Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

L116 - Tue 11 Feb 1986 / Mar 11 fév 1986

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES (CONTINUED)

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES (CONTINUED)

On vote 801, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Harris: When we concluded at the last sitting, I had been very hopeful that the minister might rise and indicate he would be prepared to respond to the four concerns I had raised. A couple of concerns were raised by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane). We were at that point in the proceedings when we would have liked to hear what responses the minister had to those concerns.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: My friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) had a few questions for me, and he just said there were a few unanswered questions from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I think I answered most of the questions of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, but one thing I forgot to do last night was to commend him for the good work he did as the father of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

I recall that when I was the mayor of Hearst we were asked to come to Toronto. At that time, we met in Toronto and we were briefed on this new initiative by the government. One thing we were told at that time -- and I am sure my honourable friend can say whether I am wrong or right -- was that the Ministry of Northern Affairs was supposed to help us to develop, to go more into developing fields and to help us to organize ourselves as a region with an economic backbone.

Then a few months later the ministry arrived on the scene and started opening offices with a few northern affairs officers at that time. To the astonishment -- I do not know whether that is the right word, but I will say it that way -- of all the mayors, those offices were used at first only to get information or to help people with information.

As I recall, we were told this was supposed to be to help the municipalities to organize themselves as an economic region, and that is what I am doing today. What I will be announcing in the next 12 months or so goes back to the first speech I heard at the Ontario Science Centre. We all met there. Mr. Robarts and Mr. Davis came, and he told us what he wanted in the north.

I believed at the time that it was the right way, but it dwindled for a while. Then in the last two or three years, they gave another twist towards economic matters. From there I am going to try to give the approach that was supposed to be there in 1972, 1973 or 1974, when we were asked to come for this announcement.

I was talking with the other mayors this afternoon. We met here and went over what I intend to do. Some of them were there when it was first announced. I will be on track with what was the original objective of Northern Affairs. I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. What I got from his leader and from other people who spoke that day is what I am going to try to do as Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

There was a question by the member for Nipissing about the advocacy role of the ministry. I repeated this several times in our estimates. It is my role and that of my ministry and I am a very aggressive advocate. On top of that, I have a further chance to advocate northern interests. I am chairman of the cabinet committee on northern development, I serve on the policies and priorities board of cabinet and I am a member of the economic policy committee and of the social policy committee, as well as a member of the full cabinet.

Mr. Timbrell: God help us.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: God help us for sure. The member should not worry about me. He will see me coming pretty soon. I will be establishing regional or northern development councils to help the north because I feel it does not matter whether there are 10 ministers for the north, if one does not listen to the grass roots, one is not doing one's job. We are going to prepare ourselves and, after the next election, we will have about four, five or six ministers from the north.

This structure will be established to be sure they are singing the same songs. A few years ago there was always a little battle between a minister from the northwest and one from the northeast. The newspapers led us to believe they were fighting each other. At the same time, the northeast suffered a bit because the one was always mad at the other, who kept everything for the northwest. In the past year or so, he tried to give a little more to the northeast. I guess he was repentant. Finally, he gave a bit more. I am not alone in saying this. I talked to the mayors and reeves of the northeast and they all told me the same thing. Most of those mayors and reeves were Conservatives too.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They are all Liberals now.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: They may be all Liberals now, but I do not know. They are all wearing red ties. Except for the mayor of one little town who was for me, all the 25 mayors were for the Conservatives and I still won, so I do not need them.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we do not have --

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: All the mayors are Conservatives; that is their business. I will still keep working for the north.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Harris: We had approximately 17 or 18 minutes left. We have used 10 of those minutes. I asked for specific answers to the four specific questions I raised. So far we have not got to those answers. I would like to remind the Chairman of the committee, the government House leader and the minister that if I do not get the answers to the questions and an opportunity to respond to the minister, concurrence will take considerably longer than this House had planned on.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I learned what I am doing today from the member for Nipissing, because when he was over here in June, I asked him two questions. When he answered it was the same thing; he went on and on.

Northern travel allowance for chiropractor referral is a good question. I will raise it with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and ask my colleague to see what we can do on the question raised by the member for Nipissing.

8:10 p. m.

On the question about education for natives in the north, touched on by the member for Nipissing, he said that probably we would be better to have the native people educated all over the north. That is not what I am hearing from the natives.

As members know, I just hired Frank Beardy, who was the grand chief of the Nishnawbe-Aski, and he never said he wanted their children to be all over the north. Not only the new chief but the elders too, when I met them at Muskrat Dam Lake and Big Trout Lake this summer, when they all met in Kashechewan, told me they had never asked the government to have their children taken away at grade 8 or grade 9 to be placed in homes all over the north. What they want is control over their education, and this is the area we are working on with the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and Mr. Crombie from Ottawa, whom I met last week.

We are going to try to follow the Fahlgren report and to look at the northern school, or schools, because I myself feel there should be more than one if we are going to move on this. The native people in the northwest and the northeast, the Nishnawbe-Aski, said it would probably be ideal to have two boarding schools.

One site we are looking at could be Sioux Lookout, where, as the member knows, the air force reserve base is closing down in a year. Right now we are going to have a study group to study that. This air force reserve base probably could be used as a base for one northern school and for a training school for the natives, where they could learn how to work in the bush or in the mines. As the member knows, I told him last week in my estimates that we are going to try to train the natives in mining with the help of the mining companies. The natives need a place to study, a co-op situation where they can go and study and work in the mines.

Eventually, starting next week, we are going to try to put in the act something about mining north of the 50th parallel to be sure that the natives are protected, for their jobs at least, and maybe some other economic benefits.

So as far as education is concerned, we are on track, we are following what the natives in the north want and we are going to try to work quickly to do something about it.

Mr. Harris: I was interrupted by the government whip there for a minute. Did I hear a response to the question about the minister's position on behalf of the people of northern Ontario concerning the use of chemical sprays? The minister took 11 minutes of garbage, diatribe and a bunch of crap, the like of which I have not heard in this House in the not quite five years I have been here when he talked about the former minister, the former government and what not.

I asked a pretty serious question. I quoted from three different sections of the ministry estimates, which indicated that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines were to speak on behalf of the people of northern Ontario as they were affected by other ministries.

I asked those questions yesterday. One dealt with housing; 24 hours have intervened, and I am now told he will talk to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). One dealt with chiropractors; I am told he will now talk to the Minister of Health. He said he needed 24 hours to talk to the Minister of Health. He has had eight months to intervene on behalf of the people of northern Ontario.

If indeed he is serious about that as one of his roles, and he saw fit to use up most of his time talking about it in a diatribe, why does he not answer the questions? One of the questions I asked and that the people of northern Ontario are entitled to know is what he is saying as the minister responsible for northern Ontario on the use of chemical sprays in the north.

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Premièrement, à cette question que le député de Nipissing m'a posée, je n'ai jamais fait aucun commentaire dans les journaux ou en public que je ne fais pas aujourd'hui. Nous allons débattre ça en Cabinet selon ma conscience et selon les rapports que j'ai du Nord.

