GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
RENTAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN PROGRAM
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 72, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1973.
The Deputy Speaker: Now, let me see, who had the floor? Oh, as I recall, it was Ms. Copps.
Ms. Copps: Thank you very much. I need to catch my breath. Actually, Mr. Speaker --
The Deputy Speaker: Yes?
Ms. Copps: -- in all fairness to the number of other members on our side who want to speak, I am going to make my remarks in summation this evening very short.
Some members may remember that I did not speak yesterday on the ad valorem tax simply from my own impressions. What I did was I stated case after case of government minister, government member, government leader, government Premier, who, one after the other, indicated they were against an increase in a resource tax that was not tied to the actual increase in supply.
What I have attempted to do is to establish and show to the voters of Ontario and to the taxpayers of Ontario that the proposal of the post-election government, the realities of March 19 government, with respect to the ad valorem tax is an attempt to profit from inflation and to gouge the taxpayers of Ontario. It is not an attempt to wisely use the mandate that this government has been accorded by the people of the province but is an attempt to exploit the very mandate that was given to this government.
In closing, I want to read from a campaign folder that I pulled from the garbage at our local library in Hamilton. I found it in the garbage pail, and I thought it might be particularly salient to this discussion. I want to read some excerpts from the Premier's (Mr. Davis) February statement which announced the election, and I want to tell this House and reiterate to this House on what the Premier, on the Office of the Premier's stationery, attempted to seek a mandate.
He was seeking a mandate to "preserve, enhance and increase the overwhelming promise of Ontario and her people," which he said was "based on its record of past performance, as well as its clearly outlined plans for the future..." Again, from the Office of the Premier in February 1981, he said he was seeking a mandate to fight for fair oil pricing and revenue distribution. He said he was seeking a mandate to continue that effort to "protect Ontarians from unfair price increases that would do little to increase supply security, while working on the national scene for a new revenue distribution system that would protect both producing and consuming provinces, while enhancing the national interest." He went on to say: "Our commitment in this respect has neither softened nor changed."
The government also sought a mandate for fair energy policies. "We seek a mandate to ensure that the energy policies developed in this country would not only ensure our future requirements, but serve fairly and equitably all Canadians from coast to coast."
"We seek a mandate to combat inflation..."; they said that when this government has the audacity to introduce the most inflationary tax that has ever been seen in the history of Conservatism in Ontario. They said, "We seek a mandate to combat inflation, through smaller and more efficient government, avoiding tax increases, and supporting those on fixed incomes, particularly our senior citizens."
I ask members whether this ad valorem tax establishes and continues those principles. Does it continue the principle of fair oil pricing and revenue distribution? Does it continue the principle of fair energy policy? Does it continue the principle of less inflation? We on this side of the House have only one answer: No, no, and once again, no.
This government sought "a mandate to stimulate the growth and development of our important resource industry in all parts of the province but particularly in northern Ontario," and on and on.
The last and perhaps the final promise made by this government and this Premier in his handout of February 1981 is the promise to promote industrial expansion and economic opportunity.
"Above all, we will seek a mandate to make constant and consistent efforts to continue to expand our industrial base, create more jobs, not only through encouraging new and expanded enterprises but also through efforts to enlarge markets for the products and services developed by the working men and women of this province."
I must read the summation with trepidation, because I think it epitomizes the hypocrisy of this government and the hypocrisy of the promises thrown out the window with the majority mandated by the people of this province.
"This province and the people who live within it are among the most blessed in the world. What Ontarians must reflect upon now is how best to advance the promise of this vast, unique and historic Ontario, ever true to her traditions and loyalties, ever ready to conquer the challenges of her future. It is in that cause that I seek their support, their confidence and their trust for the coming four years." It is signed by the Premier.
If this ad valorem tax is an indication of the kind of promise that was made to Ontarians prior to March 19, then I say to this House that the Premier of this province and the members who are sitting on that side have violated the support, the confidence and the trust of the people of Ontario, and more than likely will continue to do so for the next four years.
Because I am a believing person, I must believe there are some members on that side of the House who will have the courage to stand up and speak against this ad valorem tax. One talks to them in the hallways, one talks to them in the corridors of this hallowed place, and they all agree with the minister who introduced this plan that the ad valorem tax is a wonderful thing. Yet none of them, with the exception of the minister, has had the courage to stand up in this House and say before all and sundry and to their constituents that this ad valorem tax is a wonderful way of producing new revenue for this province.
I go back to the comments made by the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller) when he told the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa that he was involved with a balancing act and that he gazed into his crystal ball; and what did he pull out of his crystal ball but the ad valorem tax.
I would reiterate and the members of this side of the House would reiterate --
Excusez-moi, si vous voulez, je peux toujours continuer en français pour ceux qui aimeraient mieux comprendre en français. Je vais continuer en français. Je vais accélérer mon rapport à propos de cette question.
D'après moi, les gens de l'Ontario ont au moins le droit de savoir ce qui arrive dans cette Chambre. Ce qui arrive ce soir avec cette taxe ad valorem sur l'essence est une chose insidieuse qui doit être connue de toute la province.
Je vais continuer à parler non seulement aujourd'hui, mais pendant quatre ans, parce que moi et les membres de ce côté-ci ont eu marre de ce que vous essayez de faire après le mandat qui était donné par les peuples de la province de l'Ontario.
8:10 p.m.
Vous abusez les pouvoirs de la Législature. Et je pense que vous auriez mieux, si vous avez un avis à donner, vous mettre debout dans la Chambre et en parler. Mais vous n'avez pas le courage et alors il serait mieux pour vous de ne rien dire.
Interjection.
Ms. Copps: Vous n'avez pas le courage, M. Piché, de vous mettre debout dans cette Chambre pour parler en faveur de cette taxe sur l'essence.
Il serait mieux de ne rien dire du tout.
In closing, I want to say that the members on the government side of the House do not have the courage to stand up and make their feelings known to the voters of Ontario, because they are afraid that four years down the road their remarks will come back to haunt them. They know and understand very well that the people of Ontario find this tax an insidious tax, a tax on an inflation on an inflation, a tax with which this government has shown complete disregard for the people of Ontario and for the mandate it received on March 19.
I invite all the members on that side of the House who feel so strongly about this tax that they would like to say it here in the House to please stand up and tell the people of Ontario how they love this tax and how much they are in favour of it, because I venture to say that the ministers and the members on that side of the House do not have the courage of their convictions.
The members on this side of the House will join together to defeat this bill, because we think it is the first example among many that have already been demonstrated. We can talk about Re-Mor; we can talk about housing; we can talk about the Ontario health insurance plan; we can talk about personal income tax. The members on this side of the House are going to stand firm with the people of Ontario to fight this tax and to fight this government for the next four years.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will be able to speak for as long as the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) has spoken, but I want to tell the Conservative members that there was absolutely no distortion of the facts in the lengthy debate that the House has heard from the member. All of the quotations --
Mr. Hodgson: The member does not believe that.
Mr. Mancini: I say to the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) that all of the quotations were taken from speeches given by certain ministers of the crown, by the former Minister of Energy, by the present Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and by the Premier (Mr. Davis). They were quotations from 1977 all the way up through the just-completed election campaign of March 19, quotations from different, well-respected newspapers.
Around those quotations she was able to build up a case against the political cynicism and hypocrisy which the government has exhibited over the past four years and which would rival that of any government in the world. In most jurisdictions, governments would have been turfed out of office for less.
We have witnessed, Mr. Speaker, and you have been in this chamber and heard the same speeches we have heard, and you have read the same newspaper articles we have read, and time after time we saw the Premier of Ontario try to build his image as a statesman by putting himself in conflicting positions with the Premier of Alberta over the costs of energy, specifically oil.
I sat in my seat, as did many of the members here; we saw the Treasurer of Ontario rise, we saw the Premier of Ontario rise, and we saw one of the most vicious attacks against the federal government I have seen in the six years I have been here. The government of Charles Joseph Clark was attacked day after day, both in this chamber and outside this chamber, for its proposal to increase the cost of oil from western Canada. The Conservative Party of Ontario was as helpful as any segment or group or association to the federal Liberal Party during the time leading up to the February 1980 election as was any group associated with the federal party. It did more to tear down Charles Joseph Clark --
Mr. Pollock: Joe Who?
Mr. Mancini: That is right.
It did more to tear down Charles Joseph Clark and his new government than anybody else. The Conservative members did so --
Mr. Worton: To save their own hides.
Mr. Mancini: Yes; to save their own hides, for one. That is a very good point the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) makes.
But they did more than just about anybody else. They said they were making this opposition, not for political purposes but for sound economic reasons. They said the manufacturing industry, the consumers, farmers and small businessmen of Ontario could not tolerate such increases in the prices of gasoline.
The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) should have been here. He would have been proud of the defence the Treasurer and the Premier made on behalf of those people. He would have been rightfully proud. But now they have regained a majority; they have 70 seats. They are safe for four years.
The statesmanship we saw from the Premier concerning the costs of energy before the March 19, 1981, election has somehow fizzled away. The defence for the consumers, the defence for small businessmen, the defence for farmers, the defence for the manufacturing industry have all fizzled away. The Tories no longer speak of the havoc these increases will wreak on our economy. They no longer speak of those problems. They just sit quietly in their seats. They thump their desks when they get instructions from the chief whip. They read speeches that have been prepared for them.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: We all show up. That's more than you did for your own no-confidence motion. You're talking through your hat as usual.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Mancini has the floor. Please continue. We are trying to bring the members into order as well as possible.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is right. They take their seats, they come in here day after day. The government introduces bills, such as Bill 72, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, and they sit in their seats and exercise no influence whatsoever on the cabinet.
