The House met at 1333.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
SHEPPARD SUBWAY
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I recently attended a third public meeting of the environmental assessment study for the Sheppard subway. This was an important opportunity for residents of North York, and in particular my constituents in Oriole riding, to review and comment on the preferred route and station locations and layouts for the proposed Sheppard subway.
During these discussions I was struck by two things. I was impressed by the fact that the residents of North York are actively participating in the environmental assessment process. They believe, as I do, that it's an important opportunity to discuss issues of public concern which affect our community. It was very evident that the Sheppard subway has overwhelming community support. All but three of the people who attended this public meeting supported this important Let's Move initiative.
During the many years it has been on the drawing board, the people of North York have consistently supported the Sheppard subway. They're very anxious for construction to begin. They recognize the Sheppard subway will reduce traffic congestion, support growth and create wealth in the cities of North York and Scarborough and be good for the GTA. In the next stage of the environmental assessment, a report recommending the route for the Sheppard subway is expected.
On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, I urge the government to expedite the construction of the Sheppard subway line. Let's move.
MINISTER'S COMMENTS
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the minister with dual responsibilities for natural resources and native affairs. In the April 3 edition of the Sault Ste Marie Star, you indicated it is almost impossible to enforce resource laws if natives and non-natives hunt together. You were commenting on a proposal to bring a native Canadian into a hunting group to hunt on crown land.
You no doubt know that status Indians who carry green cards are permitted to hunt for personal use at any time, provided their actions do not threaten conservation. You suggested this would make enforcement almost impossible by making it difficult for conservation officers to determine who actually shot an animal.
You indicated there is nothing to stop natives from hunting with non-native friends. However, you said it is more appropriate for natives to hunt with other natives. Minister, you said: "We can't suspend freedom of association. However, it is rather undesirable to have that sort of association."
That is a completely outrageous and unacceptable comment to make. You are promoting building walls between two groups of people at a time when walls are coming down around the world. Your comments are especially outrageous when your Premier held a news conference recently to promote racial harmony. Minister, your behaviour is completely unacceptable and inappropriate.
TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House a letter I received from a young student in the Tilsonburg area. I would like to read that letter today to show the importance and the realization young people have in our communities.
"Throughout the history of Tilsonburg, innovation has been a key factor in its development. The realization that tobacco could turn sandy wasteland into highly productive farm land changed Canada's future. The tobacco belt towns have flourished, building strong educational systems and communities for the future.
"Ironically, we did not learn the lesson the United States did during the prohibition years. Canada is still making millions off the industry established during a period of prohibition.
"An amazing statistic is that even with the 320% increase in taxes since 1985, plus all the health warnings, the number of Canadian smokers has only decreased by 2%.
"Agriculturists have explored finding a feasible alternative to tobacco, but none have equalled the profitability of tobacco. Like a pebble tossed into a pond, the direct and indirect effects in the midst of a recession are immense.
"Our citizens are grateful for your restraint by not imposing any additional taxes on the tobacco industry. We ask that in future you keep in mind the thousands of Canadians who benefit from the $8 billion in tax revenue collected by the Canadian government annually."
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Many of us are avid watchers of CBC television and its news coverage. For many of us who look to the CBC to provide not only national coverage but local coverage, I understand announcements have been made that will bring local coverage on the CBC to an end, that as of 7 o'clock on Friday nights there will be no local news on CBC stations until 5:30 the following Monday. That there will be no local news from 11 o'clock at night on the CBC is, I think, an appalling situation for those of us who believe in the CBC as an instrument at least of discussing not only local but also national issues with a flavour for Canada.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): So impartial.
Mr Elston: There are some times when partiality is often raised.
I regret that in my 11 years here I have attended meetings that have seen the drawback of national operations like the railroads, as they remove themselves from the hinterland. I watched as the CBC withdrew itself from Windsor and other places. I watch as the post office withdraws its service from all parts of our areas. Although it is a federal-oriented statement, I note that the provincial government likewise is following in the same direction.
As we centralize our operations, I only wish that both levels of government would respond to the needs and the knowledge that outside large centres, there are people who need service and there are people who need information and news.
1340
ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Ontario's cultural organizations are threatened by a severe financial crisis. For instance, the Art Gallery of Ontario has been forced to close on Mondays and cut staff salaries by 20%, while the Ontario Crafts Council is having to sell off its building and lay off staff.
We have to wonder then why the Ontario Arts Council is granting $62,000 for projects with trade unions. The program that I speak of, Artists and the Workplace, was introduced under the Liberal government and continues to flourish under the NDP.
Consider what some of this year's grants are for. One helps the Canadian Union of Postal Workers design posters and construct signs. Another is for the United Steelworkers of America to create employment equity posters. A third helps the Canadian Auto Workers union develop labour music and build a corps of CAW musicians. A fourth is for street theatre productions by the Toronto local of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. A fifth will fund the Peterborough and District Labour Council's production of an outdoor theatrical spectacle celebrating the "forgotten" history of the Canadian labour movement.
How can we explain to the many performing and visual arts groups who have been unable to obtain grants why these union projects are more deserving than theirs?
I call on the Minister of Culture and Communications to conduct an immediate review of the Artists and the Workplace program. With the limited funding available to our community arts groups, we must ensure that the province's money is wisely spent and fairly distributed.
TVONTARIO
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Ontarians of all races and backgrounds passed through a trying and emotionally draining period last week. The demonstrations and disturbances that broke out here were, on one level, in reaction to the recent shooting of a black youth in Toronto. But on a deeper level they echoed the frustration of so many people in our society, racial minorities and young people in particular, who are saying, "We're tired of being hurt and we're tired of being left out."
We saw a lot of anger last week, and I would like to acknowledge the cynicism behind that anger. We also heard a demand to make our society a fair and decent home for every Ontarian.
In light of this, I would like to congratulate TVOntario for moving so quickly to stimulate thoughtful and intelligent public discussion about racism in Ontario. TVOntario, which is an agency of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, began airing an educational series of programs on racism last Friday in response to the recent events in Toronto. The programs, which continue every evening this week, are aimed at children, young people, adults and educators. La Chaîne will be doing programming on the topic of racial issues during the week beginning May 30.
TVO is to be commended for striving to inform the public and to stimulate discussion at every level: at home, in school and throughout our communities. It is a good first step. I would like to encourage TVOntario to take a further step. We need more programming of this kind, programming not just about racial minorities and others who feel marginalized in our society, but produced by these communities.
In addition, I would like to urge the Minister of Culture and Communications and other ministers to look at other concrete actions they can take to build on the need for improving race relations in Ontario.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): As members of the Legislature may be aware, according to the Endangered Species Act, the peregrine falcon is an endangered species in the province of Ontario. Over the past 10 years, the Ministry of Natural Resources has spent upwards of $10,000 per year to ensure that this species is protected and is allowed to flourish within Ontario's natural environment.
I am taking this opportunity to inform the House that one of these birds was shot and killed near Atikokan last year. Considering the amount of money which has been spent by this ministry in protecting this species, it is disconcerting that the person involved was fined but $25.
While a member of the opposition, the current Minister of Natural Resources argued strongly for a revision of the Endangered Species Act to increase the penalties for violating the act and extending the act to include many vulnerable species which are currently left off the list. Indeed, the minister in June 1990 introduced a private member's bill which was aimed at accomplishing this goal. Yet after 18 months in government, this Minister of Natural Resources has done nothing to strengthen the obviously inadequate penalties provided within the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act list includes, among other birds, the bald eagle, yet there are numerous other birds which are less common in Ontario's natural environment but receive no protection at all. The time for updating the Endangered Species Act is now and considering your past support on this issue, there are questions why you have not done so already.
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My constituents in Oakville South and Burlington have responded to my request that they offer their economic solutions to the Premier on how to solve Ontario's economic problems. Their responses have a recurring theme which sounded like a lesson from the Minister of the Environment: reduce, restore and recover.
Reduce taxes, reduce the deficit, reduce provincial debt, reduce the government workforce, reduce burdens to business so they can compete, reduce cost, reduce government waste, reduce hiring, reduce duplication of services, reduce meetings at luxurious resorts, reduce this tax, spend and inflationary spiral, reduce red tape, restore investor confidence, restore manufacturing jobs, restore health to the economy, restore a business climate in this province, restore entrepreneurial investment, restore job opportunities, restore a feeling of confidence in the future for all our people.
There's a big message in this 3Rs lesson from my constituents: Ontario is yours to recover. I say to this government, let's listen to the people of Oakville South and Burlington and let's make it work.
PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): The pins my colleagues are wearing in the House today which say, "I am a recession buster," are the brainchild of the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce. Like other places, Peterborough has been hard hit by the recession. Businesses have downsized or gone under and workers have lost their jobs, but Peterborough has great community spirit and there is widespread determination to emphasize the positive and to work together to give our community a brighter future.
Our local media are looking for and featuring success stories, of which there are many to be found. Innumerable groups of volunteers are working in different ways to give help when it is needed. I can't mention every one, but in particular the Peterborough Network for a Healthy Community, the Peterborough Social Planning Council, business organizations and the media have adopted an optimistic but realistic outlook. People from all sections of our community are increasingly working together to help shape our future.
In all sectors we're replacing confrontation with cooperation. We're committed to a community where all people live together in health and harmony and where all have a chance to acquire skills which can then be used both to earn a fair livelihood and to enhance the quality of life for all.
I would like to thank the greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce for its leadership and all those citizens for taking this positive approach and working together for a better future. They are an example for Ontario.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to make some remarks on the passing of the late Paul Blundy, the former member for Sarnia.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.
PAUL BLUNDY
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On behalf of my Liberal colleagues I would like to very briefly express our condolences to the Blundy family in Sarnia. Paul Blundy was the member for Sarnia for one term from 1977 to 1981. He passed away within the last day. Paul certainly was someone I knew and worked with closely on a number of projects. His political career interestingly was one that was quite linked to another colourful member for Sarnia, Andy Brandt, with whom he contested a number of elections, both municipally and later provincially.
Paul was someone who had been very active in business in Sarnia as well as serving on Sarnia city council and also served as mayor of that marvellous community in southwestern Ontario.
To his wife, Catherine, to his daughter, Martha, and to his son, Paul, we extend our condolences. He will be remembered as a very fine citizen who served his community well, not just in Sarnia but here in the Legislature.
1350
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd like to pass along the condolences of my caucus to the family of Paul Blundy. I knew Paul from 1977 to 1981, and as you may remember that was a minority Parliament. At that time, there was really an opportunity for members to talk more frankly and to meet more frequently with each other. In a minority Parliament, reasonable things had to be worked out in order to reach a conclusion because the Conservative Party at that time did not hold the majority of the seats.
I found Paul Blundy to be a reasonable, logical man of integrity, and even though a member from my party eventually was victorious in replacing him in 1981, I think Paul served this Legislature well during his period of time here and we should respect his contribution made to our Legislative Assembly.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): It is with sadness that I rise today on the passing of former Sarnia alderman, mayor and former member of this assembly, Paul Douglas Blundy. Mr Blundy suffered a heart attack on Monday, May 11, while walking through Canatara Park in the city he loved and dedicated his life to. Mr Blundy was 74.
Paul Blundy was born March 23, 1919, in Sarnia, and was a veteran of the Second World War, serving with the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. Following his return from active duty with the navy, he cofounded McKenzie and Blundy Funeral Home with Donald McKenzie in 1946.
Mr Blundy was elected to city council in 1948 and served a total of 10 years as alderman, as well as six years on the Sarnia Hydro Commission. Mr Blundy was elected mayor in 1967 and held the office for eight years. In 1977 he was elected to the provincial Legislature and served as MPP for Sarnia until 1981.
He served with distinction as the Liberal critic for Consumer and Commercial Relations, as well as being a member of the justice committee. He also served on the select committee on company law. Mr Blundy belonged to the Sarnia Rotary Club, the Sarnia Liberal Association and the Knights of Columbus. He was a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, branch 62, and of the Sarnia Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the board of St Joseph's Hospital.
Paul Blundy made a huge contribution to the city of Sarnia and its people. He will be greatly missed by his friends and all those he has helped over the years. Sarnia has experienced a great loss, the loss of a man who has been described as the epitome of public service and a real gentleman.
I wish to extend my sincere condolences to Mr Blundy's family and to all those who knew and loved Paul Douglas Blundy. He will be sorely missed.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I wish to thank the members for Renfrew North, Carleton and Sarnia for their kind and thoughtful comments about a member who served the Legislature with distinction. Your kind comments will be sent to Mr Blundy's family, and with them, of course, our deepest sympathies.
ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday of this week, the member for Mississauga West (Mr Mahoney) rose on a question of privilege. He informed the House that 10 ministers comprising 40% of the cabinet would be absent from that day's oral question period, thereby preventing members from holding the government accountable. The member was of the view that this amounted to an infringement of members' collective privileges, and in this regard he referred to standing orders 1(b) and 21(a).
Having had an opportunity to review the authorities and our precedents, let me refer members to the Hansard for April 19, 1977, where Speaker Rowe, responding to a question of order, made the following remarks (at page 623):
"[I]t is surely the duty of the executive council to see that there are sufficient members of the council in the House during the question period to make it meaningful. Certainly, the Speaker cannot be expected to take on this obligation."
On April 24, 1990, Speaker Edighoffer stated as follows (at page 729 of that day's Hansard):
"I have advised all members in the House on previous occasions that it is up to them whether they attend or do not attend, and it is not up to other members to draw their attention to that."
In reviewing our precedents on ministerial attendance in the context of privilege, I note that Speaker Turner stated in 1984 that the Speaker was not responsible for members' attendance in the House. (I refer members to page 3823 of the Hansard for November 5, 1984, and to page 4846 of the Hansard for December 11, 1984.) And in the first session of the current Parliament, I responded to a question of privilege raised by the member for Mississauga West by suggesting (at page 2671 of the Hansard for October 2, 1991) that the House leaders might want to address the issue of ministerial attendance.
I will add that our precedents also accord with citation 481(c) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne, which states (at page 141) that members should refrain from referring to the presence or absence of other members. Furthermore, citation 289(3) of Beauchesne states the following (at page 90):
"The duties of members have become extremely varied and members must travel frequently. The discharge of those responsibilities will sometimes take a member away from the House. This absence from the chamber should not be the subject of comment."
In closing, I will say that although the concerns that were raised on Monday do not amount to a point of order or a prima facie case of privilege, I hope that all members will find these remarks helpful.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Today I'm pleased to announce an innovative, long-term strategy that will help renew and revitalize the farm and rural economy of Ontario.
As the Treasurer pointed out in the budget, we must respond to current economic challenges by working in partnership with the people of Ontario on new, innovative directions that will lead us back to economic stability and growth.
In keeping with the announcement made in the budget, and in response to the needs and concerns of Ontario's rural and agricultural communities, we are initiating a comprehensive agricultural investment strategy. The strategy comprises five initiatives and includes the recently announced commodity loan guarantee program.
As members may know, the commodity loan program will provide eligible farmers with a new source of affordable credit based on their crop insurance contracts and a 25% government guarantee on the total loan portfolio. In its first year the program is expected to loan out a minimum of $50 million, and in subsequent years as much as $200 million.
The program is unique in that it was developed cooperatively among farm and commodity organizations, input suppliers, financial institutions and this government. It is administered by a producer-run corporation that knows the business and can ensure that the program evolves to meet future challenges.
The four additional initiatives I'm announcing today indicate this government's commitment to an investment in economic renewal in rural Ontario. These programs include: first, a rural loan and agricultural mortgage pool program designed to encourage investment in rural and agricultural projects; second, a private mortgage guarantee program aimed at attracting more private investors to the agriculture and food industry; third, an agricultural expertise and education program to help farmers resolve financial difficulties, gain further knowledge of farm finance and farm law and enhance the role of credit unions and caisses populaires in agricultural lending; fourth, a farmer apprenticeship program to provide new farmers with opportunities to gain farming experience and build equity to eventually purchase their own farms.
Several government working groups have been formed to iron out the details of each program. As with the commodity loan program, we are working closely with representatives of Ontario's farm and financial communities. I'd like to thank these people for their valuable input and contributions to, and support for, our strategy so far. I look forward to continuing our cooperative efforts with all these groups.
Details of each of the programs will be announced as they are finalized. I expect that all programs will be implemented before the end of this year, with the exception of the rural loan and agricultural mortgage pool program, which will be implemented as a pilot program early next year.
1400
These programs will provide brand-new investment vehicles and will require substantial consultation and background research before their full implementation.
We are anticipating a total government investment of $120 million over the next five years in these programs. This represents an effective use of public funds to encourage private sector investment and self-reliance in our farm and rural communities. Unlike the ad hoc government funding of the past, these programs will be stable, long-term and based on cooperative partnerships among the Ontario government, farm groups and the financial community.
The most striking feature of this strategy is that it was developed by and for the farm and rural people of Ontario. As members may know, one of my first initiatives as minister was to establish the agricultural finance review committee. The committee, headed up by my colleague Pat Hayes, the member for Essex-Kent, travelled across the province asking farmers what their needs were and, as important, for their suggestions on how best to address their needs.
This strategy is a direct result of that exercise. The spirit and much of the substance of the strategy come from the innovative ideas gathered both during the review and by follow-up consultation sessions.
This government recognized early the significance of our farm and rural communities in supporting Ontario's overall social and economic wellbeing. The $17-billion agriculture and food industry employs more than one in 10 Ontarians and is second only to the automobile industry in contributions to our economy in Ontario. The industry also plays an integral role as the foundation of many of our rural communities.
In our continuing efforts to bring stability to our farm and rural economy I'm also pleased that the farm tax rebate program will continue as stated in the budget estimates.
With the agricultural investment strategy this government has made a decision to invest in the future of rural Ontario, to provide farm and rural people with an investment climate that supports innovation and self-reliance, and to build confidence in the growth of our rural economy rather than allow this important part of our society to crumble under the tremendous weight of current economic pressures.
