L056b - Thu 5 Nov 1998 / Jeu 5 Nov 1998 1
The House met at 1831.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA / LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur les carburants et la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I'm going to speak on the Fuel Tax Act. As you know, if there's one thing most Ontarians are concerned about, it is the price of transportation. This is something that's dear to not only ordinary commuters but also obviously the commercial sector, which has to deliver goods and services. We certainly know there's a lot of sensitivity to the variations in the price of gas and the price of fuel in this province and in terms of the economy of this province.
One of the things that Ontarians find very frustrating is that there seems to be some kind of unholy alliance of the major producers that holds the consumer captive to these major producers so that any time - it's sort of ironic - prices will fluctuate, they always seem to fluctuate together. In other words, there's never one of the big producers that ever seems to step out of line. It's almost as if there's an order or some kind of pattern that they follow whereby they all raise their prices together, all lower them together, yet they're supposed to be in competition. It's quite unusual to see any competition, as we know.
We know the problem with long weekends, where every weekend, in the summer especially, by about Thursday night or Friday morning gas prices at the stations across Ontario go up and very few people seem to be able to answer who's responsible. Is there any attempt by the gas producers to maybe gouge consumers on those weekends? I know this government spends a lot of time saying it's not their responsibility. They tried the so-called gas-passers or gas-busters. They were a flop because they had forgotten to be on the job.
Ontarians are saying when it comes to fuel they want to have some kind of assurance that there is legitimate competition, especially when again there's very little choice, it seems, in service prices. There are small independents, but they're very few and disappearing rapidly throughout this province.
I would also mention that the other concern many Ontarians have is the availability or the assurance that the quality of gas and contaminants in gas, the sulphur content - as you know, the federal government has made quite a bold move in terms of sulphur content and it looks like at least they're going in the right direction. I think they're going towards the California approach. I think this was just released today: The majority of Ontarians say the greatest cause of ill health is the result of polluted air. They're saying that emphysema, lung disease, respiratory infections - a whole variety - and asthma are on the increase. Certainly there is a correlation between what we do with our gas pricing, the way we control or regulate gas in this province, and, down the road, people's health.
We have a responsibility to the consumers of Ontario in ensuring that the gas producers, the major petroleum companies, take into account that they are also responsible for what they sell. That's something that should be monitored, because it does have a direct effect on people's health, even though there have been lots of attempts to reduce the contaminants in gasoline and there have been some improvements, obviously, over the last decade or two in the contaminants in gasoline. The problem is, though, that there's such gridlock on our highways, that no matter how clean-burning some of our motor vehicles are, the gridlock has basically caused unlimited pollution, especially in the Golden Horseshoe, in southern Ontario. Wherever you drive in this part of the province, especially from Oakville to Oshawa, there is a complete lack of mobility. It's almost a surprise when you're not in a traffic jam or you're not in front of a flipped-over truck. As we know, we have almost a daily occurrence on the QEW or the 401 where there's a truck flipping over, jackknifing. One happens every day.
There is a correlation in terms of the cost of providing services, like delivery of goods, and the price of fuel and the value of what the consumers are getting, but Ontarians are saying transportation and fuel for transportation are at the top of the mind with a lot of Ontarians. They want things to be done in a way that protects their interests. I hope this bill will attempt to do that because Ontarians, whether they like it or not, are forced to live by the consequences of the way this government does or does not try to mitigate either the cost of gasoline or petroleum or the consequences of the by-product of the petroleum or gas usage, which is the automobile and the truck traffic and so forth.
Since we have wall-to-wall congestion in this whole southern part of the province, I think there has to be a comprehensive look at the correlation between the use of gasoline products, the pricing of them, and also the way our whole integrated transportation system has basically gone to the brink right now. We are on the brink of not only mobility gridlock but also air quality gridlock. We have the most deplorable air quality here in Ontario. I think there are only two jurisdictions that are worse: Texas and Louisiana. Our congestion problems now rank right up there with Los Angeles.
1840
As you know, this government has chosen not to support public transportation. It's the only jurisdiction in the civilized world where a provincial or state government does not finance urban public transportation. Ontario has the worst record in supporting public transportation now, since this government withdrew its funding of public transportation. It's the only one. Whether you go to Europe or Central America or South America or Asia, whether it's Singapore or Munich or London, England, or San Francisco or Chicago, they all have state funding or provincial funding for public transportation.
This province expects property taxes to pay for public transportation. It's the only jurisdiction, again, in the civilized world where public transportation is solely on the back of property taxes. There is no provincial subsidy any more for the public buses, subways or streetcars that are in all of our urban centres.
That causes road congestion. It causes the price of transportation to go up. It is related to gas pricing; it's related to the cost of doing business. One of the reasons there is so much congestion is because if you don't have bus service in Oakville or you don't have bus service in Markham or Richmond Hill, people are forced to take the automobile. A lot of people would rather have a choice, but this government has not seen fit to invest in congestion reduction. Instead, it has taken a benign neglect approach, which basically means we are victims of this gridlock from Oshawa to Oakville.