8:20 p.m.
I wonder how new members, such as the member for Cochrane North, the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), can go back to their constituencies. I have heard none of them have gone home for a weekend since this bill was introduced.
I do not know how they can honestly go back to their constituencies and face the people to whom they gave speeches, the people they asked to help them to get elected, and show them speeches and quote speeches by the Premier where he stated he wanted a mandate to avoid taxes. That is what he said. That is a direct quotation from a speech given by the Premier either on the day the election was called or just before. That is what he wanted: a mandate to avoid taxes.
Most governments can be accused of hypocrisy. I do not think there is a political party or a government that could not be accused of hypocrisy. But to have Ontario, the largest province in Confederation, start a war of words with its sister province of Alberta, to keep that war going for several years and to do it for such a transparent reason -- to regain political office by a majority government -- is shameful.
One could travel the globe, but one would be hard pressed to find a government that has gone to such great lengths to be re-elected with majority status. Those guys have perpetrated the biggest con job I have ever seen. This tax bill makes the great train robbery look like small potatoes.
I respect the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) quite a bit. I have breakfast with him often. With all due respect, I say to him that his political party has done a fantastic job of getting re-elected time after time, but its record as far as giving good government is concerned is lousy, in my view.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: It happens to be one and the same in case you did not know.
Mr. Mancini: It is not one and the same, I tell the minister.
We heard today the amounts of money the government has spent during the year 1980 to promote the Ontario Conservative government. The government has abused the public purse. We heard figures today that just boggle the mind: $23 million or $25 million spent --
The Deputy Speaker: Working your way back to the ad valorem tax.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, that relates fundamentally to the ad valorem tax. These people have been wasteful. They have squandered the taxes of the people of Ontario, and that is why they feel there is a need for this kind of legislation. They wasted the people's money on advertising "Preserve it, conserve it," telling everybody how clean our environment is.
Every time there was a major environment issue in the news, the government hired an actor who claimed to be some kind of environmentalist. They pictured him in a canoe, rowing down a river, saying, "I have travelled the world, and there is no place cleaner than Ontario." One can see right down to the bottom of the lakes that have been killed by acid rain. There are no lakes cleaner.
The government has wasted money in the area of advertising and in just about every department.
Mr. Worton: Including Minaki Lodge.
Mr. Mancini: I could give an hour's speech on Minaki Lodge.
Mr. Piché: Now just a moment. I object to that. You mentioned --
Mr. Mancini: The government has been wasteful with the taxpayers' money. We could take the time of the House -- Is there something wrong with the first clerk?
The Deputy Speaker: No. We were just commenting on interjections. We are having difficulty with the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché). We are not sure whether singing is an interjection.
Mr. Mancini: Then call him to order, Mr. Speaker.
We could go on for quite some time outlining the wastefulness and extravagance of this government. We could outline in great detail many of the areas in which the government has been less than prudent with the taxpayers' dollars.
I find the fact that the bill is indexed most offensive. The bill never has to be introduced again.
I assume the people in the back row serving their first term in office came here with some kind of purpose. I assume they came here with the idea they wanted to be involved, to participate in what happens and what emanates --
Mr. Piché: We should be going home on time, and you're just screwing things up.
Mr. Mancini: I say to the member for Cochrane North that we have been elected by our constituents to sit in this chamber and to serve them. We have not been elected to work to some fictitious timetable so we can all go home and have a summer holiday. I go home and work every weekend in my riding, and it works out just fine. We have been elected to speak, to take part in and to debate --
Mr. Piché: To yak-yak.
Mr. Mancini: That member may call it yak-yak, but it is not. Maybe his contributions are yak-yak, but ours are not yak-yak.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Piché: You are making a mockery of the Legislature. Last night it was Sheila, tonight it's you, tomorrow it will be somebody else. I did not come here to listen to that.
Mr. Mancini: Go on home then.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I want to remind the member for Cochrane North that either I can call him to order or he can hang himself. Which would he prefer? I think I would rather call him to order.
Continue, Mr. Mancini.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Mancini: One assumes these new members of the Conservative Party came here, as I stated earlier, with the idea of taking part, of being at the centre of things, of helping make the decisions. They are all parliamentary assistants. They are all getting that extra $6,500 --
The Deputy Speaker: Now, Mr. Mancini, let us not be provocative. We are trying to carry on nicely.
Interjections.
Mr. Wrye: That is not fair; some of them are whips.
Mr. Mancini: That is right; some of them are whips. This is very important to the point I am trying to make. They came here to be part of the action, so to speak. What is one of the first things they allow their cabinet to do? They allow indexing of taxation on gasoline, with a bill worded in such a way that it never has to be introduced in the chamber again. What kind of Legislature is this when the government can pass laws so it does not have to increase legislation by providing bills to the Legislature for such consent? What kind of Legislature is this? Why does the government continually remove authority and power from the chamber? Why does it continually move that power from the elected officials to the back rooms and to the corridors? How can it do that in good conscience?
We have tried to build up a tradition in this country and this province whereby taxes and tax-related items are introduced into the chamber for approval and then implemented. Why are we now drifting away from something as fundamentally right and sound as that? Why do the Tories feel they have the divine right to huddle together in the corridors or in the antechamber and to decide how taxes should be raised without proper debate in the House, without proper representation from the members who disagree with their tax policy? How can they justify that to any citizen in this province? Give me one justification for removing that power from this chamber.
All the members are contributing -- and the member for Cochrane North is front and centre in this -- to making this Legislature more impotent than it already is. We have already passed far too many of our laws by regulation. They are written and prepared by a group of quiet civil servants who work in some ministry buildings. They prepare these regulations, shuffle the papers over to the government ministers, who barely have time to look at them because of their work loads, and then they are passed into law. It is the chamber where the laws are supposed to be made so that they can have the respect of the people they apply to. We are relegated to the back burner.
It is highly distasteful that so many of our laws are made in this regulatory fashion. To try to do the same thing, to try to take away the power of the elected officials on matters such as increasing taxes, is absolutely insupportable, absolutely distasteful. It should not even be contemplated, let alone have a bill introduced in this House and have an arrogant government use its majority to pass it.
I ask the new members, when will we get another opportunity to debate increased gasoline taxes under their bill?
Mr. Boudria: Never again.
Mr. Mancini: Never again. My constituents and the member's constituents duly trudge to the polls on election day to send someone to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to speak up for them. And the government takes away our rights; it does it without shame. Their reign of power will come to an end, and I will be proud to sit in a Liberal government. It will not take us long. We will put the power back in the chamber --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mancini for leader.
Mr. Mancini: Thank you. I am accepting contributions.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Good. Send around the plate again.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I have not heard anything new for a long time.
Mr. Mancini: The minister has not heard anything new, eh? He must be the most schooled official ever elected to the assembly. He must be quite bright.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I regret deeply, and I say this to you sincerely, that I am losing my right to speak on future tax matters concerning taxes on gasoline. I give up that right grudgingly. I am going to take pride in voting against this bill. I am going to take pride in speaking against it on every opportunity I have here in the chamber, back home in the riding and elsewhere if I have the opportunity.
I hope that some day I will be part of a government that can rescind this bill, because we firmly believe, and I am shocked that the government does not have the same belief, that important matters such as this should be decided by the chamber. The government has its 70 seats. The government whip, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), can get all the government's members out. If the government wants a certain --
Mr. Boudria: He can even get five of them to stand up sometimes.
Mr. Mancini: They can get the increase this year as far as gas taxes are concerned. They do not have to index it for all eternity. They do not have to take away the rights of the members. They do not have to make the Legislature impotent. They do not have to go to those lengths. I have sat here and listened to some of their members speak -- not very many, mind you -- and I honestly cannot figure out the logic, the rationale, the reason -- any reason -- why we should have an ad valorem tax.
Mr. Boudria: There is none.
Mr. Mancini: Absolutely. The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has said it beautifully: there is none. With all those highly paid officials whom the government has in its ministries, with all the people they can be in contact with who have tremendous expertise, surely they could show the government how to introduce a budgetary matter that does not involve any indexing, that does not involve removing rights from members of the Legislature, that does not involve making this chamber less important than it should be. I am surprised, really I am.
8:40 p.m.
I can recall when we first assumed our chairs right after the election. I looked across at all the new members in the back row of the Tory party. They were smiling broadly. They had taken their rightful places in the Legislative Assembly. They were proud, and they deserved to be proud. They had been elected to the assembly. They had gained the confidence of their people for one reason or another.
Yet, in eight or 10 weeks since that proud day, one of the first actions they are taking on behalf of the people they were elected to represent is to make the chamber in which they sit less important, to take away rights -- not only ours, but their own as well. They are losing rights from the day this bill gets its proclamation. From that day, they have lost the right to oppose increased taxes on gasoline. I hope the members opposite are proud of that, because I am absolutely sure that an outraged Conservative caucus could have forced the cabinet to reconsider its decision to introduce such offensive legislation.
Mr. Roy: Good point.
Mr. Mancini: They could have done it. I tell the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), they could have done it. The many new members and the ones who were elected only a few years ago, in 1977 -- the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) is one of them -- could have got together and said: "No. We want our rights to be upheld in the chamber. We can raise taxes, but we want to preserve the strength and the integrity of the chamber and the members and, through them, the people." But they sit there, they nod and they applaud whenever the honourable whip says to do so, and our powers dissipate.