There are several groups I would like to mention that have helped in the design of the programs I've announced today. They are the Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario, the National Farmers' Union, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Union of Franco-Ontarian Farmers, the Ontario Farm Women's Network, Catholic Rural Life Conference, the credit union movement, and the Ontario Agricultural Commodities Council, all of which have worked very hard in developing these programs cooperatively with us in the government.
I look forward to working with these farm and rural communities in the future. It is a very exciting strategy and I know it will be successful. I also had a meeting today with some of the key farm leaders, who had a sneak preview of what we've announced. I look forward to working with them in the future on this investment strategy.
Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I would ask the concurrence of the House to be able to make a statement updating members on the Carleton strike situation without a written statement.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.
TEACHERS' DISPUTE
Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'm pleased to inform the members of the House that with the assistance of mediator Vic Pathe the parties have reached agreement in principle to terminate the strike and to submit all outstanding issues to voluntary binding arbitration.
I can further inform the House that on that basis we expect teachers to be back at school tomorrow. As we speak, the parties are continuing their discussions with Mr Pathe to develop a back-to-work protocol.
I want to certainly express my appreciation to the school board and the teachers' federation and obviously to Mr Vic Pathe for the work they have done in bringing a resolution to this issue. Although they have not been able to reach agreement on the terms of the contract, obviously this resolution is the next best thing and allows the resumption of school for the students.
The last thing I want to say is that we will obviously work with the school board over the next couple of days to ensure that the appropriate modifications to the school year are made so that the successful completion of the students' academic year is achieved.
RESPONSES
TEACHERS' DISPUTE
Mr Charles Beer (York North): Let's be very clear. There is no joy in what the minister has come to announce, because the system failed. You're playing Russian roulette and you've been playing Russian roulette with the students in Carleton, with the students in the Ottawa board.
You walk in at this point and tell us there is some kind of agreement, but you don't tell us anything about it. You say you're going to send it off to arbitration. We don't know what that is going to cost, but we do know what it has cost the students. To pretend that those students in the Carleton board have gained anything from this or from your inaction in dealing with this strike -- the system, Mr Minister, has not worked.
We can't continue to have a system in which these kinds of negotiations go on right to the 11th hour, and then you walk into this House and, without telling us anything, say there's a settlement. Of course we are glad that the students are back in the classroom, but why did it take this long? You know full well that on Monday the Education Relations Commission said those students were in jeopardy. We in this party and those in the third party have been saying clearly since last fall that if you go back to your announcement of the 1% transfer, there was the root and branch of your problems.
Minister, you can laugh and you can pretend that this is some great victory, but this is really a day of shame for the Ontario education system, because this is not a reasonable way in which to bring about a settlement. We have no idea what it's going to cost either the taxpayers of Carleton or the taxpayers of the province. We must have from you a sense of direction, vision and leadership of the school boards and federations so that the next time there is some kind of work disruption we're not going to have to wait, as we did this time, to see what is going to happen.
Minister, we're going to need commitments from you as to how this bargaining system is going to work in the province, because at the present time the focus, which ought to be on the students, is clearly not there. We cannot go through with all the various negotiations that are ongoing at the moment. We cannot look forward to having to go five, six, seven or eight weeks, where finally you come in at the last minute and say, "Glory be, we have a settlement." It's not on, it's not acceptable and it does nothing for the students of this province.
Minister, you have a responsibility to make sure that the students in Ontario are protected in that collective bargaining system. You have a responsibility to ensure that happens. You have not done it in any way in this system, in what has happened here today with your announcement.
Minister, we need leadership from you on this issue. We need to see what kind of stand you're going to take in terms of future situations of this kind. This is not a great day for Ontario education.
1410
AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Although I thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his --
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Brant-Haldimand.
Mr Eddy: Although I thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Clerk, stop the clock.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. The member for Brant-Haldimand has the floor.
Mr Eddy: Although I thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food for his announcements, I am grieved that my suspicions are confirmed that this government does not understand the agricultural industries. Far too little, far too late. The government refuses to provide Ontario farmers with the capacity to generate an adequate standard of living, and we know there are lineups in Kent county by farmers for food banks -- shameful.
The budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been cut by $30 million, and this is the first year that it has been cut. There is no new money in this statement. The money is already included in the decreased budget at the ministry. Last year we spent $50 million on farm financial assistance programs. This year it's only $20 million. I assure the minister and the House that the farmers of Ontario cannot continue to produce many agricultural products at a loss.
TEACHERS' DISPUTE
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): The 15,000 students in the Carleton Board of Education have been out for 28 days, so we can hardly say there is a victory today on the part of anybody in what has happened or what we have been told.
I only can say that if perhaps this minister had taken more definitive action earlier on we might not have had the children out as long as they have been out. I am glad, quite frankly, that this dispute is being settled voluntarily by both sides, if in fact it is as it is told by the minister. I'm glad it is being settled that way. I believe it will lead to an easier transition in terms of what will happen in the future for the students in the classroom.
I introduced a bill in this Legislature some three or four weeks ago, asking for the government to legislate the teachers back to the classroom. I believe the minister should have done that three or four weeks ago as well. However, we are told today that both sides have submitted to voluntary binding arbitration. I interpret that, Mr Minister, to mean that there is no option under this for the teachers to go back on strike in the next two years. He is nodding in the affirmative, so I assume that is so.
I am concerned, however, with regard to the process we have gone through. The mediator who was appointed before to bring this dispute to a close failed miserably, I think, because the mediator before came out of the mediation last Monday and acted like an arbitrator. He left the school board trustees in an untenable position. He offered, in my view, a deal which was far too acceptable to one side of the dispute. That side accepted it almost immediately, and it left the school board trustees in a very difficult situation.
I would hope the minister would either discipline that particular mediator or make it clear to mediators who are dealing with disputes that they are not to act as arbitrators and walk out of a meeting and say, "This side accepts what I have offered and that side has not." I was very much upset with that during this whole process.
I want to say particular thanks to the elected school board, the Carleton Board of Education. Those trustees sat through an unbelievably fiery meeting last Monday night when teachers attacked them verbally, asked for their resignation unreasonably and, in my view, lowered the esteem of the teaching profession in the Carleton Board of Education system even further than it already had been through the strike action.
I hope both sides can get back together. The Carleton Board of Education has been an exemplary school board in providing services to its students. I know that both they and the teachers can work together to provide a very, very first-class system for the Carleton Board of Education in the future.
AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In reply to the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food today, we all know, and the agricultural community knows, that the commodity loans program is not working. There may be one bank that takes it on and that's all. Mr Minister, the idea's good; it's got to work. You're reinventing the wheel here in the rural loan and agricultural mortgage pool. The Farm Credit Corp tried that 15 years ago, as the minister well knows, and was never able to make it work quite well. Let's not reinvent the wheel.
Your ministry suffered a 6% decrease in budget. Some $36 million was chopped. Over and above that, you had to provide $12 million more to cover the farm tax rebate because of increased taxes at the school and municipal level. So how are you going to find these funds when we know you've announced programs that have been tried before and are not working? I'll try and help you to make them work, but I'm afraid this is not good news for agriculture.
VISITORS
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the House. Seated in the members' gallery west is the former member for Northumberland, Mr Howard Sheppard. Welcome. Welcome to another former member, the former member for Scarborough East, Mr Ed Fulton.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Just in case people didn't see where Mr Fulton is sitting, he is beside Rod MacDonald, who used to work on my staff and who's with us today in the House as well.
The Speaker: The member for Bruce is always helpful. It is time for oral questions.
ORAL QUESTIONS
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Solicitor General. In the ongoing Sunday shopping shell game we now hear that the Solicitor General himself, it seems a majority of the NDP caucus and indeed perhaps even the Premier now support changes to the Sunday shopping legislation. Given that this change of view has obviously occurred, will the Solicitor General now tell us when we can expect the changes to the Sunday shopping legislation to be introduced? Is it true that we're going to have to wait until the end of the session before we know what the government is going to do?
Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): There has been no change to the legislation. If and when there is, I'll be pleased to advise the House.
Mrs McLeod: The views of the public on Sunday shopping certainly couldn't be more clear. It seems to us that the views of the NDP caucus on the matter of Sunday shopping have been made abundantly clear, but it seems equally that the views of the public don't count and it seems as if the views even of this caucus don't count.
Obviously the reason we are not going to find out about changes proposed to the Sunday shopping legislation is that the government can't make a decision until it checks with the people who have the real power in this province, the real decision-makers: the leadership of the union movement and the friends of the NDP.
It seems that the views of Julie Davis, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, are of special interest to this government. The views of Andrew Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour's son, seem to be particularly important. Julius Deutsch, the Minister of Citizenship's executive assistant, has a special right to comment on this issue, although the boss's views don't seem to carry much clout. Michael Lewis of the union movement, Lennox Farrell, all need to be consulted before this government can act.
Can the Solicitor General explain why non-elected, card-carrying NDP officials have more clout than he does, more influence on decisions than the elected members of this government?
1420
Hon Mr Pilkey: The party and the government have had consultations on this particular issue for months and months, including sending out a committee of the Legislature all across Ontario to solicit views and comments. That was followed by hearings right here in the Legislature itself, within the precinct, that went on for weeks and heard all kinds of representations.
We are quite proud of the fact that we, as a party and as a government, listen to the views of others and consult with people. We see that as quite a reasonable thing to do. If there are suggestions that this is not an appropriate way to govern, perhaps that's an avenue best left to others.
Mrs McLeod: I would assume then that the Solicitor General is suggesting that having consulted -- although I recognize the first time they consulted they brought in legislation which was not responsive to what they were hearing from the general public of Ontario -- they have now listened to the general public of Ontario again and have heard the public view that they should change their Sunday shopping law.
That therefore suggests to me that if this government is committed to leading on the basis of consultation, it is now ready to bring in the changes. There should not be a need to delay any longer. You've had the discussions among yourselves. You know you want to bring in those changes, at least a majority of you know. You know that's what the people of this province want.
I would suggest to the Solicitor General that governments are elected to lead. That's the government's job. It's not the job of a non-elected governing body of the New Democratic Party, if that in fact is the last body left to be consulted on this issue. It's certainly not the job of the powerful union interests; it's the job of this government.
We wonder what decisions this government needs to check with the NDP governing council. Did you need to check with them before making a decision on casinos? We weren't aware that you needed to check with them before making a decision on public auto insurance. We wonder why it seems you have to hold off on making this decision until you've checked with the governing council.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader conclude her question, please.
Mrs McLeod: Who is running the government of Ontario?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I certainly could recognize the familiarity of the leader of the official opposition and the familiarity of that group over there with polls and reacting to them. Notwithstanding that, the law is a law on this particular issue; it must be obeyed and enforced. There has been no change in that view or that situation.
The fact that the government is assessing its policies and doing so on an ongoing basis I think is a reasonable thing for any government to do. The fact that there's a wide range of views in the general public or in caucus or within the party or anywhere else in this province is nothing new or nothing unusual either. At such time as the government feels any need to make any alteration in its policy, it will announce it to the House. In the meantime, there is no change other than the general discussion that is ongoing.
The Speaker: New question, the member for St George-St David.
Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I had a question for the Premier, but I read in the papers that he's hobnobbing around the world now. Indeed I saw he was having lunch with Senator MacDougall.
The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?
Mr Scott: He was having lunch with Senator MacDougall, talking about casinos. He's the president of a big beer company.
The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member's observations of world events are always well received, but I would appreciate it if he would place a question to a minister.
Mr Scott: Senator MacDougall isn't on the provincial council of the NDP, as far as I know, but he may be soon.
As the Premier isn't here, the question I have is for the Solicitor General. It's about Sunday shopping and it arises in this context. The Premier promised very early in his government that even though he had a small plurality of votes in the last election, he would make policy decisions in the interests of all the people of the province and reflecting all their views.
[Laughter]
Mr Scott: Members shouldn't laugh just because that hasn't happened, because it was the stated intention of the Premier. Over 70% of the people now favour Sunday shopping, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto and in the cross-border communities.
I want to ask the Solicitor General why this matter is going to be debated at the provincial council. The Treasurer said that if you don't debate these things and listen to the provincial council, you pay a price for it. Is it the purpose of this debate at the provincial council to persuade that council to abandon almost the last principle for which the NDP stands, or is it the purpose of that council meeting to induce it to oppose the policy so the government will not have to introduce these changes?
Hon Mr Pilkey: The inputs that the government seeks are simply advisory in nature. The government retains the full right and the full responsibility of all final decision-making with respect to this or any other law in this House.
Mr Scott: I was much taken, as the people of Ontario were much taken, by the Premier's stated principle that the interests of all the people of Ontario would be considered, with a veto for nobody on policy changes. Why is he taking this important public debate to be considered by the provincial council? He didn't do it with automobile insurance; he didn't do it with half the other policy changes that fate has forced these bunch of ideologues to make. Why is he doing it here? What has Lennox Farrell got to do with it? What have Stephen Lewis's brother and sister? What has Evelyn Gigantes's father got to do with it? What has almost every defeated NDP candidate, most of whom lost their deposits, got to do with it? What has every president of almost every union affiliated with the NDP got to do with it? Can the Solicitor General and his party not make policy on this important issue, bearing in mind the public interest? Why is he taking this issue to a closed debate with an in-house crowd made up of the usual suspects who brought us labour law reform?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I certainly have had representations from members of the general public. I certainly have had representations of mayors of municipalities. I certainly have had representations from the retail sector of this province and from shopping centre developers and a wide variety of people and interests. Why the member opposite would find it strange or difficult for us to speak to other Ontarians who may possess a view, I wouldn't know, but the circumstance has certainly been one of inclusiveness, and I don't understand why the member would have a difficulty with that.
Mr Scott: Perhaps I can ask a simpler question and hope that the minister can answer it. It has to do with my riding. I want the minister to know that I will vote for any bill that opts for Sunday shopping on a regional basis or in cross-border communities, as the minister may propose. I'm prepared to do that, but the people of my riding, particularly many new Canadians, have established literally dozens of mom-and-pop shops where the whole family works together, where they have made enormous investments to support an enterprise.
They will be in real difficulty if Sunday shopping is introduced, and they are terribly concerned that this issue is going to be decided by the likes of Stephen Lewis's brother and sister. They'd rather have Stephen decide it than these siblings they don't even know. They're very upset that Lennox Farrell is going to decide it and they're very upset that an NDP candidate they didn't vote for is going to decide it by this provincial council meeting.
What I want to ask the Solicitor General is, whatever changes he introduces, will he undertake here today that the mom-and-pop operators in my riding, who have made such a commitment to their businesses, will be fully protected?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the Attorney General should join in this debate on that very issue, before the question's answered.
The Speaker: One minister at a time. Right now, the Solicitor General.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, I can assure you that this government will attempt to protect the interests of all Ontarians and all people in retailing, whether they be large or small, in your riding or outside your riding.
I do find it incredible, though; it's almost amusing. I think the Liberal caucus opposite better leave the House, get a caucus meeting together and review what its position is, because I've been assailed by the likes of Mr Sorbara and other members over there who have suggested that they want these mom-and-pop shops and the major retailers open on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and yes, Sunday. Now I hear there's concern about retailers being forced to open on Sunday. So I am prepared to respond to the members opposite, but I wish they would come to some conclusions.
1430
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Solicitor General as well. I read the headlines that say "NDP Caucus Backs Wide-Open Sundays," and according to one of the sources that has leaked out of the caucus of this government, "At the private caucus meeting, Solicitor General Allan Pilkey, Treasurer Floyd Laughren and Municipal Affairs Minister Dave Cooke backed the move." On August 15, 1991, during those hearings that you talked about, you told the Toronto Star the NDP would not budge on Sunday shopping. You said, "The principle of a common pause day is not up for negotiation." My question is this: Is this statement still true?
Hon Mr Pilkey: The comments that are attributed are in fact true. They were made, they were meant and they were followed through on. I think the proof of that is resident in the amendments that were brought forward and the position adopted by the government at that particular time.
I would hasten to add, however, as I have indicated in the last number of weeks, as has other leadership within the government, that we continue to monitor public opinion on that, and in fact it has shifted considerably and dramatically. Beyond that as well, there has been heightened interest from the retail sector, which has indicated that because of the depth of this recession it is looking for any and all alternatives to assist it in that regard. The government has simply taken those altered situations and additional voices into account, determined that it is prepared to discuss them and recognize them and has therefore been reviewing the issue.
Mr Carr: The answer is that the principle of a common pause day is not up for negotiation unless the polls change, in which case it is.
I want to take another look at another position that changed. It's the NDP 1990 document that accuses the Liberals of flip-flops costing workers and families. It's a press release of August 18 from the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier, who said: "Voters in Ontario are getting used to Liberals saying one thing during elections and doing the opposite after the ballots are counted. Taxes, free trade and car insurance are among the Liberal broken promises." I can assure you your list will be much longer, Mr Solicitor General. It goes on to further say, "And we've seen the Liberals flip-flop on Sunday shopping." I say to the Solicitor General, will you take a stand, will you take a position, will you tell us whether you will introduce legislation before the end of this session?
Hon Mr Pilkey: Perhaps in response I might say that given some of the tragedy type impacts that have occurred in this province and indeed in this nation as a result of some of your friends in Ottawa, it's about time they flip-flopped on a couple of issues. We might all be better off if they did.
Notwithstanding that, this party did in fact enact common pause day legislation. It did so after consultation with the public and it did exactly what it said it would do. I don't think any government should be faulted for subsequently listening to the opinions of the public, having discussion on that and taking those new views and altered views into account.
Mr Carr: The fact of the matter is that isn't what you were saying about the Liberals in the summer on August 18, 1990. Let me read from that same press release:
"The Liberals knuckled under to pressure from the big supermarket chains and the big retailers. They dumped the issue of a common pause day into the laps of Ontario's municipalities and left families to fend for themselves. It was an embarrassing moment for the Liberals: A week earlier, then Solicitor General Joan Smith -- the minister responsible -- had said a municipal option was 'the chicken way' of dealing with the issue." It goes on to say, "She was right."
Mr Solicitor General, the chicken way out. Will you tell us today, have you changed your mind? Yes or no? What is your position today, Mr Solicitor General?
