PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 54, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
On section 1:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that in subclause 1(1)(d)(ii) the word "four" be deleted and replaced by the word "three."
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, during committee hearings the government was not able to offer us a satisfactory explanation why four months was chosen rather than three months. We are still not convinced that a large number of people will not be eliminated by this choice. We recognize the government cannot bring it down very much further than three months because it will involve a lot of people who are very temporarily employed.
In line with the argument presented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, however, we feel three months is preferable to four unless the government can give us more adequate reasons for the choice of four than an arbitrary decision to cut off at four months.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept this amendment. In the discussions relating to the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act, and looking at the reality of what we were trying to do, which was to fulfil a commitment made by the government in the speech from the throne to offer benefits to regular part-time people and regular seasonal people, we looked at what was fair, reasonable and equitable and where most people would fit into that category.
In the discussions that were subsequently carried on with the union, when the subject was passed on to it in the way of information -- and I want to point out that the issue of pensions was really not a negotiable item, but there is a commitment by the government to carry on dialogue and discussions with the union, which was done -- we felt four months was reasonable. It was practical, defensible and administratively feasible.
I think the member should think of that in the context of a year and of the people to whom we are offering benefits. They are people who work all winter, people who work all summer, people who work regularly two days a week, people who work regularly three or four hours a day. They all fit into that category of adding up to one third of the year or more of regular employment.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will be interested to know we estimate that something in the order of 8,000 people will be eligible to take advantage of this expanded benefit, giving them the opportunity to become part of the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Beyond that, one is talking about sums that would probably not become worth while. I know one can argue a dollar is better than nothing, but with respect to any reasonable amount, we think one third of the year is a reasonable cutoff to consider a person to be on any regular type of part-time employment or any regular seasonal employment. If they have less than that, they do not really fall into the category of the expansion of benefits we wish to offer.
Mr. Philip: The minister says that 8,000 people will be affected by the four rather than the three. Can he tell us how many would be affected by the three and whether his staff has been able to calculate that in the short time we have had since the committee hearings?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Not in specific numbers, but it is not a great deal of increase. We do not know for sure, but it might be another 1,000 or 1,500 people. This is a much more inconsistent figure and it is not as constant a figure. I suppose one could even argue that many of them would not qualify in the context of being regular part-time or regular seasonal people. The figure of 8,000 and the figure of four months in terms of the total calendar year -- I have to emphasize that -- is the only figure we are prepared to say is not only administratively practical but possible.
Mr. Philip: Could the minister explain why three is less administratively practical than four? I fail to see that, and the minister has not given us any information on that.
He also has not given us any information when he says a difference of 1,000 or 1,500. There is a 50 per cent difference between 1,000 and 1,500. If we are going to pick numbers out of the air, why is it that the minister cannot document why he has chosen four rather than three? Fifty per cent one way or the other is a preposterous kind of inaccuracy.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I think I indicated that it was not a definitive or defensible figure. The reason is that it was somewhat picked out of the air, based on some feel for and knowledge of many of the ministries. In actual fact, we arrived at the initial figure by surveying on an individual ministry-by-ministry basis the people within their employ who would meet the criterion of the four months.
That is not a process that can be done overnight or even in a matter of a week, so that is the reason I do not have a definitive number vis-à-vis the numbers less than four months. We did not ask the question.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip's amendment that the word "four" be deleted and replaced by the word "three" in subclause 1(1)(d)(ii) will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Philip: I have two amendments to section 2 and I wonder if we might deal with them together. Is that the pleasure of the chair since they are both related?
The Deputy Chairman: I have one amendment to subsection 2(1). Is that the one you are about to propose?
Mr. Philip: We will deal with them separately then. That is fine.
I move that in section 3 of the act as set out in section 2 of the bill the word "four" be deleted in subsection 3(1) of the act and replaced by the word "six."
8:10 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: Before the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) proceeds, we are now in the process of discussing Bill 54, section 2. The subsection before us within the amendment proposed is subsection 3(4). His amendment is suggested in another part of the act. May I suggest the member is out of order in proposing the amendment he has now placed before the House.
Mr. Philip: With respect, section 2 of the bill deals with the composition of the board. We are dealing with that section and how the board is composed. The amendment and the point I am trying to make, as honourable members will see subsequently, is that this is not a policy-making body but an administrative body of the government. My proposal will change that administrative body and its composition. I therefore suggest it is in order, as you can see by section 2 of this bill which amends section 3 of the act.
The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable member for his explanation and his reasons. I can understand the rationale behind them. However, according to the rules of our House, the amendment he is making will be out of order. The chair considers it to be out of order because the amendment does not pertain to a section before the House. Section 2 is before the House. The member is suggesting an amendment that does not pertain to any section or part of a section within the domain of this bill. Therefore, I rule it out of order. Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Philip: I will try to convince you on my next amendment.
I move that subsection 3(1) of the act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"The members of the board shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, three of whom shall be the representatives of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, provided that one such representative is receiving benefits under the act, and one member of the other three appointees shall be a representative of the Civil Service Commission."
The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honour-able member. His patience and mine are both very strong. May I suggest that for the same reasons I gave on his previous motion, this motion is also out of order.
Mr. Philip: For exactly the same reasons, I suggest they are in order. I would hope you would reconsider. We are dealing with the composition of the board, a board that is purely an administrative board, a board that surely the government should not fear since it has no policy-making abilities.
I do not see why the minister would not open up this section of the act and embrace it wholeheartedly in a feeling of consultation with those who are most affected and say, "Yes, we will make these minor changes in the administration of the act." Other acts allow those who are most affected by the pensions to directly administer their pensions.
The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable member. We are both very patient. I still rule the amendment out of order. It is so declared by the chair. Are there any further amendments to section 2?
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5:
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I actually have two amendments to section 5, and one relates to the other. I obviously have to place them in order, but the explanation will cover both of them.
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ashe moves that subsection 8(1) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 3, by adding at the commencement of the paragraph, "Where the amount for principal is computed under subclause 2(a)(i) (continuous service, notice within one year) or under subsection 3 (current contributor, notice within one year)"; and
(b) in paragraph 4, by striking out, "principal and interest" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "principal or interest or both."
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, my remarks now will also apply to the next amendment because they both do exactly the same thing but in different subsections of section 5.
It was never the intention in re-enacting the buy-back section of the present act, which is section 8 of the legislation, to alter the rule that interest would not be charged where the principal sum to be paid in purchasing the past service is to be calculated on the basis of the person's current salary.
We have therefore limited the interest subsection, which is paragraph 8(1)3, to situations where the principal sum is calculated on some past salary, with the necessary result that interest will not be charged where the principal sum is based on current salary.
Related to the previous amendment regarding the nonpayment of interest where principal is calculated on current salary, is a proposed amendment to clause 8(2)(b) to provide that where credit is being obtained for past non-continuous service, the principal sum will be based on current salary whenever the election is made. Interest will not be added.
Now if I can put it in simpler language, during the discussions in committee some concern was expressed in the Ontario Public Service Employees Union presentation and by the member for Etobicoke that a change was being proposed in this regard, and that from the way the section read it could imply that somebody who was paying back service based on current pay would be charged interest. This is not the case. We are carrying on in the amended bill the same practice as before. Both these amendments, this one and one I will put after it, are just to make that abundantly clear.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the amendment proposed by the minister to section 5 of the bill.
I am glad he has brought in amendments to clarify the present situation as it relates to credits and the buy-back of certain pension sections of the act. I think the minister should be commended in this area because he was listening at the committee hearings last Wednesday when OPSEU submitted some of its concerns on the proposed amendments to Bill 54. I am delighted to see that other amendments follow a similar line of thought and will include additional benefits to the pensioners.
As I said during the course of the discussions last Wednesday, I thought it was time the government moved to bring in a comprehensive pension reform that would relate not only to this particular bill but also to the Ontario municipal employees retirement system and other pension schemes in Ontario. We on this side are looking forward to the government moving in this direction to bring in that pension reform, which it has talked so much about in the last two or three years.
It has been a long struggle. We on this side look at government as a process of bargaining, and this is an area where something is gained in the process of sitting down and discussing the issues with the participants in the pension schemes. This one in particular, the Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, is a step in the right direction.
I hope the ministers responsible for the Ontario municipal employees retirement system and the other areas where pension reforms have been talked about will be coming forward before the next election. If not, it will be a good election issue, I am sure, since the government has talked about pension reform for so long.
We accept the movement in this area and we accept the amendment.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the minister did pay some attention to the presentations before the committee. I wonder if the minister, perhaps through his technical staff, can advise us what would be the difference to the recipients in actual dollars between this amendment and the amendment I had proposed, which he has before him, no doubt.
The Deputy Chairman: Any thoughts on that?
8:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Frankly, not particularly, Mr. Chairman. I had already compared them and decided we were both working on the same amendment and, I will be honest, I really did not try to analyse to any great degree the differences between the two.
Last week I made a commitment in committee that I would clarify the sections to make it abundantly clear that interest would not be charged on the back service based on current salary. Once that was accomplished, I did not look at the corresponding amendment from the member for Etobicoke.
Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that clause 8(2)(b) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) where the credit to be obtained is in respect of service that is not continuous with service while a contributor, on the basis of the contributor's salary on the date the notice is given."
