Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

ONTARIO LOAN ACT (CONTINUED)

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 111, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Rainy River.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He was finished at six o'clock.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has indicated I was finished at six o'clock. Actually I had just made my introductory remarks. I was about to get into the meat, shall we say, of my criticism of Bill 111 and my comments on the principle of the bill, which is to allow the Treasurer to have the authority to raise money by lending it, in effect, from various --

Mr. Foulds: Borrowing.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Borrowing, sorry. One lends to someone and one borrows from someone. This Treasurer has been in the iniquitous position of borrowing from someone else ever since he became Treasurer.

I want to deal with the principle of Bill 111 which is to give authority to the Treasurer to borrow up to $2.25 billion from various emanations. Some of these are not from the government but most of them, such as the teachers' superannuation fund, are.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have been busy with your other duties. I am sure you have been in your own constituency of Peterborough doing things that will ensure your election next time or carrying out matters on behalf of this Legislature which for one reason or another have kept you away from the House this afternoon. I feel constrained to repeat some of the matters you missed early in the day so you will be fully apprised of my comments in regard to Bill 111.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the information of the member for Rainy River and all other members, I was indeed within the confines of this building this afternoon and I had the pleasure of listening to what you said earlier.

There is no need to repeat it. I would ask you to carry on.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in that case you no doubt enjoyed it so much the first time you would double your pleasure if not double your fun by hearing it all over again. However, I will not presume on your patience to do that. I feel honoured not only by your own august presence tonight but by that of the Treasurer and his parliamentary assistant.

I did not have that benefit when I made my comments on the budget speech. Given my experience in this House when there were major speeches, whether it was by the Treasurer, the opposition critic, the unofficial opposition or the third party, whatever they are called, I found they were greeted and received with some interest on the other side. I do not know to what I should ascribe the presence of the Treasurer and his parliamentary assistant. We were not sure, quite frankly, who the parliamentary assistant was.

I have a cartoon which I will in time send to you, Mr. Speaker. It was one of those Frank and Ernest cartoons -- in the comic section where I always look for the Treasurer. It was a cartoon that indicated the judge had told Ernest that public information was really none of his business. I feel somewhat that way about the parliamentary assistant. As you may have heard this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we never hear from the parliamentary assistant. The Premier (Mr. Davis) has effectively muzzled him and we do not really know what he does.

I want to deal with the bill as presented. I will speak as I always do to the principle of the bill. I want to review a couple of things because I am sure the acting House leader of the Conservative Party has probably missed the cogent points I wished to make this afternoon. He was flitting about the House like a butterfly trying to see what he could do about the smooth running of the government.

I notice the deputy, acting leader of the NDP is leaving. I trust I am finally getting even, having listened to him for a number of years. He may be going to the chiropractors' dinner because whenever he asks a question he gazes up into the press gallery and he may have a crick in his neck after all these days of doing that.

8:10 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: I'd say your speech is out of joint.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The chiropractors, of course, did not put that back into joint.

Mr. Cassidy: Why don't you talk about Tory manipulation?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I wish to speak to the principle of the bill. I am sure you will allow me a few hours to do that.

Mr. Gillies: Did you say a couple of hours?

An hon. member: Do I have time to go and have a cigarette.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, I think you have.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have just performed another kindness for NDP members, other than not allowing them to win the riding of Rainy River. I have allowed one of them to go out and pull himself together so he can make his contribution to Bill 111.

Earlier tonight I was referring to the public accounts, volume 1, for 1981. I have been chairman of the Ontario public accounts committee probably longer than anyone else in the history of the province. It would be fair to say I have been the longest-serving chairman of public accounts in Canada or, as the Premier and Treasurer are fond of saying, in this or any other jurisdiction.

Perhaps due to the number of years I have been here -- unfortunately in opposition, and perhaps fortunately as chairman of public accounts -- I have had the time to peruse the financial statements in the three volumes of public accounts tabled by the Treasury ministry over the years. I think I referred this afternoon, perhaps not as extensively as I might have, to those matters related to Bill 111 that appear in the public accounts of the province.

It was interesting that one of the Treasury people, who shall be nameless, said as I walked out at six o'clock, "Patrick" -- that is the member for Rainy River, Mr. Speaker, in case you are wondering -- "you obviously know more about the public accounts than even I do." I took that as a compliment, given that this was the person who had something to do with compiling the public accounts and laying them before the assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I know you wish me to talk about the principle of the bill, which is to give the Treasurer the authority to borrow $2.25 billion. I know you are a humble, small merchant from Peterborough, who first came to this Legislature in 1971, I believe. By that time I was a long-time veteran who had a great deal of experience in dealing with these matters. I am sure in those days our budget was not even $2.25 billion. Yet we are asked by this Treasurer and this government to vote for this bill giving that amount to the Treasurer or his predecessors. I submit to members of the House, and I would even make a small wager on it, that he will not be Treasurer by the time this bill runs out in September 1, 1983.

On other occasions I have pointed out that the authority the Treasurer is asking is going to transcend a fiscal year, which would be April 1, 1983, and that, among other things, is completely unacceptable to this party. I cannot talk for my colleagues on the left who are obviously extremely interested in this debate.

Mr. Nixon: So far they have been silent in this debate; have not said a word.

Mr. T. P. Reid: For some reason they do not feel as strongly as I do about this bill, but I am sure that even they, who believe in yet bigger and better governments, will say to themselves, "We cannot and will not give the government authority for this length of time."

As a matter of fact I have roused them to action. They have put something on my desk which is very germane to this debate on Bill 111. Perhaps it relates to the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) who sits in seat 51. It comes from his riding and refers to the member. I think it should be read into the record, "Rabid Dog's Owner Blames Porcupine for Odd Behaviour."

Mr. Speaker: And now to the bill.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the bill gives the Treasurer the authority to borrow from: the Canada pension plan; the Ontario Treasury bill program, which I have already referred to, and we would be very interested in knowing how that issue is going to be floated, at what interest rate and on what repayment plan for principal; the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. waste control loans which, as members know, are a federal program under which they receive money; and something called the federal-provincial municipal loans program.

We have heard a great deal in this Legislature from the Treasurer and the Premier on occasion, especially during the budget speech, about blame for the federal government. I was surprised quite frankly, when I referred to number four of the explanatory notes of this bill, that the Treasurer in his budget did not attack the federal government as much as he might. He is wont to blame everything and anything on the federal government. We would like an explanation of what the federal-provincial municipal loan programs really mean.

The experts in the Treasury department might do all of us a favour in this Legislature by coming to our caucus and that of the third party and saying to us, "This is what these bills are about. This is the kind of authority we are after. This is what these bills mean and this is what we are trying to achieve."

In trying to get information on certain budgetary measures, I and our research department -- as small, but as competent as it is -- have been at a loss to try to fathom on what basis these matters and bills such as Bill 111 are based. We on this side know the Treasurer has no expertise in this field at all, nor does he understand it. But perhaps if he had said to us, "We will send some of my officials over to explain these matters to you and to your colleagues on the left," we could understand it. However, that does not happen.

I have said on other occasions -- and I believe it was on the bill that my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) introduced on making information that is available to the government free, open and accessible -- power is based on knowledge. If the Treasurer has knowledge that he can tie up and keep to himself, then obviously those who are either in opposition in terms of our democratic society or the ordinary citizens out on the Street do not have the knowledge. They are not in a position to be able to make cogent, pointed comments, nor are they able to change the government's mind. The government always takes the view, "You people do not know what you are talking about and therefore we do not have to listen to whatever criticism you may have."

8:20 p.m.

I have asked a number of questions. and I am sure the Treasurer may think this has been going on a little longer than he and his officials would like. The fact remains that we on this side have a duty and a responsibility to hold the government accountable, to ask these questions and to give the public at large an opportunity to react to the budget measures the government is bringing in.

One of the explanatory notes on the bill is sandwiched between the various sources of the funds, as if it does not mean very much. But it says, "The amount of $2.25 billion authorized by the bill is intended to cover the following estimated borrowing requirements: (1) Canada pension plan borrowings; (2) teachers' superannuation fund borrowings." The final note is, "The bill provides that any unused borrowing authority will expire on September 30, 1983."

Mr. Nixon: They used to accumulate those authorities.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer's predecessor had a thing about that. He used to stack them up. He got these authorities but no one paid much attention because in those days we were not as knowledgeable about the way government finances worked. Routinely, we approved the interim supply, the interim borrowing and all the rest of it.

Then to our shock and consternation we would find out that we had given away the store and along with it our ability to say to the government, as we are doing on this occasion, "Just a minute: We do not like what you are doing, we do not like your priorities and we have some suggestions to make."

That is not going to wash any more. There will be people on the government side, and some of them are sitting there tonight, who feel that because they were elected with a majority we in the opposition should just roll over and play dead; that because they were elected with a majority they have a divine right to rule.

Mr. Gillies: Oh, nonsense.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Oh? Has the member heard the pronouncements of the acting House leader? He makes Genghis Khan look like a very liberal civil rights operator.

There are other occasions when that has happened. However, I can tell the government those days have come to an end. We have been through this time and again, and perhaps we could do it again if those on the other side would like us to. We are not going to pass a bill like Bill 111 without putting up a fight and focusing as much attention as we can on it.

