L059 - Tue 3 Dec 1985 / Mar 3 déc 1985

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

Mr. Wildman: It is a pleasure for me to rise to participate in this debate, particularly when one recognizes the victory that has been won by the New Democrats. It is a pleasure when one recognizes that the Legislature in a minority situation does have some power as opposed to what has been the case on occasion in majority government.

As a result of the position taken by members of the Legislature, particularly by the members on this side of the House, the motorists in this province are going to be paying far less than was originally planned when the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced his budget.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How are we going to sand the roads in Wawa?

Mr. Wildman: The minister is not going to sand the roads in Wawa?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How can we? The member is taking away the sand.

Mr. Wildman: The minister has more grit than that.

We are very proud that we are saving $60 million a year for Ontario motorists. The members to our right have been saying all day, "It is not any good if you drive a diesel." I listened attentively to the speeches made by the members of that caucus on the fuel tax.

It is interesting that most of the speeches made by the members of the Conservative Party on the fuel tax dealt with gasoline. They did not deal with fuel. A few members actually dealt with the fuel tax. Some talked about the problems truckers might face as a result of increases in fuel tax, but the majority talked about the tourists of this province as if they rode around in 18-wheelers to view Ontario.

They also talked about the problems facing farmers. Everyone realizes that farmers do drive some licensed vehicles which use diesel fuel and they do not get a rebate on fuel used by licensed vehicles. They ignored the fact, however, that a significant amount of the fuel used by the farmers of this province is eligible for a tax rebate.

The members of the Conservative Party have been confused about the fuel tax as opposed to the gasoline tax. They have not understood which tax actually has a greater effect on the motoring public of this province or, for that matter, on the tourists who come to this province.

The proposed amendment announced by the Treasurer would in effect freeze the amount of gasoline tax paid by the consumers in this province. It has the admirable aspect of getting rid of the existing ad valorem tax, and this is of tremendous importance to us, to the members of the House generally and to the consumers of Ontario.

Those of us who support the democratic approach that the Legislative Assembly is elected to vote revenue to the crown so the crown can implement programs for the benefit of the people of this province believe that members of the Legislature should debate revenue-gathering measures and should vote on them.

It is a basic tenet of our democratic system that the people are represented by their elected members, who will debate tax-raising measures and approve or disapprove of the tax proposals made by the crown. My colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) has been able to demonstrate that this is a tenet that goes back to the Magna Carta and is basic to our society and to our democratic approach to government.

Unfortunately, during its last few years the previous administration seemed to lose sight of the fact that it was accountable to the people of this province through the Legislative Assembly. It seemed to think it was preferable to operate without reference to the Legislative Assembly, basically to govern by decree. I submit that this is one of the main reasons the party to my right is now on this side of the House as opposed to that side after 42 years.

The Conservatives lost sight of the fact that they were responsible to the people; so they came upon this innovation called an ad valorem tax. The advantage of an ad valorem tax for the government was that it no longer had to refer tax increases to the Legislative Assembly; they were automatic every time the price of gasoline increased.

As a result, we had automatic increases in taxes. However, members of the general public did not realize this. They would read or see in the media that there was going to be an increase in tax related to regulation by the federal government perhaps, by world price or whatever. They would not realize that part of the increase in price was an automatic increase on the tax payable to the provincial government.

What was even more repugnant about this tax was that it was a tax on the total price, including other types of taxation to which gasoline was subject. In other words, it was a tax on other taxes. It put the taxpayer in double jeopardy, and I submit that it was a denial of basic democratic principles.

The Conservatives in this debate have made a lot of the fact that an ad valorem tax would go down if the total price of the product to which it was applied were to decrease. They have predicted that the price of gasoline will decrease and are saying that by removing the ad valorem tax the government and those members of the assembly who support that suggestion are denying the consumers of this province the possibility of a lower total price on gasoline and a lower tax.

First, it is important to look at the producing provinces, where they do not have ad valorem taxes, and to understand that the total price of gasoline in those jurisdictions is not less than it is in Ontario; it does not seem to make any difference with regard to an ad valorem tax.

In fact, it is interesting to note that the previous administration froze the ad valorem tax only when it began to perceive that there might be a total decrease in the price of gasoline. In other words, when they had the opportunity, according to their point of view, to allow the taxpayers a break, they froze the ad valorem tax and said: "Wait a minute. We do not want this to go down."

8:10 p.m.

I know it would be unparliamentary of me to suggest that the Conservatives in this debate are being hypocritical; so I will not suggest that. It does seem strange to me that they would make such a fuss today about an ad valorem tax being removed when they themselves are the authors of this odious tax and were in favour of it when it meant an increase in taxation.

To hear them speak today, one would think they favoured an ad valorem tax only if it meant a decrease in the price of gasoline; but in fact they invented the ad valorem tax when they saw it as a chance to make a tax grab and rob the consumers of this province.

As I have said, it is unfortunate that we have been subjected to the kind of nonsense that has been propagated in this House by the members to my right, but I suppose they are attempting to grab at straws because they have been basically spectators on the sidelines in this debate.

The government proposed, as it is the responsibility of the government to propose, but in this case before the assembly could dispose, this party indicated it would not accept what the government was proposing, and therefore the government itself disposed of what it was proposing.

Mr. Lane: The member had better not get himself confused.

Mr. Wildman: My friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin should recognize that it is the Tories who are confused. I would not suggest that he is confused.

I remember a recent debate in this House where the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, with my support and the support of many people in this House, suggested we should be doing something to bring about uniform gasoline prices across this province. He was not a member of the government at that time, but he was a member of the party that supported the government.

The then Conservative Minister of Energy participated in that debate. He got up and said he would not go along with the proposal for uniform gasoline prices across this province, which would have been a break to northerners. He was not prepared to initiate that kind of move, and he repudiated my friend's proposal. That in itself is an indication of the commitment the Conservative government had to protecting the consumers in this province.

It is unfortunate my friend's proposal was not accepted. I supported it, as did many members of this House, but he could not get his own government, the party in power, which he supported, to accept it.

The question of gasoline taxes and price is of particular importance to northerners. That is why the member for Algoma-Manitoulin initiated the move he did a few years ago concerning uniform gasoline prices. In northern Ontario, we pay a lot more for gasoline, with respect to taxes at least, because we use a lot more; we consume far more gasoline. That is related to a number of factors, such as the distances we drive and distances between communities and population centres. It is also related to the climate we have; we drive in far more severe conditions and have much longer, colder winters.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: But it is dry.

Mr. Wildman: It is dry; yes, that is true, although last weekend we experienced some concerns about the dryness of the weather. I would not say the weather in the north is nearly as dry as the wit of the member opposite.

The cost of gasoline and the tax component of the gasoline price is of tremendous importance in northern Ontario.

This party was the first to oppose the Treasurer's proposal to increase gasoline taxes, and I do not think I am being unfair when I say I suspect it is because of the influence of northern members in our caucus. We just would not accept an increase in the tax on gasoline. We insisted that the government live up to the commitment it made in the spring, which was basically to freeze the gasoline tax.

It is true the commitment also included removal of the ad valorem tax, which we support for the reasons I have expressed, but to remove the ad valorem tax and then to increase the other tax on gasoline is not in the spirit of the commitments made by the Liberal Party when it acceded to power.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was to freeze the ad valorem.

Mr. Wildman: I am certain the Treasurer is not going back on what he said earlier today. I am sure he has agreed to remove the ad valorem and to freeze gasoline taxes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member's party did not even want the ad valorem removed.

Mr. Wildman: It is important to recognize, since the Treasurer made his intervention, that the Liberals themselves have had some rather interesting things to say about gasoline taxes in this province in the past.

I am looking at Hansard for June 2, 1981, and the comments made by the now Premier (Mr. Peterson), then the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to gasoline taxes as a "raid on the consumer." He was referring to a specific tax measure by the Conservative government. He described it as doing nothing for oil or energy self-sufficiency.

The now Premier said: "If the Treasurer had come to this House to put that money in a separate self-sufficiency fund for Ontario, putting it into renewables or conservation or methanol or hydrogen or something a little bit creative, he might have had an attentive ear from this side of the House."

During the Treasurer's budget address, I did not hear anything about energy self-sufficiency, renewables, conservation or hydrogen, and frankly I heard very little creative.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What about ethanol?

Mr. Wildman: Yes, that is true. Ethanol is mentioned in here. The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) at that time also said the gasoline tax was "inflationary." He said, "It will dampen consumption, rob disposable income and help to create a recession if that is in the cards this year."

I submit that the situation is exactly the same today as it was in 1981, that an increase in the tax on gasoline would dampen consumption, rob disposable income and help create a recession. For that reason, I find it hard to understand why the present Liberal administration would introduce an increase in the tax.

The Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, went on to say, "If a new energy policy is to be credible, it simply cannot be used as an excuse to raise billions of new tax dollars for general government purposes."

If that is what the Treasurer meant a moment ago when he said, "Think hard for a reason to introduce a gasoline tax," I suspect the reason was to bring in new tax dollars for general government purposes. I remind the Treasurer that his leader said in 1981, in a debate on another gasoline tax, "Such an energy policy simply cannot be used as an excuse."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That was a Tory policy.

