moving on, members know that in September the Treasurer announced some cuts to the budget. Those cuts were designed to roll back some of the expenditures this government had incurred over roughly the first 12 months of doing business. It seems interesting to me that in September 1991 these government members could find some $670 million worth of cuts in order to bring about a deficit acceptable to them, $9.7 billion. Only to them; I do not think anyone else considers it acceptable. They could find $670 million-worth of cuts. They cut things like -- well, there were more deferrals rather than cuts, but what they did was they cut back on their spending.

It seems to me that if back in April government members, when doing their budget with this gas-guzzler tax, the trucking tax, the fuel tax -- all the taxes they were going in to include it, could have just taken a sharper pencil to their budget in April, the unsuspecting consumer and taxpayer in the province of Ontario would not have to accept these taxes.

Do not tell me they could not have, Mr Speaker, because as few months ago as September, the Treasurer found $670 million he could cut out. Why did he not do that in April? Then we would not have to be subject to some of these taxes. In fact, the accrued amount the taxes would generate for the rest of the year from April on was about $670 million. The Treasurer found $670 million in September and included roughly $640 million in new taxes in April and he said there was no way he could cut back. I challenge the Treasurer that he was kidding the troops again, because there he was in September cutting $670 million and back in April he was increasing taxes by almost exactly the same amount of money.

2330

I want to make this point, because all the people in Ontario today could be living without that gasoline tax, all the truck drivers today could be living without that fuel tax, all the car dealers and workers and so on could be living without that gas-guzzler tax, if the Treasurer had sharpened his pencil to the same point in April that he did in September. Now he has done it again.

Mr Mammoliti: Say "GST" too. Say it.

Mr Stockwell: We have a member across the floor saying "GST." Maybe I can keep him busy for a while. Let him spell IQ. That will keep him busy for quite a while.

We move on and come up with some of the Treasurer's comments in the paper during those budget statements. "We made a choice in this budget to fight the recession and not this year's deficit because we believe that is a priority for the people of Ontario." Why the heck did he not sharpen his pencil a little better? The people of Ontario would not have had to suffer one tax increase, not one, because he seemed to be able to make those cuts in September. I think there leaves a lot to be desired.

He went on to give us a little background and a little of this and a little of that. The Premier got into the act and said, "There was no way we could cut any more and it was totally unacceptable that we couldn't come forward" --

Mr Owens: I have never seen a place with so much carpet that smells so much like a pasture.

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me, I am getting heckled even from the back benches, by the member for Scarborough Centre. It is difficult enough to keep my attention as they heckle from that side.

Mr White: You seem to be abandoned, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, there are only 20 of us. Sometimes it gets to be tough, but we are a hardy lot. Let me give members my word: We are a hardy lot of 20. It is difficult sometimes to sit across from 74 socialists, but we have had to learn to do it.

Mr Mammoliti: What does the word "lemon" mean to you?

Mr Stockwell: There is an excellent comment, but I cannot even make it in this House.

Where are we going in the guise of the environmental tax and the gas-guzzler tax? I would like to put to the members opposite -- I think some of them, being in cabinet, would like to know the answer to this as well -- where is it exactly that they see the money that is taxed back on the gas-guzzler tax being spent on the environmental initiatives? We have not had any legislation from the Minister of the Environment. Well, we have had one piece of legislation from this Environment minister that usurps any rights of people to oppose two expansions to landfill sites in Peel and York. I made a very long speech last week, about an hour or an hour and a half, outlining my concerns. I said at the time that this environmental minister had not delivered on any of her promises.

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, here comes Harnick. Harnick is back.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, there he goes again. We have a job for the member for Yorkview. He announces everyone who comes in and everyone who leaves as well. That is probably something he can handle. They may even give him $4,000 or $5,000 a year for doing that in his caucus. They seem to give it to everybody else for anything else. Someone might leave, I say to the member for Yorkview. He should keep his eyes open.

I wanted to mention that environmental issue. I wanted to mention it to a few cabinet ministers who are left. I think they should go to the next meeting and ask the Minister of the Environment and the Treasurer whether they were very serious when this gas-guzzler tax was introduced. If they were, where is that money being spent on the environment? All I have ever seen that money go to is general revenue, and if it is only going to general revenue, that means it is not necessarily being spent on the environment; it is simply being used to reduce the deficit. I do not necessarily think that is a bad idea, quite frankly, but the government said when it announced this that it was going to be spent on the environment.

The other point is they were very clear in their opposition to the last Liberal government's tire tax and the fact that it was supposed to be spent for environmental purposes as well and clearly it was not. They were very critical in their opposition. It was another tax on automobiles. None of that money, not 100 cents of that money is being spent on the environment. Now they have added on top of that the gas-guzzler tax and that money is not being spent on the environment. They have got a lot of promises to keep. Not all of them are as expensive as others.