I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you have wondered about this also, why it is so easy for a government in power to manipulate things. Why do they find it so easy to manipulate things for their own political survival?
Surely people like the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) have enough confidence in themselves and enough faith in the policies they are implementing to be able to return to their constituencies and say: "We have done the following over our last term of office. Yes, we have increased taxes. Yes, we have made moves in this area. Yes, we have increased spending. Yes, in areas we have cut spending."
Surely they have enough confidence in themselves that they could properly present to their constituents a perspective, of course from their own view, of what they did or did not do in their past term of office.
Why do they feel it is so necessary to introduce backdoor type of tax increases such as this, where every three months those in the back row of the Conservative Party and their colleagues in the cabinet will increase taxes on the people of Ontario, whether it is a small businessman being crushed by high interest rates, or farmers with the same problem, or a poor working man?
I will give a very good example from my own constituency. The town of Leamington is the largest centre in the eastern part of Essex county. Many of the people who live there go to work in the auto plants in Windsor. It is at least a one-hour drive from Leamington to Windsor. Those people have to drive from Leamington to Windsor and back five days a week. It is not their fault that the industry is located in Windsor. A man has to make a living for himself and his family. He has to use his vehicle. Even if he goes from using a larger vehicle to a smaller vehicle, with the way the prices are going whatever he saved initially will be eroded later on.
The government is taxing that working man unfairly. They are doing it in such a way that members in the Legislature like myself who wish to object will lose their right to object within a few days. That is what they are doing. That is what those people are doing.
All the reformers in the Conservative caucus who rushed to get here, who could not wait to get through the front doors of this Legislative Building at Queen's Park to assume their seats in this chamber, can be proud and can remember as time goes on that one of the first major bills they supported was a bill to reduce the rights and privileges of all members. I hope they are proud of that.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words of condemnation of this really shameful piece of legislation as my contribution to the discussions we have had on this gasoline tax.
I want to open by saying that I find myself rather depressed, because I recognize the inevitable. I recognize that there are 70 votes opposite, and there are some 55 on this side, and ultimately the tax will go through, and this will be the last we will hear of it.
As we wake up on the morning of July 1, ready to wish Canada a happy birthday -- I guess it will be 114 -- we will wake up with a gas increase. It will be a gas increase brought on by this government, and the taxpayers will not even notice it. They will say: "Well, I guess they got another increase in Alberta. I guess the sheikhs from one of the Arab states have increased the OPEC price."
Little will they know that it will be the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the government of Ontario gouging the taxpayers of Ontario, gouging the taxpayers of Windsor, those of Brantford and those of eastern Metropolitan Toronto, just east of where I reside from Monday to Friday, out there in St. George. Little will they know it is this government gouging the taxpayers of eastern Ontario out in Leeds and Grenville, gouging them just a little more.
I want to open with some comments that I read in the little background piece that we get weekly. I thought the quote of the week from the week of June 1 was rather appropriate, coming as soon as it did after the budget. This quote was from the deputy reeve of Innisfil township who was discussing a 19.45 per cent increase in school taxes. They are real pikers out there; we should be so lucky here at Queen's Park to pass an increase of less than 20 per cent. We got a lot more than that on this gas tax -- a lot more than 20 per cent. But this deputy reeve said: "I am sure you can push the taxpayers only so far before they revolt."
I suggest in all humility that revolt is some four years away. Four years from now the voters are going to remember this. They are going to remember this as part of the most disgraceful budget ever visited upon the people of Ontario. It is disgraceful because it is so deceitful.
8:50 p.m.
I am truly struck by this document, the big lie that began on February 2, when the Premier said, in calling the election, "We seek a fresh mandate to preserve" -- preserve and conserve; they really used this stuff -- "enhance and increase the overwhelming promise of Ontario and her people." Keep the promise!
Mr. Boudria: Did you say promise? He used that word a lot too.
Mr. Wrye: Absolutely. "Based on our past performance" -- that is the one budget where they did not increase taxes, but they were already planning -- "as well as clearly outlined plans for the future" -- I am sure they were clearly outlined; we just would not hear about them on March 19. We would have to wait till two months later.
I went down a few paragraphs, and it said -- it has on the left, "Less inflation." I like that. "To combat inflation through smaller and more efficient government, avoiding tax increases and supporting those on fixed incomes, particularly our senior citizens." Well, our senior citizens really got protected on May 19. They got protected all right, unless they drive. But if they drive, and most of them still do, where was this government to protect them?
As I begin my remarks, I want to compare the government's response to this bill and another one of the tax-grabbing goodies introduced by this majority government. I hope the voters of Ontario will remember this four years hence -- this majority government. If the opposition had the votes, whenever this comes to a vote, to keep this government honest, then there would be no shameless grab for cash such as occurred on May 19. The government would not have had the guts to introduce this travesty in blue if it knew it would have to put it up to the votes of the combined opposition. There would be no ad valorem gas tax, no regular three-month ripoff.
One of the ironies of this whole budget, especially the ad valorem gas tax, it strikes me, is that May 19 came just two months to the day after the voters of Ontario, at least 44 per cent of them, gave the Conservatives a majority. The reality of March 19 is that 56 per cent of the people said no to the Tories, even to the con job they perpetrated for a month and a half. They said there would be no tax increases -- and there were no tax increases until May 19; then we sure got them. At least 44 per cent of the people said: "Okay, boys, we will give you four more years. You have had 38 years to keep the promise; so we will give you four more. We will give Davis one more try." Boy, are they sorry now.
During the 44 days of this election campaign we heard about many things. We did not hear about anything we eventually got on May 19, but we heard about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, keeping the promise and la-di-da; the singers were in place, and it was great stuff. We heard the Premier of this province, right in this building, tell the voters at the outset of the campaign, "We seek a mandate to combat inflation through smaller and more efficient government, avoiding tax increases and supporting those on fixed incomes." That is great.
Two months to the day after the glow of March 19, the voters got the reality of May 19 with the budget, and with the budget the ad valorem gas tax that will raise, by the Treasurer's (Mr. F. S. Miller) own estimates, more than $100 million in desperately needed cash. We did not hear on March 19 and during the campaign just how desperately this government needed the cash, just how desperate was the plight of the --
Interjection.
Mr. Wrye: I suppose we did hear it; we heard it from this party -- that the reality of Ontario was that the economy was in a mess -- but we did not hear that from the government, not until May 19, and then we heard it in spades. We heard it in OHIP increases, in personal income tax increases, and particularly in the ad valorem gas tax increase. After all, when the economy is stagnating as badly as this one is, when it is last in just about every measure of economic growth, desperate actions are needed to keep the province's financing above water or even close to the waterline.
It is not $1 billion below; it is only $997 million. I like that. They played with $3 million and managed to keep the proposed deficit under $1 billion. That is how it is with this disgraceful raid on the pocketbooks of the people of Ontario.
I would like to share with the members one of the real hypocrisies of this increase, one which the members opposite have trotted out as they attempt to justify this profiteering, this gouging of the taxpayers. The government has suggested that every other province has an ad valorem gas tax; that is what it suggested -- every other province except Nova Scotia. What is really happening is Ontario is simply joining with everyone else and somehow that makes it right.
At the same time I might remind the members on the other side of the House -- I see the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) is here and he will remember -- that just two other provinces have health insurance premiums, which leaves seven others that do not. To follow the logic of the Tories, and I suppose I would vote for the ad valorem gas tax, let us just rid ourselves of OHIP premiums. They are so desperate for cash they will take money from any source. They want to be one of nine, but they also want to be one of three.
I have heard it before so many times in this session but, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest it once more for the members opposite and especially for the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say, "We are going to be one of nine and that is okay," and then whisper, "Oh, yes, we want to be one of three on OHIP." There is no other proof needed as to how bad things have become in Ontario. We have not even debated the personal income tax increase yet. That is up 10 per cent at 48 per cent.
Mr. Gillies: Let's start on that point.
Mr. Wrye: We will get to it.
Mr. Gillies: When?
Mr. Wrye: Eventually; in the fullness of time.
When I was rereading the Treasurer's remarks in proposing this tax on budget night I was struck by how he also managed to slide one by the overburdened taxpayer even as he introduced the tax. He proposed the tax increase on gasoline.
Let me just quote from the budget on page 20 when he says: "Revenues from fuel, tobacco and beverage alcohol: I spoke earlier about my general concern with the diminished responsiveness of the revenue system." That means things are going so badly they are not collecting any money.
Mr. Boudria: Is this the same government that was talking to us before?
Mr. Wrye: Oh yes: "Keep the promise. Davis can do it. Things are great. We are just steaming ahead here in Ontario." But on budget night the Treasurer referred to "my general concern with the diminished responsiveness of the revenue system." Is that not a great way to say the economy is stagnating? I really like that. I wish the Treasurer were here. We had to listen to this awful budget on May 19 and he should be listening to our response.
"Consequently," he went on, "I am proposing that the tax rates on gasoline, diesel fuel, railway diesel fuel, aviation fuel, on cigarettes and cut tobacco" -- I would have said this just on the ad valorem gas tax but they are all thrown in so I have to read it all -- "and on domestic beer" -- shame, the people of Windsor will not forgive him for that -- "be converted from their current volume basis to an ad valorem basis.
"At the same time, I am proposing the following specific tax increases: First, that the new ad valorem gas rate on gasoline be set to incorporate an average increase of about one cent per litre and the new tax rate on diesel fuel be set to impose a 1.1 cent per litre increase."