Mr. Wildman: Tory or Liberal, it does not make a lot of difference to the person at the gasoline pump; it still means more money out of his pocket.

For the very reasons the now Premier stated in 1981, we would have voted against this bill if the government had not changed the gasoline tax, brought in the amendment and continued the freeze.

8:20 p.m.

While we support the freeze in the tax levels for gasoline to protect the consumers, the overall price of gasoline is such an important issue, for northerners in particular, that in this caucus we believe it is time to move forward. Now that we will pass a freeze on the gasoline tax, it is time for us to actually look at the question of gasoline pricing, which as I said was raised earlier by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

We must have a public inquiry into the price of gasoline and particularly into the differentials between northern and southern Ontario and among the communities in the north. The price difference between urban and rural areas in the north is greater than the corresponding difference in the south, and greater than the difference between urban centres in the north and urban centres in the south.

There is something very odd about gasoline pricing in the north. For instance, the area I represent is mostly supplied by gasoline coming to Sault Ste. Marie and from it to all of the areas. However, for some strange reason it costs more for gasoline in the city of Sault Ste. Marie than it does in some of the small centres around the city which obtain their gasoline from Sault Ste. Marie. There is no logical explanation.

The urban centres in northern Ontario are served by terminals in Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Toronto. The small towns and more remote communities are served by agents who obtain their gasoline from those centres, receive the product from the major terminals and then distribute it.

The cost to deliver gasoline to a station in Toronto is less than the cost to deliver to an urban station in northern Ontario by about 1.5 cents per litre when direct deliveries are made; that is, not through the intermediary. The cost to deliver via an agent can exceed the Toronto cost by as much as seven cents a litre. Obviously, this is related to the market situation in northern Ontario. We have fewer people and smaller communities, so much so that the average station in southern Ontario sells about 75 per cent more gasoline than its northern counterpart. The small volumes in northern communities require higher margins in order to cover costs. We find a number of strange anomalies in the pricing of gasoline that are related to the problems I have enumerated.

If one looks at the history of gasoline prices over the last few months, it is interesting to note that the price in Toronto has varied from a low of between 39 cents and 40 cents a litre in July to a high of about 52 cents a litre in November. However, when one compares that to the history of gasoline pricing in northern Ontario, one notes that the price levels in the north generally have remained flat.

For instance, in July, in Hearst the price was a little over 52 cents a litre and in August it went up to about 55 cents a litre and has stayed there until the end of November. In Sault Ste. Marie, again it is flat. In July the price was about 53 cents for regular gas. In August it escalated to about 55 cents and has stayed at that to the end of October.

The point is that in our area we do not have gas price wars. One of the main components in the fluctuation of prices up and down in a place like Toronto is the fact that there is so much competition we have price wars in this part of the province. There is not as much competition in the north and there are no price wars, so we have flat prices.

We see more fluctuation in Wawa, for instance, than in most of the other areas. It is not quite as flat in Wawa, but it fluctuated only from a price of about 55 cents in July to a high in October of 58 cents a litre for regular gas.

My friends in the Conservative Party have made a lot of the gasoline tax and its effect on tourism. I submit that the tax is only one component. It is the same across the province. The problem we face in northern Ontario is largely the strange pricing practices in the private sector, which discriminate against northern Ontario, make it difficult for northerners to obtain gasoline at anything like a reasonable cost and discourage tourism far more, frankly, than the gasoline tax.

We have a smaller, less competitive market so we pay a great deal more. Basically, northerners have to pay what the market will bear, and that means higher gasoline prices on average and gasoline prices that do not fluctuate the way they do in the rest of the province.

I suppose one could say we need more competition in northern Ontario to deal with this and to encourage gasoline price wars and the lowering of the price. That is very nice to say, but when you have very small communities, small populations that are widely dispersed across a very large area, I find it difficult to figure out how we are going to encourage more competition. So if the competition in the private sector will not lower the overall price, I submit it is important for the public sector to take action.

My friend from Algoma-Manitoulin proposed one method a few years ago. If that is not workable, then we have to find what is.

I suggest that this government has made a right move in freezing the overall tax on gasoline, but it has not gone far enough. We have to do something about gasoline prices. It is imperative that this government live up to its commitment to institute an inquiry into gasoline pricing and the differentials in price between the north and the south and among the communities of the north.

I support this bill with the proposed amendment by the Treasurer, but I submit that it is only a first step in dealing with the overall question of gasoline pricing. I encourage the government to institute an inquiry to look at the full structure of the petroleum industry -- distribution, wholesale and retail -- to ensure that northerners get the same kinds of breaks that accrue, because of greater competition in gasoline retailing, in southern Ontario. Without that, I do not believe this government will have lived up to its commitments to the north, and I encourage it to do so.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, if you would indulge me for just a few seconds on a matter I would like to relate to the House that has nothing to do with Bill 51; I know it is out of order and I will be brief.

Mr. Wildman: It will be the first time the member has been briefly out of order.

Mr. Gillies: I thank the member.

I just came from a reception that was being held by a fund-raising committee. Many of the people present were families of the victims of the Air-India crash. The money raised through the reception is going to the expansion of hospital facilities in Mississauga and it was a very moving and touching gathering. The Premier was in attendance. The Right Honourable Joe Clark represented the government of Canada. Our colleague from Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) was there.

I would like it in the annals of this Legislature that the event took place and that the people involved in that tragedy are bouncing back and trying to have something good come of what happened in that very tragic occurrence last spring.

8:30 p.m.

On the subject of the gasoline tax, Bill 51, I would like to indicate my opposition to this appalling piece of legislation. Several weeks ago I had an opportunity to share a few thoughts with the House on the diesel fuel tax increase proposed under Bill 50, to which this party again stands alone in opposition. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, all the arguments that were made in relation to that bill by the lone wolves over here, the only guardians of the public interest left in this place, as we stood in our places one after another and talked about the negative impact of that tax on a myriad of enterprises and possibilities for our great province.

I will not bore you with the arguments we made about Bill 50, Mr. Speaker. You have heard them. I remember that you were in the chair that night. You noted them, you understood them and, in your impartial way, I know that you knew the veracity of what we were saying.

I thought I was making headway with my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). I thought I had persuaded him to support us in opposing Bill 50 at that time. He interjected during my remarks that if we built a subway from Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie he would give it every consideration. I have spoken to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton). It is just not possible; it is not viable. But now is the opportunity for the member for Algoma to atone for his sins because, as he would tell the members of this House, the gasoline tax increase is much more apropos of his riding and has much more impact on the good people of his riding.

So for the next 15, 20, 30 or 45 minutes I would like to lay out an array of arguments that the member for Algoma will be unable to resist. He will rear up in righteous indignation and tell his colleagues in the New Democratic Party: "I am sorry, I have to oppose Bill 51. I cannot go along with the party line on this one, because it is so wrong."

One thing really bothers me. I see that the Treasurer has left us. He must have seen me get up to speak.

Mr. Wildman: I thought he was the member's neighbour.

Mr. Gillies: I am going to come back to that. If the Treasurer is anywhere in the environs of this chamber or if he is watching this debate on television -- an innovation around here that I may touch on from time to time -- one thing that bothers me about these budgetary bills is that the Treasurer is casting himself in a very uncharacteristic role. I have known the Treasurer for many years since I first made a foray, unsuccessful as it was, into provincial politics in 1977, and I think I have developed a good relationship with the Treasurer, who I thought was a man of fairness and sensitivity unparalleled within these chambers.

Mr. Dean: Do not go overboard.

Mr. Gillies: My colleague the member for Wentworth tells me, "Do not go overboard." I am trying to contain myself.

But the Treasurer, a man with sensitivity, integrity and an understanding of the issue, a man who I always thought stood for the little guy, is now casting himself in the role of King John. He has become the King John of the Legislature, and we in this party are Robin Hood and his band of merry men.

Mr. Wildman: I thought you were going to say you were appalled.

Mr. Gillies: I am appalled.

So we over here, the band of merry men who are going to stand up for the little guy, are now faced with this King John mentality of the Treasurer, clad in his coat of mail and his doubtless scarlet tunic, as he brings in a series of tax measures that are regressive, that are counterproductive and that strike at the very people I always thought the Treasurer was one of the first to defend, the little guy, the working person in the province, the unemployed, the laid-off, the person many of us came into the Legislature to try to help.

I refuse to get used to seeing the Treasurer in the role of King John. It is uncharacteristic and it bothers me very much.

In announcing the introduction of this legislation for second reading, the Treasurer indicated that at the appropriate time he was going to move an amendment to the bill to roll it back partially. The opposition has scored a partial victory. With the untiring efforts of our former leader the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) and our party, with the latter-day support of the members of the third party, we said to the Treasurer: "You cannot freeze this tax at 8.8 cents. You cannot freeze it at a historic high. You cannot freeze it at the high end of the taxation scale. You cannot make a grab from the people with this bill because we are not going to let you."

The Treasurer, Lord only knows, can add. He looked across this side of the floor and he looked across his own side of the floor and he said, and I quote the Treasurer talking to himself, "I have a problem here."

Mr. Wildman: How can the member quote someone talking to himself?

