The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

REMARKS ABOUT LAWYERS

Mr. Nixon: On a point of personal privilege while the cabinet is gathering, I want to make it abundantly clear, sir, in spite of the report of my remarks in the Globe and Mail of this morning, that while my comments were critical of the legal profession yesterday I had no intention of singling out any individual lawyers and certainly no lawyers as members of this House, both present and past.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AGRICULTURAL HALL OF FAME

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the members that at a recent meeting of delegates from the major agricultural organizations, support was given to the establishment of an Agricultural Hall of Fame for Ontario.

The objective of the Agricultural Hall of Fame will be to give formal recognition to the many men and women who have, by example and deed, paved the way for the extraordinary developments that have been made in organization, in production, in marketing, in education and in all other phases of agriculture.

The 50 people who attended the meeting, which was held at the Agricultural Museum two weeks ago, asked me to appoint a steering committee to draft a constitution and develop operating guidelines. I am now in the process of choosing the committee members.

The Agricultural Hall of Fame will be located at the Ontario Agricultural Museum.

I think the members will agree that people who have made significant contributions to agriculture have in so doing made important contributions to society at large. It is fitting that we honour them in this way.

TRAINING SCHOOL DEATH

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I announce the death last night of a 15-year-old youth who was a ward of the Hillcrest Training School in Guelph. The youth was pronounced dead at the General Hospital in Guelph, following his being found by a staff member unconscious in his room.

The coroner’s office conducted a post mortem this morning and I expect to hear the results of it later today. I understand that in the circumstances an inquest is mandatory and the date is to be announced by the local coroner.

This tragedy is under investigation at the present time, both by the local police and by senior officials of my ministry, and is being investigated as an apparent suicide.

Our staff notified the parents of the child last night, in person, and a chaplain from our ministry, the Reverend Hinson MacLeod, was with the family.

I will keep the hon. members informed, as more information is available, on the progress of the investigation and of the date of the inquest.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTO PACT

Mr. S. Smith: I will address this question to the Minister of Labour, although frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to address it to the Premier (Mr. Davis), or the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), or the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), none of whom is here. However --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I hate being fourth fiddle.

Mr. S. Smith: -- fourth fiddle, Madam Minister. I am sure she will still be very melodic and moderate. I wouldn’t want in any way to denigrate her position.

In view of the fact that the Ontario Federation of Labour will be presenting its brief shortly to the cabinet and that its brief outlines, as you know, the dismal situation in the manufacturing sector in Ontario, particularly with regard to the need to renegotiate the auto pact, what is the government doing to make clear to the federal government that this province demands the renegotiation of that pact so that the number of jobs in Canada in the auto and auto parts industry will be proportionate to sales of autos in this country?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I hesitate to answer this question in a non-melodic voice, as was suggested that I might do, because I have suddenly obviously become a bass today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just temporarily.

Mr. Foulds: Two esses.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, no, none of that, just voice. At any rate, I would like to assure --

Mr. Conway: You have never been accused of being base before.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Only by you.

I should like to assure the leader of the official opposition that Ontario has made strong representation to the federal government regarding the need to renegotiate the auto pact. The Treasurer has had frequent communications, I am aware, with his counterparts in Ottawa about this specific matter and I think Ontario’s position has been very well put. We are very much concerned about the need to redress some of the imbalances and inequities that have developed as a result of the present arrangements under the auto pact and that position has been strongly put.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the minister not agree that it would really help our negotiators at these international negotiations if there were a public outcry and there were seen to be very strong groups in the community and very strong governments demanding certain action of a government? Under those circumstances does she not agree that it is important for Ontario to take positions strongly, forcefully and publicly, so it will be clear to everyone there is a crying need for redress in this situation and that we will not take some type of fobbing off by either the federal government or the international negotiating team, but demand action publicly? Why is the minister so quiet about it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that the members of government have been particularly quiet about this specific situation. Perhaps it’s not couched in such ferocious language as the hon. Leader of the Opposition would wish. But I think the Treasurer has made his position clear publicly regarding the auto pact and I think that’s been echoed by the Minister of Industry and Tourism as well.

I think that the position which has been stated by some members of the Ontario Federation of Labour has echoed it rather strongly and we are in support of that position. We believe that this whole problem does need to be reassessed in order to make sure that the position for Canada is more equitable.

We can try couching it in language of vigour, if the member likes and perhaps that will solve some of the problems.

Mr. S. Smith: You could try.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: In view of the fact that at this time there is no assurance that the auto pact will be renegotiated and we have no assurance that we are going to get the contract for the pipeline, is the minister prepared to collect all the cabinet ministers in the federal government, the members from those localities, call a public meeting with the members from those areas present, and with the press present and tell publicly that this has not been negotiated to the benefit of the people of Ontario and make sure that the people in the area know that this is going on?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If and when it becomes apparent that the negotiations have not been carried out to the benefit of the people of Ontario, that’s an interesting suggestion which will be seriously considered.

Mr. Deans: I think it is becoming apparent now.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it’s not. It is not yet.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: This is a supplementary to the first question. Is the minister telling the House that the government has changed policy? The Treasurer not later than two weeks ago said during the estimates that a renegotiation is not necessary and in the last year in a budget paper on the auto pact he said that the normal review was necessary.

Is the minister telling the House that now the government is supporting the renegotiation of the auto pact, in view of the negative effects -- especially on the parts industry of Ontario and the unemployment caused, especially in southwest Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not sure that the Treasurer was specifically referring to the situation in southwestern Ontario. If he said something of what I gather the hon. member has suggested during the estimates I have not heard about that. But certainly there has been much discussion about certain specific portions of the auto pact which must be improved if the situation is to improve for Ontario industry. As I said, representations have been made about that.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Davidson: Supplementary: In response to the second question or the supplementary put by the leader of the official opposition the minister talked in terms of reassessment rather than renegotiation. Can she tell me what that means on the part of the government, to reassess? There is quite a difference between reassessing and renegotiating a contract that exists.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think it must be widely understood that assessment and reassessment of the effects of the auto pact are absolute essentials to the development of a position before renegotiation. That’s what I meant.

Mr. di Santo: That was done in the budget last year.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: With some trepidation I address a question to the Minister of Energy. I feel I should be given a bonus question for doing this, but anyway.

Since the essence of the Global Television news report last evening seemed to indicate there were no schedules and no cost estimates issued on April 13, 1977, despite the fact that a letter to Lummus refers to them, that a letter to me from Chairman Taylor refers to them, and that a letter to the minister from Chairman Taylor refers to them, would the minister care to make some comment on the results of his investigations into the matter? Do these schedules exist? Is the television newscast correct? If they don’t exist, how does the minister tolerate this kind of business attitude on the part of Ontario Hydro?

[2:15]

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition take that matter up with the select committee. As he knows, this whole matter will be considered by a select committee and I would suggest that would be the appropriate place to do that.

Mr. S. Smith: What’s the oral question period for?

Mrs. Campbell: In other words you don’t know the answer to that either.

Mr. S. Smith: I suppose it is an improvement over the minister telling me I shouldn’t ask him questions in the House.

By way of supplementary, given the fact that no select committee exists as of the moment for me to take that question up with, would the minister kindly answer the question as to whether there really are cost estimates and schedules issued on April 13, 1977, which are referred to in the so-called ultimatum regarding this half-billion dollar enterprise?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, may I just correct the Leader of the Opposition? I have never suggested that he not ask me questions. What I did, as a matter of fact, was invite him to ask me questions.

Mr. S. Smith: Outside of the House.

Mrs. Campbell: Which you don’t answer.

Mr. Kerrio: Questions are easy.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I would hope maybe the day will come when the Leader of the Opposition will see fit to discuss complicated issues with me without having to avoid me outside of the Legislature.

In terms of those schedules, yes, I fully expect they are available and if he would like them then as in other matters I would be delighted to co-operate with him and provide him with whatever information he wishes.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister table them? Will he table such schedules and cost estimates in the House?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in tabling any of those documents related to the contract. I may say that I have tried to make that clear to the Leader of the Opposition for many months --

Ms. Gigantes: Why don’t you just table them?

Mr. Davidson: Why didn’t you just say it instead of beating around the bush?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- but it has just not been his style to contact me in connection with this matter.

Ms. Gigantes: Come and do private pleadings, eh?

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Given that we now have a second report on nursing homes which seems to indicate that there is a major problem with regard to nursing homes in the province not being prepared to accept those who are very ill, over and against those who are less ill but can get extended care, what action would she contemplate recommending to the Minister of Health -- who is just coming into the house -- with regard to policy shifts that would guarantee that persons in need of nursing home care in terms of being sick are, in fact, given first priority?

What is she going to do to provide a sufficient number of beds in order that the people who are currently being moved out of active treatment hospitals are given the opportunity and given some place to be placed in the province within reach of their homes?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Health is in the House I would respectfully suggest the member direct the question to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think that the report to which the hon. member refers is in this morning’s Globe and Mail. The headline refers to a nursing home, but the facility in question is a home for the aged.

Mr. Deans: There are two of them; two articles.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, I am thinking of a different one. As far as extended care is concerned, and this is something which we -- in answer to the question from the press gallery the answer is yes.

As we discussed in estimates yesterday, there is a requirement in the nursing homes that a minimum of 75 per cent of the beds be retained for extended care patients. In addition, we discussed and it was agreed -- and this is something which I am working on with my colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services -- that we do have to develop across the province a system of assessment and placement agencies which will have the ability to put people, as much as is possible, into the type of institution or home, whatever we want to call it, which best suits their needs.

For instance, there was one referred to yesterday in estimates and I will get to this later on. The member’s colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) asked about a particular home and what is done there.

In checking this morning, we find that 99.2 per cent of the beds in that home are, in fact, occupied by extended care patients. We do, from time to time, come across instances where maybe the home is being asked to go to 78 per cent or 80 per cent beyond the minimum required and finding some resistance because of the extra care involved, staffing, time and so forth. That is where I think a series of assessment and placement agencies will be of assistance to us.

