Journal des débats 1985-déc-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Andrewes: Then I will have to try to convince him. I thought that over the sumptuous dining in the ministers' dining room he might have reconsidered the wisdom of this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is too lonely in there.

Mr. Andrewes: The Minister of Revenue has sought in this bill to do away with the ad valorem fuel tax and to put in its place one fee that applies to fuel used "to generate power in a motor vehicle other than railway equipment" and a second fee on "clear fuel received or used by him or her in Ontario to propel railway equipment on rails where such equipment is operated in connection with and as part of a public transportation system."

Our amendment speaks to our concern about the increase in tax; it rolls that increase back to 9.3 cents, which was its level before the introduction of this bill, the level it is at today.

I will make one or two remarks with respect to ad valorem, because it appears we have continuing contradiction on that whole subject. Ad valorem was designed to reflect increases and decreases in price and to apply the tax accordingly when those increases and decreases occurred. It was perhaps loosely described by some as a windfall to the government when prices rose and a windfall to consumers when prices fell.

I keep hearing the contradiction. For instance, we have a debate that may be before us by the end of the week on indexing pensions for injured workers, an indexation that would take place automatically without being brought to the Legislature on an annual or semi-annual basis for debate. I will not argue with the merit of those increases; I argue only with the inconsistency of the principle put forward.

The government has expressed concern on many occasions about ad valorem taxes on fuel, taxes that rise and fall with the price of the product that is being taxed; yet at the same time it feels no concern about indexing pensions or other forms of payment by way of those kinds of programs and again moving away from the opportunity for the Legislature to participate in a debate on those changes.

The position we put forward with respect to this amendment was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) in question period some two weeks ago. He said we would be inviting all members of the opposition -- we think they are the opposition; they are not the official opposition, but we still think they are in opposition sometimes -- and members of the government to accept this amendment or else to vote against a proposal where taxes would fall. That invitation is still there; it is still on the record, and it is still part of the debate on this amendment.

At this stage I will not try to convince the Treasurer with respect to the world market situation on oil, which is the lifeblood of the fuel that is manufactured from it, the subject of this taxing policy. I will likely do that when we come to the gasoline tax debate, which is the next bill.

What I want to do is to draw the minister's attention to concerns from the Ontario Motor Coach Association, which has written to the Treasurer and to other members of the Legislature, including the Leader of the Opposition. Brian E. Crow, the president, says in his letter that he wrote to the Treasurer regarding his rollback of the proposed increase in gasoline tax and was very critical of his not rolling back on a similar basis the increase in diesel fuel.

Mr. Crow goes on to point out the travesty here as a result of this failure to acknowledge the problems of the Ontario Motor Coach Association, an association of motor coach operators who are in the tourism business. I draw those concerns to the minister's attention.

I also feel compelled to speak up on behalf of the other sectors of the transportation industry that are using fuel, such as the trucking industry. In the transportation of goods around this province, the trucking industry plays a very important role. An increase in fuel taxes represents an increased cost to consumers that must be passed on. At the same time, those consumers have to accept the burden of the $750 million of extra taxation that the Treasurer has put in place.

Can I stop at that point and hear the comments of the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My officials tell me the first approach to the amendment would reduce our revenues by at least $15 million, which among other things means that it is in order. The reduction in revenue would be considerably more than that if the prices fell, as the member for Lincoln is -- I would not say predicting but indicating as a possibility

Mr. Andrewes: I will predict in the next bill.

8:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes. We will discuss it more fully there.

I have to concern myself with a $15-million loss. We are expecting to spend about $1.6 billion on road construction and maintenance this year and on the provision of transit assistance. This is very close to the figure we intend to earn, if I may use that word, from the motor vehicle fuel tax, gasoline tax and licensing fees.

The two figures are not identical, and we do not expect them to be; however, the people who pay the tax use the roads, and there is some justification for that sort of user fee. I do not want to equate the two, but they are in the same ball park. Some years we get more revenue. In the past we have had more revenue than we have spent on roads, and I have a feeling that in the future we may spend more on roads than we will get in revenue. The member should be aware of that.

I should also point out that the tax put forward in this amendment at 9.9 cents a litre compares quite favourably with the tax in Quebec, which is 11.25 cents a litre; that in New Brunswick, which is 10.2 cents a litre; that in Prince Edward Island, which is 10.9 cents a litre; that in Newfoundland, which is 12.7 cents a litre; and so on. Therefore, even with this increase, which we consider to be fair and reasonable, we are still well down the list of taxing jurisdictions.

Mr. Guindon: They do not really sell any gas in those provinces.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Maybe they do not. I always thought they did sell some gas in those provinces, but perhaps I am wrong.

The argument that the Ontario Motor Coach Association, the truckers and so on are hard hit by the tax is difficult for me to understand when obviously the full cost of the fuel, including the tax, is written off as a cost of doing business. I suppose in that case it is partly the government of Canada that pays the tax, which I guess simply means the money is circulating around among different sources.

However, if one runs a motor coach business and uses fuel, whatever the price, one deducts it as a cost of doing business. I am aware that with deregulation in the United States, a number of smaller motor coach companies now find it profitable to bring tours up to the Royal York Hotel in Toronto and to take them to the Legislative Building and other centres of interest and importance.

Perhaps because of their lack of information about regulations and laws, they do not recoup the tax because they have not had sufficient expenditure for that purpose. That is a little more complicated; perhaps we can do something to help them. However, essentially the best thing is to do is simply to inform them of our laws and of the laws that the states have regarding their own motor fuel taxes.

I want to make another point; it was not raised by this member, but previous speakers on this bill did raise it, perhaps in second reading. They spoke about farmers and many others who have to pay this tax. Of course, farmers do not pay the tax on anything they do on off-road vehicles. Once the farmer gets into his pickup truck if it is diesel-fuelled, or his diesel truck if he is trucking grain, he has to pay the tax, and those costs are deductible as a cost of doing business.

The people we are hurting directly are the friends of the member opposite who drive those great, big diesel-powered Mercedes. I do not know who else pays the tax without offsets. I do not want to be facetious, but I do want to point out that in most of the cases the member has pointed out as real hardships, I cannot see that there is a hardship compared with the other jurisdictions. It is not high compared with the out-of-pocket costs for businesses; it is all chargeable as a cost of doing business, and I just wanted to point that out.

The amendment is a very interesting one. It probably is an indication that it was worth while to provide additional monetary assistance for research for the opposition members, and the members who have directed the research have done a good job on the amendment. It is quite an interesting one, but we cannot afford to accept it. We do not feel the level of tax we are putting forward is an unrealistic hardship compared with that in other jurisdictions, and although the money is not earmarked, it is roughly equal to the amount we are spending on transportation in this province.

For that reason I hope members, assessing on balance the fiscal responsibility that lies at the basis of these amendments, will be able to make a rational decision and support the government's initiative in this regard.

Mr. Andrewes: I appreciate those comments. There is one matter the minister touched on briefly that I want some clarification on.

I had a letter, as I am sure many other members did, from the Niagara Region Tourist Council, whose problem is that motor coach operators from US and other out-of-province jurisdictions apparently now have to pay up front the tax they normally would not pay, because they come from other jurisdictions. Can the minister clarify that issue?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot say too much more than I already have other than that the Niagara area in particular would be affected by coaches coming over from the United States. They have always had coaches coming over with tourists. We welcome them and want them to be here. We depend on them and the dollars they bring, but we feel they should pay the regular tax along with any other fuel user.

Mr. Andrewes: Did they not pay it in the past?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I just got some additional information from my advisers on that. The big tour operators that have been customarily coming up into Ontario know about it and pay their tax. There is no significant problem. Once again, it is deductible as a cost of doing business, but they would like a rebate from the province in this regard. That is not payable.

The smaller ones, the upwardly mobile tour companies that are starting to come in because of deregulation in the US, have not been paying this. They have not been going through inspection points in the regular course of events as required by the regulations, which we think are appropriate but which were put in place by our predecessors and probably their predecessors. This sort of regulation and control is expected here and in other jurisdictions.