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I gave the explanation for both sections when I discussed the previous section. They both do the same thing. It is just two different sections of the act.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, one of the problems the Ontario Public Service Employees Union pointed out is that the cost of buying back can be quite prohibitive. That is dealt with in my amendment, which I would like voted on later.
Examples given by OPSEU showed that to buy $3,000 a year could cost as much as $40,000, which is something an average working person would not have. It makes no sense to buy past service at current salary with retroactive compound interest, and that is what my amendment attempted to correct.
I am pleased the minister has tried to understand and respond to items 44, 45 and 46 of the OPSEU brief, and we will support the amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that clauses 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(b) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) where the credit to be obtained is in respect of service continuous with service while a contributor and, the notice of intention to obtain the credit is given to the board by the contributor, on the basis of the contributor's salary during the period for which the credit is to be obtained, or,
"(b) where the credit to be obtained is in respect of service that is not continuous with service while a contributor and, the notice of intention to obtain the credit is given to the board by the contributor, or the basis of the contributor's salary on the most recent occasion on which he became a contributor."
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you understand this fully. It is for the same reasons I gave in support of the minister's amendment, but I think mine is a better way of doing it.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, that is a matter of opinion and I do not support it.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it might be appropriate, after section 6 of the bill, to move a further amendment; it is at the bottom of the package of amendments. Since we are moving from section 9 of the act to section 21 of the act, I would move that section 16 of the act be deleted.
The Deputy Chairman: That is not before us. The member is in a different section of the act. We are on a different section as far as Bill 54 is concerned. I declare that motion out of order.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, if we carry section 6, I am sure you will be prepared then to look at this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: We will deal with what we deal with. We are on section 5. I am honoured the member would challenge me in such a way, and I rule him out of order.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
On section 6:
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, in the deliberations of the standing committee on general government last week quite a substantive presentation was made by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. They had many significant points in their brief. Similar points were made by members opposite, particularly by the member for Etobicoke, related to that presentation.
On reflection, we have decided to incorporate some of the expanded benefits alluded to in the OPSEU presentation. I will be offering an amendment to section 6 plus two others, 6a and 6b.
The Deputy Chairman: Move it and then we will put it on record.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Fine. There are several parts; so I thought it needed a little background.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) Section 9 of the said act as amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(5) For the purpose of subsection 1, leave of absence because of pregnancy or adoption of a child includes all leave or leaves of absence in respect of the birth or adoption of the child."
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, this was one of the issues that was raised very effectively at the committee last week. I will give the comparison between the present act and the act as I am proposing the amendment.
At present, if an employee on maternity leave chooses to take advantage of section 9 of the act, she pays her own contributions during the 17-week period of partially paid leave and the crown makes matching contributions during this period. In other words, the contribution sharing is the same as if she was at work. If the employee takes unpaid leave for a further period of up to 26 weeks and wishes to continue to establish credit in the future, she must pay both her own and the matching contributions that in the past were paid by the government.
The proposed amendment will extend the benefit. It will result in the crown making matching contributions during the extended period of unpaid leave. In other words, the benefit that is now enjoyed during the first 17 weeks would be further enjoyed for up to an additional 26 weeks.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, we on this side will accept the amendment as proposed by the minister. We thank him for including the extended benefits for pregnancy in the adoption period and the option for the six-month contribution by the government. I gather it will be a cost-sharing program between the government and the employee on a 50-50 basis. I suppose it has been extended to a further leave of absence agreed upon by both parties. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, to facilitate debate, I will say ibid et op cit.
Motion agreed to.
8:30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:
"6a(1) Section 14 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(8a) Subject to subsection 9, a person who is credited for the purposes of this act with service that when added to the person's credit for service in the fund establishes a date of commencement of service that is on or before December 31, 1965, shall, if he becomes entitled to an allowance or an annuity, receive an annual allowance or an annuity equal to that which he would have received if it had been computed under the Public Service Superannuation Act as it was on December 31, 1965.
"(2) Subsection 14(9) of the said act is amended by inserting after 'subsection 8' where it appears in the first line and in the 11th line 'or 8a.'
"(3) Subsection 14(8a) of the said act, as enacted by subsection 1, applies only in respect of a person who is or who becomes a contributor on or after the date subsection 1 comes into force."
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, this issue was raised in the committee debate last week in general terms, and in looking at fairness and equity in the act, we saw there were some people who had previous contributions or service for which they could be required to make back contributions and yet would not buy exactly the same pension benefit as if they had been carried as continuous service employees.
Subsection 14(8) of the act currently provides that a person who has been a contributor since December 31, 1965, or earlier is guaranteed an allowance or annuity equal to that which he would have received under the act as it was on December 31, 1965. The proposed amendment, subsection 14(8a), will extend the benefit of that guarantee to those who purchased past service credits and thereby establish the pension credit date of December 31, 1965, or earlier.
I wish to point out a couple of examples of people who will benefit by the change in this option. People who have had military service and people who have transferred into the Public Service Superannuation Act from other public service contributory plans, such as the teachers' superannuation fund, will be able to carry on the same nature of benefit, even if their buy-back or previous service contributions via another vehicle predated December 31, 1965.
The Deputy Chairman: It is agreed that the minister will require unanimous consent from the House before this can come before the House, because it is not technically part of the bill. Being consistent with other honourable members who have brought motions before this House that were not in Bill 54, do we have unanimous consent from all members before this is brought forward?
Agreed to.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I assume it will be reciprocated the next time my colleague moves an amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: I will be totally fair. When I realized this was the case, I was prepared to block it. If it is unanimous, then it is accepted.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see the minister move in this direction. Perhaps it was not included in the original amendment to the bill, but this opens the door to pension reform. I commend the minister for moving in this direction.
One of the concerns at the committee meeting last week was that Bill 54 also increases the cost of purchasing past service. It says it entails a reduction in the benefits. I do not know whether that has been answered in this amendment. It talks about purchasing a past service before 1965. Concerning portability, one can move from one government pension scheme to another under this program; that is a step in the right direction.
The minister has also included military service as back service. That is something that has been long awaited. I am surprised the government did not move 20 or 30 years ago in the direction of including the service of men who served in the Second World War. It is quite a coincidence that tomorrow we are marking the 40th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Europe which liberated France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The minister must have been listening to what was going on.
In a number of cases the veterans who served overseas in the last world war have been shortchanged in pension schemes. I know that in the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, which relates to the municipalities' pension schemes, the government has allowed the same suggestion that is in this amendment so they can include their war services. I commend the minister for moving in that direction.
The minister indicated before the recess that there are 2,000 persons who would receive the benefit of this amendment. I do not know what the actual cost is, but I would be interested to find out just what it is going to cost the fund for those persons who would be the recipients under this section.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, would the minister care to give us any estimate about how many people will potentially benefit from this? How many people could opt into this as a result of this amendment?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, from the first run at the computer, our estimate is that approximately 1,600 or 1,700 people will benefit by this amendment. The costs are not absolute by any stretch of the imagination -- they never are until one sees who takes advantage -- but it is estimated that it could be somewhere in the area of $4 million per annum if the majority participated.
I want to make it a little clearer, because I do not want to mislead the House, that there are several ways the benefit comes in. In some cases, people were able to get theoretical credit for back service, but it did not buy them the same benefits as if they had been here. It is not just a matter of saying, "You never gave them the opportunity before." In some cases, they paid the price but did not get the same benefit. This is one of the inequities rectified by this amendment.
Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman: The minister proposes to move an amendment to a section that is not before the House. Do I have the unanimous consent of the House to accept this amendment before I read it?
Agreed to.
Mr. McClellan: On the basis of reciprocity, yes.
The Deputy Chairman: I have no way of saying that will happen.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, in this age of six and five, I wonder whether the minister would accept an extra five and then we could give him unanimous consent to that.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:
"6b. The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section:
"20a(1) A person who is a contributor or who is entitled to a deferred annuity under this act may direct the board to increase the amount of the survivor allowance related to the allowance or annuity to which the person will be entitled or related to the deferred annuity to 55 per cent, 60 per cent, 65 per cent, 70 per cent or 75 per cent of the allowance or annuity or deferred annuity and to reduce the amount of the allowance or annuity or deferred annuity accordingly."
"(2) A direction mentioned in subsection 1 must be in writing and must be delivered to the board two years or more before the person commences to receive an allowance or an annuity or deferred annuity under this act."
(3) The board shall accept a direction mentioned in subsection 1 that is delivered to the board less than two years before the person commences to receive an allowance or an annuity or deferred annuity under this act, if the board is satisfied that the person is in good health having regard to the person's age.
"(4) Where a direction mentioned in subsection 1 is delivered in accordance with subsection 2 or accepted in accordance with subsection 3, the amount of the allowance or annuity or deferred annuity payable to the person shall be actuarially reduced in a manner approved by the board to allow for the survivor allowance in accordance with the direction, and the amount of the survivor allowance related to the allowance or annuity or deferred annuity shall be increased in accordance with the direction."
8:40 p.m.
"(5) A direction mentioned in subsection 1 is not valid if the person who gives the direction dies before applying for an allowance or annuity or deferred annuity under this act."
