L064 - Mon 9 Dec 1985 / Lun 9 déc 1985
GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I would like to bring to your attention that one other member of this House, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), has joined me in the wearing of a bow tie. I was not here this afternoon but perhaps he was. I would like to congratulate him on wearing a bow tie.
GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate in the debate?
Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I --
Mr. McClellan: He has spoken already.
Mr. Speaker: I thought he did too.
Mr. McCague: I did not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member cannot speak a second time.
Mr. McCague: That would be true, Mr. Speaker, had I spoken the first time.
Mr. Speaker: On Bill 51?
Mr. McCague: On Bill 51.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe.
Mr. McCague: Any challenges?
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What actually happened is he spoke on this bill while another piece of legislation was up for debate.
Mr. McCague: Even though the honourable member and I are in different parties, I resent that remark. I do not think I have ever said the same thing to him, but now that he has mentioned it, I might just elaborate on how irrelevant his comments were on this bill.
One of the subjects in this bill, as I recall it, is the ad valorem tax. When the member was challenged on ad valorem taxes, he said tobacco, fuel and gasoline were the only ad valorem taxes the previous government had instituted. He went on at great odds --
Mr. Foulds: Odds? Lengths. I never speak at length in this House.
Mr. McCague: -- and ends to prove that other taxes were not ad valorem taxes. That is a long way from the truth. Income tax is an ad valorem tax based on the amount of income one has. Sales tax is based on price.
Mr. Foulds: The honourable member has indicated that something I have said in this House was "a long way from the truth." I believe that is unparliamentary and I would ask the member to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the honourable member will reconsider his comments, withdraw them and then carry on with his discussion of the bill. It has been requested that the member withdraw.
Mr. McCague: If it offends the tender ears of the honourable member, who in different words tried to say I was doing things that were not proper, if I accused him of doing things that were improper I withdraw it and just say his comments were far more irrelevant than any I have ever made in this House.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for withdrawing that. I am sure he will continue with the discussion on the bill before the House.
Mr. McCague: Yes, I would be most pleased to do so.
It is a coincidence that the Treasurer (Mr Nixon), who knows I have all kinds of respect for him as I hope he has for me, would be introducing Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, when his chief adviser now is no longer the Ontario Economic Council but the group at Earl's garage. I am sure if there were any place in the world he could get good advice on a gasoline tax act it would be at Earl's garage.
I suggest the Treasurer got so wrapped up in doing away with the words "ad valorem," which he did not understand, the New Democratic Party does not understand and the former government did understand, that even now he is causing himself a great many problems and many hours in this House just because of the simple fact that he wanted to do away with the two words "ad valorem."
I could have understood what he was attempting to do if he had not introduced a tax that was higher than the ad valorem tax the previous government put on gasoline. He may argue that the previous tax was 20 per cent, but the previous government understood that when prices rose to a certain level, the 20 per cent seemed a little high. We froze the tax at 8.4 cents and 8.6 cents. The Treasurer, adding those together and averaging them, came out with something like 8.8 cents. His mathematics are the same as those of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) --
Mr. Martel: Good mathematics.
Mr. McCague: Entirely irrelevant.
I fail to understand, and my constituents feel the same way, how the Treasurer could be so intent on getting rid of an ad valorem tax that was less than the tax he wants to impose.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The lights are going out; flick that last switch.
Mr. McCague: I will be glad to sit down at any time they shut off all the lights. I would not blame the Treasurer for having them all shut off. The whole thing is a hoax. We should have been done with this weeks ago, but it is so uncharacteristic of the Treasurer that we cannot just let this malarkey go.
I hope the Treasurer will not hesitate to talk to me from time to time privately in this House. We have another tax here -- I believe the aviation fuel tax is in this bill -- which was at the level of 1.77 cents per litre and which the Treasurer wants to increase to 1.88 cents per litre. The Treasurer decided he would bring down the gasoline tax to 8.3 cents, which he claimed to be the average of the other three taxes based on volume and everything else. We find it very difficult to either accept or reject that figure, so we will take it that it is honest.
Why did the Treasurer not keep the 1.77 instead of the 1.88? He said, "Nobody has raised any objection to it." My heavens, surely the least he can do in this bill is be consistent. If the NDP persuaded him to come down to 8.3 on the one tax, surely he could come down to 1.77, which it was before, on the other tax. If he does not choose to do that we will have an amendment for him to work on and we will introduce that when --
Mr. Foulds: Where are all these mysterious amendments?
5:10 p.m.
Mr. McCague: They do not come until committee of the whole House, as I understand it. We did not have the opportunity to negotiate whatever the tax was going to be prior to second reading of the bill, as they, the assistive devices to the party over there, did.
Mr. Martel: The ad valorem tax went up without a bill every time; taxation without representation.
Mr. McCague: Pardon? I am not hearing the member. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should not be disturbed by it.
Mr. Martel: The Americans fought a war over taxation without representation.
Mr. McCague: That may be. Anyway, the Treasurer suggested in this House for some years that the government --
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Is this a filibuster? Let us get on with the bill.
Mr. McCague: We are getting on with the bill. Would the page mind taking a copy of this over to the member for Niagara Falls so he can understand what we are talking about?
One of the subjects I know was mentioned on several occasions by the Treasurer and by other people from the party that used to be over here was that it would not be so difficult to raise taxes if the tax charged on fuel was dedicated to road and road-related construction. Rather than the hokum-pokum the Treasurer has indulged in of getting rid of an ad valorem tax, he could well have decided, and it might have been innovative, that the taxes raised on fuel would be used for highway construction. Not that it would be his idea, since it has been suggested by others. But he did not do that; he was so interested in playing games with the words "ad valorem" that he thought he could get rid of it at the same time he increased the tax.
It has been brought to our attention that if we were to use the tax from fuel towards road purposes, great things could be done across the province. I recall a resolution from Ottawa-Carleton. They wanted to levy their own tax on fuel so they could bring the roads in their region up to a reasonable standard.
Just today I received a report from The Road Information Program of Canada. I will admit that some of the things it says are a reflection on the previous government, but one of these days the Treasurer will realize they are now the government, that they now have the responsibility and that maybe they should listen to what people such as TRIP are saying.
They say: "Roads carry more goods in Ontario than all other modes of transportation put together. Direct, uncongested roads cut costs and make our industries more efficient. Today our industrial competitiveness depends more than ever on good transportation, particularly as industry moves to just-in-time inventory management."
They go on in another paragraph to say: "While the funds allocated for municipal capital improvements in the recent budget were increased somewhat" -- and in case the Treasurer gets ecstatic about that, we are told on a daily basis that the recent budget was our budget, so he cannot duck behind that one -- "in contrast to the continued reduction in capital and construction funding for provincial highways over the last six years, the increase was not enough to begin to turn around what has become a poorer situation. As the TRIP study demonstrates, sensible management of our investment would dictate that funding for roads should be considerably increased in the provincial budget expected next spring."
Mr. Sargent: Is the member for or against it?
Mr. McCague: Either one or the other. Which way is the member? I know the Treasurer will want to considerably increase the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications next year, and I know it will be based on the fact that he had hoped and still hopes to get considerably more revenue out of the various fuel taxes, and in this particular case the gasoline tax.
As the Treasurer knows, notice has been given that we are going to introduce a graduated tax as we hope prices will decrease. The Treasurer has been quietly disagreeing with the thought that prices for fuel may decrease. I am sure he has read the paper today which said the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed to cut oil prices to retain sales. The Treasurer has wondered on a daily basis where we dug out the thought that oil prices might decrease. He has been very strong in his opinion that they would probably go the other way. I do not need to recite this whole article to him; no doubt he has read it. Has the Treasurer read it?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes.
Mr. McCague: I see. Did he get both pages? I will leave it there in case he wishes to see it.
In view of that and in view of the burden of the tax, which I hear about on a continual basis, I hope the Treasurer agrees to the graduated tax which our party proposes to introduce. The people affected by this are the people who can least afford to bear the burden of the tax.
I was saying the Ottawa-Carleton region's desire is to be able to levy a tax on fuel and to get the permission of the Treasurer to do that, or to have the Treasurer dedicate all taxes raised through gasoline and other fuels to road construction. I must admit that in my time as Minister of Transportation and Communications the Treasurer of the day resisted that.
While the tax is significant to the people of the province, I fail to see why the Treasurer needs to raise this year -- it was $12 million and I understand it may go down as far as $3 million in 1985-86, and maybe down as far as $20 million in 1986-87 -- I fail to see why that is so important when the Treasurer is going to receive, through his increase in the personal income tax, up from 48 per cent to 50 per cent -- which is four per cent and not two per cent as has been mentioned in this House on several occasions. When that is forecast to yield him $150 million, which he does not include anywhere in his budget, why does he need to be diddling around with the fuel tax? Purely and simply, it is to get rid of the two words "ad valorem."
If it had been a gasoline tax, a diesel tax or a tobacco tax rather than an ad valorem tax, he would not have wanted to do it. But no, it is one of those petty little promises the government made during the election campaign which it chooses to honour in place of many of the others which are of much greater importance -- roads, northern allowance for home owners, for householders, housing in the south, and many more. One could go on and on; he chose not to honour those promises.
8:20 p.m.
The Treasurer is purely and simply playing with words, dealing behind the scenes with the New Democratic Party and wasting the time of this House. I just do not understand it. As I said, he has other ways of raising money, and I do not understand the kind of game he is up to. There are other, more productive ways he can raise the money; unless he is prepared, as I suggested, to dedicate the taxes raised to road construction. The people of Ontario would understand and appreciate that and, I believe, would go along with it.
I thank the members for the opportunity to say a few words on this. I give notice again that we will be introducing an amendment that will graduate the tax down if the price goes down, which will reduce the 1.88 cents per litre in the bill to 1.77 cents per litre, the original price, which is what the Minister of Revenue purports to have done with the 8.3 cents he has introduced. I hope the minister can accept this and we will get the bill through later tonight or some time next week.
Mr. Martel: I have listened to the prattle for some time now by members who introduced ad valorem into this Legislature a number of years ago because in that way the government could increase its revenues every three months without having to introduce a tax bill.
