GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 72, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Mr. Nixon had the floor. I am looking for Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Wildman: It was not my turn, but I want to speak.
The Acting Speaker: I recognize Mr. Wildman.
Mr. Worton: Could we have a quorum call, please? There are not 18 members --
The Acting Speaker: We do have a quorum.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: If the members opposite are going to ask for a quorum call, they should first count to make sure there is not a quorum.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate and to express, along with my colleagues who have already spoken, our sincere opposition to this bill.
As the government whip may know, a number of members of all three caucuses, particularly the opposition caucuses, have already participated in this debate on Bill 72 and have expressed their concerns about the government's approach to gasoline taxation in Ontario.
I want to express my agreement with the concerns expressed by those people who have spoken in this debate, especially about the ad valorem aspect of this legislation.
The thing that bothers me most about this legislation is the fact that the government has chosen to ignore the many statements that have been made by the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), his predecessor and various Ministers of Energy in this House, in Alberta and in Ottawa about their opposition to increases in gasoline taxation and energy taxation in general unless there is a genuine effort to redistribute the revenues.
There have been a number of statements made that this government is opposed to increases in the price of gasoline unless that increase is somehow related to the cost of production. Frankly, I agree with that position.
Ontario could accept gasoline and oil price increases if those increases could be shown to assist in the exploration for new energy sources and the movement to self-sufficiency in energy in this country, to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil. But no, this government suddenly has abandoned that position on behalf of Ontario and the consumers of this province and has moved to an ad valorem tax system.
Ironically, in the few weeks since the budget, it has been shown that this approach will provide the government with far more revenue than even they anticipated when the budget was brought down.
Mr. Brandt: They are learning from Saskatchewan.
Mr. Wildman: In response to the interjection, I wish the government would learn from Saskatchewan in certain areas. This government says it is copying Saskatchewan and other provinces in bringing in an ad valorem tax. Is it not interesting that they are so selective? They have not copied Saskatchewan in eliminating health insurance premiums. Oh no, they would never do a thing like that. They would not want to do that.
They have not copied Saskatchewan in terms of revenue from metal and nonmetal resources, other than gas and oil. They could have increased the revenue to this province's coffers by $450 million this year if they had copied that example from Saskatchewan. But no, what they would rather do is rip off the consumer for gasoline prices and continue to increase Ontario health insurance plan premiums and continue the tax break to the corporate sector. Yet, somehow, they are learning from Saskatchewan. All I can say is they are awfully darned slow learners.
Mr. Gordon: In the year of the handicapped this is what we get.
Mr. Wildman: The year of the handicapped?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Are you a slow learner, Bud?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: I may be a slow learner, but I tried to learn from the comments made by this government in the past to understand their policy and their policy formation. I have looked at a speech that was given in this Legislature by the Treasurer of this province on December 13, 1979.
Mr. Gordon: You have to go back a long way.
Mr. Wildman: I could have looked at other speeches, but I found this one particularly interesting. In this speech, the Treasurer was talking about gasoline and fuel pricing --
Mr. Gordon: What year were you elected again? Just so we can go back and get it right.
Mr. Wildman: I was elected a long time before my friend was, and if he keeps that up he will not be here as long as I have been.
Mr. Gordon: Is that right?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: Before I was rudely interrupted --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You will be a nonparty next time.
The Acting Speaker: Carry on, Mr. Wildman.
Mr. Wildman: I am being interrupted very rudely here, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why they are interrupting. I do not know why they do not want to hear the comments made by their own Treasurer. Surely they are interested in what the ministers of the crown from their own political party have had to say in the past about gasoline pricing and taxation.
Interjection.
Mr. Wildman: In other words, things that have gone in the past do not apply now? I think it was Nixon who used the term "inoperative" for comments that were made in the past. Is that the approach this government uses?
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Piché: Which Nixon?
Mr. Wildman: President Nixon, not the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). Much as I have accused the Liberals of being things in the past, I would never accuse them of being allies of President Nixon. I would only refer that to the Conservatives on that side.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Mr. Wildman has the floor. Please give him your attention.
Mr. Wildman: I wonder where they ate supper this evening, Mr. Speaker.
At any rate, I was going to quote from the speech made by the Treasurer. At that time the Treasurer was talking about increases in taxation. He was talking about a budget that was introduced by the Conservatives in Ottawa when they were the government in Ottawa. He was opposing the proposed excise tax being introduced by the then Prime Minister, Joe Clark.
He said the policy that was being introduced by the Conservatives in Ottawa ran against the traditions of taxation established in this country. He said: "As members know, the original purpose was to subsidize higher costs of imported oil used in eastern Canada," and for that reason the people of this province could accept increases in taxes.
What alarmed the Treasurer at that time was he perceived that the purpose of increasing taxation on fuel at the federal level was not to subsidize fuel costs in eastern Canada for imported oil or, for that matter, to increase production in western Canada, but rather to increase revenues to the federal coffers to deal with the budgetary deficit that the federal government was experiencing at that time.
The Treasurer argued that was against the traditions of fuel taxation in this country. Fuel taxation was not perceived to be a way of raising general revenues, and it should not have been used in that way. He went on to deal with the provincial traditions in terms of gasoline and fuel taxation. He stated: "These fuels are subject to provincial gasoline and diesel taxes." Then he went on to say these taxes were "more than compensated for by the heavy provincial subsidies for public transit."
In other words, he was saying that provincial taxation on fuel and gasoline was compensated for by the provincial government's attempts to encourage mass transit, which I am sure we all support in this House, because it is a way of attempting to limit our dependence on oil, to conserve the energy we have, and to prevent overuse of the private automobile. For these reasons we could accept increases in taxation at the provincial level.
My question in regard to Bill 72 is whether this government really intends to increase its subsidies to mass transit commensurate to the revenue that is going to accrue from this new ad valorem tax. Frankly, I doubt it.
However, considering what the Treasurer said about it being the traditional way of dealing with taxation in this province, that must be what it is for, because he said provincial fuel taxes were justified by their subsidies to mass transit.
If this government is indeed intending to increase its expenditures on mass transit in relation to the increases it will have from this new tax, then that is laudable. But there was nothing in the Treasurer's budget to indicate that. In fact, the Treasurer talked about the increase in revenues to the provincial Treasury, which was completely different from the statement that was made in December 1979.
I do not think I have to repeat that in 1979 the Treasurer made a statement that he was opposed to increases in fuel taxes if they were only intended to increase revenue. That is what he said. He was opposed to it. He said it was not part of the tradition of taxation levied on fuel in this country.
Mr. Gordon: You do not want to talk about where the money goes, do you?
Mr. Wildman: We know where the money goes. The money the Treasurer is raising in this budget, $603 million, is to try to keep his deficit below $1 billion. That is what he is attempting to do. He is doing a lot of things. He is increasing fuel taxes. He is going to an ad valorem tax. He is increasing OHIP premiums. He is increasing the income tax across the board.
Mr. Piché: Part of that goes for northern support grants.
Mr. Wildman: The member for Cochrane North does not understand that there are other ways we could raise money to increase the northern support grants.
We might even get more revenue from all the resources that are taken out of northern Ontario and shipped out of this country without any jobs for the people in this province, much less in northern Ontario, in processing.
But no, this government cannot do that. Instead, it has to tax the ordinary individual, the ordinary family, to make up for the fact that it is not getting the revenues it should be getting from the other sectors.
Mr. Gordon: Did you come across in a canoe?
Mr. Wildman: Across in a canoe? What is that member? A latter-day Grey Owl or something?
We all know the purpose of this tax grab; that is what it is, a tax grab. It is to increase the revenues of this province by about $135 million. With the changes in the pricing of gasoline since the statements by Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Leitch, there is going to be $40 million to $50 million on top of that as of July 1.
Also, we know that because of the federal government's national energy program there are going to be increases of about $4 a barrel each year from now until 1983. The purpose of an ad valorem approach to taxation is to ensure that this government grabs a bit of the action and gets on top of that increase to ensure the revenues of this province are increased.
The Treasurer indicated in his statement that this was an inflation period we were in, that this is a budget dealing with inflationary times and that we had to admit that. One might have thought the thrust of the budget somehow would have been designed to ensure we were doing something about inflation; that we were somehow going to protect the consumers and provide more confidence to the business sector which the Treasurer talked a lot about in his budget.
The government, he said, was taking action to limit inflation. Certainly from the point of view this government has expressed in the past, that is its approach. They are very concerned about inflation; they wish to bring it down, they want to protect the consumer so he can purchase goods and they want to protect the business community so they will be able to compete.
Surely then this government would be interested in limiting inflation. The Treasurer in his budget statement did admit that the average wage earner in Ontario in the last couple of years had lagged behind inflation with his wage increases. Although he admitted that, what did he turn around and do? Instead of trying to stop inflation, instead of living up to all the statements that have been made by the Premier and the various ministers of the crown over the last few years about fuel prices, he turned around and said, "Well, let us add to it."
8:20 p.m.
The government seems to have given up on the fight against inflation. They have said: "We are living in inflationary times; somehow we have to be able to adapt." So we adapt to inflation simply by saying: "Go with the flow; let us go along with it." Not only do we go along with the inflation we now have built into the system because of the policies of the federal government in Ottawa and the provincial government in Alberta, but also he is saying, "Let us compound it; let us have more inflation."
It is not enough to have the inflation that is being imposed on us by the policies of the federal government and the provincial government in Alberta, or for that matter by the private sector, by the oil companies. That has been one of the main bases of the inflation we have had since the mid-1970s with the OPEC increases in oil prices at the world level.
Mr. Gordon: Has the member never heard what Pierre Elliott Trudeau has said? It is a worldwide problem. Does he not understand that? He should talk to his colleagues on the other side; his colleagues here can explain it to him.
Mr. Wildman: I do not support Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mr. Speaker, why does he want me to defend Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
The Acting Speaker: Order. Carry on, Mr. Wildman.
Mr. Wildman: I do not understand. Why does he want me to defend the federal leader who fought against the same 18-cent-a-gallon excise tax that this government fought against, and who then, after he got into power, increased gasoline prices by even more than the Tories would have done if they had remained in power?