"(6) A person who gives a direction mentioned in subsection (1) may revoke the direction by a written revocation delivered to the board before the date of commencement of the person's allowance or annuity or deferred annuity."
Hon. Mr. Ashe: This was an issue that was discussed in the committee meeting last week. The Public Service Superannuation Act, like most benefit plans, provides for a 50 per cent survivor benefit when a pension recipient dies. The proposed amendment, section 20a, will allow a contributor to elect to take a reduced benefit during his lifetime and in turn his survivor will take an increased survivor allowance. The reductions and increases will be actuarially determined. This amendment is similar to a provision in the recently revised Teachers' Superannuation Act.
This goes very close to the proposal put forth last week to the committee by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, although it suggested the figure should be up to 80 per cent. We are giving flexibility at five per cent increments going from 50 to 55, 60 to 65, 70 to 75. In other words, it will go up to 75 per cent, not 80 per cent. It is very much in line with recent amendments to the Teachers' Superannuation Act.
If I may just clarify the record, apparently in the answer to the last section relating to cost, I inadvertently said the cost was something in the order of $4 million annually. It is $4 million, period.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, we will concur with the minister's proposed amendment, section 6b of Bill 54. I recall I sat on the select committee on pensions in 1982 for a period of a week or so. To upgrade survivors' benefits was one of its recommendations. I am pleased the minister has included this proposed amendment in the new bill. He indicates it draws a parallel with the Teachers' Superannuation Act. It is a similar piece of legislation and it does give the survivor additional benefits on the option of the way they want to take their pension. I concur with the amendment.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the union, as the minister suggests, asked for 80 per cent. The minister has moved in that direction, although not all the way. We will support the amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
On section 7:
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ashe moved that subsection 21(3) of the said act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) The contribution mentioned in subsection (2) shall be six per cent of the salary authorized to be paid from time to time to a person in the same or a comparable position to that in which the contributor was employed in the month in which the contributor qualified for the benefit."
Hon. Mr. Ashe: One of the excellent points of discussion that was brought forth last week in the brief, and further discussed by the members opposite, such as the member for Etobicoke, was the fact that if a person is off on long-term disability, the pension benefits accruing to his or her benefit during that time are based on contributions relating to the salary of the person when the disability commenced. This means, as an example, that if somebody was disabled for the last 10 years before retirement, his pension accruals, and ultimately his pension benefits, would be based on his salary 10 years before he would have retired, resulting in a much-reduced pension.
This amendment deals with this problem. The act provides for the employer to make contributions on behalf of an employee who has qualified for benefits under an approved long-term income protection plan. The proposed amendment to subsection 21(3) provides an escalation feature so the contributions that come from the government and the allowance the individual ultimately receives will be based on the salary the individual would have received had he continued to occupy the position he held when he became disabled.
I am sure the members will appreciate that "he" also means "she" in this. It is just in conformity with the legislation as now written.
In effect this means that, for somebody going on disability, pension accruals would be based on the salary benefits that would have accrued to that position if the person had been at work. I think this is a very valid acceptance of a point that has been brought forth in the past, including last week's committee meeting.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on section 7, the proposed amendment to subsection 21(3). Again I am looking at the submission and recommendations of OPSEU dealing with this particular section. It says: "The contributions mentioned in subsection 2 shall be six per cent of the salary authorized to be paid to the contributor in the month in which the contributor qualified for the benefit, plus whatever salary increases would otherwise have been applicable."
The proposed amendment is similar to what OPSEU had recommended, and again I have to concur with the proposed amendment. We on this side will support it.
I suppose I should draw to the attention of the Legislature that this does show one of the functions of referring particular pieces of legislation to a committee of the Legislature. The public and interested parties have some input into the final decision. In this particular instance the minister and his staff have been listening, and these amendments are a step in the right direction.
I have to commend the minister. I did not think he had the heart to bring forward these last two or three proposed changes to the act itself. He must have done some arm-twisting over there with his colleagues in the cabinet to go on with these major changes in this piece of pension legislation.
I just hope that if the official opposition has success in getting many more important pieces of legislation referred to committee, the government will keep its ears open and listen to the opposition and interested parties so changes will be forthcoming.
We support the proposed amendment.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I concur with what the member for Erie has said. It was our party that asked that the bill go out for public hearings and stated that we would force it if necessary. It was not necessary, because the minister and the government were willing to have it go to public hearings.
It was too bad we had so little time in which to deal with what is a very complicated piece of legislation. None the less some movement has been made, and obviously the minister has listened to some of the recommendations made at the hearings.
This was a concern. Someone off on long-term disability had his pension based on his salary at the time of his disability. That was blatantly unfair, and he suffered for it for the rest of his life. The minister has attempted to listen to the injustice that was pointed out to him by OPSEU and its members.
Motion agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
8:50 p.m.
On section 11:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that clauses 28(a) and 28(b) of the act be amended by deleting clauses 28(a) and 28(b) up to the word "foundation" and the following is substituted therefor:
"(a) to the permanent and probationary staff of any board, commission, foundation or organization established under any act of the Legislature that is designated or funded by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; and
"(b) to any full-time member of any such board, commission, foundation and organization."
The rest would follow according in the act, namely (i) and (ii).
Because clause 28(b) was not in the bill, could I have unanimous consent from all members of the House that this be considered as an amendment?
Agreed to.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, as the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has pointed out on numerous occasions in this House, our party has been very concerned about the contracting out of certain government functions. We wish simply to assure that those people who are working through the contracting-out systems have the same kinds of benefits as those who are public employees. That is the intent of this motion, and I hope the minister will consider it.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, section 11 of the bill already exists. Quite frankly, I am not quite sure that motion reads correctly, because section 11 already amends clause 28(a) of the act. The way the motion was put, I do not think it superseded or changed what is already known as section 11 of the bill. In other words, there is a section in the bill that already changes clause 28(a), but the motion as put by the member for Etobicoke does not recognize that. It just goes on to identify that it is not there. In any event, I will leave you to think that one out and sort it out in due course.
We cannot accept this particular amendment because we feel section 11 was intended only to remove the word "full-time" from clause 28(a) in the act and to recognize the original intent of Bill 54, which was to give regular part-time and regular seasonal employees the opportunity to join under the Ontario Public Service Superannuation Act. We looked very carefully at those who do and who should qualify, and I think the present words fully take care of that.
As far as the reference to contracting out per se, there is no doubt at all those people would not qualify under the definition in any event and, in fact, should not.
I think it is safe to say in virtually all situations where "contracting out" -- and I am using the term as used by the member for Etobicoke -- takes place, it is either for a specific project, for a specific relatively temporary period or for something which has a termination date to it. That is really not within the spirit of the act as it is being expanded at this time. It is really only intended to acknowledge and allow that there are certain people within the Ontario public service now, in the future and in the past who do work, have worked and will probably continue to work on a regular part-time basis or on a regular seasonal basis.
In my view, those people who contract out do not fall into this category.
Mr. Haggerty: I want to speak to the amendment put forward by the member for Etobicoke. I can see it may cause some problems for the minister responsible for the act, in particular as it relates to contract work. However, if one looks at it, I think it has merit in the area of pension reform in Ontario. Regardless of whether it is in the act or not, I suggest that any ministry contracting work out should look to see that the persons employed by the contractor have a clause for pension allowance in their arrangements with their employer.
It has merit in the sense that when ministries contract work out they should ensure those persons would have some pension scheme. It may take three or four years to bring in such a pension reform program. However, I think these persons might be in an area where they could be hired for one, six or seven weeks, or even seven months, and pensions should be included in that contract.
The Deputy Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate?
All those in favour of Mr. Philip's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Sections 11 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 16:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that section 16 of the bill be deleted.
Mr. Philip: The purpose of this is simply to help the government keep the promise it made to the Ombudsman and to the Ombudsman's committee. The minister will recall that the second report of the Ombudsman pointed out the basic unfairness of section 16 of the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Item 1560 on page 266, dealing with the Ministry of Government Services, said: "Section 16 of Public Service Superannuation Act too restrictive with regard to re-employed provincial superannuates." Then it gave a detailed explanation. The Ministry of Government Services in turn came back and said they recognized that basic injustice.
It was dealt with again in the third report of the select committee on the Ombudsman which recommended that, "The ministry should table appropriate legislation in the Legislature during this current session, removing the present restriction on the total current earnings of the provincial superannuate."
The 11th report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, says: "Recommendation number 24 ... provided that the ministry should table appropriate legislation removing the present restriction on the total current earnings of a provincial superannuant. Management Board of Cabinet has approved in principle an amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act which will remove the present provision requiring a reduction or suspension of pension benefits where a pensioner is re-employed by the crown. Representatives of the ministry assure the committee that the amendment is a priority."
9 p.m.
It was a priority at the time of the 11th report of the select committee of the Ombudsman, but suddenly a new act comes in and it is not a priority now. It is a little bit like the two trees for one. It is a priority one day and it is not a priority the next.
I felt kind of sorry for this minister because I think he has shown today that he has some flexibility in listening to presentations which are made before him. However, he said, and I hope I am not misquoting him: "I have no authority. It is that Chairman of Management Board." I did not use an adjective because I did not want to have the minister correct me over what he said. "It is that Chairman of Management Board who does not want to go along with this, and I have no authority over that poor, ugly fellow."
