role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 24, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 24 June 2004 Jeudi 24 juin 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

GASOLINE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ESSENCE

TAXPAYER PROTECTION

AFFIRMATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 CONFIRMANT LA

PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES

GASOLINE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ESSENCE

TAXPAYER PROTECTION

AFFIRMATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 CONFIRMANT LA

PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STUDENT BUSING

ONTARIO RANGERS

PKU AND FABRY'S DISEASE

GAY PRIDE WEEK

SAUNDERS SECONDARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

ST AGATHA SEPARATE SCHOOL

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GAS PRICE WATCHDOG ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR L'AGENT DE SURVEILLANCE

DES PRIX DU CARBURANT

DENTAL HYGIENE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1991

SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE STATUT BILINGUE

DE LA VILLE D'OTTAWA /

OTTAWA IS A BILINGUAL CITY ACT, 2004

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

FRENCH LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

DEFERRED VOTES

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

SANDY'S LAW

(LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT), 2004 /

LOI SANDY DE 2004

(MODIFICATION DE LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL)

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

CAPITAL FUNDING

HEALTH PREMIUMS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WATER QUALITY

FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE

DEAF-BLIND SERVICES

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND

EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

WEST NILE VIRUS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

VISITOR

PETITIONS

TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

VISITORS

WATER QUALITY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

SENIORS' PROGRAMS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

SCHOOL ZONE

LITERACY PROGRAMS

STATUS OF BILL 56

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

PENSION PLANS

STATUS OF BILL 56

PROPERTY TAXATION

HEALTH CARE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO HERITAGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

GASOLINE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ESSENCE

Mr Crozier moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 80,

An Act to provide information to consumers respecting the price of gasoline and the ownership of gasoline retailers and to require certain additional

information from major oil companies / Projet de loi 80, Loi visant à fournir des renseignements aux consommateurs en ce qui concerne le prix de l'essence et les propriétaires des

détaillants d'essence et exigeant certains renseignements supplémentaires de la part des grosses sociétés pétrolières.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott): Mr Crozier has moved second reading of Bill 80.

You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): It is my pleasure to stand this morning and speak on my own behalf and the behalf of tens of thousands of Ontarians

when it comes to the pricing of retail gasoline in Ontario.

How many times have you, any of us here, those who might be watching, gone by a gas station in the morning and said, "Well, yes, I need some gas. I think I'll

fill up on the way home from work today or on the way home from the store," only to turn around and come back later that day and find that the price has skyrocketed? At the very least, it's higher

than what you passed in the morning. How many times have you looked at your gas gauge and there's a weekend coming up, you're going to make a little trip, and you think, "Oh, I better get this

filled up tomorrow before we head out," only to wake up in the morning and find that the price of gasoline has again gone up?

I don't know how many times we've spoken about this in this Legislature -- countless times. I can remember specifically back in September 1998 when then-Premier

Mike Harris stood down there in his place and said, "We're going to wrestle the major oil companies to the ground." Well, I think since that time, and including that time, the only thing we've done

is wrestle them to the ceiling.

This bill, although it acknowledges in what isn't in the bill that oil pricing, retail gasoline pricing, results from a worldwide global market, it does

recognize that the purchaser of gasoline, the customer, the ordinary Ontarian, needs a little bit of help in determining when and where to buy their gasoline. Again, I acknowledge that I'm not one

who feels that we can control gasoline prices. It's a worldwide market. It fluctuates. In those areas where gasoline pricing is controlled, it's found that, on average, the price tends to be

higher, and I certainly don't want to in any way influence higher prices. So one of the main components of this bill is one that allows the customer to determine when they're going to buy gasoline,

dependent upon what the price of gasoline is.

Let's take an example. It will require that gasoline prices, if they're going to change -- and this is up or down -- be posted 72 hours in advance. So if the

price is going to go up, somewhere in that 72 hours, and probably more toward the end of it, it gives you the opportunity to top up your tank at that lower price, if I might use the term "lower,"

but at today's price, before it goes up.

Someone might say, "Well, that's great, but you're also going to have to warn us when prices come down." I say, "Absolutely," because in that case, if prices are

going to come down sometime in the next 72 hours or at the end of 72 hours, why, you then can use your gas sparingly, or you can do what they do in racing terms: have a "splash and go." Mr Decker

at the table would understand that term, because we talk about racing a lot. But you could buy a minimal amount of gas, wait till the price comes down, and then purchase your gasoline at the lower

price.

What it would also do is have in legislation what we see at many pumps today, and that is that the retailer would have to post the amount of taxes that are in a

litre of gasoline. Many of our pumps, have that there today, where there are 10 cents of federal excise tax, where there are 14.7 cents of Ontario tax, and then there's the GST on top of that. So

you'll know what taxes you're paying in a litre of gasoline.

The next thing this bill would do -- and it's one of clarity and letting everyone know just who they're doing business with -- is require a gas retailer to post

their affiliation, if it isn't already on their sign, be it one of the major oil companies' gasoline stations, or if you're affiliated and carry their sign. But if you're affiliated with them and

don't have the major oil company sign on it, then you would be required on your receipts and visibly at the station to identify the major oil company or the oil company that you're affiliated

with.

There is another thing this bill would do that I think goes to its transparency, and that is that it would require the major oil companies that have business

along the line -- ie, retail, wholesale, refining and exploration, or getting the crude out of the ground -- to disclose to the public their profits in all four areas so, for example, if they are

losing money at the retail level and therefore being predatory on some of the other market, we would be able to identify that. Quite frankly, predatory pricing is an issue these days. So it would

make it more transparent so we can understand where those oil companies are making their money. If, for example, one of the major oil companies has a retail station where they also sell a variety

of goods -- be it candy, cigarettes, newspapers, the whole gamut -- we can see if perhaps they're enticing customers in an unfair way, just to make money in another part of their retailing

environment.

This really is all about clarity. It's all about transparency. It's all about knowing when gasoline prices are going to change and being able to judge your

buying that way.

These points that I have in this bill came from a study that was given to, I believe, the consumer and business services minister of the former government. I

would expect that they're the kinds of issues about which my friends in the official opposition and, I certainly hope, in the third party would share the same concerns, and I hope they will support

me.

What we're trying to do is take some volatility out of the market. We're trying to give customers the opportunity to buy gasoline mainly before price spikes.

That's really what it's all about. It's the price spikes that bother us most. Rarely do we see prices drop quite as rapidly as they go up. So it's on these rising markets that I'm really trying to

say to the folks out there, "We understand why you're so concerned."

In closing, I'd like to say, as I began, that a lot has been said about this. Certainly a lot is talked about out in the public and a lot has been said in this

place about it but, quite frankly, nobody has done anything about it. I think it's time we sent a signal to the people of Ontario that we are genuinely concerned about this issue and that we really

do want to take a step in the direction of addressing their concerns. For far too long we've given this issue lip service and we've all complained about it. We've said to our constituents, "Yes, I

understand what you're talking about," but we've done nothing. I think it's time, with your support, that we send a message to the government of the day that it certainly is time we did something.

It's time we stepped up to the plate and protected our consumers, and I would urge you to support me in taking that step.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join the debate with the member from Essex. Bruce Crozier has certainly been on

this matter for a little while. It would be nice if the Minister of Consumer and Business Services was in the House to join in the debate and understand what is going on here, because this directly

affects him.

If you talk about looking at this in terms of doing something, I had my Bill 48 in front of the House a week ago and --

The Acting Speaker: I would remind the member that it's inappropriate to make reference to the absence of any other member in the House.

Mr Tascona: I know the rules, Speaker. Thanks very much.

I just want to say that this is a serious issue. My Bill 48 was in the House a couple of weeks ago -- and Gilles Bisson, the member from Timmins-James Bay, is

with me on this: If the member wants to get volatility out of the market, you're going to have to do a lot more than post notices of changes in gas prices. The bottom line is that my Bill 48, which

deals with gas prices and putting a freeze on them to get some volatility out of the market, received first reading and was passed in second reading --

Mr Crozier: Freeze them higher than they are today.

Mr Tascona: Oh no, the prices are still higher than what I put it at, if you go up to my area and you go up to the north. I don't know where

you're buying your gas.

But I'll tell you right now, what the Liberals did and what the government did was put it into the committee of the whole, and everybody knows it will die a

slow, lingering death, because that was their intent. If you wanted something to be done, you should have put it into a committee for hearings. So put your money where your mouth is. We'll see

where you are today, whether you're going to kill Mr Crozier's bill in terms of putting it into committee of the whole. Bill 48, which I put forward, would put price stability in there, but it was

put into committee of the whole by the Liberals, and I'm going to try to get it out. We'll see whether we can get it out, because we need price stability in this province.

As you look at it, the member makes a very good point: The money is not made at the retail level; the money is made at the refinery level. You have the big oil

companies; there are three of them. They're making money off the refinery. I've heard reports that they're making as much as a 26% return on their money at the refinery level. I believe in

transparency. I join with the member with respect to making sure there is transparency, but there have to be consequences. If they're making that kind of money and we find out what kind of money

they're making -- that's if he can get the support of his own government, let alone the Minister of Consumer and Business Services, whose record on birth certificates doesn't speak to us going too

far on this -- I would say that there should be consequences.

In the state of Maryland, they do not allow a major oil company to retail and also refine. There's good reason for that because of the way they can set the price

and the way they control the market. This is all about controlling the market. I can tell you that if we don't get some competition in this marketplace, we're going to be at a loss. What we need

here is for the federal government to get rid of the GST, which is an illegal tax on the retail prices. I haven't seen anything from the current federal Liberal government about getting rid of that

GST, though they had a task force in 1998 -- a very good task force; Dan McTeague was on it -- that very clearly said, "Get rid of the GST. It's an illegal tax." Nothing has been done with respect

to the GST, and that is wrong.

The other part of it is looking at the volatility. They say it's tied to the world oil prices. There is no way it's tied to the world oil prices. We had a spike

in Barrie from 79 cents up to 95 cents and back to 79 cents, all in the space of three weeks. Come on; that had nothing to do with world oil prices. It has to do with how much money is going to be

made. I like what the member is doing with respect to getting at the refineries in terms of how much money they're making, but the competition is the issue. You've got the big oil companies

controlling the refineries. There's no other place they're going to be able to get the gas. That's why you don't see, for example, the Wal-Marts come in and try to make more competition. Canadian

Tire has to get their gas from the big oil companies' refineries, and that's why we don't have competition.

One of the recommendations of our task force said to the federal government, "We want you to look at the Competition Act." They're looking at it right now, but

the problem with the Competition Act, when you're dealing with a market-dominant position, is that they hold it to a criminal standard of proof. We're not dealing with crimes here; what we're

dealing with is business and competition. It should be held to the civil standard of proof, a much lower standard of proof, to deal with unfair competition. All we want is fairness in the business

place. That's what this is all about: fairness.