Why does he want me to support that kind of government? They are one and the same, that group there and that group over here. They are all the same. One of the things I found most amusing was --
Interjections.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, if anyone knows that the Liberals and the Tories are the same, surely the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) knows that.
Mr. Gordon: I finally got some recognition. I have been looking for that all night. Finally I got it.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: I have always been amazed at how easy it is to switch from one to the other; or, for that matter, how easy it is for the federal parties of these two groups to switch. When Joe Clark was the Prime Minister --
The Acting Speaker: On Bill 72.
Mr. Wildman: It all relates to fuel pricing, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Sweeney: The member should check on the former member for Waterloo North. He ran for the NDP six times.
Mr. Wildman: And he was very successful.
Not only is this ad valorem tax compounding the price increases that result from the national energy program, but it is also compounding the problem that was mentioned by my colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) when he spoke earlier today; that is the fact that the oil companies have been found by the federal government to have been ripping off the consumers in this province for a number of years.
We all know that this provincial government does have something to do with the control --
Mr. Kerrio: All this is happening while your guy was in San Salvador.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I would --
The Acting Speaker: Do not pay attention.
Order, please. Mr. Wildman, carry on; and I ask respect for the Speaker.
Mr. Wildman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) certainly makes a very good foil for the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). They seem to be one and the same in their approach. I wonder how he feels, though, about the Minister of Health's comment that there are two Socialist parties in this province?
Mr. Kerrio: I do not know why you are taking exception to the fact that you sent your guy to travel down there.
Mr. Wildman: This man does not care anything about the situation in Central America.
The Acting Speaker: Mr. Wildman, on Bill 72. Carry on, please.
Mr. Wildman: Back to Bill 72. This government was very concerned about inflation in the budget. I think it was mentioned once; they said they were concerned and worried about it. But they did not say anything about oil pricing in terms of what the private sector has been doing. We know the federal government's combines branch found Canadian consumers were overcharged by the major oil companies by about $12 billion between 1958 and 1973.
Mr. Brandt: You do not know that. The case is still out on that.
Mr. Wildman: All I am doing is quoting what the combines investigation said. That means that in Ontario, if those figures are correct, people were overcharged by $4.3 billion; that is before the increases in oil prices in the mid-1970s.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: You are reading the same speech as your predecessor.
Mr. Wildman: I am just referring to facts. The thing I do not understand is that this government in 1975, when it was still really concerned about inflation, decided it was not going to put up with further increases in oil prices and it put a price freeze on gasoline. It could do it in 1975 -- I realize there was an election coming; I am sure that had nothing to do with it --
Mr. Robinson: It didn't help.
Mr. Wildman: No, it did not help much. At any rate it wanted to do something about the price of gasoline in 1975, which was much lower then. It wanted to protect the consumers in 1975; so it put a price freeze on it. Not only is it unwilling now to do anything about gasoline price increases, but also it has decided it is going to benefit from them itself.
It is not enough to have the people having to pay more to the federal government, or to the provincial government in Alberta or to the producers; this government must compound the price increase by having an ad valorem tax. I have yet to hear any justification for that.
There was no justification by the Treasurer when he introduced it in the budget statement. All he said was other provinces had done it. As I pointed out earlier, other provinces have done many things this province has not done. Why should we do it simply because other provinces do it?
The estimates of what the revenue increase will be as a result of the ad valorem tax completely ignore what is happening with the dispute between Alberta and Ottawa and the increases we are going to see as a result. This government is going to benefit from those increases.
We can guess that by 1983 this province will have gained about a 77 per cent increase in revenue from taxation on gasoline. By 1983, perhaps $244 more will be paid by a family of four for gasoline in this province.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Hogwash!
Mr. Wildman: If those figures are incorrect, I would like to hear some more. But what is correct? We are looking at considerable increases in provincial revenue from this method of taxation, and this government just sits there and says: "The statements made earlier do not apply. That is in the past. We should not live in the past. We should look to the future."
It reminds me of the cartoon I saw of the Premier saying, "Which promises apply?" Do the promises of the past, present promises or some nebulous promises in the future apply? I guess one can always keep the promise if he has enough options in his promises so they all contradict one another. That is always a pretty good way of promising to do what one says he is going to do. But it is not very good for the people of the province.
8:30 p.m.
It must be a little frustrating for the minister to sit here day after day and hear the speakers on this side opposing this tax. It is the same problem all of us have. This government would rather have the opposition sit down and say: "All right. Sure, they have a majority. We should just sit here and vote against it because we are opposed to it. But don't say anything; don't hold up the business of the House. Don't belabour the point, for heaven's sake." They say: "You have made the point on the opposition side. Just sit down and get ready to vote against it, because we know how the vote is going to turn out."
Mr. Hennessy: Why talk?
Mr. Wildman: Exactly. Why talk? Why have democracy? Why have an assembly? Why not just have a vote every four years? If one party wins a majority, let them govern for four years and don't bug them. Then have another vote in another four years.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I am being provoked.
I would like to know why this government has not frozen gasoline prices. Instead of adding to the cost by this increased tax, why have they not taken a progressive, positive approach, not just for the ordinary consumers of the province but for business -- for the economic climate the Treasurer talked so much about in the budget?
Why has he not frozen gasoline prices until the consumers and the companies gain back some of the moneys taken through gouging prices by the oil companies in the past?
I am not suggesting anything revolutionary; this is not some hare-brained Socialist scheme. This is what this government did in 1975. I know how these people think about the suggestions we make. I really take to heart the comments made by that side when they attack us, saying we are some kind of idealists who do not live in the real world. That cuts me to the quick.
All I am suggesting is that this government should continue the policy it had in 1975; that it should protect the consumers. It is the kind of policy I think this government genuinely believed at one time. It had a purpose; it really wanted to turn around the economic situation in the province so that we could rebuild our manufacturing sector and compete with the other provinces.
But something went wrong. I do not want to say it had to do with the fact there was an election coming in 1975. But perhaps this government sat back at that time and said: "We froze gasoline prices but we did not win a majority. We actually lost seats; so maybe that is not what the voters want."
Maybe they decided they would end the temporary freeze and consider other measures when another election was coming: "Perhaps we can come up with a rebate or cut in sales tax or whatever. At any rate, we will not deal with fuel taxes. We will not even freeze prices, but we will tell the people we are not going to increase taxes and maybe they will vote for us." It worked. They won an election. They won a lot of seats. They filled up the back row with new members.
Mr. Bradley: They got 44 per cent of the vote.
Mr. Wildman: That is true. One voter in four of the total electorate voted for that party.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: How many did you get?
Mr. Shymko: How many unionized workers?
Mr. Wildman: I am admitting the government was quite successful in its approach.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: The one thing that really bothers me is that somehow then they can turn around and say: "We were successful. We won a majority. We promised the people we were not going to increase taxes. Now we have done that. We do not want to live in the past any more; we had better look to the future. So let's forget about everything we have done prior to the election campaign, everything we said during the election campaign, and let's increase the revenues to the provincial coffers. But we won't increase those revenues on the basis of ability to pay."
Hon. Mr. Sterling: Like personal income tax.
Mr. Wildman: You did increase personal income tax. That is true. The government has suggested an increase in personal income tax.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: Why did you not support it? Why did you vote against it?
Mr. Wildman: The problem is that this government not only increased personal income tax, which the upper levels have an ability to hedge against with registered retirement savings plans and so on, progressive as that might be, but it also coupled that with a number of other measures, one of which we had no opportunity to vote against, except through the medium of a no-confidence vote, namely, OHIP premiums, which this government tries to pretend are not taxes. It says that these are really premiums.
The fact is, as everyone knows, they are health care taxes and everyone pays the same amount. When one combines the OHIP premium increases with the income tax increases the minister mentions -- and I would like to comment on that -- one ends up with a most regressive system. A family earning about $15,000 is not paying the 48 per cent of the federal tax rate the Treasurer talks about, but 80 per cent. Then it goes down from there to something like 60 per cent for a family of four earning about $25,000 a year. That is not a progressive system. When one piles on top of that all these other sales tax increases, how can this government even try to claim it has a progressive tax system in this province? It is not progressive.
The taxes on gasoline, like the taxes on beer and liquor, have no relevance at all to ability to pay. As a result, we end up with the people at the bottom level of the income structure paying an unfair share. At the same time as the Treasurer increases gasoline taxes, he makes a statement in his budget address that because he wants to maintain what he calls a good business climate, he cannot change or will not change the corporate tax rate. So one has the corporations in this province getting off scot-free and the wage earners, the ordinary families, getting it in the neck. That is the promise that has been kept by this government. That is what a majority government has meant for Ontario.
We cannot accept this. We think it is most regressive. We think it is most unfair that a government that has promised for so long to fight inflation now says: "Not only will we stop the fight against inflation, not only will we accept inflation as a fact of life, but now we are going to get in on it. We are going to capitalize on it. We are going to make as much money out of this as possible." It is not fair. It is something this party cannot support and it is something not one of us on this side of the House will apologize for, having spent as long as we have in opposing it.
8:40 p.m.
We do not think this tax increase should have been introduced in the House, especially the ad valorem aspect of it. We intend to oppose it as long as we can. All of us understand what the Premier has called the realities of March 19. We all know that when it finally comes to a vote on second reading they will pass it, unless the members on the other side have been won over by the rationality of our arguments.
If they had gone to the constituents in their ridings and asked them, "What do you think of an added value tax? Are you in favour of it?" I am sure they would not have got an affirmative. I admit a lot of people would probably say they would expect a government with a majority to increase the gasoline tax. I think everyone expected that. The media were predicting it and the opposition parties were expecting it. We did not agree with it, but we were expecting it. But no one expected an ad valorem tax system, and this government never mentioned it.
If the members over there had gone to their constituents before the election and said: "This is what we are going to do. We are going to have an automatic increase every three months on top of the increases that will be imposed because of the national energy policy, cutbacks in Alberta, production costs, exploration costs and the profits of the oil companies," the result would have been quite different. Of course, they are not stupid. We admit they are not. They knew that would not be a successful way of winning a majority so they said, "We will keep taxes down."