It is the act that is before us, and there is a basic injustice that has been dealt with by two select committees on the Ombudsman and by the Ombudsman himself in his second report. I suggest that now is the time to correct that basic injustice.
If one is at the upper echelon and a top professional, as are many of the very talented people advising the minister, they will come back on contract and get around that. The poor guy who is a clerk, a typist or a security guard gets stuck by this. It is the guy on the bottom or the middle-income earner who is affected by this.
Now that we have this act before us and the House has unanimously agreed to open up section 16, it should be deleted as requested by the Ombudsman and the all-party select committee on the Ombudsman.
The Deputy Chairman: Just for clarification, before the honourable minister responds, in my accepting that amendment I went against Beauchesne's good advice.
May I suggest that instead of having the amendment as the member presented it, the members of the third party vote against that section. That will accomplish the same objective the member has asked for.
Beauchesne says: "An amendment to delete a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill."
Hon. Mr. Ashe: The motion as proposed by the member for Etobicoke is not relating to section 16 of the bill before him. There is nothing before him, so he cannot vote against it.
In the spirit of what was happening before, allowing a section that did not previously appear in the bill, section 16 as referred to is in the original Public Service Superannuation Act. It is section 16 of that bill, not section 16 of Bill 54 that is in front of us. They are two completely different things.
Section 16 of the bill before us talks about "on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor." That is when the act, except sections 10 and 12, will come into force. That is not the purpose of the motion before us.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you the minister is right on this occasion.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Again.
He is always a very charitable individual. I am glad to hear a lot of the accolades that have been put forth tonight. My generosity has gone as far as it can go. Sometimes the heart starts to close up from its bleeding. It bled to death before it got to this one, so I cannot go along with the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: When the member for Etobicoke proposed his motion, I considered that since the next section for us to consider was section 16 of the bill before us, he was moving that that not be approved. Instead, he was really moving section 16 of the act. It would require unanimous consent of the House for that to happen.
Mr. Martel: You got it.
The Deputy Chairman: Did we?
Mr. Philip: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman: We did? We have it. That is fine. I was thinking of something different from what I asked for.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit in which it was given before, I agreed for the same reason. I have no qualms in debating the issue as it was discussed and debated last Wednesday in committee, although I am still not going to support it. My blood ran dry after the last donation. There is nothing left to give at this time. That is the point.
The situation as it was perceived by the government, the ministry, the select committee and the Ombudsman back in the late 1970s was applicable then, but it is not now. Things have changed. Times have changed. We have new legislation in effect that governs Canada to a greater degree. I am talking about the new benefits that have come into effect, the new protections under federal legislation. Such things as mandatory retirement age are issues we will have to address before next year. They obviously overlap this section of the Public Service Superannuation Act. it would not be appropriate to make any changes at this time. They will be made in due course, based on the legislation of a federal nature with which we have to comply.
If we look at the unemployment situation in Canada and Ontario, which looks better in Ontario but is still too high, I do not think we would ever want to change legislation that might make it attractive for somebody to retire a little early so that he could start back to work the next day and compound his earnings. I do not think that is the spirit.
There is a fair and equitable basis somewhere in between. I am not suggesting it is what we have now, but I do not think this is the answer either. I cannot support the amendment.
Mr. Philip: In the light of the minister's comments and in the light of the understanding of the new Ombudsman and his feeling he must examine policy thrusts and policy areas, as a member of the select committee on the Ombudsman, I will have no alternative but to ask the new Ombudsman also to examine section 16 and report back to the committee. I am sorry the minister cannot accept our amendment.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 16 agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Eaton, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments and progress on another.
ONTARIO LOAN ACT
Hon. Mr. Grossman moved second reading of Bill 74, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, consistent with past practice, the 1984 Ontario Loan Act provides the borrowing authority needed to finance the net cash requirements of the province for the current fiscal year. Any unused borrowing authority will expire September 30, 1985.
As my 1984 budget statement indicated, Ontario's net cash requirements can be financed by borrowing from the Canada pension plan and the teachers' superannuation fund. Ontario's only capital market activity this year will be to refinance existing Treasury bill borrowing.
Interjections.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury.
Mr. Martel: You cannot blame that on me.
The Deputy Speaker: We are unable to hear the opening remarks of the Treasurer.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, do not accuse me. Heaven forbid.
Interjections.
9:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The 1984 Ontario Loan Act requests borrowing authority of $2.6 billion. The 1984 budget forecasts net cash requirements of $2.039 billion. Added to this are debt requirements during the year that total $107 million.
The 1984 Ontario Loan Act also carries forward six months into the succeeding fiscal year following the procedure recommended by the public accounts committee in 1978 to cover requirements pending the passage of the 1985 Ontario Loan Act. Accordingly, it provides borrowing authority for Canada pension plan funds that will be made available each month during the period April 1 to September 30, 1985, which must be drawn down or forfeited. As well, it covers borrowings available from the teachers' superannuation fund during the same period.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions to ask about this. As the almost perennial chairman, unfortunately, of the public accounts committee, I am pleased to see the government has accepted one of our recommendations to cut down its authorization time. The present Treasurer probably will not recall, but at one point we passed a bill that gave open-ended authority to the government to borrow up to the limit without a time limit. If the government did not borrow the money within the fiscal year or even in the 18 months, it could carry it on two, three, four years or whatever was required.
However, I have a number of questions I want to ask the minister. The first is a matter that has been debated in this House at some length. When are we going to have to start repaying the Canada pension plan and the teachers' superannuation fund? To my knowledge, we have borrowed up to the limit in the past number of years. At some point, the borrowings from those funds are going to have to be paid back. I know the Treasurer and the government are counting on the fact that contributions, particularly to the CPP, perhaps even to the teachers' superannuation fund, will increase so the government will be able to keep borrowing from these funds ad nauseam, presumably, and not have to pay them back.
At some point, however, if we had good fiscal management in this situation, one would think the funds or some portion of them should be paid back. What some of us fear on this side -- our leader the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) has mentioned it in a number of instances -- is that the interest payable to these funds from the funds so borrowed is going to equal the amount coming in from the CPP and the teachers' superannuation fund. So the money that is available will only meet the interest payments required to keep that fund static. The province at some point is going to have to go to the public market.
That is one question. I would like to know the Treasurer's projections as to when we are going to reach the borrowing limit from these funds, when the interest that is repayable on these loans will equal the amount coming in through the CPP and the teachers' superannuation fund.
The second question is with regard to the refinancing of the Treasury bills put out last year for the first time in many years. Interest rates have gone up. We have to refinance that particular issue, and the budget is a little vague to say the least. No bad news is underlined in any Treasurer's budget, but I am sure the Treasurer will want to give us a guesstimate at least of what the interest rate will be to refinance the Treasury bills put out in the last year.
If we look at page 51 of the budget, Ontario Finances, Ten-Year Review of Selected Financial and Economic Statistics, it is interesting to note that the funded debt per capita of the province is something like $2,755 this year, excluding Ontario Hydro borrowings.
The Treasurer's own statistics show the funded debt as a percentage of gross provincial product, and the statistics are provided for 10 years. Back in 1975-76 the funded debt was 15.2 per cent of GPP; in 1984-85 the estimate is 15.4 per cent, which is the same figure as the interim for 1983-84, 15.4 per cent of GPP.
That is an interesting statistic when one compares it to the Treasurer's statements about how we are reducing the deficit. It is interesting that all the financial people in the gallery who are so fully knowledgeable about these kinds of affairs picked up on the Treasurer's comment that we are reducing the deficit this year. If one read or watched or heard the news reports following the Treasurer's budget, if the uninitiated or the man in the street heard those news reports, it sounded as if we were reducing the deficit from last year and the years past and as if we were not mortgaging the future of the people of the province by a deficit of $2,039,000,000 this year. In fact, this is new debt, which is going to be a burden on the people of Ontario.
There is another interesting statistic that is related to this. In the budget document we talk about the fact that we have reduced the number of civil servants per capita from, I believe, 11 to nine per thousand people in the province. But we are finding out through questions put by the Liberal opposition, questions we have been trying to get answered for years, during the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services and those of the Ministry of Revenue, which have been done in the House, that this government has not reduced the cost of those items; it has contracted the work to consultants or seasonal or temporary people.
If I recall the figures, for instance, for the Ministry of Revenue, we found there was $10 million in the budget for consultants and seasonal people. I believe it was an even worse figure for the Ministry of Government Services.
What the government has done with its usual smoke-and-mirrors trick -- mostly by attrition, obviously, in the public service -- is to take people who have retired, taken early retirement or whatever. The figures on the payroll of the province, which the taxpayers are paying, indicate that the number of civil servants per thousand people or the total has been reduced, but what we see during the estimates is that those people have been picked up in consulting contracts or contract work or seasonal work.
There does not seem to be a net reduction in the number of civil servants per thousand people, the figure the Treasurer and his predecessors used. If we add those all up, I suspect we would find that the number on the public payroll is, if not the same as it has been for the last number of years, possibly even higher.