Mr. Pollock: Only if the price of gasoline goes up.
Mr. Martel: I am coming to that. It could raise the taxes whenever it wanted, every three months. We know what was happening to the world price of gasoline; it was going up regularly, and the Tories did not have to come to the Legislature with a piece of legislation to increase taxes.
A revolution was fought in the United States on something called taxation without representation. My friends were successful, because they had the advantage of numbers, in introducing that type of escalation of tax every three months. They were happy. Their friends in Alberta were jacking the price up and got us into this mess.
Mr. Pierce: It was the federal Liberals.
Mr. Martel: No, it had nothing to do with Trudeau. I am no fan of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but it was the Tories in Alberta who were insisting on world price. The Tories could hitch their star to that wagon and jazz the Ontario taxpayer every three months without ever having to introduce a piece of legislation to justify their tax increase to the citizens of this province.
Mr. Pollock: That works both ways.
Mr. Martel: It has not worked for years. We have had the ad valorem tax for a number of years, and all we have seen is a rise in taxes imposed by the province every three months. There is a principle in the democratic process that talks about taxation and says legislation has to be introduced to get the tax that one wants.
This was a neat little way never to be blamed for the increased price of gasoline. The citizens of Ontario continued to pay and suffer an increase, and the Tories did not get blamed, because one cannot fight a piece of legislation that is not there.
Mr. Pollock: The Devil is going to get the member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: My friend says the Devil is going to get us, but one can always demand. If governments are sensitive to the people's rights in Ontario and if the price drops, then surely a sensitive government would bring back a piece of legislation on this.
When the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) talks about common sense, I say to him that those of us in the north who travel great distances, unlike those in southern Ontario --
Mr. Pollock: I travel great distances.
Mr. Martel: My goodness, the member does not even know what distance is here. Many of the people I represent in the Sudbury basin live in the town of Capreol and travel to Levack to work. That is about 54 miles one way.
Mr. Pollock: Last Wednesday night I drove from here to Bancroft and back.
Mr. Martel: Does the member drive home every day?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member please address the chair.
Mr. Martel: The workers I represent have to travel great distances to and from work every day. People who live in a little community called Sturgeon Falls and go 55 miles to Sudbury and about another eight miles to Copper Cliff travel more than 120 miles a day. We are pleased the government listened to our request and rather than getting 8.8 cents we are talking about 8.3 cents. That is half a cent a litre. When one is travelling from Sturgeon Falls to Copper Cliff, more than 120 miles a day five times a week, that is a substantial saving.
Mr. Villeneuve: What if they have diesel cars?
Mr. Martel: There are so many people with diesel cars.
Mr. Villeneuve: If they have diesel trucks they have to let them idle all day.
Mr. Martel: There are not very many of us like my friend who drive a Mercedes-Benz or some such car.
Mr. McClellan: Tory fat cats.
Mr. Martel: He is a Tory fat cat.
Mr. Villeneuve: What about trucks?
Mr. Martel: I am about to be provoked.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: I am going to tell the Speaker a little story. When some of those guys were growing up they were so miserable, I am told, that their mothers had to tie a pork chop around their necks so the family pet would play with them. That is how nasty they were, and they are continuing that tonight. We need some pork chops for these fellows.
I am going to tell them anyway. Instead of 8.8 cents, 8.3 cents for people in northern Ontario who travel great distances to work is a real assistance; and 8.6 cents is what I was paying in provincial tax. The other day in Sudbury I think I paid 55.5 cents per litre. I can recall when it was that much a gallon or less, but this is for a litre. I suggested during the negotiations this government had that it should establish a royal commission on gasoline prices. I am going to tell members why. When we converted to litres from gallons there was a difference of about two and a half to four cents a gallon between leaded and unleaded gasoline; now it is about 13 or 14 cents.
The environmental people in Ottawa who did a study indicated the added cost per gallon is about 2.4 cents. We slipped into this. I remember raising it with a number of Tory cabinet ministers and trying to get them to look at why that price difference of two and a half to four cents per gallon between leaded and unleaded gasoline was now up to about 13 or 14 cents. We are being taken to the cleaners. The industry says it is the new equipment.
8:30 p.m.
I can recall my friend Bud Germa from Sudbury saying to me he could remember that, prior to the war, leaded gasoline was more expensive than unleaded gasoline. An additive was needed: lead. To pay for that, leaded gasoline cost more. Now, without lead, it is about 12 or 13 cents a gallon more if one talks about gallons instead of litres. It slipped by all of us as it went from two and a half cents more per litre to three, four and five cents more. Now it is up to 12 or 13 cents more per gallon. We are getting shafted in that area.
The government should have a royal commission on this instead of the little internal group that is doing the review. There is something wrong in the state of Denmark when we have that much of a price difference for a gallon of gasoline. It happened so gently, a little at a time, and now there is a difference of 13 or 14 cents. That should be examined.
We are being taken to the cleaners. The gasoline companies say it is because of the cost of their equipment and because they are producing more. I always listen to those free enterprisers because, as members know, I am a great free enterpriser at heart. When my friend Bob Elgie was the minister defending this, the gasoline companies told him it was because they were producing more and because of the cost of equipment. Under free enterprise, is the theory not that the more one produces the cheaper it can be produced? If that is the case with gasoline, why is it that the spread continues to increase?
If we want people to start using unleaded gasoline, we have to do what the Treasurer has done and make the tax on unleaded gasoline no greater than the tax on regular gasoline. How can we encourage people to move to unleaded gasoline to conserve the environment if we are charging more for it? My friends to my right do not understand that. I heard a lot of prattle this afternoon from them about Inco and Falconbridge. They used to announce all the new control orders in January when the House was not sitting. The Minister of the Environment would give Inco a new order in January. It could not even be raised in the House. It was a fait accompli.
For the past couple of weeks I have listened to debate on this bill and I have found that most Tories never spoke to the bill. If we go back and look at the various pieces of legislation that have come up for second reading, most of the time was spent on everything else but the bill we were discussing.
Mr. Andrewes: That is silly.
Mr. Martel: Would the member like to put his money where his mouth is? If we want people to use unleaded gasoline, one of the ways is the way we suggested to the Treasurer. In his own wisdom, the Treasurer has seen fit to introduce that type of thing, so we have across-the-board taxation for all levels of gasoline. That means more people will start to buy unleaded gasoline, and that will conserve the environment for us.
I commend the Treasurer, but I want to go back to my friends to my right who keep prattling about the price of oil going down.
Mr. Andrewes: Did the member read the paper today?
Mr. Martel: I listened to all the stuff on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries today as I drove down in my vehicle, which uses unleaded gasoline.
Mr. Andrewes: The member probably got one of those propane deals.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member has the floor.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I need your help to keep those members under control. They have never seen so much freedom since they lost power. For the first time in their political lives they can say what they want to say. It is a novelty for them. Obviously, they are taking up the call.
Before this, when it was ad valorem and the price went up, like seals they put their hands up and their flippers down; if one threw them another fish, the flipper went up. They are finally getting something to say. It is too bad they did not speak when gasoline was going up and up in price and there was no end to it. I never heard one Tory in this House suggest --
Mr. Jackson: Yes. There is one up there.
Mr. Andrewes: You heard one.
Interjections.
Mr. Martel: Pardon me. I must apologize. There was a Tory who took the problem seriously. It was my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), who introduced a bill. I give my friend credit. I think I spoke on that occasion and supported it. He was the only Tory. The rest of the seals allowed the price to go up and up, and it did not matter what the citizens of Ontario paid. The sky would have been the limit for those birds.
Their friends Brian Mulroney and Michael Wilson will never let the price go down to reflect what is going on with the world price, if it goes down; that is guaranteed. We will get it that way. I do not see how they anticipate getting a reduction in Ontario, because if I understand what is going on federally they do not intend to let the price go down. It is a guaranteed price, and it cannot go down.
Mr. Pollock: Yes, it can.
Mr. Martel: How? With dynamite? In Ottawa? Let us get off it. He and I know it is not going to go down until Uncle Brian gets the message. With him, it is going to be never. We just saw him give away a whole industry. The Tories gave away the Avro Arrow, and now they are giving away de Havilland. They give away our technology as if it is going out of style. The Tories sell natural gas to the Americans cheaper than we can buy it in Ontario.
I listened to all their nonsense. Why do they not stop grandstanding? They know ad valorem was wrong; it was taxation without representation. As long as they were making money they did not care. As long as they were in power they did not care -- except for the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who to his credit got up and said something was wrong. It is too bad the rest of them did not have a little courage to support him. I think his resolution went through; but then it died, did it not?
Mr. Lane: It got vetoed.
Mr. Martel: It got vetoed. That was led by the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), was it not? Perhaps it was the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell); I do not know. They all got up and voted against it except for the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.
If we have a level that is equal across the board at 8.3 cents per litre instead of 8.8 cents per litre, for us that is a significant saving to the residents of the province. It is a saving for those in northern Ontario who drive many miles per year.
May I throw in another one before I take my seat? Do the members remember when they tried to buy off people in northern Ontario by giving them a $10 licence plate? That licence plate was up to $24 under the Tories; it was nudged up every year. I did not hear my friend the member for Cornwall or anyone from any of those areas say a word about that. That is what --
Mr. Villeneuve: The member for Cornwall was Samis; he was from Cornwall.
Mr. Pierce: It was a New Democrat from Cornwall.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry will let the member speak.
Mr. Martel: Stormont, Dundas or sundry places. He did not say a word. That $10 licence was to appease the people of northern Ontario. It was at $24 when those guys got defeated.
Mr. Pierce: What is it now?
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Martel: It is $27, up $3. However, they raised it $14 from the time Leaping Leo gave us the big break in northern Ontario. It was gradually increased to $24. That was supposed to be for the difference.
We argued back then that in northern Ontario we did not want it through our licence plates; we wanted it through the taxation of gasoline. If we can equalize the price of beer in the north, then we should be able to equalize the price of gasoline.
This is a step. At least the tax is equal on all brands. Those guys did not do it. They kept watching it drift up, and none of them said a word except to put up their flippers when they were told to.