I have talked to the people in my riding. I toured the north end of my riding and if any of the members opposite think gasoline prices are high in southern Ontario, they have not been to places like Wawa, Dubreuilville, Hornepayne or White River, where they already pay approximately 40 cents a litre.
Interjections.
Mr. Wildman: There are a few members from northern Ontario on the other side of the House who were quite vocal while I was speaking. They said this was necessary and they had to raise funds. I wonder what would happen if those members went to their constituents in northern Ontario and said, "Are you in favour of an automatic increase in the cost of gasoline every three months?"
Mr. Piché: I said, "Are you in favour of Rene Piché?"
Mr. Wildman: When the member for Cochrane North becomes the equivalent of an ad valorem tax, I wonder if they will be in favour of him.
This is unacceptable to the constituents of Algoma. It is particularly unacceptable to those people who live in the small communities in the north end of the riding of Algoma. I do not see how any member from the far north or from a rural riding could accept this because many members have indicated gasoline for a car is a necessity.
I am not opposed to it just because of the disastrous effect it will have on the people of my riding over the next two or three years. I am opposed in principle because it is a bad way to raise the revenue this government wants and needs.
Mr. Piché: What is the alternative?
Mr. Wildman: I have given lots of alternatives. The people opposite continue to ask me, "What is the alternative?" I have told them. They could increase the revenue they get from the resources of the north. They could get $450 million this year. I am not saying this in a vacuum. I am not saying, "Forget about this tax. You do not need to raise revenue." I am telling them there are other ways it could be done.
Mr. Piché: What are they?
Mr. Wildman: I told you one and you continually ask, "What are they?" No wonder this government never moves in the area of resource taxation. They do not even hear us when we tell them about it. They do not understand.
As I said, this is a bad tax; it is a bad principle. I hope sincerely -- maybe it is a forlorn hope -- that in four years, when the René Pichés of this world return to the electorate, the people of this province will say, "The member for Cochrane North is not a bad guy maybe, but he is one of those people who abandoned the people of northern Ontario to an ad valorem gasoline tax and he deserves to lose as a result of it. He does not deserve the support of the people of Cochrane North as a result of that."
I suspect this government somehow will come up with a collection of goodies --
Mr. Piché: After I have just brought the Dash-7 to northern Ontario.
Mr. Wildman: I suspect the Dash-7 may indeed be one of the goodies this government comes up with when the next election is coming. And how will they have paid for it? They will have paid for it out of the pockets of the people of Cochrane North and the rest of this province with this odious ad valorem tax.
We are opposed to it, we will not support it and we will stay here talking as long as it takes to get through those thick noggins over there that it is a bad idea and that we are waiting for them to change their minds and abandon the ad valorem tax.
Some hon. members: We want Nixon.
The Acting Speaker: You have got Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to enter into this debate. However, I was provoked by some of the interjections from across the floor and, as a result, I decided I would have to repeat some of the arguments that have been made on this side in opposition to this tax and perhaps add new light to some of the debate that has taken place so far.
First, I well remember the last election campaign. In none of the Progressive Conservative pamphlets that I have flipped through did I find any reference to proposed increases in taxes, and most particularly the gasoline tax. Indeed, many of the Conservative candidates during the campaign extolled the virtues of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his cabinet as the defenders of the consumers of the province of Ontario against big bad Alberta and the taxes of the federal government as they relate to gasoline.
At no time was there any mention that the provincial government would jump on the bandwagon, that it would piggyback on top of the already high gasoline prices to derive even more revenues to add, I suppose, to its advertising budget because that is one of the areas where it has spent rather extensively. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) would certainly be aware of the advertising that took place, particularly before the campaign.
Let us look at the way some of the people in this province will be adversely affected. Let us look at the reason why we did not see anything about it in the Tory pamphlets and why there has been a great absence of speakers on the other side who are willing to stand in this Legislature to defend a tax put forward by a government they represent. I particularly invite the newer members who are interested in making a contribution to get up and defend that tax in the House. That would make an interesting Hansard to send back to the people four years from now.
Certainly the people of Carleton East, for instance, would not be in favour of a tax of this kind and would wonder why their member, who was successful in the campaign, did not mention it. The people on regional road 24, Victoria Avenue in Vineland, would wonder why the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) was not on his feet to defend this tax.
The people of Kapuskasing, who so ceremoniously sent their new member to the south to defend the interests of the people of the north of that riding, would wonder why that member had not stood in this Legislature to defend the people against that tax and had not taken an independent stand. The people of High Park-Swansea did not return their former member because for some reason they felt that the new member who was elected on the Progressive Conservative side might be able to provide them with a different thrust, or perhaps with some more goodies for the riding. We find out that member apparently is either acquiescing in this particular tax or is not prepared to speak about it if he is otherwise opposed to it.
8:50 p.m.
Then there is the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), a bright new light in the Ontario Legislature. One would think that individual, particularly because he is involved in a community with a lot of industry, a community which would be looking for lower prices in terms of gasoline because of the transportation that takes place between the factories and so on, would oppose it.
Then looking at the individual consumers, one would expect that that member for Brantford would be standing in the House to defend his constituents against this assault on their pocketbooks. Apparently, none of these members is prepared to stand up to defend the rights of the individual taxpayers within their constituencies. For this we are very disappointed.
Let us look at some of those members who represent other areas. For instance, there is the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) himself. A good many of the people in his constituency would probably be employed in the automotive industry. There is the member for London South (Mr. Walker), who might well have a number of constituents who are employed in the automotive industry. Those people would be concerned about this new ad valorem tax, which increases the provincial government take and assaults the wallets of the taxpayers each time an increase is announced at the federal or federal-provincial level as it relates to Alberta.
One would think these people would be defending the interests of the automotive workers in their ridings and in the surrounding area because this is bound to have, both in the short run and perhaps in the long run, a detrimental effect on the automotive industry in this province. We have to express disappointment about that. I am sure that many of the people who rely for their livelihood on the automotive industry are very concerned about this tax which will continue to increase.
Many members of the Legislature have already stood to quote the Premier and other cabinet ministers and members of the Progressive Conservative government when they were talking about Alberta and how Premier Lougheed was not taking into consideration the welfare of all of Canada, and how he was really going to rob the people of Ontario. In concert with the federal government, he was going to be picking the pockets of the people of Ontario. But just a couple of years after those sanctimonious pronouncements, all of a sudden, this government has decided that this ad valorem type of taxation, this value added tax, is the way to go and that it will join in in robbing the people of this province of their hard-earned dollars.
We look at people who face different situations. In the provincial constituency of St. Catharines, there are a number of people who must commute to Hamilton, to Oakville, to Burlington and to Toronto for the purposes of employment. A good number of them live in the northwest end of the city where access to the Queen Elizabeth Way is rather easy. Having invested their money in a home in the city of St. Catharines and knowing that the cost of homes in Burlington, Oakville and Toronto -- most particularly in Metropolitan Toronto -- have increased tremendously and the interest rates are at such a high rate that it is difficult to make a new move in this direction, they are going to be stuck with additional costs as they commute between St. Catharines and Toronto or St. Catharines and Hamilton and other centres. Therefore, these people are going to be adversely affected by the policies of this government, policies which were not announced before the election, but were revealed to the people of Ontario after the election.
We think of the farmers. I think I have about 30 farmers living in my constituency along the eastern side of the Welland Canal. Those people have to work their land. They have long distances to go in terms of transportation. Many of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus represent areas with a large number of farmers and large rural districts.
Those people are going to be particularly hard hit by the fact they have to travel long distances. They require fuels of all kinds for the operation of their machinery and so on. Those people, already hit hard by high interest rates and by other rising costs, are now going to be hit hard again as the transportation of their goods to market will cost more money. So the farmers are adversely affected.
Along the major southern corridors -- Highway 401, the Queen Elizabeth Way and highways of that kind -- one sees many large transport trucks carrying goods produced in this province. There is no question in my mind the cost of these goods have to increase because transportation costs are going to increase which, in turn, is because the Progressive Conservative government has decided to place an ad valorem tax on gas. We are going to see inflation fuelled in many ways by this tax, a tax that was never announced before the election.
We also look at areas that are not favoured with public transit. Some of us are from areas that are favoured, either through the private sector or otherwise, with transit at a relatively low cost. Those people will be sheltered to a certain extent by the fact they have public transit available to them. But there are many areas where public transit does not exist. Those people will be zapped even harder than others by the increases in the gasoline tax that will take place on a continuing basis without the issue coming back to this Legislature for approval.
There are those who have older cars that may be harder on gasoline and who cannot afford to purchase newer cars. Those people will have to pay more because they are going to have to consume more gasoline than others. Therefore, the tax once again becomes unfair.
I notice the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) has smiled through much of this debate. But he must recognize the people of northern Ontario have great distances to travel. His constituency extends across a good deal of the province, and he must recognize it would be very costly to travel with this new gasoline tax. Already many people in northern Ontario are paying more for gasoline than people in other areas. Apparently, he is prepared to acquiesce in an assault on those taxpayers by the increase in the cost of transportation for his own constituents. One would think if he were truly representing the individuals who placed him in the Legislature he would take a very courageous stand against his colleagues who sit in the front benches. He should say he stands up for the people of this province. We will look forward to seeing that happen, if that is going through his mind at the present time.
We all are part of municipalities that rely on gasoline for the operation of their vehicles. We will have to see what the additional costs are going to be for these municipalities operating trucks for the parks and recreation departments or the engineering departments or any of the other departments involved in municipal government. The cost of gasoline for these vehicles is going to increase and, therefore, the tax bill must increase. I think most people recognize that the property tax is a regressive one in that it does not take into account a person's ability to pay, but rather the assessed value of the property. Once again this tax is going to weigh rather unfairly on a particular segment of the population.
The people who have served on boards of education will recognize they have vehicles which must use fuel and that when the cost of fuel goes up their costs increase. We know children are transported around in buses in many cases. The private bus lines that provide service to the boards of education and ultimately to the people of the area are going to need more money. Therefore, the education portion of the municipal tax bill is going to have to increase rather substantially.