Perhaps we can do more to inform these people as to their responsibilities here and see that they get the advantages of all the information services and assistance we can offer. However, if they drive here and use our fuel, they are going to pay our tax.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister suggested that this is one tax where there is the opportunity for offset and that it is the Department of National Revenue that bears the brunt of that offset. I have some difficulty with that argument, because it essentially means the profitability of the business is diminished by that much. Even though one can charge back so much, it is tantamount to the farmer who rushes out at the end of the year to buy some new equipment so he can get the depreciation.

The means may not justify the end, but I expect that is the argument the minister will use to answer my next question. If he is prepared to roll back the gas tax then why not the fuel tax?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We do not feel the fuel tax is unnecessarily out of line with the gasoline tax, even at the rolled-back rate. There is also the position I have already put to the member, that those people in business write this off as a cost of doing business in their various taxes payable. The member is aware that we do not charge sales tax on trucking equipment. This is an additional subsidy or a tax cost to the business of something like $32 million, which already goes to assist the trucking companies.

8:20 p.m.

I know their costs are high, and competition is high. On the other hand, the trucking business has enjoyed a relative boom since the very bad years of 1982 and 1983, and the purchases of equipment and the miles driven have increased tremendously.

In this connection, I should mention something that had slipped my mind until I was reminded by the officials at the desk. The motor coaches coming in from the United States, particularly those coming into Niagara, often do not buy any fuel at all, but they are required to pay a road-use tax associated with the fuel they burn while they are here, on the basis of their mileage.

I was aware of that, but this is an aspect they find troublesome because they are not used to it. They have not come across the border before into this jurisdiction and it is a practice we have. Many of the states have it as well when our trucks and buses go over there. It works out fairly well and they actually pay an amount for the use of the road, roughly equivalent to the tax paid for the fuel that is used in driving those kilometres.

Mr. Andrewes: That clearly was the issue.

I want to say a word or two about the effect of the diminishing price. The reason that is a part of this total amendment is to be consistent with our position on the gas tax which we will be arguing so eloquently at some later point.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Andrewes's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. McCague: Would the Treasurer take a moment to explain section 5 to us? The theme runs through all the bills of putting everything under the Provincial Offences Act. I would like to know what it means.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The powers of search and seizure have been used for quite a while in the process that this bill describes in the notes, although the authority was based on a different process. I am advised by my officials that they have had no questions about their procedures because they have been approaching it on the basis we are regularizing in this amendment.

The reason there has been no complaint was that the lawyers involved in defending cases had no complaint about the process of obtaining warrants for search and seizure. Just as in the previous act, where the section was introduced to regularize the process that has been used for a long time although there had been no complaint about it, we were advised by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and by the legal counsel of the Ministry of Revenue that this is an appropriate time to get legislative authority for a procedure that we think is correct. Our predecessors used it without legislative authority, although their use of it was, we are informed, correct.

Mr. McCague: I can see the Treasurer has a clear understanding of it.

Section 5 agreed to.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Nixon moves that subsection 2(1) of the Gasoline Tax Act as set out in section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "8.8" in the second line and inserting "8.3" in lieu thereof.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have no comments other than to reiterate what I already said about grade 3 arithmetic.

Mr. Andrewes: It was grade 2.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Grade 2 arithmetic.

Mr. Foulds: Grade 2 was over OISE, grade 3 was over the gas tax.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No; the member is heading for bifocals. Everyone is aware of what is going on here, and I am delighted to move this amendment. Except for Alberta and Manitoba, it means our gasoline tax is the lowest in Canada.

Mr. Andrewes: We would like to move an amendment to the amended section.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Andrewes moves that subsection 2(1) of the act as set out in section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefore:

(1) Every purchaser of gasoline shall pay to the Treasurer a tax at a rate that is the lesser of 8.3 cents per litre on all gasoline, or 16.5 per cent of the average monthly retail price per litre of all grades of gasoline purchased by or delivered to the purchaser.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: I do not want to prolong this but, because I am interested in parliamentary procedure, I would like to bring to your attention the applicable words of section 15 of the standing orders as follows, "Any motion, the passage of which would impose a tax, shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."

It is correct that the effect of the amendment before us deals with an amendment of a tax already proposed and so reduces that, but the wording of the amendment is, "Every purchaser of gasoline shall pay to the Treasurer a tax." As I see it, it is a departure. In essence it is a new approach to the imposition and collection of the tax; quite a novel, downward only, ratcheted sort of flat tax cum ad valorem.

8:30 p.m.

While we can discuss the merits of reducing the revenue of the province and what this will do to all sorts of things -- and we can spend some time on that -- I would ask if we can consider that the wording of the motion imposes a new tax concept. I would suggest that under our rules and accepted procedures of parliamentary practice, only a minister of the crown can propose a tax. Therefore, it is out of order, in my opinion.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. I have considered this matter and I do not believe you are in order. Perhaps I should give you some reasons for that.

There is ample precedent for a private member moving amendments which lessen a tax. As I see it, this amendment in front of me states in the second line that it is a "lesser of." Therefore, there is a ceiling on this amendment. It cannot go higher than 8.3 cents, which is the level of the amended section which was just carried. Therefore, I find this in order on the basis of precedent.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Did the member want to say something further about the amendment?

Mr. Andrewes: How did the Treasurer guess? Once again, this is a tax on a fuel product that is primarily used in the area of transportation. I think there is one aspect of this tax, of this bill, that merits some praise. This is the fact that the Treasurer has now imposed one fee on all gasoline, regardless of its grade.

As members will recall, there were some concerns expressed, I think possibly in this House but certainly in the federal House, that many motorists were tending to use leaded gasoline in vehicles which were not equipped to use it because there was a price incentive.

That price incentive was somewhat aggravated because the provincial taxes collected on gasoline, not only in Ontario but also in other provinces, tend to differentiate between the various grades of regular, leaded, unleaded and super unleaded, or whatever it is called, depending on the company with which one is dealing.

This bill sets one fee, which I think addresses that concern very properly because it does not aggravate the incentive to use leaded fuel, which is lower in price, when unleaded is required, which carries with it all the various environmental concerns. I would speak favourably of that action in this legislation.

While we are talking about environmental issues and have the Minister of Energy (Mr. Bradley) present, today he announced a package of tighter controls on sulphur dioxide emissions. I have not had a chance to peruse that package in any great detail, but I draw to his attention that there is not a single mention of emissions from automobiles, which add considerably to the acid rain problems of the province.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is because that is a federal jurisdiction. It is up to the federal government to control emissions of sulphur dioxide.

Mr. Andrewes: Do not blame the federal government for everything.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It has to produce the regulations that will eliminate that.

Mr. Andrewes: Earlier in the debate on the fuel tax, I mentioned our concerns about ad valorem and the fact that, in this amendment, we address the possibility of prices falling. As we peruse literature and study the stock market, I think there is ample evidence to verify that indeed gasoline prices over the next six months to a year could take a substantial decrease.

Gasoline prices around the world are derived from the price of crude oil. Crude oil prices have held at a fairly static level for two years now, but in the meantime the major suppliers of crude oil in the world -- that group known as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries -- have been debating among themselves about the levels of their production and the prices they should be charging.

About a year ago, Canada moved to deregulate its oil prices, thereby letting them rise or fall with the level of the world market, so the impact of changes in world oil prices and of the debate and the actions of OPEC will bear very heavily on the price of fuel in Ontario.

I would draw the Treasurer's attention to a couple of recent events. These were beautifully recorded in the Toronto Sun of December 10, 1985, where the headline reads, "OPEC Risks Oil Price War." December 10 was just a week ago today. I believe the meetings of the oil exporting countries occurred over the weekend prior to the 10th. The cartel that tends to control world prices met and discussed its own problems and one of the conclusions arrived at was that, in a rather predatory world market price situation, it needed to endeavour to hold its market share.

I discussed at length on second reading of this bill the impact of oil prices on these countries and the fact they are cash starved in many cases. In most cases they depend very heavily on the export of oil to meet their financial commitments and therefore cannot afford to lose their market share. Otherwise, they find themselves in tremendous financial pain as a result of that situation.