Presumably, when we go through all the estimates, we will have a consolidated figure we will be able to look at and use to show again that while the figures in the budget document may be true in the sense in which they are written there, when we add the dollar cost of these things and the number of people who are still on the public payroll, the costs are higher than the Treasurer indicated. I am not one to say it is a good thing or a bad thing that we should be laying off people. I am not advocating that. I am simply saying his figures in the budget statement are somewhat suspect.
9:20 p.m.
It is interesting as well that we do not know the net borrowings. Again, to the uninitiated, if we look at it, we are talking about the consolidated revenue fund and one aspect of government borrowing in the province. We are not looking at, and we very seldom do, the net borrowing for Ontario Hydro.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, being a student of these things, that as usual in the budget statement when you look under the net borrowing for Ontario Hydro for 1984-85, the entry there says "N/A," which means simply "not available." This is a common practice of Hydro and the Ontario government. The province pretends that is not part of the net debt of the province.
I think Hydro's debt is somewhere around $16 billion and presumably will be another $4 billion or $5 billion. People have suggested by the 1990s that the borrowing debt of Ontario Hydro may well be double.
The point of this exercise is simply that on the books of the province, these funds, plus another $220 million for loans to various agencies, boards and commissions, are carried as a contingency reserve on the province. Hydro borrowings are guaranteed by the province and have to be considered as part of the debt for Ontario.
We had an interesting discussion, and I am glad to see some of the people from Treasury under the press gallery tonight, in the standing committee on public accounts just a week ago about what constituted the real debt of Ontario. It is interesting to me that if we went to the Treasury people and got them off by themselves one at a time, we would probably get a very different figure from each one of them as to what exactly the debt of the province is.
I see the Deputy Treasurer thinks that is a humorous comment. I can understand that, because he knows as well as I do that very few people care about what the debt of the province is, except for the bond raters, who keep being wined and dined by various Treasurers, present, past and no doubt to come, who presumably find Ontario's debt is manageable. It is interesting and I just throw that out.
I wonder whether the Treasurer would like to take a shot, to use a phrase my friend the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) might use, at defining exactly what he perceives the net debt of the province to be. I am sure that if he wants to take a chance on that, without any reference to his experts under the gallery, even they may be surprised to learn what he considers the net debt, the net funded debt, or whatever phrase he likes, of Ontario to be. I would like him to define it for me.
I can almost hear his response now, which will be like that of his predecessors: "It does not really matter how you define the debt. It really matters what the bond raters in New York say about the ability of Ontario to pay its debt." We heard this from the Treasury experts, but just as an academic exercise, for once I would like to hear from a Treasurer what he considers to be the outstanding obligations of the province in this case.
We went through an interesting transformation -- that is not exactly the word I want to use, but I am not sure I can get transmogrification out -- a couple of years ago with the present Treasurer's predecessor in which we learned we did not have any debt in Ontario. I hope I am not feeding the Treasurer any lines. We did not have a net debt or any debt in Ontario because our capital expenditures were equal to the money we had to raise through the teachers' superannuation fund, Canada pension plan or anything else. That capital debt went for hospitals, highways, schools and all those wonderful things.
It was as if by a wave of the wand the taxpayers in Ontario were not carrying any debt plus the interest associated with it. It was as if it did not exist because we had this building over here, that highway over there, this hospital here, and there was no debt because the money was going into those capital expenditures.
It is a strange -- passing strange, as one of my former colleagues used to say -- approach to finance when one says that one does not have any debt because they are all capital expenditures which, because of government accounting, we do not depreciate and all that kind of good stuff. But the basic essential is still there: that money has to be borrowed from somewhere to pay those costs. One can play with the books, transfer the operating costs into one column and the expenditures into another, but after all the smoke and mirrors and after the shell game is over, the fact remains that we are putting the taxpayers of Ontario on the line, and their ability to earn, for an additional $2,039,000,000 this year.
Whether one calls that capital expenditure or operating costs, those things have to be financed at an interest rate that in the past two years has been somewhere relative to the prime rate that exists in the country and the province at the time. The fact remains that those debts are incurred and have to be paid as well as the interest on them.
I think it was under Darcy McKeough that we did all those studies and, if I recall correctly, there was a situation where I think it was the Smith committee that said if you were paying more than seven cents on the dollar -- seven per cent -- you had very serious problems, and the economy and the taxpayers could not afford that. Then we got up to 11 cents on the dollar, and that was swept under the board, just as we now find 9.5 per cent unemployment in the province acceptable when we did not find 6.5 per cent acceptable a few years ago.
I am not arguing that things and times do not change, but it still does not speak of serious financial integrity in Ontario when one considers the wastage with respect to Suncor, the land banks, advertising, polls and all the rest of it that we have heard about -- some people would say ad nauseam -- in this province.
The other thing that is interesting is the way somebody can cook the books. We had the situation with the previous Treasurer's budget of 1983 when he said: "Our expenditures are going to be somewhere around $25 billion, and our deficit will be $2.9 billion; but having said that these are going to be our expenditures for the year, we have told the government ministries to cut back by $300 million, so in fact our deficit is going to be a lot less than we say it is."
They could well have said, "When we originally calculated this, the deficit was going to be $4 billion, but we have told our cabinet ministers that we are going to cut back by $1.5 billion, so the deficit will be about $2.5 billion." It is a shallow, cynical game for the Conservative government to be playing.
9:30 p.m.
I can tell the members a parallel story. When I got elected at the ripe old age of 24, I had just completed my course work for a master's degree in economics.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Honest to God? Really?
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is right. I had a chance to go into law but it was too easy, as the minister has proved. Anyway, I finished two years of course work in economics. I ran in 1967, when the present Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) was still wet behind the ears. In that election I put in my campaign brochure, "Master of arts (economics) pending." In 1971 I put "MA (economics) pending."
My constituents being the highly intelligent people they are, having elected me and re-elected me five times, finally said: "Why don't you put PhD pending? It means the same thing." That is a parallel with what the government is doing with its kind of chicanery.
Mr. Wildman: Is the member saying he was involved with chicanery in his campaign?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He got elected, did he not?
Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a comment, but I do not think I had better make it.
On page 2 of his budget statement, the Treasurer, who was not necessarily responsible for this, takes some pride, I would presume, in saying: "Deficits must come down. For the year just ended, I am pleased to report that we have been able to reduce the projected deficit of $2,695,000,000 to $2.35 billion."
What the Treasurer did not say and was not counting on was that the reduction was courtesy of our federal government, which came up with almost $339 million in extra revenue. Of course, there were a few other things that went right. There was no obeisance, no nod and tug of the forelock to our federal cousin for its largess in bailing the province out of a $2,695,000,000 deficit.
This year we are faced with a bill asking us to give the Treasurer and cabinet the authority to raise $2.6 billion through Bill 74, the Ontario Loan Act. This will take the government to September 1985. The projected deficit is $2,039,000,000. Tonight, the Treasurer is asking for an additional $500 million or more as a bit of cushion to perhaps get through the fiscal year from April 1, 1985, to September 1985.
While the Treasurer of the day has usually asked for more than the projected deficit, I suspect this Treasurer realizes his whole budget is based on some kind of quicksand, his projections are overly optimistic and he will be lucky if his projections do come about.
I also want to ask the Treasurer about the increase in liquid reserves. In Ontario Finances, page 39, total financing for 1984-85 is $2,039,000,000. In that, the increase in liquid reserves is being drawn down by $34 million. Net public borrowing is at $96 million. I presume those are the Treasury bills that have to be refinanced.
I would like to give some statistics since the present incumbent in the chair of the Premier (Mr. Davis) has just come in.
In 1970-71 the deficit was $566 million; in 1971-72 it almost doubled to $1,018,000,000; in 1972-73 it was $744 million; in 1973-74 it was $708 million; in 1974-75 it was $977 million; in 1975-76 it was $1,799,000,000; in 1976-77 it was $1,319,000,000; in 1977-78 it was $1,762,000,000; in 1978-79 it was $1.18 billion; in 1979-80, which happened to coincide with an election year, the deficit was $584 million; in 1980-81 it was $803 million; in 1981-82 it was $1,503,000,000; in 1982-83 it was $2,478,000,000; in 1983-84 it was $2.35 billion; and we have a projection, as I have said, for 1984-85 of $2.39 billion.
The debt of the province, according to the Treasurer's own estimates, with the addition this year of $2.39 billion, comes to a total debt of the province, exclusive of Ontario Hydro, of $24,576,000,000, all money that obviously has to be paid back.
It is interesting that we are here to borrow from these funds, as we have for past years. I suspect the Treasurer and his officials know well, and I will predict, the outcome of the budget for this year will be that we will have a deficit of somewhere between $2.4 billion and $2.5 billion. The Treasurer is asking for $2.6 billion in Bill 74, and I will be moving an amendment to section 1 to substitute $2.1 billion for $2.6 billion. It seems to me that will be adequate funding to get us through this fiscal year. I recall the Treasurer's predecessor boasting not that long ago that the projections of the Ontario Treasury were close, within two or three per cent, which was phenomenal.
