FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Stevenson moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Grossman, second reading of Bill 88, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Could the parliamentary assistant tell us the whereabouts of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman)? We were assured he would be here tonight for this debate.
Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Treasurer is expected soon.
I would like to reiterate a few of the comments that were made on first reading of the bill. Basically, this bill is a response to the report of the standing committee on public accounts of 1981 which asked that the government be given the ability to charge interest on amounts in overdue accounts.
There are also a number of other changes that reflect primarily the procedures involved in the financial administration of the province and basically either clarify, streamline or add a little flexibility to the procedures in financial administration.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant has indicated, one section of this bill, section 3, relates to the fact that the government should be charging interest on overdue accounts, a recommendation made by the public accounts committee in 1981. Three years have passed since then.
It is interesting that separate schools have taken the government 13 years and this one has taken only three. However, we will not go into that.
I am a little disappointed that the parliamentary assistant could not tell us what these overdue accounts are or what the possibilities are of these loans being repaid, with or without interest.
We have some questions on this bill, particularly on section 7. I would like some clarification as to what exactly that section refers. It says, "All money raised by way of loan and the interest thereon and the principal amount of and interest and premiums on all securities issued are a charge on and are payable out of the consolidated revenue fund." I would be interested in hearing from the parliamentary assistant what the premiums on the securities relate to and how much of that might or might not be a charge on the public purse.
The other section I have a question on, and this was brought to my attention by my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), who may want to amplify on this, is section 11 of the bill, which states, "Section 10 of the Public Officers Act, being chapter 415 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed." Having had a look at the Public Officers Act, which is a separate act from the Financial Administration Act, I find it passing strange, as a former colleague of mine used to say, that we would be including in a bill entitled An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act a clause or an amendment that deals with another act.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if I could have your attention and perhaps that of the Clerk, I would like to put the question to you as to whether it is in order to repeal section 10 of the Public Officers Act in section 11 of an act that is entitled An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act, a separate act altogether. I would think section 11 of the bill is out of order and I hope, given time as I speak and as my colleague speaks on it as well -- as I am sure he will, since he was the first to notice it -- you will have the opportunity to rule on whether or not this is in order. We are dealing with the Financial Administration Act, but under that act we are amending another act.
The other interesting thing, and this is just a passing comment, is that this bill relates to electronic processing of accounts, in that accounts are now transferred electronically to banks and to people's accounts, whatever kind they happen to be. The act, which has not been amended in this respect for some years, amends that section to allow the electronic passing or transfer of moneys in that way to banks and so on; and it is interesting that in this technological age we have to keep up with that kind of technology.
I presume that in many things this government does it has been making these electronic transfers for some time, and now, after the fact, we are by this amendment in the bill making legal a situation that has no doubt gone on for some time.
We see no problems with what might be called the principle of this bill. There really is not a principle per se that one can hang one's hat on; it is a number of amendments dealing with different subjects. But I would ask for a ruling on section 11 of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I will get that for the member.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill because we have not had any satisfaction about section 11.
First, there are many good things in the bill. I understand that in many ways it is simply a housekeeping bill. It not only allows the government to seek financing on bonds that are issued by the government of the United States but also to seek and raise moneys guaranteed by the government of the United States. I suppose it does not matter if they are guaranteed by the United States or if they are actual bonds of the government. If the government of the United States goes belly up it does not matter whether they are actual bonds or whether the bonds of the government are guaranteed.
I also believe interest should be charged where there are outstanding debts to the government. However, I would introduce this note of caution. The parliamentary assistant was less than frank with us and I wish I could have his attention.
Mr. T. P. Reid: How could that be? He did not say anything.
Mr. Foulds: I wish he had been briefed before he had the responsibility of carrying the bill on second reading. Maybe I am getting a little old fashioned; maybe I have been in this place too long.
Mr. Kennedy: That is true enough.
Mr. Foulds: The member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) should talk.
When a bill is brought before this Legislature, a minister or the parliamentary assistant who is responsible for carrying it through the Legislature should be fully briefed. That is not only his responsibility, it is the responsibility of the officials who have drafted the bill. I get very angry when the Legislature is treated as a rubber stamp for the bureaucracy, for the Treasury. Frankly, if I do not have some satisfaction about section 11 we will not get this bill through this session. That is a promise.
It seems to me a couple of things have happened. There are a number of good things in the bill. There are a number of things that appear to be housekeeping, but I resent it very strongly when a bill is presented as being housekeeping yet we cannot be told why certain sections are in, either in the second reading -- which is the debate in principle and which is what we should be talking about on this reading -- or in clause-by-clause debate.
One of the reasons I am loath to give support to this bill is that I am loath to give to a government that over the last 40 years, and particularly in the last 10 or 12 years, has adopted what I call an imperial style of cabinet. It has been more and more reluctant to share information with the public and the Legislature. I simply will not vote for a bill that has a clause in it that is one of the few clauses in any of the acts of this parliament that requires the Treasurer to file information with this House.
What happens with section 10 of the Public Officers Act? It is all well and good to say in the explanatory notes: "The section of the Public Officers Act that is repealed no longer serves any useful purpose. Other administrative procedures have, for some years. replaced the furnishing of security by a public officer, and the annual statement required by the section that is being repealed is no longer meaningful."
That is one the few bloody annual statements that by law, by statute, is presented to the Legislature. If other administrative procedures have taken place, why are other sections of the Public Officers Act not amended? If the Public Officers Act is out of date, why does the government not bring in a separate bill that amends the Public Officers Act, including the repeal of this section?
I see absolutely no relationship between the other sections of this bill which amend the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of this bill which refers to another act. I do not see the relationship in the bill. I would urge you very strongly, Mr. Speaker, to rule section 11 of this bill out of order.
I do not see how we can have one bill which goes by the name of An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act having a clause in it that deletes a section of the Public Officers Act. There is no relationship between the deletion of that section of the Public Officers Act and the rest of this bill.
I can see a reference is necessary in some bills to more than one piece of legislation. Often they are in tandem. However, there is absolutely no relationship to those clauses. As a parliamentarian, I am getting a trifle touchy about the way we, as parliamentarians, are manipulated by government officials who feel this is a good thing to do.
It may be that several times the Treasurer has had to file "No report." Fine, let him do it. It is no big deal. However, if he wants to amend the Public Officers Act, I would suggest he have a separate bill to do it. If he wants this bill to go smoothly, without having it go into detailed clause-by-clause discussion, I would suggest that when we get into committee of the whole House the parliamentary assistant simply move that section 11 be deleted. Then we will all be happy. At least, we as parliamentarians will be happy, because we have had no adequate explanation for that section.
I took the time to go through the compendium of information which was sent. There was no reference to the Public Officers Act. I had to look it up in the statutes, which was not a big deal but I did do it. Having read the Public Officers Act and the Public Officers' Fees Act, it gives me some indication that maybe what the Treasurer should be doing is tabling in this House the names of people who have had appointments by this government. Maybe it would be a very good thing if we had tabled on an annual basis the names of people appointed by this government as public officers.
If I am not mistaken and if I am not going a little too far, maybe those are some of the patronage appointments this government has at its beck and call. Maybe it would be a very good thing if we had these on the public record. If the parliamentary assistant, during his summing up, which he has the privilege of doing on an act like this, can clarify and dispel all of these doubts, all will be forgiven and the bill will go through easily. However, I have not heard them so far.
I have to apologize to one official in the Treasury department who may be under the gallery. He did try to get back to me after 4:30 p.m. when I was at a meeting. I have sought this information from Treasury officials. However, at the present time, given the present status of information, I have no alternative but to oppose this bill. I have no alternative but to force the bill into committee. I have no alternative but to propose the deletion of section 11 of the bill.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question in the interest of saving time. Section 3 of the bill, adding subsection 9a(5) to the act, says, "The Treasurer may, in his discretion, authorize the forgiveness or noncollection of interest or penalty payable under this section and may authorize the charging of a lower rate of interest," etc. Is there any thought in the Treasury that this information will be made public at some point, other than through the --
The Deputy Speaker: Is the member on a point of order? We are still in second reading.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, I realize this. No, I was not on a point of order. I was interested in saving time. I made my point.
The Deputy Speaker: I hope we might achieve that.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Did you read the bill, Russ?
Mr. Stevenson: Yes. I am sorry, I was --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. First, are there any other honourable members wishing to debate before we go to the parliamentary assistant?
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Stevenson: Before I make some comments, I did miss the section. Was it section 9?
Mr. T. P. Reid: It was subsection 9a(5). I am sure the ministry people under the gallery caught it.
Mr. Stevenson: The member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) mentioned section 7 in relation to the premiums. Under the wording in the old act, there was concern that some lawyers did not consider the call premiums on long-term debentures as part of the interest. There was some question of what the legal position would be in paying those premiums after a 30-year debenture went 15 years. The section has been reworded to clarify that those premiums could be paid. This has not been done to any extent in the past and it is a very minor thing, but that is what the section relates to.
Both members, in particular the member for Port Arthur, referred fairly extensively to section 11. I did talk to the member briefly this afternoon, but I am not familiar with the distant history of this section. A member of the ministry staff did try to reach the member late this afternoon and was unable to get back to him. By the way, the Public Officers' Fees Act was repealed in the current sitting of the House.
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is not what we are talking about.
Mr. Stevenson: No, I am coming to that.
Mr. Foulds: It was only the old Public Officers' Fees Act that told us who the officers were.
Mr. Stevenson: Many years ago the public officers had to put up cash or a bond to take part in some of the duties of the government. Some were public servants and others were private sector people who were conducting various duties for the government. That activity was terminated, and they went to private sector insurance, which covered potential losses related to handling sums of money for the government. It turned out that the cost of the premiums far exceeded the value of any losses there ever were, so private sector insurance was also dropped.
Since 1969, the government basically self-insures the people involved in handling securities or funds for the province. Since that time, procedures such as the internal audits that are conducted in the ministries and several activities related to auditing procedures cover that sort of activity. There is no longer any personal security or bonding carried by any public servants, and this has been the case since 1969.