What the Treasurer and his cabinet colleagues tried to do was to slip one by the poor, unsuspecting voter when he was not looking, while he was bemoaning the budget and trying to figure out what ad valorem means in the first place. Why was the government not just honest about it?
9 p.m.
Mr. Boudria: They should just say outright they are going to gouge the taxpayer; then everybody would know.
Mr. Wrye: That's right. That is what ad valorem really means. It means "gouge."
While he was bemoaning this built-in, add-on increase in the tax by switching to the ad valorem basis, the sly old Treasurer was slipping them a fast one. He was slipping them an increase even as he proposed this sleight of hand. This is the incredible thing about this bill. It is just absolutely shameless. It is quite an unprecedented raid on the wallets of the people.
I want to say a few words about the speech by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) -- and I wish he were here to hear what I am saying. I was struck because I had not heard this angle from our side and I think he is so correct. This is the first and really the last time we are going to be able to talk about the gas tax increase. On July 1 it will go up; on October 1 it will go up; on January 1 --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: The same thing over and over again.
Mr. Wrye: The Minister of Revenue in the good old days, if he wanted some money, had to come to the House and ask for it. Now with the majority he does not want to have to ask any more; he just wants to take every three months.
Interjections.
Mr. Boudria: You were being provoked.
Mr Wrye: That's right. The taxpayers of Ontario got provoked on May 19 too and they won't soon forget it.
I want to take a minute to talk about the size of the increases because they are really quite remarkable. All of this occurs in the face of an increase in the rate of personal income tax from 44 per cent of federal tax payable to 48 per cent. It occurs in the face of a 15 per cent increase in Ontario health insurance plan premiums, raising the cost of OHIP -- already the highest in Canada, in this province of opportunity -- to $23 a month for a single person and $46 a month for a family.
I should not forget to mention the increases in liquor, the increases in tobacco, even the increase in the tax on those betting on triactors. The government did not miss a bet; the government leaves no stone unturned in its unquenchable thirst to fleece the poor unsuspecting taxpayers. They got everybody that night.
So in the face of all of this, we got the advent of the ad valorem. I don't remember hearing the phrase "ad valorem" during the campaign. Would that have rhymed with "Keep the promise"?
Mr. Boudria: I don't think so.
Mr. Wrye: Does it rhyme in French?
Mr. Boudria: No.
Mr. Wrye: My Tory opponent never mentioned an ad valorem gas tax once while he was talking about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development and all those things. I think the voters would have preferred to hear about the reality rather than the nonsense that was in that BILD document, a great document written by a number of speechwriters. It certainly did not have any basis in fact. I guess we did not hear of ad valorem because it does not rhyme with "Keep the promise." It does not even rhyme with "Davis can do it." I guess that is why we did not hear about it. How unfortunate.
Here we are at the moment of birth of the ad valorem gas tax, a tax that will find a new, higher level every three months. I am waiting for the first time it goes down. That will be quite an occasion. It starts, appropriately enough, on Canada Day. Imagine, they are ripping off the consumers on their birthday. "Happy birthday, Ontario," and whack, in come the pickpockets from Queen's Park to dip into the wallets again. It is just incredible.
I have been struck by the fact that we have not talked much about this. I think the government was slipping a fast one by us. It is bad enough to have an ad valorem tax, but at the moment of birth there was also an insidious increase. In setting the ad valorem rate at 20 per cent of the taxable price per litre of gasoline, the Treasurer slipped a nice increase into what had been the previous share of gas prices being sent special delivery to his vaults.
Let me explain: Before the realities of May 19, if one purchased a litre of leaded gas, a litre of regular unleaded gas or even a litre of premium unleaded gas, Ontario's piece of the tax pie was 4.6 cents. Members should remember that price. It is 4.6 cents. It is going to be, "Now you see it, now you don't," or, "Now you see a whole lot more." On May 19 they did a quick shuffle, a little sleight of hand, because they had to do something to get the ad valorem ball rolling. On May 19, they did this quick sleight of hand. I see the Premier has arrived. Perhaps he did not notice this on May 19, but I am sure he did.
For the veritable handful of voters still filling up with leaded gasoline, the increase was to 5.4 cents a litre. This is what he set it at. It was 4.6 cents on May 18. I believe it came in on May 20, so if one rushed out after the budget on the night of May 19, one would have paid a tax of 4.6 cents per litre for regular leaded gasoline; the next morning when we woke up, it was 5.4 cents a litre. That is not too bad; that is a meagre little increase of 17.4 per cent, but that is even before ad valorem comes in. It is only 17.4 per cent.
They did better than that. Of course, the members opposite all drive new cars. We in Windsor hope a lot of people will drive new cars. We are hoping they will buy North American cars. I say that to the member for Brantford.
Mr. Boudria: Did he buy a North American car?
Mr. Wrye: Ask him what kind of car he drives.
Mr. Boudria: Did you buy a North American car?
Mr. Gillies: I don't remember, but it is very fuel-efficient.
Mr. Wrye: We want to keep Ontario clean. Unfortunately the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) is not here, but I am sure he would support it if he were.
For those who drive the new cars that burn only unleaded fuel, the increase was from 4.6 cents a litre to 5.8 cents. That is not 17.4 per cent, no siree; that is 26.1 per cent. That is not bad. That is better than the nine per cent the universities of Ontario got and it is even better than the 15 per cent the medical profession received.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It was 14.75 per cent.
Mr. Wrye: I stand corrected by the minister who says it is not 15 per cent, just 14.75.
For those poor souls -- and I do mean poor, after they pay the ad valorem tax -- who happen to fill up with premium unleaded or premium leaded gasoline, the price went to six cents a litre, a whopping increase of 30.4 per cent in the provincial take of every gallon of premium leaded and unleaded gasoline.
9:10 p.m.
As we found out, that is what the reality of March 19 really was. It was an unprecedented raid on the pocketbooks of the people of Ontario. Worse, as the member for Essex South has pointed out, it is a raid that we will not even be able to debate again, because every three months, four times a year, the price will go up. We will not be able to oppose it; we will not be able to object to it; we will not be able to vote for or against it. I am sure the members opposite -- perhaps we ought to talk about this just for a minute --
Mr. Boudria: Go ahead. Talk about it.
Mr. Wrye: Thank you. In voting for the ad valorem gas tax, members are voting for a tax on July 1; on October 1, 1981; on January 1, 1982; on April 1, 1982, and on and on and on. I think we should remind the taxpayers of Ontario every three months that the previous night at midnight, the Legislature, or the ghosts thereof, just voted another tax increase, because that is in reality what is going to happen.
What really makes this hypocritical and what is really shameful about this is that this is not what we were promised.
Mr. Boudria: What were we promised?
Mr. Wrye: Well, here is the Financial Post of March 14, 1981: "Where they stand on the big issues." It has the Premier, it has our leader (Mr. Smith) -- the next Premier -- and it has the outgoing leader of the third party (Mr. Cassidy), the diminishing third party.
Hon. Mr. Davis: They are diminishing because the Liberals are apparently going to augment them.
Mr. Wrye: Well, they are diminishing because they are so ineffectual. They do not even oppose this increase. When was the last time they spoke on this increase? Do they even care about the working men and women of Ontario? We know those members opposite do not care.
Interjections.
Mr. Wrye: There will not be an NDP after the next election, so we will not --
Interjections.
Mr. Wrye: No, they will be gone. Maybe two or three will be left, but --
Hon. Mr. Davis: After Kingston the Liberals are on their way out.
Mr. Wrye: After Kingston -- that is right; we started on the road to power on May 19.
Mr. Speaker: Let us get back to Bill 72.
Interjection.
Mr. Wrye: No, May 19, because that was the day of the budget and this ad valorem gas tax, Mr. Speaker, which is what we are talking about -- Bill 72, right? I want to talk about this document.
Under fiscal policy the Financial Post asked, "What specific tax changes, increases or decreases, would you make?" Here is the program of the Progressive Conservatives with the picture of -- who is that? That is the Premier. This is his program:
"Future tax changes must take into account the financing needs of the government," -- boy, we should have caught on when they used that line -- "the economic situation, our competitive position and the taxpayers' ability to pay." I guess they figured they have a kind of bottomless pit of money.
"The 1980 Ontario budget did not increase taxes." Well, they certainly made up for lost time, did they not? "There have been no major increases in provincial income taxes" -- we got that one two months later -- "and retail sales taxes for several years." If I read the Treasurer's statement properly we will get that next year.
"Given the current economic situation and the impact of inflation on the consumer, tax increases must be avoided to the maximum extent possible in the near future." Right.
An hon. member: Very near future.
Mr. Wrye: Very, very near future. That is what he said on March 14.
We could go back, I suppose, even further to the days when the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) was the Minister of Energy. He would be embarrassed by all this. He may join us, because this really sells out his position, does it not? This is not what the member was saying when he was Minister of Energy. This was Friday, April 1, 1977. This is kind of an April Fool's joke that comes to pass four years later. On Friday, April 1, 1977, at the energy ministers' conference in Ottawa, the then Minister of Energy said, "We are opposed to any increase in the price of oil and natural gas."
Hon. Mr. Sterling: We have heard this.
Mr. Wrye: I did not hear it. The minister is not paying any attention to it. The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) did not hear it last night. He could not make it last night so now he wants to hear it.