Mr. Harris: This is the third time we have heard from the minister that it is none of the business of --

M. Pope: Pas du tout, eh?

Mr. Harris: The minister does not have to answer anything any more.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Harris: This is the third time we have heard from the minister that it is none of the business of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and none of the business of the members of this Legislature on a very serious position affecting northern Ontario. I find that totally unacceptable. I still have not had the answers to my four questions. I suspect the Chairman will quickly tell me that time has run out. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to continue the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and carry on until we get the answers.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Nipissing has asked whether this committee should continue debating the issue.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, we have had three days of debates on these estimates. The illustrious gentleman who has just finished was here for 14 minutes of them.

The Deputy Chairman: "There is no unanimous consent. The time has expired. Pursuant to subsection 46(d) --

Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The House leader of the third party indicated I have been here for 14 minutes. We had 17 minutes tonight and about two and a half hours the previous night. Regrettably, I was away from some, but I would ask the House leader to retract his bald-faced lie.

Mr. McClellan: I will apologize, but he will retract that first.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What a childish exhibition.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Would the member for Nipissing retract that word please?

Mr. Harris: He retracted what I said was a lie, and he knew better. Now that he has retracted, I do not have to retract.

The Deputy Chairman: I will ask the member for Nipissing to retract the word "lie."

Mr. Harris: In view of the fact he has retracted the lie, I will retract my statement.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not intend to make a big deal out of this. I made a mistake and I apologized to the member. I just leave it at that. The member can do what he wants.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is time for me to get up on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out to all honourable members that the exchange over the last few minutes is the best argument I have heard in a good long time on the subject of why we should not be bothered with evening sessions any longer.

Mr. Pope: That is nice and condescending.

Mr. Harris: In spite of the condescending remarks of the honourable House leader of the government, the House leader of the third party has said he made a mistake. I accept that and withdraw my remark.

The Deputy Chairman: Pursuant to subsection 46(d), I will put all questions necessary to carry every vote and item of each estimate reserved to the committee and not yet passed by it. Such questions are not debatable.

Votes 801 and 802 agreed to.

Vote 802 supplementary agreed to.

Votes 803 and 804 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

8:20 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: As an individual member of this House, I want to register my concern over the process we just went through. I realize it was in order, but I wish that in future we would deal with the votes on a vote-by-vote basis rather than this so-called wide-ranging debate we have had in these estimates. I do not think it was that productive.

Mr. Harris: On the same point, I concur with the member for Algoma. Regrettably, we did not receive very many answers as we asked questions on administration. Had we received those, we would have been glad to move on to the other votes.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved second reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: In December 1983, an amendment to the Public Commercial Vehicles Act established the mechanism to allow holders of truck operating licences to apply for simplified, more-understandable licences. The process was much needed, as many licences had become difficult to interpret and enforce. Clarification and simplification of licences will benefit the courts, carriers, shippers and enforcement personnel alike.

My ministry staff and truck operators have been reviewing and rewriting licences in the clarified format. However, these have no effect until further legislative enactment. This bill before the House will allow the issuance of licences, thereby completing the process. More than 7,000 licences have been drafted under the new terms. Many carriers are anxious to commence operating under the rewritten authority.

The bill is compatible with, but by no means a commitment to, further reform of trucking regulations. The passage of this bill is necessary to put those rewritten licences into effect, thereby allowing all affected parties to take advantage of the economies and efficiencies that are expected to result.

Mr. Gregory: I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this bill. Our party will be supporting this legislation on second reading, only because the bill was originally recommended and introduced by the former Minister of Transportation and Communications, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague).

Interjections.

Mr. Gregory: His name is still on it. For that reason and for many others, our party will be supporting it.

The significant feature of the bill is to allow the issuance of rewritten truck operating licences. The Public Commercial Vehicles Act was amended in December 1983 to allow the rewriting of truck operating licences. This further amendment, Bill 16, is required to put the rewritten licences into effect. It is quite apparent that over the years, trucking licences have become more and more complex, adding to the difficulties of operating and enforcing them.

The Public Commercial Vehicles Act amendments in 1983 established a new specification framework for licences, procedures for licence holders to apply for a rewrite and authority for the Ontario Highway Transport Board to issue new operating certificates. Current figures show that approximately 3,000 of the 7,500 rewrite applications are processed and await issuance. These 3,000 carriers are anxious to receive their new licences.

The key to these reforms is to establish a simplified, clarified licence, which will be seen to benefit carriers, shippers, the courts and enforcement personnel alike. Further, it should be noted that rewriting the licences represents one of the major reform initiatives proposed by the Public Commercial Vehicles Act review committee in its 1983 report, Responsible Trucking. This activity is also compatible with initiatives in the other provinces.

It is my hope and that of our party that the measures contained in Bill 16 will allow a cleanup of existing trucking licence problems from both an operational standpoint and an enforcement standpoint. We also hope the measures will increase the likelihood that carriers will be dissuaded from operating with invalid or incorrect licences.

Our party supports the efforts of the minister through Bill 16 to allow for simplified operating licences, which will benefit carriers, shippers, the courts and enforcement personnel alike. I can confirm that our party is in favour of this legislation. We feel it should be decided upon as quickly as possible. Along with that, I hope the minister is finally going to answer my questions regarding public commercial vehicle licences.

Mr. Philip: We are in favour of this bill. The bill starts back further than the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) indicated. It starts in the great mess that was described by the select committee on the highway transportation of goods, of which he chaired a number of hearings.

In that committee's report, those of us who in 1975 were on the committee and studied the problem of regulatory systems in Ontario concluded that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, in conjunction with the Ontario Highway Transport Board and the industry, should review and report to the government on ways and means to simplify the description of authorities, terms, conditions, restrictions, licences and so forth.

If one reads this 12-pound volume, one can see we elaborated in some depth on some of the complications of enforcing the existing systems because of the difficulty in interpreting the authorities that individual trucking companies might have on occasion.

We in the New Democratic Party are committed to the very principles that were outlined as a result of that very exhaustive investigation. We are committed to a regulated trucking industry and the kind of system that has existed in Ontario and has been reformed under the previous government to some extent. We are against the kind of nonsensical anarchy that is being created by the deregulation process in the United States.

To us, it seems fairly clear that the amendments being made today will make it easier to enforce a regulated system. Therefore, we would be foolish not to support that kind of amendment since it is directly in keeping with the principles that the member for Mississauga East, and indeed all members on that committee, chose to support in our report of 1977.

With that, I simply say I would like to hear from the minister as to the latest consultations he may have had with the Ontario Trucking Association and the relevant unions involved in this concerning the bill, but we will support it.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: First, I would like to extend my welcome to the support from both members of the opposition parties and suggest that we would support this no matter where the bill originated or where it came from, or indeed no matter whose name is on the bill. I have no difficulty reading the name of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe on Bill 16.

It is a commonsense, logical move to assist all those people in the trucking industry and those who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the industry. One need only look at the former licence and at the proposed licence to see how dramatically the new licences have been simplified. I dare say one would need to be a Harvard lawyer in most cases to read through and understand the existing licence form.

With respect to the Ontario Trucking Association, with whom I met as recently as last week, I have every indication that it fully endorses and supports Bill 16 and the regulations. We have ongoing discussions with them and with other people involved in the question of regulatory reform, but as I mentioned in my statement, this by no means necessarily commits us to any further action in that regard.