We are going to say to the people of Ontario, "You have a right to come before those people who are directing your lives by this budget; who are putting an unfair tax burden on you; who are providing an incidence of tax -- as the economists would have it -- on those who are least able to pay it. We want to give you an opportunity to come before a committee of the Legislature which will have the ability to hear witnesses from the public so that you may have an opportunity to make your points known."

That is what most people in our society want. We all know we cannot necessarily have our way, except this group opposite. Most people just want to be able to say, "Mr. Treasurer or Mr. Premier, if you expand this base of tax, whether it be on senior citizens' meals, on cafeteria meals or whatever, this is what the impact of that tax is going to be on us." That is what we are trying to do.

We are trying to give a voice to that silent majority who are fed up with the kind of cavalier and arrogant approach of this government to them. They are the ones who are carrying the can and are going to have to pay taxes to pay for Suncor, to pay for the government's public opinion polls, to pay for its advertising, to pay for the Premier's jet and all the rest of it, including the salaries of the parliamentary assistants who have been gagged by the Premier.

Four or five years ago, when he was in the midst of minority government, the Premier made great public pronouncements about how all public matters should be public and how he was going to pass an act thereto.

Mr. Speaker, I notice you giving me a small, subtle hint to get back to the bill. I intend to do this, but I would like to bring to your attention first of all, if I might, that members of the Tory party sent me a copy of the telephone book. It even goes so far as to say, "Government caucus office, Parliament buildings, Toronto." I am sure that is where the Liberal phone book went: it was stolen by members opposite and stamped, because we cannot afford a stamp in our poor situation.

I think what they are trying to tell me is that perhaps I should start reading the phone book because they are getting so much enjoyment and entertainment out of my speech. I am prepared to do that. Would they like me to start with page 1, Metros new emergency number? Or I can switch over directly to the As which do not start until page 66. However, because I do not wish to try your patience, Mr. Speaker, I will refer back to the principle of the bill.

I have sat in this House with my friend the member for Mississauga Wealthy, wherever it is, for 15 years. He has not learned a lot in that time but we will not go into that. He and some of his colleagues have never realized or appreciated that we in the opposition have a role to play in this Legislature. Our role is to oppose some of the government measures, on occasion to offer constructive criticism and on occasion to offer alternatives. That is our role.

There is only one slight difference between a dictatorship and a democracy, and that is a free opposition. It is not a government majority that makes a democracy: it is an opposition that has the unfettered right to say what it wants to say, when it wants to say it and as long as it wants to say it. That is what we are about here. The mark of a majority government is not how they govern but how they treat the minority and the opposition groups in their society. That is really what makes them a government or not.

In that respect this government comes up sadly lacking, and the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), among others, should be very concerned about the way this Legislature has been treated by the Premier and the Treasurer, although I gather, among other things, he was not really for Suncor.

8:30 p.m.

The members will recall when the leader of this party said to him, "What do you think of the Suncor deal now?" The Treasurer's response was, "I think the same now as I thought three or four months ago," which obviously meant he did not think much of it then. I am sorry for the aside. I will get back to the bill.

Mr. Gillies: Don't be sorry.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The member from Mazda is interjecting. There was the day we had that great debate about the auto industry in Ontario. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) got up and made a great, impassioned speech about how we ought to support the Ontario auto industry. When I walked out, there was the member for Brantford driving out. I am sure it was a Mazda, although I may be wrong; but an Oldsmobile, a Ford or a Chrysler it was not.

I drive an Oldsmobile and it is five years old because I am not a parliamentary assistant and I cannot afford a three-year-old car. That is neither here nor there. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are not concerned about these asides.

I have a feeling there are certain people, particularly in the Treasury, who have decided this debate might go on longer than they had expected because I see certain happy, smiling faces are no longer with us under the press gallery.

Mr. Nixon: They don't work nights.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We will not go into that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Patrick does not work nights either.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I used to.

Mr. Gillies: Tell us about the yellow pages.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Send them over.

Mr. Gillies: No, we are over here.

Mr. T. P. Reid: There are not many of you over there.

We have primarily three concerns about Bill 111. I give them not necessarily in order of importance, but I think they will come out that way.

First, we object to a number of the initiatives in the budget of the Treasurer of Ontario. We do not like the expansion of the provincial sales tax. We do not like a number of the other budgetary items the Treasurer has introduced. We find there are a lot of omissions in the budget. Those who need help the most are not being served by this budget.

Second, we have objected for a long time about the fact that this Treasurer and his predecessors have been financing the deficits of Ontario by raiding the pension plan of the schoolteachers' association, the Canada pension plan and others. My leader and I have pointed out that those funds have been raided. They have been used at less than the market rate of interest to pay for the budgetary deficits and the wastefulness of this government in terms of --

Oh, there it goes. One cannot trust a Tory even across the floor. They give one something and they take it back. They will not even come and take it back themselves.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was afraid he was going to start reading from that directory.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Was that parliamentary?

Mr. Speaker: Not really; back to Bill 111, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: As I say, we are concerned that we have been taking advantage of these pension plans. We have heard, and I am sure my colleagues will be talking at great length -- as a matter of fact, I can almost assure the Treasurer they will -- about how this Conservative government has been raiding the pension plans of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the schoolteachers of Ontario, paying less than the market rate, to finance their deficits and their mismanagement over the years.

If one were to ask, as my colleague just did, which matters have been mismanaged or caused wasteful expenditures, we could go into the land assembly schemes that have cost the taxpayers of Ontario $650 million or better, if one factors into the opportunity costs of paying interest on the money that was borrowed. We can go into the matter of the Premier's jet; we can go into Suncor; we can go into advertising; we can go into public opinion polls, which are part of the secrecy of this government.

One of the things, quite frankly, that has always bothered me, which we are going to be paying for under this bill, is something I have not seen, and has upset me almost as much as anything I can think of, in my 15 years in this House. Again, it took place during the deliberations of the public accounts committee of Ontario.

The auditor of the province, who is an officer of this assembly, an objective person, brought to the attention of the public accounts committee that there was a problem with the Ontario hospital plan as it related to a clinic at St. Marys. It found that the payments going to that particular body were not being regulated, were not being monitored, and that there was a problem the public accounts committee should look into.

Those were the grand old days to some extent of minority government where everybody was fairly objective and reasonable. That was a mistake, quite frankly, on the part of the opposition. We were too reasonable, too objective. We were interested in good government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: When?

Mr. T. P. Reid: As a matter of fact, I say to the Minister of Education, the present Speaker was a member of that committee. I want to tell her, because she is listening more closely than most members, what happened in that committee. We brought before that committee officials of the Ministry of Health. We wanted an explanation of what was going on in the hospital services organization at St. Marys Clinic. As a committee we were stonewalled. We did not get any co-operation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Or filibustered.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We were filibustered. That is a good word. We did not get any co-operation from Dr. Suttie, who was then the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health and I believe still is, and a Mr. Berry, who had direct responsibility for the operation of the HSOs in Ontario. My colleague the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) knows all about this matter as does the Speaker of the House and others over there as well.

Those people were completely unco-operative with the committee. They provided no information, they stonewalled not only the committee but the Provincial Auditor of Ontario. The then Minister of Health, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), instead of chastising those people, instead of dealing with them, did nothing but defend them.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that you were a member of the committee. I do not wish to drag you into it, but you may recall that the criticism and the naming of those two particular members in our committee report was signed by all members of that committee of which you were a member, as, I believe, was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health. Yet the Minister of Health of the day did nothing to deal with those people.

8:40 p.m.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Treasurer and to other members and other ministers over there, to my mind this, more than anything else, undermined the credibility of the administrative capability of this government. They had a responsibility to deal with those people who had stonewalled and refused to co-operate with a committee of elected members of this Legislature.

I go back to my whole theory and principle of accountability and responsibility. The then Minister of Health, now the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), let us down badly. He let this Legislature and the democratic system down badly, because those people were responsible; they were accountable.

I can come to only one conclusion, that the then Minister of Health, now Minister of Agriculture and Food, was prepared to countenance their incompetence or, in fact, to counsel them to ignore or stonewall the committee. That is the only conclusion one can come to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What does this have to do with the bill?

Mr. T. P. Reid: It has to do with the accountability and responsibility of the administration of this government. As a minister of the government and as a member of the executive, the Treasurer is asking us on this side to give him the authority to raise $2.25 billion, which he can not only raise but also spend without the authority of this chamber after we pass this bill. And if he thinks we are going to do that, given his record in government and given his irresponsibility; no, we are not going to do that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Only those who would behave that way have such feelings.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ignore the interjections, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I cannot hear the muttering of Minister of Education.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we are being asked as a Legislature and as a democratic opposition to give authority to these people who did not have the courage or the proper appreciation of the democratic system. The appreciation of accountability and responsibility is the absolute cornerstone of the system of democratic society.

Those same people did not tell us about Suncor, have never given us an explanation, have never come before this House with a bill to say, "We want to buy 25 per cent of an oil company" or whatever, one of the largest single expenditures I have seen in 15 years in the House. We have not seen them have the understanding of the democratic process, the understanding of accountability to this Legislature or the responsibility to say, "We have to bring these things before the duly democratically elected House of Ontario to get approval for them."