I think we now waste $2 billion a year in congestion. That's what congestion costs the Ontario taxpayers: $2 billion a year. That's in the extra wages you have to pay the truck drivers, the extra wages you have to pay salespersons, the extra distance travelled, the extra gasoline you have to use. That congestion, which is caused by this government's overall lack of transportation policy, means the Ontario taxpayer is burdened with a $2-billion cost for wasted gasoline, wasted time and all these other extra overhead costs. When a Coca-Cola truck or a delivery truck or a transport truck is stuck on the 401 like they were yesterday for three hours in some traffic jam, that consumes gas, and those wages are also added on to the cost of doing business, not to mention the people who lose time going to work.
These are part of what happens when you don't have a comprehensive policy that deals with the way we use gasoline products, the way we price them, the way we ensure the consumer is protected and also the way we use our roads and the way we make sure there is a balanced system of public transportation and of road transportation.
It has been my pleasure to comment on this bill, and I hope people understand the implications of this bill before us on gas pricing.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address some of the concerns I have with this piece of legislation and with the price of gasoline as a whole.
You would recognize that there have been complaints, as my colleague from Oakwood has pointed out on a number of occasions, about the fluctuation in gas prices. While I recognize this deals with the taxation aspect of it and is a rather technical bill, that won't prevent me from canvassing some of the issues which are adjacent to this particular bill. One of the provisions of the bill that I'm concerned about represents a trend which I see with this government, and that is a trend towards more and more regulation and less legislation.
The reason that isn't a good trend is that if a government wants to change a policy and do it through legislation, all of us in this House have an opportunity to examine it carefully, debate it in the House, perhaps have it go to committee, perhaps have some public input, and then the final product is put before us and everything is above-board and visible to the general public. If, however, we decide that we're going to allow the government to do it simply by the dictation of an individual minister or by regulation behind closed doors, we'll find that there is a problem that's going to arise on a continuing basis.
It is interesting to deal on this occasion with the pricing of gasoline. I have heard a lot of bravado on the other side of the House from time to time about how the government is going to control these big, bad oil companies. Before long weekends it used to be the practice over a number of years to have them raise the price of gasoline at the pump perhaps Thursday, maybe even Wednesday, of the week before a long weekend. That would annoy the public considerably because there's more gasoline to be consumed. People are generally travelling much more on a long weekend. This matter has been raised a number of times in this Legislature. I can recall addressing questions to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Minister of Environment and Energy, the Treasurer, the Premier, to a variety of people in this House, trying to get them to rein in the oil barons. Instead of reining in the oil barons, what we hear instead are some noises or huffing and puffing.
I well recall not that long ago that when the prices were really moving up - my friend from Etobicoke-Humber will remember this - it got so bad that they stuck a microphone in front of the Premier at a downtown hotel and he started to rail on against the oil companies, as though he was the champion of the consumer, the little guy.
Of course, when it came to taking specific action, the Premier was nowhere to be found on that occasion. Instead of being able to call them on the carpet - because the Premier has many friends in big business and he's the one who could call them in; he sees them at the fundraisers. He could say: "Look, at a fundraiser I don't have so much time. I don't have the kind of time I'd like to spend with you. I know you've paid $750 a plate at the big fundraiser and we're bringing in all kinds of money, but I don't have the time. But I'll tell you something, I want to have you people on my carpet talking about the price of gasoline." He said: "I'm going to do something about this. I'm sick and tired of the prices going up." It was like the kid who said, "I'm going to get my big brother after you." So I asked him, "What are you going to do?" He said, "I'm going to get the feds after them."
Of course, that's always the easy thing for him to do, because we know the Premier and his ministers are large as life when it comes to accepting the credit but are nowhere to be found - they're like Casper the ghost when they have to assume some responsibility. The chief government whip knows that; he smiles. He knows that is in fact the case.
I remember addressing a number of questions to ministers in this House. Did they denounce the oil companies? No, they didn't. They appear to be the friends of the oil barons. Did they say they were going to take some action in this House? No, no action. "We're going to pass a resolution to tell the feds to do something." The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations went to a meeting in Saskatchewan: "We're going to bring a resolution there" - when, of course, as my friend from Etobicoke knows, we have jurisdiction in this House to pass a predatory pricing law.
The predatory pricing law is the following: As you know, the oil giants from time to time will sell to their own dealers at a price lower than they will sell to the independents. What is the purpose of this? The purpose is that if they get the price low for a short period of time with their own companies, their own dealers, they can make the independents uncompetitive and put them out of business, and then they'll have the whole game to themselves and they'll be able to carry out any price increases they decide.
1850
I called upon the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I said, "Look, you'll get full support from the three parties, I'm sure, if you pass a predatory pricing law as it relates to gasoline." I think my friend from Quinte, if the shackles were taken off him - because he's been very concerned about this - would support such a law, and he wouldn't be one simply to point the finger somewhere else when he knows the Ontario government could do it.
Let me tell you who didn't point the finger somewhere else: Bill Davis. Back in 1975, I remember this happening - I have a note; it says 1975.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): That shows how old you are. That was a long time ago.