Given the kind of smoke and mirrors we have seen with the budgetary figures, I think it is sufficient in terms of accountability and responsibility to this chamber and the taxpayers that the Legislature as a whole only give authority to the government for $2.1 billion, which is somewhere around $600 million more than is required to cover the estimate for this fiscal year. If the Treasurer of the day needs more funds, he should come back and give an accounting to the Legislature of what has gone wrong with his projections, the economy and everything else.
9:40 p.m.
It seems to me there is not enough accountability in this chamber and to the taxpayers for the management of government funds. If the Treasurer is serious about what he says in the budget, in the projections he makes and in the figures he has provided for us, the taxpayers, the bond raters and everybody else, he should be able to stand in this place and say: "I stand by this and if there is any significant change, I am prepared to come before this Legislature and say I need more money." He should be prepared to do this just as he is prepared to come here and say: "I did not need as much money as I figured because of something called 'cooking the books.'"
Therefore I put the minister on notice that we will be moving an amendment to reduce the figure in Bill 74 from $2.6 billion to $2.1 billion. This would give the Legislature an opportunity to have an update on how well the Treasurer and his people are conducting the finances of Ontario. I see nothing wrong in that kind of accountability. Given past performance, I think it is something that would have a salutary effect on the handling of public funds in Ontario.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill. I am not opposed to government borrowing per se, but let me explain. We have just had a budget brought down in this province. Now we are told that for every $10 the government raises in revenue from all its sources, it wants in addition the power to borrow one dollar. In total, it wants to borrow $2.6 billion.
By any standard, that is an incredible sum of money. I do not take issue with borrowing per se. My intellectual processes are not short-circuited by the word "deficit." It is one of the ironies of modern political life that the conservatives of all stripes, the conservatives in both the Liberal and Conservative Parties, are the ones who get apoplectic when they hear the word deficit."
Yet the conservatives in power in Ottawa, under the name of the Liberal Party, and the conservatives in power here under the name of the William G. Davis friendly cornerstore government of Ontario, do run deficits. They are the ones who come forward each year with the work budgets and the borrowing bills that keep building the very deficits which drive them wild.
The Ontario Conservative Party, we should remember, is the party that had a provincial debt in 1975-76 of $1.9 billion. This was the very year the government announced its restraint era for the first time. Then it allowed that to escalate to $24.5 billion this year, a debt load increase of 1,189 per cent. This is an accomplishment rivalled by few organizations in Canada.
The only two which come readily to mind are the federal Liberal Party and Dome Petroleum. My Conservative friend, the last of a dying breed, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) gives a false and misleading impression to the Legislature when he indicates that the government of Saskatchewan had an increase of debt in that proportion.
The irony of the defeat of the Allan Blakeney NDP government in Saskatchewan was that it was the most fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible government in the country. It was the Tory party, the party of Grant Devine, that irresponsibly removed all the taxation, the responsible mix of taxation that had been built up by the fiscally conservative Allan Blakeney New Democratic Party government of Saskatchewan.
One of the real ironies of politics is that the first socialist government elected in North America was a government that ran on a platform of wiping out the deficit in Saskatchewan in 1944. Tommy Douglas ran on that platform, he won and he achieved it. He balanced the books in Saskatchewan.
Mr. McClellan: He brought in medicare.
Mr. Foulds: I would just point out, as my colleague the member for Bellwoods so ably does, that not only did Tommy Douglas balance the books in Saskatchewan but he also brought in medicare. It was only the mismanagement of medicare by Tories and Liberals that has allowed any kind of deficit to arise. It is absolutely incredible.
As I have said, borrowing and deficits do not affect me the way they do the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, or the way they do the former member for Chatham-Kent, the soon-to-be-rehabilitated former Treasurer of Ontario, one Honourable Darcy McKeough, who no doubt will have his hat in the ring for the leadership of the Conservative Party in the next runoff sweepstakes in Ontario.
Deficits do not affect me and do not bother me the way they do the Tories; but needless borrowing and unproductive deficits do, frankly, outrage me, and that is what Bill 74 authorizes. It gives the government the power to continue its practice of fiscal witchcraft, of voodoo economics.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you at least, if not the honourable members across the way, will want an example of what I mean. Let us take a look at one small thing that happened in the Legislature this very afternoon.
The leader of the New Democratic Party raised the problem that Toronto's beaches are being devastated by pollution. There are thousands of unemployed construction workers; the sewage systems in the region need millions of dollars' worth of upgrading. Does the government come forward and ask permission to borrow funds to invest in sewage facilities and in putting unemployed workers back to work in order to make the beaches safe for swimming?
Mr. Wildman: No, they want to blame it on the seagulls.
Mr. Foulds: No. Instead, as my friend the member for Algoma, who keeps stealing my best lines, has indicated, the government blames the pollution on the seagulls and sees the problem as a seagull eradication problem; it sees the solution as one of hiring a lot of Dave Winfields to come into the country, and it thinks that will stop the pollution. The reality is that I have done a disservice to Dave Winfield.
But the government claims that the sewage system is not its responsibility and it is not responsible for cleaning up the pollution of the beaches. That is what I call fiscal witchcraft. That is what I say is irresponsible, because if the Treasurer came forward to borrow money for the purposes of investment in facilities that are needed, or for investment in jobs, then we would be more supportive.
9:50 p.m.
It is also fiscal witchcraft to find a government that, while it is preaching restraint, is afraid to borrow money to create jobs and is afraid to borrow money to develop proper sewage facilities in our area, is rapidly climbing up the list of Canada's major advertising spenders, while at the same time it is telling municipalities, school boards and workers to control their spending and wages. To support Bill 74 is to be complicit in everything this government does that is wrong.
The government wants to borrow $2.6 billion, yet the budget states quite seriously that borrowing will do nothing to alleviate the hardship of the unemployed. What kind of nonsense is that? It is willing to borrow to do nothing, to bloody well tread water, but it is not prepared to borrow to create jobs.
One should think for a minute what $2.6 billion invested in job creation could do. Think of the recent headlines Honda received because it announced it was investing $10 million in Ontario. That will provide 350 jobs. This borrowing authorization of $2.6 billion could create 26 such plants and 26 times the number of jobs.
But the government does not want to borrow to invest in jobs. The government members have the idea in their thick heads that borrowing to invest in jobs is unproductive borrowing. What a topsy-turvy world that is. The budget makes it clear that when all is said and done, when the budget programs and initiatives are in place, Ontario's unemployment level, during this current fiscal year, will remain where it was at the start of the fiscal year.
The Treasurer predicts unemployment will not improve, that for all his announced programs the average monthly annual rate of unemployment will be 9.1 per cent, exactly what it was in March.
Before us this evening is a bill that wants us to give authorization to the government to borrow $2.6 billion. The Tories do not want to borrow to build homes for people, to renew the environment or to provide for better pensions and laid off workers. They do not want to borrow to provide for training and education; they are slashing all those programs. They want to borrow to do nothing. This is a bill to borrow to do nothing.
The government wants to borrow to meet its current obligations, not to invest in the future. This Conservative government has been the most fiscally irresponsible government of any provincial government in the country. It rivals the federal Liberal government in its fiscal irresponsibility.
I look forward to all the government backbenchers going to their ridings to explain why the government needs to borrow $37 million for each and every Tory, including the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen) now sitting in the House, yet they will have nothing to show for it.
Mr. Wildman: He is not sitting in the House.
Mr. Foulds: I used the word with some licence. I used it figuratively rather than literally. I would like each of those Tory back-benchers who are so attentive to the speech this evening to go back to their ridings and say to the people in rural and urban Ontario that the government must borrow $37 million for each Tory sitting in caucus, and yet it has nothing to show for that debt of $37 million per back-bench Tory, except more advertising, more consultants, more creative writers, more public relations firms and more polling companies.
What a complete distortion we have of the political process. What a complete abdication we have of social responsibility. What is even more serious for a government that dares to use the word conservative in labelling itself, what a complete abdication of economic responsibilities.
The Conservatives have projected a deficit of over $2 billion this year. That deficit would not exist if the government put an end to wasteful tax expenditures and broadened the tax base. As I have said previously in this House, there are in this province today $3 billion in uncollected taxes from the corporate sector alone. If the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the corporate sector and the Tory government are so intent on fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit, they could wipe out the deficit tomorrow if they collected every one of the uncollected taxes from the corporate sector.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: Why do you keep grinding the faces of the poor businessmen?
Mr. Foulds: Why do we keep grinding the faces of the poor businessmen in the dirt? Because they do not pay their taxes. I ask the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, the last, living genuine Tory in existence in Ontario --
Mr. Shymko: What do you call the rest of us?
Mr. Foulds: -- would he not love to be able to tell his constituents, and would not the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) love to tell his constituents: "You as an individual have the right to defer your taxes this year. You do not have to pay the sales tax this year. You do not have to pay your income tax. Postpone it. Delay it. Defer it."
Because we are such a fiscally responsible, democratic socialist party, we are saying that we would not tomorrow say that the corporate sector had to recover all of the $3 billion in one year. What we are saying is, let us collect 10 per cent or 20 per cent a year of that outstanding debt.
Mr. Shymko: Look at the polls. The writing is on the wall.
Mr. Foulds: Would the member like to interject while I take a drink of water, so he can make sense of himself? Absolute silence.
Interjections.