The procedure is that the Treasurer stands up each year to say there has been no change in this particular area or that he has nothing to report in this particular area. It really is a procedure I am sure most members of the House do not understand; they probably do not know what he is doing when --
Mr. T. P. Reid: If we worked on that basis, we would dissolve the Legislature.
Mr. Stevenson: I really think this is just one of the procedures. In this whole bill we are talking about various procedures to handle and streamline some of the financial undertakings of the government. This was just one of the procedures that really had no meaning at this particular point. It was a step that was redundant because of the auditing that is now undertaken.
It was put in there to get rid of a procedure that seemed to be unnecessary because it was covered in another way and in a way to which all members of this Legislature had access. Really, in many ways they have access, through some of these audits and through public accounts and so on, to a much greater degree than through a statement the Treasurer might make in the Legislature.
I do not know that I can say much more than that. I have tried to clarify it and give members the history of how it developed. The member says the Public Officers Act is outdated. That certainly is the case, and I think I would leave it at that.
In regard to subsection 9a(5) as set out in section 3 of the bill, that is really in there to deal mainly with individual cases and with small debts, where the cost of collecting the debt might well exceed the size of the debt, It really just gives a little bit of flexibility in that particular section.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have received some further information, but I would like you to make a ruling on whether or not section 11 is in order under this bill. I have received a note from the expert, but I would like to hear it from your own lips.
The Deputy Speaker: For clarification, was the member also commenting on section 10, or did I misunderstand?
Mr. T. P. Reid: I will if you like.
The Deputy Speaker: Well, fine.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: We are not in committee. I think the most expeditious way is to follow the rules of the House.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I understand my honourable friend is going to move a motion to delete this section of the bill, as I think he said. Can we not have a ruling on whether or not it is in order, which, if you so rule, might or might not save us some time moving into committee and going that route?
The Deputy Speaker: I think we have to follow the procedure, with all due respect. If we are going to committee, that would be where we would address it clause by clause. Perhaps we could establish that at the outset in committee.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order: Possibly I could say that there are other bills in front of us. There are two private members' bills. Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced the sheet at the moment, but there is a bill standing in the name of the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the leader of the third party, which does have a section to amend another act. There is another private member's bill that also has a section in there to amend another act.
The Deputy Speaker: We will deal with that when we go to committee. A final comment on the point of order.
Mr. Foulds: The parallels the parliamentary assistant has drawn to our attention are in fact parallels. We have had private members' bills that by necessity have to amend government legislation. On the question of whether this amendment is in order, we have a bill before us that goes under the title of An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act. It has a whole series of clauses that does just that. It has another clause that amends an entirely different act. There is no relationship between that section and the remainder of the act.
With respect to most of the acts that have passed this House, they have been not only private members' acts, if the member is trying to score a cheap political point, but also many government acts that have to amend more than one previous act.
For example, when I was Education critic of this party, we often had an act that amended not only the Education Act, but the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. That seems to me to be legitimate because there is a connection between the two. When one previous act impinges on the other, we can amend in the same act,
Here two different acts are being amended and one does not impinge on the other. That is why I submit, as my honoured and learned colleague the member for Rainy River has submitted, that the clause is out of order. If the Speaker rules it is in order, we will have to move to delete it.
The Deputy Speaker: We have had enough comment on the point of order. We are no doubt going to address it when we go to committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.
ONTARIO LOAN ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 74, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, last time I discussed a number of exceedingly interesting subjects that had to do with this bill. One that I had an opportunity just to touch on for a moment or two was educational finance. The subject of educational finance has been of great interest to the members of the House today because the Premier (Mr. Davis) made a rather landmark announcement in the House this afternoon regarding extension of full grants and full aid to separate schools to the completion of secondary school.
It was an announcement that, as any observer could see, was greeted with a good deal of enthusiasm by the members of this House, particularly those members who had been through a couple of election campaigns on the issue, in particular the 1971 election.
I well recall many of my friends stating to me in that election campaign that although they were good friends of mine and although they were perhaps even supporters of the Liberal Party or of me personally, because of this important issue and the courageous stand taken by the Premier in 1971, they found themselves unable to vote for me on this issue, which of course relates to the borrowing of this government.
I guess it was with a good deal of irony that all of us listened this afternoon to the pronouncement of the Premier. He came up in his blue top and his hair was all done up so I knew there was a big announcement forthcoming. All members on the government side were told they should have their solemn faces on and the solemn pronouncement was made.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is the Ontario Loan Act.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bradley: I will speak all night on the Ontario Loan Act if that is what he wants. Is that what he wants?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Go ahead.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): The member for St. Catharines on Bill 74.
Mr. Bradley: I am talking about finance and that relates to the Ontario Loan Act. The people over there are not the Speaker. You are the Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Yes, and I would like you to speak to Bill 74, so I understand you.
Mr. Bradley: This does relate to the borrowing of this government and the fact that whenever we embark upon an expenditure of any kind we have to find money or raise funds for it.
I found it rather interesting with the papal visit due in the fall of this year, with the demographics of this province having changed over the last 14 years so there are far more Roman Catholics than there were 14 years ago, with no doubt a polling process indicating how people feel on various subjects and how the government might make its expenditures and borrow money to make those expenditures --
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We are all prepared to listen to the remarks of the honourable member --
Mr. Martel: Then you should sit down.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will not be told when to sit down either. I only suggest that since the Ontario Loan Act essentially covers borrowings for the current year and none of the borrowings for the current year relates at all to the statement made this afternoon, it might be more helpful to all of us if the member could try to deal with the subject matter of the borrowings this act does cover.
The Acting Speaker: I appreciate the point made by the Treasurer and I ask the member for St. Catharines to relate his remarks, whatever they may be, directly to Bill 74 which is before the House now.
Mr. Bradley: I am relating them to the Ontario Loan Act. I am relating them to the borrowing policies of this government and the fact that this announcement made today should have been made earlier and therefore would have been included in the expenditures. Rather than borrowing money for the purposes the Treasurer has suggested in his budget, he would have been better to do it for these purposes.
I want to share with members of this House a statement made at Queen's Park on Tuesday, August 31, 1971, by the Premier regarding the question of extended public assistance to the separate school system. Obviously, the Premier at that time had in mind this very borrowing bill which relates to educational finance.
Mr. Martel: Do not talk about 1971. I was here. I was here in 1967.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for St. Catharines directly on Bill 74.
Mr. Bradley: Ordinarily, my colleagues on the government side would be pleased to hear what the Premier had to say on any subject. I have always listened with a good deal of care to the words of the Premier as they relate to the expenditures of the government and how the government might be spending its money in this fiscal year if it were borrowing for the correct purposes. That is why I wanted to share what the Premier had to say in 1971 with the members of this House --
Interjection.
Mr. Bradley: The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) has asked me to continue, and I am pleased to do so.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: Did the member lose in 1971?
Mr. Bradley: Having lost in 1971, I won today.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Bill 74.
Mr. Bradley: Yes. That is what it is. I quote from the Premier's speech:
"I had indicated on an earlier occasion that the government would make a statement of policy on the question of extended public assistance to the separate school system. My colleagues and I have considered this matter exhaustively, realizing its importance to the people of Ontario and with profound respect for the views of various interested parties, all of whom, however disparate their opinions may be, hold them with equal conviction and sincerity.
"There are few issues in the realm of public policy where the reconciliation of differing views and the possibility of compromise are so difficult to achieve and few issues which have the potential of creating misunderstanding, stirring prejudice and inviting recrimination, but the issue cannot be resolved by avoiding it, nor would any party to its consideration be satisfied with an attempt to resolve it by ambiguity nor by resorting to some temporary expedient.
8:40 p.m.
"There can be no doubt that Ontario's present school system at the elementary grade level exists as a matter of right, deeply rooted in historic precedent, representing the position of past generations of political leaders and private citizens. This right is firmly entrenched in the Constitution.
"The separate school system was established in the interests of those of the Roman Catholic faith, and the administrative responsibility is primarily and principally that of the Roman Catholic separate school trustees. The academic curriculum is fully compatible with that of the public school system.
"While Ontario's separate schools in the elementary grades do not limit their enrolment exclusively to the Roman Catholic students, they attract few children of other denominations or religions if, for no other reason, than natural limitations of space and facilities. As for the public elementary schools, these are open and accessible to all without limitation or distinction. Children of every denomination of all faiths are represented and it is the right of the Roman Catholic parent and child, where both systems are available, to choose freely between them.
"The government of Ontario has come to consider each of these in the elementary system, public and separate, as part of the whole, subject to the same general requirements as to the standards in curriculum and each entitled to an equal measure of public support and assistance. It is clearly understood that there is not, nor could there be, any attempt by government to diminish the right of Roman Catholics to have free access to their own separate elementary schools, nor could there be any government policy which would have the effect of inhibiting the right of choice of parent and child to attend the public schools if such is preferred.
"Whatever the wisdom and foresight of its architects, none could foresee a century ago the educational system the people of Ontario enjoy today, the many changes it has undergone, the expansion of its services and facilities, the broadening of its curriculum and the significance of both its value and cost to the community.
"From the outset, as the secondary schools grew to become an integral part of the public school system, they have been determinedly and deliberately nondenominational and nonsectarian. Such has been the fundamental characteristic of government policy from the time of Ontario's first Prime Minister, the Honourable John Sandfield Macdonald, and this policy has been supported by every party while in power since that time.
"It will be recalled that one of Macdonald's first initiatives in the field of education was to terminate grants paid over the preceding three decades to church-related colleges and universities. Flowing from that decision in the long course of events, Ontario has today a widely accepted, well-established system of nondenominational, publicly supported universities.
"At the same time, over the years there have been continued changes in the financial arrangements with regard to the separate schools at the elementary level, all of them salutary. I have little doubt that further changes can and will be made. In any such system anomalies and inequities are inherent and only patience and goodwill can resolve and remedy them.
"Without question, the separate school system today represents a much broader program and a far more substantial commitment than could have been envisioned at the time of Confederation. It serves its purpose well and remains a source of satisfaction to its supporters, just as it has been a contributing factor to the stability and steady progress that has characterized the development of our province and its people.