The province of PEI sets the price for gasoline. In this province, we set the price for what's going to happen with respect to hydro. So my question is, what's

the next logical step here? Why are we afraid to set the price with respect to retail gas? You're not afraid to do it with respect to electrical prices. What are you afraid of? Is it the big oil

companies that are going to control this and tell you what should be going on? All I'm looking for is fairness in the marketplace. I don't believe giving a notice of 72 hours -- I don't even know

whether that's legal because I've heard it may not be legal under the federal Competition Act. All it does is say to the oil companies, "We're going to spike it 10 cents and then it's going back

around six cents. Then we're going to spike it another 10." What does that do to volatility? It doesn't do anything to volatility. But the key issue here is to deal with that volatility.

That's why my Bill 48, which was killed by the Liberal government about two weeks ago -- and I know Gilles Bisson is a big supporter of my bill, and it was

supported by the House. Where did they put it? They put it in the committee of the whole so we couldn't have public hearings.

I don't know where this bill from my friend Mr Crozier is going, but I would like to see it get out of the committee of the whole. If what we're doing here is

wasting our time debating a bill that the government is going to shove into the committee of the whole and never have any public hearings on, then nothing is going to ever happen to this. What's

the point, if the Liberal government's going to kill Mr Crozier's bill like they killed mine?

What we want is something done. The volatility of what we're facing here is very serious. We need to deal with what the real problem is. There's no competition

in this province with respect to retail gas pricing. It's controlled by the three companies. The federal Competition Bureau is toothless because the federal Liberal government continues not to do

anything at that level, and they also haven't gotten rid of the GST. I want people to know that.

I'm very pleased to speak on this. I support anything we can do to get clarity and transparency in the gasoline industry. I'll be supporting this, but I'm

supporting it for one reason: I want to see some public hearings on this. If we're not going to get public hearings and it's going to be killed by the Liberal government as usual, then what's the

point?

I commend the member for doing this. I hope the Minister of Consumer and Business Services is listening on television, so he knows what's going on.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): That's why he's wearing blue all the time. Colour coalition.

Mr Bisson: Yes, my affiliation is starting to show with the pink shirts, right?

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: No, those are colour problems with your television. Turn the tint a bit and you'll notice it's orange. You've got to do that on your

glasses.

I want to take the opportunity this morning to go through this particular bill for a few minutes. Generally, at the end of the day, should we vote for it or

should we not? I want to see what happens through debate.

I want to make clear a couple of things. The bill in itself ain't going to do a heck of a lot to deal with gasoline prices. I guess that's part of the problem

I'm having with this debate and the way the bill is structured. The member is saying that what we need to do is have a provision in law that says that if a gas company wants to raise or,

presumably, lower prices, they would have to post their intention of doing so for a period of 72 hours.

I'm not sure what the heck that's going to do at the end of the day in a big way to deal with the issue of gas prices overall. As we know, gas prices are set on

the open market, based on what world prices are. The way that they have this quirky system --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Well, I know what you're saying. But presumably, they get together, they collude and all that stuff. We know.

The point I'm trying to make is this: I'm not convinced that saying we're going to post the increase or the decrease for a period of 72 hours is going to do a

heck of a lot to force oil companies to stop gouging the public of Ontario.

Now, there's one provision of the bill which I think is a good idea, and that's one of the reasons I might end up supporting this in the end, and that is the

idea of having segmented reports, made in law, that oil companies have to post how much profit or loss they made in various parts of their business. We all know that there are the people who do the

extraction, the refining, the marketing and the sales. It's a segmented industry, the way the gas industry is set up. Forcing them to post their profits and how much money they've made in each of

those parts of the business ain't a bad idea, because we just might find out exactly how much they are gouging us.

I believe oil companies collude. They come together and whisper behind closed doors about how much they're going to raise the price of gas on Thanksgiving

Friday, so they can get the public for even more money as they travel to see family and friends. Then all of a sudden, miraculously, the price goes down. You're not going to tell me that OPEC and

everybody else all of a sudden decided to raise the oil price on Friday. That's clearly a function of the oil companies themselves. So listing those profits in some sort of segmented report is not

a bad idea.

However, even with that, I'm not convinced it's going to lower the price of gas overall. The issue is that what we can do to lower the prices, quite frankly, can

be better done at the federal level. The federal government has refused -- Mr Martin and, before that, Mr Chrétien -- to basically hold those oil companies accountable. At the end of the day,

it's a federal regulation. It's federal law. The federal government, the Liberals, want to do nothing. Why? Because they're beholden to the oil industry. They don't want, in the province of

Alberta, to cause potential conflict that they may get from the oil companies and lose some possible support that they think they may, or probably don't have, in Alberta. So we have a toothless

Liberal government that's not even prepared to whisper at the insurance companies to basically bring them into line. So what the member here is trying to do, I guess we can commend, but I'm not --

because they're not roaring; they're whispering.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): The gas companies.

Mr Bisson: Did I say "insurance"? Them too; they're in the same boat, as far as I'm concerned.

I just say, I'm not so sure. What could we do provincially? I think there are a couple of things that we can do that are pretty direct. One is that there was a

bill introduced by Mr Tascona. I've introduced a bill that deals with the issue of trying to freeze the price of gas. That's something that's within our jurisdiction, our ability to do. Threatening

to freeze the price of gas to the insurance company by way of provincial legislation -- I will guarantee you --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Did I say "insurance" again? You know, insurance prices are so high in this province since you guys have come to office. They keep on

going up and up. I've got insurance calls coming in to the office every day, and I've got insurance on the brain. I want to apologize for that.

I just say, if we really wanted to deal with the price of gas, one thing that we could do provincially is pass Mr Tascona's bill, take it out of the committee of

the whole and pass it, or call my bill and pass that as well. My bill basically does what Rick Bartolucci asked the government to do when he was in opposition, which is to say, "Let's freeze the

price of gas for a period of time to get the attention of the gas companies, and once they know that we can do that to them, they'll be less likely to come around and gouge people as they do now by

practice." Let's call a spade a spade. The federal Liberal government has done nothing to deal with this issue, and that's why we find ourselves in that debate today.

I support any initiative that tries to deal with the price of gas. However, I'm not confident that this bill will go anywhere near dealing with the issue. I'm

not convinced that the idea of having to post the price of gas 72 hours in advance of an increase or a decrease is going to work. In fact, it may have an opposite effect when it comes to decreases.

You may not get the decrease, because of the posting. We ought to think about that.

The other issue is having to force the gas industry to post profits and losses in the various segmented parts of the industry. I'm not convinced that, at the end

of the day, it's going to do a heck of a lot when it comes to lowering the price of gas. The two big measures in the bill -- we don't have a heck of a lot when it comes to forcing down the price of

gas.

The last issue that he deals with is having small independents post their affiliation -- who they're buying their gas from. I've got a bit of a problem with that

one because it may have an opposite effect in taking away some of the competition that we've actually got in the system. Often, it's a small independent who comes in and offers the low price that

forces the oil companies to lower their prices overall. If we start getting into this affiliation stuff, it may put at a disadvantage the small independents. I don't think that we should be doing

that, because far too often we find ourselves, because of the independents, in a gas war that lowers prices. If we start monkeying around with the independents, I'm not so sure we're going to have

the added effects.

I support anything that would deal with trying to get the price of gas down. I think this bill isn't going to do that and I think, as my good friend Mr Tascona

said, if we do pass this bill, it's got to go to committee and we've got to bring in provisions from my bill and Mr Tascona's bill so we actually have some teeth when it comes to dealing with

it.

My last point -- because I know my friend Mr Prue wants to speak -- is, if this thing does pass, I would guess that this will never see the light of day when it

comes to being proclaimed. Not a chance. I challenge my good friend Mr Crozier to show me that he's got an agreement with the government House leader that this bill will be passed this spring or

next fall at third reading and you expect to have it proclaimed. I don't think it's ever going to happen. We should take this for what it is. He's trying to get ahead of an issue. God bless; I

understand why he's doing it; but it's toothless.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I am very pleased to support Bill 80, from my colleague from Essex. I think the important

point that needs to be made almost immediately is that what this is about is finding some way for us to protect consumers, to at least give consumers an opportunity, in essence, to have warning

about the price changes. There's no doubt many members of the Legislature, myself and all my colleagues who are speaking here today, brought forward legislation in the past. We've debated these

issues and tried to find a solution to it. This legislation, if we are able to get it through the Legislature and get it passed, will be one specific way of allowing consumers to have some notice

of rising prices and indeed of prices that may be going down in the future. I would hope my colleague will have the full support of the House.

As a member from northern Ontario, I can tell you that we feel particularly aggrieved about the price of gasoline at the gas stations in the north. As many of

you will know, whatever the prices are down here, perhaps in the Toronto area, they tend to be substantially higher in the north. Recently, I must tell you, that discrepancy has been

extraordinarily wide. There has been about a 20-to-25-cent differential between Thunder Bay and parts of Thunder Bay-Superior North, my riding, and down here in Toronto.

One thing we did in my riding was that we got together and picked a gas price task force, which the former mayor of Thunder Bay, who is now running federally in

the federal election, Mr Boshcoff -- and I'm sure Mr Boshcoff will do --

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): A good man.

Mr Gravelle: He's a very good man. As mayor, he was also upset about this, so we got a gas price task force together, which he chaired. I was

very involved with that as well. It brought the oil companies in. We tried to understand what difference there should be between northern Ontario -- I mean, we understand there are costs associated

with transportation and other costs. We determined, quite frankly, that it was quite fair game for there to be about a four-cent differential, that that was legitimate. Our frustration has always

been that the differential seems to be much, much wider in the north. As I say, recently we had an almost 25-cent differential. So we've been trying to find some way to deal with that.

I'll be honest. The frustration we have is also centred around the fact that when the prices went particularly high recently -- they seemed to be in the

mid-90s and over a dollar a litre in some places in northern Ontario. When that happened, the oil companies came to our task force and, as usual, said to us, "We have no control over this. It's the

high price of crude. It's instability in Iraq. It's a variety of other reasons." But the last time this happened, which I think was actually February 2002, when the quarterly reports came out, we

saw record-breaking profits by the Canadian oil and gas companies. So for them to tell us that they have no control over these things, that the price of crude is high, is quite frustrating. I

expect that when the quarterly reports come out we are again going to see record or massive profits by the oil and gas companies. So I also applaud the

section of my colleague's bill that looks for

the information in terms of the profits being made. Certainly in the north we are very concerned about it.

I myself have put forward a couple of pieces of legislation, one that I'll be reintroducing this afternoon, the gas price watchdog commission, that will allow

us to --

Mr Brown: Tell us about that.