Mr. Boudria: Tell us about Bob Spencer.
Mr. Foulds: Does he mean the person who predated the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri)?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the bill.
Mr. Philip: The member for Yorkview loves group homes almost as much as the member for High Park-Swansea does.
Mr. Shymko: Small businesses employ 60 per cent of the workers in this province.
Mr. Wildman: That is right. Why do you want to kill the small businessman?
Mr. Foulds: Exactly. Why do they allow --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: I would rather hear you get back to the legislation.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to cut my remarks short so that the member for High Park-Swansea could contribute to the debate, if he had anything to contribute.
10 p.m.
While the government and the Treasurer have projected a deficit of over $2 billion, that deficit, as I said, would not exist if the government put an end to wasteful tax expenditures and broadened the tax base. It would not exist if more Ontario workers were off the unemployment lines and welfare rolls and contributed taxes to this province by working. The only way that can happen is if this government has the guts to commit itself to a full employment program, but it has never had the guts or the vision to do that.
Since the last election the Conservatives have borrowed an additional $7 billion. Is Ontario any better off for that borrowing of $7 billion? The answer is no. It is an incredible accomplishment to have a government borrow $7 billion and have the province worse off. Each and every Conservative in this Legislature elected since 1981 is responsible for $100 million additional debt --
Mr. Wildman: Do you include the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) in that?
Mr. Foulds: He is a borderline case.
Imagine what each member could have done for his own riding if he could have had the administration of that $100 million -- for the ridings, that is, not for himself. Most of the members could have developed community investment programs and job creation programs that would have put this government to shame. Most of the members could have cut unemployment by half with that kind of investment in each of their ridings. The back-bench Conservative members, let alone the front-bench members, cannot say their constituents are now better off because of the government's borrowing.
Can members say to constituents that although their taxes have gone up more than $1,400 per family and the Tory debt has risen by $7 billion, their educational system is any better than it was? Can they say their health care system is any better than it was? Can they say child care is more accessible? Can they say their constituents' incomes have improved or their housing has become more affordable or that it is easier for their children to find jobs? Can they say their present jobs are more secure? No, they cannot.
I will give another example. On May 10 this House passed a resolution in favour of financing health care travel for people who found it medically necessary to go to specialist facilities and had to travel more than 200 miles. Last week the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) rejected the resolution that was passed by a majority of government members in this House with a majority of cabinet members present. I would have thought it was binding on a responsible government since the majority of cabinet and the majority of the government party recorded votes in favour of it.
What did the Minister of Health say? First, he gave an inflated cost figure of $75 million. Then he said that was too expensive. He said the government could not afford it. When we are asked tonight to vote the government the ability to borrow $2.6 billion, $75 million is not a lot to find in that figure to finance a program approved by this Legislature.
The Minister of Health said we cannot afford that program, but this week his colleague the Treasurer comes to us asking the House to pass a bill that will allow the government to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, enough money, for example, to build 52 hospitals the size of the one proposed for Timmins. Yet in asking for this borrowing and spending authority, the government cannot afford to provide financial assistance to those patients who need medically necessary travel. It cannot even begin to implement the program so that those most in need from northern Ontario could have it implemented within the next two years.
I oppose this bill because I oppose Tory callousness. I oppose, as does my party, this Tory do-nothing budget. I oppose what laughingly passes for Conservative economic and fiscal policy in this province because that policy is not economic, responsible or fiscally sound.
On more than one occasion I have tried to convince the government of the significant difference between investment spending and current spending. I have tried to explain the difference between two types of deficit. There is one that results because the tax system allows the wealthy to shield their income and gives tax breaks to companies with no guarantee of jobs. I contrast that with a deficit that creates real assets, such as factories, houses, roads, sewers, schools, hospitals, day care centres. In other words, I ask them to contrast that first type with a deficit and borrowing that could be productive, useful and a genuine investment.
What we have here is borrowing to do nothing, stand still, tread water and maintain the status quo. We borrow from captive pension funds. I do not object to that. I do object to borrowing from captive funds such as the teachers' superannuation fund and failing to give a fair return on that captive borrowing. I do object to the failure to give the contributors to that pension plan a rightful say in the management of that pension plan, in the kind of investment that pension plan and the government's borrowings should be going into.
I must admit I have yet to be successful in persuading the government members of the difference between a useful deficit and a useless one such as the one before us, but I will keep trying. Tonight the Conservative government should not ask me to give it the authority to go out and borrow $2.6 billion -- more money than some provinces' entire budget -- so that it can continue to do so little for so many people for so much money.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on a bill which will receive about as much attention in Ontario as most bills that pass this Legislature -- very little.
As members will agree, that explains why this government is able to remain in power for 41 years and to give at least some impression of being able to manage the province's finances well. However, we in opposition -- and I think deep down in their hearts many on the government side -- recognize that this is simply not the case and is somewhat of a myth.
I can think of ways where I would find it easier to be supportive of a bill of this kind. This authorizes the borrowing of some $2.6 billion. That is a phenomenal sum of money to be allowed to fall into the hands of the Ontario government at a time when the Treasurer is optimistically predicting that his budget will be reduced what he would consider to be significantly. Part of this is due to the federal government, which I think has increased its commitment to the provincial government. Perhaps the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) would help me on the figure. I think it is by $337 million. This will not be mentioned by anyone on the government side, of course.
10:10 p.m.
Instead, I well recall there was a conference of the provincial Premiers just a few years ago. Among those Premiers calling for fiscal restraint on the part of the federal government and the movement towards a balanced budget was none other than our Premier. Along with the other Premiers, the Premier of Ontario was calling for the federal government to bring its expenditures and revenues closer in line.
When the federal government suggested that might be done by limiting to a greater degree its transfer payments to the provinces, there was a hue and cry that could be heard from one end of Ontario to the other. We even had the then deputy minister of finance brought before the standing committee on public accounts, certainly in questionable circumstances.
As I recall, the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) seemed to come up with some circumstances in which the deputy minister could be before us to dump all over the federal government. I did remind the deputy minister at that time, as well as the members of the committee, that the provincial government has been doing this for years -- practising its restraint on the backs of municipal councils and boards of education across Ontario.
Mr. Van Home: You just said the federal money was our money. I wonder if the municipalities could say the same thing.
Mr. Bradley: No doubt they could because municipalities across Ontario are really feeling the pinch. Particularly in the last few years, they have been making an honest attempt to hold their expenditures in line. Boards of education have been doing the same. They have been looking at ways of saving money.
Mr. Mitchell: Ho, ho.
Mr. Bradley: Many of them are members of the Progressive Conservative Party, so the "ho, ho" I hear from the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) should be found in Hansard. An honourable member says "ho, ho," and that is the member for Carleton. I will identify him because many of these people are members of the Progressive Conservative Party and they have been honestly trying at the local level to make do with what funds are available.
They recognize what has happened. They recognize that in each year from 1975 to this year, the percentage of the cost of education assumed by the provincial government has declined. It has gone from a very respectable and commendable figure of slightly more than 61 per cent of the cost of education being assumed by the provincial government on average across Ontario in 1975, to a situation now where it is approximately 49.5 per cent. This has really forced local boards of education to do one of two things: increase the local municipal property tax or cut essential services in the field of education.
It is all well and good to ask them to do it, except that the government on that side is the government that mandates many of these programs. It says boards of education have certain responsibilities, and as soon as these programs are put into effect, the financial rug is pulled out from beneath those programs. A prime example is the noncredit courses in continuing education at the secondary school level -- a popular program, a good program -- which permits more and more people to come back into education and take advantage of our education system in a time of declining enrolment amongst younger people.
What has happened? The provincial government pulled the rug out from that and said, "You will get no more money for continuing education noncredit courses at the secondary level." Boards of education were forced to carry it on, to institute user fees or to cut out the program entirely, because the government suggested the program and then pulled out the financial rug.
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Peterborough, as we all are members for various constituencies, you would be familiar with the fact that we are to have Bill 82 implemented in full in the fall of 1985. As members of this House will be aware, Bill 82 calls for the provincial government and its local boards of education to serve hard-to-serve students, those who in the past were too often neglected, those who in the past were often left behind in the regular education system. Boards of education will now have to serve, and rightly so, those students who have experienced difficulty in education.
We find that situation confronting the boards and also a great fear that once again this government will not provide the necessary funding. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) assures us it will. The experience the boards of education have had in this province indicates exactly the opposite.
Municipalities are faced with the same circumstances. The Treasurer himself would understand this well. He appeared before Metropolitan Toronto council, I believe it was, at the very time he was telling municipalities in this province they should limit their expenditures, live within their means and not be making expenditures that are not entirely necessary. The same Treasurer appeared before a committee of Metropolitan Toronto council pleading, and rightly so in terms of being a local representative and recognizing the need for a traffic light.
Mr. T. P. Reid: But in somewhat bad taste, I thought. He could not convince his own cabinet minister to do something about that.
Mr. Bradley: As my friend the member for Rainy River points out, the Treasurer appeared before one of the committees of Metropolitan Toronto council, a local government, and suggested it should spend more money. He said: "Don't worry, folks, because the Minister of Transportation and Communications will wink at the regular rules and regulations as they apply to subsidies. You people don't have to worry."