This article in the Toronto Sun is datelined Geneva. I assume that is where the OPEC oil ministers met 10 days ago. It says: "OPEC oil ministers yesterday set the stage for a full-scale oil price war against outside producers by abandoning a four-year struggle to control prices through production restraints." In effect, it says they are now going to lift the restraints. They are going to produce at some greater capacity. The supply-demand situation on the world market will start to prevail once again and, because the supply will likely outstrip the demand, prices will fall.

The article goes on to say, "The 13 OPEC ministers announced a major switch in policy with OPEC now determined to protect and expand its market share, even at the risk of igniting a price-cutting battle with independent producers. The announcement could mean cheaper prices at the pumps for Canadians but promises bad tidings for large, new energy projects."

When one is making projections about the future of energy prices in this country, "could" is always a much better word than "would." Even I have learned that.

8:40 p.m.

The article goes on to talk about the likelihood of oil prices reaching US$20 a barrel. That is $8 less than the current level of US$28. It says, "Canadian (crude) oil prices will follow world oil prices step for step." He is a noted world expert whose name I have trouble pronouncing, so I will not give it to the House.

It refers to the spokesman for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. "Venezuelan oil minister Arturo Hernandez Grisanti told reporters OPEC would consider a `fair share' of the market to lie between 16 and 18 million barrels a day." That is somewhat below the current output, but is very close to the mark.

John Spears of the Toronto Star had an article headed, "Oil Price May be Cut in Half, Analyst Says." It testifies to the same meeting of OPEC. "Analyst Rob Robinson of Loewen Ondaatje McCutcheon and Co. Ltd. said yesterday in an interview that if OPEC members decide to flood markets with oil to defend their market share, the price could plummet from the current base price of US$28 for a barrel of crude oil.

"He stressed that he's not predicting $10-a-barrel oil, but it might touch that level briefly in an all-out brawl for markets."

The same Geneva meeting was reported in the Toronto Star. It was basically the same type of report, but it draws in some further expertise.

Finally, the Toronto Star of December 7 has a report, "Oil Prices and Quotas Expected to Stay the Same, OPEC Indicates." It says: "The ministerial council's chairman, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ahmed Zaki Yamani, is expected to warn at today's conference that unless OPEC slashes its overall production, prices are bound to plunge, resulting in a free-for-all between members and a possible price war with non-OPEC producers.

"Several OPEC states, including Iraq, Qatar and the UAE, say they no longer feel bound by their agreed output quotas.

"But Yamani last month predicted a $20-a-barrel price next summer."

This bodes well for motorists and people using gasoline in Ontario, which leads me back to my amendment, if I have strayed from it wee bit. What is obvious is that among the OPEC cartel, as I mentioned, there is a need for cash generation. There is a need for them to maintain their market share. It is a compelling argument for them to keep the oil flowing, because they need to keep the dollars flowing. This can be further aggravated by a fluctuation in US dollars, which means the value of that measure on the price of oil tends to fall. That makes the argument even more compelling.

The cartel is obviously weak. The members are fighting amongst themselves and in spite of the best efforts of Sheikh Yamani, the cartel appears to be coming apart. The only thing Sheikh Yamani can do to hold it together would be to allow some of those countries to produce more, thereby maintaining the market share and the dollar flow.

Mr. McClellan: So what?

Mr. Andrewes: Did the member say, "So what"?

Mr. McClellan: What are the oil companies going to do about the price of gas at the pump? Nothing.

Mr. Andrewes: That is not my jurisdiction. What I want to stress to my friends to the left is simply that they will now have an opportunity to vote in favour of taxes to consumers falling when those prices fall. If they choose not to vote in favour of our amendment, they will inflict for the next period of time -- likely six to eight months or perhaps a year -- a tax on consumers that is not representative of the real market situation.

I hope they clearly understand. I know the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) understands that here we have an opportunity to protect the motorists on the roads from the avaricious Treasurer, who wants to take from them more than his fair share of tax.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When I had been elected here for two years, the price of gasoline per litre was 5.7 cents -- imagine that -- and the tax was 3.3 cents.

Mr. Andrewes: When was that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was in 1964. The tax was 57.9 per cent of the base price. In 1974, going back to the time when Darcy was dumping $1.8 billion into the expenditure side of the budget for a four-month period encompassing the election period --

Mr. Timbrell: In 1974?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He did it for 1975. It was about that time -- sorry about that. The tax at that point was 4.18 cents a litre, and it was 41.4 per cent of the base price. Those were the days when I would drive into Earl's Shell service, and if after the budget the gas tax went up one or two cents a gallon, there was all hell to pay.

It was delightful for me to go in, pay my bill and say, "Well, ain't it awful what those Tories are doing, jumping the tax?" In those days the tax was 41.4 per cent of the base price. Now, particularly at our level at this time, the tax is 20.4 per cent of the base price -- not the price with the tax included -- and we are freezing it at that level.

I have been interested in the arguments the member for Lincoln has made tonight and on second reading of the bill, projecting a decline in the price of petroleum. As a consumer, I really hope this will happen. Some of the people in Alberta hope the price will go up, because these low prices have meant that recovery from tar sands becomes uneconomic and there are all sorts of dislocations.

As a matter of fact, the economy has been very much subject to the vicissitudes of world petroleum prices. Since the federal Liberal government is no longer in office, there does not seem to be anybody up there who gives a darn about the consumer, and it is of continuing concern that many of these world-class projects have fallen on bad days indeed because of that fact.

I have been reading reports in the business pages about Imperial Oil Ltd. and even PetroCanada taking steps to increase the price at the pumps substantially. My own experience is that regular unleaded is something like 52.4 cents, which is about as high as it has been, and I do not see anything particularly soft in the market. It seems the main suppliers have somehow got themselves organized -- nothing illegal, I am sure -- and we do not seem to have the benefit of those great gas wars we used to have from time to time.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister should look into it. It is his job.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No.

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, it is.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have colleagues who are looking into it. It is a matter of some concern, although I have not bought many litres lately.

Ms. Gigantes: Let us encourage the minister to expand his horizons.

8:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My point is that the price has been going up and the fluctuations and the dips in price because of gas wars unfortunately seem to have disappeared. I have seen reports, just as useful as those the member reads, that indicate these prices are high and going higher. I should not even make that argument, however, because by removing the ad valorem the responsibility for the tax is removed from arithmetic and put here in this House.

If the price were to plummet, I still suggest the percentage the Minister of Revenue gets is much lower than it was historically during many of the years when the Progressive Conservative Party had the responsibility for fixing these rates. I point out the imposition of the ad valorem at 20 per cent.

I said earlier, and it is the truth, that without any reference to this Legislature at all, the revenue from the tax and the actual tax payable per litre for any unit doubled. Per gallon it went from 19 cents to something like 37 cents or 38 cents in a very short time, without the members of this Legislature doing anything but complain about it on the opposition side and rub their hands in glee and avarice on the then government side.

We are taking a different approach, that the authority lies with the Legislature to establish the tax. Obviously, persisting with this tax, even when there is no revenue in it for me, is an indication of my commitment to the removal of the ad valorem. I believe that is healthy, proper and democratic. Even if the price were to go down by some amount, I still think the proportions would be far more beneficial to the gasoline consumer than the proportions imposed upon us in history -- and not-too-distant history -- by the previous government.

At 8.3 cents per litre we compare with Quebec at 12.9 cents -- let us make it unleaded, which a lot of people use -- 13.35 cents a litre; New Brunswick, 10.1 cents a litre; Nova Scotia, 9.8 cents a litre; Prince Edward Island, 9.7 cents a litre; Newfoundland, 10.7 cents a litre; and BC, 8.4 cents a litre. We have a very low level of taxation compared to other jurisdictions and we do not think we require the downward only ratchet that the member is proposing as a substitute.