Mr. Gillies: Because I heard him. Realizing that he had a problem, the Treasurer did some backtracking, entered into some negotiation with the other parties and decided to try 8.3 cents per litre to see what would happen.

The point is, he is still freezing it at the high end, and in so doing he is voting no confidence in Ontario's energy future because he does not believe what the members of this party believe, which is that we have turned the corner in Canada and Ontario on high energy prices and that the future holds better days and the possibility of lower prices. In refusing to recognize that, the Treasurer is voting no confidence in our province and no confidence in our energy future.

I believe every member of the assembly receives the Canadian Petroleum Association Review. There is an article interviewing various experts on energy issues. I would like to quote Dr. Stanislaw, who gave an interview in the November edition of the publication.

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

Stanislaw: "Basically they are going down. In an effort to help stabilize prices, Saudi Arabia was until quite recently the last holdout among OPEC countries, the last to charge official prices. Now they are changing their course. The scheme they are now negotiating effectively lowers the price of oil by $1 to $1.50 to selective buyers. This move has effectively brought down world market prices. There will be continuing downward price pressures for the next six to 18 months, with potential bottom weakness either in the next few weeks or in January or February."

There are other experts. There is more evidence to point to the fact that we should be voting confidence in our energy future and voting confidence in the industrial development and the economic infrastructure of our province by recognizing that and by allowing the budgetary policies of the government to reflect the possibility of lower oil and gasoline prices.

8:40 p.m.

What does the Treasurer do? He does exactly the opposite. He removes a system of taxation that would have allowed for that and brings in a tax that freezes the province's share of these taxes, and freezes them at the high end of the scale. I think it is a great pity. It is a failure of the government to recognize the potential for better days in our province in oil and gasoline pricing.

Having said all that, I am going to say something good about this bill. I am very pleased to see the old system of three-price taxation replaced with a single-price tax. Let me explain that; I think it was touched on earlier by one of the Liberal speakers.

Under the existing tax, there was eight per cent taxation on leaded gasoline, 8.4 per cent on unleaded gasoline and 8.8 per cent on unleaded super, which my little car uses. I had to get my own car again in the spring. I will not bore the members with the heartbreak that caused.

Mr. Breaugh: Tell us the details.

Mr. Gillies: The member for Oshawa is asking me to go into great detail on this.

Mr. Breaugh: Tell us why you bought a new Toyota.

Mr. Gillies: No. My colleague suggests I bought a Toyota. I did not buy a Toyota. I bought a Pontiac because I was voting yes to the future of the Canadian car industry, even as the government was voting no to the energy future of our province. I am not going to be sidetracked by my friend the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: What kind of Pontiac did you buy? Answer the question.

Mr. Gillies: I do not have to answer the questions any more; I just have to ask them. The reason I am glad --

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The remarks of the honourable member are so worthy of the attention of this chamber that perhaps we should have a quorum.

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

8:47 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: It is now a fait accompli that we have a quorum.

Mr. Gillies: I thank the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) for calling that quorum because I am sure every member of the assembly will want to hear why we should not vote for Bill 51, the bill that will raise gasoline taxes.

Mr. O'Connor: Tell us again; we were not here.

Mr. Gillies: That is a very good point from my friend the member for Oakville. The story thus far: I have made the point that the Treasurer, in moving this bill, has cast himself in the uncharacteristic role of King John of the Legislature and that we in this party are Robin Hood and his band of merry men. We are now faced with a bill which is a vote of no confidence in Ontario's energy future.

We are faced with a bill that says, "We in the government do not believe energy prices could go down." For the members who were not present, I then went on to quote from experts who indicated they believed the price of gasoline will go down. With the indulgence of the House, the Treasurer was not here, so I will quote again.

I will not quote again because one is not supposed to repeat oneself in here, but I will paraphrase what I quoted from the article in the Canadian Petroleum Association Review, in which Dr. Stanislaw, a noted expert on energy matters, told the Review that he basically believes the prices are going down. I will paraphrase it so as not to repeat myself and get into trouble with my friends in the third party.

The scheme they are now negotiating effectively lowers the price of oil by $1 to $1.50. This move has effectively brought world market prices down and there will be continuing downward price pressures for the next six to 18 months with potential bottom weakness in January and February.

8:50 p.m.

I recall the current Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Crosbie, always used to tell the old Liberal government in Ottawa, "This way is up; this is down." This government is not even allowing for the possibility that energy prices can go down and it is not going to allow the consumers of the province to be advantaged or helped by that circumstance if it should come about.

That is why, as I said before the member for Port Arthur so rightly called for a quorum, this bill is a vote of no confidence in our energy future.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it possible to ask the quorum to leave?

Mr. Gillies: I did not hear that. I am sure it was very good.

Mr. Ashe: Not really.

Mr. Gillies: I am being charitable.

It is a denial by the government of the possibility that energy prices can go down. We in this party not only believe this can and will happen, but we want the consumers of Ontario to benefit from that circumstance if it should come about. That is why we are so appalled by the direction taken in this bill.

I then went on to say I believed there was something good in this bill, something I was very pleased about.

Interjections.

Mr. Gillies: It is getting bad when you cannot hear yourself.

I went on to say I was very pleased about one thing in the bill, and I would like to speak briefly about the positive step in this bill.

Mr. Ashe: What is it?

Mr. Gillies: It is this.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would you please give the member for Brantford a chance to voice his opinion?

Mr. Gillies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that vote of confidence.

The thing I like in this bill is the move to a one-tier tax as opposed to the three-tier tax that exists. I would like to explain for a moment why I think that is the one and only good thing in this bill.

Mr. Haggerty: The member will have to support the bill just on that principle alone.

Mr. Gillies: Oh, no. My friend the member for Erie says I will have to support the bill, but he should stick around for the next hour or hour and a quarter because I am going to tell him all the reasons not to support the bill.

I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, why I am pleased about the move to a single-tier tax as opposed to the three-tier tax. Under the existing tax, leaded gasoline is subject to an eight per cent tax, unleaded regular gasoline is subject to an 8.4 per cent tax and unleaded super gasoline, which my little car uses, as I told my friend the member for Oshawa earlier, is 8.8 per cent.

The reason I am glad we are moving at least to a single tier, whether it be 8.8 per cent or the level to which the Treasurer has been forced to retreat, 8.3 per cent, is that it will somewhat discourage the use of leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline was cheaper partly as a reflection of the lower tax. For all the good environmental reasons, we in this party would want to encourage the use of unleaded gasoline, which has fewer hydrocarbons and is less damaging to the environmental and ecological balance of our province.

That is the good thing in this bill. It took me about five minutes to tell members the good thing in the bill. The balance of this speech is going to be about all the terrible things in the bill, all the things that should have been in the bill and are not, all the things that should have been in the budget relating to this bill that are not and so on.

As I noted in the debate on Bill 50, which was opposed solely by this party, this tax is part of a $700-million tax grab by King John, the Treasurer, and is added to by an increase of some $500 million in the provincial deficit, a total revenue grab and deficit increase of $1.2 billion. Yet the budgets of some of the ministries most closely related to this issue of gasoline tax have not been increased or maintained, but have been cut.

I have to wonder to what use the additional revenue the Treasurer will garner from the passage of Bill 51 will be put, additional revenue which we hope will not occur. To what good use will this gasoline tax increase be put, when we see in the Treasurer's budget some of the budgetary cuts in the ministries most closely related to this? I think that is a very serious concern.

The last budget introduced by the Progressive Conservative Party by our new leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), reduced the deficit of this province by some $1 billion, but cut no services to the people of this province and raised no taxes. I think the budget, and indeed Bill 51, indicate a different budgetary philosophy from that being put forward by our party and by the present Leader of the Opposition.

Will this $1.2 million the Treasurer intends to spend in excess of his revenues be of benefit to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications? Let us talk about that. Will the money from Bill 51 go into improvements of our highways? Will it go into improvements of our municipal roads? Will it go into any other research and development in transportation that will be to the benefit of our vast province with its huge network of roads and highways? I wish I could say yes.

Mr. McCague: Highway 403.

Mr. Gillies: My colleague mentions Highway 403. I am going to come to that in just a second. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications, in order to carry on its vital work, had a budget last year of $1,587,000,000. The budget plan for 1985-86 under the budget of my colleague the Treasurer is $1,553,000,000, a reduction of $34 million. Is the reduction of MTC's budget by $34 million going to improve or worsen the transportation network in this province?

Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt about it; it can only worsen it.

Mr. Gillies: There is really not much doubt, is there? We are looking at potholes if this direction continues.

Is the reduction of MTC's budget by $34 million going to lead to the hoped for completion on time of some of the vital highway links this province needs, such as Highway 403 from Brantford to Woodstock?

Mr. Rowe: No.

Mr. Gillies: Exactly. My friend the member for Simcoe Centre quite rightly says no. A reduction in that budget is not going to do anything for the highway network in this province. We do not see the benefit there.

I thought the additional funds raised by Bill 51 have to be going somewhere. They have to be doing some good somewhere. I looked perhaps at the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

Mr. Rowe: No.