I am pleased we at least got this Treasurer to go to 8.3 cents. It will be a benefit to every resident of northern Ontario.
Mr. McLean: I am pleased tonight to make some comments on Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.
As we all know, the Treasurer has been in this House for a number of years and it is well documented how he felt about gasoline taxes and the adverse implications to the citizens and the economy. The highest gasoline tax ever in the history of Ontario is now imposed by this Treasurer. Never has any one government offered so much cynicism when genuine leadership and direction were called for.
In place of vision, they offer a double-A credit rating where Ontarians are used to triple-A rating, compassion and prudence.
What this government has produced is an admission of the most profound failure of all. Bill 51 is a bill to increase gas prices. It is a failure to understand what Ontario needs and requires, a failure to invest in the future, with a propensity to diminish our potential, our capacity and our ability as a people.
The Treasurer has tacked half a cent a litre on unleaded gasoline. It does not sound like a back-breaking burden for a motorist to bear. It means very little to the family that puts 20,000 kilometres on a vehicle in a year. How many such cases we have in this province I do not know, but in my riding we have a great many who must drive more than 100 kilometres one way to work. I have them in Simcoe East and I know my riding is not unique in this respect.
This is not going to help job creation one iota. It is going to put a crimp on jobs as they exist. This increase in the cost of driving is just one more hurdle for the worker trying to be a productive member of our society. The free market is already taking its increase from this same motorist with increased insurance costs, increased costs for vehicle purchase and, as members well know, increased costs in servicing the vehicle.
This is a cruel tax on commuters, many of whom put in two or more hours per day on the road getting to work and then face a similar amount of time for the return. This tax will add $40 million a year in revenue for the government, but it hits like a sledgehammer the guy who must put in the kilometres to get to and from work.
As members know, farmers just love to pay taxes. They welcome the opportunity to add to their costs while their returns continue to diminish. The Treasurer knows all about farming and what it is like to pay taxes. Granted, the Treasurer did include $6 million to help farmers quit the business, but he did nothing to help that productive farmer increase his productivity. In fact, we may just cut that safe margin for profit right to the quick.
The farmer is not forgotten in the Liberal budget. The Treasurer included an increase on the tax for diesel fuel as well. The lucky farmer uses both gas and diesel fuel to make a living.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is all rebated.
Mr. McLean: It is not all rebated, my friend. Oh no, the farmer was not forgotten; he got hit with both barrels from the Liberal shotgun, the shotgun of the Treasurer of St. George and Earl's service station where he meets to get his advice. I had a little station near where I live in the little community of Dalston and we used to gather there in the evening and talk about what happened during the day. The service station is not there any more. Still, we used to gather in that little community, as the Treasurer will be well aware, and talk about what happened during the day, how the crops were and whose dog was hit by a car. I could go on and on about these little stories. Sometimes we even got into a little game of euchre at the service station.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Not for money.
Mr. McLean: No, we never played for money because we did not have any. However, we had more then than we have now because of the Treasurer's budget.
On the farm I own, which I cannot afford to run any more and which my son has taken over, we have a car, a half-ton truck, a one-ton and the old car I drive; I cannot recall what it is. We pay tax on the fuel for that one-ton, which has a licence on it. That truck does all the work for the farm. It hauls sawdust, feed, everything the farm needs, and we pay tax on all the fuel to run the farm. We are not like a commuter. These commuters are here to stay.
Mr. Haggerty: They are subsidized too.
Mr. McLean: Yes. However, unlike the commuter, many a farmer is operating with a very thin line between getting by and going bankrupt. He will feel the full effect of this tax on fuel. He can ask for an increase in his products and he can also whistle Dixie; both actions would be equally productive.
Mr. Haggerty: Go to propane.
Mr. McLean: I have a little gas left yet. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to equalize prices in the north for milk and gasoline and also to introduce seasonally adjusted hydro rates. It promised much more, but these promises were not even hinted at in the budget. However, that gasoline tax hike was there and the promises be darned.
Tourism is a major industry in Canada and it has been a growth industry. Tourists, whether or not they are on pogo sticks, are few and far between in the riding of Simcoe East. We do not get to see them all that much. I have yet to talk with a tourist who has enjoyed seeing the price of gasoline jacked up by the province he is visiting.
I would like to remind the Liberal government and the Treasurer that many in my riding earn a living in the tourist trade. They do not prosper through gouging the tourists. They succeed because of their ability to manage. Then the Treasurer comes along with his good-news budget, telling the tourist operator, "We will have to cut back further or pass along the increased costs to the tourists."
The Treasurer should realize much of the tourist traffic in my riding is from the United States. We feel grateful they choose our area to visit, but sooner or later these tourists are going to realize it is cheaper to travel to other areas than to Ontario.
Mr. Pierce: It is now.
Mr. McLean: Yes, it is. This gasoline tax is surely going to have a detrimental effect on our automobile trade and its sales. It will be felt as well in manufacturing.
I would like to remind the Treasurer that tourism was a $6.9-billion industry in Ontario in 1983. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) is well aware of that. I know how much he wants to see tourists come to this province. Tourism provided 300,000 person-years of employment and six per cent of the gross provincial product per year.
The Treasurer has made a knee-jerk reaction to this industry: "It is prospering. Let us tax it." I would urge the Liberal government to look at this industry objectively. Can it bear the brunt of this tax on its very lifeblood, gasoline?
8:50 p.m.
Prices are generally higher in this country, regardless of the premium on American funds. I suppose in an abstract sense I should congratulate the Treasurer for getting just about everybody with his Liberal flyswatter budget. He got the farmer, he got the commuter and he nailed the tourist and the tourist industry, a fact of which I am sure his Minister of Tourism and Recreation is not very proud.
Gas pains are often a personal matter, but thanks to our Treasurer and his Liberal Party it is now a provincial complaint.
Mr. Pierce: I rise to speak on Bill 51. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute my thoughts and the concerns of the people of the Rainy River district to this debate. I listened to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) make reference to the miners in his area who travel great distances to work. Fortunately for my area --
Mr. Martel: They all got laid off.
Mr. Pierce: That is right. Given the contribution of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine), the Shebandowan mine will be shut down, so they do not have to worry about that 180-mile-a-day trip.
Mr. Martel: The member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) was awful, was he not?
Mr. Pierce: It was not the member for Kenora who shut down Inco at Shebandowan.
We have heard about the government's proposed increase in gasoline taxation. I have spoken on this subject in the past in the debate on the budget, but I think there is room to hear more about this tax. We need to hear because this tax demonstrates the kind of government we have in our province at the present time. We have a government that promises one thing and then does another.
During the campaign in the spring of the year, the now Premier (Mr. Peterson) went around telling everybody that if he were Premier and if his party formed the government, "Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we will have equalized gas prices throughout Ontario and we will also have equalized milk prices."
Mr. McLean: Did it happen?
Mr. Pierce: No. We have a government that promises one thing and then does another. We have a government that claims this tax is important, that the revenue it raises is important, and then runs away from it, thanks to the pressure from the official and only opposition party in this House.
Let me remind this House of what the Premier said in the spring. This is a quote used by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) during question period on October 28. I think this quotation is very apt and that is why I believe it should be read into the record again. On April 19 the present Premier said, "A Liberal government would vigorously oppose increased consumer taxes and higher gasoline prices without offsetting concessions to Ontario consumers." Some vigour and some opposition.
No sooner is the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) no longer Leader of the Opposition but Premier of Ontario and he changes his mind, and in his first budget he introduces higher gasoline taxes. We can say this about the Premier, he is consistent. He could not make up his mind on policy in opposition and he still cannot make up his mind as Premier.
Higher gas taxes were called evil in the spring. Come the fall, they are fair and responsible. What a difference a summer makes. The Premier stood with his Treasurer and said increased gas taxes were okay. They are not okay. The day after the introduction of this government's first budget, this party indicated its dissatisfaction with the increased gas tax. We saw right away that it was unfair.
The Treasurer and his leader argued that they had really kept their promise. They said the gas tax was a promise they had made during the election campaign. They had promised to do away with the ad valorem gas tax and replace it with a tax that was flat. What they did not mention was that previous government had pegged the ad valorem tax while gas prices were rising. The previous government gave the consumers a break.
The Treasurer proposed to introduce a flat tax. He proposed a flat tax that would have resulted in taxation higher than the current ad valorem. His tax would peg the tax on gas at a time when gasoline prices are expected to fall. The Treasurer tried to hide what this tax was going to do. He tried, and I give him marks for that. He said the tax was necessary, he said it was progressive, he said it was fair and honest.
But all the smoke and mirrors did not fool this House, nor did it fool the people in the Rainy River district. They saw what the Treasurer's proposed tax was going to do. They saw his tax goal quite clearly. This tax is going to gouge every motorist in the province. The Treasurer is going to peg taxation at a higher rate than the previous tax.
My riding, bordering on Minnesota, is a fine example of what is happening with the gas tax. A number of people in my riding are able to go across the border into Minnesota and buy their gas at 32 cents a litre in US currency. The consumers on the Rainy River district border can save $12.80 in Canadian dollars on a 20-gallon tank. While they are over there saving their money on gas, they buy the products normally produced by the farmer in Ontario. They buy the dairy products that do not have protection. They buy their chickens, their eggs and their cheeses.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mulroney has taken over and ruined the country.
Mr. Pierce: I will tell the member world prices were not proposed by the Mulroney government.
Members on this side of the House recognized it immediately, colleagues in my caucus recognized it immediately, and I have to say even the New Democratic Party recognized it. In the days following the budget and in the budget debate, members representing northern ridings rose in their places and protested the tax. The new members for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) and Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) all pointed out that this proposed tax increase was unfair to the north.
Where was the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), the new Minister of Northern Development and Mines? Probably eating his words. Throughout the election the member campaigned hard on how he was going to come down to Queen's Park and see an equalized price for gasoline throughout Ontario.
Gasoline is more expensive in the north. I hear my friend from Sudbury saying he bought gas at 55 cents a litre. Gas at 55 cents a litre in my riding is a price-war price. Our gas is 57.9 cents on any given day of the week. Put a higher tax on it and it will become more expensive, and when the cost of gas goes up everything that relies on gas to move around goes up as well.