Throughout the province we see an increase unfairly applied to various parts of the population at a time when inflation is already high. At a time when many people are having a difficult time making ends meet because of increases in food prices and other areas, we are now going to zap them once again as the province introduces a tax that will take advantage of those increases which are prompted not just within this country, not just internally, but also by increases from the OPEC nations, who decide from time to time to raise their prices or on very rare occasions to moderate those increases or perhaps not even implement them as they did the last time.
9 p.m.
I think of the automotive industry and its importance to the specific area I represent. Many of the people, as I knocked on doors during the campaign, expressed concern because they worked in the automotive industry. They said, "What is the provincial government's stand on making this an attractive place for industry to continue and to be competitive?"
I said I hoped that after the election, whichever government was elected would take care to ensure that the auto industry would continue to thrive. Yet we see a counterproductive measure put forward by this government, a measure that is going ultimately to cause layoffs in the automotive industry and increases in unemployment insurance payouts, in welfare and various other forms of social assistance because these people are not going to be able to function in an industry that is going to be in the doldrums in part because of the contribution that members on the other side have made through their additional ad valorem tax.
Mr. Shymko: Some other countries have it.
Mr. Bradley: I invite the member for High Park-Swansea to stand in this House, along with four other members, at the appropriate time to make his speech on why he feels this is a good tax. If he is prepared to stand and defend this particular tax, then I will give the gentleman credit. But I doubt very much if he is prepared to do so. It is much easier to sit on the back benches and collect $6,500 a year more for being a parliamentary assistant. Of course, if a person is a parliamentary assistant, then we must take into consideration that he or she has to be careful not to ruffle the feathers of the people sitting in the front row. To ruffle those feathers might mean a loss of that parliamentary assistantship or perhaps would mean no movement down to the cabinet benches. Of course, there is lots of room. I see some talent in the back rows.
The Deputy Speaker: You are speaking to the tax. I know you are going to work it in. I am just reminding you.
Mr. Bradley: Seeing such talent, I know that talent would want to comment on this tax. I did work that in. I look to those people who were elected with such flair, who were elected with such ceremony, who were commented upon in the newspapers as being the bright new lights of the Progressive Conservative Party, to defend the interests of the constituents who elected them.
I think I have outlined many reasons why we in this province do not need this tax. In one or two minutes I am going to conclude. Mr. Speaker, you are another individual, I know, who is very concerned about the automotive industry. You would recognize, as perhaps those who do not have automotive workers residing in their ridings do not, how important it is to ease the adverse impact on the automotive industry at a time when it is being challenged from abroad and challenged internally now by the fiscal policies of this particular province. In conclusion -- I have to drive some people to the bus terminal; that is the only reason I am going to conclude -- I appeal to the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) to defend the interests of the people in Maitland, Ontario, to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) to defend the good burghers of Espanola who will be adversely affected by this tax, to the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) to look after the farming population of his area, and to the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) to look after the commuters in that jurisdiction. Once again I have made my appeal to the bright new lights on the other side and even some of the duller lights that have moved down over the years, an appeal which I sincerely hope will not fall on deaf ears.
Mr. Piché: You did not say anything.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: But it was good. He said it well.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Stokes has the floor.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) who has just interjected also has not said anything and it was better still. I think it was Benjamin Disraeli who said, "Better that a person not get up than somebody get up and everybody wonder why he had."
I hope the comments I will make in my opposition to this piece of legislation tonight will prompt the member for Cochrane North, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), the absent member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) and the absent Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) to get up and speak on behalf of those people who are already disadvantaged because of the high cost of gasoline.
It never ceases to amaze me that we can equalize the cost of beer and booze any place in the province, but when it comes to something as essential as the wherewithal to propel our motor vehicles in the north, where we are troubled with such great distances to existing services, we do not have the ability to look after something as essential as gasoline for moving people from one place to another. When it comes to something such as booze or beer, boy, can we ever rationalize and come up with something that meets the needs of everybody in Ontario.
I do not hold the minister personally responsible for this piece of legislation he has had to usher and sponsor in this House; he is a new boy around here in terms of taxation policy. But if there is any one piece of legislation that has betrayed the people in the north more than this legislation, I cannot think what it is. In 1967 when I first had the pleasure of being elected to this House, we had a marked disparity in the cost of gasoline and other petroleum products in Ontario, in the north vis-à-vis the south.
In 1971 my Conservative opponent ran on the platform that he was going to equalize the price of gasoline in the north as opposed to the south. In 1975 it was the same thing. In 1977 it was a regurgitation of the same program. In 1981 there was the same cry from my Tory opponents that when they represented the riding of Lake Nipigon they would see justice was done to equalize the price of petroleum products in the north as opposed to the south.
They were able to communicate that message to the electorate, but they sure were not able to communicate that to the Conservative Party down here. I could pull out dozens of press releases where the member for Cochrane North has decried the disparity in the price of petroleum products between the north and the south. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who is now a parliamentary assistant to somebody or other, actually sponsored a private member's bill in this House dealing specifically with that.
9:10 p.m.
I can remember sponsoring a resolution myself that spoke to the very contents of this bill. Not only was it endorsed by the former member for Sault Ste. Marie, who was a genuine northerner, in the person of John Rhodes, but the now Minister of Northern Affairs got up and echoed his sentiments in favour of that resolution.
I often wonder what happens when northern members generally, but in particular northern cabinet ministers, get around the conference table where they are cutting up the pie or establishing priorities as to where they will get their resources in order to provide the services that are the responsibility of this government to the people of Ontario.
Do they not listen to people in the north? Is it because from all parties we have only 15 members representing four fifths of the geographic entity of the province, namely, Ontario situated north of the French River? Is it because they have just become so indifferent and so callous that they are only interested in catering to the area where the votes are and where people in general terms vote for the party in power? Has the democratic process degenerated to such an extent that the Ontario Conservative Party is only interested in representing ridings or particular districts or regions that happen to send a Conservative member down here to represent the people of the province?
I can remember a former minister of this government saying the ideal situation in Ontario would be to have 125 Conservative members representing all of Ontario. One of them even had the audacity to say, "If we do need an opposition in the province, perhaps the member for Lake Nipigon would be sufficient to put the dissenting point of view."
The Right Honourable John Diefenbaker sat in opposition for more years than many care to remember, representing the good people of Prince Albert. The Honourable Robert Stanfield represented half of the people in Halifax for a good number of years. Do the Conservatives in Ontario, do most of the Conservatives in this House think 125 Conservatives representing all the people of Ontario would be doing justice to the democratic process?
I think the people of Halifax thought Robert Stanfield was doing a good job on their behalf. I think the people of Prince Albert thought the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker was doing a good job on their behalf. If the members opposite don't believe it, there are jurisdictions in this world where they have the kind of parliamentary democracy that the former minister suggested. They are all behind the Iron Curtain.
If that is what they want, they should just stand up and say so, because the kind of legislation they are asking all 124 voting members in this House to support smacks of the kind of arrogance, smugness, indifference and callousness with which they are treating the people in northern Ontario.
Why do I say northern Ontario specifically? I left here Friday morning on an Air Canada flight to Thunder Bay, connected with a norOntair flight to Pickle Lake and flew north out of Pickle Lake to places that members probably have never even heard of, such as Fort Hope up on the Albany River, Summer Beaver --
Mr. Nikon: Summer Beaver?
Mr. Stokes: Yes. That is what I mean, Mr. Speaker. We need another northern tour because that community did not even exist the last time the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was in northern Ontario. There are real human beings there, trying to make their contribution to society in Ontario, and most members did not even know there was a place called Summer Beaver. In addition to Summer Beaver, there are Wunnummin Lake, Kingfisher Lake and Kasabonika.
Mr. Piché: There is a place called Mississauga that I found out about only when I came to Toronto.
Mr. Van Horne: You cannot even pronounce it. It is Mississausage.
Mr. Stokes: For the edification of the Speaker and the edification of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), we have communities in Ontario where people are now paying $5 for one gallon of gasoline. We actually have such communities in Ontario in my riding and in the riding of the member for Cochrane North. I understand he is already negotiating with the federal Liberal members to get into the northern parts of his riding for the first time.
Mr. Piché: Not for the first time, but we are going there very shortly to deal with that.
Mr. Stokes: How many times has the member visited Winisk in his riding? How many times has he visited Ogoki Post? How many times has he visited Fort Albany? How many times has he visited Attawapiskat? How many times has he visited Kashechewan? I want to tell the minister and you, Mr. Speaker, that I visited those places. If he visited them, I want him to get up and say so, and I want him --
Mr. Piché: On a point of order, sir: I visited them. I was there throughout the campaign. I have only been here a month and a half, but I went through every community and I am planning to go back with my --
Mr. Wildman: How much does gas cost up there?
Mr. Piché: Be quiet for a minute. On a point of order, I am talking. I agree with what the member for Lake Nipigon is saying. I am fully behind him because I went out on the campaign and I visited all these areas. I am going back --
Mr. Martel: Are you going to vote against the bill?
Mr. Piché: I am going back very shortly because we have problems in the far north. The member is right. I am right behind him.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a good discussion on the north.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I am awfully pleased to hear the member for Cochrane North is on my side in this issue. I am sure you will recognize him before this debate is too much older so he can get up and say so in a more detailed fashion now that he has had the opportunity to do so on an alleged point of order.
I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted, that we now have places in Ontario accessible only by air transport, where people not only are paying $5 a gallon for gasoline, they are paying $4 for a litre of motor oil to mix with the gasoline to put in their motor boats so they can go out there and harvest the fishery resources that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) objected to in my question this afternoon.
We also have communities where there is no electric power. There is for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development if it happens to have a nursing station, or Environment Canada where it happens to have a weather station, but it is not available to most of the native people in the north. What do they use for lighting? They use Coleman lamps for lighting at night, and one litre of the naphtha gas they use for that purpose costs $9.50.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Martel: Let the Minister of Revenue tax them.