"At the turn of the century, when secondary education was unavailable to many young people, the suggestion was made, and agreed upon, that public school trustees be granted the power to operate classes in elementary schools through to what is now the grade 10 level. Soon after, the same privilege was extended to the separate school trustees. None the less, while the decision offered a practical and sensible solution for many who would have been otherwise disadvantaged, it was never intended as an encroachment upon the principle of a free, nondenominational and nonsectarian secondary school system, accessible to all and supported by all.
"The government of Ontario believes it has an essential responsibility to maintain this principle and is sustained in this belief by the judgements and policies of its predecessors and in the last analysis by consideration for the broad general interests of the people of Ontario."
The Acting Speaker: Order. I am obliged to draw the honourable member's attention to standing order 19(d)4, which refers to reading verbatim from reports of legislative debates or any other document.
Mr. Philip: You have to be kidding.
The Acting Speaker: I do not have to be kidding at all. I only say to the honourable member --
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --
The Acting Speaker: I have the floor. Thank you.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --
The Acting Speaker: I have the floor.
If somewhere in all of that reading, however interesting it may be, I saw some relationship to Bill 74, I would be pleased to hear argument in that regard. Otherwise, I really feel it falls clearly within standing order 19(d)4 regarding reading verbatim from reports.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If you attempt to invoke that rule this evening, from here on you will have to make the same ruling against every Tory back-bencher who gets up to read a speech in its entirety, as they are wont to do every Thursday afternoon on private members' day, when every speech is prepared for them, or on any other issue when speeches are prepared for them. Not a day will go by when those fellows over there will force you to make the same ruling against them.
Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Martel: The member should sit down. I have the floor. He knows he cannot rise in the middle of a point of order.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I am considering the point of order being offered by the member for Sudbury East. At the completion of his point, I shall hear whatever else is necessary.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, from his intervention in that manner you would never be able to tell that at one time he was the Chairman of the committees of the whole House.
Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sitting down listening to him. If that were not the case, I would not be sitting down.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: Sit down again.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Sudbury East, I would ask you to address your point.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I make two points. You have now intervened twice, the first time at the behest of interjections by the government and later by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), when it was said that the member could not speak on the separate school issue. I do not know what the government borrows money for if it does not go into the fund to be distributed there.
Maybe the Treasurer is prepared to tell us, because you intervened on his behalf to tell us he is going to separate the money he is going to borrow very nicely over at the Treasury and say, "This pile is for this issue, and none of it comes from" --
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This year, you silly man.
Mr. Martel: Do not tell me about being a silly man.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: You got the Speaker to rule on your behalf when he should have told you to mind your own business.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is my business, Elie.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Sudbury East, I would ask you to draw to the chair's attention as quickly as you can the point of order you wish to raise.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if you rule that my friend cannot read --
Mr. Sheppard: He cannot.
Mr. Martel: My friend can scream from behind the paper all he wants.
If you make this ruling, Mr. Speaker, there is not a Tory who is going to be able to make a speech in this Legislature, because they read everything in its entirety.
Make up your mind, Mr. Speaker. If you are going to rule that way against this member, from here on you will have to put down every Tory who starts to read, and you will be forced to do it daily.
Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: With all due respect to the member for Sudbury East, for whom I have great respect from time immemorial. I think it has to be pointed out that the issue is not whether the member is reading; it is whether it is pertinent to the debate. The reading by the member for St. Catharines, I respectfully submit, has nothing to do with what is before the House, namely, Bill 74, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
I could understand a degree of latitude, which the chair allows from time to time, but under the circumstances, I respectfully submit that the Speaker is right in this case. He has drawn the line with regard to the degree of latitude, and he has rightly called the member to order to get on with the debate on Bill 74.
Mr. Martel: Where are the funds going that they borrow?
The Acting Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, come to order, please.
Mr. Gillies: The silly member for Sudbury East.
The Acting Speaker: Please ignore the interjection.
Mr. Martel: Tell me where the money is going that you are borrowing. When you start ruling things out of order, I want to know where the money that he is going to borrow is going. Some of it I bet is going to go to assist the separate school system.
The Acting Speaker: I have heard the argument that the member for Sudbury East has to offer on the point of order. I have heard from the member for Durham East. I will hear from the member for Essex South, and then I will make an adjudication.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that you have ruled that the member is reading from a particular document and that is therefore out of order. I just want to draw to your attention, as the member for Sudbury East already has, that on many occasions it is the practice of government back-benchers to read speeches, and we have sat willingly and listened to the speeches that have been read by those members.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Mancini: Second, it also is the practice in the House for members to read into the record letters they receive. There has been a practice established in the House for members to read out sections of different periodicals or articles that may be interesting or have some effect on the debate.
What the member for St. Catharines is doing is picking out a few short pages of some public document that he feels may have an impact on the debate. In my view, that is not different from having a government back-bencher reading a speech or someone reading a letter. I really cannot see how he is out of order.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I would like to point out to you that members of this House have never seen members such as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) give a speech that was not read from a prepared text.
The Acting Speaker: I have listened with great interest to the comments of all members and would draw to the attention of the House that standing order 19(d)4 provides that a member is out of order if he "in the opinion of the Speaker, refers at length to debates of the current session or reads unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or any other document."
Having listened with great interest, I find the member for St. Catharines has been reading verbatim from a document that was once before this House and which does not in my estimation, to this point at least, have relevance to the matter before the House, Bill 74. In giving him the privilege of the floor again, I simply ask him to direct his comments back to the bill at hand, in the light of the standing order I have just recited for the benefit of the House.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a government so afraid of the words of its own Premier. I would have thought there would have been round after round of applause at the words of the Premier. This debate did not take place, as I understand it, in the House. This is simply a statement by the Premier that guides me in my deliberations of this bill, which includes borrowing for this year. For instance, I am wondering why in this year, in this borrowing, money was not allocated for general assistance to separate schools. I wanted to assist members in knowing what my Premier's as well as your Premier's view happened to be on this subject.
Related to your suggestion that the member for St. Catharines is reading extensively, I am certainly reading extensively from this speech of the Premier's because I would not want in any way to be inaccurate in bringing to the attention of the members of this House the words of the Premier on that occasion. I think those words are so very relevant to the issue of educational finance, which the Speaker will understand I was discussing the other day.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: What you are talking about will not start until next year's budget.
Mr. Shymko: The silly games of silly kids.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: The member for St. Catharines has the floor.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for allowing me to continue. I would add that in the fiscal year we are talking about for borrowing purposes, there are many separate school boards in Ontario that would have wanted to have had included in the moneys being raised through this bill a greater allocation to assist them in meeting the obligations many had anticipated they might be able to meet in the years ahead.
Even our own Premier made a statement on this in 1971, when he said:
"The government of Ontario believes it has an essential responsibility to maintain this principle and is sustained in this belief by the judgements and policies of his predecessors and in the last analysis by consideration for the broad general interests of the people of Ontario.
"The government has therefore concluded that it cannot support the proposals of the Ontario Separate School Trustees Association," whether -- if I may interject in this particular statement at this time -- this borrowing would be in this year, in previous years or in the next year.
"In the question as to whether or not the government of Ontario should extend tax support to secondary separate schools beyond grade 10, we do not believe the refusal to do so rescinds any constitutional right, nor does it offer any future limitation or condition to the voluntary decision of any parent or child to choose between a secondary education in the public school system, or in the private school of their choice."
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wrye: Tell the government members not to be so embarrassed.
Mr. Shymko: We are not embarrassed.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will try once again to relate this to our debate tonight.
The Premier went on to say:
"If, on the other hand, the government of Ontario were arbitrarily to decide to establish and maintain, out of public funds, a complete educational system determined by denominational and religious considerations, such a decision would fragment the present system beyond recognition and repair and to do so to the disadvantage of all those who have come to want for their children a public school system free of a denominational or sectarian character."
That obviously was a concern at that time, as was fragmentation. Perhaps this explains why in this borrowing bill --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Fourteen years have passed. Circumstances have changed. If the member does not have enough intelligence to understand that, it is his fault and no one else's.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Fragmentation was another concern expressed at that time. This may have been why the Treasurer, in this particular bill, did not borrow more than was designated in the bill. Maybe he felt he was going to be involved, as the Premier suggested in 1971, in fragmentation. The Premier said:
"To embark upon such a policy could not be, in reason or justice, limited to some faiths and denied to others, nor could it, in logic, be limited to the elementary and academic secondary school systems alone. We would inevitably be obliged to proceed throughout all our educational institutions to fragment and divide both our young people and our resources from kindergarten through post-graduate university studies.
"We have spent considerable time examining the contention set out in the brief of the separate school trustees that the new emphasis on continuous education and greater flexibility of curriculum offerings makes it mandatory that the separate schools be allowed to extend their program beyond the grade 10 level.
"It should be stressed, however, in response to that contention, that there can be no valid educational program that does not take into account the interests, intellectual abilities and the psychological growth of children at various stages in their development. As a result, effective integration of elementary and secondary education must be carried out through the curriculum design, through varied learning methods and through a whole variety of organizational arrangements. There will be no real break in continuity of learning, whatever the authorities involved, if the receiving school is organized to deal with students on an individual basis.
"In the public school sector, children move from one school to another at various stages of their development, and the traditional advancement from elementary to the secondary" --
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was under the impression that in second reading of a bill, one should attempt to stay within breathing distance of the intent of the bill. The honourable member is reading a speech that has really nothing to do with the bill. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would like to pass judgement on that.
Mr. Speaker: If we are discussing a bill, we should address ourselves to the bill and not to other matters.
Mr. Wrye: That is just what the member is doing.
Mr. Speaker: I have just come into the chair, and I shall make that judgement as the time unfolds.
9 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to inform you that I have only three short pages to complete in bringing to the attention of the House the statement of my Premier on this important subject, which relates to this bill, because there is a borrowing aspect, and this bill deals with educational finance. I want to ensure that all members of the assembly are aware of the Premier's views in 1971 and how they are or are not reflected in the budgetary policy of the minister.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have been listening diligently to the member for St. Catharines. There are two explanations for the activity he is indulging in at the moment. One is that he wants to prove to everyone in this House and in his constituency that he is capable of reading. I think he has proved that.
The second is that he is trying to make an extremely tenuous connection between the statement of the Premier in 1971 and the ability of the Treasurer to borrow, based on today's statement on the extension of support for separate school education.