Mr. Gillies: My friend from Simcoe Centre bellows no, and he is right. As we look at tourism, the second largest industry in our province -- and many forecasters say one day the largest industry -- do we see an increased commitment from the Liberal government towards the tourism sector through its ministry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Gillies: What do we see'? I hear a chorus of noes. The budget of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation in 1984-85 was $159 million. Somebody write that down. I ask my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre.

The Acting Speaker: Please address the chair.

9 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: There was $159 million in 1984-85; in the budget plan for 1985-86, in the Treasurer's budget, there is $146 million. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague to write that down, please. I think that is less. What does my friend come up with?

Mr. Rowe: It is $13 million.

Mr. Gillies: That is right; it is a reduction of $13 million. Therefore, is the additional funding that accrues to the consolidated revenue fund from the passage of Bill 51 going to do anything for our tourism industry? Is it going to allow the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) to introduce new programs to bring new people into our province to spend their money here? Absolutely not.

Let us look at the tourism sector and forget the ministry budget for a second. Let us pretend for a minute that we are tourists; we have just driven into Ontario by way of the Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls, and we pull into the Shell station on the right for a fill-up.

Mr. Gordon: Is that Earl's?

Mr. Gillies: No, it is not Earl's Shell station, but I will be coming back to that too.

Do the prices that greet us at those pumps encourage us to travel in Ontario and spend our money here? No, they do not. The prices discourage us from coming here and spending our money. I cannot understand why the Treasurer would want to do that. This is not the Treasurer I know. This is a new Treasurer with a King John mentality that is very uncharacteristic and troublesome.

In desperation, I thought there must be a plan here; perhaps, through the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, the government was going to increase its commitment in all the trade offices around the world to try to encourage business and industry to move into Ontario. "That must be the plan," I thought. I was so disappointed when I learned the 1984-85 budget for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs was $9 million and the 1985-86 budget plan is $7 million, a reduced commitment of $2 million again.

The $700-million tax grab in which the Treasurer is indulging himself through his budget, the additional funds that will accrue to the Treasury through Bill 51, the gasoline tax increase, will not help our tourism or our transportation network, will not encourage tourists to come to Ontario and will not encourage new businesses, new industries and new foreign capital to flow into our province.

The commitment is not there. In fact, there is a reduced commitment. We have a tax grab that does nothing to improve the infrastructure, economic development or industrial strategy of this province. It does nothing. All it does is raise prices for the consumer. All it does is gouge the little guy.

We have heard a litany of problems brought to the attention of this government in recent days. We in this party have been asking questions regarding layoffs of industrial workers at Massey-Ferguson in Brantford, in my own riding and in my neighbour the Treasurer's riding. We have raised questions about layoffs at International Harvester in Chatham and at Inco in Sudbury and those resulting from the closing of a mine in northwestern Ontario.

We know, as a result of the inaction of this government and its inadequate planning and response on these vital economic issues, that people in this province are going to suffer. We know that people are going to be hitting the bricks in the near future; they will be unemployed, laid off, in tough straits, their families wondering how they are going to get by on their supplementary unemployment benefits, unemployment insurance or welfare.

Does increased gasoline taxation, which will stay pegged at the high end of the scale regardless of energy prices, regardless of whether the price of gasoline goes down, help those people who need the help most? Not at all, I suggest. With a regressive tax such as one on gasoline, the poor stiff in Brantford, Sudbury, Chatham or anywhere else who is trying to fill his gas tank so that he can make his calls to seek employment and visit places of employment to see whether he can find a job is going to pay just as much as a wealthy person, and it is going to be one heck of a hard pound on his pocket. It is regressive and it is unconscionable.

Mr. McClellan: Did the member say that to the member for Muskoka in caucus?

Mr. Gillies: I ask, for the benefit of my friend the member for Bellwoods, why this tax? Why is this tax being pegged at the high end of the scale without recognizing the possibility of lower world oil prices, from which the consumer might benefit? I cannot understand the thinking that has gone into the construction of this bill.

Let us talk about agriculture for a second --

Mr. Breaugh: Hey, wait a minute.

Mr. Gillies: -- in relation, of course, to Bill 51, the gasoline tax increase. It is all very well for government spokesmen to say: "Do not raise agriculture, because you know darned well there is a tax credit back to the farmer for gasoline or fuel that is expended in his farm equipment. Do not throw a red herring in about the farm." It is not a red herring at all.

Mr. Wildman: It is a blue herring.

Mr. Gillies: It is a blue herring. Anyone who knows anything about farming knows that the licensed vehicles used by the farmer -- his trucks to transport his produce to market, his car to run any number of errands that are part of running an operation as complex as a family farm -- his cars and trucks, which are licensed and on the road, do not qualify for the tax rebate that goes to those pieces of equipment that are used only on the farm, such as tractors and combines.

This tax does hurt the farmer, and in my continuing drive to persuade my friend the member for Algoma to support our opposition to this bill, I want to tell him that the farmers in his part of the world, who have such vast distances to cover in those very vehicles to which I just referred, are probably going to be hurt worse than any of the farmers in my part of the world, because the farmers in my part of the world are probably a heck of a lot closer to market.

The Acting Speaker: Please address the chair.

Mr. Gillies: I know, Mr. Speaker; thank you. I know that is the argument that pushed my friend the member for Algoma over the edge. I know that is the argument that persuaded my friend the member for Algoma, and I am so happy. I see it in his face.

I have spoken about the one positive aspect of this bill, the one thing I am happy about, the single-tier taxation as opposed to the triple-tier taxation. The Treasurer should be congratulated for responding, as my colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), the former Minister of Energy, has told me, to the request by the government of Canada that the provinces move in this direction and take revenue and budgetary measures to discourage the burning of leaded gasoline and to encourage the burning of unleaded gasoline. In moving to a single-tier tax in Bill 51, the government of Ontario is responding to what I think is a very legitimate and very progressive request on the part of the government of Canada.

For all that, however, and this has been referred to by other people in this debate, so many problems surrounding the retailing, marketing and taxation of gasoline and other fuels are not addressed by Bill 51 that it is almost turning a blind eye to the root problems.

As I have indicated, by pegging the taxation under Bill 51 and refusing to acknowledge the possibility of lower fuel prices for Ontarians, the Treasurer has voted no confidence in our energy future. He is saying that his party, the governing party, has no faith in or no comprehension of the concept that gasoline and fuel prices could go down; it is not going to recognize that to the potential benefit of our consumers.

9:10 p.m.

Then, quite apart from the things I have already enumerated, such as the budgetary cuts for ministries related to transportation, tourism and the attraction of industry and development to our province, we have to move beyond those and look at the problems posed for consumers. We have to look at what this tax does to the ordinary guy in any number of pursuits or areas of endeavour in our province.

There is the obvious one. Everybody pays the tax at the pump when he fills up his car. If one lives in the north or in a rural part of Ontario where a person burns much gasoline to get to the vital services needed for himself and his family, he is getting stiffed. One is paying right through the nose, and it is unfair in that respect.

Let us talk about a few other impacts of this tax, about a few other results of the government's inability to grasp the concept that it is closing the door on the possibility of lower fuel prices and therefore is precluding lower fuel taxation. Let us talk about buses.

Mr. Wildman: Why not?

Mr. Gillies: In the debate on Bill 50, I was unable to convince my friend the member for Algoma to support our position on the question of diesel fuel.

Mr. Wildman: Why is the member using me as a foil?

Mr. Gillies: It is because I know the member for Algoma is coming around. I could not convince my friend on that occasion because he quite rightly said, "We do not have a subway going from Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie."

Mr. Speaker: And it is too late now; we are on Bill 51.

Mr. Gillies: I know that. I also know that if I had pressed the member for Algoma he probably would have said, "They do not have a municipal transit system using diesel buses in Wawa either." I recognize and accept that. That is why I felt frustration at failing to convince my friend of the veracity of our position.

Mr. Mancini: The member's frustration is because he is over there.

Mr. Gillies: My friend the member for Essex South wishes to make a point. He says I am frustrated because I am on this side of the floor. That is not so. I know why my friend is frustrated, but we will not get into that.

I could not convince the member for Algoma on diesel fuel because it did not have any great impact in his part of the province. He does not have diesel-burning buses in Wawa. He does not have a subway there using diesel fuel. However, I know I can convince him on Bill 51, because school buses burn gasoline.

Just outside Brantford, in the great riding of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, there is a manufacturer of school buses called Canadian Blue Bird Coach Ltd. The Treasurer knows as well as I do that most school buses in the province burns gasoline. Some are being converted to propane, but few burn diesel fuel.

I did it, did I not? This is the one that will convince the member for Algoma to support our party's position, because he knows the transportation of school students in his riding is going to be impacted by the increased gasoline tax through Bill 51. He knows his boards of education are going to see their transportation costs increase. He knows the mill rates in his municipalities will be adversely impacted by this. That is why the member for Algoma will finally come around and vote against Bill 51.

Mr. Wildman: Wrong. The price of busing is paid for mostly by the ministry.

Mr. Gillies: My friend points out that the busing is paid primarily by the ministry. He is quite right. However, if we allow for inflation, the Ministry of Education does not get an increase in King John's budget either. The member will see the purse-strings are being tightened on the Ministry of Energy and on his municipal taxes; so he has no excuse not to vote against Bill 51.