Mr. Deans: I have two supplementary questions: The first is, does the minister recognize that in the Ottawa area, where he already has an assessment patient placement agency in operation, there is a six-month waiting list; that there are perhaps more than 300 persons on that waiting list; and that there simply aren’t a sufficient number of beds to accommodate the people who require them? What is the point of having an assessment operation if the minister doesn’t have anywhere to put the patients who need the beds?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have two comments in reaction to that, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it must be acknowledged that the few assessment placement agencies we have right now, don’t have the kind of authority that I certainly envisage assessment of placement agencies eventually having. Right now, it is a matter of persuasion, coercion or whatever, to get people properly placed.

The second thing is that I think this is part of an overall problem -- which I have certainly discussed with a number of the Ottawa members from time to time -- as to how beds in all kinds of facilities in the Ottawa area are being used. And, as you may know, we do have under way, under the auspices of the district health council and with co-operation from the faculty of medicine at the University of Ottawa, a study on the long-term needs of Ottawa-Carleton. Included in that -- in February, although I wouldn’t want to be held to that date -- will be a one-day census of who is in what kind of bed and where they are from.

That is an added dimension to the problem in Ottawa -- the number of beds in the Ottawa area being utilized by persons from outside of the Ottawa-Carleton region. I am told by my staff that we have nursing homes with empty beds not too far away in nearby counties. So it may be that we have to better co-ordinate among the various counties and regions to try to keep people in appropriate facilities.

I recognize that it is a problem. I haven’t heard the number of 600.

Ms. Gigantes: It’s 300.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Sorry, 300. Is that in connection with any one particular home or in general?

Ms. Gigantes: That’s general.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I hadn’t heard that. I would want to think about whether that’s an appropriate figure. We’ll always have some waiting list. I know from my own experience in the past, sitting on the board of homes for the aged, that we always anticipated having some waiting list. It’s just a question of whether that’s appropriate or inappropriate for the number of facilities and beds and so forth available.

Mr. Davidson: Oh, come on!

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given the fact that the estimates report of the minister’s predecessor for 1975 and 1976 and the present minister’s report this year for 1977 all clearly point out that a hospital bed is at least seven to eight times more costly than a nursing-home bed, how long do we have to wait for this reassessment? The ministry has known for three years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, let’s put a couple more things on the record. First of all, since October 1975 there has been a freeze put on the ministry by the Management Board of Cabinet for new nursing-home beds. Secondly, if one looks at the planning ratios for nursing-home beds, the province is as a whole over-bedded in nursing-home beds.

Mr. Roy: Except in the Ottawa area.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thirdly, over the last few years we have begun to develop some alternatives, not the least of them being chronic home care. I will, late this week or early next week, be tabling the initial assessment report on the chronic home-care program. And that is even less expensive.

Mr. Sweeney: It is more expensive.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is even less expensive than an extended care bed in a nursing home. So we are trying to ensure that there is a wide range of services. But the point is that there will, in fact, be some waiting lists.

I guess it is the ideal but I don’t think we could afford to have on any one given day no waiting list at all for anything. That is unrealistic.

Mr. Deans: Since we don’t appear to have a sufficient number of nursing-home beds, we don’t appear to have a sufficient number of chronic care beds in the province of Ontario, and since the minister has been systematically reducing the number of active treatment beds in the existing hospitals, what is wrong with working out a program that would allow people in need of nursing home care or who are at the chronic care level to be kept within those hospitals and to provide that level of care at the reduced cost? What is wrong with doing that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think, perhaps, if the member has an opportunity to come to estimates committee we can probably get into it in more detail than question period allows. When one talks about keeping them in a hospital at the lower cost let’s first of all establish that one would have to be talking about establishing a chronic unit --

Mr. Deans: Then do it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and by and large you’re talking in terms of twenties, thirties and forties as the numbers of beds for viable chronic units. That has been going on in a number of hospitals around the province -- the conversion to chronic. We have the conversion of the old Mount Sinai just down the street from this chamber; this will be finished soon and will bring on 300 more chronic beds.

Mr. Roy: It was empty for three years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And there is the rebuilding of the old Dunn Avenue campus of Queen Elizabeth, being rebuilt for chronic care; and the conversion of the Salvation Army Grace Hospital to chronic, just thinking of the Metro area.

Mr. Deans: That’s converting a whole hospital. I’m not talking about that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: So it has been going on. I have a number of policy matters to discuss with my cabinet colleagues in the near future. The member’s suggestion is a good one and certainly not altogether out of line with the ministry’s thinking.

Mr. Conway: In an earlier response to the member for Wentworth the minister indicated that from this point of view he would like to see some very major strengthening take place in that assessment placement process. I wonder if the minister could share with us this afternoon what specific proposals he envisions for that strengthening.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not at this point, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, it is being worked on between my ministry and that of my colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services, following which we will seek approval for whatever is the conclusion of our work from the social development committee of cabinet and then finally of cabinet and Management Board.

HOSPITAL BED RATIOS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I’ve another question for the Minister of Health. Is there truth to the rumour that it’s the intention of the Ministry of Health to reduce the proportion of beds to population from four to some lower figure, 3.75 or 3.5, in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s a rumour that I started; unlike the rumour started by the member’s colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I just want to put that in there, it might help his campaign.

Mr. Deans: I don’t need the minister’s help, thank you.

Mr. Foulds: The minister just lost him 40 votes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m just trying to be helpful; I'm sorry.

Mr. Nixon: The minister’s time will come. We will help him too.

Mr. Deans: If I wanted help I wouldn’t be asking for help from the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point I’ve been making to the hospital people -- and it follows from the member’s earlier question -- is that looking ahead and looking at the fact that by the turn of the century the proportion of our population, which one can call aged, will be something like 50 per cent greater than it is in proportion to today’s population, and looking at changing modes of treatment, we’ll be moving into chronic programs and geriatric programs of various sorts.

One cannot say that the whole system as it is today must be taken as it’s given and everything else is added on. The realities of our ability to raise money, the realities of the economy at this time are such that we have to look at the active treatment bed ratios to make room for other things to come into the system or to be expanded within the system, and to take cognizance of, as I said the changing patterns of practice.

Now, having said all that, no final decision has been made. I would hope that that would occur in the not too distant future.

Mr. Warner: Is the Minister of Health telling us that he is going to help out those private nursing homes that have been shuffling off some of their patients to the homes for the aged, by now establishing separate institutions for chronic care?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m not establishing any new ones. There are existing ones in operation or under construction or conversion. I guess the only recent new one would be the Salvation Army Grace Hospital in downtown Toronto which will convert to chronic and palliative care from its current, very successful operation as an active treatment hospital, and the conversion of the old Mount Sinai. But I’m not saying I’m going to be building new ones. Certainly, as we look around the province, where the need for extra chronic beds is recognized, we’ll try to do it within existing facilities as we are doing in several centres, not the least of them being Windsor.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Has the minister initiated that rumour with any advice from any of the official sources within his ministry that might have given him evidence to indicate that there should, in fact, be a reduction in the active bed ratio below the figure of four that’s been mentioned by my friend from Wentworth?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure I understand the question, but I’m just speaking for myself as the minister. In looking to the future needs, whether it be institutional care such as chronic and so forth, or whether it be programs outside of what has become the tradition of institutionalized care, and given the facts of life and finance in Canada today -- and I think from my reading this is something that every province and every country is having to face -- I ask the member to look at the fact that in the United States, for instance, the Secretary of Health has indicated that by 1984 they’re going to have to close 100,000 active treatment beds to bring their system into line and to allow for flexibility for other programs. That’s what I’m talking about.

I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, how good I’ve been today in not pointing out that there’s another group of students from my riding in the gallery.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, to come back to the original question and the answer which the minister gave, I am wondering how this solves the problem highlighted in the article this morning, picking up on the article from April 15 of this year. How does all of this answer the problem of nursing homes wanting to and being able to accept patients who simply require minimal care, thereby shuffling some of the problem into the public homes for the aged? How does what the minister has told us today solve that problem? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, again, with respect, this is something that is certainly going on in estimates committee. We could take up a great deal of time there without cutting off other members who want to discuss other subjects.

I pointed out first of all that the regulations to the Act require that a minimum of 75 per cent of the beds in a nursing home be retained as extended care beds. The hon. member asked me yesterday about a home, I think it’s called St. Raphael. We checked into that. As of this morning, 99.2 per cent of the beds in that home are in fact extended care beds.

To the very earliest question of this series, I indicated that we are working on the principle of assessment and placement agencies that will have some teeth.

Mr. Warner: When?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I hope certainly in the next year that we will have resolved our discussions and got the matter through cabinet.

Mr. Warner: In the fullness of time.

Mrs. Campbell: Has the minister looked at the experiments which have been carried out in some of the western provinces, where they have analysed nursing home care in degrees of care expected from each of the different classifications of homes? In view of the fact that the interministerial report indicated that most of this relates to financing, why haven’t we at least looked at the record in the west where they have degrees of financing related to the degree of care which is to be delivered?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the systems employed in the west are any more successful than the system we employ in the province of Ontario. In effect we do have two levels of care, extended care and normal residency, and rather an involved point system and a regular evaluation and then re-evaluation by the physicians involved.

Certainly the representations I’ve had from the nursing home industry in my nine or 10 months as Minister of Health indicate they would like to see something like that come in to improve on what they consider to be a low rate of return on investment. For instance, the extended care rate applies to all nursing homes whether they were built in the last year at 12 or 14 per cent mortgage rates, or built 20 years ago at much lower rates and lower construction costs. I know that that’s something that aggravates them, but I really don’t think from what I’ve read of what goes on in other jurisdictions that they are any closer to the ultimate answer than we are.

BRIBERY CASE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have the answers to several questions asked by the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. di Santo) regarding the prosecutions which came about as a result of Judge Waisberg’s commission which reported on crime or criminal activity within the construction industry.

First of all, may I state that I had the matters raised by the hon. member reviewed by the acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal law division, Mr. McLeod, who agrees that the decisions reached by the Crown law office back in the fall of 1974 were appropriate.

As a result of evidence taken at the royal commission on certain sectors of the building industry, investigations were made by a joint task force involving the OPP and the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The royal commission hearings commenced on June 5, 1973. In the spring of 1974, the Crown law office reviewed the transcript of the evidence taken by the commission on a daily basis as it became available. In the fall of 1974, the Crown law office provided to the joint task force a list of approximately 20 areas where criminal charges could be considered but at the same time suggested to the police that further investigation was required in each of these areas. This investigation was done, and at the conclusion of their investigation, a decision was reached to cause criminal charges to be laid against six persons, which charges were laid on December 18, 1974.