I would like to remind the honourable member that the cost of additional funds in support of the exercise announced today comes into effect in the fiscal year following this one, not the fiscal year 1984-85, but the fiscal year 1985-86. Therefore, there is no possible connection between the arguments being put by the member related to his activity in reading a speech from 1971 and the debate on the Treasurer's bill.
Mr. Gillies: That is the issue.
Mr. Bradley: The issue is whether or not we are going to let the members of the government party run this House tonight.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the issue is that if we refer ourselves --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has nothing to do with this bill.
Mr. Bradley: It does have. You are just embarrassed by the Premier's statement.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not the least bit embarrassed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we may have undivided attention for a moment.
Mr. Martel: You have not ruled yet.
Mr. Speaker: How perceptive. I would refer the member for St. Catharines --
Interjections.
Mr. Martel: Are you going to cut off every Tory from now on who reads his speech?
Mr. Speaker: Order. If we may just address ourselves to standing order 19(d)4, and if I may refresh everybody's memory, standing order 19(d)4 states that a member shall be called to order if he, "In the opinion of the Speaker, refers at length to debates of the current session, or reads unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or any other document." I ask the member to address himself to the bill.
Mr. Bradley: I am going to --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the member quite obviously has been referring to other documents, as cited in the standing orders, and I ask him to address his remarks specifically to the bill.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out in this House, with that kind of ruling you really invite --
Mr. Speaker: It is in the book.
Mr. Bradley: I know it is in the book, and I know the Treasurer, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and the former chief government whip have been badgering all night about this, but I want to say this to you -- and I respect you as the Speaker as opposed to some of the others who have attempted to be Speaker tonight -- I have observed in this House over seven years many members reading from documents and many members who read their speeches.
I have not objected to that because I recognize that some people work better from prepared notes and others work better extemporaneously. I respect that being the case. Each member has a strength and a weakness in terms of public speaking, and perhaps a strength and a weakness in other aspects of this job.
If the member is now going to suggest that because I happen to be reading the words of our own Premier, making a major statement relating to educational finance -- and we are talking about finance this evening -- that is not relevant to the debate, I will be extremely surprised. As I say, I have only three short pages which I will complete in very short order and I will not cause any further kerfuffle if I am permitted to complete those short excerpts that relate to this bill this evening.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have not listened to all this debate and it may well be that the member for St. Catharines is out of order, but I would bring to your attention that he should not be ruled out of order for simply referring to and quoting from another speech. If you rule him out of order on those grounds, the Treasurer may not have the privilege in future of reading the budget address, because it is read in its entirety from a detailed speech. I think this is a very unhealthy precedent you are setting.
Mr. Nixon: May I speak?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly you may.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling there are two points of order being confused here. The one that may have some validity -- God forbid and I would not say so -- is that the money we are talking about is not going to be spent on the matter my colleague is raising, if it were examined in the narrow-minded way of some observers opposite. There may be at least an argument there.
Please let me beseech you, however, not to rule my colleague out of order because he is reading. That is in the rule book, but if it were to be applied in this House the place would become silent and even more irrelevant than it already is. I beseech you not to rule him out of order because he is reading. There may be another argument, but that one is extremely risky. I certainly hope you will not proceed that way.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has made a very valid point, but really it has nothing to do with reading speeches.
Mr. Nixon: That is the rule you keep quoting.
Mr. Speaker: No, with all respect, it is not. I will again quote 19(d)(4): "In the opinion of the Speaker, refers at length to debates of the current session, or reads unnecessarily from verbatim reports of legislative debates or any other document." With all respect, that has nothing to do with members reading speeches or whatever. Tonight, we are addressing ourselves to a bill.
Mr. Martel: Would the Speaker help me then?
Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. We are here addressing ourselves to a specific matter. The member has gone on at great length, which I do not call him to order on, but I think he has made his point and should carry on with the matter of the bill itself.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what one calls it when the Treasurer comes in with his budget and each member is given a document, in which appears the entire speech. The Treasurer then gets up and reads massive amounts from that document.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: His own speech.
Mr. Martel: No, it is a document, and that is what the rule says, "any document." That is where you are going to get yourself in Dutch because we might say it is a document and --
Mr. Shymko: This is unreal, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Martel: No, the Treasurer simply reads from a document. We should not have to listen to that document being read. He could just table it.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think the member may have misunderstood what I have said. I point out once more that it has nothing to do with reading speeches. Having said that, I would ask the member for St. Catharines to address himself to the bill.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I will continue addressing the bill, as I have been all evening, both before you were here and at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Are you going to ignore what the Speaker has said?
Mr. Bradley: I do not need any advice from the member for Mississauga East.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You heard the ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bradley: I know he does not want to hear the Premier's words read back into the record, but I think they are important and relevant to this debate tonight.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think it is more important to address yourself to the bill.
Mr. Bradley: I am addressing myself to the bill.
We want to know why the Treasurer would not include more money for education in his borrowing bill. It is obvious that those who have been involved with the separate school system for years have said, "Look, in this fiscal year, why have you not spent additional money to provide funding for the secondary level of education?" That is why we borrow part of it. There was no objection.
The Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities will understand. I discussed this very aspect the other night, and perhaps you were in the House at the time, Mr. Speaker. When I talked about educational finance that did not deal directly with separate schools but instead dealt with public schools, there was absolutely no objection from members of the government side.
Of course, I did not invoke the words of the Premier at that time, and now that as a continuation of that line of debate I am discussing not the public school aspect but the separate school aspect of funding as it relates to this bill, we get some objections from the government side.
Perhaps one of the reasons the Treasurer did not include in that borrowing the additional funds for this fiscal year for the separate school system was the mobility and advantage argument advanced by the Premier in 1971 when he said --
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I am not really sure what the Premier said in 1971 has any relevance to this bill tonight.
Mr. Bradley: It does have relevance, in fairness. I know it is embarrassing to members of the government side, but it does have relevance.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, if I may point out to the honourable member, it has no embarrassment for me as Speaker and I would suggest the member address himself to the bill or I shall have to rule him out of order and move on to the next speaker.
Mr. Bradley: Then I will speak on the bill until 10:30 p.m. I will invoke part of that during the evening, but we will talk generally about education finance in Ontario.
Prior to this bill we did not have any inkling of this, during this bill we did not have any inkling of this, but at long last the government in this province has decided that education finance is going to be a matter of great importance.
In 1975 the government of Ontario provided 61-odd per cent of the cost of education in this province. This government has allowed the percentage of the cost of education assumed by the province to fall from 61.3 per cent or thereabouts to about 48.5 per cent.
There have been many boards of education in this province, including the separate school boards, which would well remember the statement of the Premier of Ontario in 1971 that the Speaker will not let me read into the record tonight in this House.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is irrelevant.
Mr. Bradley: It is not irrelevant. The Minister of Education and the government members do not want to hear it.
Mr. Wrye: They just do not like what is in it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for St. Catharines has the floor.
Mr. Bradley: The people who are involved at the lower levels of government as they are called, at the municipal level, and that includes boards of education, separate school boards and public school boards, are concerned --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: The ones who were threatened.
Mr. Bradley: Yes.
I do not have any statements by the Premier on this, but I do want to recall to members of this House that in 1973 -- I apologize to the House for referring to something that was said in 1973 because we are not supposed to refer to anything the Premier has said in the past in this House.
I can understand why the member for Mississauga East is grinning. He is running this place like a dictatorship. I understand why he is happy this evening. He sits there with a big grin on his face.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it has to be privilege because I do not know why the member made that statement: He knows I am no longer House leader, I am no longer whip. How he calculates that I run this place with a rule of iron, I do not know, but I really think the member is a little out of line.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Bradley: To continue, in 1973, members of this House would recall that this same government of the Premier who made this statement in 1971 was involved in a commitment to municipalities across the province called the Edmonton commitment. As I recall the provisions of that commitment, this government agreed to pass along to municipalities transfer payments in the same percentage as the increase in revenue for the province. Whether it would involve borrowing or not, that was the commitment that was made.
Unfortunately, municipalities in the province, and many of us who have served on municipal councils will remember this, have not had the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of that promise. because this government has decided to ignore it.
We in the opposition would like to have seen from this borrowing on the part of the Treasurer, more allocation of funds to environmental matters. For instance, tonight there is a fancy dinner at the Harbour Castle Hilton which the Premier is putting on, with a reception and so on. It will be attended by a number of people. There will be a big show about concern for water quality in the province. It will be an opportunity for the person who is designated to look after the area of natural resources to get his name before the public. It will give the illusion that this government is working hard to clean up the environment and the water resources in Ontario, but it will certainly not necessarily provide for us the funds necessary to clean up our waterways.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) has expressed his concerns about our waterways in the province, probably first as mayor of a municipality which fronts on one of the Great Lakes and of course as Minister of the Environment now. When I look at the borrowing that will take place for the purposes of government expenditures, I am disappointed that more was not designated to allow the minister to carry out his duties and responsibilities as minister because, at least in the speeches I have heard him make, he has indicated his desire to see more done in the field of cleaning up the environment.
He certainly wanted to be an aggressive minister in this regard, but because sufficient funds are not being designated out of these borrowings for his ministry. I do not feel he can carry out the responsibilities the way he would probably like to in the optimum circumstances. Certainly those of us in opposition would like to have seen more money allocated to his ministry.
I think of the fact that in the Niagara Peninsula we had a decrease, not an increase, in the number of staff at the Welland office. Anyone who knows the Niagara Peninsula well knows there have been real problems, genuine problems that have arisen in terms of air pollution, soil pollution and water pollution, and that there is a need for continuous monitoring and investigation of the sources of pollution.
9:20 p.m.
Unfortunately, because the borrowings are designated for things other than what we feel they should be, such as the environment, they have been understaffed in the Niagara Peninsula in the field of environment.
Also, I look at other areas for which these funds might be designated. I see the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) in the House tonight. We know Ontario Hydro takes up a lot of money in this province. It is not necessarily direct tax dollars, but the ratepayers of this province must pay a considerable amount of money. It would have been a pleasure to see more money designated to the Minister of Energy so he could explore, on an even more extensive basis, the possibility of finding alternatives to the generation of electric power, alternative fuels that could be developed and an alternative industry that could be nurtured and assisted in this province.