If they think they are going to get any kind of authority on this bill or any other to deal with public funds after that example, then I am afraid they are sorely mistaken; because we are not going to sit back and allow democratic principles, especially those of the rights of the opposition and the people that we stand for, to be trampled by the Premier, by the Treasurer and by the lackeys in the cabinet who think they were elected to govern and that nobody should ask them anything.

Mr. Kennedy: Good speech. When are you going to say something?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, when I was a young member, a lot like some of those who are yammering in the back and some of those who should know better, there was a member named John Brown. I do not remember his riding. It might have been Beaches-Woodbine. I sat in my place as a 24-year-old newly elected member, even then of course with the mark of whatever on me --

Mr. Nixon: Mark of Cain.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Cain; I think Abel, whatever. I think it was the mark of Abel, being an able member. I remember sitting and hearing that member stand in his place. He was an avowed Marxist. He said in this chamber, when he started his speech, and I honestly was never so surprised -- other than when I saw this budget -- in my political life as I was then when the member for Beaches-Woodbine at that time, Mr. Brown, stood in his place and said: "I am a Marxist."

Mr. Samis: Who?

Mr. Philip: You are a what?

Mr. Glues: A Groucho Marxist.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He said, "I am a Marxist." I was surprised that he would say that in a democratic system. I suppose I should not have been but I come from a relatively stable, reasonable, rational area that always does the right thing, as they have demonstrated over the years. He stood in his place and said, "I am a Marxist." His second phrase was, "This place is civil war."

I said to myself, "That is not what I came here for." First of all, I am obviously not a Marxist, unlike some of my friends to the left. I thought this was a reasonable place where reasonable people put reasonable points of view. It was dealt with on that basis.

Mr. Nixon: The government paid him hundreds of millions of dollars and he walked away with it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Right. He was what one calls "an upwardly mobile Marxist."

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the bill.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He knew who he was dealing with. I wish I had. I am sorry but there is a point to this. He said, "This is civil war." I had never taken that viewpoint until March 19, 1981. It has taken me a long time, even since then, until I had heard the Premier followed by all the Charlie McCarthys over there standing in their places and saying, "The realities of March 19 are."

That is why we are here tonight and why we may be here a lot of other nights. We have found that power corrupts and absolute power, a majority of power, corrupts absolutely. We are not going to give the Treasurer, without a fight to the last standstill, that power under Bill 111 to raise $2.25 billion by way of loans whether he is stealing it from the pension plans or whether he is getting it from the Canada pension or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

So much of this turns out to be federal that one wonders why we are here talking about these things. The arrogance of this particular government has put us in a position where we have to use the only weapons we have at our disposal. If the Treasurer and those surrounding him and those on the back benches think that we are not serious about this, we are going to use the means at our disposal to make our point.

In case members have missed it, our point is simply this: This budget is ill-conceived and contradictory. It does nothing to help those who need the help the most in our society. The taxes imposed are regressive and it hurts those in a position of being least able to help themselves. We want those people and their representatives to have the opportunity to come before a committee of this Legislature to make their views known.

8:50 p.m.

We want them to be able to express their opinions as freely as possible. We want the Treasurer, those people and his very secretive -- Will the parliamentary assistant come out of the closet? That phrase has nothing to do with his sexual proclivities, but why do we not bring the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer out of the closet. The Premier will not allow him to answer questions about this or any other bill.

The members will recall last week when "Osaka Frank" was away in Japan -- Oh, it is back.

Mr. Robinson: Are you going to read the phone book now? There's a great cast of characters but no plot.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am willing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The government caucus or the government back-benchers have sent me the phone book which again is stamped and it says under here --

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Obviously, this is the Premier's copy because it is marked in here who is doing well and who is not. Under the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) it says, "zero." Under the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) it says, "minus two," because he is driving a foreign car.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to Bill 111, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier would say, I am only responding to the interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Then please do not.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The member for Brantford, otherwise known as the member from Mazda, should be very quiet when it comes to these kinds of interjections.

[Applause]

Mr. Robinson: Now you drove the Speaker out.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Now, by popular demand.

Mr. Kennedy: Super Sam.

The Deputy Speaker: I notice I got that reception from all sides of the House.

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The notice you just referred to was nothing you should acclaim; rather, it is the recognition of the House that the member for Rainy River has just reached the point of concluding the warmup to his preamble and now he will enter his preamble.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard you call upon a member to rise in his place with as much enthusiasm as you have just indicated. I appreciate it immensely.

Mr. Bradley: Do you want me to go get some letters I got from my constituents?

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, I do not think I need any more letters. Now that I have given the introduction to my comments on Bill 111, I have a number of comments I would like to discuss a little more fully. I would like to refer the members back and remind them of the 1981 Ontario budget.

If they would put something in the water I might quit sooner.

In Bill 111, the Treasurer is asking for authority to raise about the same amount of money as his deficit is going to be. We have a problem with that, as I indicated earlier, because that amount of money is obviously his deficit. We do not wish to give him and the government the kind of authority for that.

I would like members to cast their minds back to the budget of May 19, 1981. Personal income tax revenues were up 22.4 per cent from the two per cent by which the Treasurer increased taxes at that time. The gas tax revenue was up 21.7 per cent, the tobacco tax revenue 21 per cent, and Ontario health insurance plan premiums 15 per cent.

I have a feeling that there are a number of members, particularly on the opposite side, who think I suffer from TB, which in northern Ontario jargon means "tiny bladder." I can assure members that is not so. I can proceed to drink all of these without any problems at all.

To come back to Bill 111, Mr. Speaker, from which you did not allow me to stray, although some of the members opposite did: We were asked in two consecutive budgets to provide authority to the Treasurer, under Bill 111, to raise these sums of money. I repeat: I want to know from the Treasurer why he needs so long a period of time. I am sure the members know that we deal with interim supply on a maximum period of six months. It used to be for three months; but members remember that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes, I remember that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Even on that side they remember. Now, under this bill we are asked to give authority for these borrowings until September 1, 1983. What that does is largely to make all the debate, all the estimates procedures lasting 420 hours, some kind of pro-forma ritual that we go through, in which we duly do estimates in the House or in committee, and talk about our constituents' problems and all the rest of it, but the Treasurer and the cabinet already know they have the authority and there is nothing we can do about it.

To those people who are interested enough to be here tonight, I reiterate: If they learn something in the time they are here it is that there is a role for everybody in this Legislature. They may laugh and snicker, but they might consider that some time they may well be on this side, because most of them in the back rows are relatively young in time served in this Legislature.

The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) is old in years and experience and will not be around here very long, but the member from Mazda no doubt thinks he will be here forever. He may well wind up on this side of the House. Then he will have a better appreciation of the democratic system and the way it should operate.

Mr. Speaker, you are obviously saying to yourself --

Mr. Robinson: What does this have to do with the bill?

The Deputy Speaker: As a matter of fact --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would make you a small wager that those three crows on the back row -- the kind that have been pecking out the eyes of the cattle in northern Ontario -- have not even looked at Bill 111, nor do they know what is in it or what the provisions are.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: "Nevermore."

Mr. Gillies: I read it before you started this speech, but now I have forgotten what it said.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is a typical Tory back-bencher. They have to be retrained after every coffee break. That is why the clapping over there is so sporadic sometimes when the Premier gets up; they forget he is the guy they have to look to.

9 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to the principle of Bill 111.

[Applause]

Mr. T. P. Reid: To think I left Rainy River for this.

Mr. Robinson: We thought the same thing.

Mr. Gillies: Whatever happened to your Tory cousin in Brantford?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I do not have a Tory cousin in Brantford. I have a lot of Tory cousins, but not in Brantford. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, with the Tory member that Brantford has, hardly anybody is working any more. But that is another story.

Mr. Bradley: But the tours to Belgium are doing very well.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes. But I have to be fair, because the member for Brantford told me that was paid for with his own money. Probably the money he saved in buying an imported car he used to pay for his trip to Belgium.

The Deputy Speaker: Back to Bill 111.

Mr. Cooke: What kind of car does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) drive?

Mr. T. P. Reid: The same kind the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) used to drive.

Mr. Di Santo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Rainy River is making a fine speech, but it was a rather low blow to refer to the member for Ottawa Centre. He should consider that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) is driving a BMW --

Mr. Bradley: That's his second car. He also has a North American car.

Mr. Di Santo: It is not an American car. It is a German car and --

Mr. Bradley: It's an old car from way back.

Mr. Di Santo: May l proceed with my point of view? If it was true in 1974 that the member for Ottawa Centre was driving a very cheap car, now it is true that he is driving a Canadian-built car, while the member for Kitchener-Wilmot is driving a German car. Unfortunately, this government was --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty. In all sincerity, I have allowed you to continue for some time now.

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: While this point of order is being made, it is only fair to point out that the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) regrets she cannot be here to speak about her Volkswagen.

Mr. Robinson: Where is the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) and his Volvo?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Rainy River on Bill 111, right from the top.

Interjections.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker:

I think it is well to point out to this assembly that my car may have been built in Japan but it was bought in Brantford.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I thought he had imported it from Belgium, but that is all right.

I have a problem with Bill 111 --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You certainly do have a problem. There is no doubt about that. Perhaps we should try to deal with your problem.