I see the Minister of Education here. He is probably working diligently on the 60% promise, no doubt about it. That is going to be an expensive promise and he knows it, but I am certain if anyone could keep that promise -- no, I do not think he could.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The gas-guzzler tax is a lot, but I do not think he can have quite enough to keep that 60% promise, although I think he will try. I hope he will try. Good luck to him.

To put this in perspective, I say to the ministers, next time they go to cabinet they should ask the Minister of the Environment, "Where is this account supposed to be, how much money have we got in it from the gas-guzzler tax, how much money do you expect to have in it and when are you going to spend the money for environmental purposes?" As far as I know, it is being put into general revenue, which some would suggest is being less than forthright with the electorate.

I would never suggest they were being less than forthright. The 60% thing will be hard to do. The day care issue and the housing issue -- sure, they have broken their promises on those. Insurance -- yes, they have broken their promise on that. Rent controls -- yes, they have broken their promise on that. They have pretty much broken their promises on everything, but I do not want to suggest they are less than forthright because that would be unparliamentary and get me kicked out.

I do know that the Premier himself sat downstairs and called Premier Peterson a liar five times for not fulfilling his promise on the insurance industry. It seems almost ironic that he could call Premier Peterson a liar five times because once he did not fulfil his insurance promises, yet this Premier promised full public auto insurance and did not fulfil it. I wonder if he still thinks Premier Peterson is a liar. If he still thinks Premier Peterson is a liar, I wonder what that makes him. But that is in his own mind.

But we do know about the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. We certainly know about her, because she admitted it herself. I digress again, but sometimes I cannot help it. I look across the floor and neither of them is here.

Mr Mammoliti: Do the Bart Simpson dance for us, just once.

Mr Stockwell: He wants to know about Bart Simpson. He is an excellent performer. It is kind of exciting to have him here.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I move on. When the Treasurer first introduced his gas-guzzler tax --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: There they go again.

When the Treasurer first introduced the gas-guzzler tax in his budget, he said it would have no impact. Now get this. The Treasurer said it would have no impact on the automobile production industry. How naïve can you get? He said that introducing this tax would have no impact on the automobile production industry. It is just unbelievable that a man as learned as the Treasurer -- I will say the Treasurer is a well-respected soul -- could even make that comment, could even say that. That is just so out of touch. It took Bob White to straighten him out. It is just unbelievable that a Treasurer could make that statement. It took Bob White whispering in his ear for him to acknowledge that there were repercussions and he did an about-face on that tax.

The original tax would have applied to 10% of all new vehicles in Ontario. This new version means -- get this -- a $75 tax on any car that consumes between six and 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres, which includes -- this is what is most interesting -- 90% of the cars sold in Ontario today.

2340

I do not know what the Treasurer was thinking when he made the suggestion that by putting a minimum $75/maximum $7,000 tax on cars in this province today, a tax that would include 90% of the cars sold in Ontario, it would have absolutely no impact on the automobile production industry. Talking to the members from St Catharines, they know full well from their people, they know full well from their newspapers that these kinds of taxes are the taxes that are hindering an industry that is already reeling.

Talk to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the representative in cabinet of business, business' best friend in this government. No, we cannot go on that way; it does not make sense. The wrong tax at the wrong time for the wrong people. Let's move in the right direction. Let's get people back to work. These antibusiness tax-grab measures undermine our ability to do business. I do not think anyone who is in business today would argue against the view that these antibusiness tax-grab measures undermine our ability to do business. That is absolutely, unquestionably one of the truest statements that could be made.

Every time the government introduces a new tax in this province, a province that ranks number one in North America as far as the tax situation is concerned, it is just putting us further behind the eight ball. I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is hearing this from business. I know they are telling him it is very difficult to do business. I know they have concerns about the deficit.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: There he goes, the broken record, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. He woke up, wiped the sleep from his eyes and the first words out of his mouth were, "GST; federal government." Once again, a minister of the crown not taking responsibility for his own government's actions. They are phoning you, Mr Philip. They are not asking about the federal government; they are asking about the tax measures you are implementing and the deficit you are running up. Wipe the sleep from your eyes and get in the game, Mr Philip. Businesses are in big trouble in this province and you are their representative in cabinet.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The subject under debate is Bill 130 and not a personal attack upon the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Speaker: It indeed would be helpful if all members would remember to refer to each other by the names of their ridings, although obviously calling each other by surnames or even first names may show a sign of endearment. Would the member for Etobicoke West please continue with his remarks?