I think of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. We know the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) has allowed that there are problems in Ontario in terms of organized crime and that he would appreciate the opportunity to have more of the money being borrowed this evening. Because I do want to relate to this bill, I will not quote the Premier because I am not allowed to quote him when he is making an embarrassing statement, but I know more of this money that is designated from this bill might have gone to combat organized crime.
I well recall members of this party over the years demonstrating a clear interest, and I think it is an interest shared by all members of this party, in clearing up crime in this province. Money could have been designated for that purpose.
I look at the Ministry of Northern Affairs. My friend, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who has the responsibility as critic for Northern Affairs, would say people in the north have been neglected by this government because in its borrowing policy it has not raised sufficient funds to meet the real needs of northern Ontario, some needs which are not present in southern Ontario.
One needs only to look to the transportation systems in northern Ontario --
Mr. Boudria: And in eastern Ontario.
Mr. Bradley: -- and in eastern Ontario, as my friend from eastern Ontario, the Consumer and Commercial Relations critic for the official opposition, points out. In Prescott-Russell many problems are experienced that are similar to those experienced in northern Ontario.
I know my relatives in northern Ontario have described the road system there and have told me how the frost has a damaging effect on highways in northern Ontario. When highways are constructed with the money to be borrowed by the provincial Treasurer, it is more difficult to construct them in northern Ontario because they have to blast in certain circumstances. In fact, they blast in northern Ontario to get a highway through in many more circumstances than would be the case in other places.
I am also aware that the Queensway in Ottawa has been an area of great concern. For seven years people there have been awaiting a final construction program which will allow the Queensway to serve the people in that part of the province appropriately. Time after time members of the opposition have risen in this House and clearly said to the government opposite that they wished to see this program accelerated, to see the construction out of the way, to see it completed appropriately, so the roadway system is conducive to the correct operation of traffic in that part of the province.
I look at post-secondary education. I do not have a statement from the Premier on post-secondary education, but I suppose if I did have one and it was not as embarrassing as this one, I would be allowed to read that in the House, but I am not going to be allowed to read that in the House.
We look at the debt records in terms of post-secondary education. We would note that some institutes of post-secondary education have been forced to go into deficit financing for reasons beyond their control. They have had an influx of students into the universities. I use Brock as an example. Brock University has been very popular, most particularly in recent years. In recent years there has been a necessity for increased funding from the borrowing this minister is going to undertake under this particular bill, and the Speaker wants me to speak to this bill.
They have found at Brock that funding has not been sufficient. They have had to scrimp, save and do without a lot of essential services and facilities at Brock. They have had leaks in parts of the buildings because they have not had sufficient funding from the borrowings of the Treasurer to assist them.
We have to service post-secondary education in this province in an appropriate fashion. This government has fallen behind, according to the Council of Ontario Universities. That is not an alarmist group, but it is concerned that in a world where we must be ever-competitive and where we are facing strong competition from countries such as Japan and from Europe, there are problems arising in the provision of facilities and unique opportunities ordinarily available in post-secondary education.
There are needs that must be met in health care. I do not have any statements from the Premier on health care, but I am certain, if they were not embarrassing, I could read them into the record tonight. In the Niagara Peninsula, if I may be parochial enough to speak of it, there is a need for nursing home beds. There are a lot of people on waiting lists.
Those of us who represent the region, the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and the members on the government side, are aware of this, although the latter have not necessarily raised it publicly. There is a genuine need for additional funding from the borrowings of the province to provide nursing home care and old age homes, if we use that terminology -- senior citizens homes, in other words -- and hospital facilities.
For instance, the St. Catharines General Hospital has put forward to the Niagara District Health Council a very reasonable proposal for increased funding to meet its chronic care needs. We have a deplorable situation in what we call the McSloy wing, which in 1911 served the population of St. Catharines very well. Today it is somewhat less than the proudest part of the St. Catharines General Hospital.
That is not because of the excellent care provided by the nursing staff and others who assist in caring for many kinds of elderly chronic patients in the hospital. It is because of the physical plant itself. A very reasonable proposal has been made for the updating and expansion of emergency care at that hospital. When I look at the amount of money being borrowed by this government and see that money is not being designated as it should be for health care and other services in my constituency, then I am disappointed and must express my point of view.
We also have a need for funding for community and social services. Last night I had the opportunity to address the West Lincoln and District Association for the Mentally Retarded where we have a very active volunteer group. I am sure the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) knows many of those people on a personal basis. No doubt he has worked with them.
He would agree with me that the borrowing policy of this government should be such that sufficient funds are gathered to assist those who are at a disadvantage, that is, the mentally handicapped. The money could be used for core residences and other facilities that could be provided to assist the mentally handicapped anywhere in this province, and certainly in the St. Catharines and West Lincoln areas where the funds would be welcomed.
9:30 p.m.
Also, in community and social services, the regional municipality of Niagara would be pleased to see more money designated for welfare purposes. Unemployment in the province over the past few years has been a tremendous drain on the resources of that area. When a person is unemployed, he does not benefit, if there is such a thing as benefiting, from a lower income tax. I have to explain that. If a person happens to be making $25,000 a year and becomes unemployed, at least in that year that person will pay less in income tax. The property tax will remain the same, however, regardless of that person's personal income.
Therefore, it is an increasingly difficult chore or responsibility for those people to pay municipal property taxes when they are in circumstances where they are unemployed. That is why the people of the regional municipality of Niagara, in particular those who have the responsibility for the delivery of services, are concerned that the Treasurer borrow sufficient funds to provide that amount of money.
When I rose to speak in the House this evening, I intended to speak for approximately 15 minutes, but I found myself needing to elaborate on many of the needs we have that would arise out of this bill. I want to address myself to those needs, without quoting from the Premier.
I look at the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and note that library systems in this province have suffered from the fact that the provincial government has not recently increased its per capita grant. By not increasing its per capita grant to local library systems, the provincial government has forced municipalities to take one of two actions. One is to tell libraries they must cut back their essential services to their communities or, two, to inform the municipalities they must raise more money from the local property tax to ensure there is sufficient money to run a good library system. I am sure those people are concerned about that.
I have also addressed letters to the Treasurer and others, such as the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean), on the need for funding from the borrowings of this bill for housing needs in this province. Believe it or not, a lot of people in this province are unable to afford any kind of decent housing.
In my first years as a member of the Legislature, I did not receive all that many calls about those who were desperately in need of emergency housing. More and more I now find that people are phoning to say: "I am living in a car, a tent or a motel on a temporary basis. I really need emergency housing and there just is none."
I go to the North Niagara Housing Authority to see what the general circumstances are. It is not my prerogative to tell them whom they should and should not admit to their housing units. I do not believe in operating in that way, but I do like to look at the general circumstances that exist in subsidized housing. I find that there are long waiting lists for senior citizens' units and family units. That is a problem.
The people in Metropolitan Toronto have raised this issue on many occasions. There is a real need for that. In the riding of Kitchener-Wilmot, the member would have received in Wilmot township and other areas --
Mr. Sweeney: Hundreds of families are waiting for subsidized housing.
Mr. Bradley: He tells me hundreds of families are waiting for subsidized housing that could be assisted through the provisions of this bill, but have not been appropriately assisted.
With respect to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, there are many highways and bridges in this province that require building and reconstruction which could help the private sector. I am not looking for the government to go looking for particular projects, but there are a lot of projects that are at present on the books that would be very useful in this regard. I suggest that the borrowings of the provincial government could be applied in that area.
The wine industry is very hard hit. I am going to sound parochial in saying so, but in the Niagara Peninsula the wine industry has been hard hit.
My friend the member for Prescott-Russell advanced a proposal in this House in the form of a private member's bill that would have allowed small independent grocery stores in this province to have the opportunity to sell Ontario wines to customers to make them more available.
This was greeted with a good deal of enthusiasm, even though the scare tactics used by the government in an attempt to influence certain members of the wine industry worked to a certain extent. This would have gone a long way. It finally prompted the government to take action because I see a task force has now been appointed to deal with the wine industry. I think part of that can be traced to the fact that the member for Prescott-Russell, the Consumer and Commercial Relations critic for the Ontario Liberal caucus, was instrumental in raising this issue as one of importance in this House.
With regard to agriculture in our part of the province, I know the grape growers appreciated the efforts of my colleague in doing this. We know our wineries are suffering because of unemployment. Many people who are normally Progressive Conservative supporters in the Niagara Peninsula have voiced their concern about this to me. On January 3 or 4 in the resources development committee of this House, I advanced to the Treasurer the need to borrow funds, if necessary, to provide assistance to the wine industry.
One area that does not seem to need much assistance is the preparation for the bicentennial activities of this province. That seems to be doing very well, thank you. A sufficient amount, $10 million, has been designated for that purpose. We are getting ready for our bicentennial in 1991 and we are celebrating it early.
However, many of us are planting the trees. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) spoke at some length on this. He said: "If there is a party, I guess we will all enjoy it. We will plant the trees. We will greet our famous visitors to this province and so on." But one thing we will not do is read the remarks the Premier made in 1971 , even if we do talk about those other things.
I look at the area of tourism and recreation. The member for Niagara Falls has always spoken in this House of the need for assistance for tourism and recreation in this province to attract people particularly from outside the province. Whether or not it is necessary to have ads hour after hour within the province to attract Ontarians to Ontario is a matter of some question, but there is absolutely no question it is useful to have these ads on in Quebec, south of the border or perhaps in Manitoba where we might be able to encourage people to come to this province instead of simply trying to pat the government on the back by running these ads in our own province.
Mr. Philip: They would not come to this province before now because they would have to pay to have their kids go to separate schools.
Mr. Bradley: I wanted to read a quotation on that, but I have not been permitted to do so because it would be embarrassing to the government and the Premier.
I want to look at the area of industry and trade. I notice there was an announcement made in Brampton that this government is getting involved in the automotive industry to the tune of some $60 million. I guess there is always a bit of a worry, and it is probably shared by many on the government side, that governments have to fork out this much money to encourage people to invest. I also understand the competition is tough. The government is not doing it because it wants to do it but because other jurisdictions are offering the same incentives that might be made available.