Mr. Stokes: Wait a minute. In fairness to the honourable minister I asked him if any of these tax bills would cause that price to increase. He talked with his minions under the press gallery and I was assured that all these taxes applied specifically to fuel for motor vehicles. So I am pleased to have the assurance from the minister that this tax will not apply to naphtha gas for people who are paying $9.50 a litre.
Why do I say this has really been a hoax? Why do I say we in the north, we in the riding of Lake Nipigon, find this piece of legislation more offensive than any piece of legislation that has ever been introduced by this government in the almost 14 years I have been down here?
Let us take somebody living in Manitouwadge, which is a combination mining and forestry resources town. It happens to be the largest town in my riding. They do not have a dentist at the present time. The dentist left for reasons known only to him. So much for whatever oath a dentist takes to help the people of Ontario with their dental needs. If somebody has a toothache he must jump in his car and go 250 miles to Sault Ste. Marie to the east or 250 miles to the city of Thunder Bay. When he is paying almost $2 a gallon for gasoline I do not have to spell out in specific terms the kind of effect this regressive legislation will have on somebody who has a toothache.
Let me talk about somebody who needs treatment or diagnosis from a medical specialist, Mr. Speaker. There are no specialists in Manitouwadge. As a matter of fact, we have 3,400 souls living in Manitouwadge and we have one doctor. Through the efforts of Dr. Copeman of the Ministry of Health we just might have a second doctor by July. If one needs specialized treatment one must pay the cost of travelling 250 miles to Sault Ste. Marie or 250 miles to the city of Thunder Bay in addition to the OHIP premiums one pays, which are the same for everybody in Ontario regardless of where he lives.
Living in the Durham area, one might have to come in 30, 40 or 50 miles. We have to travel eight to 10 times as far for the very thing people in the south take for granted. If you were not in the chair right now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be expressing your sentiments on behalf of the people who live north of the French River.
What about somebody who lives at Pickle Lake? Pickle Lake is the farthest point north that one can drive in my riding. It is 345 miles from Pickle Lake to the city of Thunder Bay. It is even farther to the city of Winnipeg, where most of the residents traditionally go for their dental and medical needs.
I am not trying to be overly dramatic. I am just telling the members the way life is in northern Ontario. If we can equalize the price of booze or the price of beer throughout Ontario, surely, if we have the will, we have the ingenuity and the knowhow to devise a tax scheme that will benefit the people of northern Ontario.
I would like to challenge the Minister of Revenue to say, "Because of the adverse effects this piece of legislation is having on the people north of the French River, but more particularly those in the far north, beyond the forty-fifth and the fiftieth parallels, I will hold it over." The member who is trying to fly on one wing over there, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, has got up on numerous occasions in this House and made the same speech I am making tonight. The member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) did the same thing. The member for Cochrane North got up and interjected to say he supported everything I said.
On the basis of what they seem to be saying with regard to this regressive piece of legislation, I would like to challenge the minister to take this piece of legislation back to caucus. We can stand it down over Wednesday. When does the caucus meet? On Tuesdays? Their caucus meets tomorrow. The cabinet meets on Wednesday. Why not set down this piece of legislation so that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, the member for Fort William, the member for Kenora and the member for Cochrane North can tell them what they really feel about this legislation. I know they feel the same way I do about it.
Mr. Cooke: Either that or they are hypocrites.
Mr. Stokes: No, do not say that; that is uncharitable. I am not talking to those people or on their behalf; I am talking to all the other people over there. I am sure they have made those same arguments in caucus. I am sure some of the cabinet ministers who sit around the cabinet table --
Mr. Martel: The member from North Bay says no; the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) says no.
Mr. Stokes: I forgot about the member for Nipissing. The member for Nipissing used to sit over here. He is a new boy around here and I have not had the benefit of his comments on anything. That may be uncharitable because he has not had that much time. If he wants to get up and speak on behalf of the people of Nipissing about this very crucial and important piece of legislation, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will give him an opportunity to do so.
I cannot bring myself to believe that all those Conservative members representing ridings north of the French River would be saying one thing up there and another thing down here. I just don't believe --
Mr. Martel: Ask the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon).
Mr. Stokes: I do not know the member for Sudbury but I know the member for Algoma-Manitoulin; I know the member for Fort William and the minister from Kenora; I have known the member for Cochrane North for many years when he used to sit on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and when he was the mayor of Kapuskasing. I know how he feels about this important issue.
I invite the Minister of Revenue to stand this piece of legislation down so that they have one more opportunity to hear what those northern members have to say about this unfair legislation. Once they have heard from those members in caucus, they should take that around to the cabinet committee and tell them there is a better way of generating revenue for the necessary programs in Ontario under the sponsorship of this government. There is a better way and a fairer way of doing it.
9:30 p.m.
With this ad valorem tax, they are already heaping insult on to injury. If the minister gets his 20 per cent increase, which is what this means, he is going to further alienate somebody who is already paying $2 a gallon for gas.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Wait until I explain it to you.
Mr. Stokes: Oh, sure, he is going to get up and say he is going to do it on the basis of a select market here in southern Ontario. I know what the minister is going to get up and say by way of explanation. The problem I am trying to highlight for the benefit of the minister is that the base in northern Ontario is much too high now. It is already unfair and he is just adding insult to injury.
I do not know whether the electors of Ontario, particularly those who reside north of the French River, will remember what those people are doing now. I happen to think this is the one major, basic issue they will never forget. They will never forget it because all the Conservatives who have run unsuccessfully in northern Ontario have used this as a major plank in their platforms.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Quite a few successful ones, too.
Mr. Stokes: It may be, as the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) suggests, they are saying one thing up there and another thing down here.
That argument does not apply to the member for Cochrane North because he asked me to yield the floor to him and he got up and said what he feels about this regressive piece of taxation. He said he agrees with everything I am saying. If he has not had an opportunity to say so in caucus he will not get an opportunity to say so in cabinet, but I think His Whipship over there attends caucus meetings. Perhaps I can rely on him to take the message to caucus on behalf of those people who live north of the French River, "Run this piece of legislation through the mill again."
Let me say this. I may be a little out of order and I am sure the Speaker will call me to order, but we have the sales tax, which is a seven per cent tax on the consumer price of any article to which it applies. If that article sells for $1 down here in Metropolitan Toronto, what do people living in Mississauga pay? They pay seven cents. If that article is worth $2 in Pickle Lake what do the people there pay by way of sales tax? They pay 14 cents. They pay 100 per cent more.
That is the kind of thing I am saying. The base price is already too high and the minister is just adding insult to injury as a result of this. I invite him in the most kind, the most generous way I can to take this piece of legislation back to his caucus, take it back to cabinet, and if he feels it is justified in southern Ontario where we have a lower base price for petroleum products, fine and dandy. He will not get any argument. All I am saying is he should treat the north differently because it is a whole different world up there.
The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did not even know there was a place called Summer Beaver. I am sure a good many members did not know there was a place called Kasabonika where people are paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline. It is a different ball game up there. I am asking that the minister take a second look at this piece of legislation, at this ad valorem tax as it applies to those people who are already paying far too much for their petroleum products.
If he does that, after the next election he just might have somebody over there representing the riding of Lake Nipigon. If he does not do it, he will have somebody else representing Nipissing, Sudbury, Cochrane North, Kenora, Algoma-Manitoulin and Fort William. There is an offer he cannot refuse. He should take it back and run it through the mill. I will be the first one to thank him for it.
Some hon. members: René, René, come on.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Cunningham has the floor.
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I would yield the floor to the member for Cochrane North. While it is a tradition that we alternate, I would be glad if he would like to take my place.
After I am finished, or perhaps one of my colleagues in the third party is finished, maybe the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) or the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) would like to speak as forcefully as I believe the former Speaker and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has, not only on behalf of his constituents, but as well on behalf of constituents who may not have as articulate and outspoken an advocate as he is. Not only has the former Speaker spoken on behalf of people in Geraldton and Pickle Lake and Summer Beaver, but as well he has ventured into, I believe, the member for Cochrane North's constituency and talked very forcefully on behalf of the people of Winisk and Attawapiskat. I understand they have a new airport.
Traditionally I have supported good items of legislation. Regretfully I have to speak in opposition to this particular item of legislation, Bill 72, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. I do not envy the position of the new provincial Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe). I understand his job, and it is not a particularly popular job. It can be unduly unpopular when in fact he is charged with the responsibility of bringing in increases in taxation, and more particularly, invidious items of taxation that are based on an ad valorem principle.
At the same time, I can appreciate his dilemma because I understand the never-ending, somewhat insatiable quest for revenue of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). An ad valorem gas tax, in my view, is the wrong approach. There is no question that there are people who would argue the price of oil and gasoline must increase significantly. There are some who feel that price should resemble the world price. I want to say right now, as clearly as I possibly can, I am not one of them, nor is my party.
I recall that prior to the election, and during the course of the election, there was some confusion on the issue of gas pricing. This confusion took place on a regular basis. I believe the Premier (Mr. Davis), for what can only be purely partisan reasons, chose to quote selectively -- or misquote -- from a five-year-old Liberal press release, to leave the impression that the Liberal Party in Ontario, for some reason, favoured world prices.
What utter nonsense. When corrected on several occasions, the Premier chose to continue to ignore the facts and continued to distort our position on gasoline prices, as I believe he has misquoted and distorted the position of the NDP on a myriad of other issues. It can only be a rather narrow approach to politics -- that is, the principle of repeating what was never said.
On February 2, while many of us were in the justice committee debating the matter of Astra Trust and Re-Mor, at the conclusion of our work the Premier was down the hall in the media studio announcing the election. He stated he wanted a mandate to keep taxes down. That was a very clear part of his message on February 2.
Now the realities of March 19 are yet another broken promise, this one specifically on the pricing of gasoline. I honestly believe there are people who actually got up on election day and went out and voted for the Premier with the idea in mind that possibly there might be some stability with regard to taxes in Ontario, and that our good friend the Premier, a trusted friend from Brampton, would not in fact increase taxes significantly. In the harsh facts of reality since that election we have seen nothing but a litany of broken promises, and the most invidious one is this ad valorem gas tax.
9:40 p.m.