I am also interested in, and I want to take note of, the member's original comment -- just as the Minister of the Environment returns to his telephone -- about the effects of leaded gas on the environment. We certainly have to give consideration to acceding to the recommendations of both opposition parties. It is possible in the coming budget we will consider raising the tax for leaded gas on the basis that there ought to be some tax consideration persuading people at least to reduce its use pending the imposition of the regulations from the federal government referred to by the Minister of the Environment.

A lot of my good friends are proud of the fact that the cars they have use leaded gas and they get good mileage at lower cost, but the effects on the environment are serious and must be considered. I will consult with the Minister of the Environment on this and I will listen to his advice. I do not usually follow it, but this might be a first.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to speak briefly on this clause. We have discussed this matter many times during the course of the debate of this bill and the budget. We will be supporting the Treasurer's amendment and we will not be supporting the Conservative amendment. If I may say so, the Conservative amendment on the gasoline tax today is a bit like its no-confidence motion yesterday. It is an act of hypocrisy, an act of posturing and an act of sanctimonious naiveté.

I do not want to be provocative. Far be it from me to be provocative, but if the previous speaker for the Conservative Party has faith in the OPEC cartel and the research done from a few newspaper clippings that he read into the record, I do not share it. If he believes the price of gasoline at the pump has anything to do with or has a direct connection with the so-called marketplace in the world, he must be either ill-informed or naive in the extreme.

He attempts to justify his amendment by indicating that the OPEC cartel is going to fall apart by quoting three articles, which he has quoted three times now in the Legislature, none of them written later than December 9.

Mr. Andrewes: December 9 was one week ago.

Mr. Foulds: A week is a long time in politics. He indicates that he thinks the world price of oil per barrel will go down.

Mr. Andrewes: I do not think so; the experts do.

Mr. Foulds: They say it might. The member for Lincoln quotes one expert three times and he quotes three experts once.

Mr. Andrewes: They are all different.

Mr. Foulds: They are all different.

Mr. Andrewes: I cannot pronounce all the names.

Mr. Foulds: The member cannot pronounce all the names. Can the member pronounce the figures?

These experts, who are quoted extensively in such well-respected financial journals as the Toronto Sun --

Mr. Andrewes: The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Foulds: -- indicate that somehow the oil price per barrel is going to go down. He then takes a leap of faith the likes of which has not been justified in Ontario and Canada since the cartel got going in 1972.

Ms. Gigantes: And well before.

Mr. Foulds: My colleague says before. There has been little relation between the price per barrel and the price we pay per litre for gasoline at the pumps. As the Treasurer pointed out, in Alberta, for example, where there is no tax, the price is almost the same as it is here in Ontario. As a federal government study released in 1980-81 pointed out, between 1973 and 1978 consumers in Canada were overcharged, not in terms of taxes, but of the price they paid for gasoline. There was a manipulation of the market that had little relation between the cost of production and the cost of acquisition.

The Conservative speaker also said the price will plummet. If the price does plummet, the consumer will benefit. The consumer will benefit because the price will plummet. The tax may be the same, but the price will plummet. I say in good faith to the member for Lincoln, when the price plummets, I expect it to mean a decrease of about one third of the base cost of gasoline; we will see unleaded gasoline selling across Ontario on a regular basis from north to south for about 38 cents a litre.

9 p.m.

When we see that happen in Ontario, I will apologize to the member for Lincoln. I will then say, "You were right and I was wrong." When that happens I will be glad to say I was wrong about the sources of the member for Lincoln, about his faith in the cartel and about his faith in the so-called market system of economics in the oil and gas distribution system in this great world of ours.

However, until that happens, I am from Missouri, which is almost as good as being from Thunder Bay. When one is from Thunder Bay, or from Missouri, one has a lot of scepticism about the oil cartel and about the market forces in gasoline price distribution. One also has a lot of faith that there is one hell of a lot of manipulation that goes on.

As my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) can speak so eloquently about, we get shafted when it comes to oil and gasoline prices. One only has to go 50 miles outside Thunder Bay to understand how much we suffer in 58 per cent of the land mass of this province.

The ad valorem tax instituted by the previous government did not help us. It was not introduced with any thought that there would be a decrease in price. In fact, it gave the previous government a vested interest in inflation and specifically in the inflation of gasoline and oil prices.

The previous government took absolutely no action to stabilize, lower or equalize gasoline and oil prices across this province. That is why I say the amendment put forward by that party is an act of hypocrisy, an act of posturing and an act of absolute, sanctimonious naiveté. That is the reason we will not support it.

Mr. Andrewes: The Treasurer retold some history and talked about the days when he first came to the Legislature when the tax was roughly 55 per cent of the base price and how that dropped subsequently to roughly 20 per cent, which is what it is now.

First of all, oil in those days was not the volatile commodity it is now. The oil cartel had not brought its influence to bear on the world as it did in the mid-1970s and the late 1970s, much to our despair and much to the economic concern of many nations, including Canada and the United States.

The Treasurer will find as well that the 55 per cent share in those days was probably representative of the proportion of the dollars spent on road construction and maintenance. Therefore, the current taxation level relates fairly consistently, I assume, throughout that period.

The Treasurer also compared the prices in neighbouring jurisdictions such as Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. However, down my way, in the Niagara Peninsula, people ask me, "When I go to Niagara Falls, Buffalo or Tonawanda, or some of those wonderful places across the river, why are prices so much lower?" The answer, of course, is the level of taxation.

Ms. Gigantes: Say, "It is because you never vote NDP." Try that one on them; that might persuade them.

Mr. Andrewes: They are much brighter than that.

The level of taxation is considerably less in those jurisdictions than it is here. When the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes) goes across to wherever it is on the other side of that great bridge, the Ivy Lea Bridge, and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), who has left now, goes to watch the Buffalo Sabres play hockey, they can fill up their tanks at a lower price and avoid the exorbitant taxes they pay in Ontario.

I think I mentioned in passing on second reading the whole east-west debate and that the gasoline tax becomes a red herring in that discussion on energy pricing; so I will not go into that in any detail again.

I want to refer to the criticism of my so-called experts by my friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). I do not pretend to be an expert; I am only quoting to him the opinion of so-called experts. I offered to make a small wager with him; I even offered to wager $1. If he had gone to the stock market last Monday, he would have lost his shirt. That is the true indicator of the credibility of these experts. That market suffered as a result of that bit of news out of Geneva from OPEC. It is a far better judge than anybody in this chamber of where world oil prices are going.

I rest my case.

Mr. McCague: The remarks of the member for Port Arthur, although they do not deserve a reply, leave a couple of things to be said.

The Treasurer, in the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act he brought in, puts the tax on gasoline at the highest level it has ever been in this province: 8.8 cents.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Every level is the highest it has ever been.

Mr. McCague: That may well be, but the hypocrisy is in the fact that the Treasurer objected to the ad valorem tax and always has. At least he was consistent in that. However, he wanted to do away with that tax and he wants to increase his. Then he says if the price goes down, he does not agree with the amendment of the member for Lincoln. That is where the hypocrisy is in this, and I want that noted.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer brought in a bill that first pegged the price at 8.8 cents per litre. If I may be immodest, it was because of the efforts of this party that he was persuaded to lower it to 8.3 cents per litre. Had it not been for this party's efforts, it would not be 8.8 cents per litre or it might be 8.8 cents, but the Treasurer would have withdrawn the bill, the tax would be ad valorem and the Conservatives would not achieve the effect they want, which is to lower the use of leaded gasoline.

What has happened with the pegging of the tax at 8.3 cents per litre, I admit, is that we have an increase of 0.3 cents in the taxation component of the price of leaded gasoline. However, in the unleaded category there has been a reduction of 0.1 cents per litre, and in the premium area there has been a reduction of 0.3 cents per litre.

I think the New Democratic Party has something to be proud of when it accomplishes a decrease in taxes for the taxpaying public of Ontario. Two out of three is not bad, and I have nothing for which to apologize.

9:10 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Andrewes's amendment to subsection 2(1) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall subsection 2(2) carry? Carried.

Sections 3 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported two bills without amendment and progress on three bills.

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Riddell, resolution 12:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing January 1, 1986, and ending March 31, 1986, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: At one stage in the planning of this session there was some optimistic thought that we might get the supply bill passed about now before adjourning for Christmas. Unfortunately, that has not come about.