"We are opposed because the stated objective of this annual escalation" -- these guys do not fool around: they have got it four times a year -- "that of ensuring supply" -- the only supply they want to ensure is the supply of money -- "through expanded exploration and development has not been met. We are opposed because it will create further unemployment; we are opposed because it further fuels inflation."
How times change; that was four years ago: "It creates further unemployment and fuels inflation." I guess they were dealing with a new set of economists four years later. "The public is fed up, and rightly so." They sure are after May 19. They are certainly fed up. "The public is prepared to make sacrifices but only if those sacrifices deliver results." The only results we got on May 19 were to keep the deficit out of the $1.6-billion range to try to save face for the Treasurer. That is all we got on May 19. They raise $603 million and with that money they do not propose one new program, not one. There are so many.
I realize what the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), the Minister without Portfolio, says. I do not want him to have to listen time and again to what the government used to say when it was in a minority situation.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I do not mind listening to anything that is new and different. I just do not want to hear the same passages repeated and repeated and read over and over again into the record of the Legislative Assembly because I think it is a waste of time.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect I rise to speak to the same point. I direct your attention to the standing orders of this assembly, page four, rule 19(d)(3), where it states, "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he persists in needless repetition or raises matters that have been decided during the current session." Mr. Speaker, I submit to you we have been subjected to a great deal of that this evening and the member should be called to order.
Mr. Roy: Speaking to that point, Mr. Speaker, if you were to enforce that rule strictly you would mute all the cabinet ministers because they repeat all the time during the session anyway.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I recall the Minister of Health saying the same thing over and over. During the question and answer period he was repeating himself two and three times. He never cited the rules of order at that time, when he should have.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wrye, will you please proceed? Confine your remarks to Bill 72.
Mr. Wrye: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. There is so much to say about Bill 72. I know the member for Ottawa East has an eastern perspective he wishes to bring to this debate. I propose to let him do so because from Windsor to Ottawa, and at all points in between, everyone is opposed to this. They are absolutely opposed to it. I bet the people from Wentworth, Brantford and Cambridge oppose it. How many letters has the government had in support of the ad valorem? When are the government members going to speak in favour?
Interjection.
Mr. Wrye: None is; that is right. When are they going to speak in favour of it? I want to hear it.
9:20 p.m.
Interjections.
Mr. Wrye: Anyway, I want to return to the bill, Mr. Speaker. On August 25, 1978, in this "For immediate release" from the Ministry of Energy --
Mr. Boudria: Who was the minister then?
Mr. Wrye: James Auld, a new minister but the same old song. Just one sentence; it was too bad they did not see this when they were writing the budget. Talk about a flip-flop; the guys opposite invented it.
Interjections.
Mr. Wrye: As a former municipal politician, I am ashamed of their flip-flop. Talk about a flip-flop.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, Mr. Wrye.
Mr. Wrye: Ontario views crude oil and natural gas price increases unrelated to improving Canada's security of supply as inflationary, a deterrent to job creation and a further factor in harming Canada's industrial competitiveness." That was August 25, 1978. Rest in peace, because it sure changed on May 19, 1981.
Interjections.
Mr. Wrye: He said it. I suppose I should, for the sake of brevity, leap ahead to September 15, 1979. I will just give one for each year, because I want to show the government that it was consistent for a while. It was consistent as long as it was in a minority situation, a tenuous connection. It was consistent in 1977 when it was a minority, in 1978 when it was a minority, in 1979 when it was a minority and in 1980 when it was a minority. Yet in 1981 --
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wrye, will you address your remarks to the bill, please.
Mr. Wrye: Fine, Mr. Speaker. The Premier was speaking to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Campus Association on September 15, 1979, and I am sure it was a fine speech. I would just like to read a short excerpt from it. This is what he said: "We also took the view that to have a price increase which generated the kind of cash for the government of Canada, the foreign oil companies and the government of Alberta which they could not possibly reinvest quickly enough to solve energy security problems, would be a mistake and a distortion and a clear raid upon the spending power of the average citizen of this province and of Canada as a whole."
I can paraphrase it and talk about the price increase which generates the kind of cash for the government of Canada, the foreign oil companies, the government of Alberta -- and now we will include the government of Ontario -- being a mistake and a distortion and a clear raid upon the spending power of the average citizen of this province. I think that says volumes. I do not think we need to say more about that speech, because the Premier has been very clear. Such unjustifiable increases are a clear raid upon the spending power of the people of my riding of Windsor-Sandwich. The constituents of the members opposite must be very rich indeed, but I suspect they are not. I suspect they are still in shock.
So we move ahead to October 31, 1980. That was one night after the Premier of Alberta rewrote history a little bit in announcing his response to a number of matters proposed by the government of Canada in a very excellent budget. He cut back oil, and this is Ontario's response to the statement of the Premier of Alberta: "The impact of last night's statement is economic. It imparts an extra financial burden upon an already tight national economy. This burden is not being imposed on Canadians by any foreign power, or by any international collapse, but by a Canadian provincial government. It is both sad and of deep concern that one provincial government presiding over the most rapidly expanding economy in the country should respond to a continued and prolonged disagreement by imposing deep economic penalties on the working men and women, the pensioners, the businessmen and the people of Canada."
I submit that is exactly what this government did on May 19, 1981, in its budget. This view is very widely shared. If they do not believe it, we could have another election. We could have one right now. We will go and get our signs and put them up, and let us see what happens. I think I would be back here, but I would be over there; I would not be here any longer. They would be lucky to be the official opposition.
Mr. Speaker: Bill 72 please.
Mr. Wrye: On Bill 72, I would just like to comment from --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: We are debating Bill 72. You can ask your colleagues to co-operate.
Mr. Wrye: I would just like to read the comments, very briefly, of the Toronto Globe and Mail, on May 21, 1981. I think it captured a lot of the real shame of this budget. It said, "The Ontario budget totally undermines Premier William Davis's long-proclaimed program against rising prices for domestic oil." It does not undermine it, it kills it. How can he go with a straight face to Alberta and say, "Horrors, horrors, you have increased the price again." Alberta will say, "Hold your price increases down."
Hon. Mr. Sterling: Just follow Pierre's example. Forty cents a gallon now.
Mr. Wrye: Forty cents a gallon? How about a litre?
It puts the Premier on the side of rising prices. If you cannot beat them, join them. Every time the price rises, for whatever reason, his government will collect increased revenue, and it will do so without so much as the outward acquiescence of this Legislature.
The Globe and Mail also said in that same editorial, "Alberta and Ottawa will get all the blame for oil price increases." I can just hear it now; I can just hear, "The feds have done it again." We have heard that all session. The Globe and Mail goes on, "Ontario will quietly collect an amount equal to 20 per cent of everything they are blamed for." So I can hear the Premier now saying what an awful thing it is for the federal government to have done, or what an awful thing it is for Alberta to have done, or what an awful thing it is for some foreign government to have done, while his Treasurer rushes up to his adding machine to find out how many more dollars are going to come into the desperately short Ontario coffers.
Here is David Crane, writing in the Toronto Star on the same date -- I guess the reason for May 21 is that it took the editorial writers and the commentators a day to recover from the shock of this budget; I do not think the taxpayers have recovered yet: "Frank Miller has found a new way to profit from inflation. With oil prices slated to at least double over the next five years, Miller must have found the prospect of soaring tax revenues irresistible. Move over Sheikh Lougheed; make way for Sheikh Miller. Ontario may not have any oil, but it does have the power to tax."
9:30 p.m.
I want to put on the record a part of this letter from the Guelph District Labour Council, city of Guelph. I think it speaks a lot for the concerns expressed by working men and women. It says: "This letter follows a resolution passed at the June 11, 1981, meeting of the Guelph and District Labour Council protesting the proposed Ontario budget and calling upon you to oppose its acceptance."
They are calling on us to oppose its acceptance, not just to stand idly by and say, "We will give you your increases; we will give you OHIP; we will give you ad valorem; we will give you personal income tax; we will roll over and play dead." I don't think we ought to have to. This would not have happened with a minority government, but with a majority they think they can steamroller us.
This budget is a callous attack on working people and a bonanza for the corporations, which I notice they did not tax. In all these tax increases there was not one for the corporations. Well, they are not listening. They do not care any more. They will only care four years from now, and then things will change.
Workers' incomes have been steadily eroded by inflation since 1975. The nine per cent increase in personal income tax proposed in the budget constitutes a further cut in the take-home pay of workers this year. Instead of eliminating OHIP payments as in most other provinces, the government plans to increase this discriminatory tax. Increasing the tax on gas and diesel fuel and tying it to the escalating prices of these commodities will also hit workers and the poor the hardest, while still contributing to even higher inflation as corporations pass on higher costs through increased prices.
It is the corporations that will suffer the least; it is the working men and women, the poor, the seniors who will suffer the most. It will unfairly hit the small businessmen who are struggling to survive with a government that just ignores their plight and stands up and votes against any interest rate help. They say: "Oh, that is a federal fault too; that is the feds' fault, we can't help." The Minister of Housing says he cannot help with any mortgage assistance. Seven other provinces have, but unlike the ad valorem tax, in this one Ontario cannot join them.
Finally, I would just like to read a brief excerpt from an incredible document that the Treasurer of Ontario read and delivered to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa. I remember the member for Ottawa East could not believe it either, so I got a copy of this speech and I read through it. This was delivered about two weeks ago tomorrow, on Wednesday, June 10.