Mr Gravelle: Well, we will have the legislative power, if we are able to pass this bill, to have a watchdog commissioner, a commission office,

that will be able to monitor and investigate. It will have whistle-blower protection. It's a good piece of legislation. I should give credit to my colleague next to me, Mr Colle, the member for

Eglinton-Lawrence, who will be speaking, because he was the first one to introduce it, and he and I worked together on this closely.

Mr Colle: I was trying to help the north.

Mr Gravelle: Absolutely. He was. In fact, Mr Colle encouraged me to introduce it a year or so ago. So I'll be reintroducing that, because I

think we need to find some way -- this was one, and, may I say, a relatively benign way -- to give somebody legislative power to go and check out the price differential, why the prices are what

they are, because the oil companies invariably, when they come in to meet you, polite as they are, will never tell you exactly why the price is 95 cents a litre that particular day. They will not

break it down for you. We know about the taxes, and there is that big differential. We know about the issue related to refineries.

The long and the short is, we need to do something. I believe this piece of legislation is terrific. I will be supporting it, and I hope that all colleagues in

the House will support it today. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Mr Miller: It's my pleasure to speak to Bill 80, the private member's bill introduced by the member from Essex today. It is

An Act to provide

information to consumers respecting the price of gasoline and the ownership of gasoline retailers and to require certain additional information from major oil companies.

There have been a lot of gas price bills, private members' bills, introduced in this place. I commend him for introducing it. I know he is trying to, in a

small way, address the problems of high gas prices, but I wonder how much it's really going to do.

One provision is that it requires 72 hours' notice. I would question whether that's going to be an advantage or not. If you're going away on a long weekend, if

you fill up three days ahead of time, if you drive much, your tank's probably going to be empty by the time the long weekend rolls around, or you're going to have to buy gas on the weekend anyway.

I'd be afraid that it would just provide an opportunity for collusion among the wholesalers, the refineries, the oil companies.

The bill also requires gasoline retailers that are affiliated with major gasoline retailers to indicate their affiliation. I have no problem with that. I'm not

sure how much that's going to accomplish, but I don't have any problem with it.

The bill requires large oil companies that produce, refine and market gasoline to file annual segmented earning reports with the Minister of Consumer and

Business Services. That's interesting. The more knowledge we have in terms of how much money is being made by the oil companies and refineries in particular, the better, in trying to improve the

situation.

But the issues I'm hearing about in my riding to do with gas prices are, first of all, the high gas prices, but second, it's the differential for areas

especially in northern Ontario. In my riding, particularly in the Parry Sound area, the prices are higher than in other parts of the riding, and there doesn't seem to be a logical explanation of

why that is happening. I've certainly heard from Mr Tim Pelette of Parry Sound, who has been a real advocate, working very hard in his way to do what he can to raise awareness of the issue and to

try to get something happening to correct the situation.

I've also heard from independent retailers in my riding who are concerned about the tactics used by large oil companies and refineries that have the effect of

lessening competition and basically give the big oil companies more control. They inevitably put some of the small retailers out of business. It lessens competition and gives them more control over

the prices.

I've been in contact with the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association. They have good ideas for a private member's bill that I probably will be

putting forward in this place to address some of those issues in terms of trying to keep more competition for the independent operators. They have a proposed act,

an act respecting fair marketing

practices in the sale of gasoline and diesel oil. "The purpose of this act is to promote greater fairness in the pricing of gasoline and diesel oil. Specifically, the act restores the natural

arbitrage that ensures that wholesale prices do not exceed retail prices of these fuels. This act will reduce geographic price differences at the pump to reasonable levels" -- as I say, that's a

real concern in northern Ontario, a real concern in Parry Sound -- "and it will increase price competition," which we've heard from a few members is something we really need, "ultimately benefiting

consumers of gasoline and diesel oil." But it doesn't attempt to limit retail prices in any way. As I think has been stated by a few members, the price of gas is really something that is set

worldwide.

I think this bill deserves some consideration, this one being suggested by the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association, because it really would

keep more of the independent operators alive and put them on a fair playing field.

It does this through a few specific means. "The highest wholesale price the refiner or wholesaler charges at a location must at no time be higher than: the

retail price at the refiner's or wholesaler's directly or indirectly operated retail outlet." So they can't have a lower price than they're charging to independent operators, thereby putting the

independent operators out of business. That is certainly a good point.

In this bill, they would also require that "No refiner shall restrict the quantity of fuel available at a supply point at which a retailer or wholesaler is

able to obtain gasoline or diesel oil." A refiner can't basically cut off an independent operator so they don't have a supply of fuel to sell, once again restricting competition. And, "No refiner

or wholesaler shall set a retail price for gasoline or diesel oil other than at its directly or indirectly operated outlets." So it can't set the price in places it doesn't control.

This bill, which I will be introducing, could really address a couple of the critical problems, especially the fact that the independent operators are being

squeezed out of business, thereby very much reducing competition in this area. The more competition we have, the better. The more true competition we have, the better.

I commend the member for Essex for trying to address some of the problems with high gasoline prices. I don't really think the 72-hour notification is going to

achieve too much. I note also that the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has introduced Bill 48 toward price stability -- as he mentioned, it has gone into committee of the whole -- and he raised

some good points. He also brought up the idea that there has to be more competition in the pricing of fuel.

Consideration should be given to trying to address the key concerns I'm hearing about: the geographic differences in prices, particularly in more remote areas

in northern Ontario. In my riding, around the Parry Sound area the price seems to be consistently higher. Also, legislation needs to be introduced to address the unfair tactics that big oil

companies and refineries use to limit competition, which inevitably gives them more control over the market and leads to higher prices. I think we need to see more competition in the market for

gas, and that should result in lower prices.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise and speak to Bill 80, but I have to admit from the outset

that I have very mixed feelings about the bill. The bill does two good things and one that I think it doesn't do at all.

Let's deal with the good things first. It requires that gas stations post the affiliations of the gas companies that control or supply them so the whole world

can see that. It's important that people know the product they are buying and know full well whether or not they trust the company to sell them what they need or want.

I think back to about a year or two ago when many General Motors cars were afflicted by Shell gasoline, where the deposits in the gasoline or what they were

mixing in it were causing all of the dials and gas gauges to be faulty. People would say, "I'm not going to buy Shell gas because I'm worried about my faulty readings." That happened to me when I

ran out of gas one day. I stopped buying Shell gas. But of course many of the independents buy their gas from Shell. People would go down to Cango or one of the other independents or smaller gas

companies and buy the gas there and feel they were safe, but in fact they were not. I'm glad to say that I believe Shell has got away from that problem, but it is one of the key aspects: that

consumers must know about the product they are buying.

Also, not particularly to pick on Shell, but there was a time when many people were boycotting Shell gasoline because of Shell's policies in Nigeria. For a

while even the city of Toronto had a stipulation that city of Toronto tenders could not include Shell gasoline for precisely their practices in the Third World and how they were treating the people

particularly of Nigeria. Consumers need to know that information and should have that information so the gas stations or the gas companies can't sell off their gas to independents in the guise that

it is an independent company. The reality is that most of the profits, if not all, are made not by the little guy on the corner pumping the gas but by the big multinational corporations.

Consumers have a right to know what they are buying, from whom they are buying and the conditions under which that product was produced, so we are in agreement

with that

section of the act and believe it is valuable.

The second

section is the segmented reports, which is too often not done, so that consumers -- people, the general public -- can understand the actual pricing

and the cost of the gasoline or the motor fuel they're putting in their cars, because it could also be diesel, ethanol or any other number of products that cars can use these days. They need to

know whether the profits are being made in refining or sales or marketing or production. They need to know that. If we as a government are to know that, if we are to make laws and regulations

around the pricing of gasoline or to have any influence at all, those statistics, those facts, need to be known, and they can only be known if there is a law requiring their production. If we are

without that information, we will never be able to regulate the gas industry because we will never know whether there are profits in fact being made with the spiking of gas prices, as seems to

happen daily, weekly, monthly. It happens all the time.

I am constantly amazed. I was out last night and gasoline was selling for 77.9 at a gas station. I was in a restaurant across the street and, when I came out

of that restaurant, it was selling for 82.9. I don't know what in the world caused it to go up five cents while I had dinner, but there it was. There is the reality of what is happening, and the

consumers obviously are very upset about that.

That brings me to the third point, and I think the controversial point -- or maybe it's not controversial at all -- and that is the 72 hours' notice for prices

to change. I would prefer that this said, "72 hours for prices that are going up," because, quite frankly, I don't believe that gas companies or independents or anyone who wants to reduce the price

should have to give notice. In fact, it may stop some small independents from doing that, because they're going to have to post and give advance notice to the big companies that they're going to

reduce their prices 72 hours hence, which gives the big companies an opportunity to match them.

I have some real problems with that, because it is the small independents that usually lead the way in keeping the prices lower. I do know that if you go to

some of the smaller independent companies in my neighbourhood, they usually run, on average, about one cent a litre less than the big companies, particularly -- well, I don't have to mention the

six sisters; there they are. They are the ones who control and usually have the highest price for their gasoline. So I am very wary about hurting the small independent retailers. I am very worried

about not giving them the option to reduce the price of gas without giving notice to the giants. Quite frankly, I believe the bill should have said, "72 hours' intent of notice to increase the

price." If that's all it was, I would not have the same misgivings about this particular

section but, as it reads now, it's any fluctuation at all, whether it's going up or down, a penny, half a

penny, a tenth of a cent, whatever it is.

I invite people to look at the cost of gasoline too, because I'm constantly amazed. If the crude oil price goes up a dollar for a barrel -- a barrel contains

almost exactly 200 litres; it's 50 gallons US -- that should reflect about half a cent a litre. But I'll tell you, when the crude oil price goes up a dollar per barrel, instead of raising the price

by half a cent -- and they have reserves for months. Notwithstanding that, instead of raising it half a cent, you will see huge fluctuations -- eight, 10, 12 cents -- based on half a cent. I know

these guys have to be gouging, and we all know they're gouging.

The reality is -- and I've got 25 seconds -- I support two parts of the bill, and I'm not sure exactly -- I want to hear more debate -- whether to support it

or not. But I don't think the 72 hours is right. If it does go to committee, it needs to be changed.

What we really need, though, is stronger bills. Those which were proposed by Mr Bartolucci, Mr Bradley, Mr Colle, Mr Bisson and Mr Tascona were all a little

bit stronger than this one, but we really do need to get our act together for the consumers.

Mr Colle: I think Bill 80, put forward by Bruce Crozier, the member for Essex, is an extremely positive and important bill because it doesn't

just whine about the price of gas; it actually proposes a solution. The solution is not all-encompassing, because we don't have power over the price of a barrel of oil coming out of Iraq or Saudi

Arabia or even coming out of our friend Ralph Klein in Alberta. We pay world prices for Ralph's oil. Therefore, we have a bill here that says, "Within our power, realistically, here are some

suggestions that protect the consumer." It brings about transparency. It deals with disclosure of profits in different segments. It also tries to do something about the manipulation of prices that

the member from East York mentioned, where you go into a coffee shop for a doughnut and you say, "I'll get gas on the way out." Going in, it was 80 cents; you come out the door and it's a dollar.