Mr. Robinson: Could you give the member for Rainy River some more water?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not as good as the chiropractors, but --

Mr. Robinson: We know.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I think you should leave the chair and let the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) have it. She is making the rulings from over there anyway.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would really appreciate it if you could have some semblance of order, because I know Hansard has a great deal of difficulty getting all these words down. If you could keep those people over there somewhat quiet, I would like to proceed.

In regard to Bill 111 and the authority the Treasurer is asking for, I would like to draw members' attention to some of the remarks that this Treasurer, not his predecessors, has made in budgets past and why we are reluctant to give this kind of borrowing authority to him and to this government.

In 1980, the Treasurer said in his budget speech --

Mr. Nixon: How about 1981?

Mr. T. P. Reid: We will get to that eventually.

The Treasurer said: "I have developed a budget plan consistent with these challenges. It is designed to achieve these three objectives" -- I want you to listen, Mr. Speaker, because you displayed today that you are a man of high intelligence and high integrity -- "first, to maintain a favourable climate for job growth and economic expansion in Ontario." That was two years ago.

"Second, to ensure a high standard of social services for the people of Ontario" -- these are the people who have not been helped by pension changes recommended by the select committee on pensions to help widows and separated women over 65 and who are suffering, those whom the royal commission and the select committee of the Legislature have identified -- "and in particular to help our elderly citizens cope with inflation."

Two years later the Treasurer has helped them cope with inflation by broadening the sales tax on every conceivable item they might need, such as toilet paper, deodorants, toothpaste and everything else, including meals in their residences and the few times they go out to enjoy a meal under $6. That is how the Treasurer has coped with inflation.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), it is most distracting, what you are waving around. The member for Rainy River has the floor.

Mr. Di Santo: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I was not distracting the members opposite. I was pointing out that most of them are not in this picture of BILD, which is where the strategy comes from. The Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) is in the front row with the Treasurer. I do not know if that has anything to do with the leadership race which is going on.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the member for Downsview has a point. The Treasurer's ribs have not yet recovered from being given the elbow by the Minister of Health, who was trying to get him out of the way so he could be front and centre in the BILD picture.

Before I was interrupted, I was talking about the Treasurer's budget speech of 1980 and was just about to get to the most ironic point of the whole exercise. In 1980, the Treasurer wound up with this phrase, "Third, to combat inflation by controlling government spending and minimizing deficit levels."

He is asking us to give him authority in Bill 111 to burden Ontario with the largest deficit in the history of the province. These were the people, the Treasurer and the Premier, who said in 1981 -- I have the Premier's very words here -- "Give me a mandate to keep down government spending and to keep the deficit of the province of Ontario under control."

9:10 p.m.

I admit it, Mr. Speaker: we are in opposition today because we were naive. We believed the Treasurer and the Premier of Ontario. We believed, and the people of Ontario believed, that they were going to keep down taxes and the deficit. How can we be expected to vote in favour of Bill 111 to give the Treasurer and the Premier the authority to raise $2.25 billion when their own words crucify them?

Mr. Bradley: You have driven the Minister of Education out of the House.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have achieved a plateau I never thought I would achieve in my entire political career: I have driven from the House --

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, I have not. Well, I am not finished yet. You see, she is taking the Star because nobody can afford toilet paper with the seven per cent tax the Treasurer has imposed; and since Eaton's went out of the catalogue business, we are all in trouble. My friends from Lindsay and Renfrew tell me that half the cottages have had to shut down because they cannot afford it.

It occurred to me at one point -- and I was not going to say this, but I think it is fair to do so because I want to get the Treasurer's attention -- that the reason he really put the seven per cent tax on toilet paper was that he had a constipation of ideas as to how to raise money in Ontario.

I want to refer back a little farther. In the budget of 1978, the then Treasurer said that tax was removed on storm windows and doors. These were his words:

"The Ontario economy is steadily adapting itself towards energy conservation. To assist in this process I propose to remove the retail sales tax from storm windows and storm doors, effective March 8, 1978. This measure will cost $15 million in 1978-79 and bring the government's total package of energy conservation exemptions to $25 million per annum."

Of course, since we have bought an oil company and we really want to promote the use of oil through Suncor we have to pull back on some of these things. It is interesting that we have to pay for Suncor, an oil company, by taking the taxes off energy conservation means and matters.

Now really, even the members opposite have got to understand the contradiction in that. We buy an oil company. We are talking about oil conservation. The Ministry of Energy is unconscionably spending about $7 million a year in advertising on oil and gas conservation and, I will say to my friend from Mazda, duplicating the federal program almost exactly -- and he can check it out in public accounts -- duplicating almost word for word what is going on in the federal government's energy conservation program. Then we have to take the incentives off saving energy to pay for an oil company, a depleting resource that is not in Ontario but in Alberta.

Mr. Bradley: What about the jet? Mickey Hennessy voted for my resolution to sell the jet, and who knows northern Ontario better than Mickey Hennessy? Let's hear it for Mickey Hennessy.

Mr. Piché: Are you talking against northern Ontario?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Piché: Talk against the jet and you are talking against northern Ontario. If I were living in St. Catharines, I would talk like that too; but what about northern Ontario?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I cannot hear myself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: Mickey Hennessy voted for northern Ontario.

Mr. Piché: That is the opposition. If it is good for northern Ontario, they are against it every time.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, gentlemen; the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché).

Hon. Mr. Pope: The members opposite should come on down to estimates. They haven't got the guts to come to estimates.

Mr. Bradley: Talk to Mickey Hennessy.

Mr. Eakins: Mickey Hennessy is the voice of the north.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Rainy River, are you about to proceed?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River is about to proceed.

Mr. Piché: He is repeating himself.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my friend was not here, because I have not repeated myself yet. If he would like me to, I am prepared to do so, because he obviously missed the points the first time around.

In 1979, this Treasurer, in his budget, related to this bill, said, "We have made considerable progress in controlling the growth of health care spending. We have done so without reducing the quality of services provided. However, costs continue to escalate. Therefore, I propose to increase premiums by $1 per month for single people and $2 per month for families, effective for the benefit month of October. This modest increase of 5.3 per cent will be less than the growth in the cost of insured services, which are projected to increase by 5.5 per cent."

In 1981, in the budget speech given by this Treasurer, he said: "The resulting new monthly premium levels become $23 and $46 for single persons and families respectively. This measure, which increases premium revenue by $120 million this year, represents an increase in premium rates of 15 per cent since 1979, which is below the increase in the cost of health care services over the same period."

Mr. Robinson: Are you reading? Bob Nixon doesn't like written speeches.

Mr. Piché: I have never seen Bob Nixon read since I have been here.

Mr. Robinson: Nixon is against reading.

Mr. Piché: Bob, save your party. Get up and take over. You make sense.

Mr. Roy: You should go with Alan and practise driving the jet.

The Deputy Speaker: I say to the member for Rainy River, never mind the interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One thing is that the present Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has nothing to fear from the other northern members in the Tory caucus, because they have done the impossible: they have made him look good.

Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was going to quote from the budget speech of 1982. "This cannot be done without adequate funding. Last year, our health expenditures increased by about 18 per cent and the system continues to experience cost pressures" -- possibly the large increase the Minister of Health gave them.

"In order to maintain the funding of a reasonable share of costs from the Ontario health insurance plan premiums, rates must be adjusted. "Effective for the benefit month of October 1982, monthly OHIP premiums will be increased by $4 and $8 for single persons and families respectively. Additional revenues from this rate increase will be in the order of $170 million this fiscal year."

We have it all. Would members be interested in hearing about all the pronouncements of the present Treasurer and even his predecessors about how they were going to balance the budget?

Mr. Kerrio: Naturally.

Mr. Eakins: Please.

Mr. Havrot: We are breathlessly awaiting your next words of wisdom.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a groundswell of support over here.

The Deputy Speaker: Tying it in with Bill 111.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have not had all my water yet. I should have gone to the chiropractors' dinner tonight. That is the mistake I made.

Mr. Kerrio: Don't drink too much water, Pat. 9:20 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Earlier on in the day, I was referring to the financial statements of Ontario relating to the various loans and the money that was going to be floated. I had an opportunity over the dinner hour to refer --

Mr. Gillies: I know where you were over the dinner hour and it was not reading a book.

Mr. Robinson: What is his point?

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, those young, inexperienced members have a lot to learn from those of us who have been around for a while and can do two things at once. When they get to be like the Premier and the Treasurer, when they can suck and blow at the same time, they will able to make a contribution in this House.

However, as I was looking over the public accounts, it occurred to me that I had left out something in my dissertation earlier this afternoon. I can see that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) are keenly interested in this matter, because they are obviously interested in learning, unlike some of their counterparts who will remain for evermore on the back benches of that party.

I refer the members, in regard to Bill 111, to page 3-9 of the public accounts, 1980-81, called "Miscellaneous Statements" and, directly related to the bill, "Superannuation Adjustment Fund -- Continued." That is where they get you. You think you have got a handle on what is going on with the finances of Ontario, and you flip a page or two and find "continued."

On this page, the members will be happy to know that the "Statement of Superannuation Adjustment Fund Account for the Teachers' Superannuation Plan for the Year Ended March 31, 1981" states the following -- this is where they are asking us to provide the funds for this -- in schedule B: "Balance in fund account, on deposit with the Treasurer of Ontario, beginning of year" -- do the members know the meaning of "on deposit with the Treasurer of Ontario"?