I think Bill 16 stands very clearly on its own and very clearly in the interests of the truckers, carriers, shippers and the enforcement agencies charged with overseeing the industry. I move, and I hope all members of this House will join us in support of, second reading of Bill 16.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

8:30 p.m.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought I would speak briefly about the provisions as set out in the bill introduced just yesterday.

Mr. McClellan: Moments ago.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Moments ago, practically. The fund that has grown under the aegis of the Teachers' Superannuation Act is now estimated at $8.5 billion. That is a figure that must warm the cockles of the hearts of all the teachers who are present here and, to some extent, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), because he borrows the principal amount of this fund and puts it to good use in the work of the province.

There are 136,000 contributors at present and about 25,000 pensioners. During 1984, the most recent year for which the numbers are fully available, the teachers contributed about $240 million to this fund. The government, on behalf of the teachers' employers, contributed $275 million. As I have indicated, the funds are borrowed back from the teachers' superannuation fund by the Treasury. This year, the average interest paid on those funds was 12.07 per cent. The interest earned by the fund from the Treasury was $836 million.

I thought some of those figures might be of some interest to anyone who is reading the account of this debate. That is the general structure of the fund, and in its own way it is one of the largest economic forces in Ontario.

Over the years, there have been discussions that the teachers might very well have done better by investing the funds themselves, in which case these funds would not have been available to the Treasury for borrowing purposes. The balancing part of that argument is that, since the fund's inception, or at least since 1920, I am told, the government of Ontario has guaranteed the benefits payable.

In these times of a buoyant economy and relatively high teachers' salaries and contributions, the payment of the benefits is not in question. However, there have been times when the economy had substantial and continued downturns and the government had to put very large amounts of money into the fund to make up for actuarial deficits that occurred in those circumstances. When most teachers consider the alternatives, they have so far opted for a continuation of the public guarantee. Frankly, I think they are wise to do so.

The Teachers' Superannuation Commission, established under the act, has representation from the teachers' organizations and from the public as nominated by the government of the day. It has the responsibility to administer the act and to advise the custodian of the fund, who happens to be the Treasurer of Ontario these days.

Until a couple of years ago, the custodian was the Minister of Education. It may seem reasonable for it to revert to him, but we have not had serious discussions about that. However, if he thought it would be convenient, the government might very well put the fund back under his jurisdiction.

I think the previous government thought that with the Treasurer availing himself of this huge amount of capital and borrowing it for government financing, he ought to have the carriage and responsibility of the fund.

In this connection, the Treasurer is responsible for the act -- he is the custodian of the fund -- and particularly for the application of the provincial guarantee, which means the benefits are payable whatever the state of the economy. The Treasurer is also the principal creditor, borrowing not all, but almost all, the funds on an automatic basis.

The bill itself has one very important amendment -- it is the main purpose of the enactment -- which is to provide a window of early retirement, a period of three years during which teachers otherwise qualified at age 55, but falling perhaps short by a certain period from the normal age of retirement, can retire without undue financial hardships.

It is estimated that about 5,500 of these teachers -- and there are about 11,000 of them in the age category -- will probably opt for early retirement. It is expected that this would cost the fund about $320 million, without taking into consideration the inflationary costs. The pensions are indexed at least up to a maximum of eight per cent of inflation on a yearly basis.

I have already indicated that the cost would be paid for from any surpluses that are found to be in the fund on the actuarial evaluation, which should be reported in March 1986. It is not clear that there will be enough money to pay for all this, but if an actuarial deficit accrues because of this additional benefit, it will be met as usual by the government of Ontario or the Treasury and there will be regular payments over a period of 15 years to make up any accruing actuarial deficit.

I comment in passing that besides the teachers' superannuation fund, there is another pension fund called the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act, which provides for the indexing of the payments to teachers upon retirement. The teachers contribute about one per cent of their income to this, but recent evaluations indicate there is a substantial actuarial deficit in this fund.

I am advised that the difficulty in projecting the costs of indexed pensions over a period of years, particularly marked with high inflation and rapid increases in salaries and therefore pensions payable, has given rise to these difficulties. I hope to be able to report in more specific terms to the House in this connection some time in the next two or three months.

All members realize there are a number of benefits to this early retirement provision, and not only for the teachers who avail themselves of the early retirement. The facts of educational development in recent years, particularly with changes in curriculum and declining enrolment, have resulted in the average age of teachers moving towards the high end. The word that is sometimes used is that there is a "bulge" in the distribution of the ages of teachers now moving towards the high end. I hesitate to use that word, being sort of in that age group myself, as there may be some pejorative implications to which I would be sensitive.

It is the judgement of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) that it would benefit the facilities and the availability of excellence in teaching by having a panel of well-experienced teachers and by offering an improved opportunity for recent graduates to get into the profession. We think this is important.

I want also to refer to a couple of amendments to which the teachers' federation has indicated its displeasure. I refer specifically to section 14, which I consider to be important. It gives the Treasurer the responsibility to file the actuarial evaluation. Under the Pension Benefits Act, the evaluation must take place on a three-year cycle or at any other time the custodian of the fund asks for an evaluation.

While I am not personally familiar with the process, I am told the actuaries on a section-by-section basis get advice on the actuarial impact of certain changes from teachers' representatives and from representatives of the Pension Commission of Ontario.

8:40 p.m.

I can assure anyone who is concerned about this that neither the Treasurer nor the officials of the Treasury want to interfere, nor do they intend to interfere with the independence of the actuaries receiving the advice and arriving at the evaluation that is required under the Pension Benefits Act.

However, the amendment does give the Treasurer responsibility to file the actuarial evaluation with the Pension Commission of Ontario. The teachers have felt the Treasurer, for the benefit of the taxpayers, might seize a moment when the evaluation was low to reduce their payments for a specific period. I do not make much of an apology for saying it is possible that might occur, but it is not the intention of the Treasury to interfere with the fair and continuing proper evaluation of the fund on an actuarial basis.

We feel the Treasury, having the responsibility of the fund in every other way, does not have a conflict of interest in this regard, but has the responsibility, fiscally and otherwise, to see that the evaluation is put before the pension commission in an appropriate way.

One other objection has been put to me by the Ontario Teachers' Federation, and that is the one embodied in sections 2 and 8 that puts an eight per cent indexing cap on payments made to disabled teachers. The members who are so interested in this subject will know there is already an eight per cent indexing cap, which I consider to be a fiscally responsible approach. If inflation were to surpass the eight per cent level on a yearly basis, the increase in pensions would not go past eight per cent. If, God forbid, inflation went back to that rate again, anything unaccounted for beyond the eight per cent could be carried over into future years.

This parallels the indexing provision; that is, the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act to which I have referred. It also parallels the provision in the Public Service Superannuation Act. I consider it to be fiscally responsible and eminently fair.