There's no reason for that. I think the 72-hour provision is an attempt to bring some kind of rationality to it.

Again, these are things within the parameters of provincial government. I really think it's worth a good, strong look by our government.

I also hope we realize that in this bill is also the continuing declaration of how much of gas goes in taxes. I would like to include on that line too that

now, for the first time in the province's history, we're putting some of that gas tax revenue, which is 14.7 cents per litre -- two cents of that -- to go for better transportation and better

transit. I'd like to see that put on the sticker at the gas station. That's a dedicated tax, which our government has done, and that starts to flow in October.

I think we also try to protect the independent operator in this bill, because the more independent operators there are out there, the more competition there

is. That is also addressed in this bill.

We should also ensure that the government does more generic things to deal with dependency on gasoline, like more long-term solutions. That's why I think it's

important for us to push alternate fuels. The oil giants are dragging their feet on supporting our initiatives on ethanol. That has got to be made more readily available. We can't be totally

dependent on Ralph Klein and the Middle Eastern countries. We've got to try and keep investing in alternate technology.

We have good hybrid cars for the first time. I don't want to mention names, but I know Toyota has a great little car. The Ministry of the Environment drives

one around. Now Ford has a new hybrid SUV, believe it or not. Talk about oxymorons: a hybrid SUV. Anyway, it's coming out in September. It's going to have a huge battery in the back, and it's going

to give you enough power to match what you get in a six-cylinder engine. I know the member from Peterborough's looking at buying one later on this fall. So we also have to look beyond dealing with

the oil companies and just manage what we can.

This bill, again, is positive. It has got some very concrete steps. I think it deserves our individual support as MPPs to ensure it gets attention at

committee, that ministry officials look at it. If you go through each part of it, you may not agree with one aspect of it -- the 72 hours -- but I think one proposal after the other has an

extremely positive suggestion to it that I think deserves consideration because it begins to get rid of the feeling of exploitation. I think sometimes that's what people really get upset about.

It's not the fact that we know oil now costs $40 a barrel, and the price is going up; they don't see the correlation between what's going on in the barrel cost and what they're paying at the pump.

They think there's a lot of manipulation by the big oil companies in between. This bill tries to get rid of that kind of cynicism with more transparency and more openness. I think that's what we

can do as a provincial government.

Yes, there are stronger proposals, and I put some forward myself. We all know the trouble is that we can't do everything within our parameters provincially,

but this is something we can do. Therefore, let's support this and make sure it goes into committee to get some analysis from ministry officials, industry officials, consumers and independent

operators.

I think this is doable piece of legislation that deserves full support. I hope even the media starts talking about positive solutions. This is a positive

proposal. Let's support it.

Mr Brown: In coming to speak to this bill, the first thing we really need to do is congratulate the member for Essex for bringing this forward

this morning. This is an issue he has pursued with dogged determination for quite some time, as we all have been very concerned about the price and delivery of gasoline across this province.

I represent one of the northern constituencies, and I would note that Mr Crozier, the member for Essex, represents the most southern constituency in the

province of Ontario. Detroit would be to his north. So it gives us some sense of how this resonates across the entire province of Ontario.

I did a quick survey of what gasoline prices were over the last 24 hours. I think this will be interesting. I noticed that in Toronto, the lowest price I could

find was 72.5 over the last 24 hours, so we made some calls in my constituency to see what those prices were. In Elliot Lake it was 86.4; Bruce Mines, 89.9; Blind River, 89.7; Mindemoya, 91.9; my

home, Kagawong, 90.9; Manitouwadge, 94.5; Hornepayne, 93.9; White River, 94.9; Chapleau, 96.9; Wawa, 93.9.

The interesting thing about that is, I think members would have got the sense that there was very close to 25 cents' differential between the lowest price in

Toronto and the price in Chapleau. I can account, as the member from Thunder Bay-Superior North has pointed out, for some transportation differences, but you cannot account, no matter how you do

it, for a difference of almost 25 cents a litre. That is absolutely absurd.

What we need is a bill like Mr Crozier's, which is suggesting that you have to post prices and you have to post them 72 hours in advance. I go to pick up the

mail at Aussie Hunt's in Kagawong and I see flyers in there from the grocery store. It says that if you come on Monday you can buy your cereal for this price. You know it's on sale and on Monday

you're going to buy it for this price. It's very clear. It makes for a marketplace where your competition has to meet your price. Everybody knows. The transparency is there. Therefore, you should

be able to have a price that is fair to the consumer, at least to the point that he can decide whether he is going to buy that product on Monday or is going to wait for Friday when there is a sale

at a different store. You don't have that choice with gasoline.

I drive probably as much as anybody in this place. I have a daughter who lives near Yonge and St Clair and I've had the same experience. I drove Amy home one

evening. She had come for dinner at the apartment. On the way up, I noticed at a gasoline station that the price was such-and-such. I thought, "Gee, I'll stop on the way back to get gasoline." That

was a 10-cent-a-litre mistake. You don't want to do that. It's kind of like a lottery when you drive around Ontario trying to guess where the best station is to stop for gas, and at some point you

are forced to do it.

This would bring some certainty to the situation, and I think that's what people in Ontario want. They want some certainty. They want some transparency. They

understand we cannot control world oil prices. It would be nice if we could, but that is not possible. What we need to be able to do is to say to the people in Chapleau, "The fact that you're

paying 25 cents a litre more is just totally unacceptable," and because the oil companies have to give notice, we would know across the province what those prices will be on the following day.

The long weekend is coming. I am very interested to know what the prices will be come June 29 and June 30, in advance of the holiday weekend. I think they

might be up. I'm just guessing on that one, and I'm guessing that maybe they might be down again the following Monday. But we're not sure. That's part of the guessing game; it's kind of the

excitement. If you use much gasoline, you know it's a problem.

I think all members should know that they should be supporting Mr Crozier's bill this morning and applaud him for his efforts.

I thank you for the time.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex has two minutes to reply.

Mr Crozier: Thank you to the members for Parry Sound-Muskoka, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Timmins-James Bay, Beaches-East York, and particularly

to Mike, Mike and Mike, from Eglinton-Lawrence, Thunder Bay-Superior North, and Algoma-Manitoulin.

I've been in elected office for almost 20 years, so my skin has grown rather thick and I certainly don't mind some criticism of the bill. I didn't bring it

forward thinking it would have unanimous consent, but I do still ask for consideration that you support the bill, because if we can get it to committee and if we can get it looked at there, we can

amend it.

The bottom line of all this is, we've tried to get various gasoline bills through two governments now, and, as I said, nothing has been done. It has just been

paid lip service. Each of us is trying, in different ways, to get something done. That's what I'm looking for here, to let the driving public know that we really are concerned about the issue and

that someone's willing to take on that concern.

This, although it doesn't get to some of the root problems with pricing, at least gives the buying public some flexibility, some option, some choice. Maybe,

because we take this step, it might be a signal to the major oil companies that they'd better just tread carefully or there may be other steps that will be taken or that should be taken.

With that said, I appreciate everybody's comments. I ask for your support when it comes to a vote.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION

AFFIRMATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 CONFIRMANT LA

PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES

Mr Klees moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to affirm the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999 / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à confirmer la Loi de 1999 sur la protection des

contribuables.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'd like to begin this portion of the debate by reading into the record a portion of the

preamble to the

bill:

"On September 11, 2003, Dalton McGuinty, before his election as Premier, signed a written pledge `not to raise taxes or implement a new tax without the

explicit consent of the voters' through a referendum as required by the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999. He also stated publicly that a government led by him would comply with that act."

That

preamble is contained in the bill that I've proposed for debate before the Legislature today. This bill, although entitled

An Act to affirm the Taxpayer

Protection Act, really could be entitled the integrity act. The reason I say that is that it goes to the heart of this government and this Premier's inability to recognize how important integrity

in government is, how important it is for the people of this province to be able to rely on the commitments that are made during an election period, to be able to rely on the commitments of the

Premier, who holds the highest office in this province. The role here in the Legislature really is to make laws. So we have a situation in this province where the Premier, the individual whose

responsibility it is to make laws, and surely as well to uphold laws, blatantly has broken not only an election promise but, far worse than that, has gone on to break a law of this Parliament that

he in fact voted for when he was in the opposition benches.

Essentially, this is a reset bill. It resets the Taxpayer Protection Act to the time in history when Mr McGuinty, then a candidate for the position of Premier,

made a very specific commitment to the people of Ontario, and that was that he would keep this law. It includes a provision under which any taxes that may be wrongfully taken by this government, in

breach of the Taxpayer Protection Act, will be rebated to Ontarians. It goes on to say very clearly that if this government does wrongfully withhold taxes under their budget, each individual

actually has the right, under the law, to withhold that against any other monies owed to the province.

As I said before, why is this bill even before us today? It really gives us as a Legislature, on what will probably be the last day of sitting in this session

before we go into summer recess and back into our constituencies, an opportunity to once again reaffirm, at least on the part of members who will have the courage to vote in favour of this bill, to

say to their constituents, the very people who elected them, "I believe in upholding and supporting the law that was created here in this Legislature."

It also gives members here in the House an opportunity to signal clearly to their constituents that they take seriously the trust that the electorate has

placed in them to uphold the law. It gives members of the Liberal Party here today, who I know have been under tremendous stress -- particularly the member from St Catharines, because I know him to

be a man who would want to keep every promise that was made. I know he has been agonizing under the burden that his Premier has placed him under, which is to have to face his constituents, as a

long-standing member of this House, and try to justify what this government has done.

It gives members of the Liberal caucus today an opportunity to stand in their place, because this is private members' hour. The role of the government whip is

to force, essentially -- unfortunately, that's what happens all too often -- members to vote against their conscience and in support of a government position. Members of the Liberal Party in this

House today have an opportunity to stand in their place and say, "I stand with my constituents and I stand on the principle of integrity." Election campaigns are worthless unless promises are kept.

In fact, democracy, I say to you, is worthless and is undermined unless our promises are kept.

I have here a representation of petitions that have been sent to my office -- literally thousands of petitions -- that are urging our Premier to honour the

Taxpayer Protection Act. I want to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have downloaded this petition from my Web site and are, as we speak, having their friends and neighbours sign

petitions like this and send them in. They are frustrated because, in addition to signing this petition, what they're asking me is, how can we recall this government? Is there anything at all in

Ontario's law that would give us the authority and empower us as constituents, as citizens of this province, to recall this government in whom we've lost absolute trust?