Voters of Cochrane North sent the present Minister of Northern Development and Mines to Queen's Park to get a fair price for gasoline. I know the member will say I must wait and see. That is his answer to all the questions during question period, "Wait and see." The north has waited and the north has seen nothing as yet.
We have seen the minister sit silent while his colleague the Treasurer introduces legislation that he knew would gouge the drivers, legislation that will hurt the north more than any other region in the province. The minister sat silent, forgetting his responsibilities to speak up for the north in cabinet.
9 p.m.
It is no fluke there are more members on this side of the House than there are on the other side. It is no fluke when the north sees what kind of treatment and what kind of representation it gets from the government and the party in power.
The member for Cochrane North may still want to tell me, "Wait and see," but the north has seen enough. They have seen the member do nothing. He was mum in both official languages at a time when he could have redeemed his promise to the voters whom he was elected to serve.
This tax is unfair. It is unfair to all Ontarians because it does not hit the people on the basis of income; it hits only those who drive, and it hits with equal intensity those who drive for pleasure and those who drive out of necessity.
The district I represent relies very heavily on tourism, and I am sure the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) will recognize that statistics show tourism has decreased by 2,000 since 1984.
In surveys that were conducted among Americans crossing the border points, they were asked, "Why are you not coming to Ontario any more, or in lesser numbers?" They cited two reasons; one was the high cost of gasoline, and the other was the high cost of food products in Ontario.
These surveys are known to the party on the other side, the party that now has the power to rectify the problems it claims have been building up for the past 42 years. They have the opportunity to correct those measures, but what do they do? Nothing. In fact, it is hard to tell the difference in colour.
This tax is unfair to all Ontarians, but it is unfair to northerners especially. Why? Because the cost of gasoline is higher in the north. A tax that pegs the taxation of gasoline at a higher level is only going to increase that burden on individual northerners.
People of the north do not object to paying taxes. They are prepared to drive 100, 180 or 250 miles to get to a job. That is how committed they are to paying taxes in this province. They do not mind paying for the services, but they do mind it when they believe they are being taken advantage of. They do mind it when they are being gouged, and this proposed tax is a gouge.
This tax is unfair to the north for other reasons. Look at a map of Ontario. The north takes in the largest part of the province. The north is as large as two or more of the European nations put together; it surpasses in land mass all of France or all of Germany. My own riding of Rainy River rivals in size some of the American states.
Because of all that geography, people in the north have to rely on the automobile; few can walk to work. As some members have humorously pointed out during the course of this debate, there is no subway between northern communities.
Our basic transportation in the north is the automobile. If the government raises the gasoline tax, it raises the cost of living. If it raises the gasoline tax, it raises the cost of all the goods that are shipped and brought in by road and all the goods that are manufactured to be taken out to the markets in the east. The government makes it much more expensive to live in the north. We are a hardy bunch in the north, but our pocketbooks will stand only so much of this kind of taxation.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines is going to help.
Mr. Pierce: He is going to help us all right. During the minister's visit to northern Ontario on Saturday afternoon he said, "If you want the answers, ask God." That is how he is going to help us in the north.
Let us look at the budget as a whole for a moment
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: First, what the honourable member said is not true. I did not say that. I want him to take those two words off because I am not God.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): It is a point of view. Please continue.
Mr. Pierce: I will withdraw that comment. Let us remember what this budget will do for the north. Let us remember that the Treasurer slashed transfers to northern communities, and let us remember that he slashed funds for northern road repairs and the budget for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation -- key concerns for the north. On top of that, the Treasurer then proposes to raise the tax on gasoline. To northerners, the tax increase is not only unwarranted, it is outrageous and unfair. No northerner can, in good conscience, stand by the Treasurer's tax bill as it currently reads. No northerner who has been in touch with our people in our community can support this tax. It must be defeated.
We, on this side of the House, believe a sliding scale is a fair solution. We believe the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) should hear this. We believe it makes sense for a gasoline tax, if there is to be a gasoline tax, to obey the cycle of the marketplace. We see nothing wrong with that, especially now that the price of gasoline is expected to fall. We believe the driving public deserves a break at the gas pumps. That is our belief and we urge the government to give that idea consideration.
When I was elected to serve the people of Rainy River, I looked forward to coming to Queen's Park. I looked forward to the experience because I wanted to make a positive contribution to life in Ontario, especially in the north. So far, I have only been able to make a positive contribution by alerting the north to the excesses of the current government.
The gas tax legislation proves only one thing. This government does not have the competence to adequately meet the needs of the region and its people, who must be served. There is more to being a government than driving around the province in limousines at taxpayers' expense. There is more to being a government than sitting around a big table and talking big ideas. There is a basic responsibility to provide good government, sound administration and to present fair laws. The gas tax is not good, not sound, nor fair. It is irresponsible legislation that I, for one, am pleased to defeat.
Let me warn the government that this kind of sloppiness will not be tolerated by my colleagues. It will not be tolerated by the people of Ontario. Ontario deserves competent government. It does not deserve government by charade, a government learning on the job and a government changing its policy from one moment to the next. That is what I have seen so far. This gas tax bill represents the situation clearly.
In normal circumstances, members of this House would be calling for resignations, but we appreciate the difficulty of the Premier. We appreciate that he does not have a very deep pool of talent to draw from. We appreciate that he must make do with what he has, but we put this government on notice to shape up its act or stand aside for those who can do a better job.
9:10 p.m.
Let us not have any more gas tax bills. Let us have the kind of government that Ontarians have grown to expect and deserve. Good government is all we ask for.
Mr. Rowe: I, too, am pleased to rise in my place this evening to express my concerns with respect to Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.
Perhaps for a moment I can share this with the Treasurer, who happens to be leaning back in his chair. The night is getting long, the hour is late and I noticed the Treasurer was leaning back in his chair. He looks rather tired. I can appreciate the kind of day the Treasurer of this great province puts in, but I would like to share with him a short story about a great parliamentarian, Sir John A. Macdonald.
The House was late, much as it is this evening, and Sir John was listening to a long-winded speech from an honourable member of the opposition named Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Sir Wilfrid Laurier got very upset at Sir John who happened to doze off, as the Treasurer almost did a few minutes ago.
The Leader of the Opposition took offence at that and he happened to mention it to the Speaker, much as we mention things to you, Mr. Speaker. He said: "Mr. Speaker, I take offence at a Prime Minister who would lean back in his chair and look up at the great ceiling in this House while I am in a very important debate," much like the debate on the gasoline tax this evening. He said, "I take offence at that."
Sir John stood up and said: "Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I want to share with the Leader of the Opposition what I was dreaming about. It is very important he should know this. I dreamt that I passed away in my old age and was on my way ascending to heaven. I got to the Golden Gate and I said to St. Peter, `St. Peter, may I come in?' St. Peter said, `Who is it who goes there?' I said: `Sir John A. Macdonald, St. Peter. I have been leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the greatest party Canada has ever known. I have been Prime Minister of this country for many years.'"
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: St Peter said, "You are headed in the wrong direction."
Mr. Rowe: The member should not tell where he may go. We want to talk about this.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have lots of friends there.
Mr. Rowe: He said, "St. Peter, may I enter?" St. Peter said, "I am sorry, but you cannot." Poor old Sir John came back down the long flight of steps and half way down he met the Leader of the Opposition of the Liberal Party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said: "Sir John, you look despondent. What is wrong?" He said: "Oh, Wilfrid, I got to the comer of the gate, to the front steps and I was turned back. I am an old man. I guess I am going down all the way to the bottom." "Fear not, John. We have differed in our political opinions of each other and in our persuasions" -- as we do with the party to my left and the party across the House from time to time -- "but jump on my shoulders, Sir John, and I will carry you to the top."
Sir John said to Wilfrid, "That is a wonderful gesture and I will do that." He got on to Sir Wilfrid's shoulders and rode to the top. He reached up and rapped on the big door and said, "May I come in?" St. Peter said, "Who goes there?" He said, "It is Sir John A. Macdonald, St. Peter." He said, "Are you mounted or are you on foot?" He said, "I am mounted, St. Peter." St. Peter said, "Tie that ass up and come on in."
Coming from the free enterprise section of Ontario, the healthiest section, the section that built this province into what it is today, I realize governments must have revenues to operate. Our party realizes perhaps better than any party in this House that governments must have revenues to meet the demands of the day.
I wish to direct my remarks this evening to the effect the increase on gasoline will have on my riding, the riding of Simcoe Centre, and the effect it will have on the tourist industry, the agricultural industry and the transportation industry, all of which are very important in my riding of Simcoe Centre.
For those who are not familiar with it, the riding of Simcoe Centre stretches from Christian Island in the north, located on a beautiful body of water called Georgian Bay, to the most southern end of the riding, the rich, black soil more commonly known as the Holland Marsh, the vegetable bin of Ontario. To the north of this great riding is one of the greatest waterway systems in the world. Let the House think about this for a moment: not just Ontario, not just Canada, not just the United States but the world.
The waterway system linking Lake Simcoe in the south to Georgian Bay in the north is a system that, when one travels this distance by pleasure craft, boasts ships from all parts of the United States and Canada, and indeed many pleasure craft from all over the world. All of these ships, or a majority of them, burn a fuel called gasoline. All of these pleasure craft have people on board referred to as tourists.
A person or persons visiting our great province from another country or another province in Canada, or perhaps from another part of this great province, have money in their pockets to spend along the waterway system in buying all sorts of goods, and of necessity they buy gasoline to operate their craft. An increase in an already overtaxed product will add a further burden to this great pleasure craft tourist industry.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Some of those poor people in their $500,000 yachts could not pay the gas tax.
Mr. Rowe: I say to the member across the House, who is filled with verbal diarrhoea this evening, that those pleasure craft do indeed put money into the pocket of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and into the pocket of this province. I am not defending the $500,000 ships. I am simply pointing out that they, too, have a role to fill in this province.