We have had a good order paper of bills to deal with. Some of them have taken a bit longer than was expected, although I cannot complain seriously since eventually some substantial progress was made. At least we are not listening to division bells, which sometimes happens in some jurisdictions at this time of year. That must be awfully hard on everyone concerned.

We had hoped that the supply bill would be carried by this time and that we would be able to end the session with the thought of coming back in the late winter with a new session. Our plans have changed somewhat. We have had some discussion, and acceding to the request of the opposition parties, we are coming back on January 6 to continue our work. For this reason, to carry on the business of the province and pay our bills, it is going to be necessary to ask the House for interim supply until the end of the fiscal year.

I looked up the last time this occurred, and I should have it right before me with dates, but when the session went over the end of the calendar year, the government of the day, I believe on motion of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), asked for interim supply for an additional month, since it was not definite when the House would return and the government of the day wanted the flexibility to come back when it thought it was appropriate. The House was able to concur in that with minimal debate, since nobody wants to see our pensioners unpaid or our civil servants unrewarded.

The motion is a standard one, and I ask the concurrence of the House in its approval.

Mr. Shymko: I wish to inform the government House leader that January 6 is Christmas Eve for those who celebrate Christmas according to the Julian calendar. I want him to be aware that a number of members of this Legislature will be celebrating Christmas then, as will many constituents of some of our members and citizens of this great province.

Mr. Dean: I want to make a couple of brief comments on this motion. I assure the Treasurer I have no intention of opposing interim supply, because I have just as much consideration as he does for those people whom he so feelingly described, and for some others whom he has not described, who depend on the regular appearance of a paycheque out of the public purse.

In the consideration of interim supply, however, I think it is suitable to draw the Treasurer's attention again to certain deficiencies we perceive in his budget as a whole, even though interim supply does not directly affect the budget, because this is given on blind faith that it will not be misused.

First, there was very little in the budget, and I have heard very little since then from any source on the government side, about the rationalization of care for the seniors in Ontario. This project is supposed to be proceeding in some fashion or other, but I do not see much allowance made for it in the budget.

I do not think anyone should deceive himself that there is going to be some cost associated with it. We hope that in the long run, provided the present government is able to do it as efficiently as the previous government was planning to do it, some economies can be effected because of the lesser need to build more expensive institutional accommodations of one kind or another for seniors in the years to come.

In the short run, however, I am sure there will be added costs, because we cannot get rid of the institutionalization aspect. At the same time, we have to provide funds for the proper and better care of seniors in the community. I regret that there is no specific item in the budget, which I know we are not specifically debating now, pointing out the millions or tens of millions of dollars set aside for this very worthwhile project.

The second item I wish to remind the Treasurer about again when we are generously concurring in supply, as I think we are proposing to do, is that we are very disappointed -- and here I might ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) to bend a little ear this way too -- that there seems to have been no progress at all this year in the provision of added GO Transit service to the west end of the lakeshore route; that is, to Burlington and Hamilton. I also understand very little extra has been done in the east end, towards Oshawa. I do not want to be parochial, but I will leave it to those who are more directly connected with that to bring it to the attention of the Treasurer and the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

9:20 p.m.

I do want to point out how vital that extension is. Any of us who regularly drive the highways in that corridor can assure the minister and others that they are very busy, it is no fun to drive them and the volume of traffic is going nowhere but up as the years continue. Therefore, it is particularly important that the government proceed with some form of the plans that were being considered by our government when we were there to increase the service to the ends of the lines, and to make it more dependable in between times as well, so the travelling public, which could include any of us in this chamber who are in that corridor, will have the benefit of convenient, frequent service away from the highways.

Those who do not drive are not as concerned about that, but nevertheless, we ordinary citizens of Ontario do feel at times there is an added need for transit service in that corridor. I hope the Treasurer and the minister will make sure that is part of their ongoing budget when interim supply is no longer their concern.

I will leave it at that point.

Mr. Foulds: Unlike the previous speaker, who did not have enough time to debate the budget and the budgetary bills over this past session, I feel impelled to go on at great length on this interim supply motion. We rarely get an opportunity to talk about financial, fiscal and economic matters in this House. Frankly, I am sick to death of those matters.

We will be supporting the motion because we, too, do not wish to see the civil servants, the pensioners or anybody else who gets a cheque in one way or another from the provincial government -- not the least of which, my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) says, includes ourselves -- have that threatened.

However, there are three or four things I wish to mention quickly. I congratulate the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) on one small step he took this past session that many people may not have heard about. The cheques mailed out by the provincial government to social assistance recipients in Thunder Bay have been late every winter, starting in the month of November. This year was no exception. When I notified the minister, he had officials in his ministry contact Canada Post and senior officials in Management Board immediately and I am sure they will be taking steps to ensure that does not happen again.

It is very important, when we have a province as diverse as Ontario and mail patterns that are not as direct and as quick as they should be, that those cheques get mailed out well in advance. When one is living on the kind of income that a single parent with two or three children is living on in Thunder Bay, below the poverty line, one can ill afford to have one's cheque arrive late at the end of November when one is hoping to have a dollar or two to buy a very modest present or two for each of one's children.

I congratulate the Minister of Community and Social Services on that initiative and I hope it is consistently in place for the next two or three months, for the period we are now voting interim supply.

I will also mention briefly three other points as a wrap-up to the budgetary bills we have been debating. One is that the Treasurer does have to look seriously at genuine tax reform -- not the few symbolic steps he took in his last budget -- when he looks forward to his new budget in the spring of 1986.

Also, when the Treasurer is making other necessary payments -- not just the salaries, but the other necessary payments of the Ontario government -- he has to look seriously at genuine job creation programs and retraining programs for those people 25 years of age and over. The government has taken no action or initiatives with regard to job creation for people in that category who find themselves out of work. That is the great remaining scandal of the economic situation in this province in our day and age.

Finally, I believe the Treasurer should look positively at what I call community works projects to try to have a direct effect on job creation at the local community level. What I mean is simply this: There are a number of projects in the non-profit, social and municipal sectors that have had to be put on the shelf and postponed over the past five or six years by all communities because of the penny-pinching, reactionary cutbacks of the previous government.

I believe the present Treasurer, within a framework of fiscal responsibility, can stimulate some direct job creation, whether it is sewer and water projects in some communities or a new auditorium or new hospital in other communities.

One of the great needs in the coming 15 years is going to be adequate senior citizen housing and child care centres. We are going to have to start investing in that whole area now. Let us not be penny wise and pound foolish. Let us invest in the future of Ontario. Let us invest in those community projects so we have something to hand on, not only to our people of today but also to generations to come.

Mr. McCague: I want to have a few words with the Treasurer on his interim supply motion. Recalling a few times over the past years, I am sure the Treasurer will find we are much more co-operative than he or his allies were. We understand what season of the year it is and we want to be as kind to the Treasurer as possible.

I know the Treasurer will tell me why all this happened. Checking through the records, I find that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, now the Treasurer, got very exercised during one of these debates in 1981.

Miss Stephenson: Was it interim supply?

Mr. McCague: Yes; it was interim supply, that is true. In 1981, when the present Treasurer was asked to resume his seat, he refused. He was named by the Speaker and directed to withdraw from the service of the House. It says there was grave disorder arising. Pursuant to standing order 10, the Speaker adjourned the House for 10 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not me.

Mr. McCague: As I recall, that was the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Foulds: I thought it was his colleague the former member for Rainy River.

Mr. McCague: We would have to have the record corrected; I presume not. When he left the House, he was not alone. As I recall from reading this, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) went a little earlier than he did; and he joined Mr. Cassidy who had left just before that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the House changed its mind and readmitted us with apologies.

9:30 p.m.

Mr. McCague: As I understand it, the member got his eviction notice and was evicted. We felt sorry for him, it being near Christmas, and we do again today.