I'd like to thank people like Mr Manser of Kanata; Mr Les Jaworski of Cambridge; Mr and Mrs Groh of Brampton; Mr George Smith of Oakville; Ms Tessa Gardner of

Parry Sound; Mrs Eleanor Corbett of Etobicoke; Edwin and Lillian Gemmell of Innisfil; and Mr and Mrs Crawford of Bradford for all of their work. There are hundreds of people like these, who have

taken the time to get these petitions signed.

I want to take this opportunity as well to read into the record a letter I received from Angello Capobianco. It says:

"Please read this note in the House ... and ask Mr McGuinty what is he trying to do to the seniors like myself. I also know of others who get pensions and

still have to work in order to survive. As for me, with my bad health, I am unable to work and it has become impossible for me to pay my bills.

"All these broken promises, especially the one not to help us seniors with the property tax, which the previous government was willing to do, has made things

very difficult for us.

"Thanking you for taking the time to do it."

I do this on behalf of Mr Capobianco, but he is representative of literally hundreds of thousands of people in this province who share the same concern, not

only about the additional tax burden they have as a result of this government but because of the lack of integrity of this government to stand behind the very laws of this province that they

themselves -- many members who now sit on the government benches were in opposition and voted for this bill.

I look forward to hearing my colleagues in this House in their debate. I'll be listening very carefully, as I'm sure people across the province are listening,

to what they are telling their constituents about what they believe in terms of integrity in government. That's really the message. Will they be using empty words to simply justify this

unjustifiable action on the part of this government? This bill allows this House to rectify, before we go into summer recess, this lack of integrity on the part of this government.

I urge members to consider making their stand on behalf of their constituents, on behalf of democracy, on behalf of this Legislature, on behalf of the

integrity of lawmaking and law-keeping in the province of Ontario, and give this bill their vote in principle as we vote on it for second reading today.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's always a pleasure to rise and comment on a proposal by the member for Oak Ridges, a member I've had a

chance to get to know outside the forum of the Legislature and someone I consider a legislative colleague with whom I look forward to disagreeing passionately without being disagreeable.

The member's principal thesis is that Ontarians must undergo a referendum vote because it's the law. In fact, my colleague frequently repeats this phrase as if

to underscore it. The member for Oak Ridges, as a former minister of the crown, will doubtless be familiar with another law: You can't put a "slow moving" sign on a vehicle that isn't slow-moving

if you plan to drive on Ontario's highways. A vehicle displaying a "slow moving" sign that isn't slow-moving, that is moving at normal speed, will be stopped and the driver fined. It's the law. On

Ontario highways, one-horse open sleighs must have bells attached to the sleigh or to the horse. It's the law, and you can be fined $5 for disobeying it.

Just because it's the law, nothing prevents the law from being out of date, unworkable or just plain wrong.

So let it be with Bill 85 and the law to which it refers, the Taxpayer Protection Act. The Taxpayer Protection Act is a fundamentally and fatally flawed piece

of law. It fails to protect the taxpayers. It failed, for example, to require the previous government to substantiate in any way its claim right up till the date of the election that Ontario's

budget was balanced, when subsequent impartial audits found a hidden deficit of at least $6.2 billion and another $2 billion hidden in operating deficits and debt of hospitals, of which the only

shareholder is the taxpayer of Ontario.

How much is $6.2 billion? Let's use an analogy. The previous government left a hidden operating deficit which is the equivalent of 60-that's six zero, 60 --

sponsorship scandals.

You are not allowed to saw wood on the streets or wash your automobile in Toronto. It's the law.

So what do we have a referendum on? Whether the previous government and its ministers should be taken to task for concealing an in-year deficit, an in-year

deficit that's in violation of the Taxpayer Protection Act, an in-year deficit that is double our government's 2004-05 operating deficit?

In the state of Pennsylvania, no man may purchase alcohol without the written consent of his wife. It's the law. One wonders if single men may legally purchase

alcohol in Pennsylvania.

If the government's 2004-05 budget had demonstrably run a surplus, had the previous government not run the deficit it had, then the sections of Bill 85

requiring a referendum would be built on a foundation of quicksand and the premise of Bill 85 itself would be false and unworkable.

If you happen upon an injured migratory bird in a Canadian national park, you are required to kill it immediately or face a fine of $300. It's the law.

One wonders how the referendum question proposed by Bill 85 might read, so let's try a draft: "The government of Ontario has introduced a measure to fund

Ontario health care that raises dedicated revenue in an amount equal to about one quarter of the hidden deficit left by the previous government, about which Ontarians and the government they

elected could not know and about which the former government steadfastly concealed details. Should sanctions be applied retroactively against the former government and the members of its executive

council? Yes or no?"

You cannot release 10 or more helium-filled balloons in any city of Toronto park within a 24-hour period. It's the law.

There are many other provisions of Bill 85 that make no sense. In essence, it says the government must cause a referendum to occur in Ontario if the Ministry

of Finance proposes to do anything with taxes other than to lower or eliminate them. For example, selling and leasing back all of Ontario's hospitals would be a dumb idea and definitely not a way

to protect taxpayers, who would then be at the mercy of private health insurers, whose proven insatiable appetite for consumer premium income is on display every day in the United States. But

turning a public asset into a private user fee is just fine under the Taxpayer Protection Act. It may be ridiculous, but it's the law.

Canadian law states that no person shall offer a reward for lost or stolen property if promising that no questions will be asked. It's the law.

So despite the respect I have for the abilities of the member from Oak Ridges, and in deference to his solid commitment to the core values and principles that

drive him in this Legislature, I cannot support him on Bill 85. However, I thank him for bringing Bill 85 to the floor of the Legislature, where the serious and fatal shortcomings of the Taxpayer

Protection Act can be discussed.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Bill 85 deals in part with the Liberal health tax. There's little doubt that the recent Ontario

budget calls for a health premium that kicks in July 1. It represents a new tax, and it's a new tax that the Premier must bring to a referendum in accordance with his signed commitment to the

Taxpayer Protection Act. That's the law.

As people across Ontario and across Canada prepare to vote for those who will represent them on the national stage, many will be looking to lessons learned

here in Ontario, and as they mark their ballots, many will wonder if the government they choose will keep commitments made during this election campaign.

As we've seen in Ontario, the road leading from the election trail to a government seat has been a long one for Liberal members, a road that's littered with

empty words and broken promises and broken laws. In my riding, people are asking me if they can trust politicians when Liberals have made it clear that honesty is no longer part of the job

description. They remember a Liberal leader who on their television sets last September said, "I won't cut your taxes, but I won't raise them either." They remember that same man sitting down on

September 11 to sign a written pledge not to raise taxes or implement a new tax without the explicit consent of the voters. That was a law. He gave his word. He put his name on the line. He's now

flushing his commitment and potentially this province down the toilet.

The Premier is confused as to just what a tax is and just what is the law. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a tax is defined in two ways: "(

a) a

charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes; (

b) a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses." The Cambridge Dictionary holds that "a

tax is an amount of money paid to the government which is based on your income or the cost of goods and services you have bought." As an example, Cambridge uses some phrases to explain this:

"They're putting the tax on cigarettes," and "Tax cuts are always popular." They use that as a way of explaining what a tax is. Clearly, in accordance with these

definitions, there's little doubt

that the health premium is indeed a tax, as defined in this present law.

Just in case there's any confusion, I'll refer to Bill 83, the Budget Measures Act.

Section 17 states -- it was right there in black and white -- "...

establish a new tax called the Ontario health premium...." If there was any doubt whatsoever that Liberals are breaking the law, the pledge, with this health premium, their own legislation clearly

underlines the new tax and the latest in a line of new broken promises that this health premium represents.

My fellow committee member, the member from Durham, and I put forward a number of amendments to try and clarify, to bring some accuracy into

section 17. We

submitted amendments with respect to this health premium, health tax phrase. One of them we referred to as the Liberal-is-a-Liberal tax. We also put forward an amendment to rename it the

Paul-Martin-made-me-do-it tax. Despite these best efforts,

section 17 still reads: "... a new tax called the Ontario health premium...."

I'm confused. The Premier clearly signed a pledge to not raise taxes or implement new taxes without a referendum. The health premium is clearly a tax. These

two facts are clear, and yet, if we take these two facts to their logical conclusion, things begin to go off the tracks, because every time it's brought up, the Liberals tell us there is no

referendum being planned. Again, I'm asked by people: "How could this be?" To that conclusion, the Premier was -- and I have to say it, Premier -- they say, lying, he was lying down on the job when

it came to maintaining the integrity of a political leader.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant to withdraw the unparliamentary term.

Mr Barrett: I will withdraw the fact that the Premier was lying down on the job when it came to maintaining the integrity.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to withdraw, without qualification, the unparliamentary term.

Mr Barrett: I will withdraw the first sentence with respect to lying, as lying down on the job.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It's again a privilege to stand here and debate this particular motion that has been put forward by the

member for Oak Ridges.

The Taxpayer Protection Act: If ever there was

an act that was passed in this Legislature, it was

an act that was doomed from the beginning. It was

an act that

has had nothing but a stormy history since 1999. If we take ourselves back to the time when it was debated in this Legislature, when people from all of the parties, as they then were in this

Legislature, stood up to talk about why it was necessary to have a Taxpayer Protection Act, and if you read that history, you will see that every single Conservative voted for that act and,

surprisingly, every single Liberal voted for that act as well. It was only the New Democrats who said, "This is not going to work."

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): The Liberals voted for it?

Mr Prue: Yes, the Liberals voted for it. It was the New Democrats who said that this is not going to work, for a couple of reasons. Number one

is because we often have cyclical periods in the economies of the province, Canada and, indeed, the world, and it's not going to work because you cannot hamstring future governments, future

cabinets from doing what is best in terms of the economic circumstances that exist at that time. Notwithstanding that we gave sage advice, the Legislature chose to pass this act.

Having passed the act, the amazing thing has happened: Within a couple of years, the very Conservatives who passed the act were the first to break their own

legislation. They did so, of course, in the year 2002, when they stood during the budget to announce that they were not going to implement the very budget measures which they were bound to in the

act. They called it a delay, but the reality was that they were disobeying their own act.

It was kind of amazing to watch in the last election, because the Conservatives, of course, signed the Taxpayer Protection Act in that famous opportunity, but

they were upstaged by the Liberals, who beat them to it with a full news conference in signing that there would be a balanced budget.

I had to smile when I saw that. There, of course, was the Premier, or the man who was going to become the Premier, standing there surrounded by a cadre of

Liberal candidates from around the province with big smiles on their faces for what they were going to do and how they were going to uphold the Taxpayer Protection Act that they had always

supported, that they had voted for, and that they were going to implement. I had to especially smile, of course, because my Liberal opponent in that campaign was sitting beside Dalton McGuinty when

he actually signed the papers.