After all this, after the Conservatives themselves -- minister after minister; the first minister, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), all the various ministers -- warned time and again against profiteering from inflation through these kinds of gas increases and then did it themselves, the Treasurer says on page three -- for those members, the ladies and gentlemen in the back row, who may like at least to find out what the Treasurer is saying -- he says:
"We have been accused of cashing in on oil price increases because, under our new indexed system" -- well, at least he did not call it ad valorem -- "we will benefit from price increases for oil. Quite simply, the cost of government justifies an increase, and with inflation, unit prices were not working well." Well, isn't that too bad? If the government had any guts it would have brought in its increase, it would have defended it, and if it needed another increase next year it should have had the guts to bring one in next year and defend it, and the year after that and the year after that. He says, "with inflation, unit prices were not working well."
Then he added a line that would just double up with laughter the working people of my riding and the working men and women of Ontario; it would double them up with laughter if the pain was not so great. He said, "I can also say with absolute certainty that it is a tax measure that is fair, reasonable and will be seen to benefit the economy beyond the simple raising of revenue for the province." How, I might add, will it benefit the economy? Is there one member in the back row who will have the guts to stand up and defend it and tell us how it will benefit the economy; just one who has the nerve? Somebody should prepare a speech for them to defend it. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) has gone to the back row to defend it for them.
I wish to defer now to the member for Ottawa East, who I am sure has some excellent remarks to make. I just want to say in closing that I find this increase particularly reprehensible. It is probably the most disgraceful part of a budget that just absolutely shames this government. I want to say to it, with respect, that the people of Ontario will remember this four years from now. The government may think it can bring in a huge increase this year, another one next year, kind of slow it down in 1983, and then dole out the goodies in 1984. But next time we are going to take this document to the people of Ontario and ask them, "Remember how they kept the promise?"
We will detail for them what the ad valorem gas tax will be in 1985. It will not be 5.4 cents a litre, it will not be 5.8 and it will not be six. It will be 10, 11, 12 or 13. The people of Ontario and the members of this Legislature will not have had one opportunity to say yea or nay in the four intervening years. If we move over there, and I expect we will after 1985, the ad valorem gas tax will go. When we go over there, it is going to go too.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, you know of my natural reluctance to participate in the debate of such legislation, especially after having listened to the very worthwhile contributions of all my colleagues. My own limited contribution would not be necessary in this debate, but I want to say that the people of Ottawa East, who sent me to this place again on March 19, 1981, in an overwhelming fashion, would not forgive me if I did not make some contribution and register my opposition to such a cynical, hypocritical and -- how should I say? -- gouging type of legislation that is being put forward by the government. So I think I should make a few limited remarks about why the people of Ottawa East and their member are opposed to Bill 72.
The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) has the unfortunate task of having to sit day in and day out and listen to and accept the slings and arrows of the opposition on this legislation. Yet I suppose it is the role of that minister, although he has nothing to do with setting the policy. He is the one who has to sit here day in and day out in frustration, obviously, and listen to the opposition to the bill. In some ways it is patently unfair. I have seen this situation time and time again involving other legislation over the past 10 years.
9:40 p.m.
I must say to my colleague the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), I have seen the frustrations of other Ministers of Revenue sitting here during other difficult legislation, so I say to him the precedent set by some of his colleagues in the past should be good experience for him. This will be good experience for him it will give him some idea of the glamour of the job of Minister of Revenue, sitting here defending legislation which he had no part in establishing, in all likelihood. As far as the policy is concerned, it emanates from another ministry.
Nevertheless, we were fortunate in this evening's debate to have the presence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) on and off. I would have thought it would be interesting for the Premier possibly to participate in the debate. He could tell us why it was necessary to bring forward this type of legislation at this time. He could tell us why he did not level with the people of Ontario prior to the election, instead of telling them he was against tax increases, something many of my colleagues have already put on the record. He could tell us why he would tell them prior to the election that he was against such tax increases, and soon after the election would bring forward such cynical legislation.
It would have been interesting to hear the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or the Premier raise what one of my colleagues raised here this evening. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) raised a worthwhile and effective argument, I thought, when he said this legislation undermines the democratic process and seriously undermines the principle we have always accepted that there should be no taxation without some form of representation.
Even my colleague from the left-wing party of that side, who has joined us now, would agree with me that by accepting this legislation now, the people of Ontario will never have another opportunity to oppose a gasoline tax, because from now on, once this legislation is accepted, the executive branch of government can alter the price of gasoline by way of regulation every three months. It increases the tax to the people of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly will have no input whatever in that process.
It is small wonder my colleagues and I are taking the time it has taken to get through this bill. It is the only opportunity we have, and frankly, if we were to do justice to the legislation, we should probably keep these people here all summer and all fall because we will never have another opportunity to register our opposition to taxation.
Day in and day out my colleagues and I have opposed this legislation. In the process of opposing this legislation, we have heard member after member on that side of the House make comments. We have seen the new crop of members who have come in since March 19, what they call the new bright lights, the new blood of the Conservative Party. I ask my colleagues here, has any one of the new members stood up and opposed this legislation?
Some hon. members: Not one.
Mr. Roy: Has any new member on that side stood up and supported this legislation?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Roy: They all support it, but has anyone made a speech in support of this legislation?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Roy: Not a one? I do not believe it. Sometimes I cannot be here; I spend some time in my riding. I often get abused for that. One of the reasons I spend a lot of time in my riding is that I like my riding, I like to be there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Bill 72.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: That is right. The people of Ottawa East like to see me in the riding.
The Acting Speaker: On the debate, Mr. Roy, Bill 72.
Mr. Roy: So you should know, Mr. Speaker, that when the election rolled around, that is why 70 per cent of the people of Ottawa East voted for me again. They like to see me in the riding.
The Acting Speaker: The second reading of Bill 72.
Mr. Roy: So I come back to this legislation and the muted sounds that we have heard from the other side of the House; not a word from those members. It is so disappointing, because there is a precedent for back-benchers of the government to oppose what they consider to be unjust and unfair legislation.
Do you remember John White's seven per cent energy tax, Mr. Speaker? If you were an active participant in the political process you would recall this. The House leader (Mr. Wells) recalls the situation where his colleague John White imposed a seven per cent energy tax, and when the people of Ontario complained, he said, "Put on a sweater, boys, and turn down the thermostat." Do you remember those comments, Mr. Speaker? The back-benchers of the Conservative Party then showed guts. They opposed it and he backed down.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: That is right. They'd guts in those days.
I look at this whole new crop. They are all hustlers, all of them. They all want to get into the cabinet. They are all bright lights. All of them received the sacred trust of the people in their ridings on March 19, yet what have they done? They have not opposed this legislation. In fact, they have not publicly supported the legislation. They have sat there muted, they have made faces, they have been cynical, they have made comments to my colleagues --
An hon. member: They stuck up their hands.
Mr. Roy: That is right. They made all sorts of gestures, they made cynical comments throughout; but not one of them had the guts to get up and represent the people of his or her riding. It is a shameful performance. If this is a precedent for what we can expect from the back-benchers in the Conservative Party for the next four years, then the Premier has himself a fair crop of trained seals.
Because there are some 70 ridings whose representatives do not say one word in opposition to this very regressive legislation, we in the Liberal Party must let the people of Ontario know that there must be a mouthpiece for the people who are opposed to this legislation. That is the job we are doing now, and that is the job we shall continue doing when the government brings forward this type of legislation.
Some of us in our remarks keep mentioning the words "hypocritical," "cynical," "underhanded," "arrogant," and so on and so on and so on. Many of us have heard the comments of the Premier and a series of Ministers of Energy, and my colleagues have on different occasions recalled the statements of those different Ministers of Energy. I will not bore you, Mr. Speaker, and repeat some of the comments made by various Ministers of Energy. As embarrassing as it might be to the people on the other side of the House, I will not do it. I have just a few comments here and there, but I will not read whole speeches. I should, really --
Some hon. members: Do it.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Roy: Even though my colleagues are vigorously and enthusiastically egging me on, I will not do it. I suspect the reason the Premier is quietly floating around this place is that he is expecting a vote here this evening. Nevertheless, if we use the word "cynical" it will be understood it is difficult for us to accept this legislation, when in 1980 the Premier, in one of the many speeches he made -- and I am sure the Minister of Revenue has heard it all before; he should hear it again --
There is the Premier. Good evening, Mr. Premier. I am reading one of his old speeches, something I do not spend much time doing, but tonight I will do it --
Hon. Mr. Davis: That's where you made your mistake. You should have read them five years earlier.
Mr. Roy: I should have read it earlier and I would still be crying. Let me read it now. It is embarrassing enough.
This is from an address by the Premier of Ontario to the annual meeting of the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, an association of municipal electric utilities, at the Royal York, March 4 --
Hon. Mr. Davis: All the Liberals in that association voted for us. They would all vote for us tomorrow.
Mr. Roy: Yes, I would like to see them vote now.
I will not read the opening remarks. The competition he is giving to Johnny Carson and Bob Hope we do not need. Immediately I jump to page eight. He said, "Our broad policy purpose will not change. It was and is a three-pronged objective of adequate and secure supplies at a reasonable price. We did not compromise our position with the Clark government, and it would be an error to assume that we will compromise it with the new government of Mr. Trudeau."
There the Premier was being tough. Those were the days when we really believed the Premier was serious about curbing inflation and stopping this gouging.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Those were the days when the Liberal Party was committed to world price.
Mr. Roy: Not at all. Let us read his speeches. There was enough distortion during the election.
Hon. Mr. Davis: What you couldn't stand was the truth.