Mr. Nixon: No. What?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am glad the member asked.

What that means simply is this is another little bowl in which the Treasurer can dip his fingers under authority of Bill 111 and borrow the money out of those funds at less than market rates to finance his wasteful expenditures and the mismanagement of this province.

I am sure the members are interested to know that in 1980 there was $170,491,796 in that fund. Do they know why we are trying to pass this bill?

Mr. Nixon: Why?

Mr. T. P. Reid: He is a better audience than those people.

Because that fund in 1981, over 1980, increased by something like $74 million so that it was $234,285,557. It does not say any cents. What really bothers me, and I think it bears repeating, is that Ontario's contribution in 1981 was $27,640,353. I wonder if I could --

Interjection.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I always find the Minister of Education enlightening. I wonder if she would really listen to this point, because she was not here this afternoon when I raised it, and I raised it very seriously.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. I was in estimates.

Mr. Kerrio: Go over it again, Pat -- for the fourth time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He has gone over it seven times already.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I pride myself in saying that I have hardly repeated anything more than once.

But there is a problem in dealing with one of the pension plans the Treasurer is asking us to approve his borrowings from. We have the Minister of Education with us tonight. If she looks at page 3-9 of the public accounts, amongst other things she will see a contribution there from the province to these pension plans.

As I explained a little earlier, the various local and regional school boards are able to come to a contractual agreement with their local union or local organization -- the teachers' association, whether it be elementary or high school. As I understand it, the province is required by law to put in an exactly equal contribution to the pension plan as that negotiated between the school board and the teachers' association, whatever it be.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it is not. It is not negotiated between the school board and the province.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Who is negotiating it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is an automatic increase relating to the salary increase they get. They negotiate the salary and we just pay it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is right. I am sorry; it is sort of one of those differences without a point.

Mr. Breithaupt: You take it off the top.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, we don't. The province pays it; not the boards.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is right, but that is my point. We are asked to okay this bill, which contains buried deeply within it, among other things, the fact that the school boards negotiate a salary increase with the school teachers. They get an increase of, let us say, 10 per cent --

Mr. Nixon: That was a bad year.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am trying to make it simple for some of the people on that side.

Their pensions automatically increase by a like amount; the province automatically provides the 10 per cent increase, or whatever, in their pensions. That is what the Minister of Education said, and that is what we are bound by. In fact, we have a contractual obligation that is negotiated by a local regional school board and the local unit of the Ontario Teachers' Federation or the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. Then we as a province say: "We are going to pick up the same cost as the teachers are now contributing to their pension plan" Is that right?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, actually we are.

Hon Miss Stephenson: We are actually providing more than they do. It is not a contractual relationship; it is a legislative relationship.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I realize it is legislative, and that bothers me. The minister probably can help me with this, but I cannot think of any other union-management negotiation or contractual obligation where somebody else does the bargaining and then a third party -- in effect the taxpayers of Ontario or the government, which is all of us -- without any say in the process, has to pick up the pensions of those people.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You should speak to the OTF about that, because they have been suggesting --

Mr. T. P. Reid: All right, but that is what we are talking about in this bill. I have raised that question, and I will give the Minister of Education full marks because she is the first of those I have approached on this matter to actually say, "Yes, that is the way it is."

9:30 p.m.

It is very strange that we should have a legislative requirement for two other parties to negotiate a contract and that we pick up the pension benefits. I am certainly not teacher- bashing -- do not get me wrong, I am not -- but I find it passing strange that we should find ourselves in this position. However, after 40 years of Tory government nothing should surprise me any more.

We are asked in this bill to allow the Treasurer to borrow from the pension funds and, at the same time, we are a sort of disinterested third party who is going to pay the bills. We are not the third party: the taxpayers are going to pay it; and not only the original salary: we are going to wind up picking up the tab for the increase in pensions without any say in the matter.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Go and speak to the Ontario Teachers' Federation about it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do not tell us to go speak to the OTF about it. That legislation was passed under a Tory government. She is not going to tell me it goes back to Mitch Hepburn. The minister has blamed everything else on him and maybe she can blame that on him, but can she tell me that in 40 years she has not dealt with that matter? It is costing and will continue to cost the taxpayers of Ontario an unheard amount of money, and they have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I find it incredible for the Treasurer to come before this House asking for authority to borrow from these pension plans and not to deal with that aspect. I recall asking about this in public accounts. I recall asking --

Mr. Breithaupt: Tom Wells.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, he was Minister of Education then. I asked the present Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs about that and he just dismissed it, but I will give the present Minister of Education full marks.

What are we about here in this bill? We are asked to give the government authority to borrow from the pension plan to which these teachers are contributing. At the same time, I dare say 99.9 per cent of the public are not aware they are paying the part of the pension plan which is a legislative requirement. I cannot recall it ever having been discussed or debated in this chamber.

The former Treasurer, Mr. McKeough, and the present House leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just brushed it off when I asked questions about it. These are serious questions that have to be addressed in this bill among other places.

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: While my colleague the member for Rainy River has a moment to gather breath and regroup, the only time that I can recall this being debated in the last five years was the time that the Ministry of Education came in with back-to-back supplementary estimates for something in the neighbourhood of $107 million and --

The Acting Speaker(Mr. Cousens): That does not qualify as a point of order. The member for Rainy River has the floor. That does not qualify, by any description.

Mr. Van Horne: The point is, if I may conclude Mr. Speaker, that --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: No. I do not accept this point of order you are trying to make. The member for Rainy River has the floor.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I made the point. After all the years I have been here and have tried to press that point, I am very happy to hear the Minister of Education acknowledge it. I wonder if even the Treasurer is aware that what he is asking us to do is to borrow money from funds that are found in this peculiar and particular way. I wonder why the minister --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He is very much aware of it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The member is very proud and fond of saying, "We are here to govern, and you are going to do what we tell you because we have a majority."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There is too much dialogue back and forth across the floor. The member for Rainy River has the floor.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for you, but I think this is very important.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There are so many private conversations going on that I cannot listen to the member for Rainy River. Since the Minister of Education is interjecting continuously may I suggest that if the member for Rainy River wants to, he should yield the floor temporarily to the minister so she can make her point clearly.

The Acting Speaker: I will ask the members to reduce their conversations and even quit them unless they want to have them outside so that the member for Downsview can hear the presentation from the member for Rainy River, who will continue. We are debating Bill 111.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to page 3-9 of the public accounts. I really do appreciate the Minister of Education confirming what I had thought all along but had never been able to get confirmation of.

That chart on page 3-9 gives some idea of where the funds are coming from, or perhaps are not coming from, in Bill 111, because we are talking about the Teachers' Superannuation Fund borrowing. I seem to have the attention of the Minister of Education, at least for a little while, and I will voice my suspicion that one of the reasons very little has been done about this is that they have been paying less than market interest on these funds.

The government always says no, and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Teachers' Federation tell us they are not happy with it. But quite frankly if anybody else in society could find a deal like that -- the Inco workers in Sudbury or anybody else -- where they could negotiate a contract and some third party would pick up the 50 per cent cost or better of their pensions, I am sure they would be very happy.

It is interesting, if you look at the chart I referred to, that the interest earnings from section 11 are $26,830,004. One asks oneself, "What interest rate was that?" In most of these pension plans, the OSSTF and OTF, it has always been below market rate, and this has been a problem that the teachers have complained about for some years. What would the pension rate be if this money were invested either in some securities or in high-grade Canadian savings bonds at 19.5 per cent or whatever? Perhaps under this bill it would not cost the taxpayers quite as much if the money were employed in a more realistic manner. But because it is being used to finance the deficits of this government --

Mr. Nixon: It just goes down a rat hole.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It just goes down the old rat hole, the sink hole -- along with the money they put into land assembly banks, that they put into Suncor, that they put into government advertising, that they put into the jet. It all disappears and is swallowed up.

The real fear that I have after having been here for 15 years, after having been here for eight years as chairman of public accounts, is simply that after a while the people on that side who have been dealing with these sums of money forget what it is all about. They forget that the average taxpayer in the province is paying something like 45 per cent of his income to governments at various levels, that the decision on how they are going to spend their money is taken away from them.

When the Treasurer gets up rather flippantly and says we are going to have a deficit of $2.23 billion this year, and the government is going to spend $24 billion, the figures do not mean anything after a while. They really do not -- until one finds people in one's constituency living on family benefits or unemployment insurance, trying to raise two or three kids, or whatever, and finding they do not have the money to survive on. The difference in the taxation the Treasurer is levying is not being made up in increased assistance to them.

9:40 p.m.

As a matter of fact, I cannot think of anyone here -- I certainly cannot think of any parliamentary assistants, for instance -- at that stage. But there are, unfortunately, a lot of people in our society who are. That is where the impact of these taxes comes in. That is where it is our duty to say to the Treasurer and the members opposite that they have to think of the impact these taxes are having.

It is interesting that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is in the House. She should know better than anyone else. We know she is very concerned about these matters. She must know what impact this extension and broadening of the base of the retail sales tax is going to have on the people who, in the jargon of the civil service, are her clients. It is going to hurt them, because the government has not made up the difference by providing improved social service benefits to deal with these increases in taxes.