The other provisions of the act are fairly neutral as far as cost is concerned, but they correct a number of administrative practices and a number of anomalies that to some extent have worked unfairness on some individual teachers. While it is not a direct provision of this act, it gives us an amendment that by regulation will correct a problem that has been brought to my attention by some members of this House who have been teachers, who have returned to teaching and then come back to serve in this House, and who have not been able to make up the appropriate number of teaching days or the appropriate contributions because of lack of appropriate notice.

I must be fair with the members and say that I do not understand the intricacies in detail, but the matter has been brought to my attention by some members. It is the intention of the amendment to correct the anomalies members have found inconvenient, and to some extent unfair, in the provision of their own pension benefits.

I will be glad to listen to comments, but I ask the members for their support of the principle of the bill and for its early enactment.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Nixon has moved second reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

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

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr. McClellan: It is customary to have other people speak in the debate.

Mr. Foulds: That was not the windup; that was the opening statement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, when you put the motion, I was under the impression other members did not want to participate. I have absolutely no objection to reverting to the status quo ante because I would be delighted to hear from them.

The Deputy Speaker: The chair apologizes if that was cutting off debate. Do we have unanimous consent to revert to debate?

Agreed to.

Mr. Davis: I rise in support of this motion, along with my party. I commend the government, and the Treasurer in particular, for taking the advice of the social development committee that spent the summer travelling the province and listening to the concerns of teachers about superannuation, and trying to come to a better understanding of the difficulty that the teaching profession was going to face with an ageing population and the inability of younger teachers to move into the system. It was therefore without reservation that we agreed to a party debate at the committee meeting, in which we had representations from the superannuation commission and from the teachers' superannuation committee. Out of that came some recommendations that we are glad the government acted upon.

I should point out that it was a recommendation to the government from the standing committee on social development that it should have been a five-year period in which the penalty clauses were lifted, not a three-year period. We certainly felt this would alleviate some of the concerns that the teaching profession is going to face within the next decade. Although we are all happy with the passage, somehow five years became three. The teachers were asking for a 10-year moratorium and then for the whole process to kick back into debate.

One of the concerns we had was that, unfortunately, the government saw fit to deal with only one aspect of bringing in legislation. They did not look at some other models, but I would like to go on record as saying that we support at least this initiative. We think it is going to help address the concern of a number of teachers, those who face termination or redundancy, who go into surplus pools and are cycled around yearly, like a washing machine doing the laundry. They are kicked out at the end of the term and can then apply again because of a variety of things that are happening in the educational cycle -- for example, the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions deliberations and directions.

I must state very clearly that it is not necessarily the fault of OSIS. It is the fault of directions being given to young people in which they are being told it is imperative for them to take their academic credits before their technical credits, so the youngsters are backing away from technical programs. Those technical teachers are finding themselves in this quandary of being rotated around and not having a sense of stability to their future. We are glad that those individuals and other individuals like them will now have the opportunity to take advantage of this situation to retire.

The Treasurer just very quickly glossed over section 14 of the bill, the valuation issue. I have read the bill and I understand that the past practice has been, from the directives of Management Board, that an evaluation was done each year, and it was certain that at the end of the three years, that evaluation had to be made public to the commission. One was done; I assume it will continue.

As one reads through the various concerns of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and of other people with that section, although one would assume that no Treasurer would ever do that which is open to him, the Treasurer is indeed taking upon himself some directions that heretofore have not been within his prerogatives. There really is no mechanism for revisions to be made if the minister filed the valuation with the pension commissioner of Ontario before transmitting it to the Teachers' Superannuation Commission. At some point the Treasurer has to address that.

For the first time the Treasurer has been given control over the determination of the surplus or deficit in the fund through the mechanism of being able to decide unilaterally the actuarial assumptions to be used. We wish to draw this to the Treasurer's attention. I am sure that as time goes on, he will make the necessary amendments to ensure that those concerns are not there.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Are the members over there still bashing the teachers?

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Davis: No, I am not bashing the teachers. What I would like to say in conclusion, because we are in support of this, is that even with one or two weaknesses in Bill 103, it is important and imperative that we as a House and as a party concur with it to provide those opportunities to those teachers for early retirement. Out of that, it is hoped that more than the projected 5,500 will take the initiative for early retirement, that it will be closer to the number who can actually retire, and open the opportunity for younger teachers to move into our system.

Mr. Allen: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to address the motion respecting Bill 103.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) will please not disturb the speaker, or interrupt him.

Mr. Allen: It is with considerable pleasure that I rise to address this bill and the motion of the Treasurer to propose a number of amendments to the Teachers' Superannuation Act. In particular, I was a little concerned when he moved us on so expeditiously. He almost eliminated my opportunity to claim immodestly some paternity for this particular measure.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Nothing like a hype to that side of the House.

Mr. Allen: One does not always want to claim paternity, but in this case, I feel a considerable pride.

It almost seems years ago when at the first meeting of the standing committee on social development initiating its hearings into Bill 30, and the issues surrounding that question, that I placed a motion before the committee to the effect that the committee, in the course of its hearings, might want to examine some of the broader issues in education that were relevant to the extension of separate school funding and the conditions that would develop with the extension and completion of funding to that system and make a report to the minister with respect to the advice it would tender to him as a result of what that committee learned in the process of the many briefs that came before it.

I suggested at that time there were three particular items I was concerned about. One was the general provincial share of the funding dollar in the province. The second was early retirement issues, given the nature of the age profile and a number of peculiar factors over the past generation of the personnel who had moved into the teaching community. The third was the issue of religious education in public schools.

In the course of the hearings, it became abundantly clear that those issues and two or three others, were very important issues that could not be addressed through Bill 30, but which would have significant relevance to the way in which Bill 30 might be applied and have repercussions for public education in Ontario in general.

When the committee came back to that issue at the end of its hearings on December 16, and had added a couple of other issues to that from other members' initiatives, the first item that we took up at that time as the most significant and challenging proposal that we felt needed to be laid at the doorstep of the minister and of the Treasurer in this case, was that of early retirement.

It was on my motion that a proposal was considered by the committee which would have allowed a 10-year window at the point of the initial motion for those 55 years of age and over who had at least 10 years experience behind them in the system.

As it has turned out with the amendments in the committee and the subsequent reflection of the ministry itself, that window has now been reduced to somewhat over three years, close to three and a half. While I am unhappy in some respects with that, I am not prepared to fundamentally quarrel with it, in a measure of this kind, which is the first undertaking of its nature in the field of early retirement in any of the retirement schemes that are operated through the public service in Ontario.

Over the period during which the transition in the public and separate systems under Bill 30 will be most intense, it allows a great many teachers to take the option of early retirement.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This will put a smile on the face even of Malcolm Buchanan.

Mr. Allen: I hope it will. We always like to see a smile on Malcolm's face. It becomes him. There are a number of factors that converge to make this bill particularly appropriate as a targeted proposal for early retirement. There are a number of other sectors in the employment world where one could devise similarly wise tactical programs of early retirement to good effect. In this case, one has had the experience of a substantial period of declining enrolment in the public system as a result of the demographics of the baby boom, with which we are all familiar.

This has created a situation in which one has had on the one hand the ageing of the teaching faculty in the schools, and on the other hand an almost impenetrable barrier to employment of young graduating teachers from the teachers' colleges. Many of those ageing teachers in the system also found themselves to be short of the criteria for retirement required by the system.