With regard to providing information to those who want to develop their own small businesses --
Mr. Sweeney: Why not read our statement?
Mr. Bradley: I am not allowed to read anything to do with that. That is strictly out in this House. Every government member will read his speech in this House, but I am not allowed to read that in the House. I just wanted to explain that to the member because he did come in a little later.
Looking at the area of labour, many in this House have expressed a concern about occupational health and safety. The member for Sudbury East has been among them, as has the member for Essex South and others. They have expressed concern, as I think all of us have, for occupational health and safety in this province and the need to borrow funds, under this particular bill we are discussing tonight, so we can assist in providing the appropriate atmosphere for making people aware of the need for an advancement in occupational health and safety. We would be pleased if the minister were to say that is how he is spending the money he is borrowing under this bill.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché). On second thought, the member for St. Catharines.
Mr. Sweeney: Thank you. That gave him a chance for a glass of water.
Mr. Bradley: I want to thank the member for Cochrane North.
Mr. Boudria: Who was not in his chair.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: To continue my remarks, with regard to Citizenship and Culture, I am aware that were the Treasurer borrowing sufficient funds this evening under the auspices of this bill, he would be in a position to provide assistance to the Folk Arts Council of St. Catharines, which would like to have the provincial government make funds available to it so it can expand its facilities.
The Treasurer no doubt will be aware, as I know the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) is aware, that the Folk Arts Council of St. Catharines is interested in providing a variety of services, particularly to the immigrant population, in our part of the province. I am sure others provide a similar service in other parts of the province. If this bill were to contain funds borrowed for that purpose, I know this group would be particularly pleased.
I know many groups in the province in the field of recreation would be pleased to receive funding from the provincial government to assist in providing an opportunity for young and older people in this province to be involved in recreation and therefore to increase the amount of exercise available to them and those things that are good for their health.
The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has been responsive enough to reply to my many questions in the House over the years, along with the former Minister of Government Services, when I have asked about the need for a courthouse in St. Catharines. At long last we do have a courthouse in St. Catharines; it was opened recently, and I had an opportunity to participate at its opening. It was not at the invitation of the government members. I did, however, take the opportunity to participate at the opening, pleased that the government on that occasion had been involved in borrowing funds for that purpose.
What has arisen, and what requires this kind of borrowing, is the fact that what we used to call a grand jury and now known as a public institutions inspection panel has come forward and recommended some improvements be made to the new courthouse. These improvements relate particularly to the circulation of air. Apparently, in the wintertime it is rather cold, in the summertime it is rather hot and other deficiencies have been identified. I know the Treasurer would want to designate a sufficient amount of funds for that.
In the field of Consumer and Commercial Relations, it is absolutely essential that we have more consumer protection in this province. I well recall a person who brought to my attention that he had written away for a book of financial advice. Obviously he did not write to the Treasurer; he wrote to some other person who had advertised in a publishing house, apparently. When he wrote to this publishing house, he sent his money order along and received nothing back. He then brought it to the attention of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, consumer complaints branch, and he was not satisfactorily dealt with, in his opinion. He felt the government should have assisted him instead of saying simply, "Go to small claims court."
I think the government should be more diligent in providing for those who have problems with those who are on the other side of the law in undertaking what amounts to fraud. The government should be involved in the enforcement of those provisions that are available to it to enforce. This, unfortunately, was not forthcoming from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in this case.
The Minister of Education is here this evening. I want to let her know that I am not going to quote the 1971 speech of the Premier on this; but we should talk, I think, about --
Mr. Swart: Sneak in a little bit.
Mr. Bradley: Oh, no. I do not want to put it in, because I would have been finished in 15 minutes had I been able to do that. I had no intention of speaking all night tonight until the government side insisted that I address matters other than the matter I was discussing at hand.
I want to talk about co-operative education and to know that the money raised by the Treasurer, who was so insistent that I not quote from this document, should go in greater quantities to co-operative education in this province. There is a genuine problem, not just in rural areas but in all areas, with transportation.
Interjection.
Mr. Bradley: There is so. Whether the minister says there is or is not, the people who are involved in the program and know what is going on say there is a problem, and I believe them. Relating my remarks to this bill, they say it would not take that much money out of the borrowing found in it. They feel a couple of million dollars would be well spent by boards of education to assist young people in the high schools to travel to jobs and to make provision for teacher-monitors and others to monitor and to organize the program.
They feel those funds should be made available. I agree with them. I think that program is an outstanding success. I pay tribute to the local boards of education that have undertaken these programs and have not exactly been encouraged, as they might be by the Ministry of Education, through increased funding.
Mr. Sweeney: Lincoln county has one of the best.
Mr. Bradley: Lincoln county, I know, does have one of the best. Mr. Henry Froese has been in communication with me, and I am sure with others, over this issue.
I also know that my friend the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has circumstances in his riding that could use the funds to be borrowed under the auspices of this bill. Those funds would be designated for continuing education.
They had a rather innovative program in Prescott-Russell. The Minister of Education saw that program in effect. It was a very effective program that involved more and more people in the educational system, some 1,000 people. It provided assistance for some people who would be considered to be functionally illiterate. They were tremendously assisted by that program.
Unfortunately, having seen how effective it was, the Minister of Education then turned around and pulled the financial rug out from under the program.
Mr. Boudria: That was probably because it was working.
Mr. Bradley: My friend from Prescott-Russell suggests she cut it because it was working well.
We all remember the noncredit courses in continuing education that could be funded by the borrowing in this bill, those noncredit courses in continuing education that were not funded by the minister. She emasculated or devastated that program considerably by withdrawing the funding. Of course, that is so often the case.
We also know Bill 82 is going to require funding or at least special education in this area. It is going to require funding from this piece of legislation. This legislation would probably have been through by now tonight had I been allowed to continue my remarks, and certainly we could have gone on to other bills that I know members wanted to deal with, including interim supply which, of course, could evoke from me another speech of this length.
On that occasion I might be able to read the rest of the document I was reading in the House tonight that so disturbed members on the government side that they prevailed upon the Speaker not to allow me to continue reading it. I now have a new Speaker in the chair, so perhaps I should try him. That could probably wrap up my remarks this evening if I were to continue that, but it appears that is not going to be the case.
Mr. Philip: Which document?
Mr. Bradley: This is the document, Mr. Speaker, because I know you would be interested. This is how this problem arose.
I read from a statement by the Premier on the question of extended public assistance to the separate school system. This statement was made, I do not think in the House, at Queen's Park on Tuesday, August 31, 1971. I was in the process of reading it and relating it to this bill, because part of this bill dealt with educational finance.
I read much of it into the record, although there was continuous barracking from the other side. Although I am not one to say this is the case because I happen to like the people who were sitting in the chair on both occasions, they seemed to be intimidated by the government side that barracked constantly because I was simply reading the words of the Premier. What more important words could one quote back in the House than those of our own Premier's address?
It was related to this bill, which I had intended to speak on for 15 minutes in this House. I see the government House leader sitting there. I know he would have been pleased to have me sitting down at 8:30 tonight when I wanted to sit down after having addressed the subject of educational finance. But we had the barking and barracking from the other side, the interjections from the Minister of Education, and so I had to carry on.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And so like the mature person you are, very mature.
Mr. Bradley: The minister lectures on maturity.
Interjections.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: I am not going to talk about paying people under the minimum wage or anything like that; I am simply going to discuss those matters that are related to this bill.
I look at the Ministry of Correctional Services and wonder how much money will be generated in this borrowing bill for Correctional Services. Whether the government should have borrowed more or less, of course, is up to the judgement of the Management Board of Cabinet and others.
I would say that for programs to try to get people to be involved in a transition back to the community, as the former minister, who is here tonight -- I thought he did a good job in that ministry when he was the minister -- and who is now the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) --
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Piché: Will the member for St. Catharines sit down? I have the floor here because I have just called for a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: No, with all due respect, not quite yet.
M. Piché: M. le Président --
The Deputy Speaker: One moment. Order.
You have to wait until the chair recognizes you. Is the member rising on a point of order? We will hear the point of order.
M. Piché: M. le Président, avec le plus grand respect à l'honorable député de St-Catharines, attendu que l'ordre du jour de la Chambre s'est détérioré au niveau de l'absurdité absolue, je vous conseille de dissoudre cette Assemblée ou faire quelque chose. Je vous prie, M. le Président, de faire quelque chose, parce que ça, c'est ridicule.
Mr. Boudria: May I speak to that point?
Mr. Martel: What is his point of order?
The Deputy Speaker: If the members are prevailing on the chair, it might help, since I am not all that conversant with that language --
Mr. Samis: He did not say anything.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to repeat the same thing in English.
Mr. Martel: You do not have a point of order.
Mr. Piché: I have a point of order. I have a point of order.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I understand French quite fluently, and he did not have a point of order.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order --
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Shymko: The Speaker wants a translation, Elie.
Mr. Piché: I am just giving the Speaker a translation from français to English, as I am allowed to do in the Legislature of Ontario.
Mr. Shymko: It is an official language.
Mr. Piché: Right.
An hon. member: Nobody said he could not.
The Deputy Speaker: No one said he could not; I only suggest it might help me in my response to his point of order.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: With the greatest respect to the member for St. Catharines, since the business of this House has deteriorated to the point of being ridiculous, I ask you either to dissolve this House or to do something about it.
There is no way we can sit here and listen to the member for St. Catharines and, earlier, to the member for Oshawa. This has come to a stage that I as a back-bencher will not allow in this House. Either we do something or we dissolve this House.
The Deputy Speaker: Fine.
Mr. Sweeney: Dissolve the House?
Mr. Martel: What are you going to do, René?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member please take his seat. All honourable members know that this place is charged with a political debate. Let us remember that we are not to use language that can incite and provoke tempers; it is in our standing orders. May we proceed with the member for St. Catharines.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Piché: I will not allow the member for St. Catharines --
The Deputy Speaker: You are out of order.
Mr. Piché: No, I am not out of order.
The Deputy Speaker: With all due respect, you do not decide who proceeds and who does not.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would just like to second the motion of the member for Cochrane North.
The Deputy Speaker: You are out of order.