Now we have what is happening here today. Within two years, we have the Conservatives who break the act and we have the Liberals who are not obeying the act

which they supported and which they signed with much fanfare, in the heat of a provincial election. I want to tell you that this smacks of -- I don't know. I think it was foolishness, if I can use

that word. I hope it's not unparliamentary. It was foolishness on the part of those people to say that they would uphold such

an act, knowing the circumstances that Ontario was finding itself

in.

I take you back to the period when we knew that the province was not going to be able to balance its budget. We knew that, and so did everyone else who

commented, everyone from the Fraser Institute to Gerry Phillips, people in this Legislature. Everyone knew that the budget was not going to be balanced. Conservatives knew it; Liberals knew it; New

Democrats knew it. It was foolish for any party to have signed such a pledge in the leadup to the election.

You campaigned as a party, and initially as a government, as if you would do the impossible. You were saying you were going to make all of these promises and

do good things that needed to be done, some of which I share to this day with you, but you said you were going to do it without raising taxes and that you were going to follow the Taxpayer

Protection Act. It was one of the first promises that you broke. In fact, it was a promise we knew you had to break.

I don't know what else you could have done. If you could tell me what else you could have done, I'm sure you would have done it. To listen to Minister Sorbara

in the finance committee over the last two days, he said it was the most difficult thing he has ever had to do in his political life, to stand up and break the key promise that he made and that his

party made during the election.

Here's the scenario we have, and it's kind of bizarre: We have the new Bill 83, which has just been forced into law -- the only bill that this government saw

fit to invoke closure on since the last election. You've invoked closure. It's rather arcane wording, but I'd like to read it into the record so people watching can see this:

"Section 2 of the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2002,

chapter 8,

schedule L,

section 1, is amended by adding the

following subsection:

"

(7) Despite subsection (1), the following provisions may be included in a bill that receives first reading in 2004:

French."

That, in a nutshell, was going around the Taxpayer Protection Act. What it did, in effect, is establish that the health premium, which has a very

strange-sounding, almost Harrisonian ring about it -- like the Tenant Protection Act that doesn't protect tenants, this is a health premium that is not a premium but is in fact a tax. Here we are

debating whether or not you as a government are following the laws. Well, I'll tell you, you don't like this law now that you have to live with it. So now we have Bill 84, which is on the books, on

which we're waiting, and Bill 84 completely undoes what you promised to do in the election and what you voted for in this very Legislature a scant five years ago.

Subsection 4(1) of Bill 84 says it all, and I'd like to read that into the record, because this is what this government intends to do. Notwithstanding the

debate here today, notwithstanding what they told the electors of Ontario last September and October, notwithstanding what they voted for in 1999, the true intent is to do the following:

"4(1) For each fiscal year, the executive council shall plan for a balanced budget unless, as a result of extraordinary circumstances, the executive council

determines that it is consistent with prudent fiscal policy for the province to have a deficit for a fiscal year."

What that means is that we are going to go back full circle, because that is in effect what the policy, the practice and the law was in Ontario for the first

120-some years since Confederation. That is the way the law read, that governments consistently tried to come up with a balanced budget unless circumstances would not allow for them to have a

balanced budget. The Liberals are going back to where we were before and, quite frankly, where any government should be going, because you cannot bind a government in the first year of its mandate

to a balanced budget. You cannot expect, through good political practice, that they will follow that throughout the mandate.

That is what we expect of politicians. We do not expect politicians to make irrational, crazy promises during the heat of a campaign which they should know

full well, and which I believe they did know full well, could not be met during the course of their mandate.

Now we have a motion here today put forward by the member for Oak Ridges that says you should do what you promised to do. How can anyone disagree with

that?

Interjection.

Mr Prue: And hold the referendum. How can anyone disagree with that? You promised to do it.

On the other hand, I have to be rational and I have to be reasonable. I never expected you to do it. Maybe the public expected you to do it, but people who

were around this House and who knew the political realities and the economic realities of Ontario knew you could never do it and that you had no intention of doing it.

Mr Klees: They could have a referendum tomorrow. You know that.

Mr Prue: Yes, they could have a referendum tomorrow. Yes, I agree they could have, but I also know --

Mr Klees: That's all I'm saying.

Mr Prue: Yes, I know what you're saying and I agree with what you're saying, and I'm probably going to vote for your motion.

Mr Klees: Thank you.

Mr Prue: But I want to tell you, because I think this government should have to be bound by the promises they made. People expect that. But

the reality is that you're going to go back in Bill 84, which I assume is going to be passed this year -- probably not till the fall, but certainly in time for the next budget debate, when you

probably will again not balance the budget because there are many pressures there that seem to indicate to me that it cannot be done in the second year of your mandate as well. You are going to

pass this to make sure you're not asked this same question next year.

The reality is that this is a political motion, which I wanted to finish with. This is a political motion being put forward by a member of the official

opposition to embarrass the government, and quite frankly, you should be embarrassed. You should be sitting over there saying, "Why did I do something as foolish as I did? Why did I allow my party

to make promises that could not be met? Why did I support a bill initially which is going to hamstring me? Why, oh why, am I here? How, oh how, can I get out of it?" You've answered that by

introducing Bill 84, and we know how you're going to get out of it. But the reality is that this government has a lot to answer for.

I've only got three minutes left, but I am going to sit here in rapt attention as speakers from the governing party stand up and explain why they should not

follow what they promised to do in the last election. I am going to sit here in rapt attention as speaker after speaker tries to blame the former government for having run a deficit.

There's no doubt in my mind that they ran that deficit. There's no doubt that Mr Peters was right in his report. But there is also no doubt in anyone's mind in

this Legislature that you should have known the reality of what you were going into. You should have known the reality. Certainly Gerry Phillips knew it. Certainly --

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): He didn't know it.

Mr Prue: He knew it.

Mr Wilkinson: He speculated.

Mr Prue: OK, he speculated, but you should have been watching that speculation. You should have listened to that man who sat on the finance

committee for years and certainly was the voice and the conscience of your party. You chose not to do it because you wanted to see the world in rose-coloured glasses. It's going to be very

interesting in the next little bit to see how you explain away all of this, because I will tell you, going from door to door, as I am wont to do, even helping my federal friends, the biggest issue

at the door in this federal election is the provincial health tax. That's the biggest issue in the --

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): You're knocking on the wrong doors.

Mr Prue: No, I'm knocking on doors in Beaches-East York, and the single biggest issue as I go from door to door is the provincial health tax

and the fact that they believe this government, this newly minted government, was not brutally honest with the people. They feel they were misled. The reality is that they were expecting something

very different than what they got.

In conclusion, having listened so far to the debate, having listened to what the member from Oak Ridges had to say, and in an attempt to bring some kind of --

I don't know -- some kind of contrition to this government, I think we need to hear what they have to say. If they do not have a firm rationale for not holding the referendum, I believe they should

be bound by their very words, and I'm going to ask them to bind themselves. If they want to stand up and say that they are not going to be bound by those words, that they are not going to be

beholden and that they are in fact going to change the Taxpayer Protection Act -- which they have, up until this time, always supported -- then they are going to have to explain and convince the

people of Ontario why Bill 84 is the new answer, why they have gone full circle back to the way governments operated before 1999, and why that bill is going to give some kind of guarantee to the

people of Ontario that they are good for their word, that they will do everything possible to balance their budget and that they will not continue to waste taxpayers' funds.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate with my colleague from Oak Ridges on his bill,

which I think is a very appropriate bill. Frank Klees is a man of integrity, and I can tell you that this is an issue all about integrity. It's about accountability and it's about what happened in

the previous election.

Prior to the election, the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, was passed by this Legislature with full approval of the Liberal official opposition at that time. We

know, as the member has stated, that during the campaign it was very clearly stated by the Premier, in writing and verbally, and recorded, that he was not going to increase taxes. In fact, what he

implicitly said was that he was not going to do anything to the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999.

If he had said to the public, who were looking for full information in terms of how they were going to cast their ballot, that he was going to repeal the

Taxpayer Protection Act and that he was going to do the things that have currently occurred with respect to the OHIP premium, which is now viewed and is clearly set in statute as a tax that is

going to be collected through the Income Tax Act, I think the public would have had a much clearer and more transparent view of what was happening out there in terms of what the Liberal government

of the day was running on. But, as we know, that wasn't the case. What we're faced with now is legislation to repeal the Taxpayer Protection Act with respect to making sure that the tax premiums

can come into place. So the OHIP tax premium for the public comes into place July 1 of this year. It's going to be collected off your wages. It's going to be collected off pensioners' pensions.

It's going to be a tax. It's going to be something that people are not going to be happy with, because we did get rid of the OHIP premium back in 1989 and it was brought back in without

consultation by this government. All the member from Oak Ridges is asking for is accountability to make sure this doesn't come in without going to the public with respect to what they want.

I also want to refer to an

article by Linda Leatherdale in today's Toronto Sun, where she's quoted about this health tax. She says:

"First, it's not a health premium; it's an income tax that will be deducted from our paycheques under income taxes, so we will never know how much is actually

the health levy.

"We do know, thanks to the ... budget, that how much we pay a year goes from $300 on incomes of $25,001 to $36,000; $750 on incomes of $72,601 to $200,000, and

$900 for incomes over $200,000 -- all while important services like eye exams, physiotherapy and chiropractic treatments are delisted," and, in effect, privatized.

"Yet how do we know this new tax revenue will go to health care, as McGuinty promises us?....

"And, just how many health taxes do we need in Ontario -- especially when leaders fighting for the Prime Minister's seat are promising more health care

dollars.

"In Ontario, we're already paying the Fair Share health levy, and employers with payrolls over $400,000 are paying the employer health tax (EHT).

"But it gets worse: A circular by Mercer Human Resource Consulting warns the Liberals are hoping to squeeze another $1.24 billion from Ontarians in the next

four years by hiring more tax auditors to make sure we don't cheat."

Now, I know that's something that the Liberals didn't fib about during the campaign. They basically indicated to the public that they were going to be hiring

more tax auditors because they wanted to make sure they got their fair share of taxes. What we're going to see is a campaign to ensure that taxes of fair-minded Ontario citizens of all accounts are

going to be hounded by the tax office. So we're not only going to have increased taxes; we're also going to have a campaign of going after taxpayers in terms of getting as much money into the

government coffers to do who knows what.

The bottom line, in closing, is that the member from Oak Ridges has it right. We have a problem here of accountability. We have a government that is now

changing legislation to fit their mandate. They should have said what they were doing during the campaign. I can guarantee you, there would have been a different view from the public with respect

to this government's mandate.

Mr Wilkinson: I want to speak briefly to this bill, because there's just one simple point I have to make. I read the member from Oak Ridges'

bill. In it, he says that the reasons for us to pass his bill "include protecting the right of the taxpayers of Ontario to receive government that is fiscally prudent and accountable to them, and

ensuring the integrity of the political process...."