Mr Stockwell: That was an interesting intervention. As I was saying, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is business' representative at the cabinet table. I do not think anyone will debate that when one is Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology one represents business at that cabinet table. When it comes to the gas-guzzler tax or the gas tax or the fuel tax or whatever tax, or the deficit, businesses have been trying and in some cases getting through to the minister and they have been outlining some very real concerns and very real problems in this province today.

When they have the next cabinet meeting, it would be helpful -- I can register the complaints firsthand from the dealerships I spoke to in Mississauga and in Etobicoke who have said the gas-guzzler tax is just another tax to heap on top of an already overburdened tax system in the new car business. It was not needed and it cuts into the capacity to stay in business. I know full well that in Etobicoke-Rexdale there are car dealerships which have closed down after many years in business. I know them personally in the home riding of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: There goes the member for Yorkview again. He is almost being coherent, and I think it is big of him. I think I should let him continue if he is going to be coherent. That is the member for Yorkview, the bouncer at the Conroy Hotel.

Mr Harnick: He is a good bouncer.

Mr Stockwell: He is a good bouncer. He used to offer them counselling if they got drunk. It was an enlightening point in my life when the member for Yorkview filled in the standing committee on general government on that; it was an exciting moment. They say they are going to write a book about the member for Yorkview. It would be very interesting. I am not sure you can sell a four-page book, but they may well write the book.

Common sense says to regulate fuel-efficiency standards that must be met over a period of time by the car manufacturers. There is another process that the government can use if it truly is an environmental concern. I say to the members from Windsor, St Catharines and Oshawa, all these towns that have a tremendous car industry, that have a great willingness to see a flourishing car industry, that if they really want to see a more environmentally friendly car, they should not worry about taxing the cars, because they are not going to sell them. They should regulate the cars like they did in California, say; they should regulate the cars if that is really what they are trying to do.

I seriously question whether they were really trying to regulate environmental standards or if they were simply in it for the money. The member from Scarborough before suggested they were in it for the money and I really think they are in it for the money, but they did not want to seem so obvious about it so they suggested this tax grab in the gas-guzzler tax and they introduced it under the guise of an environmental tax.

What it comes down to in the end is one simple and very clearly stated fact. This tax will raise money for the government, no two ways about it. This tax will raise money for the government, but it will do absolutely nothing for the environment. They have hung their hats on the fact that this tax was an environmentally conscious tax and not a tax grab. But in conclusion to this segment of my speech, this tax will raise money for the government -- I want to get it on the record -- but will do nothing for the environment.

Mr Mammoliti: Will you finish the Bart Simpson dance, please?

Mr Stockwell: There he goes again.

Mr Harnick: It's Thursday night. He missed Bart Simpson.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, that is a shame. That is his intellectual stimulation for the week.

I assembled some interesting information that I think really cuts to the heart of why this gas-guzzler tax is not going to be successful. Look at the recent federal government figures that show the Ontario personal income tax collections are down a total of $2.1 billion for the 1990-91 tax year. What does that figure say? If the members opposite were sitting around with a group of people writing the budget or the Agenda for People -- better say the budget, because it needs to be a little more reflective -- and saw that the personal income tax was down by $2.1 billion, it would clearly tell them (a) a lot of people are not working this year who were working last year and (b) there is not as much money out there to spend.

2350

So we ask ourselves what this government would do to help stimulate this economy. It seems pretty clear to me when we look at the $2.1-billion loss in the 1990-91 tax year that the best thing the government could do is create employment, but if there is one thing this government has been absolutely hopeless at it is creating jobs. It has not created any real work. Members point to a few government programs which employ bureaucrats, as if that means it is work. We all know that every time you hire another bureaucrat that is not work; you are just creating another tax. I am talking about real jobs from wealth creators, from the private sector, true jobs that the general taxpaying public does not have to pay for. This government has been absolutely abysmal at that end of the record.

This government's suggestion is that the recession has a lot to do with it, but there is something else that has to do with it as well. The tax hikes have something to do with it. If any business had any thought of expanding its workforce but realized it was going to be hit with a fuel tax if it was in the trucking business or a gas tax if it had to pay for its salesmen to get around or a gas-guzzler tax if it had to renew its rolling stock, it would start to think twice. That makes a lot of sense.

Or what about a company thinking of relocating? The big problem we face today as a government is the $2.1 billion in lost taxes, the jobless, the unemployment rate. That is the biggest problem we face; this government would be in a lot better situation if there were not as many people unemployed. So if someone were contemplating a move to or opening a business in this portion of the continent, what would inspire them to come here? We have labour laws that no one else has seen that are somewhat onerous, in my opinion; taxes that rank us at number one in North America. If they are thinking of increasing rolling stock, there are taxes on tires and taxes on air conditioning if you get air conditioning in a car, which practically everybody gets today. There is disposing of the tires; you have to pay a tax.