The ones worst served were those who had come into the system at between 25 and 35 years of age. Among them were those who had come out of business or industrial experience as mature adults. As well, there were many women who came in and out of the system, some of them coming in late after having reared their families and others having moved in and out of the system. There was a major block in the actuarial tables, which we examined in the committee. They were not being well served by the requirements of the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

At the same time, Bill 30 looked as though it might have an impact on the public school secondary teaching community that would be substantially adverse to the requirements of a healthy and well-profiled teaching community. Given the likelihood of necessity of movement from the public to the separate system, it appeared that those of lesser seniority might well be the ones affected. That would exaggerate the age profile.

As well, it looked as though the numbers in the public system would be significantly, though not massively reduced. That would make the profession in the public school system still less accessible to the graduates of the teachers' colleges. It appeared to us that a cluster of factors made it necessary to devise a scheme that would enable the older teachers in the profession who so desired to take advantage of an early retirement opportunity, without having to pay the penalties that otherwise would be required and that were monetarily very severe.

The measure re-establishes to a significant degree healthy conditions of employment and a healthier and happier profile of teachers for the public school system in particular, not that the early retirement scheme is confined only to them or only to secondary public school teachers; it is there as an option for teachers across the spectrum of the teaching profession in both the separate and public systems.

9 p.m.

It comes as a harbinger of some joy to many teachers who have in the middle and later years of their careers as creative persons developed other sidelines of activity and interest, some in small business, some simply in creative arts and crafts and activities of one kind or another and others in active participation in voluntary organizations and societies, all of which they have become increasingly interested in pursuing.

This gives them an opportunity to retire from the profession and move full-time into some other interesting pursuit they wish to follow without the severe handicap of financial repercussion from their pension.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I see the Treasurer and the Minister of Education adopting a proposal that is so well strategically targeted in an employment sense. I encourage them and the rest of the cabinet ministers who have responsibilities in the economic sector in one way or another to look very closely at this proposal as a device that may apply in other sectors as well.

There are other amendments to the act that have been brought under the wing or the shadow of this proposal. For the most part, I concur with them. In particular, I like the amendment to section 8 of the bill which allows partly disabled teachers to work in education in a nonteaching capacity without automatically losing their disability allowance. That clearly clarifies and removes a discrimination in the act for a certain group of teachers.

I like the amendment to section 6 as well, which reduces from two years to one year the length of time retired teachers must be reemployed in education before becoming entitled to a higher superannuation allowance based on the contributions made to the fund during their re-employment. This is the item the Treasurer referred to in which there was a problem of required teaching days. It was a certain disadvantage to some members of the profession who had gone on to other occupations but who maintained themselves and their positions in the teachers' superannuation arrangement.

Many of the other amendments are housekeeping items on which I do not want to make any comment. I will just underline the points my friend the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) made on the valuation question. I am not prepared to attribute motives to the Treasurer in this redesign of the way in which the actuary report goes to him and then finds its destiny in the hands of the Teachers' Superannuation Commission. There is a whiff of a conflict of interest.

Since he determines the valuation of the fund every three years and it is on that valuation that the government's contribution to the fund is determined, there is a possibility it could be used to some adverse consequence for the teachers concerned. Over the course of the review of the act the next time around, if the Treasurer talks this one through with our teaching colleagues, I am sure there will be a satisfactory resolution of that question as far as all are concerned.

In conclusion, it is with great delight that I view the possibility that some 5,500 of 11,000 eligible teachers may take advantage of this to their benefit. I contemplate with even more pleasure the possibility that those large percentages of graduating classes in teachers' colleges in recent years will now find their window of opportunity to gain access to a profession to which they wished to commit their lives, but who met a very formidable barrier in the peculiar circumstances in which the public education institutions in Ontario have found themselves in recent years.

That will be a great delight to them, a new challenge to many young people and a great asset to our education system as they move into it and exercise their creative abilities on behalf of the younger community which will be moving through that system in the next few years.

I repeat, our party is delighted to be supporting this legislation. I compliment the Treasurer and the Minister of Education for acting so expeditiously with respect to this item.

Mr. Gordon: To the Treasurer and the New Democratic critic who just finished speaking, I must say I am very disappointed in the reaction of the third party to this initiative. I hoped there would be a more compassionate and understanding approach taken by the government. However, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this important bill and specifically to the early retirement incentive program for Ontario's primary and secondary school teachers.

This bill responds with some sensitivity to the very human predicament faced by many of our teachers in Ontario today. It acknowledges the need to readjust policy in response to the complex set of issues facing us. We have a declining enrolment in the public schools, the systematic effects of the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions document and the extension of separate school funding, all of which impinge upon the critical issues of mobility, entry by young teachers, affirmative action, growth potential and advancement opportunities.

It is well acknowledged that changes in the teachers' superannuation system could help alleviate these problems. That is why I am mystified about the Minister of Education, who is opposite me at this time listening intently, but at the same time ready to whisper words of encouragement or perhaps, I hope, change into the ears of the Treasurer. They might explain why they chose to hold out almost a little hope, a carrot to the teachers of Ontario, and then to draw it back.

The intent of the early retirement incentive program is commendable, but it goes only half the way and accomplishes only half the task. Both the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation have consistently articulated their position that the Teachers' Superannuation Act should be amended to provide for no reduction for a period of 10 years for a teacher retiring with 10 years of credits at or after 55 years of age. Yet the Treasurer has introduced only a three-year program. We must ask ourselves whether three years will enable a sufficient number of teachers to participate to any great advantage in this program.

I have some figures. The OSSTF estimates approximately 12,329 members could avail themselves of the program if it were extended over a 10-year period. At three years, that figure is only 5,195. Further, according to the OTF, the number of teachers who could benefit from the early retirement incentive program would double if it were extended to five years and possibly quadruple in a 10-year period.

The figures they have prove unquestionably that the biggest cohort of teachers is between 46 and 50 and 50 to 54. This three-year limit particularly impacts negatively on two groups. I would like the Minister of Education to pay close attention to this because he should have advised the Treasurer on these facts.

9:10 p.m.

First, the average age of a teacher is 43 years. For a technical teacher, that figure is 50. The vast majority of technical teachers were lured out of business and industry careers and started teaching at a later age.

With the systematic changes brought about by the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Secondary Divisions guidelines, we are left with a surplus pool of technical teachers who do not have long years of service behind them. It is especially important that this group be able to participate in such a program and thus allow them an exodus with dignity.

Most technical teachers cannot hope to reach a maximum pension because of their age and years of service. At least they would want the opportunity to have a significant service pension. A 10-year window would make that pension significant; a three-year window does not.

Second, 52 per cent of teachers under 30 years of age are women. I am sure this is a subject that concerns the Minister of Education and the Treasurer. I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) is here tonight. With his new pay equity bill, he will want to pay close attention to this and perhaps have a chat with the Treasurer about it.

As I said, 52 per cent of teachers under 30 are women and, at the other end, less than 10 to 15 per cent of the oldest teachers are women. The three-year limit will not allow many women to benefit from this amendment to the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

In Sudbury we have seen 116 teachers dropped from the Sudbury Board of Education over a three-year period. The 1983 annual report estimates that between 1983 and 1988 we are looking at a declining enrolment of 5,800 students.