Mr Speaker, I want you to know that the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant said something that was unparliamentary. I don't want to go into the weeds; all I

can tell you is that I know the word "hypo" is parliamentary and I know the word "critical" is parliamentary. Those two words, "hypo" and "critical," are both parliamentary. Maybe the combination

of those words is not parliamentary, but "hypo" and "critical" are both parliamentary terms. There are some critical hypos in Ontario, when we find out that the previous government is walking in

here and telling us that somehow this is fiscally responsible.

There is a grand urban myth that has been promoted across the land that the Leader of the Opposition of the day -- my leader, Dalton McGuinty -- was somehow

supposed to know about the fiscal state of the books coming out of that famous Belinda budget over at the Magna plant that never went through this House; that somehow he, and only he, was supposed

to know the fiscal state of the balance of this province; that the Premier of Ontario, Mr Eves, and the Minister of Finance, Mrs Ecker, didn't have to know that there was a secret $6.2-billion

deficit but the opposition was somehow supposed to know this. So for my friend the member from Oak Ridges to come in here and say, "We have this sheen, this patina, of respectability, and we are

the people in charge of setting this higher standard" -- I can't believe that. I think there are critical hypos all across Ontario on that grand urban myth.

I'm a certified financial planner and I can tell you that the Taxpayer Protection Act gives a perverse incentive to government to spend money. It doesn't say

to government, "If you're having a good year, put a little aside for a rainy day." What it says is, "You'd better spend all the money. Don't put it down against any deficit and save the interest

and save the cash flow." I tell people to pay down their debt. Instead, this bill says that government should spend all the money. So we saw this drunken spending of money at the end of the last

term of the dying government of the day, the Harris-Eves government, and what did we end up with? We ended up with critical hypos all across the province.

I can tell you that as a member of the government I won't be supporting this bill, despite my friendship with the member from Oak Ridges.

I want to leave good time for my fellow member the member from Ottawa-Orléans just to deal with this issue itself.

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): Mr Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with the member for St Catharines.

I'm pleased to rise today to speak against Bill 85. Tough decisions were needed to clean up the mess left to us by the former government of Ontario. Imagine,

in good times, in spite of former Minister Ecker saying to the estimates committee on June 2, 2003, according to the Hansard record, that they would be paying down debt of $5 billion and that they

would have a balanced budget in 2003-04 -- and that was one quarter of the way through that year -- what they did was leave a deficit of $6 billion. They were $6 billion out, plus what they

intended to pay down on the debt.

If we go by the record of that legislative committee, the standing committee on estimates, our member Mr Phillips chased the Minister of Finance through about

eight pages trying to get her to tell us what the assets were that the government was going to sell. Of course, she couldn't come up with any assets that they were going to sell that they were

going to balance the budget with. And of course, it wasn't $2.2 billion that they were missing, as she said; it was over $6 billion.

In good times, Conservatives added $25 billion to the debt of Ontario, and at the same time our Prime Minister Martin paid down the Canadian debt by over $50

billion. This government took on $25 billion worth of additional debt while the federal government, properly run, paid down $50 billion.

In addition to the additional debt taken on in the eight years of Tory government -- and this interests me, as an engineer -- the schools need $8 billion worth

of maintenance. Roads and bridges: You didn't realize that when you were Minister of Transportation, but roads and bridges require $6 billion. It's true. They're unsafe; they became unsafe through

your eight years. We have a lot of things. Energy generation was set back eight years by the minister of lost generation, who is my neighbour in Nepean-Carleton. He put the province into the dark

ages. Remember last August. You bled the infrastructure of this province at the same time.

You left us a mess. I think we could call this bill the "clean up the Tory fiscal mess act." That would be the proper name for it. We're going ahead, cleaning

up your mess, and we had to do it through Bill 83.

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased today to rise to speak in favour of Bill 85, introduced by my colleague from Oak

Ridges. The intent of the bill is very simple, for you people over on the other side. It would create a reset mechanism that would override Premier McGuinty's attempt to rewrite the Taxpayer

Protection Act to bypass the referendum requirement. Taxpayers would be eligible for a refund on any money collected prior to the required referendum.

I know the members opposite, at least those who showed up to vote in favour of their budget -- there are at least a few of you over there who felt a few qualms

about reneging on your promise to abide by the Taxpayer Protection Act, especially the ones who here before October 2, who voted at one point in support of the act.

The Taxpayer Protection Act provisions requiring a referendum could easily have been met. When the firestorm erupted because of your unwillingness to stand by

your promises, you could have responded quickly by saying you were prepared to take the issue to the people. Who knows what may have happened? You might have won -- I somehow doubt it -- but we're

never going to know.

Back in October of last year, it was quite an age of innocence here at Queen's Park. You hadn't yet begun to break your campaign promises. You also introduced

the democratic renewal secretariat, to great fanfare. I'm going to read a quote from an October 23, 2003, press release from the Premier's office: "It's time to restore people's faith, bring our

19th-century democratic traditions into the 21st century and bring citizens -- especially young people -- back to the centre of politics."

This, of course, was before your government broke faith with the people of Ontario, breaking promise after promise. Your press release spoke of "consulting

with the people of Ontario," and you're not going to consult with the people of Ontario. That was one of your central planks in your election campaign. You claim to have a mandate for change, but I

don't think the people who voted for you could possibly have envisioned your total disregard for their desire that taxes not be raised. That's what I hear at the doorsteps.

All the while the finance minister was starting to plan how to backtrack from one of the signature promises of your campaign. You can toss numbers around all

day and discuss who knew what and when they knew it and how big the magical increasing deficit really was, but it's clear to even the most casual observer that your leader, in the middle of the

campaign, signed the taxpayer protection pledge.

Eight years of having a government that kept its word might have played a part, too. Taxpayers across the province thought your word would be your bond. Part

of that promise you made to the people of Ontario was that you would hold a referendum if you planned to raise taxes.

I think everyone in the House would agree that it is important to protect the rights of our taxpayers of Ontario. It's one of the reasons our constituents sent

us to this place. Ontarians ought to be able to expect that their government will be fiscally prudent and accountable to them. The government of Ontario ought to keep its promise on fiscal matters.

What can be wrong with that? If you're going to raise taxes, you should, as you promised during the election, go to the people of Ontario and ask for their permission.

The increase in taxes, user fees and the delisting of health services are all of critical importance to thousands of Ontarians and will ultimately put a

financial strain on our working families the likes of which we have not seen in over a decade.

People across the province, across my riding, would like to have a chance to let your government know what they think of your budget and what they think of

your new health care premium. People are going to have to make changes in their lifestyles in order to pay.

I want to share with you the other wrong-headed decision, the decision the government used to delist medical services. In the Lindsay Post today, "Optometrist

Says Delisting Will Increase Wait Times." I thought your goal was to decrease wait times. Dr David "Stone has joined the Ontario Association of Optometrists in urging the provincial government to

change its mind regarding delisting the services...."

I want to stand in support of this bill today. I know I'm running out of time, but more people from my riding -- Joyce Bartley from Norland needs a

chiropractor and will be missing work. Long-term pain in their pocketbooks; long-term physical pain. No matter what you want to spin in your budget, it's not long-term gain, it's short-term gain.

It's less health care, fewer services, and we're paying more.

The Liberal election platform documents state, "We will live by the balanced budget law," and, "We will comply with the Taxpayer Protection Act and balanced

budget legislation, not bend the law at whim." These are very good sentiments we should be paying attention to here today. I urge you to join in supporting the bill from the member from Oak

Ridges.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I remember so well the Magna budget where the Conservative government said they had

a balanced budget and wanted the people of this province to believe it. I must recognize that they have more nerve than a canal horse to be bringing forward a resolution of this kind today. I well

recall that when the Liberal plan was developed, the Premier of this province of today was obsessive about the fact that the budget should be balanced and that there would not be a need for tax

increases. He based that, even taking into consideration that there might be a $2-billion deficit.

I agree with John Tory, the candidate running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, who says that the previous government should have been honest about

the financial situation in the province.

This is what some credible people had to say. This is after the Provincial Auditor, who is completely neutral, came in and said, "By the way, the budget isn't

balanced. It's a $5.6-billion deficit at least, and there are other hidden deficits at hospitals and family and children's services," and things of that nature that would bring it to over $6

billion.

Based on the plan of the previous government, even with a $2-billion deficit built in -- in other words, not believing they had a planned budget -- David Hall,

Vista Economics, former senior economist, Bank of Montreal, said, "...in my professional opinion, your fiscal plan produces at least balanced budgets and a prudent reserve every year."

Jack Marmer, forensic accountant: "I conducted a detailed, line-by-line review with your staff. To do this, I spent about 70 hours. I agree both with their

methodology and the costs determined as a result of the application of that methodology...."

Warren Jestin, senior vice-president and chief economist, Scotiabank: "After examining the program details, I believe that it is a workable plan for our

province ... your commitment to balancing the budget is both reassuring and an essential ingredient in successful long-term fiscal planning."

All of these individuals looked at the Liberal plan that was developed very carefully, even building in the fact that the government might be fudging its

figures by some $2 billion. On that basis, it would not have called for a budget to be unbalanced -- in other words, a deficit. It would not have called for the need for any new revenue measures on

the part of this government.

By opening the can, we find it's a can of worms that the previous government has left. I've heard the term "liars" applied on many occasions. I'm not implying

it. I've heard the term "liars" applied --

The Acting Speaker: I'd ask the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to withdraw. You can't say indirectly what I wouldn't allow you to say

directly.

Hon Mr Bradley: The people who have not provided the accurate information for this province are in fact --

The Acting Speaker: The minister for --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'll give you extra time. The minister has not yet withdrawn what I asked him to withdraw.

Hon Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I have withdrawn that.

Those who have provided inaccurate information in this province are in fact those who were part of the previous government. That is why we're in the financial

jam we're in in the province of Ontario. You have more nerve than a canal horse over there to be critical of this government.

The Acting Speaker: You have two minutes to reply, member for Oak Ridges.

Mr Klees: In the dying hours of this legislative session, we've heard from the Liberal members opposite. They are reaffirming with the people

of this province that they care nothing about the truth and that they are going to continue to justify to the people of this province -- I listened to speaker after speaker, and instead of

acknowledging the fact that they should have kept the law, they have made light of what is taking place in this House.

They are going back to their constituencies over the summer. They will find out from their constituents. If they don't want to listen to us here in the House,

they'll hear it on the doorsteps and they'll hear it at the picnics they go to that the people of this province have lost trust in them.

By listening to the debate here today, what we have heard is such an absolute lack of integrity that the people of this province will send a very strong

message. I'm disappointed, I'm extremely disappointed, because they have an opportunity to take a stand.

Nothing in this bill speaks to the fact of a deficit. What this bill simply states is the one promise this government could have kept, and that is simply to go

back to the people of Ontario with a referendum asking their opinion, which is what the law states. That is it. It costs you nothing. But you've refused to do even that.