Hon Mr Pilkey: First of all, I'm not sure whom to address over there, because there's a tremendous likeness between the two. Notwithstanding, I will address the member and his twin brother.
This government campaigned on a policy of a common pause day and worker protection. It delivered on that promise and that is the law today. The suggestion that any government that is in power wouldn't assess circumstances on an ongoing basis as circumstances alter and change I think is incredible; to suggest that anybody would be stuck in the mud in that position and be handcuffed from any and all considerations in the future. That's all that is happening. There has been an alteration, there has been a shift, and the government is simply assessing and discussing that alteration.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is also to the Solicitor General. I will note that if there was a decent breeze in here, he'd be swinging.
To the Solicitor General, we understand you don't plan to take any action on the issue of Sunday shopping until the NDP executive takes a vote later this month. Is this the same party executive that is so in touch with Ontario's economic fortunes that it has at various times wanted to nationalize Inco, the same one that wanted to eliminate the sales tax, the same group that said we should have publicly run auto insurance and also the same group that said, "We need a greater provincial presence in Nicaragua"? What a group. We now can rest, knowing the decisions won't be with this motley crew but with a circus. Could you please release the names of these NDP movers and shakers, so we can alert all those interested parties so they at least know whom they should lobby?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I very much appreciated the question and the frivolity with which it was given. I'm not sure I have a serious response to that kind of question. I would say, however, that I think the people we will be consulting will be as equal to the task as those his party consulted, with respect to issues such as free trade, trilateral trade with Mexico and some of the difficult results they have created for people in Ontario who were formerly employed.
Mr Stockwell: You're ruling that's an answer? Okay. It's pretty hard to believe that's an answer, but we'll run with it.
This government didn't listen to its membership when it came to auto insurance. You just have to ask Mr Peter Kormos. It didn't listen to its party when it came to casino gambling. It's ignored its party principles on landfill sites; ask the Environment minister. Let's just face facts. You're using your own membership, this executive, as a scapegoat for not being able to take a position. That's the bottom line. You can't take a firm decision on Sunday shopping because you're stacked with your previous statements. We hear one thing from the Premer's office. We hear something else from you, the Solicitor General. We hear different views from your backbenchers.
Mr Solicitor General, just who's running this operation? When will we hear of a decision? For the people who are shoppers, who want to shop on Sunday, and for those who want to close, when will the final determination come? When are you going to show this much leadership?
Hon Mr Pilkey: The short answer is that if there is any alteration, we will advise you of that circumstance. Let's be very clear, though, the law is the law. Nothing has changed in the enforcement directives that were given in January to police services boards. The government should not be faulted for regularly assessing its policies and its laws from time to time, as any government would be prone to do, particularly when there has been a significant shift in public opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with, as I said earlier, our getting input and advice from the party, from business people, from the retail sector, from trade unions and from the general public. I don't see anything wrong with that; that's all that's being done.
1440
Mr Stockwell: I'd like to take this opportunity to enlighten the members opposite about the constitution of the New Democratic Party of Ontario. Article 14, "Discipline," is very clear: "The provincial executive, a provincial constituency association, Ontario New Democratic Youth, shall each have the right to expel, suspend or discipline any member for any conduct contrary to the constitution or the principles of the party."
According to their own constitution, the only one who can't be expelled is Peter Kormos. We're working with you, Peter. These principles that this party has so proudly staked out as turf in the past are as recyclable as the paper they were printed on. We know you're caving, the public knows you're caving and you haven't got a principle left to stand on. Just give us the date when you're caving.
Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, if and when there is any alteration to the Retail Business Holidays Act, I will so advise. Until that time, the law is the law; it's being enforced, and I must say, it's being obeyed by the major retailers of this province.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question's also to the Solicitor General and it concerns this question of retail store hours. It is clear to all members of this Legislature that the retail sector in this province is in very difficult straits. I know in my part of eastern Ontario, in communities like Alexandria, Renfrew, Pembroke, Gananoque, Brockville, Prescott and Cornwall, many of those retail jobs are disappearing. The pain is palpable.
Yesterday we heard that Marks and Spencer is going to be laying off hundreds of people because of difficulties in the Canadian and the Ontario retail sectors. Surely, if for no other reason than jobs and creating wealth in this province, the Solicitor General, as the minister responsible, will admit that the current situation, for whatever ideological reason, is not working and that it's costing jobs. Will he not today, if for no other reason than for those people at Marks and Spencer --
The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.
Mr Conway: -- and thousands of others like them who are either out of work or about to lose their jobs, admit it's time for a change and the time for that change is now?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I understand the sincerity of the question, but I think the question ignores some other very salient facts with respect to retailing and the profitability or lack thereof in this province at this particular time. There is a recession throughout North America that is impacting all retailers, not only here but in the United States where some of the very largest retail chains have had to seek clause 11, if I've got the right clause, with respect to bankruptcy laws in the United States.
I don't think this is an Ontario phenomenon in any way. There are other reasons, which the member I'm sure would be well aware of. Shopping centre developers overbuilt the amount of retail space in this province by some 30% while the population had only increased by 5%, and so an imbalance was created there and perhaps not some of the very best business decisions taken.
With respect to other decisions, he mentions Marks and Spencer. I was simply reading from the newspaper articles where one looks at the product mix or the origin of where a product is bought and how it's marketed successfully or unsuccessfully, or the locations in terms of metropolitan markets versus smaller markets.
The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his remarks.
Hon Mr Pilkey: These decisions are not necessarily to do with Sunday shopping, but are decisions that are taken corporately, and unfortunately or fortunately, they will have to live with the result.
Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, the duly elected member for Sault Ste Marie is right when he reports to the Legislature and to his colleagues in caucus about what's happening in places like Sault Ste Marie, because it's happening in Windsor. It's happening in my part of the province. You would have to be a blithering idiot not to pay attention to what people like the member for Sault Ste Marie are reporting.
Sunday shopping is clearly not the only answer, and I don't offer it as any kind of panacea. But if the ridiculous situation in which this Legislature now finds itself is allowed to continue, the government and, I'm embarrassed to say, all of us are going to be debased even further, because we're going to be seen to be regulating that which will not admit to the kind of regulation this government, for whatever good and ideological reason, sought to impose a year ago.
Will the minister responsible give this House an undertaking today that this week he is going to move to respond to the perfectly legitimate and very democratic impulses that the member for Sault Ste Marie is bringing to the caucus in the interest, if not of ideology, of jobs?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I think the member opposite should be encouraged by the fact that there exists here a government that is aware of the shift in public opinion and that has been allowing discussion within our own caucus, by the fact that there are other people being consulted, and that the government, if it decides it is in the public interest, will return with some alternative situation. But at the moment that is not the case; it is not other than study, other than input and other than review. Therefore, the existing law is clear and it's being maintained.
I agree with the member that there are many other considerations beyond Sunday shopping that are impacting the retail sector, and they may be much more telling than the impact of this one particular element.
TEACHERS' CONTRACTS
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education. In Ontario 70% to 80% of teachers' negotiation contracts are not resolved by the contract expiry date. There is no other field of collective bargaining where we would have 70% to 80% of the contracts not concluded by the expiry date.
Mr Minister, I know you're aware of your own standing committee on public accounts. This is the 1991 report. Recommendation 8 states:
"The current 'localized bargaining system' for teachers shall be the subject of a Ministry of Education review. This process has raised concerns among teachers, trustees, administrators and the Ministry of Education."
Mr Minister, my simple question today is: When will you begin a review of what is commonly referred to as Bill 100?
Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The issue of Bill 100 is, quite frankly, one that keeps surfacing in a number of places. I think we will need to begin to take a look at that issue. I've certainly heard concerns expressed about it both from teachers' federations and from school boards.
I intend over the next little while to begin some informal discussions with representatives of both school boards and teachers' federations around some issues we might want to begin to address, recognizing that at this point I'm not sure whether a full-scale review of the legislation is appropriate. But I certainly would indicate to the member that some of the issues, particularly around some of the time lines, are ones that do concern me as well as minister and I think are ones that need to be looked at.
Mrs Cunningham: Just to remind the minister, in the 1984 Macdonald commission report there was an observation that expressed concerns with the present localized collective bargaining system. This is a piece of legislation that has been around this province since probably 1975 or so. I think most bills of that duration that directly affect our children and our schools are certainly worthy of very serious scrutiny, especially when a standing committee states it.
I have another question subsequent to that. Right now we have about 150 boards currently negotiating for the fall. It's my understanding, asking around in my position as critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, that the process has been slow because boards and teachers are at such opposite ends. Well, I bet they are.
1450
Mr Minister, you know your government set out these guidelines at 1%, 2% and 2% over the next three years and we know that is a reality. If that's what the directions are and we already have problems reaching a collective bargaining conclusion date by August 31, I don't think the minister's response was appropriate or responsible, so I'm going to ask him again.
I asked you what you were going to do about Bill 100. Forget it. What are you going to do about the collective agreements that are not going to be settled by August 31, so we don't have another Elgin strike, another Ottawa strike or another Carleton strike next year for our students? What are you going to do now?
Hon Mr Silipo: It is my understanding that the number of collective agreements the member is concerned about is in fact not that many in the context of the total number of collective agreements that exist throughout the province that haven't been settled. I'm not even sure I would agree with the premise of the earlier question about the comparison in the education sector with other sectors. But I certainly stand to be corrected if my information on that is not accurate.
In the normal course of negotiations, I think we need to understand that sometimes it takes longer for agreements to be reached. I've indicated that I have some concerns with respect to the time lines. That's an issue we need to address and I intend to start some discussions with representatives of teachers' federations and school boards around that issue.
TORONTO SYMPHONY
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): The thousands of patrons and volunteers connected with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra are very concerned about the deficit situation the orchestra finds itself in. I understand that as a result of the deficit they are going to have to cut back on summer programming; they are going to have to cut back on summer recording sessions --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom is your question directed?
Mr Ferguson: To the Minister of Culture and Communications. They are going to perhaps have to entertain some staff layoffs. I'm wondering if the minister could advise the House what she plans to do about this situation.
Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): As with many other members of the cultural community, the Toronto Symphony is experiencing some financial difficulty due to economic pressures we all are aware of.
I would like to point out, though, that in 1991-92, at a time when municipal and federal governments were pulling back on operating expenditures, the provincial government increased to the Ontario Arts Council, to their base, $7.5 million, which was an increase of 15%. The Ontario Arts Council is the agency of my ministry that gives funding to the Toronto Symphony.
On top of that, I would like to point out --
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. Thank you. Minister.
Hon Mrs Haslam: That was in 1991-92, for those who didn't hear me say that. The OAC is an agency of the ministry and does support the operational budget of the Toronto Symphony. Also, the ministry itself gives financial programming --
Interjection.
The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.
Hon Mrs Haslam: -- to the operations, in particular to their touring, to the value of $320,000.
Mr Ferguson: If in fact the Ontario Arts Council does not provide the assistance that's necessary, I think the people connected with the Toronto Symphony will want to know whether the minister will intervene in the matter.
Hon Mrs Haslam: The Ontario Arts Council is an agency of my ministry and as such it is an arm's-length agency. I cannot interfere and tell them who to give money to. I can't believe that the members in this House expect me to go to one of my agencies and tell them who I want to give grants to and who I don't want to give grants to. If that was the case, I wouldn't be giving grants to them.
The Speaker: New question. The member for Halton Centre.
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'd like to welcome the Minister of the Environment back from Europe, but my question is to the Minister of Health.
Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Did I understand the Minister of Culture and Communications to say that if it were a member of the opposition and she had her way, she wouldn't give him any grants? I wonder if I could have clarification on that.
Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that. I'm just saying they can't expect me --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat. Minister.
Hon Mrs Haslam: Is that a question?
The Speaker: No. The member for Quinte rose on a point of privilege. I acknowledge the minister was contributing to the point of privilege. Has she completed her statement?
Hon Mrs Haslam: No. I would never think of doing that. It's very evident in all of the grants that it's -- what I'm trying to say is that the criteria are there and they are not to expect me to interfere and say where the grants go. I cannot do that.
Mr O'Neil: Another point.
The Speaker: Another point of privilege?
Mr O'Neil: I think it's a very important point when the minister would stand up -- I think Hansard will prove out that she did say that if she had her way none of the members of the opposition would get any grants at all from the Ontario Arts Council.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. To the member for Quinte, I appreciate the matter you've raised. It is not a point of privilege. However, it certainly might be the subject matter for question period, which is where we currently are. The member for Halton Centre was recognized to have the floor.
1500
HEALTH BUDGET
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. As you know, the announcements that were made in the health mini-budget on Monday have added to people's fears that the poor, the elderly and the sick will have reduced access to medical care in Ontario. By the end of this fiscal year the minister will have chopped $832 million in existing services out of health care. There's no confidence that the impacts of those cuts have been analysed or appreciated.
Furthermore, the chops have been made unilaterally without the advice of those who would provide recommendations that would make the system work better, with more cost-effectiveness and keeping the principles of medicare intact. The minister has cut $38 million from the funding of tests performed by commercial laboratories with no apparent understanding that it is physicians who order the tests or why they may be needed.
We want to know where the advice the minister received that led to this decision came from. Did it come, by example, from the New Democratic provincial council? We know it didn't from physicians and specialists. We know it didn't come from commercial laboratories. We know it didn't come from consumer groups. We know it didn't come from any report that's being completed, because she hasn't issued the report yet. Where did the minister receive her advice? Did it come from the provincial council?
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I rarely engage in cheap shots at opposition members. I'm tempted to say the member doesn't know very much, given the comments she made. Let me go back to the statement she made, where she said we are attacking the vulnerable and the elderly. We are not. Let me go back to the statement she made that there's no confidence we can undertake these kinds of reform and restructuring and save these sorts of dollars. My experience, in travelling across this province and talking to health care partners and talking to consumers, hospital CEOs, physicians and nurses, is that in fact there's a great deal of confidence that we can undertake these kinds of reforms. So I'd ask the member to stop the rhetoric. Let's deal with the issues.
She talked about the commercial laboratory sector. In fact, there have been discussions that have taken place. The measures we are taking at this point in time are to put in place a utilization formula where tests grow beyond a certain level that could be related to the demographic growth in the community. One of the reasons we feel we are able to do that is that with the greater centralization of laboratory tests and computerization, the costs per unit test have come down. We think that at a certain point we can actually discount that. There are savings to be had there, which right now accrue to the commercial laboratories in terms of profit. We believe that profit should be saved to the taxpayers of Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.
Mrs Sullivan: No one believes you can cut $832 million out of the health care budget without having an effect on the delivery and access to services for people who are poor, who are old and who are sick.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Only CBC Metro Morning.
Mrs Sullivan: In the health care document the minister has indicated that a laboratory review "will promote the use of public health and hospital laboratories." Once again, the minister has signalled that the review will not be a thorough one and that the outcome has been prejudged, just as it was in terms of the decision made on the cutting of fees.
We want to know, however, if this is a signal put forward on the advice of the NDP provincial council, which is unaccountable and unelected, that you intend to put private sector laboratories out of business, and that ideology is once again overtaking the agenda as it did in your decision on child care. I ask the minister if she is telling the House whether commercial laboratories have a place under their government in this province.
Mr Bradley: And will we hear this on Metro Morning?
Hon Ms Lankin: Again, the member's attempt at being witty is failing miserably.
Let me say that we have a number of examples where we believe that through better management, and with respect to laboratory testing as well, we can show we are saving money right across the hospital system. Let me cite that just yesterday we released the latest reports from the Scott task force with respect to thyroid testing and guidelines for physicians around when those kinds of tests should be ordered.
A previous report that was released during the time that the Liberal government was in power and the member for Oriole was the Minister of Health had to do with tests for cholesterol. Those sorts of guidelines for physicians for when they order tests are very helpful in terms of bringing down costs of unnecessary tests. We think we can look to the hospital sector, where there are lab tests or X-rays that need to be redone, where in fact money is wasted as a result of that.
The member talks about cuts to the health care system of $800 million.
Mrs Sullivan: Are you putting the private sector labs out of business?
The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre.
Hon Ms Lankin: What we've been trying to do is accomplish a slowing down of the rate of growth of the costs of health care. It's very important that we do that in order to preserve our health care system.
Where I would agree with the member is in the very important goal, which we all share --
The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.
Hon Ms Lankin: -- of preserving medicare and of ensuring that there's an accessible system for the elderly and for the vulnerable. I am as dedicated to that as the member opposite.
ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Unfortunately I'm asking the Minister of Transportation a question. He has the reputation of being the Hans Christian Andersen of this House, but after the Minister of Health's last statement, hopefully we can get a succinct answer.
Minister, each year your ministry allocates supplementary funding to the municipal roads program. Municipalities are most concerned about knowing whether they're going to get some supplementary funds this year. Can you tell us when you're going to announce them?
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Yes, one more time, I certainly welcome the involvement. Indeed, when we're talking about supplementary allocation, money that flows from the treasury to the Ministry of Transportation and directly to address the nuts and bolts, those particulars that are not addressed elsewhere --
Mr Turnbull: When? Tell us when?
Hon Mr Pouliot: When you're asking, "Tell us when?" if you will have the decency to let me answer, I'm about to give you the answer you're seeking.
The timing couldn't be better, for I have the final application. It will allow for ample time to go through the bidding process, to follow due process. It's a matter of a day or two, and the announcements are forthcoming indeed. It's a massive allocation this year.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.
Mr Turnbull: We'd certainly like to know what "massive" means, but I don't think this assembly has enough time to listen to the answer to that.
I notice, as supplementary, that in this year's budget we're talking about a $2.3-billion program on the Jobs Ontario capital fund, with this year's allocation being $500 million. The interesting thing is, we have an existing program, the transportation capital fund, which calls for more money to be spent on transport. By the time you break down that amount of money among all the ministries, there's more money being spent on transport today.
I'd like an assurance from the minister that we're going to get at least as much spent on roads as he spent last year. We want the commitment that indeed Premier Bob Rae said: that he's going to carry through the infrastructure program and that it's not just going to be a reannouncement of a reannouncement. Where are the funds?