The American tourist, of whom we have spoken often in this House, cannot understand why the gas is so much cheaper on his waterways and in his marinas than it is in ours. His dollar may be worth 35 per cent more, but his feeling is that there just is not the value in the dollar in Ontario today there was a few years ago.
I refer to an article that appeared in the Toronto Star not very long ago, which shows there were seven million fewer visitors to Canada, not just Ontario, between 1981 and 1984. There are some interesting quotes with respect to an industry that is in difficulty. It is going to be worse in 1985, just to bring the minister of doom and gloom for the last few years up to date, it says it is going to be worse in 1985.
Robert DeGrace, who is president of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, says "the first six months of 1985 show a deficit running well above $2 billion. If we did a survey of Americans leaving Canada after a visit, I am sure one of the first things they would mention is the high cost of gas, food and alcohol.... Statscan reports that most of the 33 million Americans who visited last year went home the same day." I wonder how many more will go home the same day when they have to face the gas pumps.
Mr. Pierce: They will not even come this year.
Mr. Rowe: Indeed, they may not come, as the member for Rainy River states.
I note with interest the statement of the present Minister of Tourism and Recreation on May 16, 1984, when he was critic for his party. He said an interesting thing: "We are overtaxed and therefore we are overpriced and have lost our competitive advantage." Is that not something?
Mr. Lane: That is the same guy.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Rowe: The same Minister of Tourism and Recreation who was standing somewhere over here as a critic of Tourism. Things have changed now. Follow me and walk this way.
"Nowhere is it more evident than in our centres that are close to our neighbours in the US, where liquor, tobacco, gasoline, meals and hotels are taxed in drastically different ways." That is quite a quote. Gasoline, he says. I wonder what the minister feels now with respect to the tourist industry; does he think we are still overtaxed on gasoline? I am glad to see the minister is nodding that he agrees.
There is hardly a wheel that moves, an engine that starts, a suit of clothes on one's back or a plastic lunch pail for children at school that is not affected and does not contain byproducts of gasoline. The effect of this tax is far greater than simply leaving the riding of Simcoe Centre, for example, and driving to Toronto or destinations well beyond. As stated earlier, we will soon force our own residents out of this province and into the United States to buy cheaper gas, clothes and meals. All this will mean is that they will do their vacationing in the United States, not here in Ontario.
We have some of the greatest ski resorts in Ontario in my riding, such as Snow Valley, Horseshoe Valley, Medonte Mountain and the list goes on. I am sure the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is aware of them. These resorts employ hundreds of people, both full-time and part-time. A lot of young people rely on jobs such as this for their spending money, people who are working themselves through high school, university and different courses. They all depend on skiers, who must first get to these resorts by car or bus, many of which rely on gasoline. When gas goes up so does the overall cost of transportation. Thus the package ski weekends and all other related items increase as the price of gas increases.
Simcoe Centre and the surrounding area has been designated by the federal government as one of three special year-round tourist areas in Canada: spring, summer, fall and winter. The majority of those tourists must travel to see these seasonal sights, whether it be water skiing in the summer or a trip to watch the leaves turn colour in the fall. Whether it be early, late or some other time in the fall, I say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), it is in the fall. Perhaps they want a trip to the Muskokas in the spring. They all have to travel, and that is where it is going to have an effect on these most valuable customers called tourists, whom we so desperately need.
We have all heard about the effect an increase in gasoline will have on the transportation industry. The price of tires, the price of gas; it is all going to cost more. All the increases I speak of will result in higher transportation costs, higher costs per mile. It all causes increases to the customers, which in turn eventually fuels inflation to the residents of this great province. There is much more involved here than just a fill-up at the pumps.
An industry very dear and important to my riding is agriculture, both in the Holland Marsh area and in the higher parts where the farmers grow corn, high grains and feed cattle. I realize most of the members in this great chamber have addressed this issue at one point or another. However, I must ask the Treasurer, a man who knows very well the present financial plight of the farmer, does he not feel a gasoline tax that decreases as the price of fuel drops, such as our party is proposing, would be a welcome break to the agricultural industry?
Most farmers have gasoline pickups and cars. They too must travel. They cannot simply say they will pass this increase on to the consumer and charge more for the product. The Treasurer knows full well that is not possible.
What do we tell those people who have made a living working themselves to exhaustion day and night, who are facing financial chaos, who cannot sleep at night worried about their own and their families' futures? What do we tell them with respect to a further financial burden on their operations? "It is too bad; I am sorry about it. That is the way the Treasurer wants to do it."
That is not a responsible answer to give our constituents, the farmers, the original entrepreneurs of this great province.
Bill 51, as it now stands, would far better serve all the constituents of this great province with our amendment. All residents would receive a fair reduction, a fair break so to speak, on their gasoline expenses. Why not allow all the people of Ontario to share in a reduction of world fuel prices?
We see in today's Globe and Mail that ministers of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed in principle yesterday to stop trying to prop up petroleum prices. Instead, they will seek a stable share of the world market. This decision could speed up the decline in oil prices that many analysts are predicting for early next year.
Mr. Martel: I hope Mulroney does not let my friend down.
Mr. Rowe: The only letdown in this House is to my left.
This news is further proof of the merit of the amendment our party is proposing, something which the members to my left were scoffing at last week as we stood here and talked about making a possible amendment. The Chicken Little, doom-and-gloom attitudes over here are unbelievable. The party said last week, "Gasoline will never go down; gas will only go up."
Mr. Foulds: It is only the member's gas that is going up.
Mr. Rowe: I say to the third party, do not be too sure it is not its gas that is going up.
There has been more gas in this House to the left of me than there has ever been before. I listen day after day to comments such as, "What did your party do after 42 years about this or that?" whether it be the price of gasoline or peaches. I hear it from the government benches and from the party to my far left. I find their constant one-liners are wearing thin.
Mr. Gillies: They have only one.
Mr. Rowe: That is true, especially on an item such as the reduction of tax on gasoline when prices go down. I cannot believe that a party which says its first and foremost concern is the welfare and wellbeing of all the working class could oppose an amendment that would allow gasoline tax to go down as the price of world gasoline goes down. I do not know how its members can go back home and tell their people that they are not going to vote for this amendment. As the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) said, I am sure they will go home eventually --
Mr. Foulds: Show us the amendment.
Mr. Rowe: In the fullness of time the amendment will appear.
Interjection.
Mr. Rowe: I have some real estate for him in Florida.
A party like the party to my left absolutely amazes me at times as to how it could vote against this bill. It may not, but I hope it will vote for our amendment. That would help the average worker.
The hour is late and I am sure there are other honourable members who wish to address this bill, so I will close by asking my acquaintances to the left before they retire this evening -- if they ever do; they are such a hard-working bunch they stay up all night at times -- to give consideration to our amendment when it does come forward, and it will come forward.
Mr. Foulds: How can we until we see it?
Mr. Rowe: Do not be in a hurry about this. That is the problem with that party: sometimes it gets in a hurry and gets itself before the cart.
Mr. Foulds: The member has been talking about this amendment for two weeks and we have not seen it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.
Mr. Rowe: Before they retire this evening, maybe they will think about the amendment we will put forth and do what is the best for the people of this province; that is, support the amendment we will put forth to this bill.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Partington: I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act.
Mr. Warner: Why?
Mr. Partington: Why am I happy to speak? Whenever the member is here to listen to me, I am happy to speak.
I want to speak against the act, however. Originally frozen at an increase of 8.8 cents per litre, it has now been decided that the freezing will take effect at 8.3 cents per litre. In any event, this freezing of the tax at 8.3 cents per litre has the effect of watering down the real value of a gallon of gasoline whenever the price of gasoline at the service station is reduced. If the gasoline price goes down, this government will take a bigger share of the price. That is clearly wrong. The tax may be frozen at an upper limit of 8.3 cents, but it must drop whenever the price of gasoline drops.
The taxes that have been introduced in the past few weeks are breaking the taxpayers of this province. We have the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act tonight, but we have had the fuel tax increase and income tax increases as well as the land transfer tax increase, which will probably do as much to stimulate housing in this province as the four per cent rent control this government is introducing. I ask the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling) to consider lobbying his fellow members to lift or at least maintain the land transfer tax as it has been over many years so the housing industry can provide affordable housing for many people of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Curling: Say more about housing.
Mr. Partington: I will; I will meet the minister later and give him some of my views. I was also disappointed to see in the budget an across-the-board tax increase on wine of 10 cents per 750-millilitre bottle.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Is this a throne speech or what?
Mr. Partington: My friend the member for Niagara Falls should pay heed, because it affects his constituents. The market share of Ontario wines has fallen from 54 per cent in 1983 to 38 per cent in 1985. I encourage the government to reconsider that.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The debate is on the gasoline tax.
Mr. Partington: Yes, it is. The gasoline tax is the one tax that has added too much to the burden of the taxpayers of Ontario. As one person has said, "One thing is sure: the man who said taxes keep us halfway broke was a bad judge of distance."
The consumers need relief from taxes. Reasonable, fair taxes are acceptable, but a tax that takes an increasing percentage of our dollar without making the message fair is unfair, unjust and is simple greed. It has a psychological effect on consumers. The consumer expects to pay a fair tax, but when the government takes an increasing percentage of the price of a product, that is not just. I am sure the taxpayers will become angry when the message is known; that message will become known as the price of gasoline drops.
There is considerable evidence to indicate that the price of gasoline will drop in the future. Many experts have said this. Philip Verleger, an independent economic consultant from Washington, told a conference on oil and natural gas in Calgary on September 23 that world oil prices could drop to less than half their current values by 1987.
James McNabb, the manager of the economic policy division of Conoco Inc. --
Mr. Foulds: He has been quoted in this debate before, has he not?
Mr. Partington: This guy is very knowledgeable; he deserves to be quoted again. He told the Calgary conference that he sees a low of $20 a barrel for crude oil through the late 1980s.
It is important if that price is going to drop, the government's take of gasoline should drop with it. As I indicated before, these taxes in themselves may not be onerous but, taken together, they are very onerous and have a bad effect on the economy of Ontario.