Mr Bradley: That was before I was a member of the Legislature; I was just a member of St Catharines city council at the time. I well remember that Bill Davis brought in a bill which froze the price of gasoline. We had the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations saying: "I have nothing to do with this. You know I have no jurisdiction. It's somebody else. It's the feds. Go and see somebody else." Bill Davis wasn't afraid in 1975. I know it was just before an election, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. In 1975 he brought in this bill which in fact froze the price of gasoline for 60 days, and then it was extended beyond that, and then we had a provincial election. Then I think the price went back up again. But he was prepared to do that.
Every time I ask somebody in the House on the government side, "What are you prepared to do?" they didn't know about Bill Davis taking this action. I applauded Bill Davis on that occasion. I was first in line to applaud him for saying, "I'm going to keep the price of gas frozen for 60 days," then extending it to 90 days. I know that had nothing to do with the provincial election in 1975, so don't try to tell me that was the major factor in forcing Bill Davis to do it. I think he did that because he saw it was the right thing to do. If he were in the House today - if he's watching tonight, I'll tell him he did the right thing on that occasion.
The other thing I heard about was the gas-busters. They've got these four backbench Tory MPPs who didn't have much to do, I guess, and they bought them some cameras. They got the throwaway cameras. I'm telling the Minister of the Environment they were throwaway cameras, I think -
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Regular cameras.
Mr Bradley: Regular cameras, I'm told. I'm assured by Mr Chudleigh that they are regular cameras and I'll take his word.
They were going to go around and take photographs, remember? They were to go to the various stations and take pictures -
Mr Chudleigh: They had to use their own cameras.
Mr Bradley: They had to use their own cameras, he says.
They were going to go to each of the gas stations and take photographs, as though somehow the oil barons, who had already thumbed their noses at Premier Harris, the rough, tough guy who was going to tell them what to do - they were going to take pictures and this was going to stop it. I'll tell you something: On the last long weekend I saw those prices were up again. Either the gas-busters were asleep at the switch or perhaps they felt the problem had been solved.
The fact is, as my friend from Rexdale knows, it was just a public relations ploy. If you want to take action on gas prices, you do two things within your jurisdiction. First of all the Premier, who has many friends who are oil giants, the barons of industry, the captains of the oil industry - he's good friends with them - could call them into his office and say, "I am sick and tired of seeing these prices fluctuating up and down, particularly up, at times when consumption is likely to be high." But I haven't seen them. I've been trying to check the appointment book of the Premier and I don't think they've been in to see the Premier. I don't think he's called them on the carpet to see what the prices are.
I would have thought that somebody who has been so rough and tough with people at the lower end of the economic echelon in this province would be equally rough and tough with the oil barons, with the giants of the industry, but he hasn't been, just as our Minister of the Environment is very reluctant to see sulphur reduced in gasoline. He said: "Oh you shouldn't bother these companies too much now. That's something that shouldn't happen. You've got to be careful." In other words, every time they go "boo," the Minister of the Environment, on the orders from the Premier's office, takes a step back. My friend Norm Sterling is a good guy. I get along very well with Norm. We were elected the same year, 1977. I'm sure he would like to take action, but he can't get that by the whiz kids. The whiz kids have to please the industry out there and that's first and foremost.
So we're not going to see lower prices for gasoline until we see a predatory pricing law passed in this province prohibiting -
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Socialism.
Mr Bradley: I'm glad the member for Etobicoke-Humber interjects because I want to tell you that at least 20 states in the United States - that's not a socialist country - have passed predatory pricing laws, including Republican states. A number of other provinces have passed such laws, and yet in Ontario you seem reluctant to do so. So all I can conclude is that when push comes to shove, the members of the Conservative Party - or at least the Premier; I won't blame the party - the Premier and his closest advisers -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Etobicoke- Rexdale, come to order.
Mr Bradley: - are going to be on the side of the oil giants and not on the side of the consumers, even though I'm convinced some of my friends on the government benches would like to see them take that action.
They'll be looking for the Premier. Maybe at the next fundraiser you can go over to the table where the oil giants are and say, "Look, we would at least like to see you maintain the prices at a reasonable level," because, as you will know, more recently the price of the barrel has gone down, the price where it's being produced has gone down, and yet the prices go up. The poor people in northern Ontario, way up there particularly, really face consistently some very high gas prices.
I hope that we don't get some of the answers I've had. Here are some of the answers I've had from ministers when I've asked them questions. Here's a quote. I asked the minister of - I think it was tourism in this case. Yes, it was tourism because I thought some of the Americans coming here and others from other provinces are going to look and say: "My gosh, the prices are high. Should we come to Ontario?" Here's what he said:
"We don't intend to dictate to companies what they should and should not do.... I have no intention of interfering with the free enterprise system, the pricing system. If we were to do that we would be a laughingstock, sir. It would be a big mistake for this province. We would not attract businesses to this province."
That's when I asked the minister of tourism if he was going to do something about it. That was his answer. He obviously didn't consult with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who was shuddering as he was saying this. They handed a note back - it was the government whip on that occasion - that said, "Blame the feds." That's what the note says. Mr Turnbull has been in the House a while; he knows the game. He said, "Blame the feds."
I was just giving credit to you, chief government whip, for handing a note back to Bill Saunderson to say, "Blame the feds." Remember when he gave you that?