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'd like to commend the member opposite. Today is his lucky day indeed. He is most insightful, which is a departure from form from the conglomerate across. The member is absolutely right. He knows about the multiplicator. He knows about shovelling the ground. He knows about our intent to put people back to work. He knows about the work that needs to be done.
He's read what the Treasurer had to say in terms of being innovative to raise new forms of capital, returning the money to flow from the province to the marketplace to build bridges and maintain roads, to say nothing of our usual programs such as winter maintenance. In fact, we are more confident that out of the $500 million that will be spent this year Transportation will have one more time its rightful place under the sun. It will put women and men to work in relatively short order.
PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question for the Solicitor General. The Grandview Training School For Girls has been the subject matter of government coverup for over 20 years now. As long ago as 1968 the NDP member for Beaches-Woodbine raised his concerns about the violence and abuse that was going on at that place. The then Minister of Correctional Services, Allan Grossman, dismissed the complaints and criticized the opposition member for having the audacity to speak that way about one of the province's training centres. Since then there's been an investigation in 1976, one conducted by local police.
I appreciate that criminal investigations are finally currently taking place in view of the just incredibly horrible and violent assaults on young women -- very young women, children -- who were crown wards, who expected and had every right to expect the comfort and security of being a crown ward.
My concern, though, is about the 1976 report and the fact that it is being kept under wraps. The issue here is the issue of coverup. Why won't the Solicitor General permit the people of this province, permit those victims, those survivors, to know what happened in 1976? Who prepared that report? Who conducted the investigation? Whom was it distributed to? Why weren't charges laid then?
Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I would be only too anxious to respond to the question from the member, but the information he seeks falls under the purview of the Minister of Culture and Communications and I would ask her to respond directly to his request.
1510
Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I'd like to give a little background. It's under my ministry, Culture and Communications. In February of this year the archives located, after an extensive search, an investigation report prepared in 1976 by the Ministry of Correctional Services. After consulting with legal counsel, the Archivist of Ontario decided, under the personal information and law enforcement exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, not to release the report.
This same approach was used and followed under similar police investigations of the St Joseph's and St John's training schools, which also relied on records at the Archives of Ontario. The archivist's decision reflects the belief that the public interest is best served by allowing the current administration of justice, including present police investigations, to proceed unhindered by public disclosure in the media.
Mr Kormos: Bullfeathers. I remember asking very similar questions to the last government about St Joseph's Training School, receiving the same answers and our party not being very satisfied about the answers then. There are survivors. There are victims. We know there's a criminal investigation taking place. Hopefully criminal charges will be laid against the culpable people. We're talking about coverup here. We're not talking about the issue of criminal investigation.
Maureen Forestell, a bright young lawyer in Toronto who's been retained by these survivors pro bono -- no fee -- is struggling to obtain access to their own personal files from the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Correctional Services. She's being stonewalled.
I tell you, Mr Speaker, that sort of pat, scripted answer is no satisfaction to those young ladies, to those victims, or any other victim of sexual violence in this province. I want to know why this minister won't alleviate the stonewalling that persists even with this new government.
Hon Mrs Haslam: I am very concerned. I can understand why the member is concerned, because it does deal with very emotional issues, but I'd like to remind the member that once the police investigations are completed and the matter has been settled in the courts, which is what he said, the archivist can reconsider the original access decision, as the law enforcement exemption will no longer apply. Requesters not satisfied also have the right to immediately appeal the archivist's decision and ask for an independent review by Ontario's information and privacy commissioner.
TAXATION
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. It has to do with members of the government using taxpayers' money to, I think, deliberately misrepresent the budget. I have a copy of, I gather, a document sent out to the residents of Dovercourt by the member for Dovercourt. It says in the document, "Ontarians making $53,000 a year or more will see increases in their personal income taxes; the other 90% of Ontarians making less than $53,000 will not be affected by these changes."
The Treasurer will know that's not true. The Treasurer will know that in this year, this very year we're talking about, people making $40,000 a year, people making $25,000 a year, people making $20,000 a year, people making $10,000 a year, all of them will pay more personal income tax. The federal government gave a reduction in personal tax and then, Treasurer, as you know, you took that back, and twice as much. You tripled what the federal government had given to low-income earners in this year. The document the member for Dovercourt sent out is totally incorrect. Low-wage earners are paying more taxes this year.
Seeing as public money has been clearly used to misrepresent the budget and to mislead the people of Ontario, I would like to know from you, Treasurer, what steps you are going to take to ensure this misrepresentation is corrected by the members of your government.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I haven't seen the document to which the member refers. I would appreciate having a look at that. I would like to make a clarification, however, on exactly what the comparison of the tax rates is in 1992 and in 1993. This is putting all the changes together, not simply the personal income tax, not simply the surtax, but also building in the federal government's changes on the PIT as well, on the income taxes --
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): No, you can't do that. The federal government gave them a break, and you took it back.
Hon Mr Laughren: I didn't know that the member opposite could tell me what I could or could not do in my answer, but if you don't want me to answer the question, fine.
Mr Sorbara: Okay, so you misrepresented.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Centre, would you withdraw the remark, please?
Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I said there was a misrepresentation. That is the subject matter of the question. It is the subject matter: whether or not there was a misrepresentation of the information sent out by the Minister of Education, the member for Dovercourt. There's nothing to withdraw here.
The Speaker: What would be helpful is if the member would allow the Treasurer to complete his response, and his own colleague might have an opportunity for a supplementary.
Mr Sorbara: I would be delighted to hear what answer the Treasurer is going to give to this very important question.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would you stop the clock for a minute, please? I listened carefully. The words I heard suggested to me that there was a very strong difference of opinion. I did not hear the member saying the Treasurer had misled the House. At the same time, I must caution all members that any language which leads to disorder is out of order and unparliamentary, and further, it's very helpful to question period if members would try to use temperate language. Among other things, we may get a few extra questions in. Treasurer.
Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I shall have undying gratitude to the member for York Centre for allowing me to respond in the way I think is appropriate, and with which he will agree. It is an act of enormous generosity on his part. It was a serious question from his seatmate, unlike his interjections.
In 1992 the changes in the tax system were as follows -- I don't know whether the member opposite was thinking of married or single, because it does change the equation a bit: for a single person earning $10,000 a year, unthinkable but nevertheless, the net change in taxes would be a $5 increase for the year; at $20,000, a $20 increase; at $25,000, $30; and so --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Laughren: I will try to answer what I think was a serious question. If the members don't want to hear the answer, that's fine; I don't have to give it.
For a one-earner married couple with two children, for $20,000, $5 less in taxes for 1992; at $25,000, $95 less; at $30,000, $30 more; at $40,000, $55 more.
When you move into 1993, which --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Laughren: I don't know why you are being so wrangy today and won't let me answer a very straightforward question with a straightforward answer.
For 1993, which is the real year in which the federal and provincial combination of taxes takes place, for a single person everyone up to $50,000 would have an increase in tax; for a one-earner married couple with two children, at $20,000, $25 less; at $25,000, $95 less; between $30,000 and $60,000, no change whatsoever; and above $60,000, $50 more, and so the scale goes up after that.
I think the member opposite should at least allow me to paint the entire picture before he starts trying to shout down my answers.
The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.
1520
NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The question I asked was clearly that the householder misrepresented. I am unsatisfied, Mr Speaker, with the response. I would request -- and later you will get it in writing, which I gather is what you require -- an opportunity for what I gather we call the "late show" here, an opportunity to explore the answer in more detail at the end of one of our sittings.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Indeed, the member has a point of order, and perhaps he would file the necessary document with the table.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As one of the obligations of House leaders in this place, it is necessary for us from time to time to consider seating arrangements of the members of this forum.
We were greeted this morning, on seeing the newspaper reports of meetings of the caucus of the government party, that there was tremendous breakup. Prior to there being some difficulty in being able to sit in their current positions, I am wondering if you could tell us whether independent members of the New Democratic Party caucus would have to sit in the far corner of the House together or if they would be allowed to intersperse themselves, as they currently are, when they vote against the government on the Sunday shopping bill. It's necessary for seating arrangements in the House, sir.
The Speaker: The Speaker has many duties, but I'm not sure that one of them is rearranging the furniture. I do appreciate the point you have brought to my attention.
PETITIONS
LABOUR LEGISLATION
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition today signed by 26 employees of the Graham Fiber Glass Ltd company in Erin in my riding. The petition reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent, empirical studies of the impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario, signed by 34 residents of the county of Middlesex in the city of London:
"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;
"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;
"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:
"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."
I have signed it as required.
FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have about 10,000 signatures from the greater Hamilton-Wentworth area as part of the now about 125,000 signatures on the petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;
"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;
"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;
"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;
"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."
That, as I say, is about 10,000 for today, and it has my signature of support.
NOISE POLLUTION
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition here signed by approximately 172 members from the riding of Wentworth North. It reads:
"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, Canada:
"Whereas over the past four years the residents of the town of Ancaster and nearby communities have experienced serious noise pollution from airplanes flying over their residences or workplaces, said airplanes having taken off from or being about to land at the airport in Mount Hope, Ontario; and
"Whereas the said noise pollution has often been disruptive, causing loss of sleep and contributing to ill health and reduced ability to enjoy real property and to function as human beings in home and work environments; and
"Whereas the town of Ancaster, the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and the government of Canada, despite being asked repeatedly, have all failed to take action to protect the abovementioned residents from the deplorable and avoidable noise pollution;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, Canada, as follows:
"To take whatever specific action is necessary, including but not limited to undertaking a full environmental impact study on the Mount Hope airport to ensure that the abovementioned residents are not subjected to the said noise pollution at night or at any other times."
RENT REGULATION
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition regarding the Rent Control Act, Bill 121:
"The proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out necessary major repairs to residential rental buildings;
"This bill, if enacted, will result in the private sector being unable to build new residential rental housing, with an ensuing loss of tens of thousands of jobs;
"This bill will ensure that the non-profit housing sector will be the only builder of new residential rental units, at enormous cost to the Ontario taxpayers;
"This law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and
"The rent-freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;
"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:
"To cancel the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed and the role of the private sector in the construction of new rental housing."
I affix my signature thereto as well.
REVENUE FROM GAMING
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 160 signatures. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and
"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;
"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."
RENT REGULATION
Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have two pages of petitions signed by the residents, the tenants, at 770 Hager Avenue in Burlington. These tenants have said:
"To the Legislature of Ontario:
"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and
"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and
"Whereas the rent-freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;
"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:
"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."
I have signed the petition.
1530
FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by over 2,400 Ontarians.
"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;
"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;
"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;
"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,
"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's fourth report.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS' LICENSING ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES PERMIS D'UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR
Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators / Loi prévoyant la délivrance de permis aux utilisateurs de bateaux à moteur.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just have a brief explanatory note. The bill, which applies only in respect of motor boats propelled by engines of at least 25 horsepower, prohibits the operation of such a motor boat by any person who does not have a motor boat operator's licence.
The bill requires every person to carry a motor boat operator's licence while operating a motor boat to which the bill applies, and to produce it when requested to do so by a police officer. If unable or unwilling to produce the licence, the motor boat operator is required to give the police officer his or her name and address.
The bill creates the offences of careless operation of a motor boat and impaired operation of a motor boat. A person who contravenes any of the provisions of the bill or certain regulations made under the bill is liable to pay a fine not exceeding $1,000 and in some cases to have his or her motor boat operator's licence suspended or revoked.
LEAD ACID BATTERIES RECYCLING ACT, 1992
Mrs Sullivan moved first reading of Bill 18, An Act to require the Recycling of Lead Acid Batteries.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Some members of the House may recall that this bill was presented to the House in the last session. It was considered in members' debate as Bill 26, received second reading and died on the order paper.
It's a bill that requires the recycling of lead acid batteries and the involvement of the manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers and consumers in the full-cycle process. It has the support of retailers and the international battery council and is in effect in many other jurisdictions. I believe it is a bill of some importance and I would like to have it presented again.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL
Mr Johnson, on behalf of Ms Wark-Martyn, moved third reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As the Revenue critic for the official opposition, I rise today to begin the debate and the discussion on third reading of Bill 130, which is the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act of 1991. I would like to take a few minutes to explain to people in this House who are here today for this debate, as well as those who may be watching on the parliamentary channel, what this piece of legislation is about; also, if I could, to share my concerns and, as is my responsibility as critic, to appropriately and properly criticize from a number of different perspectives.
The first perspective from which I believe criticism is warranted is the overall policy that this legislation represents, and as well during the debate, as I have on other issues, I will be offering constructive alternatives and advice to the government. I will hopefully, during my debate on this piece of legislation, be able to hold them accountable by making sure that anyone who is watching this debate fully understands the implications of this legislation so that he too can question the government's policy -- tax policy, fiscal policy, economic policy -- which I think is fundamentally flawed.
The issue of Bill 130 implements the NDP's budget policy of extending a gas guzzler tax on new automobiles. This was originally announced in the first budget of Treasurer Laughren, the first budget of the NDP government in April 1991. It is still before this House today because it represents such a misguided fiscal policy that I believe the prolonged debate is an opportunity to alert the public to what we believe is in fact damaging to the automobile sector of our economy and our society.
This tax -- that's what it is; it is a revenue bill, it is a tax -- has been called by some the tax on auto workers.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Who would have said that?
Mrs Caplan: That phrase was coined by my colleague the member for St Catharines, who has the major General Motors facility in his riding. On numerous occasions, as he referred to this as the tax on auto workers, he explained what this would mean to General Motors, to the workers in the automobile industry who were going to be impacted because of this so-called gas guzzler tax on auto workers, Bill 130.
1540
This piece of legislation levies additional taxes on the purchasers of new cars. We are all aware of the state of the Ontario economy. We know that we are hopefully at the end of the worst recession in the province's history in many years, since the days of the 1930s and the Depression.
I have said on occasion in this House that I believe the recession has been prolonged by the misguided economic and fiscal policies ideologically driven by the New Democrats, and this is probably the best example of the kind of initiative that has slowed the recovery unnecessarily for the people of this province and has hit an industry that is fundamental to the economic prosperity, the creation of wealth and the overall economic health of this province.
As Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, has so often said, this tax on auto workers is killing jobs. We know what's happening with General Motors; we know what's happening within the auto industry and what Mr Bradley proposed and what I support and would like to suggest today as an alternative to this tax. There's still time. This bill has only been put before us today for third reading. The government could still withdraw this bill and it could replace it with an incentive for the public to purchase new cars.
There are many precedents for this. It would not only stimulate the economy and the auto industry and protect jobs, but also have the additional benefit of removing from the roads environmentally unsafe, older clunkers, gas guzzlers. If you really wanted an environmental bill that was going to resolve the issue of emissions and inappropriate gas use through inefficient engines, surely to goodness this government would understand that it could do that by replacing those old cars with unsafe emission standards, those old cars with inefficient engines. By doing that it would increase the revenues that would have been produced by this piece of legislation through increases in its retail sales tax, because retail sales tax is levied on those automobiles already.
This tax on tax, this additional tax on the purchase of new cars is a message to the consumers of this province and it's the wrong message. At a time when we want to instil consumer confidence, when we want to say to consumers that now would be a good time to buy a new car because that would be good for the economy of Ontario, that would stimulate economic growth, that would help with wealth creation, that would help to lead us out of the recession we are suffering from, this legislation which we are discussing today in third reading sends exactly the wrong message.
Under this legislation which was a part of that budget of 1991 revenue has been collected already by the Ministry of Revenue since the budget that announced this initiative. Over the course of the last year when we were all hoping we would see an economic recovery, which we didn't see, when we were hoping that with consumer confidence we would be seeing an economic recovery occur in this province faster and stronger than any of the predictions at the time were suggesting, this legislation, the dollars that were collected from the consumers who purchased new cars over the past year and the number of people who did not purchase new cars because of the additional tax, because of the additional cost, because of their concerns about the lagging recession, has ended up costing this province jobs.
We have not seen the kind of thoughtful presentation from the Minister of Revenue or the parliamentary assistant which would in any way justify this kind of legislation at this time. We know there is a very big difference between the way this piece of legislation is being introduced and implemented and what was originally contemplated by the first tax of this kind, which was implemented during the time of the government I served in. I'd like to explain the significant difference in policy.
It's important to note that the Liberal gas guzzler tax was only targeted to the minority of cars with the highest fuel inefficiency. That's very important to note. It was primarily designed to exact a premium from, and discourage, those luxury purchases and foreign-made automobiles such as Rolls Royces, Ferraris and cars of that nature. That is a very different kind of initiative. In fact, I would argue that policy was good for the car industry in Ontario, because it was designed to discourage the purchase of foreign luxury cars, fuel-inefficient cars, and encourage the purchase of Ontario-made, North American-built cars. That was the policy at that time.
This change is very significant, because the other difference between the tax that was instituted during the time of the Liberal government and this tax is that our tax was not a major source of government revenue. It produced minimal amounts of money. It was designed primarily as a policy initiative that would encourage the purchasing of Ontario-made and Ontario-built cars. It was designed to send a signal out to those people who were purchasing foreign-made luxury cars. I believe it was a very significant and successful policy initiative. It was not designed as a tax grab. Bill 130, this bill, is a tax grab, clear and simple, and I'll show you the difference.
This tax says that for cars whose litres per 100 kilometres average between 8.5 and 8.9 litres, the tax is an additional $200. That proceeds gradually through 9 to 9.4 litres at $700; 9.5 to 12 litres, $1,200; 15.1 to 18 litres, $4,400, and over 18 litres, $7,000. Under the original NDP budget plan, the tax rate was doubled and the tax was extended to cover vehicles with consumption rates down to 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres. The tax was also extended to include sport and utility vehicles.
This tax hike had been denounced by management and unions alike, including Bob White and Ken Harrigan. We all know who Bob White is; he's the head of the Canadian Auto Workers. Ken Harrigan is the president of Ford. It was also denounced by the head of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. The tax was criticized as being unfair because it penalized sport and utility vehicles often used by families which have no other choice of vehicles, and that is particularly large families driving mini-vans and northerners and farmers using their trucks and off-road vehicles.