We are here to demand, on behalf of those people who are being affected -- and to support those clergymen who were out, and may still be out, on the front lawn of the Legislature -- an opportunity for them to come and confront those members who are so drastically affecting their lives. Those budgetary measures are going to have a greater impact on them than anyone else in our society.

The Treasurer has tried to dismiss this by saying nobody likes increases in taxes. But I cannot think of a period in my 15 years here when we have had such severe economic times that presumably are worldwide today. The Ontario government has never been in a better position to say: "We are here to help those people who cannot be helped otherwise, because of the mandate of the federal government to legislate countrywide. But we are here to help the people of Ontario."

Yet, for some reason I do not understand, the first bill that comes before us in the Legislature is not a bill to help those people. Rather it is Bill 111 which gives the Treasurer authority to raise $2.25 billion, so that he and the Premier can spend it on those priorities they have set -- and damn the public. We cannot support that, we will not support it, and we are intending to debate as fully as we can these measures that are put before us.

Mr. Kerrio: Ministers know a lot of people. The minister is going to allow the people to be heard. You can bet on it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What?

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Minister of Education said, "What?" I am not sure what that particularly means.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I just heard something I really didn't believe.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If the Minister of Education means by that she does not believe people should be able to come and express their opinions in this place --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I'm --

Mr. Kerrio: It was what I said.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Rainy River need not listen to these interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I could probably go on.

Mr. Boudria: Go ahead.

Mr. T. P. Reid: After that vote of confidence. I have to refer to page 4-113 of the public accounts committee. In that section, one will find the statement of receipts and statement of credits --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I hope your vocal chords wear out.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, I do not think that is likely. I do appreciate the government sending me over all this water because it is very helpful.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member is discussing Bill 111.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The whip of the government party is having a very long conversation with the member from Greenwood, and I am prevented from listening to the very learned speech the member for Rainy River is making.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The conversation that is bothering you is the one that is right in front of you.

Mr. Di Santo: I am attempting also to capture the brilliant interjections of the Minister of Education. In her inimitable style --

The Acting Speaker: Further to your request, I will ask honourable members -- No, you have made your point. Other members are here to observe the respect that is due to the member for Rainy River, who has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Let's all start talking.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order: It has been very difficult for me in the last few minutes to understand the very important information given to us by the member for Rainy River because there is too much noise coming from that side --

The Acting Speaker: No, please do not interrupt. The member has the floor. Have you completed?

Mr. T. P. Reid: No. As the wrestler was bent in two, he stated, "I now draw near to my end." I do have a few more comments I would like to make.

If one looks at Bill 111 one will find there is, under the explanatory note, the federal-provincial municipal loans program. I would like to refer to page 2-30 of public accounts which deals with investments in water treatment and waste control facilities and farther down on the page it deals with loans to municipalities. We are dealing with those matters that give authority to raise this kind of money. It shows that investments in water treatment waste control facilities in 1980 were $1,061,715,675. They rose in 1981 to $1,115,801,777. This is one of the reasons we are being asked to okay or approve the authority for the Treasurer under Bill 111.

I reiterate, these things usually run -- and they are certainly found in the public accounts, under the fiscal year, whether 1980 or 1981. Yet, the Treasurer is asking for loan authority up to 1983.

9:50 p.m.

It says: "The Ministry of the Environment lets extensive contracts for the building of water and sewage systems to serve municipalities. These investments are being recovered over the life of the agreement with the municipalities. Agreements covering $1,021,814,905 of the investment are for provincially-owned projects which are subject to service rate billing." It goes on to talk about that. Then the loans to municipalities, which are also found under subsection four of the explanatory note, are very interesting.

Mr. Boudria: What does it say?

Mr. T. P. Reid: It says that the loans to municipalities are not increasing much, at least over 1980 to 1981. I think this should be on the record because I do not think many people understand where the $23 billion or $24 billion of their tax dollars are going.

In 1981 the Ontario housing action program had loans of $111,260,858. The municipalities, which include a lot in the farming areas in northern Ontario, for tile drainage, got $112,234,106. The municipalities, in regard to municipal works assistance, are $42,845,345. Does the federal-provincial winter capital projects fund come under the authority of this bill? The Treasurer shakes his head. I will skip that.

How about the federal-provincial employment loans? That came to $12,508,200 in 1981. The federal-provincial special development loans are $2,753,800. The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which I find interesting, is $38,860,000 in 1981. Kapuskasing -- the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has unfortunately gone -- realized almost $1 million in 1981. It was $999,727.

In regard to sewage and water treatment facilities for municipalities, it was $775,121. The Moosonee Development Area Board got $90,000 in 1981.

We are being asked to approve a bill which would give authority to all the lending to provide funds for these various projects. If we look at page 2-31 of the public accounts we will find other loans and investments and we will also find, not a completely detailed account but an outline of where some of these public funds are going.

I might add, "The loans to public hospitals are for capital construction. During the 1981 fiscal year, the province made grants of $17,504,537 to assist public hospitals in meeting principal and interest payments."

The public accounts of the province are a gold mine. I am sure I could stand here and read them for hours. I may be called upon to do so because of the support I have from my people behind me.

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think this is important, although some that were raised before this point may have been questionable.

Our member has made some important assessments of this bill. I attempted to find this bill in my records and I have asked one of my fellow caucus members to do the same. My folder goes from Bill 107 to 108 and then it goes to 125 and back to 109, then 114 and 115. It is very difficult on such an important debate, when we want to refer to the bill in question, to reach into our file and find out that the bills are not in order.

The Acting Speaker: You have made a very good point of order, and I will see that the order books are properly prepared as quickly as possible. Thank you.

The member for Rainy River has the floor.

Mr. Kerrio: They are not now. I have got 108 to 125.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You have made your point.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have brought your attention to page 2-32 of the public accounts, which deals with pension funds. In 1982, if you can believe it, in the public service superannuation fund is $2,072,142,138.

Mr. Boudria: Unbelievable.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is unbelievable because the Treasurer is asking us to give him authority to get his hands on almost all of this money.

I have gone on at some length, and I have outlined the --

Some hon. members: Oh no!

Mr. T. P. Reid: No?

An hon. member: Not long enough.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, what can I do?

An hon. member: Don't cut it short.

Mr. Wrye: You are convincing the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane).

Mr. T. P. Reid: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin has spurred me on to even greater heights.

It just so happens there are a few pages in here which I have not referred to that --

An hon. member: Damn few.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Who said that?

The Public Accounts of Ontario, including the index, run to 4-449 pages. I cannot think of very often when anybody has stood in this House and really related the legislation before us, and the expenditures that are going to result as a matter of course from it, to the actual accounts of the province of Ontario --

Mr. Breithaupt: Until now.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Until now.

Mr. Kerrio: This is a first.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I think it has been a very healthy and a very educational process for a lot of people. My colleagues, of course, were all aware of this because they have heard me speak about these matters in caucus, but they were never quite --

Mr. Nixon: He speaks of little else -- and pensions every now and then.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Rainy River has the floor and is speaking on Bill 111.

Mr. T. P. Reid: My colleagues in their enthusiasm are getting carried away with the support that I deserve, of course, for doing it.

Looking at the chart on page 4-3, it is very interesting that we could deal with the matters raised by the Minister of Education about the statutory requirements of the act in regard to teachers' pensions. One can see there what the statutory costs come to for each ministry, let alone the Ministry of Education. I would think that probably even the minister has not been aware this can be found in these pages. If she would look there she would find that the statutory allocations for the Ministry of Education in 1981 were $205,534,592.

I do not want to dwell on this point --

Mr. Nixon: Oh, you might as well. It is worthy of some explanation.

Mr. Boudria: Explain it a little bit.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What can I do?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He has been explaining for two hours now.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, but you still do not understand it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I thought that anybody over there was a fast learner I would have treated these matters only peripherally. However the Minister of Education has been the first one, to her credit, who has admitted that the matters in Bill 111, in which we are asked to raise funds from the public purse that the taxpayers of Ontario will have to pay for, are related to statutory provisions of the teachers' pensions in Ontario. The minister admitted that. She said it is a statutory provision and I feel it is my duty, perhaps wrongly --

Some hon. members: No, no.

10 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I guess rightly; what can I do? -- to suggest that she is right and I am right to draw to her attention that on page 4-3 of public accounts, the statutory requirements shown for her ministry relate primarily to the pension funds, which we are asked to allow the Treasurer to get his hands on for the completely wasteful practices of Suncor and other things which we do not think should be priorities of this government.

There are those across the way and perhaps even on this side of the House who think this has been an exercise in futility. I have been here for nigh on 15 years. As a member of this House I have received three volumes of the Public Accounts of Ontario and I have not heard anyone deal in depth with the information in these books, until tonight.

I make no apologies for that. I believe the Minister of Education is one of those who will never admit that anyone on this side has made a point. But I will guarantee that she and her staff will look at the public accounts committee statements with some horror and say, "My God, what have we done?" There are others on that side who did not realize the wealth of information that exists in these statements and the impact they have had on the daily lives of the citizens of Ontario. These are pretty dull and deadly statistics.

An hon. member: But you make them live.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I never liked that man until tonight; and it may not last all that long.