I will leave my friend the member for Algoma to ruminate on these arguments.

Mr. Speaker: Excellent.

Mr. Gillies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing we have to consider -- and I will not direct this specifically at the member for Algoma because it is too obvious, and a mind of his subtlety and agility would be insulted by my even bringing this to his attention -- is that the transportation of goods is going to be adversely affected. A lot of trucks use gasoline, although a lot of the bigger ones use diesel.

Transportation companies, as my friend the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) would tell members if he were here, are going to pay more at the pump, which means the cost of transporting the goods is going to go up. Who pays for it in the end? Who gets it in the end? Again, it is the consumer.

Again, it is not a progressive tax. It is not one that hits the rich the hardest. It is not one that gives a break to the working guy or to the low-income person. A person who makes $10,000 a year pays as much for the staples, the things one needs to feed a family, as does the person who makes $50,000. Bill 51 is not going to help those people. It has an adverse effect on those ordinary working people, whom we should be making every effort to assist.

There are many issues surrounding gasoline, and a few of them have been alluded to in this debate. They are things the government is going to have to come to grips with and which it fails to come to grips with in a bill as superficial as Bill 51.

I am sure every member of this assembly at some time or another has had calls of frustration and anger from the lessees or owners of gas stations right across the province. We seem to hear two different sets of arguments. At some point this government is going to have to address the fairness of gas wholesaling and retailing in this province.

There is a widespread feeling, among both those people delivering the fuel and the consumers, that there are a few things out there that are just not right. I am going to touch on one very quickly, Mr. Speaker, because you would quite rightly point out to me that this does not directly have anything to do with Bill 51. One is simply the difference in price between unleaded, premium unleaded and leaded gasoline.

Unleaded gasoline does not cost a sou more to produce than does leaded gasoline, but it costs more at the pump. I just put that out. The Treasurer is not going to solve that one overnight, but it is wrong, it is inequitable and it discourages people from switching to vehicles powered by unleaded gasoline, which pollute less than vehicles using leaded fuel.

If I get a call from the lessee or owner of an independent gas station, after he gets past "Hi, Phil; how are you?" he will tell me something like --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: "Where were you the last 10 times I called when I had to phone Bob Nixon?"

Mr. Gillies: I am being provoked by my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. Over the years we have helped each other out on a few things. A few of his constituents phone me, and a few of mine call him, but I am delighted that this year the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk opened a constituency office. I am pleased about that because I think so much of the Treasurer and his good wife, who is truly a friend not only to me but to all our good people in Brant county as well.

I am so pleased that she no longer is harassed by all the people phoning the farm during the day when the Treasurer is up here doing his work and that she has a bit of help now through a constituency office so she can continue her good works in the community.

Mr. Speaker: The bill.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, you were about to point out to me that this has nothing to do with Bill 51. I am glad you did that because I was getting way off track there. I see my friend the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) is here, and I want to talk to him in a second too.

As I was saying, this independent gas station owner is still hanging on the line. He got past "Hi, Phil" and he said --

Mr. Mackenzie: The member would never make any money if it was not by the hour.

Mr. Gillies: My friend the member for Hamilton East is trying to help the debate along too.

9:20 p.m.

The argument from the independents is that they feel they get the short end of the stick. They cannot buy gasoline from the big oil companies at the same discounts or with the same promotions and buck discounts and all of this stuff that the retailers through the chains do. This is very important, because it impacts directly on Bill 51, the gasoline tax increase. I saw you leafing through the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Then we get a call from one of the lessees of one of the big oil company chain outlets, and he or she says: "We cannot compete against the independents, because they get gasoline dumped on them at the end of the day by the deliverers. They get special price deals and so on that we do not get through the big oil companies." Each of those sets of people believe very truly that they are right, that they are getting the short end of the stick in retailing their gasoline vis-à-vis the competition, and they feel they are suffering from unfair competition.

This taxation measure will do nothing to alleviate those concerns; it will do nothing but exacerbate the situation. When the price of gasoline does go down, or at least when the 11 o'clock news tells everyone in Canada that because of certain trends in the world oil markets or because of certain actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries the price of gasoline, hallelujah, is going down, and yet it is not reflected in lower taxation by the province, those same gasoline service station outlet owners and lessees are going to be on the line to all of us asking why that is so.

I am going to have to tell them that part of the reason is that the government, with the help of the third party, passed Bill 51, which does not reflect the possibility of lower gasoline prices. Some of those consumers, some of those retailers and wholesalers are going to be very angry that we took such a short-sighted view of the issue.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Push it way up. That is where it all happens: the member's kissing cousins in Ottawa.

Mr. Gillies: They are going to be very angry. They are going to call my friend the Minister of Natural Resources. They are going to say: "Hey, I live here in Niagara Falls and I have a cabinet minister as my member now. I am going to call him and complain about gasoline taxation."

Do members know what he is going to tell them over the phone? He is going to tell them exactly what he just yelled across the floor at me: "It is those guys in Ottawa. Do not look at me. It is the government of Canada." But I know that my friend the Minister of Natural Resources always tells the truth, so he will have to admit to those constituents that part of the problem is the short-sighted action being taken by his government in introducing Bill 51.

My very active friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) is also the Minister of Energy, and he, of all the members in the government caucus, should be concerned about the effects of Bill 51 because --

Mr. Grande: Is this a filibuster?

Mr. Gillies: No, it is a speech.

If one allows for inflation, he just had his ministry's budget reduced by $1.2 million.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Bafflegab, that is what it is all about.

Mr. Gillies: I know my friend the Minister of Energy will want to introduce research and development programs, he will want to look at conservation and exploration and at development and production matters through his ministry, and he is going to be restrained in his ability to do so because the same budget that is freezing gasoline prices at the high end of the scale -- if I cannot persuade my friend the member for Algoma and his colleagues otherwise -- is knocking $1.2 million out of his ability to do what he, as a thoroughly concerned minister, will want to do. I look for a split in the cabinet. I know the Minister of Energy will not be able to support Bill 51; I just know it.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That was the longest run-on sentence I have ever heard.

Mr. Gillies: As someone who served under Bill Davis for four years, I take that as a compliment.

In the budget brought in by my friend the Treasurer with his new King John mentality, Robin Hood and the merry men over here did a bit of research. We looked at the budget and found yet another thing that will do absolutely nothing for energy conservation and nothing for the consumers of energy in this province, and that is the Liberal plan to review the functions of the Ontario Energy Corp.

The OEC is a proven winner. It has enhanced availability. It has been involved in the development of new methods of energy technology, conservation, exploration and all those things. Why on earth would King John and his troops want to review the operations of a proven winner such as the OEC? With regard to this and its relation --

Mr. Speaker: Which relates to --

Mr. Gillies: -- to Bill 51, I hope this review will come to the same conclusion so many of the reviews undertaken by our friends in the new government have come to. They will look at it and they will find that the policy and structure set up by the Progressive Conservative government was right, was serving the people well, was efficient and should continue.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No.

Mr. Gillies: That is what my friend the Minister of Energy will find when he completes the review of that excellent energy corporation.

In this party, we will continue in the limited time available to us to try to persuade thinking members of the House of one possible course of action with regard to gasoline taxation, a course of action under the existing system that has the following attributes. First, it would allow the government's taxation policies to reflect lower energy costs. Through taxation, it would allow those lower costs to be complemented by lower taxation passed on to the consumer. Second, a system is in place that was frozen in summer 1984 at the high end of the scale by the former government. Therefore, any suggestion the ad valorem tax would go up even in the highly unlikely case of increased energy prices in the next while --

Mr. Wildman: They froze it at the high end because they might go down.

Mr. Gillies: Fine, but the possibility was there under the legislation for it to go down. The member for Algoma is now truly ruminating over whether to change his vote on this bill.

Contrast that with the bill brought in by the Treasurer that may freeze the taxation at 8.8 cents, or maybe, we now hear, at 8.3 cents because he has been so overwhelmed by the arguments made on this side of the House against his gasoline tax grab. Contrast it with a system that will leave that taxation in place regardless of the possibility of lower gasoline and energy costs. The choice is very clear.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is he still talking?

Mr. Gillies: I have to keep talking because the Treasurer missed part of this speech and I do not want him to miss a single point.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The problem is that the next speaker is sitting in the anteroom having a cup of coffee.

Mr. Gillies: Not at all. I do not want the Treasurer to miss a single point of this. On sober reflection; a man of the Treasurer's --

Mr. Wildman: Sober reflection?

Mr. Gillies: I give everybody in this place the benefit of the doubt.

9:30 p.m.

A man with the knowledge of the issues, sensitivity and sense of fairness of the Treasurer will look again at this anomalous policy. He will look again at the tax grab he is undertaking and at his unwillingness to recognize the possibility of lower fuel prices. He will look again at the vote of no confidence in our energy future this bill represents, and perhaps our colleague the Treasurer will even change his mind and rescind Bill 51.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill which addresses an issue of very high profile in my home community. The issue of gasoline prices and gasoline taxes in northern Ontario is very important to all residents of the north. This is especially true in a city like Sault Ste. Marie, where prices have been inflated for a considerable period of time in relation to prices elsewhere in Ontario, with no rational justification whatsoever in terms of costs, taxes or transportation for the major oil companies involved in that market. This bill addresses at least one part of that total cost problem: the gasoline taxes placed by the province.