This NDP tax on auto workers captured many vehicles built or partially built in Ontario, including the Chrysler Magic Wagon, with its automatic transmission, several Ford products, including engine plants in Windsor and St Thomas, the Chevrolet Lumina, the Buick Regal, built in Oshawa, as well as the Suzuki Sidekick. It is now basically extended to all full-size vehicles, including four-wheel-drive trucks.
1550
General Motors has estimated that the original budget version of the NDP gas guzzler increases would hit 21 of its car models and as many as 32 of its sport utility vehicles, such as four-wheel-drives. Ford estimated it would have 15 models affected. Chrysler, although it said there were fewer of its models affected, was also very concerned about the policy of NDP Bill 130.
According to the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association, an additional 202 vehicles would have been hit by the budget announcement of the NDP automotive tax. The budget version of the gas guzzler resulted in Ford reconsidering plans to relocate production of its Bronte line to Oakville. Ford estimated that the tax would have cost it $50 million and 3,000 lost vehicle sales of its 1992 models.
Even the environmental groups agreed that the tax-only approach is not necessarily the most effective way of helping the environment. Friends of the Earth said that a better program would be to also offer tax rebates to purchasers of fuel-efficient vehicles; exactly the proposal that was put forward by Mr Bradley, former Minister of the Environment, who understands the opportunities that are possible when you look at encouraging economic development and protecting the environment at the same time.
The idea of a tax rebate to encourage the trade-in of fuel-inefficient or environmentally unsafe older cars is not a new concept. It's not something of which Ontario would have even been able to say, "This is leading edge, new policy, ground-breaking ideas." The state of California has had that kind of policy in place and it is working. The NDP government in Ontario could have achieved two policy objectives rather than simply raising revenues and having the potential I've just outlined in my remarks of having such a negative and serious impact on a fundamental industry in Ontario.
When we look at some of those projects that have been piloted in the United States, what we find is there are what they call scrap-car programs to encourage owners of older vehicles to turn them in for scrap purposes, allow those old cars to be recycled and reused so that we could reduce the emissions. Where have we heard that before: Recycle, reduce and reuse? We've heard that from the Minister of the Environment of the NDP government. We've heard that from Mr Bradley.
Yet, this Bill 130, this policy of the New Democratic government, flies in the face of those environmental goals, because this bill will not cause older vehicles to be scrapped. This bill will not encourage trade-in. This bill will not encourage people to go out and purchase fuel-efficient, energy-efficient and environmentally sound new cars. This legislation discourages that. That shows how misguided Bill 130 is.
The Liberal official opposition has raised concerns about Bill 130 and this new tax on numerous occasions over the course of the past year. We were particularly concerned with the original proposal that was in the budget. As a result of our appropriate action, our appropriate criticism and our appropriate questioning, the Treasurer, under real pressure, re-examined his proposal. He finally held a series of consultations.
I believe some of the problems they had originally with that first budget were a result of inexperience. We said so at the time. It was a government that didn't expect to be elected, that didn't know how to govern. But this is almost two years later and we still see proposals that are left out, that were drafted at a time when the government was inexperienced and didn't understand. You would think that now, after having time to reconsider, this government would realize you can withdraw those misguided proposals. You don't have to follow through. The public wants you to do what's in the public interest. The public wants you to reconsider.
We heard today a debate in the Legislature during question period where everyone was saying, "Look, rethink your position on Sunday shopping, just as you rethought your position on other public policy matters." So during this debate on Bill 130, I'm saying to the government, rethink your position on this gas guzzler tax. Rethink your position, because this is not going to achieve the policy objectives that are in the public interest in Ontario.
Even though the Treasurer went back and made some initial adjustments to his original proposal, I don't think the changes have been good enough. We know there were a number of consultations that went on. As a result, the Treasurer introduced changes to his budget, to the gas tax, and the minister introduced Bill 130 to implement the new policies. The basic effect of the changes was to lower the rate of the tax for many vehicles, but to extend its range to a wider range of vehicles; again totally contrary to the kind of message you want if what you're really looking for is an environmentally friendly tax, totally contrary to what you really want if you want to encourage new car purchases in the province.
The changes in this tax have changed from being targeted to only the worst gas guzzling vehicles to covering most vehicles. With this piece of legislation, Bill 130, you now no longer have a gas guzzler tax at all. The previous policy of the former government has been sent to a landfill dump, probably soon to be established in the member's riding. I see him smiling opposite.
1600
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): We can always give you another ski hill, Elinor.
Mrs Caplan: Yes, we're going to see.
In all seriousness, and this is a very serious debate, Bill 130 is not at all what it was purported to be. It is not a gas guzzler tax. It is, as Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, has said so eloquently on numerous occasions, a tax on auto workers, a tax on the auto industry, a deterrent to car sales in Ontario, a deterrent to economic recovery in Ontario. I believe it is the wrong signal at this particular time to consumers and industry alike.
The revised Bill 130, this NDP proposal, has changed from an environmentally based deterrent to a broad tax grab. That's what this is. The Treasurer, I'm sorry to say, refused to answer questions about how the latest extension of this tax to include 99% of all vehicles would deter people from purchasing fuel-inefficient cars. Do you know -- well, I know you know, Mr Speaker, why he didn't answer those questions. He couldn't answer those questions because Bill 130 is not a deterrent not to purchase. That's a double negative. Bill 130 is not going to deter the purchase of fuel-inefficient cars. Bill 130 is going to deter the purchase of any car in Ontario. It's that simple.
I say for the members of the government caucus opposite, many of whom have auto parts industries in their ridings, many of whom have the spinoff industries of the auto sector which is such an important component of the Ontario economy, that this legislation, Bill 130, is not a deterrent to the purchase of energy-inefficient cars. This is not an environmental bill; this is a deterrent to the purchase of cars. It is an economic deterrent. It is a deterrent to the consumer, who we all wish at this time would help lead us out of this recession with renewed confidence. The purchase of automobiles made in Ontario would be very significant in assisting our economy through this difficult recession.
I mentioned Bob White before. Do you know what he had to say about Bill 130? He said this is a more uniform tax. He said it's much less damaging to the bottom line of the industry in terms of how it would skew the sales of certain models -- not exactly a rousing endorsement; in fact, an acknowledgement from a union leader as to what this really is and also, I believe, a statement that points out how misguided the policy of the NDP government is and was in understanding the fundamental importance of the automobile industry to Ontario.
The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers had this to say: "As the tax stands now, it will damage the automobile industry at a time when it's just beginning to recover from the recession." Do you know who said that? Donald McArthur, Canadian president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. "As the tax stands now, it" -- this Bill 130 -- "will damage the automobile industry at a time when it's just beginning to recover from the recession."
Hello? Is anybody listening over there?
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): We don't want to listen to you.
Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, I appeal to you. This is a very important debate on Bill 130 and yet the member for Yorkview, who is not sitting in his seat, interjects, which I know is unparliamentary. I ask that you call him to order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Oriole has the floor. If indeed you wish to participate in this debate, the third reading on Bill 130, you will have the opportunity. In the meantime please allow the honourable member for Oriole the decency of listening.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On that point of order, Mr Speaker -- not on a point of order but on the member for Oriole's point of order: She sat down. She appealed to you as a matter of process because she --
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that was an unfair comment from the member for Oriole, because in fact we were listening to what she had to say. We always find it intriguing and interesting how she can manipulate --
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. That is a point of view; it's not a point of order.
Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The only thing missing here is the fact that she's not stomping her feet. Is this what she did when she was a child when her mother didn't listen to her or didn't give her the time of day?
The Acting Speaker: Order. This place is degenerating. We are participating in third reading of Bill 130, a budget bill, a very important bill. The honourable member for Oriole, please proceed.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: According to the rules of this House, if you look through the rules, you will find that the member for Oriole was standing in her place participating in the debate. The member for Oriole then proceeded, without any interjections from you whatsoever, to sit down and take her seat in this place after having levelled some accusations at the government members in this House. We were listening attentively.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you.
Mr Perruzza: According to the standing rules of the House, Mr Speaker, and I refer this to you, the minute she gave up her place --
The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Oriole has the floor. Please proceed.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been listening very patiently to the points of order by the government side and I think more of us should hear them. I don't think there's a quorum present to hear the points of order.
The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check for a quorum?
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
1608
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Oriole.
Mrs Caplan: I've been in this Legislature now since 1985. With the display of the member for Downsview and the member for Yorkview --
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I referred a point of order to you. The member for Oriole -- and I refer you to the standing rules of this assembly -- was participating in the debate. She sat down of her own accord without any interjection from you whatsoever. At that point, at that minute she gave up the floor of the House. I ask you to rule on that order.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The ruling from the Chair is the following: The honourable member for Oriole asked the Chair to try and bring order. The Chair did. I recognized some people on points of order. I did not ask for further debate. Therefore, the honourable member for Oriole still has the floor. Please proceed.
Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm watching the behaviour of the members of the government caucus. I know why the people of this province are so disturbed and distressed and why the nickname of the Clampetts seems to apply so well.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are not debating any matters of conduct with the opposition or with the government members; we are debating a very specific issue today. I think that member needs to speak to that particular issue and not to any other matter. I would ask you to interject if that happens.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate the advice. The honourable member for Oriole, please, and it is Bill 130.
Mrs Caplan: I appreciate your interjections to call order in this House and to draw the attention of members of the government caucus to what I believe is a very important debate. We have a piece of legislation before us, Bill 130, which is sending out the wrong message to the consumers of this province. This is the tax on auto workers. This is a broad-based tax on cars, new-car purchases here in Ontario.
I would like to continue. I've already told you what union leadership has to say about this, and I've told you what the president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers has had to say. He said how it would damage the automobile industry at a time when it's just beginning to recover from the recession. Nick Hall of General Motors said that the company "continues to have serious reservations" about this tax, about Bill 130. We know what actions General Motors has taken since this bill was tabled in 1991 for first reading by the Minister of Revenue.
The point I want to make to the members of the government caucus who are here, the point I want to make to the members of cabinet who are here and the point I would like to make to those people who are drafting and crafting policy decisions which are sending out the wrong message to individuals and businesses and investors who will be making investment decisions today and have made investment decisions over the past few months since Bill 130 was first tabled is this: What you want is a message to them that says Ontario is a good place to invest, that Ontario will be recovering from this recession, and that their investment here will return profit to the company, which will create jobs for Ontarians, will help create wealth and will stimulate economic growth. You want a message that says the government of Ontario believes that's a good thing, that the government of Ontario wants capital invested in Ontario, wants business to say Ontario is a good place to do business and wants the consumers in Ontario to have incentives to purchase Ontario-made goods and Ontario-made services.
Those are the messages the NDP government should be sending out, but that's not the message Bill 130 sends out. Bill 130 does not send out a message that Ontario is a good place to invest. It's a concern because the message to the purchasers of new automobiles in Ontario as a result of Bill 130 is that they are going to have to pay more for that car than they would have without Bill 130. Bill 130, which has been disguised as a gas-guzzler, environmentally friendly tax, is nothing of the sort.
We've heard from those who would advise the government that Bill 130 is hurtful to the Ontario economy, is hurtful to the automotive industry. As I said, there is still time for this bill to be withdrawn. I could speak at length. I think there are a number of questions that could continue to be asked about this legislation. It's quite a technical piece of legislation. I appreciate the very fine briefing material from the Ministry of Revenue so that I could fully explain this tax to the people of the province during third reading.
Attached to the piece of legislation there's a table available that tells you exactly what each car is going to have to pay in addition because of this tax, and it is very extensive. I'm counting the pages, one, two, three, four, five, six pages, closely typed with the names of all the different cars, many of which are manufactured here in the province of Ontario.
Chevrolet, Chrysler, Buick, Dodge, the Eagle, many Ford cars, just to name a few: These are not fancy luxury cars. The Ford Tempo, the Taurus, the Ford Probe, the Fiesta, the Mustang, the Escort: These are cars that average Ontarians drive. These cars could, if they were purchased today, replace old energy-inefficient, environmentally unsafe cars. The Hyundai, the Isuzu, the Honda -- under the listing for Honda there's the Accord, the Civic, the Prelude -- and it goes on, Nissan, Oldsmobile, Optima, Pontiac.
I'm just naming a few. I'm not going to name them all because I could be here till 6 o'clock just reading out this table and that's not my intention. What I'm attempting to point out is that this tax does not affect just the big luxury cars; this tax affects all the cars in Ontario, many of which are built here in Ontario. Many of those cars built here provide not only jobs for workers in the auto industry, but for people in the service industry and the auto parts industry.
To understand the implications of this kind of policy decision is something I believe we have an opportunity during Bill 130 to fully comprehend. I suggest to the members of the New Democratic Party who are here during this debate today that they read the excellent briefing material from the Ministry of Revenue, that they consider this policy put forward in the budget of a year ago, and that they realize there is an opportunity to lobby the Treasurer to change that policy. Hopefully the debate on 130 will continue for sufficient time that the members of the government caucus, who have been so vocal of late on other policy issues --
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): We have been at it for a year now.
Mrs Caplan: I see the member for Sault Ste Marie, who is not in his seat, Mr Speaker, but is interjecting, contrary to the rules of this House. He's been very vocal in his caucus on the issue of Sunday shopping. Mr Martin, member for Sault Ste Marie, you have an obligation and a responsibility to your constituents to point out why Bill 130 is not in their interests. Bill 130 will deter car sales. Bill 130 could be and is, in my opinion, damaging to the automotive industry which is recovering, just coming out of the recession.
We know that notwithstanding the policies of this NDP government this province will recover. But I want to leave you all with this message: You could bring forward policies which would see that when we recover, when the economic cycle comes around, Ontario's recovery is strong, solid and secure. You can do that through the policies of your government. You can determine whether the recovery will be strong or weak, slow and sluggish or secure.
1620
You have the power to influence consumer confidence. You have the power to influence business confidence. You have the power to influence investor confidence. That's what governing is about. You have that opportunity to see to it that our recovery from this recession is strong and secure, and I would suggest as I conclude my remarks that Bill 130 is not the kind of initiative which will assist in the economic recovery. Bill 130 is not the kind of tax which will instil confidence in the consumers and encourage them to purchase new cars. Bill 130 is not the kind of legislation that will say to the automotive industry, "Ontario understands your problems and is trying to assist and to facilitate the purchase of new cars."
I will be voting against Bill 130 and I would ask the members of the government caucus who are here to see what they can do during this short debate to influence the Treasurer and the government to see if perhaps he would reconsider and withdraw Bill 130.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?
Mr Tilson: I have listened to the comments made by the member for Oriole and I must say I found some of her comments interesting, particularly when it was the Liberal government's bright idea to think up this whole concept of the gas guzzler tax. Our party opposed it then and we continue to oppose it now. I will say, however, that certainly the current government, before us now, has gone further than even the Liberals dreamed of, and as the member for Oriole has well stated, it will indeed tax almost all, if not all, the automobiles on our roads today.
This tax, as the member for Oriole has stated, will have a major effect on our auto industry, which is one of the major cornerstones of our economy. We've had dealers telling us they're going bankrupt. We've had suppliers who are going bankrupt. We've had almost all the major automobile manufacturers around this province tell us how they're going to have major losses and have had major losses.
As a result of that, more people are out of work, more people are being put on unemployment, more people are going on welfare, more people are going to require job training, all of which will be the responsibility of the same taxpayer whom this government is trying to tax -- and it's a tax. As someone on the opposite side, said, "It's a tax, it's a tax, it's a tax, no matter how you look at it."
It has nothing to do with the environment, which was originally the concept the Liberal government put forward, and I suppose it could be compared to its original tire tax, from which I don't believe one dime has gone into the environment, and not one dime of this tax is going into the environment. It's simply a tax grab to deal with the problems of a very desperate government in trying to fund the very expensive policies that it has put forward.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?
Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to respond very briefly to the member for Oriole. As I said the other day, it's very difficult to talk to any tax bill whatsoever, to any tax measure.
I think if you asked any member of the House, whether on the opposition benches or on the government benches, you'd find that on a personal level everyone would agree that taxes are a very difficult thing and the least amount of tax and the fewer the taxes you place on your constituents and ratepayers right across the province the better off everyone will be. But obviously you have to live within certain fiscal realities and sometimes you have to look at the tax side of the equation and do some things on the tax side so that you can make this province and, quite frankly, this country a better place to live.
I'd like to pick up on a point she talked about when she talked about influencing consumer confidence. The opposition members probably have more influence on consumer confidence than any government has ever had or will ever have, either in this province or in this country, because every time they undermine what the government tries to do in its fiscal statements and through legislation, when you undermine those policies through untruths and scare tactics, that scares people, that scares off consumer confidence.
I would point out to the member that through our budget we didn't increase taxes to middle-income earners, to working people in the province. Substantial amounts of money were invested in job training to make our businesses more viable and we reduced business taxes. If that doesn't inspire confidence, then nothing will.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I want to congratulate our Revenue critic. I think she put forward some very thoughtful and constructive arguments against this particular tax on auto workers in the province. But I want to point out that when the members opposite, in responding to her comments, talk about confidence in the consumer sector, the section 3 notes in this bill give perhaps an inkling of hope that the government might, you would think when you read it, understand that the way to give incentive is to put money back in people's pockets.
It says, "This enactment implements the Treasurer's proposal to provide a tax credit of $100 on the purchase of a new vehicle having a highway fuel consumption rating of less than 6.0 litres per 100 kilometres." The interesting thing about that is that is indeed an admission of the financial policies that we on this side of the House have been talking about; that is, the way to actually spur the economy is to give people a tax break, yet it doesn't go nearly far enough.
They're talking about buying a product that's going to cost $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000, and they're talking about $100 off the tax that they're adding on top. So here's the logic: They tax more with a gas guzzler tax and then claw back $100 out of the entire tax bill on potentially a $25,000 or $30,000 expenditure. That's supposedly going to create confidence or give incentive to people to buy a new car.