The problems of teacher mobility, young teachers wanting to enter the market and declining enrolment will not go away in three years. Three years is not long enough to permit a sufficiently significant number of teachers to participate in this program, to retire without undue financial burden, and thus to help resolve some of the major difficulties this amendment is meant to address.

As the bill now stands, these funds come out of the teachers' superannuation fund. Even if the limit were a 10-year period, according to the Ontario Teachers' Federation calculations, there would be a surplus in the fund. If this money belongs to the teachers themselves, why do they not have the right to determine the period in which this program applies to them? Is it not their money? Why is the government being so hard-hearted and niggardly?

In summary, while I commend the intent of this bill and the early retirement incentive program, I believe the time period should be extended at least to five years to really fulfil the goal of this bill and respond in effective and innovative ways to special employment problems faced by Ontario teachers.

Mr. McClellan: I intend to talk for only a very few moments on this bill. Our critic has indicated his support. I want to point out some of the ironies around this bill to the Treasurer. I do not omit to mention the beam in my own eye as I noticed that in my caucus, the last time I counted, four of the six members present were teachers. An equal proportion, more or less, of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus were also teachers.

I look at the front bench of the government and see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and the Treasurer. I know my friend the Minister of Education, had he ever had a job, would have been a teacher. Some day he will be an illustrious professor of Canadian history at one of our more eminent universities.

It is ironic that we are providing an early retirement option to the teaching profession and making it possible for teachers to take the wonderful opportunity of retiring at an early age. I am struck by the fact that teachers are part of the group of 47 per cent of our work force that even has an employer-sponsored pension plan.

The majority of workers in this province have no employer- or company-sponsored plan of any kind. When we deduct from that the 47 per cent who are covered -- the teachers, the public service, municipal employees and all other public sector workers -- only between 25 to 30 per cent of the work force in private industry in Ontario has any company-sponsored pension plan at all.

The Treasurer, who is responsible for pension policy in this province, has a really major challenge before him. It is not going to be possible to provide the kinds of opportunities to public sector workers, such as teachers, the opportunities for generous pension plans with early retirement options when, at the same time, 75 per cent of those who work in the private sector are completely excluded, have no opportunity, no coverage, no benefit and no hope of obtaining benefits.

The Treasurer is in the midst of a review of pension legislation, and so far he has indicated he is not prepared to go the route of the Royal Commission on the State of Pensions in Ontario, which recommended a mandatory pension system that would cover everybody.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have one of those.

Mr. McClellan: He can either expand the Canada pension plan so it pays more than $3,000 a year to retirees or he can do something about the inadequacy and lack of company-sponsored pension plan coverage for three quarters of our workers. It is simply unacceptable to come before the Legislature in the middle of a major review of pension legislation and say, "Yes, we are going to grant early retirement options for the teachers, but for those in the private sector, there is nothing."

I am struck as well by the fact that teachers make a fund in the neighbourhood of $8 billion available for public and community investment purposes, but at the same time we deny workers the opportunity to contribute to public pension plans of an equivalent nature. We also deny ourselves the opportunity to accumulate the same kinds of investment funds.

I simply point this out because it is indeed an ironic situation that so many people remain uncovered at a time when we are able to expand, increase, enhance and enrich benefits for those who have the opportunity to be covered under public plans.

Mr. Gordon: This is the new open government.

Mr. Lane: We are going to go to the people on this.

Mr. Harris: I would very briefly like to echo some of the sentiments expressed by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). I congratulate the government too on bringing in the initiative. I think it is a step in the right direction, although I echo the comments of the member for Sudbury that, had we been in government, we would have gone a little further and made it a little more meaningful.

I think a reasonable compromise to five years, as proposed by the member for Sudbury, is not at all unreasonable in view of the fact that the money is coming out of the superannuation fund.

9:20 p.m.

Let me tell the members a little about the superannuation fund. The teachers contribute seven per cent of their income to the fund, which is matched by the government. It has historically been the case to provide for pensions for teachers. Some years ago -- seven or eight perhaps -- an extra one per cent was added whereby the teachers' contribution went to eight per cent. It is important to define why the teachers agreed to the extra percentage. It was an inflation adjustment based on eight per cent inflation. That was the amount perceived by the actuaries and agreed to by the government and teachers of the time; it was felt that one per cent extra would allow the fund to compensate for eight per cent inflation.

What happened was that if inflation went up by seven per cent, the pensions were increased by seven per cent and surpluses were allowed to accrue to the overall fund. If inflation went up by 10 per cent, teachers got only an eight per cent increase, with a two per cent bank there, based on the fact that their contributions did not come up to it.

Let me point out to members that as far as pensions go, it was probably actuarially far sounder than many pensions, certainly sounder than any pensions at the federal level, because it recognized this eight per cent factor, and one per cent was the added amount there.

In the past several years, we have been running with inflation at six, five, four or three per cent, and projections are that it will be at four or five per cent; so there should be lots of money in the teachers' superannuation fund.

For teachers to come up with a plan, and the government to agree to it, makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense because teachers have been affected, and when teachers negotiate contracts, they have been affected by unforeseen events.

Teachers in the secondary and public school systems throughout contract negotiation periods over the past several years could not likely have anticipated some of the changes in education that would affect them.

The funding of the separate school system, which all parties have supported, was not likely to have been anticipated by the Nipissing negotiating team of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation back in 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. Back when I was chairman of the board, in 1976, 1978 and 1979, I did not anticipate when I was negotiating contracts that this would be a factor. Declining enrolment is also having an effect, as is Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions.

Some of the changes made by the government, albeit some of them have been well intentioned and probably very good, had not been anticipated by many of the teachers' groups; so they are facing problems.

We may look at the system as a whole. One, we are going to help solve problems of declining jobs among teachers. Two, when we look at education as a whole, this is aimed at helping to solve the problem of bringing new and invigorating teachers into the system. Three, when new and younger teachers come in, they cost the system far less money. It is a win, win and win. It is a win for the students, the parents, the board and the government.

I fail to see why we are limiting this to a three-year period. Accordingly, on behalf of the teachers of Ontario, I serve notice that our party will be moving an amendment when this proceeds into committee.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the contributions from a number of members. They were all very helpful.

I want to say something on the comments of the member for Scarborough Centre. I do not apologize for the Treasurer of the day -- not me particularly -- taking the responsibility for reporting the actuarial position of the fund. This is an enormous and powerful fiscal instrument in the province; it is one of the largest, right up there with the Ontario budget itself, approaching $9 billion.

The province -- all the taxpayers, through the government -- has the responsibility to guarantee all the benefits, and as we know, this is a reasonably generous pension plan. I feel it is the fiscal responsibility of the Treasurer to have that modicum of control over the evaluation. However, I must assure the honourable member it is not our intention to direct in any way -- that would not be acceptable to the teachers -- the actual evaluation process undertaken by actuaries. At present, the teachers have direct input, and so do the members of the commission, and I believe this is the way it should continue.