Mr. Sweeney: Where have you been for the last three days?
The Deputy Speaker: Member for St. Catharines, proceed with the debate.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, to continue my remarks on this debate, which are --
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, am I allowed to have a further point of order?
The Deputy Speaker: No.
Mr. Sweeney: Make a motion.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, you should speak to the member for St. Catharines. Tell him he is overdoing it and there is no way that we as legislators can understand or accept what he is saying.
Mr. Boudria: Are you against democracy?
Mr. Wrye: This democracy stuff must be terribly boring for you folks.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, had the member not been objecting strenuously and attempting to intimidate the chair in this issue, he would be listening to my remarks now. I do feel compelled to continue them and I will do so at your behest.
In terms of funds provided to post-secondary education, it was interesting to note in the newspaper the other day that the search committee for the new president of the University of Toronto indicated the new president would have to spend some one third of his time raising funds. It is absolutely outrageous that the president of a university would spend one third of his time raising funds.
The reason advanced was that Ontario provides $1,000 per student less than the Canadian average for post-secondary education. This is in a province where we have often said we have the best educational system and the best-financed educational system in the world.
Out of the funds derived from the Treasurer's bill this evening, there is certainly a need in this province for subsidized day care so single mothers can go out to work or be involved in retraining rather than having to sit at home and collect welfare. There are many of those people who, because of unfortunate circumstances, have been forced to stay at home. They have been forced to go on mother's allowance or general welfare benefits. I think the members as constituency persons would understand this.
From talking to our constituents, by telephone or in person and through the medium of letters, we know they want to get out and get a job. The Minister of Community and Social Services has been moving to assist people in this direction because most people, and I think he would agree, would like to work and support themselves. Any way we can assist in that regard is useful.
If we were to provide more subsidized day care in this province so single mothers could go out to work or be involved in retraining, we would diminish the welfare rolls and the amount of money that is necessary to be borrowed for those purposes. We would also give people the kind of dignity they are looking for throughout their lifetime.
As we know, the Young Offenders Act was held up for two years because the Ontario government would not agree to fund its fair share of this. Had sufficient funding been provided for the Young Offenders Act, we would have been in the position of not having to be in the circumstances we are in today.
Mr. Philip: Just as they did not fund separate schools over all these years.
Mr. Bradley: We would have been, but I am not allowed to talk about that tonight. I cannot quote the Premier on that at all tonight.
I must go to the Ministry of Government Services. There are a lot of buildings around this province which they could be building with the money that is to be raised by this bill. In areas of high unemployment, it would have been extremely useful for the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) to say to the Treasurer: "I think you should designate funds this year, under the auspices of this bill, so we can get the construction industry and the private sector moving once again either by constructing new buildings which the provincial government will require under the auspices of the Ministry of Government Services or renovating other buildings." This stimulates the private sector. It allows more people to be employed. Those people are spending money and, in turn, more money is then available for other purposes.
10 p.m.
We know the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs spends some of the government funding for various purposes. We want our minister to have sufficient funds available so he is able to converse on a continuing basis with members who have similar responsibilities in other provinces. If this bill does not provide sufficient borrowing for those purposes, then our minister would be forced to stay at home in Ontario and would not be able to converse, as he does so very well, with his counterparts across this country and in other countries.
We could not be represented by a better person than the present House leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), for that kind of diplomatic job, at least among those we can choose from on the government side.
Mr. Sweeney: Every government has at least one of them.
Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Community and Social Services is out.
Mr. Bradley: I thought I saw the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). There he is.
The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is over there. He is planning his next dinner with the member for Sudbury East.
Some hon. members: Fishing trip.
Mr. Bradley: His next fishing trip with the member for Sudbury East.
We would want his ministry to have sufficient funding available so he could monitor business enterprises such as High Park School because High Park School in the town of Pelham --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member is reaching.
Mr. Bradley: I had no intention of reaching tonight.
I know the government House leader will be disappointed his members have forced me to reach into various areas of spending because they would not let me dwell on one specific area of spending on separate schools. It would have taken about five more minutes, but I am compelled to go on.
I was talking about High Park School.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Very mature.
Mr. Bradley: I was not talking about paying below the minimum wage to any personal employees; do not worry about that. I was not talking about that, I say to the Treasurer.
Mr. Boudria: We should talk about government advertising.
Mr. Bradley: That could be the case.
Nevertheless, I was talking about High Park School and the responsibility both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations would have --
An hon. member: How much did the member get for that land he sold in Richmond Hill?
Mr. Bradley: Which the member discharged after I badgered him into it.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, come on. The member for St. Catharines knew absolutely nothing about it.
Mr. Bradley: I knew absolutely everything about it. Far more than the minister knew about it. I raised this issue on many occasions.
What happened was the person who operated it was a person who did not have a perfect record in terms of operating a business. I would have thought our alert Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, or at least officials of his ministry who in the past were caught asleep at the switch, would now be awake at the switch and would carefully monitor the person who was given the privilege of operating this business and putting Ontario's educational reputation on the line -- at least in other countries -- to ensure it was appropriately handled.
Unfortunately, the Minister of Education was finally forced to take action when this matter was raised. The health services department of the regional municipality of Niagara finally went in and closed the doors of this place --
Mr. Nixon: Thank God for Jim Bradley.
Mr. Bradley: -- because it recognized the conditions that existed there were adversely affecting the educational component of High Park School.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: if there is anything I cannot stand it is a petulant little boy such as Jim Bradley. Just because he did not figure it out in the first place, he will spend the next three months complaining about it.
Mr. Bradley: It was not as though the local people made the judgement. They said, You know, Bradley" -- they referred to me in that fashion -- "we thought you didn't look quite so good when the Ministry of Education went in and said: 'All is well at High Park School. We took a snapshot of it and it's fine.'
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member should hear the way they refer to him. It is not that pleasant.
Mr. Bradley: A person who is very high in the field of education and is now retired -- the minister would know him -- said to me: "I guess you were right after all. The ministry was finally forced to close this place down. They could not keep up the facade of an educational institution for much longer. They finally had to capitulate to your information, which was correct in the first place, and as a result the place was closed down."
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is absolute balderdash and the member knows it. Why does he keep misinforming the House?
Mr. Sweeney: The minister should watch her language.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Pardon me.
Mr. Bradley: I thought I heard the minister say something about misinforming the House. Did the Speaker hear it?
Mr. Sweeney: She swallowed her tongue.
The Deputy Speaker: I missed some of the interjections. I was paying rapt attention to the member's comments.
Mr. Sweeney: We heard it.
Mr. Bradley: Someone mentioned the need for scrubbers. I will not read the statement of the Premier on that because I have already got in trouble for reading one of his statements. Instead, I will talk about the need for scrubbers on the part of Ontario Hydro for its smokestacks.
When our Minister of the Environment goes south of the border to discuss acid rain, he is quite aggressive and he likes to talk to the Americans about what they can do to clean up acid rain. We are pleased to see that, as we are when the federal minister goes down to say the same.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the member intend to be repetitious?
Mr. Bradley: No.
Mr. Nixon: We have not done acid rain at all.
Mr. Bradley: I have not talked about acid rain and scrubbers yet.
The Deputy Speaker: I heard you discuss the frustrations of the Minister of the Environment.
Mr. Boudria: That was about water quality.
Mr. Bradley: That was about water quality. This is about scrubbers. The need for scrubbers is obvious. The Premier gave an indication that Ontario Hydro would install scrubbers. As a result, the emissions coming from the coal-fired plants in Ontario would be much cleaner emissions than we might have otherwise expected.
When any one of us, not just the Minister of the Environment, went south of the border to talk about air quality and acid rain, we could say that our own Ontario Hydro has undertaken a program to install scrubbers to ensure that with the funding --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for me to enter the debate. However, are we talking about the borrowings of Hydro?
Mr. Bradley: I am talking about how the Ontario government might be able to assist Ontario Hydro with the installation of scrubbers. If sufficient funds were available in this bill for that, we would be able to install those scrubbers and have much cleaner air than was the case in the past.
I have not spoken about the forest industry in Ontario yet. It requires assistance from the provincial government from time to time. We all remember the Brampton charter of 1977 when the Premier -- not in the document I attempted to read into the record in the House tonight for about 15 minutes, but in a speech he made in Brampton where he outlined the Brampton charter for his re-election in 1977 -- promised to have two new trees planted in Ontario for every one that was chopped down.
That was the kind of promise that would appeal to environmentalists, to those concerned about the future of our forests and to ecologists, but it has not been fulfilled, partly because of the lack of sufficient designation of funds borrowed under the auspices of this bill for those purposes.
There are some areas of northern Ontario that are almost becoming deserts because of the lack of planting, according to my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), who is familiar with these things. He says that unless we take some of the funds borrowed under this bill and designate them for the purpose of planting, we will be in difficult straits.
A lot of the borrowing taking place under this bill will be designated for the purpose of government advertising. Some government advertising is useful. For instance, there was the immunization program the government was insisting on in this province. There was advertising for that and I said, "Is it not a good idea to have an immunization program, and is it not a good idea to let the people know about it?" That is good, hard information, the kind that would get support over here any time.
There are other kinds of advertising taking place that have to be borrowed for under the auspices of this bill. When the government provides some funds to a hospital in one specific area of the province, we get a third of a page or a half-page ad saying, "Your Ontario government has provided this much money for this project." That could be done through a press release. The minister would not have to borrow as much under the auspices of this bill if that kind of unnecessary advertising were eliminated.
10:10 p.m.
I believe I saw a figure of 17 per cent projected as the increase in spending under the money borrowed by the provincial Treasurer for advertising purposes. I think this is outrageous in the year 1984, but certainly totally to be expected as we head into an election in the fall or next year, whenever it happens to be. The Treasurer would be well advised to cut back on his borrowing in that area or at least to designate the funds in his borrowing for purposes other than government advertising, which is a nonessential purpose.
Money is needed to pay interest for land banking in this province, in Edwardsburgh, Townsend and so on. It is unfortunate that in the past a small-c conservative government undertook to become involved in land banking schemes which now require funds to be designated for interest payments on those schemes. I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the government was unwise at that time and we are now paying the consequences.