It was mentioned by my friend to the left a few minutes ago that tourism would be badly affected by this increased tax grab. Certainly when we see not too many miles from here in the United States that it is $10 or $12 cheaper than it is here to fill up a 20-gallon tank, it is no wonder, as my friend said, that we have millions fewer visitors to Ontario now than we had in the past.
This bill should be sending out a spirit of fairness, not only to the people of Ontario but also to the people south of the border. The people south of the border were already hurt earlier this year in a way that affected the Ontario economy with respect to the road-use tax. That is an upfront tax that charter bus companies pay to Ontario to bring in the many thousands of tourists they bring in each year. This year, these people were pulled off to the side of the road and threatened with fines if they did not pay the tax.
Mr. Warner: There is a bus leaving soon. The member should be under it.
Mr. Partington: My friend to the left should know that in the city of Niagara Falls, which is represented by the member across the way, there are 500 busloads a year. Each bus brings an average of 45 persons a year into Niagara Falls and other areas to spend millions of dollars. In a letter from Charter Bus Unlimited to the Festival Country Travel Association, Mark Slater, the vice-president of this company, said:
"Bob, in order to cut losses, I am immediately ordering our sales staff to halt promotion of all tours to Ontario departing through December 1985. We enjoy working with the friendly people in Ontario and we know that tourism is a major part of the Ontario economy, but we must look out for the best interests of our company. We sincerely hope that this tax will be rescinded so that injury to the reputation and wallets of our neighbours in Ontario can be minimized."
The theme of that letter was endorsed by the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and the regional municipality of Niagara.
The spirit of this act, which freezes the tax and which by design grabs a bigger share of the price of a litre of gas as the price drops, is unfair, unjust and spiritually wrong. This government should, with a fair mind, allow an adjustment, so the upper limit will be 8.3 cents but it will float downward as oil prices drop, as they surely will. We hope this government will show us its true, fair spirit.
Mr. Sheppard: I rise to give a few points and ideas on what the people of the great riding of Northumberland think about Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.
The farmers in my area think this is a terrible bill. After all, we have more than farmers in the great riding of Northumberland. Just yesterday, I was at a little cocktail party and I ran into the former mayor --
Mr. McCague: How much did it cost the member?
Mr. Sheppard: I could not afford to go because the gasoline tax was too expensive. Anyway, I was there -- the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) should not go away -- and so was the former mayor of Cobourg, Jack Heenan. He was mayor when the minister was mayor of the town of Lindsay. Jack Heenan ran on the Liberal ticket on October 17, 1963. He asked me, "Do you know my good friend John Eakins from Lindsay?" I said: "Yes. As you know, he is the new Minister of Tourism and Recreation."
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Sheppard: Is something wrong?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes. The member is interjecting and he is not in his seat.
Mr. Sheppard: Good point. Throw him out. I can finish my story now, and he is not in his seat and he cannot interject.
Anyway, there was Stan McBride, who was mayor of Peterborough at the same time, and Mike Wladyka, who was mayor of Port Hope.
I just want to tell the minister I live on the south shore of Rice Lake, which is 22 miles long, and one goes right through the middle of my farm to get down to Rice Lake. One of the best tourist resorts is on the south shore of Rice Lake.
Mr. McCague: I have been there.
Mr. Sheppard: Good, I am glad the member has been there. Nevertheless, the tourist operators on the south shore of Rice Lake depend for a lot of their business on people coming from the United States. They fill up their cars and they drive all the way over to the south shore of Rice Lake, they fish all day and they drive home on the same tank of gasoline. They cannot afford to buy the gasoline in Ontario because it is too expensive, so they drive home and they drive back the next day, fish all day and then they drive home again.
The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) does not believe that, but if he would come over and visit the great riding of Northumberland, I would take him down and I could prove it just by talking to the tourists who come over. They would love to spend more money but gasoline is just too expensive. I want the minister to listen because that is the truth and he knows it is the truth.
We have other things in the great riding of Northumberland. We have farmers, and I was just talking to a farmer this morning. His tractor broke down and he took it to the Ford dealership in Peterborough --
Mr. Gillies: Is it a Massey?
Mr. Sheppard: It is a blue Ford and it was going to cost him $4,000 just to put a head in it. He does not know whether he can afford to fix it because the farm prices are not good enough and gasoline is too expensive. He said, "I do not know whether I am going to go out of the farming business or not, because the new Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) is not doing enough for the farmers," in Ontario as well as Northumberland.
We have a lot of other people who have to buy gasoline in connection with farming. We have truckers. The trucker I use, W. G. Broadworth, trucks cattle to Toronto, but in order to survive he has to bring feed back; gasoline is too expensive. We have to convince the Treasurer that he has to lower that gas tax.
Interjection.
Mr. Sheppard: I was coming to that. Then we have the milk transporters. We have two or three transporters and just last week one laid off a driver because gasoline was so expensive he did not have enough money left over to pay the rest of his drivers.
Mr. Gillies: A job lost?
Mr. Sheppard: A job lost because gasoline was too expensive. In order to keep the good men, he had to lay off the lowest one on the totem pole.
It is getting very serious in Northumberland just as all over Ontario. The member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) is a racehorse man and I have a lot of racehorse men in my riding and they have to drive to Kawartha Downs or Bame or Orangeville. They are complaining about the people not going to the racetracks because gasoline is too expensive. If they were lucky and could make a dollar by betting, they would go more often.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We feel as though we are driving the horses from over here. The member knows what we are looking at.
Mr. Sheppard: What are members opposite looking at?
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I can tell what it looks like.
Mr. Sheppard: I would love to see the minister on a bike trying to drive a racehorse. All we have to do is call on the member for Simcoe Centre. He would teach the minister some really good lessons. I know what the minister would do; he would grab the horse's tail and then it would be over.
Besides racehorse men in Northumberland, we have a great many consumers who just cannot afford the extra gasoline tax even to go into town to buy their groceries. Sometimes they have to buddy-up to get to town because they cannot afford the extra gasoline to get there.
We have Valley View Transport in Campbellford. They truck cattle and hogs from the assembly yards to Montreal and Toronto and they are talking about going out of business because they cannot get a load back from Montreal, Chatham or Toronto, or wherever they end up with the hogs. From the assembly line, wherever they are sent, they have to make sure that the truck is there. They are wondering when the Treasurer or the Minister of Agriculture and Food is going to help them out, because they talk to farmers every day and it is the farmers who keep this great riding of the province going.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Are they charging the tax already, before the bill is passed?
Mr. Sheppard: They sure are.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sheppard: No. When they pull up to the pumps, they --
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Carry on.
Mr. Sheppard: I want to get right into his act because we have commercial fishermen in our riding and they are saying he has not given them a fair break. The mesh they use is a quarter of an inch too big; there are all kinds of fish down there but he will not let them catch them. The problem is it takes gasoline to take those boats out on the Brighton bay. That extra tax the Treasurer is going to put on --
Interjections.
An hon. member: There are the trucks that haul corn.
Mr. Sheppard: I am just getting to that. Then they have the trucks which take corn from the combines to Port Hope or to threshers in Trenton to get it dried and then they haul it home. There are quite a few hills in Northumberland and it takes more gas when one goes up and down those hills with trucks loaded. The farmers just cannot afford that extra burden.
Besides the farmers, we have a few loggers. I know the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) has come up through Northumberland on Highway 30 and Highway 45. One day, he actually came up Highway 45 through the reforestation. He saw a few loggers who were taking out some trees and some pulpwood. He said, "That is a beautiful forest." I said, "Yes, it is beautiful just after the frost hits all those beautiful trees and you are just sailing down through there." Still, we have to pay for gas to get those logs to market and the pulpwood to Trenton and down to where they truck it.
It is a terrible tax. The member for Simcoe Centre mentioned skiing resorts. We have the Northumberland ski hill, and many local people drive to it. We have one in Durham forest.
Mr. Haggerty: It costs money for salt and sand. You have to get it someplace.
Mr. Sheppard: Yes. It costs money to buy gas to go out there. They are concerned that with this extra burden they are going to be able to go out only once a week or maybe once a month because they cannot afford the extra tax on the gas.
9:50 p.m.
Then we come to county council. If we want our roads salted and sanded so the majority of people can get to work, it costs a lot to buy extra gas for the trucks to put on the salt and sand to keep the highways in good condition.
Since the last time I was speaking about the last tax, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) has seen fit to order a contract worth $1.3 million to pave and rebuild the highway from Cobourg to Port Hope. He is going to start approximately May 20. That is one good thing. I am glad he got the message the last time I was speaking when I said in this House that Highway 401 from Cobourg to Brighton was in terrible shape.
I just hope there are not too many accidents, because a week ago Thursday they had to shut Highway 401 at Burnham because it was in a terrible state. There were cars all over the highway, a tractor-trailer crosswise, and traffic was held up for two hours and 35 minutes.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What has that to do with Bill 51?
Mr. Sheppard: I am just telling the people in this House so they will realize when was the last time they took a little action.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There must be a connection here somewhere.
Mr. Sheppard: One other thing I want to mention is that the Northumberland and Newcastle bus operators are still fighting with the board of education to get a decent salary to transport children to the schools in Northumberland and Newcastle to get an education. They are hounding me, the trustees and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), saying: "The tax cannot go on because we just cannot afford it. We must have the buses in good order because the safety of the children is a top priority at all times."
I cannot support Bill 51. I would hope the people on the left would come along with the people on the right and vote against this bill.
Mr. O'Connor: I welcome this opportunity to provide a few comments to this House on Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. I must admit I rise rather hesitantly with my eye to the left wondering whether I would be pre-empted by any of the members of the New Democratic Party whose turn it is to speak on this bill but who have declined to do so throughout this evening.
I am wondering why, inasmuch as their leader, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), indicated in general remarks following the budget debate that he rated the government efforts in the budget at a C minus. If the budget rated only that mark, surely he and his members would see fit to debate this matter. If it is that bad, why are they not up talking about it? Why are they not debating it?
One can only conclude that by not speaking on the matter, not voicing their views for their constituents and the people of Ontario, they are in favour of and stand for mediocrity. That is the conclusion we must all come to from the lack of involvement in this debate.