Now, I want to give Bill Saunderson credit. He gave an honest answer. Others huffed and puffed. Others pretended they were going to do something. Bill Saunderson said, "We don't intend to dictate to companies what they should and should not do." He said: "It would be a big mistake for this province. We would not attract business to this province." That was an honest answer and I appreciated it, but others in the government tried to pretend they were going to do something about it when Bill had already given the answer.
1900
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Is that misleading?
Mr Bradley: Possibly.
I remember when the Minister of Environment and Energy - I think he was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in those days; it might have been energy. I asked him a question because I knew who he was going to blame. You see, it's never the big oil companies. Sometimes it was the feds he would blame.
I asked him the question that day, and I remember the same question was being asked in the United states and Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were all giving this answer: "Well, it's the taxes." Of course it wasn't the taxes that had gone up; in fact, it had been the price. The oil barons had shoved the price up to the very highest. With the price going up, of course - if it's an ad valorem tax, for instance - it's going to go up as well.
But the Republicans in the United States said: "We've got the enemy. Let's cut the gas taxes." If you cut the gas taxes, the companies will simply increase their prices and take that as more profit for the company, which you expect a company to do. I'm not saying I don't expect it, but don't blame the taxes for the price of gasoline when it goes up the way it's been going up.
I'm not blaming Ernie Eves. I'm not here blaming Ernie Eves tonight for his taxes on gasoline. I'm not blaming him for it. What I am saying is it's the oil giants who are doing that; the oil companies who are shoving those prices up. Like a dinosaur, they are converging across the province, attacking the independents, those independents who don't have any affiliation with the big oil giants, who try to provide gasoline at a reasonable price to the folks in their area. Unfortunately, they're going to be driven out of business unless there is a predatory pricing law passed in this province.
I've given the government what, three and a half years to do this? I would have thought by now we would have had this law. My friend from Quinte and I would both support it. He would be up cheering it. I would be cheering it. You know what you could say? You could say: "It's action we in Ontario were prepared to take. We wouldn't blame the municipalities. We won't blame the last government or the government before. We won't blame anybody else. We're going to take action ourselves." I would be up here applauding that. I would lead the applause on the opposition benches if such a law were introduced. I really would.
Interjections.
Mr Ford: You'd run out to the newspapers with a glowing smile.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Bradley: I would even speak in glowing terms about the fact the government had at long last been dragged kicking and screaming into a law which would simply protect independent business people in this province.
Mr Chudleigh: Kicking and screaming, not glowing.
Mr Bradley: I would have to change that then. My friend is right. I would have to change that to "I'm pleased to see it coming forward." I'll modify that because that would be unfair. He's quite right in reprimanding me for saying on one hand it was going to be glowing terms and then on the other hand kicking and screaming. Objection sustained, as I think they say in the courtroom, and the jury should not have listened to what I said on that occasion.
This bill itself I guess is a relatively minor bill. I just overall tell members of the House, no matter what party they're in, that you shouldn't let governments do things by regulation when they can be done by legislation. This bill is not going to take long. It will be completed tonight because it's a technical bill of not great significance. But it has to be passed and I'm sure there will not be a problem in passing it tonight.
It doesn't matter much to the public because the public don't relate very often to whether things are done by regulation or government order or by legislation. But every opportunity you get, we should have it before the House. If it's good, if it's justified, the people will agree and will give their nod of acquiescence to government legislation. If it is not, then there will be some trouble for the government. They might withdraw the legislation, they may amend the legislation or they may proceed, regardless of the kind of objection there might be.
I do call upon our Premier, the rough, tough man with the sharp elbows, the person who can be the strongest person in the world when it comes to dealing with some segments of the population, to take those oil barons by the tie, bring them into his office and say, "Look folks, it's time you gave Ontario motorists a break."
By the way, the last thing I should say is that the Canadian Automobile Association is opposed to your toll road. I had to remember to say that tonight.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate.
Mr Bisson: I plan on saying a few things in this debate, because I find it quite interesting that we're here tonight having an opportunity to talk about taxes as they apply to gasoline. The bill in itself, we know what it does. It basically changes the way they account for how you sell gas based on the temperature conversions of cold to hot. I don't even want to get into that one. But every now and then you have a bill that comes before the House that allows members to speak a little bit more widely than is normally allowed, because it's a tax bill. I want to take this opportunity to put a couple of things on the record.
The first thing I want to do is pick up on something the previous member talked about. I remember - it wasn't that long ago; I think it was the long weekend in August, if I remember correctly - the government announcing with great fanfare that a whole bunch of backbenchers went out and bought cameras. They were going to travel around the province and take pictures of a bunch of gas pumps here and there. They were called the gas-busters. That was the response of the Mike Harris government when it comes to what's happening with the price of gas in this province. We know what happens is that, all of a sudden, come close to the long weekend, for some strange and mysterious reason that has nothing to do - oh, no - with the gas companies, the price of gas - it's a miracle - goes up. At the end of the long weekend, when there's less utilization of cars, because that's the way it is, the price of gas comes down a little bit. Also, the other big problem is that the farther north you go and the more you live in rural communities, the price of gas is higher and higher.