The six persons who were charged were persons who had received benefits rather than persons who had given benefits. It is clear that section 383 of the Criminal Code creates two parallel offences, one for the receiver and one for the giver. The decision to charge, in each case, the person who received the benefit and not to charge the person who conferred the benefit was based upon a consideration of the following factors:

1. In the Crown’s view it was necessary in these eases to refrain from prosecuting one or the other of the giver or receiver in order to have the evidence of one for a successful prosecution.

2. The relative degrees of culpability having regard to: (a) who instigated the transaction, namely that the donees in each of the six cases instigated the payment; (b) the reason for it; (c) the testimony and demeanour of the participants during the royal commission.

3. The Crown law office’s assessment of the deterrent value in the construction industry of the prosecutions.

Mr. Foulds: That’s incredible.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. I hope he shares my interest in selling Ontario pipe for the Alaska Highway pipeline. In view of the day to day changes in events altering the opportunities as we face them, and more particularly, in view of what the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Jack Horner said, and I’d like to quote him: “The final decision is for Canadians to make, not Americans. We are in the driver’s seat with regard to the pipe. If we make the right decision then we will make available to Canadian suppliers” --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t hear a question yet.

Mr. Kerrio: -- “the opportunity to produce the pipe.” This is very significant, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It’s still not a question.

Mr. Kerrio: The question is, will the Premier address himself to the comments I’m making when I suggest that if all we’re guaranteed is that competitive price is all that’s going to be considered in the contract would he and his ministers take a more active part in seeing that we do have a fair hearing in making the decision of where this pipe is to be purchased?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t kept track but I do believe the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans), the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis), the member for Niagara Falls and perhaps one or two others have raised this matter in the past two weeks. I will once again reassure the member for Niagara Falls that the government has been interested in this and was pursuing it perhaps even before the member for Niagara Falls knew there was to be a pipeline.

Mr. Kerrio: If I had known sooner I would have sold them the pipe.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How many times do I have to tell him? If the member for Niagara Falls wants to compete in either the sale or the installation of the pipe I can think of no rules or regulations of this House that would preclude him doing so and I wish him well. My own guess is that Canadian supplier or suppliers will be involved in this process. I am very optimistic about that. I can’t say that I am that familiar with the hon. member’s own operation to say whether or not he would be personally one of those.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, in view of what’s happening in this whole issue, I would just like to ask the Premier if he’s aware that the US export subsidy and knocked-down pricing -- such as that of one company reported as offering to build a gas line in Mexico -- would give a strong competitive edge to the US in the Canadian selling of this pipe? I am most concerned that if we don’t bring to bear every bit of pressure the Premier’s office and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) have t their command, we are not going to build the pipe in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to prolong this although I recognize its importance. But I would also point out to the hon. member that there are a number of people making representations and that includes the province of Ontario -- and this dates back a period of time.

Just to give him the latest information, Mr. Jefferson, vice-president, services, Foothills, stated before a committee in Calgary as recently as November 16 -- that’s admittedly a week ago -- in answer to a question related to Ontario -- this was to the committee on industrial benefits from natural resource development, chaired by Mr. George Hughes Adams, that the project will be handled by six separately incorporated Foothills corporations. Each would be responsible for the building of the section of the pipeline as it passes through Alaska, the Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I have to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that part of the line does not go through Canada. I think one can assume that American producers of pipe are going to endeavour to get their share of that portion that is not in this country. One is going to read a lot of speculation, and there will be a lot of competition.

To say categorically to the hon. member it is going to happen, I am not in a position to give this guarantee. But I can tell him that on a personal basis and through ministers of the government, the government of Canada is totally aware. I am critical of the government of Canada on occasion but I have to say this for them, they are aware of the importance of it.

Mr. Roy: Jack Horner is doing a good job there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just want to tell the member what Mr. Jefferson has said. “It was stated that on the Canadian section, in excess of 85 per cent of all materials and services would be obtained from Canadian sources and this would include transmission pipe valves and related equipment. Purchases of supplies and equipment will be handled independently, section by section, and the responsibility will rest with the operating contractor.”

I should point out that another firm in Canada will also be making some effort to get their share. I think that firm is called Ipsco. I think it is geographically located in the province of Alberta, and I think for anyone to suggest that they will not be competing for a portion of this pipe would be to underestimate their capacity.

But I would assure the hon. member for Niagara Falls, the member for Wentworth and if he would relay it to his leader, and all of those who represent constituencies, and I guess indirectly the Leader of the Opposition, that this government is making every effort to see that particularly -- I will be selfish -- Ontario manufacturers get their share. We do not award the contracts so I am not in a position to guarantee it. But I am relatively optimistic that Canadians will get their fair share of the pipe and other related materials that are purchased.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Premier if he is not aware that his Minister of Industry and Tourism in reply in this House on November 17 stated that Canadian companies do not have some of the technology presently in place to produce the pipe for the Alaska pipeline? In view of Mr. Horner’s statement and the fact that Stelco has continually repudiated that and say they can produce it, will the Premier repudiate the statement of the Minister of Industry and Tourism? He’s making the kind of statement that’s selling out the Canadian interest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the member for Welland-Thorold no minister has worked harder on behalf of the manufacturers of this province than the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

[2:45]

Mr. Nixon: All over the world, in fact.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad it wasn’t effective.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There may or may not be some technical problems. I can tell the member that I don’t pretend to be an expert in the technology of the production of pipe, but I assure the hon. member for Welland-Thorold that we are making every effort as a government, and I know the private sector is making every effort, to see that it is the supplier of a good portion of this pipe. I can’t add any more to that. I assume the hon. member for Welland-Thorold doesn’t himself expect to put in a bid, like the member for Niagara Falls. At least I didn’t know he was in the business, so I can’t wish him well.

Mr. Nixon: He isn’t; why don’t you get that straight? You have been told three times.

Mr. Yakabuski: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the controversy with regard to the supply of pipe for the proposed pipeline, is it true that Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie is considering a tube and pipe facility to be added to that complex with an eye towards getting some of the pipeline business?

Mr. Wildman: Yes, it is, it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not familiar with all of the possible plans of some people involved in the steel industry. I would be very surprised if all of the major companies in this particular sector aren’t looking at their capacity to produce those materials, because they will amount to many millions of dollars.

I cannot answer specifically as it relates to Algoma. Perhaps if the hon. member had a word with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), who is geographically fairly close to Algoma, he might have the most recent inside corporate information. I don’t.

TRAINING SCHOOL DEATH

Mr. Foulds: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services with regard to the statement he made this afternoon.

Can the minister assure us that the same kind of full report supplied by his ministry in the tragic Norma Dean case will be made public in the case of the tragic incident at Hillcrest yesterday? Specifically, could he inform the House the route through which the young lad arrived at the training school, whether it was section 8 or section 9, and whether it was through a Children’s Aid Society, the police, or a treatment centre?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the hon. member that, as the full information is available, I will make it available to the hon. members of the House. I do have a fairly comprehensive preliminary report which was delivered to me just before I came into the House, prepared and put together by staff during the night.

Following my being advised yesterday evening shortly after the death of the youth, they began the preparation of the report. I have not yet had a chance to review that in its entirety, but to the best of my knowledge, at this point, according to the information I have, the child had been in the care of the Children’s Aid Society since, I believe, 1975. When the more comprehensive report is available to me, I will be in a better position to give the member more accurate information with respect to that.

The other thing I would raise at this point is that obviously I would not wish in any way to prejudge the outcome of the inquest in terms of the kinds of responses, the kinds of information that I might be able to give out prior to that. I would be willing to share with the member any information that I get, certainly, on a private basis; I am not in a position to deal with it publicly.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: Is it not true that Hillcrest is supposedly the maximum security institution for disturbed children in this province? If that is so, how can such a tragedy take place? Doesn’t that indicate that perhaps training schools are not the answer for 15-year-old children?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is true that that particular training school is one with a higher degree of security than most, or any, of the others in any of our training school system in the province.

I have in preparation at the moment a new proposal with respect to both the philosophy and the purpose or the role of training schools in the total picture of children’s and youth’s services in this province. As soon as I have had an opportunity to deal with that at the policy level with my colleagues, I hope I will be in a position to make some rather substantial announcements with respect to the role of training schools.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: Through the Chair, to the minister: In view of the fact that these kinds of tragedies are inevitable as long as children who need mental health care are sent to training schools, would the minister not agree that the time has come to close training schools in Ontario and replace them as soon as possible with an adequate --

Mr. Speaker: That question was just asked.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t think the question was asked as a matter of complete provincial policy, Mr. Speaker. It was specific. I am asking whether the matter of general policy for the treatment of disturbed children, the training school system, ought to be closed, and whether the minister wouldn’t agree with that. I don’t appreciate being cut off on it!

Mr. Speaker: I was listening very carefully to the question that was asked previously by the member for Port Arthur. Yours was a duplication of it.

The hon. member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That’s enough supplementaries on that.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, there was only one supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: There was a repetition of questions. The hon. member for Renfrew North.

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

Mr. Conway: A new question to the Premier: Having regard to recent proposals with respect to the Edwardsburgh industrial proposal for eastern Ontario, and having regard to the Premier’s recent pilgrimage to Prescott, has he, in fact, accommodated the interests of the former member for Carleton-Grenville and the former minister from that area, who at that time was alleged to have asked the Premier to report to his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, that “We don’t need any more poplar trees here in eastern Ontario”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did travel to eastern Ontario, as the hon. member mentioned last week, and I must say that I came away encouraged that, with one or two aberrations, of course --

Mr. Samis: More than one or two.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- eastern Ontario was still solidly in support of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I acknowledge one or two aberrations. I’ve got news for the member. In fact, some of those aberrations may disappear and I don’t want to be personal about it at all.

Mr. Samis: Now back to the trees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the former member, a very distinguished colleague of mine and a friend of many -- I was going to say on both sides of the House, although he philosophically differed with some -- made observations about the future potential of the Edwardsburgh site. I think he did observe that he would like to see more by way of industry than an increase in the number of trees. I think he did make that point somewhat subtly. I understood what he was saying.