Perhaps -- well there is no perhaps about it -- the most serious problem Canadians are facing is inflation. Our performance in Ontario and in the nation is less than spectacular. The high interest rates we see today are a reflection of that and part of the problem. Sadly we hear economists who are, in my view, reconciled to the high interest rates we see now -- 19 per cent, 20 per cent. They talk even of 21 per cent. They say these are the realities we must expect. Those interest rates, as high as they are, are becoming almost institutionalized by that kind of discussion, thus building another form of structural inflation in our economy.
One of the fastest methods of fuelling inflation is to radically increase the price of gasoline and oil. I do not think any of us would disagree with that; we all know it. We know its effect on small business. We know the effect of an increase on the little people -- the people who have to drive long distances to work.
We should contemplate for a moment the effect of massive increases in the cost of oil and gasoline. Farm products become more expensive to move to their markets, thus undermining the competitive edge our farmers would have in Ontario. One would have had to have been absent from this chamber for some time not to know we are seized with the problems of an increasing number of bankruptcies in the farm community. Clearly even prosperous farmers are feeling the crunch.
The standard of living for average workers decreases as the Premier puts his hand in their back pockets. People have to have cars. It is estimated that most of the billions of miles of car travel every year in Ontario is not recreational. For the commuter, the people I see quite often on the highway in the morning, it can spell disaster.
My friend and colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) elaborated in some detail the difficulties some people would face as they contemplate an increase in mortgage payments on their homes and the increase in the cost of commuting. They may have bought that home in a distant area to escape the high Toronto prices. Now they might find they cannot afford to commute. The price of commuting ultimately will go up, of course, by way of these increases, so that relying on their own vehicle is going to cost them more and more to get to work.
There are a number of people across from me who do not have that expense -- their driver brings them in, they never see the plastic charge card and, of course, they never see the bill. But for many of us who fill up our own cars with gasoline on a weekly basis, filling it when the tank is empty as most of us do sometimes can be an ever-increasing pricing record, even for a car with maybe only a 10-gallon tank or a 12-gallon tank, as I believe the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) would have in his car. So every week one may find his ability to pay for this vital commodity is decreasing.
The small business man suffers. Municipalities suffer and thus increase municipal taxes. That is yet another invidious part of this tax that is imposed, I suppose, with no other reason in mind but an extra grab at tax money. Sometimes some of the consumer prices necessarily reflect the increases. I suggest that whatever competitive advantages we had in the province are going to dissipate.
Radical and consistent increases in the cost of transportation fuels have a particularly serious effect on the poor. We should contemplate somebody living in the riding of Lake Nipigon, for example, whose standard of living might be far below that of any of us -- far below a level any of us could even contemplate. He might possibly be living on $7,000 or $8,000 a year -- a meagre level of subsistence. We should contemplate the dilemma these people face as these taxes go up.
The former Speaker has made a very valid point relating to the sales tax and the cost of the end product. A colour TV in the riding of Geraldton could cost $300 or $400 more in Geraldton than one would pay for the identical product down here in Toronto. Of course one then has the luxury of paying seven per cent on that additional $400. I think it is extremely unfair.
Constituents of mine living in Carlisle, Carluke, Freelton, Mill Grove and Waterdown, where I live, think this is a crummy item of legislation. They think it is unfair. I cannot begin to contemplate what the good burghers of Geraldton would feel, never mind people living in Pickle Lake.
As the Premier stated himself, when former Prime Minister Clark proposed the 18-cent increase in the excise tax -- and I believe it was right here in this House: "Among the wealthy it will not promote conservation, in our view: among the disadvantaged it will cause serious financial hardship."
There you have it, Mr. Speaker, right from the Premier. Traditionally the custom on tax legislation was to require the approval of the House -- and in essence, I suppose, the public -- on every increase. We are removing that power from the Legislature through Bill 72. From this time on, members of the Legislature, the new member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), will have nothing more to say about this particular item, because it will go up insidiously, automatically, progressively on every occasion, and we as legislators will have nothing to say about it. I regard that as yet another intrusion on the rights and privileges of the members of the Legislature.
We are, I think, having our privileges abused. The significance of the Legislature is being undermined. Now the Treasurer certainly appreciates the convenience not only of majority government but of not having to go through the tedious process that he is going through right now to get this piece of legislation every year. It is almost like saying, "It didn't hurt, did it?" every time someone goes to the pumps and fills up his car.
The new ad valorem approach removes that necessity and nicely perpetuates forever percentage-basis gouging, which will increase every time Sheikh Yamani, Peter Lougheed or any other guy gets the idea that he needs a little more dough. It gives the taxpayers no incentive to conserve, but rather is a blatant, bold incursion on the back pockets and purses of the Ontario public. This ad valorem approach institutionalizes these increases and contributes to inflation in a very real way.
No Treasurer advocating such a form of taxation -- again, I want to put the blame where it belongs, and it is on the Treasurer's desk -- could ever legitimately raise the issue of inflation with any sincerity. If this item of legislation becomes reality, I just cannot believe the Treasurer will make, with any credibility, any more of the anti-inflation speeches that some of his economists are prone to write for him, whether at Rotary clubs, Kinsmen clubs or even here in this Legislature.
The argument has been made many times that other governments have adopted a similar approach. I do not care whether they are NDP governments, the federal government or Conservative governments in other jurisdictions. They are wrong. It is a wrong approach.
The Treasurer knows the serious impact this taxation will have on the rate of inflation. He is aware of the effect on small business. I believe they have contemplated it. I believe, more seriously, that they actually had this item thought up long before the election; that this portion of legislation, this concept of taxation, was drawn up a long time before the election was called.
I really feel somewhat cynical about this, because not once during the course of the election did I hear anything about any proposed increase in taxation, especially by way of ad valorem increases in the price of gas. What I did hear was a continual distortion of the pricing policies that my party had. If that is not going to increase the rate of cynicism in the public I do not know what will.
I believe the Treasurer is well aware that every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up $1 per barrel at least -- the provincial Minister of Revenue can correct me if I am wrong -- the provincial revenues go up a further $20 million, all in the name of satisfying this insatiable budgetary appetite.
9:50 p.m.
On at least three occasions in the last 13 years the Ontario Motor League has presented its views on gas taxes to the cabinet. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) made reference to the Ontario Committee on Taxation and its particular views on the amount of money the Ontario motorist pays. Most of us feel we are paying quite sufficient. In 1975 Transport Canada estimated that Canadians travel 87 billion automobile miles. Almost 70 per cent of that travel was to and from work, commercial traffic, personal business, and shopping. The balance was recreation.
Contemplate construction workers for a moment, Mr. Speaker. Many of them live in my constituency. Many of them have been commuting long distances to construction jobs to obtain work, sometimes as far away as Nanticoke or London. Sometimes the work is not all that regular and they may only get three or four days' work. Because of the price of accommodation away from home, some travel back and forth daily. In its wisdom, the federal government has undermined their ability to deduct much of this travel from their income tax, which I clearly believe is wrong. Nevertheless, it has done it. These individuals are now going to be saddled with this extra increase in taxation, which is no inducement for some of them to get up every day and go to work.
Since the 1975 estimate of 87 billion miles travelled by automobile, vehicle ownership has increased. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) has commented, I believe with some authenticity, that this will ultimately have a severe effect on the automobile industry, and it may well have. In 1973 the price of a barrel of oil was approximately $3.50. That year the OPEC nations increased the price by a factor of four. That is when it all started.
The extent to which we imported our oil was marginal in those days. In the time that has transpired, the price has increased approximately eighteenfold. Our ability or desire to produce our own requirements diminished greatly. Current world price exceeds $40 per barrel while the Canadian price is $17.75 per barrel. As Alberta and other domestic producers chose to produce less, more foreign oil was imported, with the federal government subsidizing the difference. The incredible cost of that difference is borne by Canadian taxpayers and adds to our deficit daily.
We find ourselves in an invidious position. Simply put, as our domestic output declines, our federal deficit increases. There is no question in my mind that Canadians are going to have to make a renewed effort. Maybe that effort will start on Wednesday with further discussions between Mr. Leitch of Alberta and our federal minister, Mr. Lalonde. Over the last 30 or 40 years, in the context of Canadian ownership of our oil resources, we gave away the store -- whatever jurisdiction, for whatever reasons; we let it go, we let it slip away. It is almost inconceivable that with this resource in our ground, within the confines of our country, for the most part the majority of it is owned and controlled by foreign interests.
I therefore do not take issue with my federal friends with regard to their desire not only to maintain Petrocan but to increase its role in the provision of energy in Canada. I may question the rate at which they are assuming Petrofina, but that is not my responsibility.
While some would argue to the contrary, it is clear that the national energy program, if only by way of small means, attempts to correct that particular problem. I believe, though, that the additional imposition of taxes by Ontario on an ad valorem basis, for revenue purposes alone, really undermines that program. I cannot begin to contemplate the feeling the producing provinces would have with regard to this province taking such a significant portion of the price of a gallon of gasoline when we do nothing to produce it. Clearly it has exacerbated the ill-feeling that most certainly exists between east and west.
Clearly the purpose of oil and gas tax levies by Ottawa and the producing provinces is to offset the increased cost of the importation of that commodity, to pay for Canadian ownership and development, to pay for new exploration endeavours or, finally, to further or accentuate the balance in Premier Lougheed's Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, which is currently estimated to be somewhere between $9 billion and $11 billion. As producers, their claim to these revenues may be questioned by some. It has been questioned by the Premier and the Treasurer, but it has to be regarded with far more legitimacy than the Treasurer's rather blatant grab on the gas tax.
The people who are going to be affected by this item of legislation in the most severe way are the people of northern Ontario. I sincerely hope that if there is any democracy to this process, the Conservative back-benchers and the ministers representing constituencies in what would be regarded as northern Ontario will take this matter back to caucus and discuss it in great detail.
I could possibly legitimize the increase desired on this occasion on a one-time-only basis, passed with the authority of the legislation, but to do it on a continuing basis, ad valorem with its 20 per cent perpetual gouge, in my view is very wrong. It is going to have its effect in the bankruptcy court, on small business, on commuters, on the agricultural community and on big business. They have already felt the pinch. It is going to have an effect on the roads department in the township of Flamborough where I live, a constituency that has approximately 500 square miles.