We are going to support the Treasurer fairly soon on this motion. We applaud some of the moves the Treasurer has made, but he has a consistent theme running through the consideration of all the bills we have had in committee of the whole House. As the opposition, we tabulate these things the Treasurer and his leader, now the Premier (Mr. Peterson), promised during the election. We find that the budget and what has been done so far are quite deficient. The theme the Treasurer continues to use is, "I am sorry we cannot do this," or "I am sorry we cannot do that because it would cost us so much money."

I still have a suspicion the Treasurer has considerable money uncommitted within the funds he has asked for in his budget and no doubt is going to get. We have had great difficulty getting answers to certain questions. Where are the windfalls? As the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) says, he will apologize to the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) if he turns out to be wrong. I think we will have the opportunity, before we see the final tabulation of the Treasurer's books in July, to receive an apology from him. I will not say for misleading us, but for hiding a buck or two for some event he may plan to support in the earlier parts of 1986 -- early spring, as we keep hearing.

The term of this, until the end of the fiscal year, is a little longer than the opposition parties would have let the government get away with in some prior instances. The Treasurer says he had thought he would have proceeded further with this and that he could have concluded everything before Christmas. I think he knew full well this would never come to fruition, although it looked nice in the record and I do not blame him for putting it there.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No; I really thought it was possible.

Mr. McCague: I am sure he did. There were an awful lot of rules he had to agree to change before it would happen.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is just that the member's present House leader's predecessor was much more lenient.

Mr. McCague: I do not think the House leaders we have had in this party in opposition were any different from the House leaders the Treasurer's party had. Probably on this side they are much more co-operative.

With those points I will, for my part, allow the Treasurer to proceed and to pay the salaries of the civil servants. I recall well when the Treasurer, and especially his --

Mr. Foulds: Do not point; it is rude.

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, is pointing all right?

The Treasurer used the civil servants of this province, which is what this motion is all about, to make a point in years past. This party would never think of doing that, and in the interests of this festive season and his abundantly kind nature, with a little bit of stubbornness thrown in, we will be going along with him on this.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I may, I should have informed the House that the amount covered from January I to March 31 is expected to be $7.3 billion.

Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved second reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: This bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act was introduced in the House several months ago. The bill contains some important changes in the laws pertaining to drinking and driving that this government is eager to see passed at the earliest possible opportunity. However, we believe the bill in its original form did not go far enough in creating a deterrent against this type of socially unacceptable behaviour.

Impaired driving is a problem that is finally being recognized as one of the major social ills of our time, playing a role in more than half of all fatal traffic accidents in Ontario last year. We feel it is our duty to all responsible motorists to reduce their risk of becoming innocent victims. That is why I plan to introduce motions to substantially alter the drinking and driving provisions of this bill when it reaches committee stage.

Members may recall the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) rose in this House last month to outline our commitment to an ongoing program to combat drinking and driving. Among the initiatives he described then were significant increases in the driver's licence suspension periods, raising them to one year for a first conviction and two years for a second conviction within five years.

At the same time, I announced a similar crackdown on anyone who continues to drive while under suspension for a Criminal Code of Canada offence, 95 per cent of which involve alcohol. I proposed the new Criminal Code charge of driving while suspended or prohibited, which was contained in the federal legislation enacted earlier this month, should carry an additional one-year suspension for a first conviction and two years for the second or subsequent conviction within the five-year period.

I am sure honourable members are aware of, and interested in, recent court decisions which would result in the reinstatement of suspended licences to certain persons convicted of third and subsequent drinking and driving offences. I intend to introduce measures in this bill to deal with this serious situation and will be providing a full explanation of this government's position on this issue when we move to the committee stage.

Drinking and driving is by far the most important issue addressed by this package of Highway Traffic Act amendments. The balance of the amendments deal essentially with housekeeping matters, such as ensuring that motorcycles are equipped with rear-view mirrors as all other motor vehicles are required to be.

In conclusion, the strong anti-drinking and driving measures contained in these amendments are indicative of this government's firm commitment to reducing the accident toll on Ontario's streets and highways. I look forward to the strong support of the House in the passage of this bill.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill and to commend the minister on bringing it forward. Let me assure him at the outset that this party will be supporting this bill.

I would like to comment on a couple of things. We will not be unduly delaying the bill, at least I hope we will not, but I want to give proper credit to the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) who, as the Minister of Transportation and Communications, originally introduced this bill. Granted, there have been some amendments, but I think the basic principle is as presented by the member for Dufferin-Simcoe.

I am supportive of this very progressive bill, in so far as the safety of the public is concerned. The minister is quite correct when he says drunken driving is the greatest cause of death in this province, and I think perhaps it outdoes disease of any kind. It is like giving people a lethal weapon and allowing them to go out and kill.

Anyone who has children is always in continuous fear of their being taken from him by a driver who has had too much to drink. I think everyone in this House would agree with that. Certainly, as a parent, I feel very strongly that way.

9:40 p.m.

There has been some progress in the reduction of deaths caused by drunken drivers, and I hope this bill will greatly decrease even that total from what it is at present. I believe and support the very stringent penalties the minister has put in the bill. I have no argument with them at all.

I feel a little more is required in the way of policing. The reduce impaired driving everywhere program has done a great deal in picking up suspended drivers, drivers who are driving without a licence and those who drive while drunk. Perhaps I should say "impaired", as "drunk" is probably the wrong word. I ask the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), is "impaired" the way we do it? With a proper social conscience, do we talk about "impaired"?

Mr. Breaugh: That pretty well covers it. Either way, we know what the member means.

Mr. Gregory: Conservatives are impaired; New Democratics are drunk. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Breaugh: The Conservatives have always been impaired for a variety of reasons.

Mr. Gregory: It is a very serious bill and the minister should be commended. I am delighted to see a clause that corrects or closes a loophole by which, in my opinion, a judge was able to put at risk the suspensions of a great number of drivers who had been suspended. The actions the minister is taking on this are commendable. I am sure my colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) will be commenting on the legalities of this in greater detail.

I understand alcohol still continues to be a factor in 50 per cent of all fatal accidents and in 30 per cent of those involving personal injuries. I do not think this is something we can ignore, and the minister has not ignored it. It is a recognition that is needed. I imagine there is great support for this bill from every police department in the province. It would be difficult to find any way of not supporting it.

I hope this is not delayed. It is necessary that we have it in place during this festive season, when some people get more festive than others. I hope it is in place very quickly, not just with the idea of punishing -- I know it is outdated to think of punishing and I sometimes think it is sad that we do not punish any more -- but in the hope of encouraging people to use the common sense God gave them and not get behind the wheel. If they are helped and encouraged to do this by the thought they might lose their licences, it is the right way to go about it.

Many members from all parties on all sides of the House, including some community service people, have been very active in this. I hope my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) touches on this a little later because she has been actively involved in it.

I do not have much more to say about it. It is difficult to criticize a bill when one agrees with it almost totally. I commend the minister and assure him this party will support it.

Mr. Hayes: I want to compliment the minister and his staff on the hard work they have done in preparing Bill 17 and the amendments. We realize there is a serious problem on our streets and highways with dangerous driving, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, impaired driving and failure to comply with the demand for a breath test. I am sure most of us are aware of the studies that estimate alcohol plays a role in 50 per cent of driver fatalities in Canada and that last year alone alcohol was a factor in more than 40,000 accidents resulting in injuries.

I agree with the bill in principle and I am pleased to see the housekeeping changes dealing with delinquent parking fines and allowing motor vehicle licence-issuing offices to retain a portion of the fee for processing licence-related transactions. I am pleased to see the requirement that the police must have reason to believe vehicle brakes or braking systems are faulty to require a brake inspection.

I also agree that motorcycles should be equipped with one rear-view mirror. I am sure that would reduce motorcycle accidents. To what extent it would, I am not really sure; but I am sure that if the minister is serious about reducing motorcycle accidents, he would reconsider my request that his ministry set up a training program, finance it and make it compulsory for people to take before being issued a licence.

There are some sections of the act that need further clarification and/or interpretation. In subsection 13(1), the word "charge" has been added to "care and control." I would like the minister to explain the reason for adding the word "charge" and what effect it has on Bill 17.