I appreciate the support from the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). He pointed out very effectively that the timing of this is targeting the benefits in a most advantageous way for everyone, not only for the teachers who will have the benefit of early retirement but also for the people in education administration as well as the young people who are in our school system.

I am glad he mentioned one particular group. They are the ones who entered late into the teaching profession from business and industry as well as women who have taken time out of a teaching career to raise families. Quite often they have taken five to 10 years out of a teaching career, and it would not be possible for them to retire with a full pension without the benefits this bill would provide.

The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) has mentioned that we might have been more generous in the provisions of this pension. However, I am sure he is already aware that we are paying something more than $300 million -- I forget the number I mentioned earlier. If inflation benefits are taken into consideration, it is expected that the total cost to the fund during the period, when the benefits are being paid out over the lifetime of the pensioners, that the additional cost will be more than $600 million. With that number in mind, I do not think the adjective "piker" should be applied to any of us who are supporting this bill.

As usual, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) made a very thoughtful and appropriate intervention. It is a matter of policy of this government to encourage the expansion of private pension plans wherever we possibly can see them established. However, rather than establish an entirely separate provincial public pension plan for industry, I would prefer to encourage the government of Canada with the provinces to improve the benefits of the Canada pension plan. I hope that over the years the honourable member and I, and others, will see that this happens.

Whether the next benefit is a homemaker's pension, as I feel it should be, remains to be seen. However, I have already announced in this House a succession of improvements, including increased disability, that we will be paying for through increased pension payments.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) indicates his expectation that there will be plenty of money in the pension plan to pay the costs of these additions. I point out to him and to other members interested in this that last year, besides our share of the contributions equal to the teachers, we paid close to an additional $40 million in actuarial deficit makeup; during the past five years the amount has been $39 million, $119 million and $92 million, going back to 1980, when the actuarial makeup was $144 million. This was on the basis of the actuarial evaluation in 1981, which showed there was a substantial deficit. We expect the evaluation that will be made available in March to show a surplus, but I do not expect the surplus to be sufficient to pay this.

9:30 p.m.

The member for Nipissing, who was chairman of the Nipissing Board of Education some years ago, pointed out in his remarks that the additional one per cent is charged the teachers as a premium, or an application of money, to cover the cost of eight per cent inflation. Unfortunately, it is our experience now, and it is becoming well known and understood, that this is a grossly insufficient amount. It is our expectation we will have to inform the House and others in the actuarial report on that aspect of teachers' pensions that there is an actuarial deficit. At some time in the future it will have to be made up by the taxpayers of Ontario or, because the statute does not require it to be made up in that way, from some other source.

I want to make it plain that I am not in any way predicting that the pensions that have been part of the undertakings of school boards and this government over the years will not be met in full in the future. However, if anyone has the idea that indexing is already prepaid, unfortunately he is not in possession of the facts.

Mr. Gordon: Do not get nasty.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was not going to use the word that was springing to mind, one I have heard so frequently in the House in the past few hours when there was a difference of opinion.

Mr. Gordon: Piker.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can stand that one. If the honourable member thinks a $600-million program is one put forward by a piker, I cannot help his perceptions but, as usual, they are inadequate.

The comments made by the members have been useful. I am well aware that the teachers would have preferred a 10-year retirement window. We felt the costs did not warrant it. The motion passed by the committee in connection with this was for a window of up to five years. The member for Sudbury feels three years is inadequate. We think it is appropriate, and we ask for his support in that connection.

As a matter of fact, the three-year window will mean the additional retirements will have taken place in time for the next triennial evaluation. We believe the opportunity for 11,000 teachers to take early retirement is significant in improving opportunities for the teachers and for well qualified junior teachers who have not had an opportunity to enter the system. We feel their entrance into the system will provide a leaven and an improvement that is worth the minimal costs I have been referring to. I sincerely hope the members will support this legislation.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Why would the Treasurer insist on being a piker and not give the teachers five years instead of three?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): That is not a point of order.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Davis moves that clause 18a(d) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by removing the last date "1989" and substituting therefor the year "1991."

Mr. Davis: Most of the discussion has taken place. This moves the window to five years and affords the teachers a greater opportunity to take advantage of the plan. That is the thrust of our amendment. I do not think we have to continue the debate unless my colleagues want to speak.

Mr. Harris: Briefly, the five years conforms with the recommendation of the all-party committee which was supported by all three parties in this Legislature. It was up to five years, and it is suggested that it go for five years.

The Treasurer mentioned that one per cent was not sufficient to cover the indexing. It is not one per cent, but two per cent: one per cent from the teachers and one per cent from the government. Very often, Treasurers and governments tend to forget a matching contribution is required by all employers, including the government of Ontario.

When he talks about shortcomings, there may be some, but I do not believe there are shortcomings based on the eight per cent inflation package when one looks at two per cent going in. If there are any shortcomings, it is because the government is not putting in its share.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will speak again, if there are no others who want to take part.

There are two main benefits of the three-year window. The one I want to refer to first, although it is not the main one for me, is that by bringing this into effect now and passing it before the Legislature prorogues -- if we do in the next few days -- the teachers who will become eligible for retirement can make the decision to move out of the profession with the benefits we have already referred to, the benefits not only for the retiring teachers but also for the young people who will have an opportunity to move into new jobs.

If we are to have a window of 10 years, as recommended by the Ontario Teachers' Federation, or five years, as is the subject of this amendment, the effect will be spread out over a period and the thrust of the benefit will be somehow reduced or diluted. The three-year window will bring to the attention of those eligible that they have to give it what we hope will be their positive consideration. They will move to retirement and make room for new blood; a good thing, in every area except possibly politics.

I also want to point out a second matter of importance to me. My officials, ever quick to assist, have indicated that with a five-year window, there will be more teachers eligible and the costs will go up commensurately. The cost for the window we are proposing in our amendment will be $320 million for the actual pension. The indexing will cost almost that much again, giving an overall cost of about $600 million for the proposal we put forward.

9:40 p.m.

The honourable members opposite are under the impression this will be paid for entirely out of the assets of the fund. I can assure them this is definitely not going to be the case. We made regular makeup payments in the first five years of this decade, and I can assure them there will be other problems in making up the indexing component we referred to previously. If we go to the five-year period, my officials tell me the cost will move up to $550 million and the makeup for indexation will be even greater. So the cost would move to approximately $1 billion.

We are not prepared to talk about the amendment being out of order on the basis that it will involve the commitment of funds that could be construed as public. Undoubtedly there will be public funds involved.

We simply ask the honourable members to see our amendment as a fiscally responsible one that reacts to the proposals put forward by the teachers, and to the assessment of the situation made available to me by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft). They have co-operated in talking to the teachers and officials involved with the pension fund and in making the recommendation to the Treasurer in this connection.

We hope the honourable members will not support this amendment, however pleasant it might be to be generous in this regard. We feel the position put by the government is a reasonable one and eminently supportable.

Mr. Gordon: I listened very carefully to the Treasurer's arguments, but I have to say it is the government that brought in the Futures program which promised every young person in this province a job for one year. The parents in this province are getting pretty darn tired of governments promising jobs for one year. We are tired of make-work projects in this province. That is what the Treasurer is talking about, a make-work project.