Gasoline taxes are, in my opinion, very regressive taxes. They are not based on ability to pay. Gasoline for automobiles is a commodity that virtually everyone in society uses in relatively equal amounts. As a result, the tax becomes more like a per capita tax, not based on people's levels of income; certainly not in proportion to the levels of income, in any case.

It is a particular penalty for northerners, because people in northern Ontario, on the average, put more mileage on their vehicles; they have longer distances to travel. We have colder weather in the north, so vehicles, particularly at this time of the year, have to be heated up before operating. There is also a big cost penalty to businesses, particularly small businesses, that have to get products delivered from southern Ontario or pay for the cost of delivery within the northern communities.

This is a tax which means that northern Ontario subsidizes southern Ontario. I feel the proposed bill should be supported because it is at least a step in the right direction. It maintains the freeze on taxes, and before we can see reductions in this regressive tax we at least have to see that the freeze we had agreed to in the accord with the Liberal Party is in place so that --

Mr. Ashe: The freeze has been there for a year and a half. The member is out of date.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Yes; right. The Tories were prepared to take the freeze off and increase levels of taxes.

The next step has to be reductions in the overall levels of this tax, and I think there has to be some reflection of the costs in northern Ontario compared to the costs in southern Ontario, as well as the amount of gasoline used in the north; not only that, but the other cost structures in gasoline prices in the north. For example, there is no justification for prices in Saint Ste. Marie being eight, 10, 15 cents a litre higher than those in Toronto.

Saint Ste. Marie is served via vessel. There is a major terminal right in Sault Ste. Marie for most of the major gasoline corporations. They have extremely low transportation costs to the Sault. In fact, it becomes a distribution point for many communities in the north. However, the prices are higher in the Sault than in many of the communities served outside it. I do not see how the gasoline companies can possibly justify prices in Blind River being lower than in Sault Ste. Marie on a consistent, ongoing basis when the stations in Blind River are being served from Saint Ste. Marie.

Mr. Wildman: Do not raise the prices in Blind River. Lower the prices in Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Morin-Strom: There is simply no competition in Sault Ste. Marie. There are nearly 50 stations, but there has been no price change since January 4, 1984 in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, other than a two cents a litre increase imposed by the federal Conservatives this summer. That has been the only change, not only in terms of price trends but in the actual, everyday price in every single station in that community. Graphs that have been done by the Ministry of Energy as a daily monitoring of prices in Sault Ste. Marie show they are absolutely flat, with no change and no evidence of competition whatsoever.

There is a serious question of corporate concentration and lack of competitive business practices going on in my community. In talking to local gas station operators, they indicate to me they are given no discretion in gasoline prices and the prices are being set in Toronto, by the head offices here. There are apparently no independents left in the Sault, or at least the arrangements the independents have renegotiated with the major suppliers have left them no pricing discretion.

When talking to the gasoline corporations, they claim the Sault is one of the few if not the only place in Ontario where profits are high enough in relation to where they think profits should be. That should be an indication that their prices are far too high there. They are saying the prices in other communities are the ones that are out of whack; they are too low to get adequate returns in southern Ontario and only in communities in northern Ontario are they getting a reasonable return on their investment.

This is patently absurd when we take into account the price differences between the north and south. Transportation costs are minuscule, in the order of 1.5 cents per litre, from southern to northern Ontario, far lower than the price differences we are paying in the north. It is apparent that there is at least implicit pressure to hold prices at given levels in northern Ontario and avoid the opportunity of individual operators engaging in price competition. As a result, there have been no price wars in many communities in the north, certainly not in Sault Ste. Marie, for nearly two years.

9:40 p.m.

However, the station operators claim there are too many stations, that the individual operators are not getting a decent return, that all the profits are going to the major oil companies centred in Toronto, and that the benefits of these high prices are not going to the local operators.

Most residents of Sault Ste. Marie feel there is a serious issue of price fixing involved in the pricing of gasoline in northern Ontario. Given the evidence available that there is no competition at the present time, as far as I can see, I think we have to have a government that is willing to take action beyond this proposed amendment to the gasoline tax.

I would like to see the government move in one of two directions. The government could institute actions to ensure that competitive pricing does occur throughout this province; that local retailers are able to compete on a fair basis; that costs paid by consumers back to head offices are fairly distributed across the province; and that price differences do reflect differences in cost of operation between various communities. The only other solution I can see is that we are going to have to move towards government regulation of pricing in order to equalize the prices of gasoline across Ontario. There is no rational explanation for the current prices of gasoline, particularly in northern Ontario.

As a result of the accord agreement, we have ensured there will be no increase in gasoline taxes and that gasoline taxes will be frozen at the current level. I am pleased to see the government will be introducing an amendment to lower its proposed increase to bring the overall prices back into line with what they have been over the last year in Ontario.

Also in that accord agreement, there is mention of the need for an inquiry on gasoline prices. That inquiry is absolutely essential to alleviate the concerns of the residents of northern Ontario. We have to have an open public inquiry which allows the views of northerners to be expressed on this vital issue, so that the government, which has continued to claim to be an open government, open to consultation with the public, will implement that intention in northern Ontario.

Northerners want to be able to speak out on this issue. They want to be able to express their concerns and propose alternative methods of pricing and regulation in the gasoline business in this province. I very much look forward to the proposal, which has by now been nearly six months in coming from the Liberal government, as to what that inquiry will entail and when it will commence.

I trust the inquiry will be headed by an independent commissioner or independent commissioners who will be free to cross northern Ontario, hold public hearings, get input into the issue of gasoline prices across the north and report back to the Legislature with proposals on how we can have a more equitable distribution of gasoline prices and of the cost of energy and of doing business in this province. Until that inquiry is under way, northerners continue to face a serious disadvantage in their cost of transportation, business and heating fuel.

This bill is at least a first step in ensuring that gasoline prices do not continue to increase into the future and that the Ontario government will maintain a freeze on the level of the provincial taxes. In the next budget, I hope the Treasurer will take more specific action to ensure not only that gasoline taxes in the north are reduced, but also to ensure a more fair and equitable distribution of prices across this province.

Mr. Lane: I appreciate an opportunity to rise to make a few comments on Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. I will be very brief because there are other people who want to speak on this bill tonight.

Subsection 2(1) of the bill says, "Every purchaser of gasoline shall pay to the Treasurer a tax at the rate of 8.8 cents per litre on all gasoline purchased by, or delivered to, the purchaser."

Even good old Earl and the people down at his garage could not support a tax of this type. We know that. I would like to go back to another day when we were debating another budget back in June 1981. The present Treasurer, who was then the House leader for the official opposition, was making some comments. He said:

"Mr. Speaker, there are many points that have not been fully covered in this debate as yet. I certainly do not intend to put forward any extensive review, but I can tell members that the constituents I have the honour to represent are unanimously opposed to a tax of this type. It is seen as an irresponsible approach to the costs of energy and one that my constituents find almost unbelievable."

The Treasurer still represents the same people; so they must still have the same feelings about the tax he is proposing in his recent budget. I could quote from Hansard of June 8, 1981, at some length, but there is no point in doing that.

We talk a lot in this House about secondary industry for small one-industry towns in northern Ontario. The one opportunity we have to provide secondary industry for these towns is tourism. This budget and this bill seem to aggravate those who would come to the north to spend their tourist dollars. Our American friends are continually complaining about the price of gasoline and liquor; yet this budget puts both prices up. People who would normally come to northern Ontario to spend their holiday money will say they can do better elsewhere and will not come to Ontario this year.

Also in northern Ontario, we have a reason to fly because of the vast distance we have to travel. The norOntair flights provide excellent service from point A to point B. Many tourists want to fly in to fish or hunt and many other people make their living out of flying people from one point to another. The fact that we are increasing the price of aviation fuel from 1.7 cents per litre to 1.88 cents per litre is another penalty. This government with this budget is continually sticking the knife into the backs of people living in the north.

This evening my friend the member for Algoma mentioned a private member's bill I debated in the House in February 1978. The bill was Bill 3, An Act to require a Single Price for Gasoline and Heating Oil sold in Ontario by a Wholesaler. It is unfortunate that the members at that time did not pay more attention to the bill I was putting forward. We might have that today had more people listened to me.

9:50 p.m.

In any case, I pointed out at the time that in the north we pay a double penalty. We northerners are proud people; we choose to be northerners. The first penalty we pay is that we drive farther to do the same amount of business and we use more gasoline. We have a longer, colder winter than that in the south; so we have to buy more fuel to heat our homes. We pay it gladly because we are proud people.

We are proud to be northerners and we pay those penalties without any complaint about rights to shorter distances or warmer winters.

The double penalty to which we object is that we pay X number of cents more per litre for fuel oil or gasoline than do people in southern Ontario. That is a double penalty, and it is one that I feel this government has not taken into consideration. When it brought in its budget everything seemed to increase: drivers' licences, licence plates, gasoline. You name it, we got stuck with it.