I can also tell the hon. member that that riding fortunately is still represented by an extremely able, aggressive person on the government side of the House, and that I am very confident we will find the best ultimate use for the Edwardsburgh site, because he is taking such an active interest in seeing that the right decisions are made.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Given the fact that the Premier, I thought, made a very appropriate reference in his speech to his government’s concern about regional disparity and what federal government wasn’t doing in that regard, and having regard to the former member’s comment that, “What we need are more jobs in industry,” I would ask the Premier what specific proposals he is entertaining at the cabinet level to make that Edwardsburgh industrial showcase something more than an experimental farm, which is quite obviously unsatisfactory to the people in eastern Ontario who feel that this government knows all about regional disparity because it has left eastern Ontario to languish industrially.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I -- No, I won’t, I’ll try it --

Mr. Warner: You were going to resign.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, just you, David. You are the only one who should.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did make some observations at that very excellent, nonpartisan affair. I did point out that one of the problems we faced on a national basis was the disparity that existed in many parts of Canada. I have also pointed out that in some respects we face problems even within our own province -- that there hasn’t been total equality in terms of economic growth.

Mr. Samis: You can say that again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One of the reasons we have had some measure of success, both in eastern Ontario and more recently with additions in northern Ontario --

Mr. Roy: Yes, majority government, eh?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is because the people in those parts of the province recognize that this government is making efforts to see they do share in the economic prosperity of the rest of the province.

The fact that so many members come from that part of Ontario just indicates to me the wisdom and the logic of the people who live in that great part of the province. In spite of the fact that in two or three cases they did make errors in judgement, I still --

Mr. Speaker: That is not part of the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- have confidence in their ability to determine what is best for them and we will assist them in that process.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. After that political harangue, could the Premier tell us if he has any new initiatives at all, leaving politics aside, for the people of eastern Ontario?

Mr. Nixon: It wasn’t a harangue. It was a soporific.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was asked specifically about the Edwardsburgh site --

Mr. Roy: Yes, the Premier hasn’t answered that yet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As the former Leader of the Opposition indicated, it was not a harangue at all, he called it a what?

Mr. Nixon: A soporific. It puts you to sleep.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He indicates that it put him to sleep. I wouldn’t doubt it for a moment because it doesn’t take much to put the hon. member to sleep on occasion.

Mr. Nixon: Just a speech from the Premier will do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say that my own speeches put me to sleep on occasion but they have been more successful, obviously, over the years than his own.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Premier is not answering the supplementary at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right.

Mr. Warner: He does not have an answer.

Mr. Wildman: Could the Premier indicate to this House which ministry will be responsible for making to the cabinet whatever proposals the government has for the Edwardsburgh site and for carrying them out? The Minister of Industry and Tourism disclaims responsibility for the original decision and fears that anyone who wants an industrial park in that area must be off his nut.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really am trying to answer that supplementary question but I’m getting so many other interjections that I am having difficulty concentrating. What was the question?

Mr. Samis: The Premier is looking for an audience.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As recently as, I guess, yesterday or Friday, I forget the exact date, a meeting was held with representatives from the government and with representatives from the local municipalities; they discussed four or five possible ideas for the Edwardsburgh site, how it should be handled. I understand these resolutions or ideas are being presented to the local government bodies. I expect they will be ratified, amended and so on. In this consultative process with the local communities involved the government is looking to them for their advice and guidance. When we receive that, then we will inform the House more fully as to what the plans for Edwardsburgh may be.

BADGLEY REPORT

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask of the Minister of Health why since July 1977 he has been sitting on the report of the provincial committee to review the Badgley report? I mean that figuratively of course.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have not, Mr. Speaker, been sitting on the report. It was put out to the OHA and to the OMA for official comment from both of those bodies. Some discussions have already been held at my level. Further discussions will be held and I would anticipate wrapping that up some time in the first half of 1978, going to cabinet and finally officially stating the government's reaction to the Badgley report.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Considering that two members of the committee were from the Ontario Medical Association and two members of the committee were from the Ontario Hospital Association, constituting four out of five members of the committee, I would like to know why the minister thinks it is necessary at this point to send the report back to those associations? If he is consulting these associations, is he consulting any group which might be considered client groups?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not at this point. We have certainly heard from a number of client groups and certainly the committee which did include representatives of the two associations heard from client groups. Any material I received during that time -- letters or briefs -- were submitted to them.

I certainly didn’t consider that the two doctors -- the three doctors, really, because one of the representatives of the hospital association was a doctor as well -- and the other persons were, as it were, representative of the firm position of the OHA or the OMA. They were there to represent those sectors because it involves very directly both the hospitals and the medical profession as to how services are or would be delivered. Both associations, since the Badgley report came out, have gone through changes in their executives and perhaps therefore one could anticipate some slight change in policy -- not necessarily but possibly. I think both executives deserve the right to consider it and give the official position of both associations.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms. Gigantes: I assume from that answer that what he is telling me is that he is not going back to any client groups for any input. I would like to ask the minister, on the basis of that, whether we would be safe in assuming that the report is rather far-reaching and calling for government action, or he wouldn’t be sitting on it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, my experience with the hon. member is that she will make any assumption she wants whether it is based on fact or not.

Ms. Gigantes: It is the only answer I ever get from this ministry.

COW-CALF PROGRAM

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Could the minister inform the House if the cow-calf program monitoring is complete and is he in a position to tell us what the average of the calves was this fall?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the monitoring period will go to December 15. At that point in time we will calculate the sales around the province to get the average figure. I wouldn’t want to say what it will be at this point in time, but it looks like it will come out somewhere around 38 cents. There will be a payout to the cow-calf producers of this province.

Mr. Wildman: That’s better, but still bad.

Mr. Wiseman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would that payment go out to the producers before the end of the year?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes; we are anticipating that it will go out before the end of the year, providing the government of Canada will be kind enough to give us their figures by December 15.

Mr. Roy: Yes, before Christmas.

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. Roy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier confirm or deny the meetings that are supposedly taking place in the dining room downstairs involving some of his well-known colleagues, members of the Conservative Party and the deputy minister, as reported in an article by Jonathan Manthorpe on November 8? Would the Premier confirm or deny that these meetings are taking place re appointments to boards and commissions?

Hon. W. Newman: Where have you been the last two weeks; practising law?

Mr. Roy: No, I have been giving him two weeks to prepare the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand it took the hon. member two weeks to get here to ask the question. It is true that people do get together; people do meet, that is true.

Mr. Roy: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, supplementary to this question, having in mind that it is the government’s prerogative to make appointments to boards and commissions and so on, how can the Premier possibly justify a civil servant, who is supposed to be apolitical, meeting with basically a political group? How can he justify that these appointments are non-political, based on merit, when the only people giving him advice are in fact Tories?

Hon. W. Newman: They are the only people capable of giving good advice.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really find I listen to advice from many quarters. I find that on balance the best advice I get happens to be from Progressive Conservatives. I don’t think that would come as a great shock to the member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Sure doesn’t happen federally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just so the hon. member doesn’t forget how objective and non-partisan we are, I believe one of the recommendations emanating from that group, which ultimately was approved by myself and cabinet, was his former very distinguished colleague from Armourdale.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: I would hardly call that non-political.

Mr. Nixon: Cutting a little close to the bone there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Trudeau is never surrounded by Tories.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the Premier confirm the membership of that committee? Was the listing correct, the one I gave during discussion of the private members’ resolution carried on the order paper under the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith)? If not, would he correct it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I always take great delight in correcting the member for York South. I can’t often do it except on matters of real substance.

Mr. Foulds: On this one you can’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In that this is a matter I know he wants to learn more about as a matter of urgent public interest I can’t honestly recall, because I don’t attend those meetings, whether that was the complete list.

Mr. MacDonald: If the Premier finds out, will he give me a list?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be delighted to inquire and to give the member a list of just about anything he wants -- just about anything.

Mr. MacDonald: Very good, thank you.

Mr. Deans: Was that yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t read the article.

Mr. Roy: The Premier hasn’t read the article.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s two weeks late.

Mr. Roy: In view of the answer given earlier by the Premier that he does not attend these meetings, doesn’t he feel as the political leader --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Is this urgent public business? You’ve got to be kidding.

Mr. Roy: -- he should be attending those meetings rather than his deputy minister who is not supposed to have any political leanings, he is supposed to be apolitical.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s why he’s there.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe he’s not going to use them if the government changes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it should indicate very clearly to the hon. member how non-partisan and objective these recommendations are. It is because of my deputy minister’s participation with this group that does recommend names from time to time, which ultimately have to be approved by cabinet --

Mr. Roy: How come they are all Tories?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that he handles this very onerous responsibility extremely well and gives it that measure of objectivity. Let me say to the hon. member everybody this government appoints is there because of the intelligence, the logic and the ability that he or she possesses to bring to the job.

Mr. Swart: Political affiliation.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s why you would never make it.

REPORT

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits..................................................$1,956,000

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ACT

Ms. Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 109, An Act respecting Special Education Programs.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I wish members would present bills to the Chair in the proper form. There’s absolutely no information on this at all.

Ms. Gigantes: This bill guarantees access to education for all children of compulsory school age who suffer from any kind of chronic physical disability or any kind of learning disability, including the blind, deaf, autistic, mentally handicapped and perceptually handicapped, or for children who are exceptionally gifted.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT

Mr. Ruston, on behalf of Mr. Reed, moved second reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CASGRAIN TOWNSHIP LANDS ACT

Mr. Maeck, in the absence of Mr. Lane, moved second reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting Certain Lands in the Township of Casgrain

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved second reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF SARNIA ACT

Mr. Blundy moved second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF SARNIA ACT

Mr. Blundy moved second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SHORE AND HORWITZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ACT

Mr. Maeck, in the absence of Mr. Handleman, moved second reading of Bill Pr35, An Act respecting Shore and Horwitz Construction Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Ministry of Colleges and Universities;

Ministry of Labour;

Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs;

Ministry of Government Services;

Ministry of Industry and Tourism;

Ministry of Revenue;

Ministry of Community and Social Services;

Management Board of Cabinet;

Office of the Assembly;

Office of the Provincial Auditor.