It is unfair and regressive. I do not believe it is what the people bargained for when they voted for the Conservatives in the March 19 election. I really doubt the Minister of Revenue, when he was going door to door, knocked on some guy's door and said: "Hi, I'm George Ashe. I am running for the Conservatives in this election. I am running for re-election. I would like to get down there and be the Minister of Revenue so I can increase your taxes by way of an ad valorem gas tax." I really doubt that was the minister's pitch.
I really do not think the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), the current Minister of Labour, was going around in his riding knocking on doors saying: "I am Dr. Elgie, LLB, QC, BA, shrink, MPP, brain surgeon. I am here today to tell you we are going to increase your personal income tax if you vote for us. We are not going to balance our budget this year and we are contemplating this ad valorem gas tax. It will be painless because you will hardly feel it at all. It is a Latin type of thing. It is in metric anyway so none of you will understand it."
Mr. Peterson: Mention Gord Walker. Gord Walker is finished.
Mr. Cunningham: I have some marginal respect for the member for London South (Mr. Walker), who was displaced from his constituency by a friend of mine, Marvin Shore, former member for London North, whom I had forgotten all about. I think a lot of other people have, because he is a proponent of doing exactly what a number of us on this side of the Legislature would do; that is, before raising taxes, contemplate holding our expenditures to a bare minimum, contemplate getting rid of some of the waste and fat -- there is a lot of it and they know it -- and contemplate admitting some of the mistakes that have been made. I honestly believe there should be some sign on the wall in the cabinet room advocating we look seriously at cutting our expenditures before we are entitled to increase taxes.
This ad valorem aspect of the gas tax increase is unfair. It is going to add a lot of money to the provincial coffers. There may be a great deal of currency -- I find myself hard pressed to admit this in this Legislature -- to suggestions made by Claire Hoy in his column in the Toronto Sun last week that the province is on its way to embarking on rather massive oil explorations in northern Ontario, something that I could not quarrel with if they felt oil was to be found there, as well as the actual assumption by way of a purchase of an oil company here in Ontario. Frankly, it is a long way from the philosophy of good old Leslie Frost and it certainly does not speak of the kind of approach to conservativism for which this particular party has been noted.
10 p.m.
This tax, which is going to bring in 20 million every time Sheikh Yamani and some of his buddies get itchy or every time Peter Lougheed gets itchy, may well be the basis of the purchase of those companies. If that is the purpose of this legislation, then I believe the Minister of Energy (Mr. Norton), the Minister of Revenue or the Treasurer owes us some kind of explanation and should stand in his place and say, Yes, that is our intention, that is what we intend to do."
I want to conclude by adding my support to a very constructive suggestion made by the member for Lake Nipigon. He suggested they take this matter back to the Conservative caucus, if it was discussed in caucus at all -- noting the opposition of both parties and the member for Cochrane North, who was probably very right in his opposition -- and have a very long discussion about it. It is not only going to be unfair to people living in the north or the outlying areas, but it is going to be unfair to everybody across Ontario.
I hope the ministers and the chief government whip -- who does not have to put "Milton Gregory" on his gas slips any more, he just has his driver pay for it -- will take this case to cabinet and to caucus to see that this item of legislation is set aside and, at the very minimum, the ad valorem portion of it is removed.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the game I am certainly prepared to relinquish my spot to the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) or the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), should they want to oppose this particular piece of junk.
I cannot help but recall the election: "Help keep the promise" and "We should not increase taxes." I think that is what the Premier (Mr. Davis) said in one of his speeches. "We should not increase taxes and we need members in the north to help keep the promise." I am waiting for some of those members from the north on the government side of the House -- and we have to have a government member -- to get up and oppose this.
I recall the member for Cochrane North appeared in Toronto a number of years ago and said one of the problems in northern Ontario was the transportation rates. He made a great to-do about cutting transportation rates. If he supports this bill, then what he was trying to do a number of years ago was a mockery. It really was.
In fact it is an injustice to the people of northern Ontario who believed the member when he said that one of the problems confronting them was costs. Those costs were a result of transportation costs. Here he is prepared holusbolus to support this piece of junk and increase the cost of transportation in northern Ontario -- not as a one-shot deal but every three months -- for those goods and commodities that we already know are priced higher in the north than in the south.
Mr. Piché: Why didn't the member support deregulation of the trucking industry as I suggested?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: Should I respond to that, Mr. Speaker? Should I respond to the interjection?
Mr. Speaker: No. just continue with your speech, Mr. Martel.
Mr. Martel: I guess what I find to be a mockery in this --
Mr. Piché: Elie, you haven't got any answer to that.
Mr. Martel: I have an answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Piché: Give it. Give it right now. Deregulation; different freight rates now.
Mr. Martel: I will yield the floor to him.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Martel, proceed.
Mr. Martel: What I find particularly obnoxious is if one were to look in the explanatory note under the heading "general" -- and this really makes my day -- it says, "The bill makes provision for the minister to alter the price on which tax is based so that increases and decreases in retail prices can be reflected by a corresponding change in the tax payable." Decreases? When the hell is that going to happen?
We know full well the ayatollah from Alberta is desperate to get the world price. If he has his way with our friends in Ottawa -- and if they do not knuckle under he will just cut back -- we will have to pay a charge on what we import. Yet this government has the audacity to put in a bill that says, " ... so that increases and decreases in retail prices can be reflected." We will be here 10 more years and we will not see a reduction. To put that in a bill is irresponsible.
All they are out to do is fleece the public and they are doing a great job. When the member for Cochrane North, that great proponent of reducing costs in northern Ontario, votes for this bill he will be flying in the face of everything he has ever said. The hypocrisy is almost unbearable for this side of the House because of that member. Some of us had some confidence in him.
I will tell the government what is wrong with that piece of legislation as it pertains to northern Ontario. I want to give a few examples. We know the distances people commute in the north are much greater than in the south. Some people who live in Sturgeon Falls, in the riding of Nipissing, must commute daily to either Falconbridge or Inco, travelling at least 60 to 65 miles one way.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: People travel from Barrie to Toronto every day.
Mr. Martel: Yes, but they have commuter systems if they want. Those people do not have a commuter system and that is where it falls apart. And there is no public transit in most of those communities.
Mr. Piché: I was born and raised in Sturgeon Falls and worked in Sudbury and it is only 56 miles.
Mr. Martel: But they do not do any mining in the city of Sudbury; they have to go to Copper Cliff. And Falconbridge does not do any mining in Sudbury; they have to go to Falconbridge. Does the member understand that?
Mr. Piché: I apologize.
Mr. Martel: Thank you. My 60 or 65 miles one way is right on. The minister says, "They do that from Barrie," but they do not have commuter systems in the north. I will point out a few communities that do not have any type of public transit.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Why don't you get after them to start one?
Mr. Martel: When the minister is talking about a little community like Noelville with about 1,500 people, where people, if they want to get to and from the city of Sudbury to see a doctor or if they want to get --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: What about the Sudbury region?
Mr. Martel: They are not in the region; did the minister forget that? The municipality of Noelville is outside the boundaries of the regional municipality of Sudbury by something like about 40 miles. He should tell me how they would get a transportation system. Maybe we could get the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) to run a bus from the Ontario Northland Railway into Noelville, into St. Charles, into Alban, into Bigwood, into these municipalities where there is no local transit.
I do not see the minister jumping up and saying, "I will have one there tomorrow." I am waiting for him. Would the Minister of Transportation and Communications tell me he is prepared to put a public transit system from those municipalities into the city of Sudbury? Without that, those residents have to find some means of transportation to and from the city of Sudbury or to and from North Bay in order to see a doctor, a dentist or a specialist, or to do many of the things that people here can do by jumping on a GO Transit system for maybe a buck. In the north they do not do it for a buck. That is what members here do not understand; they do not even want to understand it.
10:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: There are pluses and minuses wherever one lives.
Mr. Martel: The only plus for us is the government takes everything out of the north in terms of resources and puts nothing back.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is not true.
Mr. Martel: Not true? That is the way it is, I tell my friend. I find it really difficult to understand why the minister does not take those things into consideration and, as my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) says, take a look at the situation again. He should do something for those people. They are not just taking little excursions as pleasure trips. Those people rely on cars for their work; there is no transit system.
There are people who live in the town of Capreol who have to get up to Levack. That is maybe 55 miles each way daily. They do not write their cars off. They do not write their expenses off. They cannot live in those towns. Those are company towns that have not built new housing in years. So they have to move out of Copper Cliff, Coniston, Falconbridge, Levack or Onaping. They have to travel great distances to work.
What is even worse, I say to the minister, is that frequently when there is a cutback, as there was in 1978, people who bought a home, let us say in Garson, find themselves forced to work in Levack. That is on the other side of Sudbury, north of the city of Sudbury, and they have to get all the way up to Levack. They had homes established in Garson, but because of the 2,800 men laid off, they now have to commute that distance daily. The minister should be prepared to make it possible for those people to commute, as people do from Oshawa or Barrie into Toronto. Those workers have no option.
It is not just the workers who are concerned, but other people, because the city of Sudbury is the hub and some of the communities do not have transit systems of any type. For instance, Noelville, which is a very old community -- many of the people are pensioners -- does not have a public transit system. People who live there have to find a way to get to Sudbury. What they have to do is pay someone to take them in, because many of them do not drive. They do not have cars, and the minister is socking it right to them. He does not take them into consideration. What bothers me is his cavalier response of, "Take some and lose some."
Mr. Piché: The Greyhound goes through there on a regular basis.
Mr. Martel: The Greyhound does not go through Noelville at all.
Mr. Piché: I know, but it goes on Highway 17.
Mr. Martel: They have to get to Highway 17. How are they going to get to Highway 17?
Mr. Speaker: We are not debating bus schedules, with great respect. Will the member get back to the bill?
Mr. Stokes: Who raised the bus? That fellow over there. Call him to order.