I am just a little disappointed that my friend the Treasurer, who I know has a very deep interest in the people of this province at heart, would bring forth a budget that really would not support the development of tourism or of secondary industry in one-industry towns and would really take a hard shot like that at northern Ontario. I am very disappointed, to say the least.

I said at the beginning I would be brief, but I do want to refer to Bill 51 again. Section 9 of the bill would add a new subsection 30(7) to the act that says, "Notwithstanding anything in this section, the minister may communicate or allow to be communicated to an official of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, solely for the purpose of evaluating and formulating tax policy, information obtained under this act."

Since the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer are the same person, it would seem he should talk to himself and decide not to do what he is proposing to do in his budget, especially in Bill 51. If the rumours are true, and I hope they are, the Treasurer has talked to himself and has decided he will not ask us to pay 8.8 cents but will make it something less than that. I really hope he has persuaded himself he has done an injustice to northerners and wants to retract that injustice to make it fair to all people in this province.

Mr. Mancini: l want to take the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation this evening, to put a few things on the record, and maybe to give a different perspective from what the Conservative members in particular have been telling the Legislature.

I have never seen more crocodile tears in all my life. We have had Conservative member after Conservative member stand in this assembly and cry crocodile tears about the north. First, they cried about the north and how expensive it is to live in the north and how costly all the services are for the average family. Then we heard from the Conservatives that this particular bill was a tax grab, because it no longer supports the ad valorem system.

All we have to do is to look back just a few months to see who was trying to grab all the taxes and who was trying to be unfair to the taxpayers of this province. How can we have a system in this province whereby the government does not even have to introduce legislation in order to raise taxes? What kind of fairness is that?

Mr. Wiseman: The member's tie is crooked. He should straighten his tie. It will not look nice.

Mr. Mancini: We are doing very well, I thank the member very much.

That government in about 1981, I believe, introduced the ad valorem tax for one singular purpose, and that was to raise taxes every three or four months without coming and justifying it to the Legislature or to the public, without even the common courtesy of informing people that taxes would rise.

They doubled the tax that way over a period of four or five years. We voted against the ad valorem tax some years ago. We knew it was unfair. We are proud finally to have the opportunity to abolish the ad valorem tax, to abolish the tax that had been put in place by a majority Conservative government.

We remember the old refrain about the realities of March 19. Every time we questioned the government about what it was doing or what it was not doing, we heard the old, arrogant refrain about the realities of March 19.

I remember when the member for Lanark was a minister. I will not make any judgement on his capacity and on the judgements he made when he was a minister. I do remember that when he was giving answers or making the very occasional speech, he also used his hands. He sometimes put them in his pockets, like this, or he would reach in his pocket to get a pen. He would use his arms one way or another.

I want to say something in particular to the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who is signing his Christmas cards. He gave a very lengthy speech this evening and cried about every industrial sector in our province that has to use gasoline. We saw crocodile tears for the truck drivers and the school bus operators. We heard about the municipalities. He cried crocodile tears for everyone imaginable while, at the same time, forgetting what he as a former government member had done.

He seems to have forgotten that his party put the ad valorem tax in place. His was the party that doubled the tax on gasoline, that so arrogantly spoke to the members of the opposition and the public about the realities of March 19. His is still the party that cannot come to grips with the fact it has lost legislative control, that it can no longer arrogantly dictate what happens or dictate policy.

We sit here on a daily basis and wonder when his party will finally accept that. We are really wondering when it will break with the past, because I cannot understand why anyone would stand in this House and say he is in support of the ad valorem tax. Who is in favour of taxation without a full debate? Who could be in favour of taxation without in any way involving the public? Who could be in favour of raising gasoline taxes every three or four months? It had to be the Conservative Party; only the party that is now in opposition could be in favour of such a tax.

We heard the member for Brantford quote some eminent person from the gasoline industry.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Probably a former Tory candidate.

10 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, probably a former Tory candidate. The person said that in his view gasoline prices would go down over the next six to 18 months. Six months is not a very long time, and he has forgotten once again that we are at the disposal of foreign countries for much of the oil we need. He has forgotten once again that we ourselves do not control all the mechanisms to supply gasoline to our citizens. He has forgotten that there is unrest in much of this world and that a great deal can change in six months.

Those people want to gamble with the consumers. They want to say some hotshot who was a Tory candidate some time ago and who works in the petroleum industry says there may be a gas price decrease within six months. They want to take that gamble and keep the unjust ad valorem tax on while knowing very well the situation could change almost immediately and the ad valorem tax could put great pressure on the economy if oil prices went up, as they have done in the past. It has happened before, it can happen again.

I question a political party that does not have the backbone to debate and discuss in an open and fair manner some of the tax policies it really favours. One of the reasons those guys are over there now --

Interjection.

Mr. Mancini: We know all about their deal. They want to know about our deal with the member for York South (Mr. Rae). We know very well what they offered the other parties. We saw the letter that appeared on CITY-TV. We saw the letter that the member for Muskoka signed.

Mr. Speaker: Does this pertain to Bill 51?

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am being provoked.

All a person had to do to keep track of the negotiations was to read the letter the member for Muskoka had signed and had published.

This bill that has been introduced by our Treasurer, who has the confidence of this party and I believe of the vast majority of Ontario citizens, once and for all sends a signal to the people of this province that when we are going to do the public's business we are going to do it in such a way that they understand what is happening in this Legislature.

The days of trickery and of trying to fool the public with every possible means are gone for ever. From a political point of view, I am heartened to see that the Conservative Party has learned no lesson whatsoever from what happened on May 2. That brings political joy to my heart. That means we are going to be here a very long time.

Mr. Wiseman: The member's speechwriter is not doing too well.

Mr. Mancini: We do not hire very expensive speechwriters the way the former government did.

Mr. Wiseman: Does the member have a limousine?

Mr. Mancini: Do I have a limousine? I use Co-op cabs. Is that all right with those guys? The real point of this debate was missed by the Conservative Party. Once again they have failed to see --

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The light?

Mr. Mancini: -- the light. The member for Ottawa East is helping me out.

They have failed to understand that things have changed. I am surprised. I thought that with such a new and tough, new and tough, new and tough, and new and tough leader -- yes, that is it, a new and tough leader; those are the words I want.

Mr. Speaker: The member is getting quite repetitious.

Mr. Mancini: I was trying to emphasize new and tough leadership for the Progressive Conservative Party. They have failed to understand that the population of this province is not so interested in new and tough; it is interested in new and good, new and progressive, new and innovative. That is what the population is interested in. They have missed the whole thing all over again.

I fail to see why they are not standing up, one after another, in support of the Treasurer's legislation and in support of the Minister of Revenue.

Mr. Gillies: No; King John.

Mr. Mancini: We are correcting a grave disservice done by the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Wiseman: The member should not send a copy of this speech home to his riding. It is not one of his better ones.

Mr. Mancini: I thought a forward-looking member such as the member for Lanark, who tasted power and then lost it, and then lost it again; and a member such as the member for Brantford, who tasted power and then lost it, would be interested in trying in some small way to figure out how it all happened; but no, they cling to the past.

The Progressive Conservative Party clings to the past. They fail to realize that the present is upon them and that tomorrow is the future. However, they do have a new and tough leader, a new and tough leader.

An hon. member: Our boy.

Mr. Mancini: Our boy; our new and tough leader. I want to leave a few parting words for my good friends.

Mr. Speaker: On Bill 51, I hope.

Mr. Mancini: It deals exactly with the bill; it is right on the bill. It deals with all the concerns that have been brought up by the opposition. People in this province want to know whether they can trust the government. They want to know whether legislation passed here is something they can use as a guide.

Ad valorem legislation is not legislation the people can trust, and it is not legislation the consumer or people in business can use as a guide. Ad valorem legislation is a tricky way to raise taxes. It is a tricky way to take revenue from the pockets of the citizens and put it in the Treasury without in any way justifying that action.

With this bill, we have changed the course of the province as to how revenue will be raised. We have sent out a signal to the people of the province, and the signal is that when revenue is needed we will face the Legislature, debate with the members and justify whether the revenue is needed. That is the major item in this piece of legislation that I believe will help gain even further the confidence of the people of Ontario for this new government.

The Conservative members can cling to the past if they want. We are moving forward and leaving them behind.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. Ashe: It was very interesting to note that the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) was able to take time to participate in the debate. I hope the Premier does not slap his fingers tomorrow because he got away from signing the Premier's Christmas cards. I will give him a little word of advice --

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The honourable member referred to something about the Premier slapping my fingers for signing his Christmas cards. This is very important. The Premier takes care of his own Christmas cards, and I take care of mine at my own expense.

Mr. Ashe: I am glad to know the honourable member takes care of lots of Christmas cards, but I hope when he is checking out the Premier's he makes sure this year they do not say, "Merry Christmas from Jim Coutts" in another language, as last year's did.

Mr. Gillies: Do the members remember that?

Mr. Ashe: It said, "Merry Christmas from Jim Coutts" in Chinese on the Christmas cards of the former Leader of the Opposition. It is noted that the multiculturalism across the way showed through even at Christmas.

I suppose nothing more appropriate can be said on this bill than, "Would the real Bob Nixon stand up?"

Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer.