The Treasurer and the Minister of Education have the opportunity to employ a lot of young people if they increase this to five years. This means a lot of young people who have graduated from faculties of education and are going into the teaching profession will have the opportunity to have a long-term job for more than one year. As a matter of fact, they are going to teach for at least 35 or 40 years before they take their pensions.

The government should be ashamed. It brings out a Futures program and says it will give people jobs for one year. Here it has an opportunity of providing long-term jobs and it turns its back. If that is not political expediency, I do not know what is.

The Treasurer says perhaps in three years he will take another look at it. What is he doing? He is keeping people on tenterhooks. He is creating a lot of anxiety in the minds and hearts of teachers. They deserve better than that. The party on this side feels for people. We know we have a lot of people in the teaching profession in this province who are getting older.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You did not feel for them before.

Mr. Gordon: I notice the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) is heckling me. He is a senior minister in this Liberal government. He is the guy who wants to dump poison all over northeastern Ontario to kill some caterpillars. He is not willing to use bacillus thuringiensis. He would rather put other poisonous gases all over northern Ontario, and he is the fellow who is heckling the teachers of this province. He has absolutely no heart at all.

When we consider the number of teachers in this province who have become redundant as a result of declining numbers of pupils, when we consider the problem we have with separate schools in this province, the government is going to turn its back on the teachers at this time? It should be ashamed of itself.

Surely when the Treasurer has a fund of $9 billion and is saying that $600 million is too much, he has his priorities mixed up. I would hope the Treasurer will reconsider his point of view on this matter. If he talks to the teachers of this province at present, they will tell him it is very important that there be younger teachers to teach the pupils. More young people are required in this profession. He has this opportunity to give the young people in this province jobs. Would he rather they stay on welfare? Is that what he is interested in? Perhaps after one year in Futures they can collect unemployment insurance.

The government has an opportunity here to prove this is really a liberal government and not just an expedient government, a government that does not really care about people. The Treasurer should go back to Earl's corner and have a talk with the boys at the Shell station, maybe kick the tires on that tractor. Those farmers, who have a lot of common sense, will tell him they would rather see their sons and daughters have a job. It is time to put some of these teachers who are ageing -- not by choice, mind you, because nobody ages by choice -- the opportunity of retiring with dignity and a half decent pension.

I ask the Treasurer and the Minister of Education to consider the fact that there are many technical teachers who were lured into teaching with the promise of a better life and that they would be adding so much to the lives of young people in this province. Now the government is turning its back on these people. This three years is not going to answer the problem the majority of these technical teachers have. It is not going to solve the problem I pointed out earlier this evening, that the women teachers have in retiring in this province.

I implore the Treasurer and the Minister of Education to open their hearts and minds. We on this side of the House know there was quite a discussion in cabinet about this bill and whether it should be five years or three years. We know who was responsible for making it three years. It is time the government showed a little bit of heart and common sense.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I mentioned in my remarks just in reference to the placing of the amendment by the official opposition that I felt it should be considered out of order since it would undoubtedly involve the use of additional public funds. I chose the opportunity during the comments to check with the legal counsel for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, as well as the head of our pension policy group, who are independent, capable civil servants. They have assured me that the passage of the amendment will entail the use of additional public funds. Therefore, I ask you to rule the amendment out of order on the basis of rule 15.

Mr. Chairman: I concur with the minister that the amendment is out of order. There is ample --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Let me finish. Order.

There is ample precedent. This came up about a month and a half ago. When government moneys are being expended, or the time is being extended which will cause the addition of government moneys to be expended, the motion can only be brought by a minister.

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: You cannot make a point of order. You can challenge my ruling, but the ruling has been made.

Mr. Pope: The whole point of this legislation entails government expenditures. We are talking about 1989.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It has been put forward by the government.

9:50 p.m.

Mr. Pope: That is right. We can amend his legislation. What is he talking about?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The ruling has been made. You have one choice. You either come to order or you challenge my ruling. It is one or the other.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Are you speaking on the same point or a different point?

Mr. Harris: On a point of order: I ask you, as chairman of the committee, whether we could be allowed to offer viewpoints on the point of order made by the Treasurer, in view of two or three things that have taken place?

One, since the Treasurer accepted the amendment and is prepared to speak against it, I find the figures the Treasurer has given totally unsubstantiable.

Mr. Chairman: Excuse me. Order. You are on the same point of order, and the chair has made its ruling under standing order 15.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, might I then indicate to you that I will challenge your ruling on the basis that you did not ask for anybody else to give any viewpoints. You made up your mind on the basis of statements made by the Treasurer. You refused to listen to opposite parties

Mr. Chairman: Order. if you challenge my ruling, that is fine.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. We are waiting for the Speaker to enter the chamber so the Chairman can report to the Speaker.

Mr. Harris: While we are waiting, can I ask the chair under which standing order he has ruled us out of order?

Mr. Chairman: It is under standing order 15, plus ample precedent of this House, the Parliament of Canada and the Parliament of London.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. May I draw the attention to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that he is not in his seat, and he is disturbing the House.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur is in his seat.

Mr. Chairman: Order. My ruling has been challenged so I am putting this question to the House.

Mr. Harris: It is absolutely the worst ruling this Legislature has ever had.

10:23 p.m.

The committee divided on the Chairman's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes 47; nays 27.

Sections 7 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 14:

Miss Stephenson: As the individual who was responsible for the transfer of the teachers' superannuation fund to the responsibility of the Treasurer, I feel very badly that this amendment is included in this amendment to the Teachers' Superannuation Act. There was never any intent when that transfer was envisaged to permit any change in the way in which the relationship was established among the Treasurer, the Teachers' Superannuation Commission and the actuary.

I believe all that is really necessary in order to ensure there is no conflict of interest on the part of the Treasurer is to delete subsections 64(4), (5) and (6) of the act, as set out in section 14 of the bill, and to leave that section of the Teachers' Superannuation Act as it is currently written. That is a very simple amendment. Simply delete what is there.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: May we have that in writing?

Miss Stephenson: Yes, the minister may have it in writing.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, while the amendment is coming, since the clock is getting there and we would like to see this bill proceeded with, perhaps you might entertain other comments.

Mr. Chairman: On section 14? We are in the middle of a motion.

Miss Stephenson moves that section 14 be amended by deleting subsections 64(4), (5) and (6) of the act as set out in section 14 of the bill. I am sorry. That is out of order because --

Miss Stephenson: Then how do we deal with --

Mr. Chairman: The only purpose of section 14 of the bill is to add subsections (4), (5) and (6) to section 64 of the act. Therefore, the way to deal with them when it is a simple deletion is to vote against them.

Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, if you rule that one out of order, I have a substitute, which is already drafted.

Mr. Chairman: Miss Stephenson moves that section 14 of the bill be amended by deleting subsections 64(4), (5) and (6) of the act as set out in section 14 of the bill and replacing them with the following subsections:

"(4) The actuary shall deliver to the Teachers' Superannuation Commission every valuation made under subsection (3) forthwith after making the valuation.

"(5) The commission shall transmit to the Treasurer the valuation report which is determined to be acceptable."

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.