The other concern is subsection 27(1). There is some confusion in this part of the bill, which deals with the person who is operating a vehicle while being prohibited or disqualified. I would like the minister to clarify this section and tell us whether his intention is to make this legislation retroactive and increase the suspension period for offences or convictions. We need some further clarification on those issues.

I believe everyone here feels we must make our streets and highways safer by reducing the number of impaired drivers. I support the bill and I believe there will be fewer people drinking and driving because of Bill 17.

However, one might think the Liberal Party is grandstanding on this issue and taking the easy route rather than dealing with the problem of drinking itself. If the Liberal Party is serious about drinking and driving and cutting down on alcohol consumption, why does it want to put beer and wine in the corner stores? What it should be doing is setting up programs and facilities to help people with drinking problems.

In conclusion, we support the bill, but I have to point out again that it requires some cleaning up. I might add there are people out there who do not have the luxury of being chauffeured if they happen to lose their licences.

Mrs. Marland: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say I support the intent of this bill, especially the section dealing with licence suspensions on conviction for certain offences falling under certain sections of the Criminal Code, wherein a suspension would be for a period of one year upon first conviction, for two years upon first subsequent conviction and for three years upon any additional subsequent conviction.

A tidal wave of public opinion has flooded our country within the past year, which is a very healthy situation. Existing legislation has been in effect to arrest, fine and imprison drinking drivers, but as we all know from the high incidence of second and third offenders, the penalty has not been sufficient enough to be an effective deterrent. Amendments to legislation, coupled with peer pressure, are required to ensure that this existing social problem is properly identified for what it is, namely, a serious criminal act.

9:50 p.m.

The history of the automobile is recorded only within the last 80 years, but during that time more people have been killed in traffic accidents on this continent than in all the wars combined. The only instrument as efficient as the automobile in mass murder is a nuclear bomb.

Some members may believe that "murder" is too strong a word to use when talking about a motor vehicle accident fatality, but some are actually vehicular homicides. The grieving relatives of someone killed by a driver who has spent hours drinking before driving a two-ton projectile capable of crushing or decapitating a human are as offended and as violated as are the relatives of a young girl who has been raped and murdered or those of a storekeeper shot and killed during a robbery.

Unfortunately, there is an abundance of misinformation about alcohol and its effects. Millions believe beer is not as dangerous as hard liquor. Further, many think they can take a cold shower or have a black coffee and sober up very quickly. All that really does, in my opinion, is create a period of nondrinking time and therefore result in a more wide-awake drunk.

Unfortunately, in Peel we have the second-highest record of arrests for impaired driving in this province. In 1983, some 15 per cent more arrests were made than in the year before. Either there is more alcohol consumption by the motoring public in this area or strategic police deployment and the increased use of our alcohol-level-evaluation roadside tester machines have proved effective. I believe the latter is the reason.

We still have a long way to go, however, according to the 1982 statistics supplied by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Brampton has the second-highest fatality rate in Ontario, notwithstanding a 43 per cent decrease since 1981, and the city of Mississauga has moved from sixth place to fourth place overall.

I do not enter the records of the municipalities I have the honour to represent in this House with any pride; I enter them with a great deal of concern. I would like for just a moment to tell members that my concern is shared to a great extent by the majority of the people in Mississauga South whom I have the privilege to represent.

This concern about drinking and driving and the associated problems was brought to my attention most graphically at a public forum I held recently on the subject of any proposed change in the distribution of beer and wine in this province. At that meeting, we were asked by a number of people whether the legislation might be changed to act as a greater deterrent to the hazards and severe results of the impaired driver.

At that public forum, there was an outstanding concern, and demonstration in total numbers of eight people to one, opposed to the change in distribution of beer and wine in the province or to any proposed change because of their concern about the problem we are discussing tonight and the reason the minister is proposing the amendments to this bill, which I support.

There were about 167 people at that public forum, and we have received 179 documented telephone calls with names, addresses and phone numbers recorded, all of whom are running at a ratio of about eight to one opposed to any change because of the risk to human life and physical safety by impaired driving as a result of increased availability of beer and wine.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to support the amendments and Bill 17 in the House this evening. With the timing of the presentation of the bill, as we are entering into the final few days before Christmas and the heavy partying time between Christmas and the new year, I look forward to the message getting out to the public to the point where we will be a society that does not have to oppose drinking.

It is not my personal intention, nor that of anyone who has approached me on the subject, to suggest that people should not drink. We simply plead that those people who do drink do not drive. We are grateful for the thousands of dollars the Progressive Conservative government has spent in the past to try to educate the public about the grave hazard of drinking and driving. We recognize that no amount of publicity on the problem seems to provide the needed solution. This legislation before us tonight may be the greatest deterrent. I hope it will be the greatest solution.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to support the principle of the legislation. The main one here is a pretty substantial alteration in the punishment for impaired driving. All of us are concerned about the problem and supportive of this kind of effort, which is punitive in nature but which does attempt to impress on the people of Ontario that we, the legislators, think this is a serious matter, a criminal matter that should not be taken lightly.

I want to put on the record a couple of concerns I have. I have listened to a great deal of piety around the matter. I am aware, as, tragically, many members are, of how sad it is, how terrible it is for someone to lose a family member in a traffic accident that involves alcohol. We know that, but we should also know there is something a bit wrong in a society that decides it will stop this problem by punishing people.

I do not care how severe the penalty is, the drunk tonight -- and there are thousands of them out there -- who gets in his car to drive up the Don Valley Parkway -- I hope not at the same time as I do -- is not thinking at this moment about what the punishment for the crime will be. The truth is that the drunk who is entering his car in downtown Toronto right now is not thinking about anything.

He is totally unconcerned about punishment and fines, about whether he has a licence, whether he is doing the right thing, the wrong thing or whatever. That person is impaired and is now behind the wheel of an automobile. Nothing we say in the chamber tonight is going to change his mind. He is not listening to us.

Let me put another concern on the record. I went to the O'Keefe Centre recently and also read a very charming biography of Richard Harris, who had a drinking problem at one time. There were some charming lines in there saying he was before a court in Ireland and the judge ruled he could not drive anywhere in the civilized world. He knew what that meant and promptly went to Britain and drove his car into a double-decker bus and turned the bus over. The next line in the biography was, "This meant he was condemned to a life of a chauffeur-driven limousine."

It is true for some people there are alternatives. They do not have to drive. It is also true and a practical fact of life that in many parts of Ontario there are no alternatives. In northern Ontario, the people may be told they have to find another way to get home, but there is no Toronto Transit Commission. In many small rural communities, there is no taxi service either. This government and the previous government granted liquor licences to people who are a long way from a public transit system, and there is no option of taking a cab home for patrons.

I am pleased to see that many bars and restaurants in my area are using their old heads a little, buying small vans and offering to drive patrons home. That should be considered a good and positive thing to do. If one runs an establishment where alcoholic beverages are served, one has to provide a bit more in the way of service. The situation raises a lot of rather vexing legal problems about their liabilities as well.

10 p.m.

I would like to see governments at all levels stop being punitive about this matter. We support this bill; we support this measure. I would say that this is about as far as we ought to go on the punitive side of things. It is now time for governments at all levels to become a little more positive about it.

When the government is thinking on the positive side, I would like to have better information about what it means when it says that 50 per cent of the accidents in Canada last year were alcohol-related. What does that mean? I happen to have worked on select committees here where we studied that, and what it means is that some police officer filling out a report thought some alcohol was consumed by someone in one of the vehicles and he noted that on a report. Frankly, I would like a better information source than that. In this day and age we can provide better information sources than that and we can study it in a more thorough way.

I would like to see more recognition -- and I saw some just a week ago -- that alcohol is a problem in a larger sense. It is not fair to condemn these people. In some of our plants we are now talking about substance abuse programs, but not all of our work places have them yet and this should also be encouraged.

Treatment centres have to be encouraged. People in my area who have an alcohol problem are now very often going to a private clinic in Buffalo, New York. I hope last week's announcement by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) will change that somewhat and we will begin to recognize it and treat it as a disease here in Ontario.