Resolution for supplementary supply for the following ministry was concurred in by the House:

Ministry of Community and Social Services.

[3:15]

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 98, An Act to revise the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, nearly one week ago the debate on second reading of Bill 98 was adjourned at 10:30 in the evening. I had accumulated, at that time, approximately eight pages of points, questions and concerns expressed by some of the hon. members. I will try, at this time, to touch upon some of the concerns, questions and acknowledgements recognized by the hon. members at that time. I’m taking them pretty well in the order they were submitted as the various speakers spoke and not in order of importance, only because during the week you lose some continuity.

The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) actually complimented the process that had taken place. He recognized that the consultative process had been used and of course was working very effectively through the processing of the amendments to the Municipal Elections Act. He recognized the joint committee that was established and what took place, the election date being the second Monday of November and the emergency powers now bestowed to a greater degree on the clerk and not recognized before. He indicated some support for three consecutive hours off, an amendment we’ll be considering later on. As I understood it he was considering the dialogue at that time and was going to consider very actively the debate as to whether the hours on voting day should be expanded or not. In that regard we feel based on the reaction from municipalities and the joint committee, they should not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are a number of conversations in the chamber creating a disturbance.

Mr. Ashe: There is an amendment being proposed by the Liberal Party relating to the removal of the eligibility to vote of other British subjects but the hon. member for Waterloo North accorded general support to the bill in second reading, which is very much appreciated.

The hon. member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) spent a great deal of time in discussion of the bill recognizing, as we all do I think, in this House, this is an important piece of legislation. Bill 49 was an important piece of legislation and Bill 98, because it’s twice the number -- I guess twice as important. The government is treating it exactly that way, as are most of the hon. members.

He asked at that time, as did many members of that particular party, where the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) was and I’m sure all members of this House appreciate and recognize the responsibilities of the Treasurer and, if you will, Mr. Speaker, the delegation of authority within his parliamentary assistant in regard to municipal legislation.

He mentioned the joint committee had been established and established the fact it was in place. I am afraid that particular party didn’t recognize that the joint committee, the AMO-AMCTO committee should be on because it didn’t feel it was worthwhile to have an ongoing consultation with the committee, such as the government did because that was part of the process that it felt was the right way to go and obviously has proved to be so.

The hon. member, in giving his opinion of the bill, referred to several failings, outmoded procedures, the Municipal World editor and what he had said in an earlier edition last year. I think the one thing he did forget to say was that many of the concerns that were expressed on behalf of Bill 49, of course, were amended and are recognized in Bill 98, because of the consultative process -- not in spite of it, but because of it.

There was, of course, the recognition of responsibility, the reference to three hours of time off, the hours of voting within the Election Act, the fact that the amendment by the New Democratic Party covered these items. Again, I would respectfully suggest to this House that those who were involved in the consultative process with the municipalities and with the joint committee would now recognize that neither the municipalities nor the joint committee favour returning to hours of election that would include 9 a.m. to 11 am. I think anybody who has been part of the municipal election process in recent history would realize and recognize that there are very few people who take the opportunity to exercise their franchise in those two hours.

It was also expressed that it put a very unfair burden upon the people who are working on election day because of the greater time-consuming process involved in tabulating the results from a municipal election. There are normally many more ballots than there are for counting either in a provincial or a federal election.

Disclosure and financial inclusion, of course, are not in the present bill. There is one amendment coming forward in that regard.

I particularly took offence again at the reiteration that the consultative process was a myth. I have a chronological diary of the consultative process that did take place with the joint committee that was established on an ongoing basis for approximately two years and the reaction that was received as part of the consultative process directly from the municipalities.

I might point out that the hon. member for Welland-Thorold if he were really concerned, sincerely concerned, with the consultative process, would have taken time out to consult with his local elected member on that committee, who happens to be from his own riding. It is my understanding and information that not one time during the whole process did he even manage to touch base with that person. So although there’s reference to the consultative process, in actual fact I really don’t think the members of that party really wanted to hear what the committee had to say, but only what they perceived that they might want to say. There’s a distinct difference.

Mr. Swart: There were two from our area. I talked to one. Which one are you talking about?

Mr. Foulds: Which one are you talking about, the Progressive Conservative Party?

Mr. Ashe: I have made reference to the man whose remarks I am referring to, the hon. member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Foulds: Let me tell you something. He has more lines out in this area than your party has or could ever hope to have.

Mr. Ashe: With reference to the consultative process and the playing of the game and the filing and tabling of a bill before the actual report of the joint committee had come forward, again as part of the consultative process there was an ongoing involvement and knowledge of what the committee was thinking. Bill 49 was tabled at the time; it was because the timetable pretty well necessitated that. It was a further discussion point, but it was recognized even at that time by all concerned that substantive changes to that bill were going to be considered. That was a planned process.

Mr. Swart: Why did they criticize the government?

Mr. Ashe: I can appreciate that some hon. members don’t appreciate that sometimes you can actually plan things in that way, but that really was the government’s direction all of the time.

Mr. Swart: Why did they officially criticize the government, then?

Mr. Ashe: I think it is fair to say that at the same time, most of the members of that committee recognized that process for what it was doing, what it was trying to do, and, in fact, what it did do. The rhetoric in this particular regard was of course irrelevant, to say the very least.

I appreciate the fact that there was agreement with some of the general concepts of the bill. Many of the suggested amendments we will be dealing with in more specific terms, but I think part of our job -- as it was for the joint committee and as it was for most municipalities -- was to recognize that we not only have an electoral responsibility, we also have a fiscal responsibility. I think that is reflected in the date that is being proposed by the government and not the date that is being suggested by the members of the third party.

On specifics, there was reference in the hon. member’s remarks as to the election day --

Mr. Foulds: You really don’t understand very much, do you?

Mr. Ashe: I understand it. Unfortunately the member doesn’t, because he doesn’t believe in the consultative process that he speaks about.

Mr. Foulds: What kind of nonsense is that?

Mr. Ashe: The member wouldn’t know.

Mr. Foulds: What rhetorical claptrap -- and you don’t even do it well. You had better get some sound advice before you engage in that kind of stuff.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashe: The more I hear from the hon. members over there really just doubles the fact that we already know -- from being a party to, and supportive of, the consultative process -- that to be consultative, you have to talk to other people --

Mr. Foulds: You don’t know what consultation is. To you, consultation is listening and then ignoring.

Mr. Ashe: -- not create preconceived notions and preconceived conditions of what the other side thinks it wants.

As I think was acknowledged by the hon. member --

Mr. Foulds: You are getting to be as arrogant as McKeough, and that takes some doing.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, call that man to order.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, if he would shut up for a few minutes, you could hear me speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Durham West disregard the interjections and answer the questions raised during the debate?

Mr. Swart: Is “shut up” parliamentary language?

Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Welland-Thorold did recognize and explain the difference between the press release of the NDP relating to the proposed election date and the actual one that is being proposed by amendment. There was at least some recognition in terms of one week that the proposed date is not too practical.

We feel and, of course, know that the proposed date is not practical; and as we get into clause-by-clause debate, I will, I hope, be able to pass on for the information of the hon. members some of the specifics as to why the proposed date is not too practical from a fiscal point of view. I will try to skim over some of these, because many are in support, one to the other and vice versa, and there is much duplication.

I will move on to the hon. member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston). I think he recognized, because of his own particular situation, the emergency procedures that were now being given because of a situation in his area, and the declaration of emergency that now could be made by the clerk. He indicated some concerns as to the possible challenge of the right of the clerk to make this particular declaration, but he did put forward a particular suggestion regarding “challenge by a notice of motion,” and I must say we haven’t been able to find out what that particular reference was to. We felt that in the particular section, if the clerk used any kind of reasonable judgement at all, his decision as to the declaration of an emergency could not and would not be challenged in any way.

He was in support, I think, of the allowance of the electorate to get on to the eleventh hour, so to speak, to become eligible to vote; and, of course, this is recognized within the bill.

The reason for the 10 names to qualify to be a candidate was recognized and discussed, not only by many municipal people directly in the municipalities but also by the joint committee and by the government. There were many indications and suggestions that this should be made more difficult -- the qualifications should be made a little more demanding -- but it was felt that as part of our democratic process we should make it as easy as possible for a candidate to qualify. So, although there are many pros and cons to that, as long as we support it to the degree we do, the democratic process and that elective office is available to anyone. Keeping it easy, such as having 10 qualified electors to sign a nomination paper, was the way it should be.

I think the member for Essex North indicated support on the date of the election.

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) supported the change in the election date to October, and indicated that the only thing that would have to happen would be some minor changes in the election enumeration and that the assessment commissioners would have no problem in that regard and all the ones they talked to saw no problem in that. I guess they must talk to different people than we do, but I’m sure anyone who has looked into the process would recognize that the physical enumeration in the field, if you will, is one small part of the job, and we’ll be discussing that in greater detail in clause-by-clause examination of the bill.

[3:30]

Mr. Davison: Is he using the royal “we”?

Mr. Ashe: What?

Mr. Cureatz: It’s okay. He’s just being arrogant again.

Mr. Ashe: We also acknowledge, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, that municipal elections are just as important as other elections. I think the point was being made on the basis that we do not recognize that. We do. I think again the process that has been involved, and amendments, have been designed to recognize the importance of municipal elections and to recognize that people should have the availability, not only to become candidates but to be able to cast their ballots in a reasonable time and during a reasonable time frame.

The time of the poll also was a major point made by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. I think that tied into the fact that he considered it important, if the polling time for a provincial election is from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., that we should be recognizing a municipal election with the same time frame. I won’t repeat what I said earlier regarding the reasons why it shouldn’t be, but on the other side of the coin I think that if 11 a.m. to 8 pm. is the right time, maybe it’s not the Municipal Elections Act, but the Election Act, that should be changed. Possibly that can be reviewed at the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) also emphasized the importance of municipal elections and said the municipalities and the elected municipal servants delivered a very important personal service. There is no doubt about that. He recognized the relatively small turnout that seems to be experienced at municipal elections for some unknown reason. We’re all doing our best, I think, to try to encourage a greater turnout and to increase the 30 per cent to 40 per cent turnout that most municipalities seem to experience. He recognized the consultative process that did take place and he acknowledged and supported the change in election date. He indicated quite rightly, and I’m using his words, that “it was foolish to open the polls at 9 o’clock.”

The hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) questioned where the Treasurer was, and I have to say he was busy with other important matters. As for his indication of steam-rollering things through, I would have to suggest that anybody who was aware of the process, as well as of the pronouncements, the consultations and the speeches delivered by the Treasurer and others to municipal associations and others, knew exactly what was going to be coming forward in Bill 49 and Bill 98 before they even reached the House. So I don’t think it’s fair to say, as I believe he said, that there was only one week to look at the bill. In terms of crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s, I suppose that’s actually true. But as far as the content is concerned, I think all hon. members who wished to avail themselves of the information were quite aware of what the content of Bill 98 was going to be.

The hon. member also indicated that we should be trusting the municipalities. There is no doubt at all that the policy of this government is to give more responsibility and more trust to the municipalities, and in consultation that’s exactly what is happening. The municipal election process is just one part of the total path that we are both travelling down together and generally in agreement, albeit not complete agreement. But part of consultation is still to have honest differences that you can discuss and hopefully resolve between yourselves. I don’t think consultation is always coming up with a 100 per cent position as being the right position from either side.

There was an indication from the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that the majority of politicians from Metro Toronto want a three-year term. I’d have to acknowledge that’s probably so. As we are all aware, I think it’s safe to say that the majority of the politicians from all of the major metropolitan areas favour a three-year term. I don’t think this is an impossibility for consideration in the future.

This is not an area that was particularly dealt with, as members know, by the joint committee, but it is one that has been dealt with by the various municipal associations and the PMLC. It is safe to say the majority of municipalities per se do not favour the three-year term, albeit the municipalities which do have the electorate of a majority of the province behind their particular position.

It is also safe to pass on to the hon. members that in the response we are getting from the general public and others there is no doubt in general the public at large supports the retention of the two-year term, if only because it feels council should be accountable on a two-year basis rather than a three-year. There were even some smaller municipalities, believe it or not, that favoured going back to the one-year term. It is the feeling of the government at this time that the two-year term should be retained in this coming election and depending on the outcome of the major studies that are going on -- Robarts, Mayo et cetera -- possibly some change might be considered or recommended in the future.

The hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) made a reference to the fiscal year change. That is possibly something that should be looked at even further. There is no proposal in that regard within this particular legislation. The fiscal year is proposed to remain exactly the same. My own particular reaction to that from a straight operative point of view is that the difference in the fiscal year between the province and the municipalities is not nearly as significant now with early announcements to the municipalities of anticipated revenues that come from various grant programs, unconditional or conditional.

Although at one time the difference in the fiscal year was a major obstacle and roadblock in the financial planning of the municipalities, I don’t think that has been the case or really is a serious concern of the municipalities in the last couple of years.

Mr. Haggerty: It still exists today.

Mr. Ashe: The hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) referred to the timing of the election and the problems experienced in Windsor in 1974. On the length of term, he suggested a three-year term of office should be imposed. He indicated support for section 69, giving the clerk the power to act in an emergency without threat of being overruled. He felt this was a very necessary protection for the clerk in using his discretion and, of course, I agree.

The hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) indicated general support for the bill. He thought the changes, based on consultations, were wise ones and supported the earlier voting day. He supported the taking of office by the council on December 1, the concept of three consecutive hours for the opportunity to vote, and did express support generally for a three-year term as the view of municipal politicians. All in all, he had general support for the bill.

The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) felt anything that could be done to encourage a larger electoral turnout was obviously a step in the right direction and supported the voting day change. He was concerned about there being three weeks after nomination date to the election. I would respectfully point out that this is no change from before. The three weeks are changed in the time frame but the actual three-week period, 21 days, is the same as it was when the election date was the first Monday in December. He generally supported the eligibility to vote and most part of the bill, such as uniform hours to vote. He was a little concerned about having only one week to study the bill. I have already commented on that earlier.

The hon. member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) supported the date of the election. He suggested that maybe at some future time preregistration for eligible voters be considered as in the United States in the party system that operates down there. He supported the option regarding the use of the French language in voting material and advertising. He supported the concept of election expense accountability and felt there should be consideration of a three-year term for larger municipalities with a population of 75,000 and over. He commented on the fact relating to the creation of wards within those municipalities that may not have wards, and of course this particular bill does not in any way create or attempt to create wards because it is beyond the purview of the Municipal Elections Act.

He supported leaving the voting hours as they are. He felt meals should be supplied to election day workers but I don’t really feel that is the responsibility of the election day process and the expense of the electorate. That normally can be taken care of by people within their own means, as they do in most situations, regardless of the type of employment. He supports the concept of one mandatory nomination day and would really like to go back to the old nomination night procedure when you filed nominations from 8 o’clock to 9 o’clock on one particular evening.

He questions the fiscal year differential but supports the bill in principle.

There were other comments voiced by other members. I think they are pretty well duplications. The hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) expressed some input to the bill. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman), the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), and last but not least, with two minutes to go, the hon. caretaker leader of the third party, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis), managed to put forward five particular points. It was quite obvious to me in the two minutes he did have he has been out of touch with the realities of the political system.

Mr. Davison: Boy, you should know.

Mr. Ashe: I suppose this is because of his heavy media commitments. He indicated the job before me was greater than anticipated. I don’t think it is or was.

To deal with his five points specifically, he said the consultative process was abjectly neglected by the ministry and by the province. I would suggest anyone who took the trouble to check with the municipalities or the joint committee would know and recognize probably no other piece of legislation introduced by the government and dealt with by this Legislature has had more of a consultative process and involvement by others during the total process. That particular point was reiterated as late as last Friday at the provincial-municipal liaison committee meeting by no other than councillor Hazel McCallion who, as many members may know, is not always an avid supporter of the government in some of its procedures. So I take her commendation as to the consultative process in a higher light than some other members of that august committee.

The second point was that the date the government has chosen is wrong. We do have some financial responsibilities behind the decisions we recommend to this House. We know it is, in fact right, keeping in mind we don’t feel the ratepayers or taxpayers of this province want to get involved directly or indirectly in increasing election costs by anywhere from $4 million to $6 million.

Point number three: The tenure it has imposed is arbitrary. In a sense, I suppose one could say it is arbitrary in that the terms of office were put down. But they were arrived at through many discussions, weighing all the pros and cons and trying to get the feeling, not only of the elected people within the municipalities, but of the populace throughout the province of Ontario.

Point number four: It has no provisions for disclosure or indeed for maximum spending. That is true. There is one amendment with which this body will be dealing relating partially to that particular situation and again, we feel, based on setting up “an election-type commission,” we should not be doing this at this time. The member is talking about a large sum of administrative moneys. Where are the financial resources to fund this particular expense?

Point number five: It has failed to take regard of the need for some emphasis on bilingual realities in the province of Ontario. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, this is a fallacy. We’ve suggested in the best way possible we are giving the options to the municipalities.

[3:45]

If the member wants to give back the authority and the determination to the municipalities to do as they see fit, that’s exactly what we are doing with the particular portions of Bill 98 as they relate to the use of bilingual forms. English is still the official language of this province; I think it has to be specified as being number one and the option is there for all areas which have any bilingual populace at all. Again, if you want to let that council decide, it can determine by bylaw if it wishes, to go through the election process and the forms et cetera, using both languages.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I hope I’ve responded to some of the concerns. I’ve covered a lot of the points that many of the hon. members covered in some four hours last Tuesday, and I would hope that now we can proceed with the adoption in second reading and proceed to committee of the whole House to consider these 30 odd amendments that we have before us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS ACT

House in committee on the whole on Bill 99, An Act to regulate the Discounting of Income Tax Refunds.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Davison: Section 4 is the section in which we attempt to exert some influence over the fashion in which discounters charge hidden charges or extra charges or charges other than the discount charge per se. And the effort we’ve made is to control the charge for services, including the completing of the income tax return for the taxpayer. The word the minister has used is that no discounter shall make an “unreasonable” charge for any service. It goes on to explain what will determine a reasonable charge.

I for one would like to commend the minister on this new initiative. It wasn’t something that was found per se in bills in other provinces in Canada.

Mr. Foulds: That really knocks you over, eh?

Mr. Davison: I won’t be totally kind in my remarks. But I’ll start off nicely.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Go ahead, conclude that way too.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, in between you get the ugly ones.

Mr. Davison: I think, though, Mr. Minister, what you’ve probably done is drawn the attention of the House to another problem, responsibility for which falls within your ministry. You are right in identifying as a problem the looseness or the lack of monitoring in this whole area concerning those who fill out tax forms. But I’m not sure that the attempt to deal with it amounts to a credible attempt.

I’d like to refer, if I might, to an article that appeared in the Toronto Star on Saturday, April 2 of this year, in which Paul King, who was a staff writer of the Star at that time, had made up a hypothetical group of statistics, facts and figures which he then proceeded to take around with his new identity as a teacher, I think, to various firms in the city of Toronto that were providing the service of filling out the income tax forms, which is a service that we address ourselves to in section 4. He took his form to 10 different companies --

Mr. Breithaupt: What has this got to do with the bill?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is what I’m concerned about.

Mr. Davison: From which quarter was that comment? I would answer it, Mr. Chairman, as section 4, trying to provide some control --

Mr. Foulds: Right on.

Mr. Davison: -- over the practices involved in people filling out the tax forms --

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh.

Mr. Davison: The minister has said that we have to use this word “reasonable” or “unreasonable.” What I’m trying to do, with the kind permission of the Chairman, is to determine what we mean by unreasonable.

He then took his figures to 10 different companies and the companies, if they had done their work properly, would have found that he should have had a return of $1,008.70.

The first company he took it to was H and R Block on Yonge Street and they were very close. They told him he would have a refund of $1,038.39 and for that they charged him $40. They were very close, but they figured it out wrong.

Then he went to Beneficial Finance Company of Canada on Bay Street. They charged him $30 and indicated that he owed the government $46.86. This was somewhat of an error on the part of Beneficial Finance.

He then took his forms to United Tax Service on Bay Street. They only charged him $15 and they told him that his refund from the government would be only $741.20. They also were out by a substantial amount.