This government is not exactly foolish. They understand that in northern and rural Ontario people are mad. People are saying, "Why do I have to pay eight to 10 cents a litre more, in some cases 15 cents a litre more, for a gallon of gas in Kapuskasing as compared to, let's say, downtown Toronto?" "We know what we're going to do. We're going to put something in place," said Mike Harris. "We're going to send my backbench, that tough group of guys. They're all going to go out and buy cameras and call themselves gas-busters and take pictures of gas pumps, and then they're going to go around and scare these companies into making sure they don't gouge the public when it comes to the price of gas."
You know what? I remember hearing that and thinking to myself, smart politics. Not very much when it comes to substance, but very smart politics. Then, the following long weekend, in September, he sent the same crew out again with their cameras. This time they didn't have to buy cameras, because they had bought the cameras the long weekend before. But a strange thing happened: There was really no difference in what the gas companies did from one long weekend to the other. They still ended up jacking the price of gas up as compared to what it was before, even with Mike Harris's gas-busters going out on to the highways and the byways of the province.
The reality is that there's only one way you can fix the problem when it comes to the price of gasoline in Ontario. Well, there are a couple of ways, but the primary way is that the federal government has to decide it's going to do something about it, because basically this is federal legislation. It would take the feds to come and say, "What is going on? Are these gas companies into collusion? Are they sticking together and jacking the price of gas up, like a cartel getting together and deciding how they're going to gouge the market when it comes to the price of gas if you live in northern Ontario?" or wherever you might be, and basically have that proved and then go after those companies to push the price of gas down.
We know the federal government has no interest in doing that. We asked the Tory government that was there before, under Brian Mulroney. I was a member of the government. I remember in 1990 being elected. At the time, our Minister of Economic Development and Trade was Ed Philip. He had actually asked the federal government if they would be willing to do something about checking out these gas companies and putting an end to this gouging that we see in the price of gas. Brian Mulroney said: "No, not me. I'm the party of free enterprise." He said, "I'm not going to go after these big gas companies, because they have a right to operate in our economy and charge what the market will bear." That was his belief.
We then talked to the opposition parties. We talked to the New Democrats, of course, our federal cousins in Ottawa, and we talked to the federal cousins of Mr Bradley. The Liberals then agreed with the NDP. They said: "Yes, there's price-fixing going on. The price is being fixed." The Liberals in opposition - I remember who was the Leader of the Opposition at that time. It was none other than Mr Chrétien himself. "Yes, we agree," said the critic. "My leader said there's a problem, and if we're elected to government we're going to do something about this."
1910
Well, you know what happened in 1993. The Tories were swept out of power; so were we, federally. We dropped down to not even a caucus at that point. But I'll tell you - I'm talking federally - what happened in 1993 was Chrétien, his whole gang, swept almost all the seats in Ontario. I think they got them all, actually, but one. Then they ended up getting a whole bunch of seats everywhere else and it became a huge majority government. I thought, as a member in the Ontario Legislature on the government side, "We have some allies in Ottawa who are going to finally do something about the price of gas."
I think at that point the economic development and trade minister was Frances Lankin. I think it was Frances because I remember talking to her about it and saying, "What are we going to do?" I said, "We're going to reapproach the federal government to see if they're willing to do something." Something happened on the way to power, because they didn't do anything. Do you know what the response of the Liberal government in Ottawa was? The same response as Brian Mulroney not more than two years before. So I thought to myself, "Hang on a second, the Liberals when they were the opposition said they were going to do something." Then they got elected, and what did they do? They were just like the Tories. So I say, no difference. If you're going to have Tories, you may as well vote for the real thing. That's my view. If you want social democrats, vote for the real thing - that's us. I think that's the way it works.
I had to put that on the record. I really find it interesting, because there are a whole bunch of people in my riding who are as upset as heck when it comes to the price of gas, including myself. We have how many federal Liberals in Ontario? I think there are 98 out of 99 - no, there are 103 seats, so it's a little bit more than that. There are 101, 102, something like that. Now they're in their second term in government and they're still not doing anything. In fact, the government has actually come out and said, "No, we will not investigate the gas companies; we will not do a darned thing," because they believe in their second term what they believed in their first term, which is, leave the gas companies alone; they're poor old guys and they don't need to be picked on.
I have to draw some conclusions from this. Is it politicians trying to take advantage of an issue? As a New Democrat, I've never run in a campaign and said, "Elect me and I'm going to change the price of gas." I knew better, because I understood that was federal. As a matter of fact, my leader said that once, and I didn't think it was a very good idea - not my current leader; the previous leader. He had talked about gas, and that you can buy a case of beer anywhere in Ontario for the same price but you can't buy -
Mr Bradley: He has got his new book out. Have you read his new book?
Mr Bisson: I'm not in it; that's the good news.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Wait for the third edition.
Mr Bisson: I wish people watching back home could listen to the comments in the House sometimes. They're hilarious.
Anyway, back to the debate. The point I make is this: I never believed that as a provincial politician you should be out there saying you're going to do something specifically to fix the price of gas, because the reality is that it's a federal responsibility. The feds have to do their thing. I would ask people watching back home to pick up their telephones if they think the price of gas is high. They should be calling their federal Liberal members in Ottawa and saying, "Tell Jean Chrétien to do what he said he'd do when he was in opposition, prior to 1993."