I want to conclude by saying that one of the little problems I have with this kind of legislation is that there is a multitude of little amendments to the act in here, not all of which are very clear, as is witnessed by the fact that the minister and his staff have been rewording the amendments regularly for the last week or so since we first saw the bill. Some of them make eminent good sense when one is drafting a bill and not a lot of sense when one is looking at the practical ramifications of it.

When they get the computers to work at the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, I will be much happier with the kind of amendment that is proposed here about the suspension of licences. There continues to be a major problem in that regard.

I would like to see at some point a more positive stance on the part of this government and the federal government around impaired driving. I believe from my casual observations as a member at dinners and dances that we have got it to the state where people are thinking about drinking less alcohol at functions and then driving home. We have increased the awareness around that a bit. l think this type of activity in the legislative sense will convince more people we are looking at this as a serious problem with serious ramifications. I believe we are getting some of that message home.

I believe, though, that for the drunk who is getting in his car about the time we are wrapping up this message tonight, there probably are not many alternatives in many parts of Ontario, and I think there ought to be. The name of the game really should not be that people drink, drive and then get convicted; we do not want people drinking and driving, period.

It may be totally impractical to suggest that we stop this altogether. I do not think we will. I doubt very much that the 40,000 or 50,000 people who go to ball games at the new stadium and drink beer down there are all going to take the TTC home. That will not happen.

In many parts of Ontario, no matter what one did in the way of providing alternatives, they would still get in a pickup truck or a car and drive home. However, we have to get the message across that this is not acceptable in any sense of the word any more and that we deem it to be a criminal activity.

Having done that, the responsibility is then on us as legislators to provide some positive alternatives. We do not particularly want to suspend everybody's licence for a year; that will not do the family who is grieving any good. What will do some good is to provide the means whereby the guy does not get in the car drunk and does not drive. That would be a more positive step.

While this is of a punitive nature, which we do support, I want to sound the clarion call here that there is a need for people who serve alcoholic beverages to become a little more imaginative in providing services to people. We need to provide better forms of public transportation. Governments need to find ways to deal with this problem in a positive manner.

We support the bill because we think it sounds a call to people: "This is serious business, do not do this." It is supportable on that ground, if on no other. This bill, however, will not stop a drunk from driving or stop a tragedy from occurring. No bill of this nature will. Some other program that provides him with an alternative way of getting home or of not drinking as much may well do that.

The onus is on us, as legislators now, to find those positive alternatives; not only to provide things that punish people if they break the law -- and that is what this bill does -- but also to provide a solution to the problem. That is what this bill does not do.

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome the opportunity to say a few brief words in full support of this bill which was introduced by the Conservative government in June.

I support the bill in all its principles and with all the amendments that have been proposed, including those introduced latterly as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision of last week.

The bill increases the penalties for licence suspensions on a first impaired-driving conviction to 12 months and, in the case of a second conviction for impaired driving, to 24 months. It also increases the penalties for the offence of driving under suspension.

I take issue with the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). He indicated that penalties in themselves are not the answer in that people are going to drink and drive, and that there are drivers on the road at this very moment who are not concerned with the increased penalties we are talking about within the parameters of this bill. He refers to dances, dinners and circumstances he has been in lately where people appear to have reduced their inclination to drink before they drive.

I suggest he is being contradictory there in that it is the threat of extended penalties, the longer licence suspensions and the possibility of jail terms that is deterring people from drinking before they get back into their automobile after a party, dinner or other social function.

Penalties of a severe nature, such as those introduced here tonight and those passed recently by the federal government, are a deterrent and are the prime reason the problem of impaired driving is finally being met. There is finally some success being shown in the fight against impaired driving. That is not to say, by any means, that we have won the battle; it is to say that some progress is beginning to be made.

As I indicated, the bill complements the recent federal government initiatives in this area. The bill's initiatives have increased substantially the monetary penalties for first offences and the suspensions for driving while impaired. It also complements the recent initiative of the Attorney General, whom I compliment, in directing his crown attorneys, when prosecuting these types of offences, to seek jail terms in first-offence cases in greater numbers than they had in the past.

10:10 p.m.

We support his initiative for increased penalties in serious cases of impaired driving, whether or not an accident has occurred. He points out quite rightly that in some cases it is a matter of the luck of the draw. There may be a seriously impaired driver who, through blind and sheer luck, has not got himself into the oncoming lane of traffic or been involved in an accident to his own detriment or that of other drivers and pedestrians.

The crown attorneys should urge the courts to look at the degree of impairment, the level of alcohol in the blood and the physical tests that might be made by a police officer with respect to how well or otherwise the arrested person performed those tests, to take these conditions and circumstances into account when determining the penalty and, in the more severe cases, to seek a jail term from the court.

Already there are dividends being paid. There have been reports in the papers in the past few days of fines in the range of $800 for a first offence, which I noticed in Ottawa, I think. Also, in the case of a few first offenders in the eastern part of the province, judges have imposed jail terms. I compliment the Attorney General and the judges for showing resolve in this respect.

As I said, the message is getting through. The reduce impaired driving everywhere program, of which we have heard so much, is working. In this regard, I compliment one of the Toronto newspapers, the Toronto Sun, which on a daily basis publishes a score-card indicating the number of vehicles that have been stopped under the RIDE program in Toronto, the number of impaired driving charges that have been laid, the number of charges of excess alcohol in the bloodstream-more than 80 milligrams -- refusing the breath test and refusing the alcohol-level-evaluation roadside tester -- all different charges under the Criminal Code of an alcohol-related nature.

The results are encouraging. They indicate that, although there are more drivers and cars being stopped this year than ever before, there are significantly fewer impaired and other alcohol-related charges being laid. They say the message is getting through. People are listening. People are not drinking and driving as much as in the past.

With regard to the RIDE program I have just mentioned, I reiterate my request in the House last Thursday to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), when I suggested in question period it might be a desirable thing for the province and his ministry to consider extending the RIDE program on a province-wide and year-round basis.

His answer to me on that occasion was that the cost of doing so and that the manpower involved would be excessive and prohibitive. I believe his exact words were, to quote from Hansard, "It is a very labour-intensive program, as the member knows, and if any other extension were to be contemplated, it would involve the expenditure of very large sums of taxpayers' money, which might not be warranted."

Surely when the question of saving lives is at stake -- and the number of lives lost annually to impaired driving is staggering; in the neighbourhood of 600 a year in Ontario alone -- the cost of a few dollars cannot and should not be considered.

I will make one more point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, and then I will move the adjournment of the debate.

I see the Attorney General has entered the House. I just want to make the point that the cost in human terms has to be less than the cost in dollar terms. The cost of rearranging the time of a few police officers to be involved in the RIDE program on a year-round basis rather than doing some other duties is surely small when one considers the number of lives that might be saved by its extension to a year-round basis.

On motion by Mr. O'Connor, the debate was adjourned.

House in committee of the whole.

Mr. Chairman: It was agreed unanimously that all divisions would be stacked until 10:15 p. m.

10:25 p.m.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The committee divided on whether subsection 3(3) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 67; nays 40.

Section 3 agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Andrewes has moved that subsection 4(1) of the act as set out in section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) Every collector, importer, registered consumer and purchaser shall pay to the Treasurer a tax at,

"(a) a rate that is the lesser of 9.03 cents per litre on each litre of clear fuel or 16.5 per cent of the average monthly retail price per litre of all clear fuel received or used by him or her in Ontario to generate power in a motor vehicle other than railway equipment operated on rails in connection with a public transportation system;

"(b) the rate of 3.1 cents per litre on each litre of clear fuel received or used by him or her in Ontario to propel railway equipment on rails where such equipment is operated in connection with and as part of the public transportation system."

The committee divided on Mr. Andrewes's amendment, which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Section 2 agreed to.

The committee divided on whether Bill 50 should be reported without amendment, which was agreed to on the same vote.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The committee divided on Mr. Andrewes's amendment to subsection 2(2) of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 40; nays 67.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported two bills without amendment and one bill with a certain amendment.

The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.

17 décembre 1985