We are being asked under Bill 111 to okay all these things for this kind of time. But there is no benchmark: We tend to make speeches in this House that are not really germane, that do not get down to the nitty-gritty. I am trying, because of my experience as the chairman of the public accounts committee and as a member of long standing in this House --

Mr. Nixon: And with your interest.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And my personal interest in these matters -- to relate what is going on in the Treasurer's budget to the financial statements of Ontario.

There are those in the press gallery and in this House who do not understand the complexity of what is going on. This bill could be passed, and probably will be, with the government majority. It is only one page, yet it gives the government the authority to raise and spend $2.25 billion.

There is not a bank in this world, not a country nor an individual in this world -- J. Paul Getty, the Bronfman brothers, or anybody else -- who can, in one page, with two and a half short paragraphs, raise that money or say, "We are going to borrow $2.25 billion."

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you and your predecessors in the chair today, and to some extent the Treasurer, some credit for this. Initially, the Treasurer was hoping that this would be a bill that would be dealt with within 15 or 20 minutes and we could get through it and get on to other matters. He tried to raise the odd point of order, saying the member was not addressing himself to the bill, and I submit to you, humbly as always, that everything I have said is related directly to the bill.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, Patrick.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is. It is all there. The government finally recognized that we are talking about real money. We are talking about $2.25 billion which does not mean anything to most people, because what does a million or a billion mean? In this province, in provincial taxes paid, in personal income tax or in sales tax, the average individual man, woman and child is paying a minimum of something like $1,500 each and every year. It is going to get worse because of this budget. That person is not going to know what $2.25 billion is, but it is our job to stand here and say, "Your $1,500, your seven per cent on a chocolate bar, your seven per cent on a doughnut, adds up."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They shouldn't be eating them anyway.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Bette, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I don't eat chocolate bars and doughnuts.

Mr. Breithaupt: People in glass houses, shouldn't.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Have you ever noticed, Mr. Speaker, that it is sometimes the late night sessions that bring out the wit and sometimes the halfwits amongst us?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: All of the quarter wits are on that side.

Mr. Wrye: Tell us the Elmer Sopha story again.

Mr. Speaker: Now, on with the bill.

Mr. Kerrio: No, Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has already been dealt with.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, that is uncalled for. They have not heard my point of privilege yet.

Mr. Speaker, you were not in the chair, but I raised a point of privilege earlier on. It is not very often that members get up in their places and thank the Speaker for performing a duty after a member has raised a point of privilege. I did not have the bill in my file here, and in a matter of just a very few minutes, one of the senior clerks miraculously brought me this book with every bill in its proper place. Not very often would a member stand in his place and thank the chair and the people who are conducting the business of this Legislature for a job done in such short order and in such an efficient manner.

[Applause]

Mr. Peterson: That's very gracious of you. Would anyone like to speak on Vince's behalf?

Mr. Kerrio: Well, it is true enough.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I appreciated that point of privilege of my colleague, but I got derailed in my train of thought. Perhaps I could start over.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Since you have done it 20 times so far, you might as well.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, at one point, before I got derailed by the Minister of Education, I was --

Mr. Breithaupt: Sidetracked.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes. I was recounting some of those great promises of the Treasurer and his predecessors. I would like to reiterate a couple of matters that have come to my attention.

In the Treasurer's 1981 budget, he said: "This budget sets out a realistic fiscal framework that will (1) encourage the private sector to grow and compete in the international marketplace; (2) maintain the high level of services provided by the province and allow for growth in priority areas...

"For this fiscal year" -- and this is 1981-82 -- "the government has set spending at $19.4 billion. This represents an increase of 12.2 per cent over the previous fiscal year. Although somewhat greater than increases in recent years, it is a realistic allocation in light of the sensitivity of government spending to inflation. It continues to reflect the government's commitment to providing a high level of services without disturbing the balance between private and public sector growth."

That is what the Treasurer said in 1981. He followed that in the budget of 1982 with this comment. Members will recall that he said in 1981 that he was going to maintain a good, liberal balance between private and public sector growth. In 1982, in this budget, quoting the Treasurer --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This is the fourth time we have heard this. Don't you have any imagination or new ideas?

Mr. Wrye: But there are new members in every time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Well, it was nice of you to arrive for a change.

Mr. Wrye: I was here this afternoon.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Really?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River has the floor.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am quoting from the Treasurer's budget speech of 1982, having reminded you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1981 he said the budget "continues to reflect the government's commitment to providing a high level of services without disturbing the balance between private and public sector growth."

In 1982, and I quote the Treasurer: "In this approach, we feel that we are not asking those in charge of public programs, funded by the taxpayers, to accept any more stringent requirements than we have imposed on ourselves as a government. Over the last seven years, the number of our public servants has actually been decreased by six per cent, from 87,000 to 82,000" -- although the statistics from the Civil Service Commission do not bear that out; they are altogether different -- "at a time when the general population has increased by six per cent. The salaries at the most senior levels in Ontario have grown at less than half the rate of inflation, not only in the last few years but since 1973."

Most of the statements by the Treasurer are contradictory. We have had the example in the House of Ontario Hydro and what is going on there; the Treasurer and the Premier say that it is really not any concern of theirs, that it does not really exist.

If members look at Bill 111 and what the Treasurer is asking us, and if they look at the 1982 budget paper, at table 8 on page 17, they will find the funded debt of the Ontario public sector. What we are being asked to do, by giving authority to this bill, is to provide the Treasurer with funds to pay some of the funded debt of Ontario.

If members will look at it, they will see that the funded debt goes from $15,463,000,000 in 1973-74 to $33,596,000,000 in 1980-81, and the estimated interim for 1981-82 is $37,108,000,000. That is an increase of some 62 or 63 per cent in the eight-year period. We are being asked to authorize a bill to help pay the costs of that funded debt in that period.

I am sure the members are interested in these statistics. In 1972-73, when most of those people on the back benches were not here, the funded debt in Ontario was $1,926 per capita. The members will recall the figures I gave not two minutes ago. The population of Ontario has increased by six per cent; so the debt per person is obviously spread over a much larger number of people. In spite of that, the funded debt per capita has gone from $1,926 in 1973-74 to $3,900 in 1980-81, a twofold increase in that period. The interim estimate for 1981-82 is $4,283.

It might be of even greater interest to the Treasurer to look at the figure for the year when he became Treasurer and brought down his first budget, which I believe was 1978-79.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was 1979-80.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The funded debt per person per capita was $3,458 in 1978-79. That is the first year the present Treasurer was Treasurer. In 1979-80 --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are in the wrong year.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was 1979-80.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am sorry. I was trying to make four years five years. I asked the Treasurer and he nodded, so I just thought that was it.

If he did not like those figures, let me give him these. The funded debt per capita in 1979-80, when the Treasurer says he first was Treasurer, was $3,669 per capita. In 1980-81, it increased to $3,900, and the interim estimate for 1981-82 is $4,283.

I am willing to make a small wager that the real figure for 1981-82 is more than $4,283 and that the per capita debt of every man, woman and child, the first two of whom obviously are now taxpayers and the third of whom will be, will be close to $5,000 after this fiscal year with the budget this minister has brought down.

We are asked by Bill 111 to raise $2.25 billion to pay for these debts the province has run up over the years. If one looks at page 18 of the Ontario budget paper in 1980, if one looks at Ontario's debt servicing capacity, it excludes Ontario Hydro. Now, Ontario Hydro was the single most largest borrower of the province. It borrowed $500 million on the capital.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What? Clean up your English.

Mr. Breithaupt: There was a comma between single most and largest.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Really? It didn't sound like it.

Mr. Breithaupt: I could hear it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: As a former English teacher, I was trying by emphasis to repeat -- if the members are fans of O. Henry, they will remember he used to provide emphasis to his stories by repeating superlatives, as I was attempting to do and as escaped the attention of the Minister of Education. As a doctor, she is not all that well educated in literature and the English language but hopes to try to pretend she is. It was interesting -- well, we will not go into her use of English the other day.

10:20 p.m.

However, on page 18 of budget paper C of the 1982 Ontario budget there is reference to Ontario's debt-servicing capacity, again exclusive of Ontario Hydro. How can we exclude Ontario Hydro? The Treasurer's argument, although he will not put it this way, will be that the consumers of Ontario are going to pay for that borrowing for the inefficiency and mismanagement of Ontario Hydro.

We have heard about power at cost. I have heard about power at cost ever since I have been here. But nobody has been able to define for me what power at cost is. Does it include Hugh Macaulay's rug?

Mr. Nixon: His what?

Mr. T. P. Reid: The rug on the floor of his office; not the one on his head.

Does it include the largest public relations unit of any firm in Canada? Did the Treasurer see the ads that came across our desk? I should have brought them. We are being asked to vote money to pay for this kind of nonsense.

All members -- even you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure -- received this today. This is what we are being asked, by way of this bill -- which you are waving at me -- to raise money to pay for. It is a press release from Hugh Macaulay that says:

"The attached is an outline copy of a new animated 30-second television message created to promote electrical safety among children. The commercial is now being distributed to all Ontario television stations as a public service announcement. Zap, the safety bird, will also be featured in the comic sections of selected newspapers."