That is another great thing: When you buy the car you have to pay a tax on the tires; then when you change tires you have to pay a tax to dispose of the tires. What did this government do with the tax it charged me in the first place? I have to pay a tax to buy it and I have to pay a tax to dispose of it, and in the meantime this government has done nothing to figure out what it is doing with all these tires. Talk about irresponsible, talk about unacceptable, talk about shortsighted, talk about less than honest with the taxpaying public.

One of the biggest complaints I hear is the tire tax. People complain they have to pay a tire tax when they buy the car and a disposal tax on tires when they get rid of the tires. That is at both ends; they get taxed at both ends.

Mr Hansen: You are incorrect.

Mr Stockwell: No, I am not. Well, the member can correct me.

Mr Wiseman: It is not a tire tax.

Mr Stockwell: The members opposite are suggesting it is not a tire tax to get rid of them. When you take your tires in to dispose of them, you get charged. There is a tax on that charge, and the provincial government gets a portion of that money. It gets money up front and it gets money at the end. Do not tell me I am wrong. I know I am right.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are not discussing the tire tax bill. That was the last government's.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West was indeed addressing his comments to the bill, although they seemed to stray slightly. However, there is not anything out of order.

Mr Stockwell: Any time there is a variance, someone pulls that string in his back and he pops up and the words come out.

The point I am trying to make is that there are taxes right through the system. If you are looking to relocate a business, the gas-guzzler tax is just another tax the people of this province have to pay as well as a tax business has to pay. If they are thinking of relocating to this province, they are going to look at all these taxes: the PST, GST, municipal taxes, realty taxes, business taxes, health care taxes. You have taxes heaped on you from all angles, and then if you want to buy a car to travel around in this province you have the tire tax. When you dispose of the tires, you have a tax. You have the air conditioning tax if you are buying a car; you have the PST, the GST, the gas-guzzler tax. We could go on for ever.

Then the poor soul who has come in to buy the car says, "My goodness, I am buying a $20,000 car. I am looking at literally nearly $2,000 in taxes on top of a $20,000 car. I don't have that kind of money. I wanted to put a deposit of $2,000 down." He wants to put a deposit of $2,000 down and all his deposit goes to is that it is sucked up by various levels of government. He has to go out and finance $20,000 at higher than normal interest rates because this government keeps borrowing $10 billion a year to run the place. That is unreasonable. That is the kind of socialism we have in Ontario today. All they can do every time you talk about a tax hike is have the same words come popping out of their socialist mouths: the federal government and the GST.

My friends should go back to their communities. They may think that is going to sell now, but in three or four years there may well be an election, or between now and then. There may well be a different federal government. They are going to end up saying, "The federal government," and people are going to say: "I don't care. Why did you raise my taxes?" This government is going to say "GST." Then they are going to say: "I don't care. Why are you running up such a high deficit." They are going to say to this government that it is not standing up for the irresponsible things it did. They are going to put it out of office. Good riddance to them because they will not defend their decisions on taxes. They will not defend their decision on the deficit. All they do is mouth some party line written by some backroom socialist about some federal government they do not like.

As we move on, I would like to point out also in my -- there is a whole bunch of people coming in. The member for Yorkview is falling way behind. I would like to point out that barring an economic miracle, the one the Treasurer probably prays for every night, I might add, taxpayers should prepare for either a massive deficit or an unpalatable combination of real and deep spending cuts and tax hikes.

Mr Owens: What about Brian Mulroney?

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: There they go again, blaming Ottawa for their spending hikes and tax hikes. They cannot take responsibility for anything. Why did they get elected? It just proves they are a better opposition than government because they are not catching the arrows very well. Obviously, their cabinet minister lost her cool in Thunder Bay when she started slandering and smearing a doctor. It is clear they are losing their cool now as we close this session of the House.

What is very clear is that this is not the last tax hike we are going to see on a reeling industry. Two very seriously hard hit industries are the trucking industry and the car industry, two areas they hit very hard with the gas tax and the gas-guzzler tax. My submission to this House, to the Speaker and to the socialists across the floor is to be prepared for another $4 billion or $5 billion in tax hikes next year. My fear is that this will include another hit on an already reeling car industry.

The Speaker: Perhaps this would be a convenient spot for the member to pause in his remarks and we will hear about the order of business for next week from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Philip: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate that the business for the coming week will be outlined immediately following routine proceedings on Monday, December 16, 1991.

The House adjourned at 2400.