You can understand why we have difficulty trying to find some positive things to say about your economic policies when it's clear that somebody in the Treasurer's office had an inkling but the Treasurer didn't understand it and clearly your government doesn't understand it. I think our member spoke very eloquently against this bill.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We can accommodate one final participant.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I'm an auto worker. I worked in St Catharines. I heard the comments from the member for Oriole. I'm very concerned. But I think the direction this government has taken is the point that if there's an alternative fuel of propane or natural gas, there is no gas guzzler tax on that. Not only that, we wind up with a sales tax of up to $800 back with an alternative fuel. I think these initiatives this government's taking are actually putting money back in the pockets of taxpayers and car purchasers here in Ontario.
Not only that, if people take a look at the price of propane and the price of natural gas, it's quite a savings. The thing is that this is a gas guzzler tax, so it'll make a direction that the car companies will start coming around to the point of producing vehicles that will be cheaper for the consumer to purchase, so this is a very important part of this gas guzzler tax.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oriole has two minutes in response.
Mrs Caplan: I'd like to quote Mr George Peapples, president of General Motors. This was March 1992, just this past March. He said, "Given the current economic conditions, it is difficult to understand why anyone would advocate higher taxes on the sale of new vehicles." He goes on to say that these proposals "will do little to promote fuel conservation or improve the environment."
My constituents in the riding of Oriole have real concerns about the provincial economy. They want jobs. Many of them depend on the automobile industry for their livelihood. Others, through the auto parts industry or jobs related to the automobile industry, serve my constituents in the riding of Oriole in a number of different ways. They drive cars. They purchase cars when they can afford to. When they are feeling secure and confident, my constituents are the kind of people who would help to restore the economic prosperity in this province, if they had the kind of incentive and the kind of policy coming from this government that would encourage them to do so.
1630
I think my constituents in the riding of Oriole realize, as Mr Peapples realizes, that this tax is misguided, that it will not do what the Treasurer has said it will do, that it will dampen the economy and the recovery from the recession. I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, as the representative since 1985 of the people of the riding of Oriole, that this tax is the wrong tax on the wrong product at the wrong time by a government that simply doesn't understand the need to stimulate the economy and encourage the automotive industry in the province of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 130?
Mr Tilson: It's a pleasure to speak today on the final reading of Bill 130, which is the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act of 1991. I'm certain we're all aware that this bill has come a long way since it was first discussed in the 1991 budget, which, at that time, called for the doubling of the current rates of tax on vehicles subject to the tax. In other words, it was a more restrictive type of tax to fewer vehicles. Second, it was the inclusion in the tax base of passenger vehicles with fuel consumption ratings of between 8.5 to 9.4 litres. They were subject to a tax of $200, as well as $700 on nine to 9.4 litres, as well as the sports utility vehicles.
These measures were to come into effect on July 1, 1991. There was considerable opposition from all areas of the community: the automobile manufacturers, the auto workers' union, the car dealers and a few environmental groups. The government did change its position. On June 24, 1991, the minister announced that the gas guzzler tax was to be revamped, and it was. It was revamped to cover, as the member for Oriole has stated, almost all automobiles that are manufactured in this province. For purposes of those listening, I'm going to briefly summarize, so that we have an idea of what Bill 130 is going to do. Then I will comment on some of those provisions.
It essentially doubles the tax rate on most fuel-inefficient cars, those with fuel consumption ratings of 9.5 litres per 100 kilometres or worse. The tax on vehicles in this category will now range from $1,200 to $7,000. That is up from the previous rate of $600 to $3,500. As has been stated earlier in the debate, that's essentially doubling the tax rate.
There will be a creation of a new classification for new passenger vehicles with fuel economy ratings between six and 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres that will be subject to a $75 tax. There will be the imposition of a tax of $250 on new passenger cars with fuel economy ratings between nine and 9.4 litres per 100 kilometres.
As has been indicated, there will be the inclusion of sports utility vehicles, including leased vehicles, with fuel economy ratings of eight litres per 100 kilometres or worse in the tax base. These vehicles will be subject to a tax ranging from $75 to $3,200, depending on their fuel economy rating.
Finally, as one of the members of the official opposition indicated, there will be the creation of a tax rebate of $100, repayable to purchasers of new passenger cars, including lessees, with fuel economy ratings of less than six litres per 100 kilometres, to be credited to a purchaser as a deduction from the tax. These measures have already come into effect. We are debating on measures that already came into effect last August.
The whole concept of this tax, at least as we've been led to believe by the government, was as a fuel conservation tax, and it's a tax on new vehicles. Almost all new vehicles that are being constructed in this province today are being constructed with the idea of conserving fuel. Nothing has been mentioned as to what the government is going to do with the older vehicles, the vehicles that are causing pollution and are burning more energy, more gas. No policies are being put forward with respect to those vehicles, so we're taxing the very vehicles that the automobile manufacturers intend to construct to solve many of our environmental problems.
In response to the government's changing its position from its 1991 budget to the ministerial statement in June 1991, there was an editorial in the Oshawa Times commenting on this, which stated:
"They couldn't get it right the first time, so they got it not quite so wrong the second time, and we're supposed to be happy about it. Ontario Treasurer Floyd Laughren took back a tax designed to encourage sales of Oshawa-built Buick Regals and Chevrolet Luminas and replaced it with a tax that will discourage sales of all domestically made cars and encourage sales of a few transplant models."
I think that's the whole issue. The automobile industry is, as I've indicated before, one of the major cornerstones of our whole economy, and it concerns me when, every day, we read in the newspapers of people who are losing their jobs or people who have been warned that they're going to lose their jobs and that they should start retraining in other areas, all of which is at the expense of the very taxpayer that this tax is being put on. It does concern me the number of people who are being laid off, the number of dealerships that are closing. Why would you buy a new car? It has nothing to do with the environment; it's a question as to whether or not you can afford a car.
The North Bay Nugget, after the June ministerial statement, talked about the new tax and rebate scheme, and it said:
"The only signal it sends us is that the consumer will pay more for a new car. It's another tax, added with all the other taxes, and nothing more. At this rate, some day the taxes on a vehicle will be more than the cost of manufacturing."
Probably that statement goes a little far, but it does express the concern of many of us as to the cost of a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle, because of the size of this great province, has become a necessity. Whether you come from the north, the east or the west, almost all of us have to have a motor vehicle. Almost all of us require it, not only for pleasure but, more important, for making a living, for working. Almost all of us need the motor vehicle, and yet the cost of all new motor vehicles with this tax is going to be made higher to purchase. So it starts hitting all of us, not for environmental reasons but simply to raise the overall tax.
Further comment on the ministerial statement that has resulted in Bill 130 came from the St Catharines Standard in an editorial on June 26, and this is where the expression came from. I think the member for London South said, "A tax is a tax is a tax," and that's all it is. It has nothing to do with the environment; it's simply a way of raising money. The editorial said, "A tax is a tax is a tax," and what was a regressive tax on Ontario's troubled auto industry remains a regressive tax but is spread over a wider range of vehicles than was originally proposed, and the main victim is still our own industry.
1640
That's what we're looking at. Surely when you implement a tax such as this you look at the overall problems it's causing the auto industry. This tax hasn't caused all the problems of the auto industry, but it certainly has added to them. You have to look at all of these things. You have to look at why people aren't buying new cars. Why are they taking a longer period of time to buy new cars? Why are they making do with the old gas guzzlers? Why are they making their cars last longer? The reason is that they can't afford the new automobiles, and that, of course, is what this tax is designed to do: tax the new automobiles.
This government, as I have indicated, like the Liberal government before it, peddles this tax as an environmental issue. There is no provision in this bill about what it's going to do to the environmental programs with the proceeds of this tax. It's no better than the tire tax. Remember the tire tax? All of us seem to forget that. We do have a tire tax and that has simply been the same type of tax as this: to raise money for a very financially troubled government.
This clearly has been an environmental issue. That's what the government has said as to why it put forward this bill. Why in the world would you tax the newer cars that are trying to deal with the environmental issue? They are trying to develop an automobile that will guzzle less fuel, to use the words of the Treasurer, and cause fewer environmental problems. Why are you taxing the very people who are trying to deal with this problem? Why are you making it more difficult?
When you realize the number of industries -- the automobile industry, the dealerships, the people who service or supply all the parts. Many of us have at least one of those groups in our ridings, whether it's automobile dealers or companies that provide parts. Why are we taxing the very people trying to assist us on this? Why are we taking advantage of a situation, particularly when we know that the automobile is a necessity? It's no more than a hypocritical tax grab, and that's all it is.
I'm alarmed when I read -- and I just pick at random a particular newspaper article that goes back to February of this year and talks about Ford Canada losing $209 million and all the companies talking about the tremendous losses they've sustained. The member for Oriole says the automobile people are coming out of the recession. When I read in the paper about the number of jobs being lost, it troubles me.
This article came from the Globe and Mail and talks about how Ford Motor Co had a loss of $209 million on sales of $12.2 billion in 1991. Last year Ford sold 258,700 cars and trucks in Canada. That's 2,000 fewer than in 1990, so it's a troubled industry. Why are we taxing it? Why are we making it more difficult? We should be concerned about the jobs. We should be concerned about the businesses related to the automobile industry. Why are we making it more difficult for them when it has nothing to do with the environment? Exports to parent Ford Motor Co in the United States totalled 371,400 vehicles, and that was over 77,000 fewer than in 1990.
There's no question these figures go across the country, but my point is that we have a troubled automobile industry. When you put forward a tax you have to realize the effect it's going to have on the very industry having those problems.
Ford Canada's overseas business lost $124 million last year compared with a loss of $68 million in 1980. So for the last two years it's lost substantial amounts of money. It's getting worse. In the fourth quarter of 1991, Ford Canada's total loss was $80 million on sales of $3 billion compared with a loss of $62 million on sales of $3.2 billion a year earlier. That's just one of the manufacturers that is concerned about where it's going in the years ahead and the employees it's going to employ in all the related industries.
The main concern that seems to be coming forward, aside from raising tax on a tax on a tax, is that the tax for conservation applies only to new vehicles -- that seems to be the main concern we have -- most of which burn gas more efficiently than the older ones. Existing vehicles continue to remain on the road and the heavy polluters are ignored. Some conservation policy. It's a tax grab. That's all it is, in short.
If I can have one piece of evidence from this government, in this bill or any related regulation, as to how it's going to deal with conservation issues, as it's allegedly saying it is, now is the time to say it -- before we vote. Don't call it a gas guzzler tax. It's not a gas guzzler tax; it's a tax on new vehicles. It's adding to the problems the automobile industry has in this province.
It's been estimated that if you buy a new car in Ontario, taxes on a new family sedan car -- and this is all of the taxes -- could go as high as 18%. That's all of the taxes, but that has just added to the problem of buying a new car. Auto retailers tell us the tax load is costing them business. Several of them have told me they've got to make a second sale just to cover the taxes. Obviously, sales in the dealerships have been sliding for years. There's no question that's been because of the recession and other related matters. I suppose the members over here will talk about the GST. There's no question those are part of the problem.
Why add to a very serious problem? Instead of buying new cars that use less fuel, all this tax is going to do --
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the information offered by the member for Dufferin-Peel is very important and we should have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I would ask the table officer to please see if there is a quorum in the House.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
1649
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel now has the floor.
Mr Tilson: I want to emphasize that this tax has been billed as an environmental issue, and it's not. I think the government is misleading the people of this province when it says it's a tax that's going to assist the environment. It's a tax that is focused on new vehicles and that's all it is. There's no incentive in this bill to operate cars more effectively or to junk older ones. There have been no proposals put forward by the government. If they're really concerned with environmental issues and the excessive use of fuel, this isn't the way to do it, by simply destroying or adding to the destruction of a very important part of our economy, the automobile industry.
Reduced levies of $75 and up -- and that seems to be the lowest; it goes up to, I believe, as high as $7,000 -- according to the level of gas consumption, as the previous speaker has indicated, apply to more makes of cars than even the Liberal government had contemplated. Members over here sat in this House and criticized the government on the previous gas guzzler tax, and their bill is even worse than what the previous Liberal government had put forward; it covers all cars. As I said, I don't think even the Liberals would have contemplated this type of legislation.
The ironic part of all this, with all the downsides of the loss of jobs and the cost it's going to put to this government for job training and the people who are going to be put on unemployment insurance, do you know how much it's going to raise? It's estimated it's only going to raise $45 million in tax revenue. That's all this tax is going to do, and yet when you look at the devastation it's going to do to the automobile industry, or adding to the problems of the automobile industry, is it worth it?
I support the member for Oriole when she says, "I think of all the tax bills you have put forward, this is the one that makes the least amount of sense, and if there's ever a bill that should be withdrawn, this is one."
There has certainly been much written on this bill since it was first introduced. I just want to comment on some of the remarks that were made, because it certainly hits all but 12, as I understand it, of the more than 340 models of cars and trucks sold in Ontario, so essentially that's almost all the vehicles in this province. The tax ranges are from $75 to $7,000. As I've indicated, if you buy a passenger car that uses less than six litres of gasoline per 100 kilometres while driving on a highway, that's 47 miles to the gallon, you can get a $100 tax rebate. Big deal. These will include the Ford Escorts, the Honda Civics, the Lada Samaras, the Nissan Sentras, the Pontiac Fireflys and the Chevrolet Sprints.
A passenger car that uses 18 litres of gasoline or more will have a $7,000 tax. That's notwithstanding the fact that the design of those cars, as far as gas guzzling is concerned, is far better than many of the older cars. The only automobiles listed in the 1991 guide that will come close are the two models of Rolls Royce at 17 litres and three models of the Bentley that get the same mileage. They'll fall, ironically, to a tax category of $4,400.
The sports utility vehicles that use less than eight litres don't have any tax. Those are the Chevrolet pickups and a couple of others. If they use more than 18 litres, they could have as much as $3,200 tax. The tax is based, as I understand it from the bill, on the Fuel Consumption Guide published each year by the Department of Transport.
I think some consideration has to be given to areas of this province where the motor vehicle is a necessity. In the north these gas guzzlers, as the government calls them, are a necessity. If you want to buy a motor vehicle that can handle unpaved roads such as those in my riding, the miles and miles of roads in my riding that aren't paved, that are dirt roads -- that's in the south. On the miles and miles of roads in the north that aren't paved you need to have these so-called gas guzzler vehicles the government refers to, to operate in those areas. You're going to have to drive these vehicles on unpaved roads, snow-covered highways and lots of hills. My riding is full of these hills where you need strong, powerful vehicles that can go up these hills.
Many of us who live in the outskirts and drive into the city to work need the larger vehicles to carry all the kids, dogs and probably a few extra relatives. We're economizing on one car, unless we're all going to have a whole bunch of cars, which more and more of us can't afford any more simply because of the cost of the motor vehicles. All these people are going to have to pay the tax.
According to the Fuel Consumption Guide put out by Transport Canada, the fuel consumption of a vehicle varies depending on when and how you drive, the optional equipment installed and the condition of the car. I quote, "Tests have shown conclusively that different drivers using the same vehicle over the same road and weather conditions experience up to 20% variation in fuel consumption." I'm quoting from the Fuel Consumption Guide put out by Transport Canada. I don't think that fact was considered when this bill was drafted.
The Fuel Consumption Guide goes on to talk about how rough asphalt, potholes and gravel-surfaced roads can increase fuel consumption up to 35%. Driving in snow increases fuel consumption because snow increases wheel slippage and resistance to vehicle motion. Wet roads can cause up to a 10% increase in fuel consumption due to increased rolling. Driving into a 30-kilometre-an-hour headwind has almost the same effect as increasing speed by the same amount.
What does that have to do with the environmental issues? Many of these types of vehicles are needed. They're a necessity. I'll be looking forward to hearing members, particularly from the north and the rural areas, who need these vehicles. They need these vehicles. Not all the people of this province operate motor vehicles on paved roads where there are areas of no or little snow. The weather conditions are a factor and certainly cause increases in fuel consumption.
Can we question the fairness of the tax? Taking all these matters into consideration, can we question the fairness of the tax to all the people of the province that's going to tax all but 12 of the 340 models of cars and trucks in Ontario? It's going to tax everybody the same. Some people, particularly in the cities, don't need those gas guzzlers in the same way the people in the north and the rural areas of this province need them. But I don't think the drafters of the bill ever considered that. Older cars, especially those in a state of disrepair, pose an even greater threat to the environment and yet this bill is doing nothing to solve that.
1700
I've indicated how many of the dealers are losing money and going out of business. People aren't buying cars the same. How is this government going to encourage people to buy new cars and get rid of the old cars? How is it going to do that? Well, one thing it did was to put forward Bill 130, which is going to simply raise the taxes.
I'm quoting from a Globe and Mail article of December 1991, so the facts I am about to give you may have increased since then, but "General Motors says that about 15% of its dealers are losing money" and that a couple of well-known Toronto area dealerships have already folded. They've listed Grant Brown Cadillac Pontiac Buick Ltd last year -- that would be 1990 -- and York Mills Pontiac Buick Ltd in December 1991.
Those are big dealers. Now it's not because of this tax; that's not the sole reason. I don't think anyone is saying that, but it's adding to it. It's adding to the cost of buying a new motor vehicle. People are sitting back, asking, "Can I afford that size of vehicle?" You understand what it costs to buy a motor vehicle. The cost of buying a motor vehicle is unbelievable compared to what it was a number of years ago and considering what you're paying for taxes on those same vehicles.
The Globe and Mail article continues by talking about how Canada's chartered banks, with heavy commitments to the automobile industry, from manufacturing through to consumer finance and all the other related industries, are watching this business closely and are less willing to negotiate their dealer credit lines than in the past. That's what the dealers are telling us and that's what the banks are telling us. I have a dealership in my own riding that an individual in my riding told me was simply going to fold. This was about a month ago. I haven't heard, but I believe he's folded now simply because of the recession, all of the other taxes, and this is one of them. This is one of them because this has been in the works, I believe, since August of last year.