Once again, you've broken the law, you've broken trust, you've broken faith. The people of this province will not forget.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

GASOLINE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ESSENCE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott): We will first deal with ballot item number 29, standing in the name of Mr Crozier.

Mr Crozier has moved second reading of Bill 80,

An Act to provide information to consumers respecting the price of gasoline and the ownership of gasoline

retailers and to require certain additional information from major oil companies.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I ask consent that the bill be sent to the new justice policy committee.

The Acting Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy? Agreed?

All those in favour of the question will please rise and remain standing.

The majority is in favour. The bill is referred to the committee on justice policy.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION

AFFIRMATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 CONFIRMANT LA

PROTECTION DES CONTRIBUABLES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott): Now we deal with the second ballot item, ballot item number 30.

Mr Klees has moved second reading of Bill 85,

An Act to affirm the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be counted.

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Klees, Frank

Miller, Norm

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be counted.

Nays

Arthurs, Wayne

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 12; the nays are 36.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having now been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume sitting at 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STUDENT BUSING

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to draw your attention to a matter that I believe the Minister of Education needs to

address. We wrote him to express our support for the students and families of Carden and Dalton in their efforts to continue to send their children to schools within the Simcoe County District

School Board.

On March 9, Garfield Dunlop and I wrote to the minister, asking for help to resolve the student busing issue. We asked the minister for assistance. We asked

him about a 2003 regulation, introduced by the Progressive Conservative government, that was to be reintroduced and considered by cabinet this past spring.

On May 3, I asked the minister a question in the Legislature. He replied, "I undertake to the member opposite that we are exploring that now and will report

back to her further on our success, in terms of both dialoguing with the board and looking at how provincial rules may have brought a part of this situation about."

Garfield Dunlop has also been working very hard to try to resolve the matter for students. He has also risen in this House to mention it on several

occasions.

It is now June 24, and still we have heard nothing from this minister. The parents and school boards have heard nothing from this minister. Calls to his office

have only confirmed for us that our letter has been received and a response is being worked on.

It is time to start putting students first. The parents, students and school boards are all waiting for the minister to respond. It has been almost four

months. The school year is drawing to an end and still nobody has any more information than they did in March.

ONTARIO RANGERS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that 2004 marks the 60th anniversary of the Ontario

Ranger program, formerly known as Junior Rangers. I'm pleased to have this opportunity today to extend an invitation to all former Rangers to join me and natural resources minister David Ramsay,

who himself is a former Ranger, at the Ranger reunion on August 7 and 8 at Trent University in the wonderful riding of Peterborough.

Since 1944, more than 75,000 young Ontarians have spent a memorable summer working as Rangers. I'm sure there are members in this House today who enjoyed that

experience. For many young people, working at a Ranger camp was their introduction to Ontario's wilderness. It was where they first witnessed the beauty and power in nature and learned the concept

of resource stewardship. For most, it was an unforgettable lesson in the importance of nature and a healthy environment. For some, it was a life-changing experience that sent them on a path to a

career in resource management.

Today, the program provides close to 400 job opportunities every summer for 17-year-old high school students. Today's Rangers can be found working in

provincial parks and on ministry forestry, fish, wildlife and mapping projects right across Ontario. They plant and prune trees. They clear trails, build campsites and help restore fish and

wildlife habitat. Many of us who enjoy Ontario's outdoors benefit from their work every year.

We should all be proud of this program and its continued commitment to providing job opportunities and unique work experiences for Ontario's young people. The

spirit and enthusiasm that has kept the Ontario Ranger program going for 60 years has helped strengthen our communities, our environment, our lakes and rivers, our fish and wildlife habitat and our

air and water quality.

I trust that 60 years from now, this wonderful program will still be providing generations of young people with a better understanding of and appreciation for

the magnificent natural heritage of our province.

PKU AND FABRY'S DISEASE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): PKU and Fabry's disease are two severe health conditions that affect Ontarians and create extreme

financial hardship because of the cost to cover medicinal and dietary patient needs.

PKU is a rare metabolic disorder that causes a chemical imbalance in the blood sufficient to result in permanent damage to the brain. Since 1965, screening for

PKU has been provided to all newborns within the first 28 days of being born. Since then, the province has instituted legislation that provides funding for medicines and the special diets for those

with PKU up to the age of 18. However, this does not recognize the fact that even past the age of 18, persons with PKU still need to stay on this diet or they will become ill. It is not reasonable

to expect persons with PKU to be able to afford the $28,000 per year in medicinal costs for PKU drugs.

The application for extended coverage of PKU beyond the age of 18 has been submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. They were told they would

receive a response by the end of March, and as yet they have received no response.

Fabry's disease is a rare genetic disorder that results in stroke, cardiac arrest and kidney failure. The government has committed to fund it until June 15,

and again, no response.

I would urge the Minister of Health to demonstrate compassion and let the people with PKU and Fabry's disease know about the funding arrangements.

GAY PRIDE WEEK

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This is Gay Pride Week. I look forward, as I always do, to the dyke parade on Saturday and the big

parade where millions of people come out on Saturday, and to the church. Jack Layton will be there; our leader, Howard Hampton, I believe will be there; and David Miller, our mayor, will be there.

Of course, it's also the day when Brent Hawkes from the Metropolitan church holds a big service on the street. As always, it's very inspiring. The Metropolitan church is in my riding, and I must

say I would invite anybody to attend a service at this church.

I want to point out to the government as we enter into Pride Week that it's been a year plus some weeks since the Halpern decision in recognition of same-sex

spousal marriage, but the Attorney General, after promising, I understand, has yet to see to it that dozens of Ontario statutes are amended to reflect this landmark court decision. I would say to

the government, just get on with it. You have the New Democratic Party's full support and, I would hope, the Conservative Party's support as well.

The other thing is the government's last-minute intervention in the Hislop ruling, in which it is siding with the federal Liberal government and saying that

CPP survivor benefits for same-sex partners should not be retroactive to April 1985. That's the time when many partners of many of our friends died tragically from HIV and AIDS. They should not be

doing this, and I hope they will reverse their decision.

Happy Pride Week to everybody.

SAUNDERS SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I want to stand today in this House and offer my congratulations to the staff and students of Saunders

Secondary School in London, Ontario, on the recent success of their cancer society fundraiser.

In April and May of this year, the students of Saunders Secondary School took

part in the school's annual Canadian Cancer Society fundraiser. Three years ago,

the students raised $10,000; last year, they raised $20,000; and this year, led by Saunders teachers Jamie Clark and Michael Deeb, and student organizer Brynne Gilmore, the school was able to raise

$44,000 for the cancer society.

They raised the money through classroom competitions, student-teacher basketball games, and shop students did oil changes for $40 apiece. As well, the school

raffled off a 2004 Pontiac Sunfire provided to the school by the Brian Finch Pontiac Buick GMC dealership of London.

I'm glad our government is committed to helping students like those at Saunders succeed through student success rescue teams so that more students can take a

leadership role in their school and help create opportunities and build stronger communities.

I congratulate everyone at Saunders school on their amazing campaign results and thank them for helping to fund the research needed that will some day lead to

a cure for cancer.

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): On Monday, my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka played host to Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada. Mr

Martin said that as a child he looked forward to coming to Muskoka, and he went on to say, "As far as I'm concerned, when I came up here, I was coming to northern Ontario ... unless there has been

some tectonic shift in the pre-Cambrian plates, I am still, as far as the federal government and of all our programs are concerned, in northern Ontario." He added, "I don't agree with that decision

and I am certainly prepared to do whatever I can to help in that [regard]." Of course, the Prime Minister was referring to the McGuinty government's politically motivated decision to remove Muskoka

from the north.

I would like to point out that in the district of Muskoka, the average family and individual incomes are third lowest of all the ridings in northern Ontario

and $10,000 below the provincial average.

We don't have any large mining and forestry operations in Muskoka. In fact, we've had two major manufacturers close their doors in the last three and a half

years. Yet the Minister of Finance insists that Muskoka is part of the vibrant economy of southern Ontario.

Well, this is what one of my constituents wrote to me: "As a professional woman with 20 years' experience in Toronto and income to match, I figured I could

make a go of it and realize my dream of moving home to Muskoka to be near my family. I was warned, but I refused to believe that it was still as badly depressed as it was when I was growing up.

Things had to have changed since I left in 1979. I was so wrong."

Premier, on behalf of all the people who work and live in Muskoka, on behalf of the more than 8,000 people who have signed my petition, I ask you to reconsider

this politically motivated decision.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): It's with extreme pride and honour that I announce in the House today that in my riding of Northumberland

four students have been awarded the 2004 Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation Excellence Awards. This year's recipients are Chris Berrigan of St Mary's High School in Cobourg, Elaine Cortesis

of CDCI West in Cobourg, Kristin Elizabeth Anderson of Trinity College School, and Alexander Sculthorpe of Port Hope High School. One of these students, Chris Berrigan, is also my youth liaison

person to assist me in my riding with youth issues.

These scholarships are awarded based on community involvement, demonstrated leadership abilities, innovative thinking and academic achievement. This is an

exceptional achievement. I know I speak on behalf of all members of this House when I say it's with great honour that I convey congratulations to these four outstanding graduates. Each should be

extremely proud of their accomplishments.

On Monday, June 28, the recipients will be honoured at an official reception hosted by the Honourable James K. Bartleman, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. These

students are fine examples of our next generation. They provide hope. That is why our government is committed to providing students with the foundation and tools necessary to succeed in life. That

is why we are reducing class sizes in JK to grade 3. That is why we launched pilot projects to assist students with literacy and numeracy. We said we'd do it, and we've done it.

ST AGATHA SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): On Friday, June 11, I had the opportunity to visit St Agatha Catholic school in my riding of

Scarborough Southwest. St Agatha school was built in 1965. It is the seat of the French immersion program for south Scarborough. It also boasts of many academic, athletic and artistic achievements.

St Agatha has great staff, great students and a great parent committee.

However, cuts to school boards by the previous government have left the school crumbling. It is overcrowded. It houses 460 students where half are schooled in

portables that are in a poor state on their own. Many students travel between the portables and the main building to use the bathroom or the library, often unsupervised, which places children in an

unsafe and unsecure environment. Speaking of bathrooms, there are only two to serve the entire population. The water quality in the school is poor and taps are left open for 30 minutes every

morning just to get clear water. There is little ventilation, as many windows do not work properly, nor is there air conditioning.

I was shocked to see the state St Agatha is in. However, I can say that I am pleased the Dalton McGuinty government is committed to assisting school boards

across the province to finance school renewal. Schools in a poor state, such as St Agatha, will be able to access a $200-million amortization fund in order to repair the roof, improve their water

taps, upgrade computer networks, fix windows and walls, and build more washrooms. These improvements will undoubtedly help our children to learn in a safe and secure environment and will lead to

better student achievement.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'm honoured to stand in the Ho