He then took it to Eaton’s at Yonge and Dundas Streets, had the form filled out at a cost of $58 and was told that he would have a refund of $1,135.50.

He took it then to D.C. Smylie and Associates of Eglinton Avenue East and they charged him $50 and told him he would get back $1,135.50.

He took it to Simpsons. They filled out his form at a cost of --

Mr. Breithaupt: Is there a Macy’s in town or a Gimbel’s?

Mr. Davison: I can’t find the cost. At any rate, they were out by $234.90 and had charged him $25.

Hagerman Jones and Company, whom he took it to next, charged him $30 and told him he would have a refund of $361.22.

Canada Trust Tax Return filled it out for $40 and told him he’d have a refund of $1,011.50.

Gerald Doyle charged him $50 and told him he would have a refund of $907.10.

Finally, General Tax Service, for a fee of $24.25, told him that he would have a return of $1,034.80.

The point I’m trying to make -- and I think the article makes it fairly well --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Weakly.

Mr. Davison: -- is that indeed the minister has found a problem. Which of those rates is reasonable when they range from $15 to $58 -- that’s a considerable difference -- which of those companies is providing a proper service, which of them isn’t, when one of the companies is out by over $1,000? And none of the companies are terribly close.

I don’t quite understand what section 4 will really accomplish. It sounds nice and it’s a step in the right direction, but I think that if we’re going to solve this problem, we’ll have to deal not just with those who are discounting income taxes but with those businesses in general.

You have shown us that we have a need for legislation from your ministry and I hope that you’ll take that under consideration. Income tax time is coming upon us shortly. I would be quite happy to see, before the House in the next few weeks, legislation that would give effect to the opinion that you’ve put forward in section 4 that these companies shouldn’t make an unreasonable charge. They’d also see legislation that would encourage these companies to fill out the tax form properly. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, to deal once again with section 4, I think we should repeat that this is obviously only a statute to deal with income tax discounters. It’s not a statute intended, purported or held out in any way to be dealing with the charge made by people who are in the business of filling out and preparing income tax returns.

If the member will think about it for a moment I’m sure he will agree that he could go to any number of accountants or lawyers for some assistance in preparing income tax returns and get, indeed, not only a wide range of charges but a wide range of results. Fortunately, National Revenue does look at these things, does some checking and often corrects even the professionally-filled out form.

In any case, all that is extraneous, as were most of the remarks, because the subject here is a section which is meant to avert a move made by true tax discounters to get around the Act, to loophole the Act, by making an unreasonable charge for allegedly preparing the form.

I think the member will agree with me that in order to make the same type of money they were making as true tax discounters they’re going to have to charge such a totally unreasonable fee -- ranging a lot higher than the fees read out by the member a moment ago -- that it will surely not be difficult to spot a charge for preparation of income tax returns that is tantamount to what formerly was an 800 per cent per annum rate of interest. That amount of service charge for the preparation of an income tax return really shouldn’t prove to be that difficult.

I know the member will agree that we have to have this clause in here; that we must do something to prohibit the unreasonable charge. I hope he will agree that the only sensible way to do this in a piece of legislation is to specify some of the criteria upon which that assessment will be made. If he’ll think about it for a moment I think he'll see that the amount they have to charge for preparation will be so gross and astronomical that it should be fairly easy to spot. In fact, I don’t anticipate much attempt in view of this section to circumvent the intent of the Act in this route.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for Hamilton Centre. Are you still on section 4?

Mr. Davison: Yes. The point I’m trying to make, Mr. Minister, is that the approach you’re taking is the correct approach. We don’t want these characters to stay in business because they can circumvent the purpose of the Act by charging an unreasonable amount of money.

The point I was trying to make to you by example is that when a fee for a service can vary from $15 to $58, and who knows how much higher, what is “unreasonable”? When these guys can justify charging three, four or five times the going rate for service, they’ll make such an amount of gravy from this service that they’ll almost be doing as well as they did in their previous business because it’s a much more lucrative field than this one.

All we may do, without companion legislation, is take these guys out of the business they’re in now and put them in the business of filling out income tax forms. If these guys are ripping off the consumers in the area of discounting, I don’t think that it’s particularly useful to kick them out of that and throw them into this other area where they can rip off the consumers.

[4:00]

Recall, please, I commended you for the effort. One, I just don’t know how we are going to define unreasonable charges when the market rate goes anywhere from three to four to five times the lower rates. Two, do we just shut off one avenue of attack on the consumers and turn these loan-sharkers into slick accountants?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, let’s try and keep in mind what is likely to occur. The member is concerned we may drive these people into a different business. That’s fine. I want to make it clear it’s okay with me if they go out of tax discounting. If they go out of tax discounting, they will in fact become just another firm of people who are helping people make out their income tax returns.

I would wonder why someone would go to -- I don’t want to use any names, but So and So Tax, formerly discounters, now carrying on business as income tax return preparers, that are charging 50 and 60 and 70 per cent, when they can go to any of the firms read out by the member, including Eaton’s and some others, which are providing this service as a true, longstanding, reputable income tax preparing service?

In fact, they won’t go to these people, because the only reason they are going to the people we are dealing with today, is the consumer is walking in with an income tax return and walking out with money. Once that aspect of the transaction has gone I don’t expect to see consumers walking back into the place that’s open on Yonge Street near my office to have their income tax return prepared and walk out with less money than they walked in with.

The operation we are dealing with today is people who can open up and offer you cash for your income tax return. Once that’s gone out of the business then the people we are worried about, in essence, are unlikely to go into the other business.

As I say, I understand the point and obviously we don’t like to see unreasonable charges made in any business. My point is you can go to a whole range of lawyers and accountants who will charge probably at least the rate you have read out of the paper and maybe more for preparation of returns. You always have that problem whether you are looking for a divorce or an income tax return prepared. I mean the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and I may disagree about legal fees, about Legal Aid and about lawyers, but I can tell you in many instances you will find all sorts of explanations. You know -- “This was complex”; you spent that amount of time on it; “You wanted special attention”; I didn’t know you had an extra form.” This is not, I want to make dear to the member, my way of justifying any sort of charge, be it reasonable or unreasonable. In all instances, I would hope that everyone carrying on business, whether it’s preparation of income tax returns, or dare I say coffee, the calculation of the charge has some reference to the actual cost of doing business.

Against the people who -- H and R Block, to name one firm -- offer fairly effective, quick assistance, the discounters cannot compete. Eaton’s and so on present a pretty available service and pretty stiff competition for anyone who really wants to charge an unreasonable amount for simply preparing a tax return.

Mr. Davison: Just one last word, Mr. Chairman. I don’t mean to belabour the point, I just wanted to point out to the minister the definition of unreasonable charge is going to be a problem. He should be aware of that. Two, the minister has in fact pointed out another problem involving the whole question of income tax.

Could I perhaps just leave it with the minister in this sense: We are dealing with a difference in terms of consumer education and consumer protection.

I remember when I talked to some people about the issue of the income tax discounters earlier this year, the response was: “Well, you know, these people could go to a bank; they don’t have to go to an income tax discounter. If they are so silly they are going to go in and pay a 2,000 per cent interest rate to this income tax discounter instead of paying 13 per cent at the bank, or 18 per cent at Avco, or nine and a half per cent at the credit union, what do you expect the government to do about it?” That’s an attitude of consumer education -- that the consumer is going to have to educate himself. Maybe the ministry will move itself to the point of saying, “Consumers, beware of this problem.”

The point I am making, and the point accepted by this legislation, is that the ministry and the government have a responsibility in the area of consumer protection. If individuals or corporations are ripping off the consumers then the ministry has the responsibility to move into that area and exert influence or control, moral suasion or legislation.

I am asking the minister to look at this problem area over the next few weeks. Perhaps he can take a look at some of the companies operating in this field and see if we are going to be able to deal with problems that may arise with wording such as “unreasonable charge.” Secondly, perhaps he can examine what should and can be done about the overall problem of the people involved in preparing these income tax returns.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to assure the member that we have worried about the wording of this section. Obviously “unreasonable” has potential for some disagreement about what is and what isn’t. We resolved it by convincing ourselves that not many people are really going to make a serious attempt at doing this. Secondly, if it is anything tantamount to tax discounting, the “unreasonable” will be so gross that it will be easily spotted.

I do appreciate the problem and I would be happy to receive any comments the member may have as this thing develops.

With regard to consumer education, I mentioned this earlier and we will be talking about it in my estimates, which are to start shortly. I am very much aware that consumer education must be pointed at those who are most susceptible to ripoffs, rather than being pointed towards those who are able to look after themselves by hiring lawyers or reading all the available materials. That point is well taken, and perhaps we can have a further and better exchange on the subject in the estimates.

Mr. Blundy: In first reading, I mentioned that we felt this was a timely bill that we must support to rectify a situation that has been going on for some time. At this stage of the legislation I want to reiterate the support of my party for this bill. We really feel the bill will very likely overcome the problem we had been encountering in this city and throughout Ontario.

The member for Hamilton Centre raised a good question. I believe it will not be a problem as far as what is carried on under the jurisdiction of this bill is concerned. I believe that most people will not continue to go to a discounter of an income tax rebate; this is going to discourage it very much.

The matter of the varying prices that accountants and others charge for anybody who patronizes them is going to the managed by the competition in the business and in society. There isn’t much that can be done in that way, certainly not in the discussion of this bill.

The point raised by the member for Hamilton Centre is a good one, and could be the subject of information to consumers, informing them of just what sort of services are available and what sort of charges are made for those services. But that is another question. I feel this is a good bill and we support it 100 per cent.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Davison: I don’t mean to be seen as wanting to be overly punitive towards some of these companies, in spite of the social damage I feel they’ve caused. I don’t want to take out my punitive instincts on some poor office clerk or the guy who happens to sweep the floor in the discounting office. But I’m not convinced that a fine of $5,000 is really adequate.

I can see reasons for having even a lower fine, as far as the employees of the firms or the people involved are concerned. Perhaps a more adequate arrangement -- and I don’t intend to make it an amendment -- would be to consider a fine for the corporation or the company or the partnership or whatever arrangement they’re operating under, a fine perhaps in the neighbourhood of $25,000. With an upper limit of $25,000 and no lower limit, a court may be more inclined to give a heavy fine.