It's a particularly bad time to put forward a bill such as this when we realize the problems for the North American auto industry. No matter how you look at it, it's a bad time to put forward this type of bill. The member for Oriole has indicated that the auto industry may be starting to climb back. Maybe, although as I say, every day in the papers we read where dealerships are closing and the industry is laying people off. Maybe they are, but I say they are still in serious trouble, and it's because of this and many of the other related taxes.
The North American automobile industry has, as have many industries in this province, suffered its worst time ever in its operation. An article in the Oshawa Times in June of last year said that combined North America-wide losses for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were $3.2 billion for January, February and March alone. Now this is last year. They came back to back with $2.1 billion in losses for the previous three months. The automobile industry is still in deep trouble, so why are we putting forward this tax?
Cleaning up the environment is a very admirable position for this government to take, and we're all environmentalists. We're all concerned about that funny hole up in the air, the ozone layer. We're all concerned about where we're going to put our waste. I've spoken against the environmental bill of this government, but I believe it is concerned. I believe this government is concerned about the environmental issues of this province. I think all three parties and everyone in this House is concerned with environmental issues, and there's no question that they should be a priority for this government or any other government. But rushing into a new tax that slams most cars, almost all of the cars that are churned off the assembly lines in this province, is indeed hasty and indeed not thought out. It's not the solution.
I think we should all keep in mind the number of people who are being laid off, the thousands of workers in Oshawa alone who put forward a petition last year protesting this original tax plan. The workers in the industries don't want it, certainly the consumer doesn't want it, I don't want and I don't think you want it, Mr Speaker.
To conclude, I think if we look at the current budget that's just been introduced by the Treasurer of this House and we look at the effects of the last budget, this jurisdiction is now the highest jurisdiction of taxes in Ontario. When tax rates go over 50%, we're in deep trouble. Ontario tax freedom day is now -- I don't know the precise date, but I believe it's some time in mid-July. Six --
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): It goes into August if you include the deficit.
Mr Tilson: The member has just indicated that it goes into August if you include the deficit. That's seven months that you have to pay to the government before you put money in your own pocket. It's not just this government; I understand that. But when is the taxing going to stop? The average American pays taxes only until May 5.
This budget -- you have to look at all the taxes and the deficits and everything else this government has put forward since it came to power -- makes us, the people in this province, the highest-taxed people in North America. What are we getting for it? Are we getting value for our money?
People wouldn't mind paying a tax that's being put forward if they were confident that this tax was going to go to the environment, but there's been no evidence and no indication put forward by the government that proceeds from this tax are going to go to the environment. It's called a gas guzzler tax, but that's all. That's the only relation to the environment. It suggests that it's going to solve an environmental problem, and all it's doing is adding to the coffers of the high-spending policies of this government.
The member for Oriole has stood up, quite rightfully. I've agreed with many of her comments, but I have to remind her of her tire tax, because they're very similar. The tire tax was designed to get rid of old tires. It was designed to create a fund to fund research to get rid of old tires. The former Treasurer of the Liberal government said he was sick of driving by an unsightly dump in Hagersville, which is near his riding, and the rest, of course, is history.
You get very suspicious when a government stands and says, "We're going to solve an environmental problem. We're going to call it a tax," a gas guzzler tax or a tire tax, but the money doesn't go to solving those problems. It doesn't go to solving those environmental problems. It's no different from the tire tax which you, the government, challenged when you were on this side. Remember that when you're voting on this bill, because certainly not much, if any, of the tire tax went into research for tire recycling.
1710
As I understand it -- I'm quoting from an article from the Toronto Star in June of last year -- "The Environment ministry spent about $5.3 million on tire research, but the tire tax pulled in $40 million." I hope the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings will comment as to where the proceeds of this bill are going to go.
Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): General revenue fund.
Mr Tilson: Of course you're saying that, and that's the fraud of it all, because you stand in this House and say it's a gas guzzler tax. It has nothing to do with that. It's going into general revenue, exactly as you say. That's the hypocrisy of it. This government is trying to say that it's concerned about the environment of this province, but all it's doing is taking the proceeds from this tax and putting them into the general revenue fund. That's all they're doing.
Mr Mammoliti: You change the tone of your voice.
Mr Tilson: I'm sorry, but I'm very upset. I don't like hypocrisy.
The real story is that this is a new tax on virtually all automobiles. This is on top of the provincial sales tax. It's on top of the federal goods and services tax. It's another tax. It's designed to encourage fuel efficiency, but all it is is just another way for government to tax us, in this case cars, cars that all of us feel are a necessity to our way of life.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I listened very attentively to the member for Dufferin-Peel, who made a very good presentation. I only wish that the NDP government would have listened with more attentiveness so it could have learned something.
When the Fair Tax Commission proposed doubling the tax over three years, from 1993 to 1995, and adding vans and light-duty trucks to the list in 1994 and adding the gas guzzler tax, I don't think it understood that the centrepiece of economic recovery in this province is resting on the automobile industry.
I know that on the back benches of this NDP government there is a tax revolt brewing, because I read your lips, and your lips have been telling us for many weeks now that after you pass this bill you're going to say, "Read our lips: 'No more tax.'" I only hope that those of you who are saying, "Read my lips: 'No more tax,'" will then become the majority of this government, because we can no longer afford to add taxes upon taxes upon taxes, simply because you know that people from your own constituencies are calling you every day and saying, "How can we possibly have an economic recovery if we're having tax upon tax upon tax?" People in Ontario are sick and tired of taxes.
If the environment is the real issue, then I propose to you that there are more imaginative ways to handle this. Let there be a reporting system or let there be a system that would add levies to the registration fees. There are other ways to do it. I only say today that I would support those backbenchers when they say, "Read my lips: 'No more tax.'"
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just want to comment briefly on the speech made by my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel. The very enlightening remarks he made should be listened to by many people. The gas guzzler tax is something that we have had the opportunity to analyse now for some period of time. Every indication is that, as the member has indicated, the funds are going into general revenue. There's nothing specific about the funds being used on what the intent is: the environment. We have fought for many years to try to have a special fund that would go entirely to the Environment ministry in order to help reduce the pollution we have.
The new fuel, ethanol, is something a lot of members in this House should be talking about, because that new fuel is grown here in Ontario through the corn that's growing in the crops. It would make work for farmers and we would have a lot cleaner air and then you wouldn't need the gas guzzler tax. As we have the gas guzzler tax, why isn't that money being funnelled in to produce ethanol fuel province-wide?
I know there's an initiative taking place with regard to the ethanol being sold in a few co-op service stations, but that's not enough. We need far more effort, time and money from this gas guzzler tax to go directly into that very aspect of producing crops and the ethanol, which would help to make the air we all breathe a lot clearer.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Downsview.
Mr Perruzza: Once again I'd like to speak to the issue of taxes and reiterate some of the comments I made earlier. I'm not going to ask members to read my lips. I'm going to say it in plain English, and if they can't hear me all they need to do is put on their hearing-aids and it'll come across loud and clear.
I don't think any member of this House and of this government, quite frankly, supports our going back to our taxpayers and increasing taxes. I'm certainly not that kind of individual. I agree with the member for Parkdale when he says people can't bear taxes any more. I'd like to point out to him, and to my Conservative friend who spoke at quite some length on this bill as well, that if he reads through our budget document he will find we've decreased taxes for businesses and we've given middle-income earners of Ontario a finally recognized tax break after they received some 32 or 33 tax increases from a Liberal administration that was in office only a short five years.
They went through budget documents with magnifying glasses and highlighted the print and wedged themselves in wherever they could. I would remind them that if they look through our document on the budget they will find reductions for businesses, job training moneys to make businesses more viable and a break for middle-income earners.
The Acting Speaker: Question and/or comments? The honourable member for Oriole.
Mrs Caplan: I want to remind the member opposite that this is called Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. It is a tax on tax. It has nothing to do with gas guzzling. As I listen to members of this Legislature, and particularly my colleague from the third party whose remarks I am responding to, I hope my colleague will not be upset by the misinformation that has just been put forward by the member for Downsview, who clearly not only does not understand this piece of legislation but is totally unaware of the tax policies contained in the budget. He proved it with his comments a moment ago.
I'm hopeful that the next speaker in this debate will be the member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley, who has shown great leadership in explaining the misguided policy of Bill 130 and offered very constructive alternatives. I believe my constituents in the riding of Oriole are well served by critics in the opposition who not only properly criticize inappropriate government policy but also offer constructive alternatives and suggestions to the government so that it can consider them in the formation of new policies or change its misguided, even though perhaps well-intended, policies.
Third, I also believe that members on this side of the House can make an important contribution in influencing future policies by engaging in important debate.
At this time I just want to acknowledge that we've heard a number of speakers in this House today and over the past little while. I sense there hasn't been a willingness of the government to listen, and I hope that from now on it'll pay closer attention to the important contribution members of the opposition are making to this debate.
1720
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to respond.
Mr Tilson: I think we all remember when this government was elected and when it was campaigning. This government was going to be a different government. It was going to be different from the Liberal government; it was going to be different from the Conservative government. It has been. That's an understatement. That's the sad part of it. It has been a different government, but not in the way we thought.
Is the whole environmental issue being dealt with the way this government had promised it would when it was running for office and making its statements and opposing the Liberal government? What's their answer? This is their answer. An environmental tax they call it, which is not going to solve or deal with the environmental issues.
I hope I'm not being unparliamentary, but this is a deceptive bill. It's most deceptive. It's alleged that this is going to deal with environmental problems, but it is deceptive. It is simply not going to deal with those issues.
The Treasurer looked around for ways of taxing the people of this province and they've decided to tax everybody who owns an automobile. What's next? Food? What is next? What are the necessities of life? How far are you going to go? We're the most taxed people in North America. We're overtaxed. We're overserviced. We've had enough.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this third reading debate on Bill 130, which is a tax I refer to as the tax on auto workers in Ontario, because I believe that will truly be the net effect of this tax, and I might say the tax on steelworkers in Ontario, on miners, on people who produce plastic in Ontario, all the components that go into a vehicle, because this tax is simply discouraging people from purchasing vehicles. Of course, that's an essential thing to happen in our province if we're to have the economy stimulated once again.
The member for Lincoln is in the House today and he has worked for General Motors in St Catharines for a number of years and recognizes the importance of the automotive industry to Ontario, not simply to our community where it's exceedingly important but to the entire province.
Many estimates have come out, but I think it's safe to say that one in four jobs is either directly or somehow indirectly related to the health of the automobile industry in Ontario. That refers of course to the production of automobiles and the assembly of those automobiles, the kind of activity for instance that takes place at Oshawa, and the production of parts for those automobiles, the kind of activity that takes place in St Catharines.
At a time when we're in the depths of the deepest recession this province and indeed this country have experienced since the Great Depression of the 1930s, at a time when we're facing unprecedented international competition from offshore, now from Mexico, from the United States, from all over, I am extremely concerned that we in Ontario would decide to increase a tax and extend a tax on motor vehicles sold in Ontario.
The original tax when it was brought in by the previous government essentially hit very, very expensive cars, the overwhelming majority of which were imports. That was carefully assessed before that tax was brought in. It was also brought in at a time when the economy was booming and it probably had virtually no effect on the purchase of vehicles in Ontario.
What we have now are different circumstances. Talk to the people who work in the plant in St Catharines, whether it's in the foundry which is scheduled to close -- though all of us will be working to see that General Motors makes a different decision. We hope they change their mind and we see the foundry reopened or at least maintained in the city of St Catharines. But the announcement has been made that some 2,300 jobs will be disappearing permanently from the city of St Catharines through the closing of the foundry and the termination of one of the lines in terms of the engine plant.
In addition to that, on March 1 of this year, 750 people were scheduled to be laid off in St Catharines. They were labelled as indefinite layoffs. Everybody would prefer, given the choice of a layoff, to have a definite layoff. That means there's a specific time to come back. That means there's hope at the end of the horizon.
I think Gord Wilson put it best in a visit to St Catharines a few months ago when he came in and explained the circumstances facing us in this recession. Gord Wilson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, pointed out that whereas in the last recession, the 1982 recession, perhaps 28% of those jobs where there were layoffs would not return ever again, in this recession we get close to 50% of those jobs not returning. That certainly could be the case in St Catharines.
The member for St Catharines-Brock, the member for Lincoln, the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Welland-Thorold and I attended a rally -- I mentioned the member for St Catharines-Brock already; she'll be happy to know that -- last Friday at General Motors, where over 1,000 people were there. Bob White, the national president of the Canadian Auto Workers union, and Gord Wilson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, were among the speakers who were on the platform to indicate great concern about the potential of the closing of the foundry and part of the engine plant, and of course were involved in the Fight Back campaign, which I believe has a good deal of support in our community.
One of the factors is -- and we always have to consider this -- if you look at all the factors a company can look at when it's going to make its decision about its future investments, you always hope that whatever level of government it is, it is making a positive contribution to that decision-making process. The federal government has signed a free trade agreement that at least two of the three parties in this House have been opposed to. Premier Peterson was adamantly opposed to the free trade agreement and said so on many occasions. Premier Rae has said the same thing.
Unfortunately for both, though I'm sure they would both like to have had the opportunity to thwart it, Premier Rae -- in fact he said he would do everything possible to thwart that and not implement it -- has found as he has become Premier of the province that's not possible. I'm sure that as he uses this terminology, in his heart of hearts he would like to have that opportunity, but he doesn't. There are only certain things a provincial government can do. It can speak against it and it can lobby against a national program of this kind, but it cannot prevent it from coming into effect.
So we have the free trade agreement, which I think has been detrimental to the province of Ontario. Premier Peterson once said that we would be presiding over the deindustrialization of the province of Ontario if the specific free trade agreement that was brought forward by the government of Brian Mulroney were in fact implemented. We've seen much evidence of that right around the province, and certainly we in the Niagara Peninsula have experienced that.
The 1965 agreement, signed when Prime Minister Pearson and President Johnson signed the free trade pact at that time, had a lot of safeguards for us, and people have worked hard to maintain those safeguards over the years because they have preserved jobs in Canada. Even when there have been some job losses, we have not felt the impact we would have were that not in effect.
But the free trade agreement superseded that. Yes, there are people who said it didn't have much effect, that it was still something separate, but we all know that it did have an effect on that. The federal jurisdiction could be helpful in terms of renegotiating that pact, if that is possible at this time. I'm sure the Americans would not be eager to do so, but perhaps our government could prevail upon the government of the United States. I urge them to do so.
We've had other federal government policies which have had a detrimental effect, a dampening effect on the economy. Members of the New Democratic Party recite almost on cue the high interest rate policy -- in the past now but it was there -- and the high dollar, which has a major effect. Anybody who doesn't think the price of the dollar has an effect should examine our industries where we've been successful in exporting to see that a good deal of that success is attributable to the dollar as it relates to the American dollar. I have used the example in this House of speaking to an individual who's the vice-president of a pulp and paper industry in Thunder Bay, who told me that one cent on the dollar costs $17 million for that company. Of course, we can see the same effect on the automotive industry, where we enjoyed somewhat of an advantage because of the competitive dollar.
1730
But there are areas where the provincial government has jurisdiction. One of them is this specific tax. I understand two things. I understand, first of all, that the Treasurer of this province wants revenue. Revenues aren't coming in easily in Ontario. Every Treasurer, regardless of who that personality happens to be, wants to have money -- in opposition you refer to it as a tax grab; in government you refer to it as essential funds to operate the programs you have -- but I can understand that the Treasurer of this province wants money to operate his programs and why he would want to see this bill read for the third time: so he can be collecting those revenues, as he has been, and can continue to do so legally.
Second, I understand that there are some people who believe that this is an environmental measure. I've had the opportunity to serve for five years, three months and four days as the Minister of the Environment of Ontario. I always believed that the most dramatic change you could make in air quality and fuel efficiency in this province, which was a very practical step, was to encourage people, those "people" being potential purchasers of vehicles, to get rid of their old clunkers and buy new cars.
If I were parochial in St Catharines, I'd recommend they buy cars that have components that were made in St Catharines; I would be happy, however, to see an all-of-Ontario stimulation in that automotive industry. It cannot come about as long as governments, of whatever political stripe, are putting taxes specifically on that industry.
I hope there are a number of measures undertaken to assist the automotive industry. I hope we look carefully at the price of electricity in Ontario to see that the social costs of certain projects are not placed on the price of electricity. I happen to agree with some of the things that have been done in terms of bailouts for different communities. Some people don't; they're philosophically opposed to that.
I happen to think that a lot of good things are happening, for instance, in Kapuskasing as a result of the fact that governments have assisted those people. The private sector and governments and the unions and people working together have brought Kapuskasing back. I am in favour of that. If the government were to say, "We're taking expenditures out of our tax dollars to do it," I would say that is a judgement that you are making and one that I personally happen to agree with. I do not agree with placing that on the Hydro bill, because there are predictions out there that we will have no foundries, no forge shops, no electroplating left in Ontario if we lose our competitive advantage in terms of hydro rates in the province.
You can't keep those rates down artificially. I understand that and I'm not asking that. The former Minister of Energy is here. She made a valiant effort when she was the Minister of Energy to bring about conservation programs. I support the kind of conservation programs that she was talking about. The leader of the Liberal Party now, Lyn McLeod, had initiated some of those programs. The new minister is working on those. I am happy to see that happening because I think, in the long run, industries such as General Motors and others will benefit if they put in machinery which uses less energy. Therefore, their energy costs will be down.
This bill is just one component. I'd like to see it in conjunction with withdrawing this particular bill and not proceeding with third reading. I would also like to see the government at the same time, because I think they could work hand in hand, remove the provincial sales tax for a period of time, six months, nine months or a year. I'm not saying for ever, because again I understand that to have the excellent social programs and health care programs we have in this province, for instance, we need revenues; no question about that. Anybody who tries to pretend otherwise is trying to fool the people of this province. I understand that. That's why I say removing the provincial sales tax for a period, perhaps the rest of the year, for instance, in conjunction with not proceeding with this tax, would really stimulate the purchase of new automobiles in the province.