Perhaps, as the Treasurer suggested in his budget, which was a document he read to the House -- he read directly from that whole document without any kind of interjection or reprimand from either his own members or the Speaker -- the government will be involved in some considerable spending there and might well be wise to unload some of the pieces of land it unfortunately purchased in the past. They might be able to get back some of their money.
We know a certain amount of money was designated for Minaki Lodge -- $45 million overall. If the federal government had undertaken an expenditure of that kind for the same kind of project it would be called a national catastrophe, but this government seems to have coasted through that to a certain extent, although it has received some adverse publicity.
The Treasurer would not have to borrow as much money if he were to eliminate the policy secretariats. I hate to say that with my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) here tonight.
Mr. Nixon: He is one of the best ministers over there.
Mr. Bradley: He is one of the people I like in the government, even though he was mugged in the hallway as he attempted to bring in his freedom of information bill. I think he could better be utilized in another ministry and we could save considerable money. The Treasurer would not, under the auspices of this bill, have to borrow as much money if he did not have to pay for the policy secretariats. We could easily eliminate them.
We have a cabinet that is larger than any other provincial cabinet. I think we have about 30 cabinet ministers at present. The members opposite always talk about the federal cabinet, which has about 36 ministers; yet for one province we have 30 ministers. Surely we do not need 30 ministers. We could get by with considerably fewer by eliminating the policy secretariats.
You will no doubt agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need to borrow funds under the auspices of this bill to pay for parliamentary assistants to the ministers. We have to worry about those things because we see the parliamentary assistants riding around in the government limousines. I understand the ministers are allowed to ride in a limousine. I do not begrudge a limousine to ministers who have a heavy schedule, who have to prepare their speeches, who have to do a lot of reading, who are going to be tired because of the long hours they put in. I know what it is like, when I have worked almost all night in my office here, to drive back to my riding in my own car, but I do not begrudge it to any of the ministers here.
Mr. Nixon: I do.
Mr. Bradley: My friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk does, but I have not been as critical of that as some. I am critical when I see the parliamentary assistants running around in this province in those same limousines.
Mr. Nixon: And deputies.
Mr. Bradley: And others. I think we could save a considerable amount of money by eliminating many of the parliamentary assistants in this province.
What else can we do?
Mr. Nixon: The plane trips. Work them over.
Mr. Bradley: We could also say that government aircraft should only be used for government business.
Mr. Nixon: Executive water bombers.
Mr. Bradley: The jet; we are not into the jet.
Mr. Nixon: They never told us what it cost to buy that and then sell it, and to put the blue plush on the toilet seat. We never got any figures on it.
Mr. Sweeney: Bernier's private moose reserves.
Mr. Bradley: I will not be distracted by those who insist I speak about private moose reserves or something like that in northern Ontario, alleged to be under the auspices of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), because I do not know much about that. I prefer to talk about the items we are borrowing for in this bill.
He can make all the faces he wants. He brought this upon himself.
Mr. Nixon: How about money for the new car plant? AMC.
Mr. Bradley: I have already discussed that.
I mentioned only one aspect of agriculture and food and that was the wine industry in the Niagara Peninsula.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As the member for Cochrane North from northern Ontario, I have to take strong exception when the member for St. Catharines brings up the jet. That is something very serious as far as we are concerned in northern Ontario. They have been harmful by talking about it and by pressuring this side of the House to cancel it. We are trying to make this province smaller and we need aircraft. We need jet aircraft so one can go to northern Ontario and get back. What he has done to the people of northern Ontario --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Talking about points of order, would the member please take his seat or he will have to leave.
Mr. Piché: He brings that up because he can drive home in his car, but what about us?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. For the last time, please take your seat when the Speaker is on his feet.
Mr. Piché: There has been a lot of harm to the people of northern Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is the last time. An occasion will come for you in the debate. In the meantime, send him a note.
Mr. Bradley: That is typical of the bad judgement that has brought us into this kind of mess already. There was no agreement with the member for Cochrane North from the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), who voted for my resolution. He voted for it because he recognized that when we came to a bill such as this where we are borrowing money for government expenditures, it would be better spent on two water bombers, which would assist in maintaining the forests in northern Ontario, and could be used for other purposes, rather than spending it on a jet for the comfort and convenience of the Premier and his cabinet.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: How many have the feds got?
Mr. Bradley: I was not elected to the federal House. That member should run federally.
Mr. Sweeney: This is the provincial Legislature. If you want to run in the federal election, you can go the next time.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: Why do you not start being a little more honest for a change?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of the Environment will please resume his seat. The member for St. Catharines.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: Does he still have the floor?
10:20 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: I still have the floor and I intend to carry on providing for the members of this House views on how money can be better spent. I know it does not go over well with some of those members to have this kind of criticism. They would like to run a province where there were 125 Conservative members and everything ran the way they wanted it to run.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: There will be shortly. Hold your breath. It is coming.
Mr. Sweeney: If it were not for the federal money, this government could not do its job.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: I hope you can go back to teaching.
Mr. Sweeney: You would be out of a job if it was not for the federal money.
Mr. Bradley: The government does not have to borrow as much money as -- let me put it this way, the government would have to borrow more money if it were not for the moneys that are derived from federal sources.
For instance, the federal government will provide in the collection of income tax, in 1984-85, about $6,952,000,000.
Mr. Nixon: That is almost $7 billion right there.
Mr. Bradley: That is almost $7 billion right there.
In addition to this, payments from the federal government directly amount to a sum of $4,188,000,000. As a result of that money being provided to the provincial government, the Treasurer is not forced to borrow more money than he has been forced to borrow under this bill.
We also wonder whether his projections for the growth in the provincial economy are going to be accurate enough to derive the kind of revenues he has anticipated in his budget speech. He anticipated what many people consider a rather optimistic rate of growth. That might have produced the revenues which he had suggested, but many in the province have agreed it is unlikely we will experience that kind of economic growth in this province; therefore, he might well be forced to borrow even more money or to cut back in other areas, mugging some of his fellow ministers.
Mr. Sweeney: Like he did with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) for the expressway.
Mr. Bradley: If one is to travel across northern Metro, there have been people there who have looked for transportation of the kind that might be provided by GO trains. I think many people anticipated an extension of the GO train service this year, which has allowed many people to get to and from Toronto in an expeditious fashion.
Were that money forthcoming from this bill, I know the Minister of Transportation and Communications would be pleased to move forward with many of those projects. Local transit commissions across this province would then be in a position to provide an extended service for the people in their communities and therefore diminish the need for the use of private automobiles and the need for expenditures in the field of road construction, at least at the municipal level.
I know the Treasurer, when he put forward this bill to the House for consideration, the borrowing of this amount of money, was obviously thinking of the stoplight in his riding that has to be provided, partially subsidized. He indicated to the municipal committee he appeared before that the money would have been provided by the Minister of Transportation and Communications.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Do not use that. Why do you not take the high road for a change? You are tacky.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Piché: Even Bob Nixon does not agree with you.
Mr. Nixon: Give it to him. You are on the high road now.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. Bradley: I well recall the minister appeared before the committee as a genuinely concerned individual about --
Mr. Nixon: Looking for votes.
Mr. Bradley: I did not say looking for votes -- a genuinely concerned individual about a traffic problem within his constituency. He knew when he appeared before that committee the municipality might well not be on its own if this bill were to pass and if he were to receive assistance through a designation of funds from the Minister of Transportation and Communications.
Mr. Shymko: Take a civilized approach. Be the gentleman I thought you were. You are not going for votes by this.
Mr. Martel: Is that you, Yuri?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Shymko: Your leader took the right position this afternoon. I respect your leader but you guys are not following his example.
Mr. Wrye: Our leader took the right position 13 years ago.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Piché: It is an embarrassment to the people.
Mr. Shymko: It is an embarrassment to the Liberal Party of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for High Park-Swansea will please control himself.
Mr. Bradley: To continue my moderate remarks --
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if the House would indulge a personal request. The member for St. Catharines has such a compulsion to speak. Would the House leaders agree that we could sit Thursday and Friday so we can listen to the member for St. Catharines?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: Make it a motion.
Mr. Piché: I so move.
Mr. Sweeney: Just like we did last year.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If we are here to protect the democratic rights of others, surely --
Mr. Piché: It is being abused.
Mr. Speaker: I will be the one who decides that, not you.
Mr. Bradley: To continue on the bill for the borrowing of certain funds, the Treasurer, who was at one time the Minister of Health, would know the great need --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: The silly ass.
Mr. Bradley: The Mississauga rattler is rattling again.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: He is a jackass.
Mr. Sweeney: That does not sound like parliamentary language to me.
Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Catharines will continue.
Mr. Bradley: I know the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) would agree there is a great need for the provision of assistive devices to those in this province who are unable to afford those devices. They have asked on many occasions --
Mr. Sweeney: The member from Mississauga does not have people like that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for St. Catharines has the floor.
Mr. Bradley: The assistive devices program that exists in Ontario for a certain number of people is one we in the opposition championed for many years. I know my colleagues the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and others, as well as the former member for Hamilton West, spoke at some length on the need for the provision of artificial limbs and assistive devices for many people.
I do not think there is any member of this House who has not received a communication through the auspices of the Ontario March of Dimes indicating the special circumstances that exist for individuals in this province who need those assistive devices. In the borrowing of this bill, I hope sufficient funding will be provided for that. In the past, these people have been left out.
We are not talking about the provision of something nonessential. We are talking about the provision of something essential to the wellbeing of individuals. It may not mean the difference between life and death, but it would certainly increase the quality of life for those people.
Mr. Sweeney: The difference between living and existing.
Mr. Bradley: My friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot uses good phraseology when he says the provision of these assistive devices is the difference between living and existing. If funding were provided for that purpose under the auspices of this bill, we would certainly be in better shape.
Mr. Speaker: I have just been advised the government House leader has a motion to put before 10:30 p.m.
On motion by Mr. Bradley, the debate was adjourned.
MOTION
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding the previous order of the House, government business be taken up on the afternoon of June 13, 1984, following routine proceedings.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Wells: I just might indicate that tomorrow afternoon we will proceed with Bill 141 in committee, followed by the other two bills standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).
The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.