We are being asked to raise money and to vote on a budget that in the last year has allowed $300 million to be raised by Hydro, and God knows what we are going to have to raise to pay for the nuclear stations and all the rest of it in the next few years.

Imagine the effrontery of Ontario Hydro to do this, not to us, the opposition, but to the government. There was a day when George Gathercole would eat all of this stuff personally rather than let it get out to the opposition, because he would be too embarrassed himself to allow the government to be embarrassed by this kind of nonsense.

This is power at cost, and all the consumers and taxpayers in Ontario are going to pay for it. We hear about the 54 per cent increase within the next three years. When this government allows this sort of thing to go on, we know very well why it is costing the consumers so much.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me, in all this time, one aside. There will be questions on the Order Paper about this item tomorrow and on Thursday about the cost and who is responsible for it. I find it beyond belief that the people in Hydro would have the effrontery to send this kind of thing out at a time of government restraint. Mind you, if they are prepared to accept the increases they are giving themselves and to run their present deficits, who knows?

I referred earlier to the annual report of Ontario Hydro. Unfortunately, I did not have it with me, but my colleague has given me a copy. It is very interesting to read the annual report and then to read the answers to the questions that my leader and my colleagues received today in questions to the Premier, because the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) was not here, as to the responsibility of this government for Ontario Hydro.

The Premier got up and did his usual Pontius Pilate act. My God, he makes Lady Macbeth look like an amateur, washing his hands and saying, "I have nothing to do with it." He is Pontius Pilate and Lady Macbeth all rolled into one.

I want to read you, Mr. Speaker -- and I am almost coming to a close, you will be glad to know --

Mr. Breithaupt: Of this part.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Of this section, of the introduction to my remarks.

It is entitled Ontario Hydro Annual Report 1981, and in it is an interview with Hugh Macaulay, who is a very personable, competent person in many ways. On the first page there is a question: "Hydro appears to be a major instrument in the government's determination to stimulate the provincial economy. Can you comment on this?" Hugh says, "No, I can't."

Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? This is the chairman of Hydro, and the Premier obviously should have read his annual report before he spoke the way he did today.

To continue the answer: "The Ontario government has called Hydro's power system a cornerstone of the provincial economy and said that the continued vitality and development of that system is essential to sustaining Ontario's economic growth." Who thought that up? Dunc Allan? He got his reward by going to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and he is now going to mastermind the leadership campaign of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell).

Anyway: "That kind of thinking, coupled with a new awareness of the value of indigenous energy resources" -- and we have not heard of the government doing anything about the peat resources of northern Ontario, but that is for another speech -- "and the need to end our dependence on fossil fuels, has resulted in new approaches to planning at Ontario Hydro.

"Instead of working merely to meet anticipated demand" -- which they have not done very well -- "we are now looking at a wider role for Ontario Hydro and considering the effects our large construction projects, our exports, our rates and, in fact, all our activities can have on the social, environmental and economic life of the province."

I would have thought that was what they had been doing all along. As a matter of fact, I thought that was what we had been told they had been doing all along.

However: "That is one reason why we are going ahead with new hydroelectric projects and completing the nuclear ones we started while we are in a period of surplus generation" -- because the government of Ontario and the Premier told them to do that. "But it is not the only reason," goes on Mr. Macaulay. "Ontario's demand for electricity is growing annually at an average of three per cent."

When was the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs in business? At that point it was seven per cent per year; then it was three per cent. I would suggest that 1.5 per cent is probably closer to the truth. "And it takes to 10 to 15 years" -- it used to take seven years, two annual reports ago -- "to bring it on stream.

"We are looking a long way down the road. A lot of things can change." That is one of the more profound statements. "We have got to be ready for anything that comes along" -- like an election, like the leadership of the Treasurer, like the leadership of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) or whatever.

"The challenge that faces us is to play an increasing role in the life of the province while continuing to provide electricity to our customers in an efficient, reliable and affordable way."

That is why they are now telling us, from the little information we are getting, that Hydro costs to the consumers are going to go up 54 per cent in the next three years. The Treasurer, who is also the chairman of BILD, is saying that Hydro is one of the cornerstones of our economic development. He knows full well that a lot of factories and a lot of industries are in this province because of cheap hydro rates.

10:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: This would be an appropriate time for the honourable member to adjourn the debate.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to launch into the meat of my remarks concerning the principle of the bill, but I will heed the direction of the Speaker.

On motion by Mr. T. P. Reid, the debate was adjourned.

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Speaker: It being 10:30 of the clock, and pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). He may now proceed for five minutes.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, there can be very little doubt that the citizens of Ontario were well served this afternoon and this evening by the member for Rainy River. Other than the fact that he put on a splendid performance, he managed to keep the Treasurer here this evening; so it is to be hoped we will have him here this evening to answer some of the questions I had for him this afternoon.

In the short time allotted to me I am here to plead the case for the charities of Ontario.

The Ottawa Boys and Girls Clubs, the various boys' and girls' clubs right across Ontario, the Young Men's Christian Association and Young Women's Christian Association, the Richelieu clubs, all the church groups, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, all these people who run summer camps are here and listening to the response we are going to get from the Treasurer this evening.

These people are running summer camps. All across Ontario the people benefiting from these summer camps are very often children from single-parent homes or from disadvantaged homes.

Let me give the Treasurer an example. In Ottawa, 73 per cent of the children who attend the summer camp from the Ottawa Boys and Girls Club are from single-parent families. If it were not for these charitable organizations, many of these children would not get the only opportunity they have throughout the whole year to get a break, to get away from the routine, to enjoy nature, to enjoy life with their colleagues and to benefit from something we have believed in Ontario, a worthwhile summer break.

My question, and the question of all these charities across Ontario, is simply this: By his budget, is the Treasurer seriously saying to these charitable organizations, these people whose budgets have been set up since early 1982, who are getting help from the United Way and various other organizations whose budgets were struck a long time ago, that he is going to be imposing a sales tax on the meals of these children attending summer camps?

Is he seriously going to be doing this? Is he going to be imposing a sales tax on the accommodation of these children attending these summer camps? Is this what he is going to do? Surely these people are entitled to some satisfactory explanation and not the subtle and underhanded response that we got this afternoon when he looked at the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), and he said: "Look in Hansard." Is he is telling the charities of Ontario that they should look in Hansard and to find the regulations some place? Is that how he treats the charities of Ontario?

I have already mentioned the hypocrisy of the people on the other side. I want to mention again that it was not long ago, on April 15, in this very House that the Treasurer and his colleagues on that side supported a resolution by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), which said the House acknowledged the tremendous contribution of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario. It prevailed on the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), as it said here, to consider municipal assessment tax exemption.

Mr. Bradley: Was that before or after the member for Brantford went to Belgium?

Mr. Roy: That was before he went to Belgium, and it was before the Treasurer's budget.

On the one hand, he is asking the municipalities to grant these people an exemption and, on the other hand, he has the nerve now with this budget to tax the meals and accommodation of these children. If he says I am wrong, I am prepared to retract these accusations. At least the people, charities and children of Ontario are entitled to know what these measures are and how they are going to be affected.

I ask the minister, for God's sake, to show some charity, some human kindness, to show that behind his angelic look and smile, there is humanity. He should not tax the charities and the children of Ontario on meals and accommodation for summer camps.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Treasurer proceeds in reply, I wish to make an observation and call attention to the fact that the member for Ottawa East used the word "hypocrisy," which is unparliamentary and unacceptable. I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Roy: What was that?

Mr. Speaker: You used the word "hypocrisy" in your argument --

Mr. Roy: There is nothing unparliamentary about that.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, there is.

Mr. Epp: He would not use it if it were not accurate.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, it is not accurate. It is not acceptable, and I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I --

Mr. Speaker: I have taken the time to look this up. I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr. Roy: For the sake of parliamentary -- how should I say it?

Mr. Speaker: Decorum, perhaps.

Mr. Roy: -- peacefulness and all that, I am prepared to withdraw it. But if I cannot use the word "hypocrisy," I cannot criticize that government over there.

Mr. Speaker: I draw your attention to Beauchesne and May. You will find I am right.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I believe you are correct if the member actually attributed that to another member. As I heard his remarks, he attributed it to the policy of the government with regard to taxation. If that is the case, I believe the word is acceptable in parliamentary usage.

Mr. Speaker: That may be quite true. However, the member for Ottawa East did express dissatisfaction in an answer he received from the Treasurer. He was directing his remarks to the Treasurer. Therefore, I must abide by what I said earlier. I would just like to call the attention of all honourable members to the fact that I think there has been great leeway allowed in the use of language. Perhaps, on reflection, more consideration should be given by the members in the usage of it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I probably have more summer camps in my riding than any other member in this House. I have seen the problems they can cause to municipalities when, through their charitable designation, they sometimes escape the property tax base. Where they are truly charitable institutions, I think most of us felt there was a case for that.

At the same time, one should recognize that in drafting the regulations that currently do exempt charitable camps from any tax, one would have to have certain tests to determine and differentiate between those that truly compete in rates charged with commercial camps and those that perform a function providing a service for children who could not afford an opportunity to go to summer camp. I am sure my colleague the Minister of Revenue, who is drafting these regulations, will be taking this kind of principle into effect as we draft the regulations.

The House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.