Mr Hastings: Who?
Mr Bisson: Jean Chrétien, you know, the federal Liberal leader. He's the Prime Minister of Canada.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: Is it Jean Mulroney? I forget. Anyway, that's his name.
The point is, they should pick up their phones and call the Liberal member in Ottawa to do something about it.
On the other hand, I have to say that this Tory government took a very interesting approach. They took a political approach and sent the gas-busters out. I don't think that is anything but a bunch of photo ops, and I think we should be clear on that. On the other hand, when we were a government we tried to do something. We thought, going into government, we should try to do something as a response from the province to offset the price of gas whatever way we were able to do it. When we were elected to government, we said, "All right, there's a motor vehicle registration fee that you pay to register your vehicle in Ontario when you get your plates every year." For people living in northern Ontario, we would take that fee off. The idea was that it's not going to offset the entire difference in the price of gas between northern Ontario and southern Ontario, but at least it would send a signal to northerners that their provincial government hears the problem and wants to try to do something positive about it.
We had a couple of options. As a provincial government we could have said, "We'll apply the taxes differently at the pump in northern Ontario than in southern Ontario," but when you get into that it's very complicated. Where do you draw the line? It wouldn't be very practical, we found out. So we decided to take off this motor vehicle registration fee, so northerners got a break when it came to registering their cars every year, getting their stickers, and that would offset a little bit the price of gas.
The election of 1995 happened. I remember that one well. That's when we got turfed out of office and the Tories came in here with a huge majority. I thought, listening to Mike Harris when he was in opposition and during the campaign, he was going to try to do something about the price of gas. You know what he did? One of the first things he did for northerners was to reinstate the motor vehicle registration fee that we had taken off.
Mr Bradley: No, surely not.
Mr Bisson: Yes, that's what the Harris government did. Now I'll be nice to you. That's very good; that was a good heckle.
Anyway, he put it back in place and that's pretty odd coming from a northerner. I would understand that Mike Harris coming from North Bay would have some sympathy for what northerners go through when it comes to the price of gas.
I invite members of this assembly - you're going to have constituency week for two weeks. We'll all be back in our ridings working hard, but if you get an opportunity, I want to invite you to drive up Highway 11 and, as you drive up, bring your camera with you. All you guys who are gas-busters out there, just keep on driving up Highway 11 and watch the price of gas increase as you go farther and farther north. If you get into around Kapuskasing, oh my Lord, you're just going to be really surprised at what the price of gas is there.
Then when you do get the pictures, what you should do is have them developed, put them inside an envelope and send them off to the federal Liberal government and say to them: "Listen, there's a problem in Ontario. As a provincial government we want you, our federal government, to do something about it." They didn't listen to us when we were in government. We tried with the Tories and we tried with the Liberals and they wouldn't do it. Maybe they'll listen to Mike Harris. Maybe there's another approach we didn't see, but I would encourage you to do that. That would be really helpful. That's the issue of the gas tax.
The other thing I want to raise is that the Minister of Finance came in today and gave his economic statement, the 1998 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review. He read his entire statement. I've got to say two or three things about this statement. What's really interesting is that the Harris government is trying to make people in Ontario believe that all of the positive things that we've seen in the economy over the last three years, as far as the growth that we've seen in our economy is concerned, because there has been some growth, is all somehow caused magically by the tax cut, this phony tax scheme the Tories have put in place.
I thought it was rather interesting that for the first time I've actually seen the Tories admit what really is the issue when it comes to what's happening in the Ontario economy. The minister had it in his statement where he talked about how the American economy is doing well, and because the American economy is doing well and we export about 80% of our goods into the United States, consequently the Ontario economy has done well.
That's the point I want to make. I know most of you Tories over there are going to sit there and laugh at this, but my blood has boiled when I've listened to this government over the last three years try to make people believe that everything that happened from 1990 to 1995 vis-à-vis the economy was a result of the Bob Rae government, and then, on the other hand, say that since 1995 everything that's good that's happened in Ontario when it comes to the economy is as a result of the Harris government. The reality is that Ontario's largest trading partner is the United States of America, and if the United States of America goes into a recession, which they had in 1989-90, the economy of Ontario goes down with it.
You can try to spin this as much as you want, whatever way you want. The reality is that what ends up happening is that when the economy goes down in the States, Ontario's economy is dragged down with it. Why? Because of the very point that the Minister of Finance made in his statement today, which was to say that better than 80% of the exports from Ontario are into the American economy. That's the first point I want to make: If our economy did badly in 1990 and the economy is doing well now, by and large a big reason behind that - not all of it but by and large a big part of it - is what happens in the American economy. You can try to spin that any way you want, but that is the reality.
1920
The second thing is that the government, in its economic statement, talked about how much more income tax the government is collecting as a result of their phony tax scheme. I think it has to be put on the record that what they're saying is wrong. The reality is that the amount of income tax collected in Ontario has actually gone down as a result of the tax cut. For the government to all of a sudden try to make us believe that everything that's happened in the economy is as a result of the income tax scheme is wrong. If you look at the actual income tax collected by the provincial government in 1996-97, it went from $16.357 billion to $16.293 billion the year after. If you look at the budget statement, the budget statement outlook for 1998-99 calls for about $14 billion in income tax. So the government recognizes that it's a sheer loss of revenue.