Mr. Roy: The truth, yes. Let us go on. The Premier said: "To compromise on that policy would be to compromise the future of the people of Ontario." And to be absolutely sure, he ended as he usually does, "That we will never do." Then he went on to say, "I have no doubt that prices will increase, but equally, no one will be left in doubt as to Ontario's position. Price increases without commensurate improvement in supply security and appropriate distribution of oil-related revenues will be opposed."
How does this tax help the supply security of Ontario? How does that price increase jibe with the Premier's promise prior to the election that the government would prevent tax increases? Remember the Premier's speech at that time? It said, "We are against tax increases."
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Unfair tax increases, then? He did not say that. Maybe I should continue to read his speech. At page 13 he said --
Mr. Bradley: There is the Tory platform there.
Mr. Roy: That is right. It is the Tory platform; it is all there.
He stated at page 13: "We will continue to resist windfall profits for provincial Treasuries and petroleum companies." What is happening now? What they are saying now is, "You fellows are gouging and we are in there gouging with you." That is what he is doing. That is part of the process for the consumers of Ontario.
I have another speech here just in case the Premier's memory was fading. This was a year ago and maybe it is unfair to ask you to be consistent for a year. It is unfair.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa East has the floor.
Mr. Roy: My colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) brought forward a speech from February 2, 1981. That is not very long ago. Although there was an event in between that sort of distorted the picture, in any event let us look at what the Premier said at a press conference in this very building at Queen's Park -- right here in this building -- three or four months ago. It was just downstairs. He said on page six: "The government has fought hard to protect Ontarians from unfair price increases that would do little to increase supply security, while working on the national scene for a new revenue distribution system that would protect both producing and consuming provinces, while enhancing the national interest."
I ask again, how does this tax give us supply security? How does it benefit what they call the national interest? How does it do that? Do my colleagues understand that? Maybe on that side they do, but we have never heard from them. We thought there was a new crop of young, vigorous, independent types who were elected on March 19. There they are. Even the Tory mascot from Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) back there, who I would have thought would be far more independent, has not said a word.
Give us back the good old days of John Smith. Do members remember John Smith, the backbencher who opposed that seven per cent --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Order. The member for Ottawa East has the floor.
Mr. Roy: That's right. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat depressing to see this new crowd. There they are sitting back there. Not a one has moved without a signal from the front bench. They are all looking down there. They are all trying to be good.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member will get back to Bill 72.
Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall return to it.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Roy: From a short perspective of some 10 years, I have watched the developing energy problems. I can recall the Premier under attack by the former leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Lewis, and from our former leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). Then there was the change in leadership with our present leader, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Smith), in consistent opposition to the Premier of Ontario. I say to the Premier, of all the people who should think how cynical this legislation is, a person like Joe Clark would. After all, the opposition of the Ontario Conservative Party to Joe Clark's budget really caused his defeat. The members opposite know that, he knows it, everyone knows it.
10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roy, can we return to Bill 72, please?
Mr. Roy: I will, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, we are graced this evening by the presence of the Premier, the real author of Bill 72, and it is important that we have this exchange to know the motivation.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am here Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.
Mr. Speaker: Just address your remarks to the bill, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy: I was explaining I like to spend lots of time in my riding. The people love me in the riding. They like to see me in the riding.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: To any of the members on that side who think it is more profitable to spend more time here than in the riding, I am prepared to compare my majority with any of them at any time.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is relevant to Bill 72.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right, but you will understand I am being provoked.
Mr. Robinson: I thought they elected you to come here; I guess they elected you to stay home.
Mr. Speaker: Just address your remarks to me, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy: I will address my remarks to you and I tell you that I received 70 per cent of the vote in spite --
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with Bill 72.
Mr. Piché: Omer Deslauriers will take care of that next time. Just wait till Omer gets through with you.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the hotshot candidate of the Premier, in spite of Omer --
Mr. Speaker: Let's get back to Bill 72 now.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to quote another statement of the Premier in December 1979. I think you should hear this. He is commenting on Joe Clark's budget and he says, "A large increase in the excise tax would be a wilful attack on the individual consumer and general economy of Ontario." Do you believe that, Mr. Speaker? I do not. It must be a misquote.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my friends are feeding me. I will never finish before 10:30.
Mr. Speaker: Please try.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I was not quoting from the national newspaper of this country, I would not believe it. I will have to read it again.
Mr. Speaker: You are being repetitious.
Mr. Roy: I hope not, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe this. It says --
Mr. Speaker: I will have to call you to order.
Carry on with Bill 72.
Mr. Roy: "A large increase in the excise tax would be a wilful attack on the individual consumer and general economy of Ontario and would not serve to advance energy self- sufficiency." Do you believe that?
Ms. Copps: En français.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) tells me to proceed in French, and I say to her it would be no more believable in French. I would not believe this in French. I do not think this would be believable in any language. Did the Premier really say that? Poor Joe Clark. It is not fair he should be doing that to Joe Clark.
Mr. Speaker: Let's get back to Bill 72 now.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I never did to my national leader what you did to yours.
Mr. Sweeney: He would still be Prime Minister if it weren't for you.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Roy has the floor.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, when we quote previous speeches from the Premier or statistics that undermine the process that has brought forward Bill 72, you should keep things in proper perspective. I have to thank my colleague the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) for bringing forward a little quotation. This is again in a national newspaper. It is a quotation from the Premier and it states, "Premier Davis, disputing the findings of a recent Lakehead University study which said that two pulp and paper companies did not need the money given them through federal-provincial aid agreements, said, 'I can get academics'" --
Mr. Speaker: That really has nothing to do with Bill 72.
Mr. Roy: But it is a tremendous quote. Mr. Speaker, you will want to hear this.
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure I do. I want to hear about Bill 72.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It truly strains the bounds of credulity that the honourable member opposite can rise in the face of standing order 19, which deals with reading from documents that have nothing to do with the debate at hand. By his own admission, while it may be a sterling quote, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and I would ask that you bring him back to the topic.
Mr. Speaker: That is why he was called to order and that is why he is going to start talking about Bill 72.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have never yet known my colleague to be out of order in a debate in this House, and I think you owe it to him to hear him through.
Mr. Speaker: With great respect, I have a feeling I have heard that quotation.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson), who so sanctimoniously interrupted my speech --
Mr. Speaker: Let us get back to Bill 72.
Mr. Roy: I say to my colleagues, have you heard him opposing this legislation?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Roy: Just to complete the quotation, the Premier said, "I can get academics and get anybody to write a report on anything." He said, "You can get conflicting reports on any point of view." In other words, one can get academics to say anything in reports that conflict on everything.
Mr. Speaker: Now let us get back to Bill 72, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy: I have only quoted from statements and speeches of the Premier. After all, it is unfair to ask the Premier to be consistent over a period of about one year or even a period of a few months.
I have here statements by Ministers of Energy. My colleagues have quoted from statements by Ministers of Energy and there have been many Ministers of Energy. There has been McKeough --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Roy, please come back to Bill 72 and proceed.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Roy: Yes. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have quoted from a whole series of Ministers of Energy. One of them I think we should mention.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let Mr. Roy make his statement. We can all listen very attentively.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can you ask the Premier to try to control his mascot back there?
I think it is important to quote from a former very independent-minded Minister of Energy, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor). "Mugged in the corridors of power," he said. No wonder. So here is what the minister had to say in April 1977 about price increases at that time: "We are opposed because it will create further unemployment when the unemployment rate in Canada is the highest it has been in 20 years with nearly a million Canadians out of work."
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Roy: He stated, "We are opposed because it will deal yet another blow to the competitive capability of Canadian industry and world markets at a time when there is little competitive --
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Let me finish. This is a statement in the House. He said, "Mr. Speaker, any increase in domestic price of oil and natural gas at this time would be gouging the Ontario consumers."
Then he went on to say, "Ontario believes any national crude oil and natural gas price policy should meet six objectives: First, it should develop additional supplies of crude oil, natural gas and if need be other sources of energy." There is none of this in Bill 72. "It should protect the competitive position of Canada's industries"; none of that. "It should strengthen fiscal relationships amongst provinces." There may be some of that in here; the government is getting some money out of the increase. Then he went on, "It should encourage the creation of new jobs." Any new jobs here? None at all; none in this bill. "It should alleviate inflation." The government is benefiting from inflation; that is what it is doing. Finally, "It should be equitable." How is this equitable?
This was the Minister of Energy at the time laying down these six criteria before there should be an increase in energy prices. This is the process that is taking place now. I could go on and quote successive ministers. But I want to say --
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: I want to say that we on this side, speaker after speaker, have stood here and opposed this legislation at this time because we will not get another opportunity. The government is undermining the legislative process. We will never get another opportunity. It will be done by regulation.
An hon. member: Have the government members spoken in favour of it or against it?
Mr. Roy: None of these hotshots on the back row has spoken.
Mr. Speaker: Let us return to Bill 72.
Mr. Roy: I keep getting notes from people saying, "Wind her down, we have to vote." So, Mr. Speaker, at least we on this side have had the guts to represent our ridings and stand up. We say to the people of those 70 ridings out there, "We are opposed to this tax."
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Roy: The people of those 70 ridings who expect their representatives to oppose this tax are getting their voice on this side.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: You are running out of voice.
Mr. Roy: We are running out of voice; that is right.
An hon. member: The truth shall make you free.
Mr. Roy: That is right. Mr. Speaker, the record should show that we in the Liberal Party, during the hot summer days of 1981, were here fighting against this tax increase. The people on that side --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Roy: That is right. Of all those members on that side, not a one got up to oppose it.