However, I must comment first on the general precepts of Bill 51, in that what it does or attempts to do, should it pass this House, is fix the tax on a litre of gasoline at 8.8 cents. No matter what the price of gasoline may be from time to time, no matter what the economic circumstances in Ontario might be, no matter what the world producers of oil may tell us the prices will be, the amount per litre that this government intends to extract from the people of Ontario will remain constant.
I should point out to the House that this approach to taxation is almost unique with respect to this bill. In virtually all other areas of taxation, be it income tax, sales tax, land transfer taxes or whatever other areas the government has become involved in when taxing the people of this province, there is a measure of progressivity or a sliding tax approach.
For example, in the case of sales tax there is a percentage tax approach of seven per cent. Thus the tax varies with the price of goods as they increase or decrease. In the income tax system we have the long-use progressivity concept, and at higher levels one pays higher taxes than at lower levels. Similarly, land transfer tax is a fixed percentage.
It has always been deemed fundamentally unfair to fix a flat tax on the price of a commodity regardless of its economic or market price. Surely it can be seen quite clearly by the government that this approach is not fair and not equitable to the people of this province.
We have heard a number of speakers this evening and on previous occasions, speaking from the point of view of their ridings or as critics and representatives of an industry or segment of the economy, talking of the devastating effects that a flat-rate tax at the level the government intends to peg it will have on various sectors of the economy in various areas of the province.
This evening we have heard from the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) on the difficulties that will be encountered in the north if this tax is imposed in its present form. He has described to us the enormous distances that people in the north must travel on a daily basis to and from work, to and from shopping and to and from medical services, often in towns distant from the places where they live. The effect will be very significant for people living in the northern part of this province, especially in the winter months when the travelling is difficult in any event and the cost of travelling is increased.
We have heard of the difficulties that will be encountered by small businessmen, by pensionners, by virtually everybody in Ontario. The average wage earner will have to pay more, not only for his own transportation needs and expenses to go to work, to shop, etc., but also for all the goods and commodities we all must consume. Virtually everything that we use, eat, wear and enjoy in this province must be transported in one way or other by truck, train or air, and it all involves an increase in cost if this iniquitous tax is imposed at the rate proposed.
We have heard from the member for Simcoe Centre of the effect on tourism --
Mr. Rowe: Terrible.
Mr. O'Connor: The terrible effect on tourism. Tourism is one of the largest industries in our province and as such, of course, is one of the largest producers of revenue for the government.
Perhaps the government had this in mind in imposing a tax of this nature, which will hit the tourism industry so hard. In most of the areas outside the large cities north of Metro Toronto, particularly in the Muskokas and the Kawartha Lakes district, tourism is the virtual lifeblood of the people. The member for Simcoe Centre has described the effect on boat owners, how they will have to incur increased costs to transport themselves through the lakes and river districts of the province.
We must allow our tourism industry to remain viable and competitive and to be able to attract tourists from outside Ontario, in particular from the United States, if we hope to survive in the large areas outside Metro.
10 p.m.
We have heard of the effect on the transportation industry and, of course, this is most obvious. Every cent more that every trucker, trucking company, van owner or commercial vehicle owner pays means more cost to all of us for the goods and services that are being transported by these methods.
The imposition of the tax at this time in our economic history is particularly iniquitous. I refer to the fact that at present we are entering into an era of falling oil prices. In that regard I note the lead story in today's Toronto Star. Perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has not read the paper today. The glaring headline reads, "OPEC Agrees to Cut Oil Prices to Retain Sales." I will read a few excerpts from this lead story in a newspaper that we all recognize has not been unkind to the government in the past.
"The decision" -- that is, to cut oil prices -- "...could speed the fall in world oil prices that many analysts had already been predicting for early next year." Such a reduction in prices had already been predicted for next year. It goes on, "A cut of several dollars a barrel could mean lower consumer prices in Canada for gasoline and home heating oil."
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Could.
Mr. O'Connor: Good? Excellent.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I said "could." I will believe it when I see it.
Mr. O'Connor: We all would welcome such an event, and the government should recognize that this is a real and distinct possibility.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Could.
Mr. O'Connor: The minister throws the word "could" across the floor at me. I am reading from the article. We have to understand who is saying that these prices could be declining, and it happens to be the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is the largest trading organization in this commodity in the world, the people who virtually control the price of oil outside Canada.
The article continues: "It was not clear how far OPEC is willing to let its price fall, but Mana Saeed Oteiba, oil minister of the United Arab Emirates, was asked in an NBC News television interview whether he believed oil prices would fall to US$20 a barrel next spring. He replied, `Sure.'"
At $20 a barrel, there will be a fall of almost $18 a barrel from the top price paid for oil during the last several years. It is almost half the price.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That does not mean the consumers will get it. It means the oil companies will get it.
Mr. O'Connor: Surely the minister can readily see the unfairness of taxing a litre of gasoline at the same level whether the price from the oil wells is $38 a barrel or $20 a barrel. If he attempts to argue that $20 a barrel will not reduce the price at the refinery and at the pump, he is sadly mistaken. There are falling oil prices in the future and, in the interests of fairness, surely there should be a sliding tax with respect to oil prices at our pumps on a per litre basis.
There is one other area of the bill on which I wish to make a few comments, and I made similar comments when we were discussing Bill 50 before the House. It is section 6, which deals with the repeal of the search-warrant powers granted under the act as it now stands to allow officers of the Ministry of Revenue to enter premises to search and seize documents and other written materials for the purpose of carrying on investigations into alleged breaches of the Gasoline Tax Act.
We all recognize the necessity of giving that power to members of the ministry, to law enforcement persons, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this act. There can be, and often are, large amounts of money involved. Should citizens and companies take it upon themselves to attempt to circumvent the provisions of the act, the enforcers of the law need all the provisions of the law to bring them to justice.
However, the difficulty I see with regard to that repeal is that at present the section in the act, subsection 16(4), provides that such a search warrant can be granted only on the authority of a Supreme Court judge.
On previous occasions when debating this matter and passing the previous bill, this Legislature deemed that the authority to search and seize in these circumstances was of such significance and importance that only a judge of the highest court in this province could have the authority to allow the intrusion into private dwellings and other places to conduct such searches. The infringement of the rights of some of our citizens by being subjected to such searches, without their knowledge in some cases, was considered a matter of sufficient severity and importance that it could only be done on the authority of a Supreme Court judge and no one less.
The effect of deleting subsection 16(4) of the act by passing section 6 of the bill before the House is to commit such searches under the authority of section 42 of the Provincial Offences Act. That is a terrible situation. Section 42 of the Provincial Offences Act empowers search and seizure on the authority of justices of the peace and provincial court judges.
I do not have any difficulty with granting that authority to provincial court judges who are, for the most part, experienced lawyers who sit in court on a daily basis, hear trials and are very familiar with the criminal justice system, particularly the rules of evidence and practice. As such, I have confidence that their discretion is sufficient to allow such search procedure, that errors will not be made and that infringements of personal rights will not be encountered.
However, I do have some difficulty with permitting justices of the peace this very significant authority. The difficulty I see is this: Mostly, they are well-meaning, hard-working individuals. However, in many cases, they are not even lawyers. They may be part-time persons paid on a per diem or per case by the Ministry of the Attorney General. Despite all their goodwill and effort, they may not have the experience and background to look sufficiently into the circumstances as to whether an intrusion of the individual rights of some of our citizens by means of a warrant to search their premises ought to be granted.
It is obvious that previous Legislatures felt the same, since that authority was given only to a judge of the Supreme Court and to no one less than that. As I indicated before, the minister should rethink section 6, which deletes that power, and perhaps leave that authority where it currently exists, with the Supreme Court judges.
10:10 p.m.
The last point I will make is with respect to our amendment. The amendment to be proposed by the official opposition will have the effect of capping the tax to be extracted on a litre of gasoline sold at the pumps at 8.3 cents. If the price falls below certain levels, the amount of tax extracted accordingly will be less on a scaled down basis as the price falls.
Surely this approach is in keeping with the normally accepted and fair approach towards taxation in any area of our economy. As I mentioned at the outset, in the several areas where we do impose tax -- in the income tax system, the sales tax system and the land transfer tax -- the taxes are geared to the price of a commodity. If the price increases, the tax increases; if it decreases, the tax decreases.
Surely that reasonable approach is the fair, just and equitable way in which to tax our citizens. The least fair method of doing it is a fixed tax which does not relate to the wholesale or retail price of the commodity, but which is extracted no matter what the price might be.
I will be voting for the amendment; I will be voting against the bill should the amendment fail, and I urge all members of this House to similarly use their right to vote in the interests of fairness and justice for the people of Ontario.
Mr. Cureatz: I am very proud to have the opportunity to be addressing Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.
I would be remiss if I did not mention how curious we all are that noted on the front of the legislation is the name Hon. R. Nixon, Minister of Revenue. The new traditional Liberal administration, in an attempt to make possible what it calls "open government," has, for some unknown reason, amalgamated a number of ministries.
Many members ask, "What does that do?" I hope all the members present will listen closely and adhere to my remarks. For those members not present, I know in the heart of my hearts that the members who are present will take copies of these cherished remarks and send them to their colleagues who are not present and who are missing the cherished pearls of my wisdom.
What happens when it amalgamates the various ministries as indicated under Bill 51? Do members know what happens?
There was a time when I knew a gentleman by the name of Bob Nixon. That is not referring to the Treasurer here. I refer to that person as the old Bob. The old Bob was very sympathetic to --
Mr. Speaker: Would the member refer to another member by his riding.
Mr. Cureatz: I am not referring to the honourable Treasurer. The Speaker will note very patiently that when I refer to the Treasurer, I refer to "the Treasurer."
This old Bob of whom I will speak at great length to --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked the member to respect the comments from the chair. If he is referring to another member, please refer to that member by his riding or his ministry.
Mr. Cureatz: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you in these chambers when I refer to the time before the past election of May 2, 1985, when I say "the old Bob" I am not referring to the Treasurer. Can I not talk about a Bob whom I know? I will ask you as a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I will listen once more.