When the government takes off its books about $5 billion in taxation revenue by way of the phony income tax cut, that means to say the province collects that less money. There's no way, when you go and add up all of the numbers of the new revenue that has been collected in Ontario, that it even comes close to offsetting what it is that you have gotten vis-à-vis the loss of revenue from the province. We know that you've lost about $5.5 billion this year as a result of the tax cut, but when you look at the increase in revenue in other areas, for example in gasoline tax, you've gone from $2.028 million to $2.045 million, so a jump of about close to $20 million. If you look at the employer health tax, it's actually down. If you look at the corporation taxes, corporation taxes are up just slightly, about $150 million in total. When you look at the retail sales tax, your retail sales tax collections are up somewhere around $500 million over last year.
The point I make - and this is very important - is that if you add up all of the increases in the revenue in Ontario around taxes - now we're not talking about your user fees, we're not talking about all the hidden taxes that you've put in by way of user fees. I'm just talking revenue by taxation: PST, income tax, corporation taxes, employer health tax, fuel taxes, tobacco taxes, land transfer taxes. When you add all of those up, your revenue has only gone up over last year by something less than $600 million.
The point I make is that you've lost $5.5 billion in revenue and the total tax gain that you've made overall is $600 million. In other words, you're still $5 billion shy. That's what people have to understand, that in the end, when you give the tax cut, it doesn't necessarily do what the government says it does, which is spin all kinds of positive influence in the economy.
What do most of us do with our tax cut? Those people, by and large, who gained by the tax cut are people making over $80,000 a year. If I'm making $80,000 a year - I make $79,000 a year as a member of the Legislature. If, let's say, the tax cut gives me $1,000 or $1,500 a year, what do you think I do with it? Do I go out and spend it? No, I put it in a mutual fund, or you go on a holiday outside of Canada. That's what most people who have money do with the money they get by way of a tax cut. They either invest more into their mutual funds or they take off and they go on a holiday somewhere. There is a good percentage of the money that goes to that. Sure there are some individuals who will spend some of it, but the point I make is that about 80% of the money gotten back by way of the tax cut by those people over $80,000 is being used not in direct benefit to the Ontario economy.
Those people below, those people getting the tax cut at the $30,000 or the $40,000 range, the tax cut is so small it doesn't make a difference. It's a difference of about $600 a year for somebody making about - the average wage in my riding is around $35,000 to $40,000 a year and the tax cut savings for people like that is in the neighbourhood of about $600 to $800 a year at the most. The $600 to $800 doesn't do anything extra in my community. All it means for most people is that they're going to use that money to try to offset the increase they're going to get in taxation from the municipality as a result of your assessment system and your downloading to the municipalities.
Mr Guzzo: What about the feds?
Mr Bisson: We talked about the feds at the beginning of the speech. But the point I make is that this argument you put forward, that the income tax cut has stimulated the economy and $5 billion went into the economy and got it going, the reality is that it didn't come out to that. In fact, if you guys hadn't done the tax cut and had taken that money and applied it against programs in Ontario, our budget would be pretty darned balanced by now and we would not have gone through the cuts your government has had to make to health care, to education and other programs in order to fund your phony tax scheme.
Those are the points that I wanted to make. I know it's getting late in the evening and I'm sure there are many more members who want to get up to speak on this most important bill. I want to thank the members of the assembly for having this opportunity to hear my argument. I know after this they're all convinced. They're going to go see Mike Harris and say, "Mike, you've got to turn back that income tax scheme because that's the stupidest thing we've ever done."
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I'm happy to comment on the member's dissertation here tonight. We're always happy to see the new PC-NDP party at work, having the very same effect, which is to avoid the responsibility of this House, of this government.
This bill we're speaking about tonight shouldn't be about regulating the temperature of fuel taxes, it should be putting some heat under this government for what it hasn't done about fuel prices in this province.
What have we got? We've got a minister who huffs and puffs and blows every time the price of gas goes up five and six and 10 cents and does nothing about what's happening in terms of the concentration in this province of refining capacity, of making sure that those refiners have to sell gas to independents to keep a fair retail price out there. People in this province aren't going to be hoodwinked.
This is exactly the kind of thing we've come to expect from this government. Today they tell us MRIs are going to happen in this province. Is that true? No, it isn't. Instead, the government has the audacity to announce MRIs that they won't pay for. We have the member for High Park-Swansea, who was at the announcement, talking about MRIs that will not be paid for by this government. They cost a million dollars a year to run. What will Mike Harris do to make sure diagnostic imaging is available? It pays less than 15% of the cost. Will Mike Harris's government pay for the cost of those MRIs? Not 10 cents. The $2 million has to be raised privately, paid for privately, and just like this fuel bill, we have no substantial protection for the people of Ontario. Instead, what we have is flim-flammery on the part of this government, a government that is spending more on public relations than on government services.