Mr. Ashe: I have to refer to him by name. I appreciate that we have to refer to his constituency or office, Treasurer or Minister of Revenue, but I am thinking of a fellow I knew before. His name was Bob Nixon, and he was the fellow who used to stand up day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, and really be a consumer advocate. He used to stand up and criticize the previous government any time it seemed to impinge on the marketplace, on the taxpayers of this province. When we raised taxes, he would get up and talk about the good people in Brant-Oxford-Norfolk or whatever --

Mr. Gillies: Earl's Shell station.

Mr. Ashe: -- at Earl's Shell station in St. George, down the road from Paris and a wee bit outside of Brantford; and he would stand up like he meant it. He was always so sincere, I really did think he meant it. Many times, I nearly cried when I heard his outpourings on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

However, what does he do? The first opportunity he has to stand up as the Treasurer, and later as the Minister of Revenue introducing all the tax bills, he raises taxes. That is not the member I knew before. I have to be charitable and say somebody somewhere along the line brought in a dummy and put a name on it. It is not really that heart-wrenching individual we knew before. I will refrain from using his name because it is not appropriate.

Mr. Gillies: The member cannot call him a dummy, either.

Mr. Ashe: A dummy was brought in. I would never refer to the member as a dummy. I presume somebody came in and planted something.

I find it a little disconcerting that many of the members opposite, the member we just heard from who is doing the Christmas cards for the Premier and himself, the member for Essex South; and we heard earlier from the member for Algoma saying they got rid of the ad valorem, as if that was a sign of purity.

It goes to show they do not have an understanding of the tax system in this province. They have no understanding. If they meant what they said, they would all be standing up day after day, week after week, month after month, imploring the Treasurer to eliminate the sales tax. That is the ad valorem tax that has been in effect the longest time in this province. Yet I have not heard one reference to the sales tax in the context of being ad valorem.

That is exactly what it is. With tobacco or alcohol, or in this case gasoline, the tax rates may have been different, but the sales tax is ad valorem as the others were and I have heard no reference to that. I guess they do not understand the mechanics of how taxes are raised. They do not understand what the words "ad valorem" mean.

Mr. Gillies: They should resign.

Mr. Ashe: I think so. Anybody at this stage in his career -- particularly the member for Essex South, who has been here for a considerable period of time, thanks to the charity of his constituency -- should really know what the words "ad valorem" mean; but he obviously does not, and maybe the Treasurer in his good time will give a little educational course to his caucus member.

I have some more specific concerns about Bill 51. We already know that the so-called accord, as I think the Minister of Revenue referred to it, was a matter of recognition of numbers, and he is going to propose a decrease in the proposed increase in this tax. He had proposed in Bill 51 to raise the tax to 8.8 cents from eight cents, and he is going to put an amendment when the bill reaches committee to make it 8.3 cents.

That still is not good enough. We are talking at a time when virtually all experts in Ontario and across Canada and North America suggest that, other than the short-term blip we have right now in the price of product, in the short to medium term the price of petroleum products is going to decrease. That is where ad valorem works to the benefit of the consumer. But that party across there, that Treasurer across there, who was replaced by another individual a while ago, says, "Oh, we are going to take the ad valorem off now before it goes down."

The people to my left over here, and they sure are to the left -- they should be a rump to the party across the way but they have not recognized that yet; I am not quite sure who is pulling the strings of whom, but that is a question for another day -- in actual fact suggested that the previous government, which froze the rates after the summer of 1984, proposed and froze them at a high.

We left the ad valorem on so that when prices started to come down -- and there is every indication they are going to come down -- we would be able to reduce them. But this Treasurer, this Minister of Revenue, and this government say to the consumers of Ontario: "Oh, no. You are going to pay more money to operate that vehicle. You are not only going to pay more money for your licence plates and for your driver's licence, but you are also going to pay still more for gasoline."

To add insult to injury, he is continuing an increase on what has now become predominantly the stock of older vehicles on the road, the automobiles that, unfortunately, still burn leaded gasoline. What is happening to those people, might I ask? Still with the benevolence of the Treasurer, still with the benevolence of the Minister of Revenue, there is going to be a proposed increase of 0.3 cents on each litre of gasoline, so the poorer people of the province, the people in northern Ontario who drive the vehicles that still use leaded gasoline, are going to pay more. But is that party standing up to protect them? Not at all. It is only this party that is worried and concerned about the taxpayers of this great province of ours.

It is not only the members here who recognize that kind of tax grab. Let me just read a few excerpts. The Treasurer may even have heard --

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member has just said his party is fighting that change in the tax as it relates to leaded gasoline, when in fact his colleague the member for Brantford earlier this evening supported it.

10:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: A very good point of view.

Mr. Gillies: We are a party of free thinkers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said it was a point of view. The member for Durham West has the floor.

Mr. Ashe: We do not differ at all on our points of view. It is just a different perspective on the same problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to mention to the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) that he is not in his own seat, even though interjections are out of order.

Mr. Gillies: They will love this at the rowing club.

Mr. Ashe: They sure will.

It is coincidence that the reference I am going to read from happens to be relatively close to that member's constituency. Hamilton is not that far away from St. Catharines.

I will read a few remarks relative to Bill 51 in a very recent edition, November 1985, of the Hamilton Automobile Club News. This is by the executive vice-president of that esteemed automobile club.

Mr. Gillies: What is his name?

Mr. Ashe: His name is Alfred U. Oakie, executive vice-president of the Hamilton Automobile Club. I do not want to take up the time of the chamber to put all his very pertinent remarks on the record; so I will acknowledge that these are only excerpts from his very indulgent, far-reaching look at this issue.

What does he say? "Increased gasoline taxes do impact our economy while penalizing many motorists who need their automobiles to get to and from work every day or even to enjoy the minimum of social activity. Automobiles are not a luxury." I am sure all in this chamber, even the member for Essex South, who does not have a limousine of his own yet, will acknowledge that automobiles are no longer considered a luxury.

Let me go on: "The provincial budget brought down by the Honourable Robert Nixon" -- I have to use the honourable member's name because I am reading -- "on October 24 was totally frustrating for the motorists of Ontario. The government increased gasoline taxes by up to 10 per cent" --

I do acknowledge, and I will even be happy to send a little memo in case Mr. Oakie does not know it yet, that the Treasurer is proposing to lower that 10 per cent increase to something in the order of four per cent on one grade of gasoline. That is benevolence. I acknowledge that.

He goes on to say: -- "motor vehicle registration fees by 12.5 per cent and driver licence fees by 40 per cent. Our disappointment in the budget is sharpened by a number of reflections including the following." This is the most relevant of all his remarks. He has insight and a good memory. "For many years prior to the Liberal Party gaining power as the government body" -- I will add a little bit of my own, thanks to the manipulation of the third party -- "they were most critical of the Conservative administration's practices on motor vehicle taxes. They would occasionally quote our club's concern in Hansard as support for their position."

It goes on in a very eloquent way, talking about the accord and that perhaps the third party was going to stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people of this province, something that it has negated as time has gone by. They are so concerned about a possible consultation with the people that they will lose all their values, all the things they stood up for over many years.

I would even go so far as to say they were sometimes the party of purity around here, but no longer. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has to keep an eye on them, because that is where they have gone to in some of their policies.

Mr. Gillies: It is just a branch office of the government.

Mr. Ashe: That is right. It is a little thing off the little left side, I suppose one could say. That was a very eloquent reference from the Hamilton Automobile Club, but let us take something a little closer to home. It is something I referred to before, but it is so relevant to Bill 51 that I think it deserves to be repeated. To prove that it is not repetitive on this subject, I might say the same reference was used relative to another piece of taxation we discussed on an another evening.

Let me quote from a recent article in a well-respected Toronto newspaper. The columnist is Orland French, who I might say is not a favourite of this party and vice versa in the past year or so. However, let me quote a paragraph that I am sure will make the Treasurer, the Minister of Revenue, or whatever hat he has on this evening, squirm a little.

I quote specifically and accurately: "But Mr. Zaozirny" -- I will add a little piece of editorial comment for those who do not know, particularly some of the newer members who have not been here for a while, that Mr. Zaozirny happens to be the Minister of Energy of a province out west called Alberta.

"But Mr. Zaozirny has a few dry comments to make about the Ontario budget. `If the Ontario government is so concerned about the welfare of the consumer,' he asks, `why did it raise gasoline taxes?'" The article goes on, and this is the relevant point I was trying to make a little earlier.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is almost 10:30 p.m. Do you have more?

Mr. Ashe: I would like to finish this reference and then I will be happy to adjourn the debate. I know many more speakers want to speak on this important issue; so I am sure we will have to carry on another day.

To conclude the article I referred to before the clock runs out, it goes on: "Why did it remove the ad valorem tax at a time when oil prices are dropping so that the gasoline tax would remain fixed instead of declining accordingly?"

That was not said by the New Democratic Party or by this party. This is a columnist in the Globe and Mail who has been somewhat supportive of the government party, particularly in this past year. This is from somebody who was fairly supportive of the Liberal administration, and it is quite obvious the honeymoon continues, but even he does not think much about the grandiose and grandstand play of removing the ad valorem tax at this time.

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

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.