Mr. Cureatz: There was an old Bob I used to know. He said to me many times that he was very concerned about open government. As fate would have it, his comments about open government were very particular and acute. His concern was that we had to make sure that people across the province had the opportunity of speaking to ministers of the crown such as the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).
I ask how the Treasurer, after the election of May 2 and now under Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, the Hon. R. Nixon, Minister of Revenue, can even contemplate making himself available to people across the province while holding two ministerial positions.
I acknowledge the member for Niagara Falls who also holds two portfolios, and I say to him and I say to the Treasurer that in regard to their concerns about openness in their administration, we should be thinking as parliamentarians of the ability of all people across Ontario to have the opportunity to speak to as many ministers of the crown as possible.
If the minister from Niagara Falls and the Minister of Revenue had the opportunity of serving in one portfolio only, that would allow an opportunity for someone in the back bench, such as the honourable member, the sole one there, who is waving his hand at me frantically and who is dying to serve in the administration of the Premier of Ontario. The government would have an opportunity to have more cabinet ministers and hence give this government the true openness it purports to have.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That comment was very unfair. The members of the public who now speak to me speak to two ministers at the same time. That has to be an advantage.
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I do not consider that a point of order. I have been listening very carefully to the member for Durham East and I wonder how he is going to tie this in to Bill 51.
Mr. Cureatz: I am just getting warmed up, Mr. Speaker.
I referred to Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. As I indicated to all my colleagues in this sacred chamber, right on the front of the bill it says, "The Hon. R. Nixon, Minister of Revenue." I am deeply concerned that he is not only the Minister of Revenue but also the Treasurer of Ontario.
Time and time again I listened when I held the interesting position as Deputy Speaker. If I heard one speech from the Treasurer, I heard a thousand, about how, if he ever became an important person serving in the cabinet administration of Ontario, he would make sure the Ministry of Revenue and the Treasury would be amalgamated. Indeed they have been amalgamated and that has taken place, but I question now if with hindsight he has second thoughts about that.
They talk about open government. I am suggesting open government is more possible if we have more cabinet ministers to approach. If the Minister of Revenue relinquished that portfolio, when we are talking about Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, and there was a new cabinet minister such as the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), who would be the new Minister of Revenue, he would be bringing in Bill 51. There would be a new position and he could have the perks of office with the Buick limousine, the yellow lights and the phone in the car.
I am just getting warmed up and I want to express my concerns about the front of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, where it states, "The Hon. R. Nixon, Minister of Revenue."
I always wanted to have an opportunity to discuss a little story about pieces of legislation that have been brought in by this government. It is an interesting story about the increase in gas taxes and its effect on tourism. Mr. Speaker, I think that is something you are going to be very concerned about, holding the position you have for such a long time in the area of Perth.
My wife and I had an opportunity four years ago to visit a place called the Benmiller Inn. Who has heard of the Benmiller Inn? Hands up. Shame. No one on the government side has heard of the Benmiller Inn. I am very confident the Minister of Health, the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), has heard of the Benmiller Inn.
Mr. Speaker, I know you are getting a little fidgety. You are getting ants in your pants. Let me assure you I am tying this in to tourism and the increase in gas prices under Bill 51.
Mr. Speaker: I thought you wanted to leave the room.
10:20 p.m.
Mr. Cureatz: On occasion, my wife and I had an opportunity to visit the Benmiller Inn. Then at a later date, at a great time when we were the government of Ontario, I spoke on a budget speech. It so happens I brought up the fact that under the great administration of Bill Davis when the gasoline prices were low, unlike Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, my wife and I had the opportunity of buying gasoline so we could visit the Benmiller Inn. I made that point in my remarks and I photostatted Hansard. I complimented the administrator of the Benmiller Inn and I sent it out to Benmiller.
Lo and behold, about a month later, none other than the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) -- who knows the member for London Centre? Quick, over there; anybody over there on the Liberal side, hands up: who knows the member for London Centre?
Interjection.
Mr. Cureatz: I do not think even the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward) knows who it is. The member for London Centre came up to me with hands shaking and in great trepidation, wondering what I was doing commenting about the Benmiller Inn.
Here comes the Minister of Health. I am sure he knows about the Benmiller Inn and the time my wife and I went out under the great administration of Bill Davis, when we did not have to pay the exorbitant gas tax as proposed under Bill 51. As a result, the member for London Centre was greatly concerned and greatly overwhelmed that I had the foresight to send a copy of Hansard out to the owner. He was already worried that the owner of the Benmiller Inn would not be sending monetary contributions to the Liberal Party of Ontario because I was making some inroads in acknowledging the owner of the Benmiller Inn in Hansard.
The point of the matter is that it grieves me to no end to think that under this act, Bill 51, there are now going to be fewer and fewer people wanting to go and visit that lovely establishment of the Benmiller Inn in the riding of Huron-Bruce. This kind of increase in gasoline taxes is going to affect not only us, the people of Ontario, but also visitors that we have.
What kind of "Ontario -- yours to discover!" promotional program are we going to be able to have when we are going to be saying, with a little caveat at the bottom -- for all the lawyers who remember what "caveat" means -- that says: "By the way, the Honourable R. Nixon, Minister of Revenue, has increased gasoline prices so tourism will not be as easy. It will be more expensive for you in Ontario"?
I am just starting to get warmed up and I have all kinds of great and wonderful things I want to relate. For instance, I would not mind this increase in the gasoline tax under Bill 51 if the government had a commuter policy that would reflect the concerns of the people of southern Ontario around the Golden Horseshoe. What is their commuter policy? It is a hotchpotch mess.
We, under the great Conservative administration, had a program with a rapid GO Transit system from Newcastle to Hamilton. Now, under the new Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), we have GO by early 1990. We were to have the GO rail commuter system by the late 1980s out to Oshawa and out to Hamilton.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Last election, the Conservatives did not go, they went.
Mr. Cureatz: I remind the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) who has the most seats in this chamber today. The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has the most seats in this chamber.
Does the minister want to talk about the coalition? Let us talk about the coalition and the gas tax. Let us take a look. Does he remember this picture here? Does everybody remember this great picture, "Signed, sealed and delivered"? Do the members remember that picture?
Let us take a look at the agreement. We have to remind everybody about the agreement. Everyone forgets about the agreement. Does the agreement say anything about Bill 51? I bet nobody in that back row has read it. How about the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy)? Has he read this agreement? Is he not embarrassed? Is he not ashamed of what it says here? I am going to refresh his memory of it. I will not bore the members at great length, because it is a very boring document, but is there any reference to Bill 51? It says here on document 2, "Proposals for action in first session for common campaign proposals."
The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) used to say to me, "When finally the Liberal Party gets amalgamated with our party, it will be great to get rid of the Liberal Party." Little does he know that the Liberal Party has hoodwinked him and I am embarrassed for him that he does not realize what happened.
It says here in this document, "Proposals for action in first session for common campaign proposals, to be implemented within a framework of fiscal responsibility." Wait until I get to the triple-A rating.
In page 2 of this proposal, the coalition government, is there any reference to Bill 51? Let us take a look at the third-last paragraph. I remind the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D.S. Cooke) that it says, "Continue the pre-budget freeze on the ad valorem gasoline tax and establish an inquiry into gas price differentials between northern and southern Ontario."
I do not know where the "establish an inquiry into gas price differentials between northern and southern Ontario" is. I have not heard any great announcement. All the front row of the Liberal administration is very proud. Every day before question period, they all stand up with great and wonderful pronouncements. I have not heard a pronouncement about this inquiry.
I understand a study is taking place. Is the study being done by a student? That is just terrific. I respect the students of Ontario. They have a very difficult, hard road to make sure their grades are adequate so they can seek employment. However, notwithstanding that, I think even the Treasurer has some hesitation about assigning a student to do the great and wonderful project to "establish an inquiry into gas price differentials between northern and southern Ontario."
That does not even get to my original point, and that is the first part of the sentence, "Continue the pre-budget freeze on the ad valorem gasoline tax." What do we get? Do the members know what we get? We get Bill 51, an increase in gas taxes. What do the minister's brothers in cahoots say about that? We do not hear them speaking out against the gas tax. Do the members know why? It is because they have this famous signed agreement. However, everyone likes to put it underneath the desk and forget about it.
It is important to bring this out to remind the people on our far left that they have a signed agreement, in writing, and they are embarrassed about it. They are embarrassed about Bill 51. I have a funny feeling that they feel in the gut of their stomachs a little hesitation about meeting quietly with the Treasurer and with the Minister of Revenue, who happens to be the same person, much to my surprise. I think they feel a little reticent that they have to meet quietly to discuss how they are going to save face under their written agreement, "An Agreement for a Reform Minority Parliament."
I have touched on the tourism aspect in regard to this increase in tax under Bill 51. I would like to mention some of the problems that will be encountered in my riding of Durham East. My riding, to refresh everyone's memory, has two distinct aspects, almost half the city of Oshawa and a large rural area -- something similar perhaps to the riding of the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), who probably has a portion of rural area in his riding.
We can talk about the farmers in my community and the increase in funds they will have to spend in terms of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, notwithstanding an article in the Globe and Mail, "Just How Badly Are Our Farmers Hurting?" I feel embarrassed and ashamed for the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), to think that he is increasing taxes for our farm community under Bill 51, with his long tradition of a history of farming in St. George and going to Earl's Gulf and listening to all those concerns at Earl's Gulf in regard to gasoline taxes.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Earl's Shell.
Mr. Cureatz: Earl's Shell. I even understand, and I hope the Minister of Revenue is listening to this point, that along Highway 2, gasoline stations are now renting mobile signs saying, "Thanks for the increase in gas taxes, Bob." Mr. Speaker, I am only quoting what the signs say on Highway 2. If I were a gas station owner and a provincial member of parliament, I would say, "Thanks for the increase in gas prices, Mr. Treasurer," but of course the people at the gas stations on Highway 2 do not realize the significance of these sacred chambers and the formalities we have to follow.
Time is moving on, and we have a great number of other interesting aspects to discuss in Bill 51. However, seeing it is close to 10:30 p.m., I will move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion by Mr. Cureatz, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.