I'm sure we can expect that when it comes to fuel prices and protection for consumers in this province, if this government starts to believe it's a concern to consumers that's attaching to them, we'll see an ad campaign. We'll see money wasted, like the $42 million that has been spent so far. When it comes to school closures or hospital closures or any of those things, the only thing they want is to hoodwink the public. It's not going to work in the case of fuel prices, it won't work in health care and it won't work at the time of the next election.
Mr Colle: I was interested to listen to the dissertation of our colleague from Cochrane South. It's interesting the comment he made, and I really agonize over the fact that our northern friends do pay too much for gasoline. I think it is really difficult on our northern friends.
The only thing is that he doesn't realize that the prices in the GTA may be a bit lower, but when you add on what we have to pay for gasoline when we're stuck in traffic - the average Torontonian is stuck in a traffic jam for an hour every day of his or her life. By the time you factor that congestion cost in, we probably pay about the same as our northern friends. I hope you'd have some sympathy with the people in Toronto who are stuck in these traffic jams.
I also notice the member was prompted by his colleagues on the Conservative bench continually to pick on the Ottawa federal party. It's a really weird alliance. We've got the PC-NDP alliance here in Ontario. I notice his federal leader in Ottawa formed an alliance with the Bloc, where she praised the Bloc health care programs in Quebec in the middle of an election.
I think my colleague from Cochrane South is going to have to find out how he's going to work his socialist ideology along with prompts from his Conservative friends across the aisle and the Bloc and Mr Bouchard in Quebec.
I think the critical thing we have to remember is that this government should be passing a bill about predatory pricing to stop the gouging of Ontario gasoline users, whether it be in Timmins, Cochrane, Wawa or down here in Windsor or the town of Weston. That's what we should be debating tonight: the rip-off of Ontario consumers.
Mr Bradley: I'm getting some advice from the chief government whip, who tends to think that these debates go in cycles. I don't know where he would get that idea. The opposition asks the questions.
I asked Bob Elgie, when he was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a question on this matter. You'd be interested to know that he had the same briefing note that every minister has had since then. That briefing note about how we're monitoring those prices must be changed in the book.
I'm going to ask the member for Cochrane North, because he would like to know this -
Interjection: South.
Mr Bradley: South. I keep saying North because I think he's going to run in Cochrane-Superior.
"Canada's oil companies are about to get an earful from Queen's Park.
"Consumer minister Dave Tsubouchi says it's appalling that gas prices shot up by as much as eight cents a litre just before the long weekend." That was in October.
"He said the government `gas-busters' will be `reading the riot act' when they meet with executives of the biggest oil companies in Canada next week.
"On weekends throughout the summer, the group of Tory backbenchers hit the road to photograph gas stations and monitor prices."
"Tsubouchi said prices skyrocketed heading into the first long weekend that monitoring was not scheduled."
I am surprised that with the knowledge that we could have those gas-busters out there, the oil barons were not shaking in their boots. I know my friend from Cochrane South would wonder that as well.
But there are two areas where the province does have jurisdiction. Here we are, whether we like it or not, elected to the provincial House, so they have some responsibility - I never liked letting them off the hook - and they can pass a predatory pricing law prohibiting the big oil companies, the oil barons, from selling at a lower price to their own dealers than the independents. I want to know if my friend from Cochrane South would like to see such an act passed in this Legislature. I'm sure he does.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.
Mr Bisson: To the member for St Catharines: You said that the minister was going to go in and read them the riot act. I've got to tell you, all it was was pillow talk. There was no riot act. It was Alice in Wonderland. That was the book of choice reading.
To the member for Ottawa Centre: It's true. People in Toronto get stuck in traffic because you have heavy traffic and you've got big roads.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: Did I say Ottawa? Sorry, Toronto.
You talk about people being stuck in Toronto on roads; we'd like to have roads that we can get stuck on. That would be a good thing. There's a whole bunch of roads like the road that goes into Sultan and a road that goes up to Detour Lake. They're not paved; they're rough. A lot of the highways that we have are in pretty bad shape. We would be happy to get a little bit of that asphalt, as we call it in northern Ontario, and put it on the highways in northern Ontario. Then maybe we can look forward to a traffic jam and getting stuck in one of those. That would be fun. That would mean to say there's lots of things going on in northern Ontario.
Also to the member for Ottawa Centre - did I say Ottawa Centre? Excuse me. Now I caught on to what you were saying a little while ago. I called you Ottawa Centre and I had the wrong riding. Anyway, to the member for Oakwood: You complained about my ideology. You talked about the PC-NDP alliance. I have an ideology. I'm not so sure about your party at times, which I guess is the point I would make.
I want to make a general comment to the three members who spoke, which is that we need to keep our target on these guys on the other side of the aisle. Yes, there's a time to keep a target on them, but I'm also of the mind that you've got to be somewhat fair about this. The reality is that gas regulation falls under the federal jurisdiction and we have to get our federal government to do something about it. I think it's a legitimate problem. I think people are legitimately upset. I would call on all members of the House and I would call on the PCs and the Liberals to get a hold of Brian Mulroney or Chrétien, whatever his name is, and do something about it.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Mr Grimmett, would you like to sum up?
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): No, thank you.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Grimmett has moved second reading of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.
Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I move adjournment of the House.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
This House now stands adjourned until Monday, November 23, at 1:30 pm. See you then.
The House adjourned at 1935.