Mr. Ruston: Not a one.
Mr. Roy: That is right. Yes. They get up and promote such things as Playboar or something.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the record should show that at a time when we were opposing this legislation they were all sitting there smirking and laughing and thinking this was all very funny.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: That is right; while the people of Ontario are going to be gouged by Bill 72, the government members should all be ashamed.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks I have heard 30 speakers on this bill on second reading: 13 members of the New Democratic Party and 17 members of the Liberal Party, who said nothing. I can honestly say that I have never heard so many people use so many words to say so little so consistently over and over again.
Ms. Copps: We were quoting your ministers, that is why.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) was the biggest offender over there.
The inaccuracies that were quoted over and over again by so many members, the misunderstandings of the ad valorem tax, the misunderstandings of how this legislation works, I found just literally unbelievable. I heard members opposite suggest tax increases over the next three years that would double what will probably come to pass. I have heard some members opposite talk about flow through from the federal government that was so far out in left field and so far wrong -- mind you, Mr. Speaker, left field came from there -- that it was just unbelievable.
I heard members referring to the fact that a 20 per cent ad valorem tax was a huge rate of tax. These same members obviously did not recognize that as little as four years ago the tax on gasoline equated to 40 per cent of the net retail price. As short a time ago as one year the rate was in excess of 20 per cent. What we are talking about is fiscal responsibility in this government, something that the other side knows very little about.
There was a particular reference by the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who was talking about a reasonable relationship between revenues and expenditures. If he would only look in this document that was so widely referred to in the last few weeks, he would see that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications' estimates alone are over $1.25 billion. Yet the revenue anticipated through not only gasoline tax but the motor vehicle fuel tax in the next year is somewhere between $900 million and $950 million.
I have not even referred to the expenditures proposed for the Ministry of Energy, which are energy-related in many instances and will turn back the moneys into the system to run it in a fair and equitable way in this province, using revenues that we bring in in a fair way and distribute in a fair way.
I think we heard today from the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) about turning these revenues back to the people. When the federal government in Ottawa is passing through the various tax increases, the members opposite are not recognizing that approximately half of the barrel is all that is being talked about over there, that more than half the barrel does not relate to motor vehicle fuels. When they talk about $4.50 a barrel, they mean $4.50 a barrel. We are talking about a tax on that portion of the barrel that is used in the transportation industry, approximately half of that barrel.
We are turning some of those same dollars out of that barrel back to help those people who need assistance in their heating costs. It is because we have fiscal responsibility on this side of the House that we are able to do it.
Last but not least, because my time is limited, I would just like to quote a member opposite who said, "The principle of this bill is evil." Let me read this to you, Mr. Speaker: "'The spectacular rate of increase in the price of gasoline causes some hardship for consumers,' Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney said Thursday. 'However, the price here is not high by world standards,' he told a news conference. 'You pay more for gasoline in Europe and the United States, but less in Alberta and perhaps Saudi Arabia.'"
Mr. Blakeney is concerned about the reason for increasing the federal tax on petroleum products. In an interview later, he went on to say: "Gasoline prices would increase again once the provincial government's tax is calculated on a share of the new federal rate. Saskatchewan gasoline tax is based on 20 per cent of the federal rate." That great Socialist province to the west has exactly the same rate that we are proposing, except that it has had it for a while.
This is fair and reasonable legislation that fairly treats our financial needs in this province. It should be supported by all members of this House.
10:38 p.m.
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Ashe's motion for second reading of Bill 72, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell;
Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I.;
Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.
Ayes 64; nays 45.
Ordered for third reading.
10:40 p.m.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House the business for tomorrow afternoon and Thursday.
Tomorrow afternoon the House will consider legislation, beginning with second reading of Bill Pr14, followed by consideration in committee of the whole House of Bill Pr7, Bill 69 and Bill 86, and then second reading of Bill 116, Bill 85 and Bill 67.
On Thursday, immediately after question period we will begin legislation with second reading of Bill 113, then resume second reading of the various budget bills -- Bills 73, 78 and 77 -- followed by second readings of Bills 124 and 68, followed by committee of the whole on any of these bills as required, and then Bill 126 and Bill 127.
RENTAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN PROGRAM
Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett). I point out to the member that he has no more than five minutes. The minister will also have five minutes to reply.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I was really very disappointed at the answer I received to my important question about how many units were being provided through the Ontario rental construction loan program in the municipality of Toronto. The minister indicated he would supply that information. He promised in this House, and we have got the figures right here, that he would supply that information on June 10.
He has not done that. When one looks at the Order Paper, one finds that his answer was, "Look up 128 to 129." We are looking it up and we cannot figure out the answer to my question from what he has supplied; definitely not. I think this is one of the biggest cover-ups that has been perpetrated on the taxpayers of this area. Not even one unit was being constructed under the Ontario rental construction loan program.
This is absolutely shocking. This program was designed specifically to alleviate the housing shortages and, as everyone knows, the severest shortages are occurring in Metro Toronto where the vacancy rate is at the all-time low of 0.4 per cent.
The housing commissioner, Mr. Bremner, now says it may not be a bad idea for young people to move out of Metropolitan Toronto because there simply are no units available for them to move into. The shocking fact here is that the Minister of Housing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, has misled us by telling us that the figures can be found and gleaned from what he has provided us. I think this is very serious. We simply cannot get the figures from what he has given us.
Why are this government and this minister not honest enough, forthright enough and truthful enough simply to stand up and tell this House that the program that has been designed is not working, period. Then, of course, we would have a chance to sit down and work out some program that would alleviate the housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto. The biggest shock is that this government and this minister are not supplying us with the true facts as they really are. If the minister had any courage, and if he had any honesty in himself, he would simply stand up and say to our side here that this program is a failure, that the Ontario rental construction loan program is not working, and that we should sit down and work out a new program.
What is so difficult about that? We are not asking him to play God. We are simply asking him to have the courage to tell us the true figures and the true facts. I think it has come to the point now where our young people have to move out of the Metropolitan Toronto area because of the failure of the rental construction loan program. If that is what is so denigrating the Minister of Housing, he should have the courage to stand up and tell us the true facts.
I will tell him one thing, since he is shaking his head: As he knows, in the 1940s, 30 per cent of the population could afford houses; now only six per cent of Metropolitan Toronto families can purchase a home. That is a fact. He can check it again in Hansard after I have spoken.
What are the facts in this matter? The facts are simply that we should have some honesty exhibited here in the House that would indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have to move in the direction of coming up with a new program. I think that is very important and I wish the minister would have enough courage to tell us that this program is not working so we can work out new ways.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity of responding to the member for Parkdale, who seems to want to be able to confuse all the issues in this particular program.
First of all, may I say that the Ontario rental construction loan program has received rather substantial support from the construction industry in this province, not only in Metropolitan Toronto, but indeed across Ontario. I am sure the member can read some facts and figures. There have been 185 applications for housing units under the rental construction loan program in a number of municipalities across this great province, for something like 18,662 units, and we have provided --
Ms. Copps: What about Metropolitan Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Do not worry about Toronto. Let me tell the member for Hamilton Centre there is more to this province than Metropolitan Toronto. Let me assure her.
Ms. Copps: The minister has just said he is not interested in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister listened to the question; let him reply. Mr. Bennett.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am sure the member for Hamilton Centre will appreciate there is more to this great province than just Metropolitan Toronto.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Listen, kindly let me respond. I paid the courtesy to the member opposite of letting him express his view. Now let me express the government's point of view. Please sit and shut up for a minute.
I said there were 185 applications in this province for 18,662 units, of which the Ontario Mortgage Corporation has approved just seven short of 12,000 units for the province. There are 3,000 -- sit down, please.
10:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: You should realize that is not the question I asked, and I think my privileges have been abused somewhat by this minister not giving us what I have asked for.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege. I might remind all the honourable members the minister may respond in any way he sees fit or not respond at all. Would the minister carry on.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am saying there have been 11,993 units approved by the Ontario Mortgage Corporation. More than 3,000 units have had what we call commitments, where they have had the building permits and so on issued and an opportunity to develop those units in our province.
I am sure the member for Parkdale will see that, if he can read, and I trust he can, even though he might have some difficulty in understanding the figures because of his inability from a Liberal point of view to try to extend himself to what is the third position. Does he know what the third position is? He experienced it this weekend in Kingston. He found out there was a third position. He secured that --
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have to ask you, because you are in the position of authority, what does that have to do with the answer to my question about whether these programs work in the Metropolitan Toronto area?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Absolutely nothing, but he may respond in any way he sees fit.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Parkdale might find out some day that we have some privileges on this side of the House. On June 8 the member did ask me some questions in the House.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Would the member for Hamilton Centre sit and listen for a moment. I say to her, don't get excited. I cannot open the doors for her.
Mr. Speaker: One minute.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Last night she had six glasses of water and she had to run for the door.
Mr. Speaker: Ignore the interjections.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the member for Parkdale wants to zero in on the Ontario rental construction loan program. I trust he read my remarks yesterday afternoon in relation to the no-confidence motion by his leader. Ten members of his party did not even believe they should be here to support their leader in voting against the government of the day. I said at that time that we have adjusted the program to take into account some of the rising interest rates that are experienced by the development industry.
Mr. Speaker: Your time has expired.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: All my time was taken by all of the interjections by the great opposition -- which is nil.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The House adjourned at 10:54 p.m.