I can tell the members about an instance in the city of St. Catharines, at the corner of Facer Street and Grantham Avenue, two streets that are well known right across this province, no doubt.
Mr. Nixon: There is a variety store on the northeast corner.
Mr. Bradley: The member is right. That is the case.
Mr. Nixon: And the pool hall with the plaque with the member's name on it.
Mr. Bradley: That is not the case. Nevertheless, the city of St. Catharines would like to have a traffic light there, but as a part of its budgetary process, because it is not getting enough money from Ontario, that had to be cut from the budget. As a local member, of course, I would like to see that retained in the budget. But I know it is difficult on the one hand to have a provincial government and a Treasurer preaching restraint and on the other hand going to a municipal council and saying, "Restraint, but I want this for my constituents."
There are a lot of needs that must be met at the local level; but they cannot be met as long as this Treasurer is being so stingy with funds to the municipalities. He has all kinds of money to spend on government advertising, and there is no limit to the expenditures on the bicentennial. We will all enjoy the bicentennial. We had some interesting activities out front. We have some special guests coming to Ontario, and no doubt we will enjoy the bicentennial. But it is going to be a little difficult for boards of education and municipalities that are having a hard time scraping the funds together, who are looking to provide affordable housing to people in low-income brackets, to see the amount of money being blown on circuses at a time when we need bread.
This government is clever. It knows there probably is not a good political case to be made for being against fun and games in the province. When the local people ask me to plant a tree, I will go there and plant the tree and attend the activities, to be a good chap about it, but recognizing all along, as a history teacher, that I really do not know the historical significance of 1784. I recognize 1791 as being an important date in our history in Ontario, but 1784 was probably created in the mind of Hugh Segal or one of the other political beagles who advised the provincial government it would be a great idea.
The government has the new bicentennial song. Do members know what this reminds me of? The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling). I would abolish that post as well. I would not abolish the minister, but would abolish the post. It is a wasteful expenditure. We should not be borrowing money to pay his salary in that position.
10:20 p.m.
Where was I? Oh yes, we were in eastern Ontario. We heard today that we need money to give to certain companies so they can send a letter out to employees, saying: "Folks, we have a letter we have to send out."
Hon. Mr. Sterling: Do not crawl into the gutter.
Mr. Bradley: That is not in the gutter at all. I would say that is gutter politics on your part.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: On whose part?
Mr. Bradley: On the government's part.
If this happened in Ottawa, it would be a big story. The opposition would be pointing and saying, "The government should resign and give back its salary for the last three years." What happens in Ontario? It is just buried; it is not all that significant, because it is good old Ontario. Those people have a piece of cake here, because they do not have the same level of attention devoted to this place as is devoted to the House of Commons. That suits them quite nicely, and they coast along on it. But that is the kind of expenditure we are talking about when we talk about borrowing $2.6 billion.
As we have pointed out -- and I notice the Toronto Star has taken this up as well -- recently released figures show that spending on outside consultants has jumped in the past few years, despite the province's nine and five restraint program. The Ministry of Government Services spent $1 million on management consultants in 1982-83; that is a 43 per cent rise from the year before. Since 1977-78 spending has gone up by 500 per cent. Because the consultants are not regular civil servants, they are excluded from the bureaucratic head counts the government often uses to claim increased efficiency.
Of course, this is a trick these people play. They show the figures, and some of their friends around the province troop these figures out and say: "Look what this government has done. It is a lean government; it has trimmed the civil service." But it has brought its friends back as consultants, and that of course gives them the best of both worlds. Yet the Treasurer suggests the opposition should be providing the sum of $2.6 billion so he can carry on that kind of program.
If he were making expenditures that we in the opposition could support by borrowing that amount of money; if there were a well-thought out program to assist municipalities, boards of education and the disadvantaged in this province; if he were trimming those expenditures that were nonessential, it would be much easier to show support for this bill.
But this government is spending, I would estimate, more than $50 million in advertising this year. I can hear the bicentennial song now. Who remembers 1967? In 1967, when we had a viable alternative to this government -- I ran in an election at that time at a very young age -- all I heard during the election was the song, "A place to stand and a place to grow, Ontari-ari-ari-o." Everyone was made to feel good about what was going on in this province.
Now we have the bicentennial song, and I can just hear the voice-over saying what a great place Ontario is and let us continue on with this fine tradition -- all of this financed, of course, with the taxpayers' money.
As my friend the member for Rainy River has indicated on many occasions, it is difficult to justify the borrowing of $2.6 billion when you know how much of the taxpayers' money this government is spending on polling. It takes polls about everything it could possibly want to ask about as a government so it can then get out in front of the parade, having learned what the polls tell it.
I guess if it were doing this as the Progressive Conservative Party with Progressive Conservative funds, one would be less critical of that style of government. Instead, of course, this government is taking taxpayers' dollars, keeping the results of the polls secret from everyone except the Progressive Conservatives over there and attempting to justify an expenditure and a borrowing of $2.6 billion on that basis.
Surely this kind of government does not deserve that kind of money from those of us who sit in this assembly. I suspect even those sitting on the government benches who are somewhat careful about government expenditures would be just a little uneasy about those kinds of expenditures.
This government could, for instance, attempt to meet the needs of hospitals in this province in a meaningful way. I notice there was an expenditure for the Shaver Hospital for Chest Diseases in St. Catharines, and much of it was raised at the local level. The minister's parliamentary assistant, the member for Carleton, was in St. Catharines -- and by the way, he did a nice of job of speaking to the people that day, as he always does; he is a friendly and outgoing fellow, so the government was represented well. When I got home that day, I noticed in the St. Catharines Standard a quarter- or one-third-page ad saying, "Look what your government has done for you."
Surely, with the press releases the government issues and the access it has to the media, that should be sufficient to outline whatever contribution this government was making on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario. Instead, it blows a pile of money in local newspapers to toot its own horn once again. We get into this whole advertising and public relations game the people on the opposite side play, apparently with some impugnity because few people in this province seem to be aware of it, even though it is doing a good job of spending money on those nonessential items.
We can never let a debate go by without mentioning the government expenditure on Suncor of $650 million. The people in my riding who have complained the most about that are Progressive Conservative friends I have, who say: "While you are there, we would like you to put in a word for us. We are not interested in an expenditure of $650 million for shares in an oil company. We wonder how our government can build up its deficit the way it has, and ask to borrow some $2.6 billion, when it squanders it on questionable investments, when a provincial government that has virtually no oil in this province is busy investing in an oil company known as Suncor."
They also question the land banking schemes. One would expect our friends to the left to be in favour of land banking schemes. It is within their political philosophy. They feel it can be a justifiable expenditure. I appreciate the fact that it is within their line of thinking.
However, we in the official opposition cannot understand how a so-called Conservative government can spend money on so many land banking schemes. Even my friends in the New Democratic Party would agree with that. Many of those schemes are of questionable value. This has been proven to be the case.
Time and again we have seen this government make questionable expenditures. It is a government that is fat in its expenditures and knows no bounds when it wants to spend on itself. Right after the provincial election, we had the case of the Premier wanting to buy a new, $10.6-million Challenger jet for the comfort and convenience of the cabinet and senior government advisers. Fortunately, an astute, alert and persistent opposition ended up preventing this government from having its new toy, because even the Tories in the province were embarrassed by that.
I well remember that when I brought my resolution forward, even the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), the person who probably has his pulse more on the grass-roots level in northern Ontario than any other member, voted in favour of my resolution because, despite the pronouncements of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), the emperor of the north and others that this was a so-called service to northern Ontario, he recognized that it was essentially for the comfort and convenience of the government.
He understood this was a government of patronage and privilege. It was not essential, and he had the guts to stand up and vote for that resolution. I give the member for Fort William a good deal of credit for standing with us in opposition to that expenditure.
I am certain if it had the chance to do it again and thought it could get away with it, this government would borrow money so it could get involved in an expenditure of that kind.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You are a jerk.
Mr. Bradley : Did the members hear that? The Mississauga rattler has just referred to the member for St. Catharines as a jerk.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: He is right on.
Mr. Bradley: The woman beside him has repeated it.
Mr. Speaker: Now back to the bill.
Mr. Bradley: I would say they are two people who should recognize -- Mr. Nixon : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Surely you might ask the minister to withdraw that word. It is not that bad, but I suggest it is not parliamentary.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything unparliamentary about it. I regard the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) as a jerk.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the honourable member to withdraw that word. Although it may or may not be parliamentary, it was provocative. In order to maintain peace and harmony, I think you would be -- do not take advice, please; just withdraw the word.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, as is my habit, I will abide by your advice and withdraw the remark.
Mr. Speaker: If the member for St. Catharines would be good enough to withdraw any unparliamentary language he used, and I think it was a provocative reference to the member, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Bradley: I always want to comply with the Speaker's request.
Mr. Speaker: I know you do.
Mr. Bradley: I will certainly withdraw the terminology that was used by an editorial writer for the Windsor Star who referred to the member as "the Mississauga rattler." I withdraw that remark and any other remarks that may have been unparliamentary.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the honourable member to take a look at the clock and adjourn the debate.
On motion by Mr. Bradley, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.