Mr. Speaker: With great respect, we are not talking about bus lines or buses.
Mr. Martel: We are talking about the price of gas, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Exactly.
Mr. Martel: I am talking about the price of gas because people have to purchase it, because they have no way of getting in. The minister interjected that people have to travel from Barrie to Toronto, but there is a public transit system there. There is no system up in the Sudbury area. What does the minister tell senior citizens who have to get in from Noelville, St. Charles and places like that to the city of Sudbury? Is he prepared to put a public transit system in?
Mr. Piché: What is the population of Noelville?
Mr. Martel: Fifteen hundred.
Mr. Cooke: Forget them. There are only 1,500. Let's forget them.
Mr. Piché: I did not say that.
Mr. Martel: We can ignore them. Then we can ignore St. Charles, which has 1,500. The minister must be prepared to deal with this with some forethought. He must be prepared to say, "Wait a minute. We have to do something differently up there." Maybe he will do something such as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) suggested. He had a bill here a couple of times on equalizing the price of gas in northern and southern Ontario.
It could be done. If the difference in northern Ontario is seven, eight or nine cents a gallon, the government could reduce the provincial tax by that amount. It could make sure the gas companies do not charge it, just pass it on as profit. They could do something to ease it, but they do not. They bring in a piece of legislation and say: "To hell with them. It is the same for everybody, no matter the consequences." It does not matter whether they have to travel to work daily, it does not matter if there is no public transit; it is the same, and they can take their chances. That is in fact what the government has said: "You lose some, you win some." That is a cavalier approach.
Yet the minister can equalize the price of beer. How did he do that? If he can equalize the price of suds surely he should be able, being the ingenious fellow he is, to equalize the price of gas. He has an option: he can bring it down in the north or bring it up in the south. He knows where the most voters are; they are in the south, so he is not going to bring it up in the south. That does not leave any alternative but to put it down in the north. It makes sense. But no, "Sock it to them, particularly after we keep the promise of not raising taxes."
I cannot help but admire this budget for its audacity. We are increasing Ontario health insurance plan premiums; we are increasing the gas tax, making it ad valorem; we are increasing the fuel tax, and we are increasing personal income tax. And the Treasurer says, "Well, you cannot increase the tax on the corporate sector: we have to be competitive."
But he put a book out a year ago. Do the members remember the egg-crated book that cost $16 or $17 a book? If the members look in that book, it says --
Interjection.
Mr. Martel: Yes, it is a good book -- great stuff. It says, "Our taxes to the corporate sector are in fact lower than in those states with whom we have to compete." He mentions such states as Ohio and New York; I think he even says Texas, I am not sure. Yet he does not raise the taxes one cent to the corporate sector.
For audacity the government fellows have it: for chutzpah those guys have it, because they socked it to the public left, right and centre. As one cabinet minister said to me, "Well, we will do that for two years, and then we will throw them a fish a little later on and they will forget about all the bad times. They will forget about the ad valorem, and they will forget about OHIP and they will forget about personal income tax." Maybe he is right. Once a person gets used to paying it he goes along his merry way and he continues to pay it.
But there is no justice. I think the amount of tax paid by the corporate sector towards the budget of Ontario in 1971 was about 18 percent, and the amount of personal tax paid made up, I think, about 34.5 per cent of the budget. I am just going by memory. But I think this year the taxes from the corporate sector are 12 per cent of the budget, and from the personal income tax route they are 48 per cent. That says something about where the government's priorities are. In fact, they are so far lost it would take a crane to pull them out. That is how far they are embedded somewhere. It is just too much.
I guess we will continue this lively debate for the next little while as we continue to try to impress that fact on at least some of the new boys. There is not much hope: the member for Cochrane North had his chance and blew it; the member for Sudbury does not want to speak to it, because there is that day when he might get to the cabinet, and should he ever cross anyone up he will never get there. So like trained seals they will all fall into line, because the golden fleece is held out in front of them and they really cannot take a chance of ruining that. But I want to say some of the people have made the front benches because they were a little radical.
10:20 p.m.
Mr. Conway: Remember Gordon Walker's letter?
Mr. Martel: Yes, I remember the member for London South's letter of a couple of years ago. It was a little bit intemperate. It took a while but he made it. I remember the White Knight. Do members remember Allan Lawrence? He made it to the front benches. One of the ways they shut a member up is to put him in the front benches.
Let me say to the member for Cochrane North that if he wants to make it what he should do is embarrass them a couple of times. They will do what they did with the member for Cochrane South, they will do what they did with the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey); they will make him a Minister without Portfolio and silence him. I want to suggest to the member that if he wants to make that front bench he has to do something radical. He should get up and make his speech about how he opposes this, and first thing he knows he will be sitting next to the member for Armourdale. Who does he have to bump? He has to bump someone beside him I am sure, but the member will make it. If he says nothing and just toes the party line, he won't make it.
The member for Sudbury learned that. That is why he wants to nationalize the mining industry. He knows that if he gets radical enough they will move him up to the front just to make him quiet. So he is going to nationalize it. Maybe that way I will get to be president of Inco some day. The Premier keeps promising it to me, but he never delivers. He can't even keep that promise, let alone the promise about keeping the taxes down, and he sure as all hell forgot that one when he allowed the Treasurer to bring in this budget.
I say to the member for Cochrane North that if he wants to make it, tonight is the chance. He should get up there and sock it to them for seven minutes, oppose this bit of nonsense on behalf of his constituents and do what the member for Sudbury would do and say: "To heck with it. I represent the people of Sudbury. I am not a Tory except when I am in Queen's Park." When he is up there he will really sock it to the Tories. The only other guy who was able to do better than that was the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier).
I want to tell you a little story, Mr. Speaker. I went up in 1964 and worked against the member for Kenora. He out-New-Democrated us. What wasn't he going to do? They brought him down here and put him in the cabinet and we haven't heard from him since. All he does is deliver cheques, here, there and everywhere. A $23,000 cheque to Alban for the firefighters and something else somewhere else; he gives out the goodies.
I want to tell the member for Cochrane North that if he wants to make it big, tonight is his chance, and if he doesn't take it, the member for Sudbury will; he will beat the member to the punch. I want him to get up and make his mark tonight.
Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, as the invitation has been extended, I am wondering whether there is anybody over there who wants to speak. He wouldn't need much time. Seven or eight minutes is all it will take. No takers? No takers.
Mr. Wildman: Come on, René, this is the place to stand and the place to grow.
Mr. Piché: Those ministers are too nice. I could never do it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Sweeney has the floor.
Mr. Sweeney: One of the points that the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller) keep telling us over and over again, no matter what the particular set of circumstances is with respect to inflation, is that Ontario cannot do anything about it. We get lectured every two or three days about how it is beyond Ontario's control. We are told it is due to international events such as economic decisions that are taken in Japan, Switzerland, Bonn, or wherever the case may be. Those decisions affect inflation.
Then, of course, the second influence on inflation is those terrible people in Ottawa, the ones they are in bed with one day, not in bed with the next day and back with the following day. Those are the people who set the monetary policy for Canada and they are the ones who are responsible for inflation. But Ontario cannot do anything --
Mr. Martel: Jim Gordon wants to speak.
Mr. Sweeney: Does the member for Sudbury want to speak? Oh no, I guess he doesn't want to speak. It is just two doors down the hall there.
Anyway, we keep being told Ontario can't do anything about it. What do we do? Here we have the Premier and the Treasurer of the province ranting and railing about the impact of inflation upon the consumers of Ontario, upon the producers of Ontario, upon the economy of Ontario; ranting and railing and they themselves are adding to inflation. Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Minister of Revenue, as has been said so many times, that is why we are opposing the legislation.
We do not disagree that the government of Ontario, like any other government, has to raise revenues. But when it does it in such a way that it automatically fuels inflation, then we have to oppose it. If there is one single commodity in our economy that this kind of ad valorem percentage-type tax should not be put on, it is fuel or any oil product. We know from experience that is one thing that is going to continue to go up in price.
We know that no matter what deal is finally struck between the Minister of Energy and Resources of Alberta, Mr. Mervin Leitch, and the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Marc Lalonde, a deal that is going to affect all of us, it is going to mean we will have to pay more and more. By picking that commodity, the minister is fuelling inflation and there is no argument about it.
All we have to do is look at what has happened across the whole world since 1973. There has not been a single commodity in this generation that has done so much to wreak havoc upon the economies of all jurisdictions, whether we are talking of national, provincial or municipal jurisdictions. That is a second reason we have to oppose this tax, not just because it is an ad valorem tax but because of the commodity to which it has been attached.
We probably could accept ad valorem put on tobacco and alcohol. We could take a look at that because we look at the impact on the economy of the province. But when it is put on transportation fuel, then we have to stop and we have to oppose it. We have said over and over again in this Legislature that the energy problem in Ontario is limited to fuels -- transportation and heating fuels. In this case, we are talking of a particular one that has a deep impact upon the economy of Ontario -- transportation fuel.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I thought you were in favour of conservation.
Mr. Sweeney: Of conservation, sure I am. But the government whip knows it has been demonstrated over and over again that simply raising the price alone is not going to affect conservation. That has been well demonstrated. That is not the reason to do it. What the government is doing with this is taking money out of the pockets of potential consumers and affecting the economy of this province, particularly as an industrial province. That is important to us.
We talk about inflation. Let us look at some of the things that have been said by the Premier and by the Treasurer of this province. The minister should remember December 1979. That is when the minister's friend Joe Clark was the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Speaker, remember that terrible tax he wanted to impose upon Canadians -- 18 cents? There was no one in this country getting up more quickly or objecting more vehemently to that than the Premier and the Treasurer of Ontario.
It is all in the record. Everyone can find it just as I can. What did they say? They warned with dire predictions of what was going to happen to the economy of Ontario, of how it was going to affect our manufacturing, how it was going to affect our producers, how it was going to affect our transportation, how it was going to affect our consumers. Over and over again they said what a terrible thing it was for the government of Canada, even a Conservative government at that time, to dare do that to the consumers of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sweeney, I direct your attention to the clock.
On motion by Mr. Sweeney, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.