The advantages of the new automobiles are, first of all, that they have much better pollution control equipment than the old automobiles have. I'm sure when I traded in my 1984 Oldsmobile for my 1990 Chevrolet that the 1990 Chevrolet gets better -- I call it "mileage"; I'm still living in the old school. I can't say "kilometreage" or something like that, but I'm sure it gets much better fuel efficiency than my older vehicle. If I were to trade one in today, I suppose it would even be more efficient in terms of fuel.
The second thing besides fuel efficiency is that those emission controls are far better. They're superior each year. They're not superior by some whim or fancy of those who manufacture the vehicles, It's because governments, in North America particularly, have been stringent with their emission control rules and regulations -- not stringent enough to suit me, but stringent -- that this has come about. California, to its credit, has led the way and has really shamed many of us in this part of North America. It's really a federal government jurisdiction but as a provincial government -- I can recall at interprovincial meetings -- we pressured the federal government into having better pollution control equipment. So I think those two things work well.
This tax would in fact be punitive to the automobile industry. The automobile industry means more than jobs in St Catharines, it means jobs right across the province of Ontario. In Victoria-Haliburton there may be some smaller industries that supply, in one way or another, the automotive industry. For instance, when the foundry is announced as closing, just think of things such as gloves -- people must wear gloves within a foundry -- or other protective equipment they might wear within a foundry. The people who supply those no longer have the opportunity to supply to those people.
When I see it disappearing, if it does, I see -- as the Minister of Labour walks in. He's from Hamilton and he's been a long-time supporter of jobs in his area in the steel industry and has worked hard with his constituents to ensure those jobs are preserved.
Some of the automobiles produced and components of those automobiles are made of steel. That steel comes from Sault Ste Marie in some cases, from Hamilton, Nanticoke or other smaller operations in the province of Ontario. So when the automobile industry goes down or is in its depths, when new taxes are put on that discourage people from purchasing new vehicles, then it affects directly, I would say, the industry known as the steel industry.
The Treasurer is from Sudbury. I was born in the city of Sudbury. I well remember when I was there the importance of the mining operations and the processing of ore in those areas; how important it was for nickel, copper and many of the other substances found in the ore pulled out of the ground in those areas; how important it was in terms of jobs in that area when we had a strong automobile industry.
When I lived in Sudbury, I have seen the figures go from 21,000 people working at Inco when I was there to -- I think the Treasurer was telling me last night -- something like 6,500 hourly rated people working for International Nickel, or Inco, as it's better known now. That's because of many factors, but I know that some of that ore, some of the materials processed, refined and smelted there end up in motor vehicles. When we have motor vehicle sales stimulated in the province of Ontario, it's good for Sudbury, Levack, Chelmsford and Frood and all the areas in and around Sudbury.
In addition to that there are plastics produced in the province of Ontario. The member for Sarnia would know that he has an important petrochemical industry in his part of the province and people in eastern Ontario know about the petrochemical industry there.
There are plastics made that are used in cars. In fact, there are more plastics used today than ever before, because we have decided we want cars to be lighter so they don't consume as much fuel. Those industries are going to be adversely affected when there's a downturn, as there is at the present time in the sales of vehicles.
The auto companies have lost a lot of money. In Canada, General Motors, interestingly enough, made money last year. I think $325 million -- the member for Lincoln nods, he's very familiar with this -- they made last year in Canada, but in North America they lost a lot of money. All the Big Three and some of the other companies have lost money and that has resulted in scaling back.
Mr Robert Stempel, who is the American president -- he governs us as well -- of General Motors, indicated there would be some 74,000 jobs lost as they scale down their industry. I just hate the terminology they use, by the way, when they talk about downsizing and things like that because it really amounts to people losing their jobs and there's all kinds of buzzwords they use. It really means we're taking jobs away from people. They're good-paying jobs because they're not easy jobs.
It's an industry which has been successful and allows people to be paid well and it annoys me as it must annoy you, from time to time, when you hear people in the community who will say, "Well, it's good for them if this happens," because somehow they've been resentful of people making more money than they were making.
In my community, the closing of the foundry in St Catharines and that portion of the engine plant and the other job losses would be about $130 million in terms of a payroll in a year. That's a lot to a community. That's people who are making purchases of things made in St Catharines, services in St Catharines and services provided and items made in other parts of Ontario.
That's why I think it's important for governments at any level to do everything they can to encourage the sale of automobiles in this province. I always hope we will work and strive for -- I urge the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Energy and others to work with the federal government to keep the pressure on the federal government to ensure that we have vehicles which are as pollution-free as possible and have the fuel efficiency we're all looking for.
1740
The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and somewhere else -- Hastings as well; he has several areas -- has been a proponent, to his credit. When I was Minister of the Environment he used to ask me questions about ethanol.
The Minister of Agriculture and Food has talked about the possibility of more use of ethanol in Ontario and in Canada for vehicles. That's going to be of some assistance.
I know there are people out there and some of them would be disappointed were I to advocate the production of motor vehicles, but I'm living on planet Earth. The Treasurer said to someone on this side the other day, "Get real," or something like that, that we're living in a real world. I think everybody recognizes that we're living in a real world. It's tough now to be in government. I recognize that. I don't concede that often because I remember the days when we were often criticized from the other side, but it's tough out there.
That's why I think it's important to have the private sector moving, the automobile industry moving. Governments have to look at every way possible. Perhaps they have to forget past ideology in some cases. That's hard to do because then others will say -- I read an article the other day by Rob Martin in the London Free Press of April 29. I won't quote it today, but he was very critical of the New Democratic Party for abandoning its principles, and he may have some valid points.
But I recognize as well that there are times when governments have to govern. They have to take the situation they've got -- they can't manufacture a new situation -- and they have to take certain measures that may not be very popular. But I know the people of Manitouwadge would want to see more vehicles produced in this province, because some of the materials that go into those vehicles may have come out of mines in the riding of Lake Nipigon.
The Minister of Transportation, who provides the wonderful roads in Ontario and who has recently announced for the seventh time that the Ministry of Transportation will move to St Catharines -- I was delighted to welcome him there, as I always am, as I said the other day, as a long-time good friend of mine and a good friend of transportation. He would recognize the importance of not proceeding with Bill 130, which is going to discourage people from purchasing automobiles in Ontario.
General Motors provided this to some of us. I think members of the House will find this interesting because it really gets down to how you advertise foreign-made cars, although some people from CAW point out, appropriately, that often you don't know what a foreign-made car is now. You may buy a General Motors product that's produced in Korea. There may be another product -- I think Honda Accord has a lot of Canadian content, for instance. But here's an advertisement that appeared in the St Catharines Standard not long after the announcement of the closing of the foundry.
It's put out by St Catharines Volkswagen, and it says: "True or false." You can check one of the three boxes. The first box says, "If I buy a Volkswagen diesel Elvis will pop by for lunch"; the second, "If I buy a Volkswagen diesel the sun will rise in the west"; or third, "If I buy a Volkswagen diesel the government will give me money." You can imagine at the CAW halls, locals 199 and 676, people reading this and saying, "My government is contributing to the purchase of foreign vehicles." In the advertisement that I hold up for members of the opposition to see, it says: "If you picked number three as true, you're right. Because if you pick a Volkswagen Golf diesel, Jetta diesel or Jetta turbo diesel, the Ontario government will give you a $100 credit. So see us for a test drive today. And on the off chance the King does pop by, won't you say 'hi' for us?" And it says, "Credit will be applied to 8% provincial sales tax at time of transaction. See your dealer for details."
Here we have a provincial tax placed on vehicles which is in fact encouraging the purchase of foreign vehicles.
Mr Mammoliti: The King is still alive.
Mr Bradley: The member for Yorkview says the King is still alive. I should tell you, Mr Speaker, that in late September 1990, if one looked above at the sky in Boston, where I'm told there were people at that time watching the Blue Jays in the final throes, there was a sign that said, "Yorkview NDP supports the Blue Jays," or something of that nature. I couldn't figure out how they were holding it up. Then someone said the member for Yorkview was there speaking at the stadium at the time. Actually, it was an airplane pulling it. I thought it was a rather unique thing to be doing. I know the member for Yorkview would not have been able to get there in an older vehicle. He obviously purchased a newer vehicle before this tax was placed on, and as a result was able to go down to Boston to cheer on the Blue Jays.
Mr Mammoliti: The King drove me.
Mr Bradley: The King drove him, he says.
There are other factors to consider. I saw an article in the newspaper that was rather interesting. Once again, it's the St Catharines Standard of February 6, 1992, so this was before that fateful announcement on February 24. It said:
"Old Cars Causing Pollution: Survey."
"More motorists have hung on to old cars in the recession and are damaging the environment as a result, says the Canadian Automobile Association.
"'When you have an eight-year- or 10-year-old car in the street, it's cranking out a lot more pollution than a brand-new car,' association president Michael McNeil said Wednesday.
"The association's annual survey of more than 40,000 Canadian drivers shows that the average odometer reading of vehicles rose this year to 85,000 kilometres from 73,000 kilometres five years ago.
"That's an indication that the vehicles in the country have aged as people put off buying new cars and trucks, said McNeil.
"The average odometer reading of vehicles has not been as high since the mid-1980s, following the last recession...
"Respondents said they expect their average annual driving distance..." to diminish, however, as a result of the recession again.
The survey results said two things which I would like to point out. They said many things, but only two things I want to point out to the House.
First: "Price was cited as the most important factor for people who were deciding which vehicle to buy, followed by reliability, handling and performance and fuel consumption. Reliability used to consistently be rated the most important factor and fuel consumption has never been as important before." The fact is that price is the most important factor when people are making that decision to purchase a new car.
Second: "People intend to buy more used cars than ever. Used car sales are expected to make up about 31% of car purchases this year compared with 27% last year." What that means is that people are keeping older, less fuel-efficient, more pollution-causing vehicles on the road. They're being discouraged from purchasing new cars because of the price.
Part of the contribution to that -- not the entire contribution -- is this tax which this government wishes to have read for the third time in the House today.
General Motors of Canada provided this, perhaps to all members of the Legislature but certainly to those of us who represent areas where automaking is an important industry. Here is a short quote that I think is quite helpful for members in making up their minds. It says:
"As the plant manager of the General Motors of Canada Ltd St Catharines components plant I would like to express my concerns regarding the proposed tax for fuel conservation, or gas guzzler tax. Simply stated, I strongly believe that this tax will have a serious impact on new vehicle sales and consequently employment, and will not be offset by any benefits in fuel conservation or environmental improvements. I will not belabour the point regarding the potential negative impact on our vehicle sales, but I have attached an outline of GM's concerns regarding the proposed tax. You are more than aware that the last thing the province of Ontario needs is the additional loss of manufacturing jobs, and I believe that this gas guzzler tax will result in lower manufacturing employment.
"I concur strongly with the GM of Canada recommendation that a more appropriate fuel conservation program would be through increases" -- that governments could bring about, for instance -- "in vehicle licensing fees, registration fees," and so on. That was their contention. "A tax based on vehicle age would allow you to better achieve the environmental goals."
I guess what is most important about this is that anything the government can do to encourage me or anybody else to trade my vehicle in -- even though my vehicle isn't all that old at the present time; it's quite fuel-efficient and it's still in very good shape -- and purchase new vehicles instead of older vehicles and actually turn in the old clunkers rather than keeping them in the yard is going to be beneficial to the environment.
The government of Ontario has not proceeded yet with its air pollution program. I can recall announcing in the summer of 1990 the clean air program for the province. Since that time, for whatever reason, there has been no action taken by the government. Perhaps it's the economy, perhaps it's a lack of funding that the Treasurer provides for the Minister of the Environment. Whatever it is -- I'm not here to harp on that one today -- the government has not proceeded with that program for clean air in the province.
1750
But it can be helpful by encouraging people to buy new vehicles. That's one thing that can be done that doesn't impose anything on industry. It doesn't cause any problems for the environment that I can see. The products that are used nowadays are more environmentally benign than those products which were used in the past.
I can understand General Motors' concern when it saw the potential for yet another tax. Fortunately, and I like to be fair in this House, the government did not proceed with a tax which was recommended by the NDP tax commission. One of its groups recommended there be even more of an extension and more of an increase in this tax. But suffice it to say that the present enlargement, I guess is the best word, of this tax by the Treasurer of this province in his last budget, not this budget, and that's what we're talking about, has had a detrimental effect and continues to have a detrimental effect.
I'd like to share with members of the House some other material that may be helpful in encouraging them to join me in not wanting this bill to proceed to third reading. I would suspect, for instance, that anybody in this House who represents an area which is reliant directly or indirectly on the automobile industry would not want to see this bill go to third reading.
[Applause]
Mr Bradley: There is applause from at least one member who represents that area.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Applauds.
Mr Bradley: Dr Kormos says at this time -- I say that in a nice way, not in a derogatory way, because we're supposed to say "the member for Welland-Thorold" -- he agrees; he knows, he's been a strong fighter for people in this area. This will appear in his literature, by the way, in his next election when I say he's been a strong fighter for his people despite the fact that his government has been wrong on so many occasions. I had to put that in, so he'll have to parse that out.
I want to share with members of the House some information which has come from General Motors of Canada. I know this is of concern not simply to those who are in the management end of things, but to the auto workers themselves. That's why I call this a tax on auto workers, because I think ultimately the people who are penalized most by this are auto workers, though as I said earlier I could call it a tax on steelworkers or a tax on miners or something of that nature because those are the implications of this tax.
This particular letter is similar to the other one but a bit different. It says:
"Dear Mr Bradley:
"General Motors of Canada Ltd (GMCL) is extremely concerned that the Ontario government may increase the gas guzzler tax on the sale of new cars and sport utility vehicles and place a new tax on vans and light-duty trucks. In our view, Ontario's 'Tax For Fuel Conservation' negatively impacts the automotive industry in Ontario, while doing little to promote fuel conservation or to improve the environment."
You will recall whenever I have asked the Treasurer the question in the House, he says: "Well, this is a red-letter day. Here's the former Minister of the Environment advocating we not proceed with an environmental measure."
I do not consider this an environmental measure; I consider it a tax measure. If the Treasurer said to the province and to the people of this House, "I want third reading of this tax because I believe it is important it be implemented because I can get more money from it," I'd at least say, "I understand where you're coming from." But to portray this as an environmental tax on the part of the government is quite bogus.
Let me go on to tell you what Maureen Kempston Darkes has to say about this tax:
"Under the proposals which are being considered for inclusion in the upcoming provincial budget, consumers purchasing most GM products would have to pay a tax of between $150 and $2,300 on a new car by 1994, up to $800 on a mini-van and as much as $1,600 on a new light-duty truck, sport utility vehicle or van. Other manufacturers' products would be impacted in a similar manner."
This is something I would hope would go to the provincial council of the NDP because I have actually been to the provincial council, at least close to it. I was in the city of Sudbury when it was held. There was a fine dinner, the 20th-anniversary dinner for the Honourable Floyd Laughren, the member for Nickel Belt. I attended and extolled the virtues of the Treasurer as a personal friend and a person who had contributed so much to his constituents. When I spoke, I certainly mentioned the name of the representative from Welland-Thorold on many occasions at that time. The Premier's face did change as I mentioned the name from time to time.
There was a provincial council that weekend. I was hoping I would be invited by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to attend that provincial council, because I think that if I had been able to make a presentation --
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): How come you haven't said anything nice about me, Jim? I always talk kindly about you.
Mr Bradley: That's why I'm saying such nice things about the minister. I'm sure that if I were able to make a presentation to the provincial council of the NDP -- a lot of those people understand the province well in terms of the grass roots -- it would agree with me that this tax should not proceed in terms of third reading.
There was a former member for Sudbury, Bud Germa. You may be familiar with him, Mr Speaker. He had a certain terminology he used for people in his party whom he felt didn't know what working people were all about, what it was like on the plant floor and what it was like to work in industry. He called them "intellectual" something.
Mr Peter Kormos: "Intellectual" what, Jim?
Mr Bradley: The rules of this House do not permit it, but I encourage people in this province, particularly in the New Democratic Party, who are interested in this to check the terminology the member for Sudbury used to use.
The reason I mention him is that he was an oldtime New Democrat, an oldtime CCFer in fact, who used to know what working people wanted, who used to know what the implications of tax measures were on working people in this province. Some days I wish he were still here, though this is not a negative reflection on the present member for Sudbury, who used to live down the street from me, one block away, when I lived in the city of Sudbury.
Ms Maureen Kempston Darkes goes on to say -- I think this is important if we're to make the decision whether we proceed to third reading -- the following:
"The tax content on new vehicles is already at extremely high levels. For example, on the sale of a Chevrolet Lumina built in our GM Autoplex facility in Oshawa" -- not far from Victoria-Haliburton -- "total federal and provincial taxes equal $3,150 or 16.7% of the $18,890 sales price. Our dealers have indicated that the level of tax has become a significant impediment to completing a sales transaction. The problem is made worse by the fact that many consumers finance their new vehicle purchases and the increase in overall cost resulting from the gas guzzler tax makes financing more difficult to obtain."
That's something some of us may not take into consideration. She goes on to say:
"We are particularly concerned about the impact of these taxes on small businesses. Small business -- a sector which is critical to creating jobs in our economy today -- is already heavily burdened by tax and regulation. An additional $1,600 tax on the vans or trucks which many small businesses need to operate could be prohibitive.
"Moreover, we are also concerned that gas guzzler taxes negatively impact sales of North American vehicles because consumers still perceive Asian products as being more fuel-efficient. While this is not factual, consumer perceptions are difficult to change.
"GMCL believes that if the government is serious about addressing environmental concerns, it should completely remove the TFFC in favour of higher registration fees," and she goes on to suggest what other measures might be taken.
The Minister of Transportation may not be in agreement with that, and probably I wouldn't be in agreement with that, but I would certainly say that not proceeding with this tax would be important.
I notice that it is, as we say in this House, 6 of the clock. It being so, I believe that I adjourn -- no, I don't. I believe I will discontinue for now and continue tomorrow.
The Acting Chair: It being now 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 1800.