I’ve seen in the House, as I know other members have, many pieces of legislation -- perhaps the best examples are in the environment field -- where there is nothing too wrong with some of the penalties. However, there are assessments of $100 where the fine should perhaps be $5,000. If with these corporations we had a substantially higher upper level for the fine, we may get a bit more respect for the law. If what happens is that every time the discounters are convicted they simply get a $100 fine, it may well be in their interest -- it certainly will be in their interest -- to say damn the fines and keep going.

I suspect the minister has already considered that but I’d like to hear his explanation of the points laid out in section 10.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Looking at the total concept of what this bill is likely to do, I can never tell what a judge is going to do, regardless of what the maximum is. That’s something we all live with. Although with judges being lawyers, we’re in fairly good hands, I suppose.

Mr. Swart: A bit prejudiced.

Mr. Bounsall: You can’t say that with a straight face.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wish I had been here yesterday when the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was on. We won’t dwell on lawyers this afternoon.

The people we’re really after are the people who are institutionalizing this practice -- people who are going to go into business, open up on Yonge Street and take in dozens and hundreds of consumers. The question is, are they going to risk the possibility that a judge is going to come along and slap them, not with a $5,000 fine for opening up, which isn’t what the Act says, but a maximum of a $5,000 fine for each and every tax return they put through and take a discount on? If they are in there for any amount of business, say, 10 in a day, they are liable to a fine. I can’t guarantee what erstwhile lawyers-cum-judges will do. One would think, if the ordinary practice is followed -- and I know the member will be aware of this -- as offences tend to repeat, the minimum fine moves up to the maximum.

If anyone is going to go into business the decision that person is going to make is, “Do I want to risk the possibility of facing perhaps one $25 fine and a second $50 fine, but by the tenth fine it’s $5,000 and on every fine after the tenth form I fill out, I’m liable to $5,000?” It’s hard to make a profit when one is paying $5,000 fines for every income tax return one is discounting.

[4:15]

The point is I am convinced the section has sufficient punitive powers to discourage anyone from going into the business and running that risk. That is the important thing. It is not a section like some other laws to get the guy who speeds. Although he continues to drive a car, he speeds once in a while and he pays that fine. This is a different sort of thing; it is to discourage people from engaging in the practice as an overall practice.

Looking at it from that standpoint the $5,000 should be far more than sufficient to stop people from carrying it on as a general practice.

Mr. Davison: That rather depends on how enthusiastically these characters are pursued through the system.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They will be.

Mr. Davison: They will be by the ministry?

Hon Mr. Grossman: If you will recall the other sections of the Act with respect to them filing with us, posting notices, I have already stated my current investigative staff will be checking on what is happening and so on. I can really say to the member it will be pretty closely watched and policed.

Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, this may well be out of order, but I am sure the minister will indulge me.

While section 10 applies to what happens if we catch them, we don’t really deal with how we get them. And the minister, I suppose, is aware there are in our society certain elements that operate beyond the law, especially in our major urban centres. There is an involvement of organized criminal associations in areas like this and other loansharking fields.

While I realize it is not really the responsibility of this ministry to crack down on those kinds of criminal activity there seems to be some way in which we can penalize these people if we catch them. But how do you deal with the problem of the neighbourhood loan shark discounting these forms and not opening up a corner store and dealing with the ministry? I guess what I’m asking is will the ministry be active in that sense, in pursuing this to track down the people, be they individuals or those involved in organized crime, to make sure we catch them and stop them from involvement in this?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be less than honest if I said we were going to hire a massive force or even one additional person to go traipsing through all the back porches and back fences of Hamilton. We don’t have this going on in the back streets of Toronto, of course, but in Hamilton, I understand the member’s concern.

It is something any police force can and should be pursuing as any other activity beyond the law. We have as well an investigative force in our ministry and I have indicated they will be covering it and watching it. I can’t tell you they are going to be going into every pool hall in Ontario to check what is going on. We just have a maximum amount of work we can do and there are more heinous consumer offences with which we are concerned. We really are satisfied this will eliminate a vast majority of what is going on. What is left ordinarily will be within the purview of the police departments in pursuance of their other duties and I would expect if I could add investigative people to my staff, the member would probably agree he would prefer I allocate that extra resource to some other area of consumer problems.

Having said that, I want to assure you we will be watching pretty carefully, to the largest and feasible extent possible to effectively cut out the practice as we see it. Together with the other provisions of the Act I think it will work fairly successfully.

Mr. Davison: I just wanted to point out to the minister if we are successful in driving these rather shady characters out of business, what in fact, could happen is the service will be taken over by even shadier characters. As long as the minister is aware of that concern, perhaps we can deal with it at another point in time. If in fact, that does happen perhaps the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will be the appropriate minister to deal with it when it gets that far along. But I want the minister to understand it is a real concern. There are people even worse than Mike’s Tax Service, or Instant Cash, or Shield’s Tax Service.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you have a tax service?

Mr. Davison: No, no, they are using my name terribly. They’re abusing my name.

Mr. Samis: Larry’s Tax Service too.

Mr. Davison: Yes, there is a Larry’s Tax Service.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It may be an improvement. Could help you.

Mr. Davison: It is not overly far from here.

Mr. Foulds: Shouldn’t have raised that point.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I tell you he is a better operator than Mike’s, though.

Mr. Davison: I just want to leave that with the minister as a concern I have and I hope he shares it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall section 10 carry?

Section 10 agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I gave notice of an amendment to section 11 last week and I would like to put it at this time.

Mr. Foulds: It is only a section? Good, I can go back.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Davison moves that section 11, subsection (e) be deleted.

Mr. Davison: When sitting on the statutory instruments committee I get very concerned about the powers we give in regulations. We live in a society where in many cases we are governed by regulation rather than legislation. As a legislator in this province I am very concerned about delegated authority.

Quite frankly, I trust the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And her ministers? And her entire executive council?

Mr. Davison: No, no, the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. Swart: That’s pushing things too far.

Mr. Davison: Yes, you are pushing me too far.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Always takes our advice.

Mr. Davison: I trust the Lieutenant Governor in Council. For example, if we are dealing with 11(c), the prescribing of the form and wording of notice, we are not going to run into a situation where we are going to get a business card stuck up in the washroom as notice to the consumers. There is no problem. But I frankly do not see the need for a subsection like 11(e) that in effect allows the minister to exempt any class of person from the provision of this Act. I suppose there could be reasons, but we in the Legislature, all of us, are reasonable men and women

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let’s not go overboard.

Mr. Davison: If the minister has a reasonable reason for requesting an exemption then the minister could simply come to us and put the case. If it was discovered, Mr. Minister, that in fact you were indeed the operator and owner of Larry’s Instant Tax Service, and you found there was an undue hardship being worked on you, and you just couldn’t get by with five per cent, and because you were the minister you should be exempted, you could come to us and put that to us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What would you do?

Mr. Davison: We are reasonable. We will be reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what I am worried about.

Mr. Samis: You are not the only one.

Mr. Davison: And I suppose, too, I could come to you and we could deal with Mike’s Tax Service --

Mr. Samis: And how.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is where we draw the line.

Mr. Davison: -- in the same reasonable fashion. There is just no reason for legislators giving over that kind of delegated authority to put it into the semi-hidden, surrealistic world of regulations that go off and disappear through the statutory instruments committee just before the committee disappears.

If we have problems let us deal with them in a reasonable and open fashion. If you think a hardship is being worked, if you think that some class of person has to be exempted then say so and we’ll deal with it.

Finally, the legislation in your ministry is different in other ministries. You’re not like the Ministry of Energy, thank goodness.

Mr. Samis: Nobody is.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: What’s that?

Mr. Samis: We are saying you are unique.

Mr. Davison: That’s right.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Special.

Mr. Samis: No, unique.

Mr. Davison: It is this minister who is charged with the responsibility of protecting consumers in the province of Ontario, among his other duties. This is an area of government in which we have to be up front with the people and, at times, the government isn’t up front. That’s why we need things like the freedom of information Act. If there is a time when the government should be up front and straightforward with the people, it’s when we are dealing with matters affecting consumers, because all of us are consumers.

There’s a special need in this ministry for getting rid of some of the fixations that this government has with delegated authority; this government by regulation. So let’s not hide it, let’s bring it out in the open. If there’s nothing wrong then the ministry has nothing to be afraid of. The House will exempt those classes of people.

I hope to have a serious and specific response about the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations as it is connected with this government by regulation. I hope the minister will adopt the amendment as his own, so we can begin in some small way to open up the ministry, which is so closed. It is so closed, indeed, that it doesn’t even present an annual report. We should be able to open up that ministry to consumers, so consumers can see just what it is that you’re doing in their service.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course my ministry is wide open to consumers. Not only is it 100 per cent wide open, but it will be 150 per cent in the near future.

You can relax, because I accept the amendment. It’s perfectly all right, we don’t want to have any suggestion, and never have, that we unnecessarily have to go the route of regulations. In all fairness, though, I think you should be aware that it was never drawn or intended to be used -- nor drawn, I have to repeat that -- to deal with Mike’s Tax Service or whatever, or any specific person.

It says in the legislation as drafted, 11(e) “exempting any class of persons ... ” That was obviously to look after a situation which I can’t conceive of right now, where someone might be in some sort of operation which we didn’t intend to include in this Act but was caught. If I could think of any specifics that could come up I would bring it to your attention and perhaps you would withdraw it, or I would not accept the amendment. But I can’t.

Now often without such a clause, someone is more ingenious than the minister; this is hard to conceive of but it could occur. In which case I’ll remind you of your offer to be reasonable and come back to the House. To be fair, not only to my ministry but to the government as a whole, when you see clauses like this, they are always for that very legitimate purpose. We often take the time of the House to ensure the intent of the House and the legislation was clear so that if someone comes up with an ingenious plan to loophole it, we can either get him out or, in this case, let him out from the onerous provisions of the Act. In any case, I don’t anticipate any problems of that sort here.

[4:30]

I might just as well take this opportunity to confirm the openness of my ministry and our concern something like that could be taken by consumers as giving us an arbitrary power unnecessarily. I don’t want it; I don’t like that kind of power. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Davison: Yes, I have a further comment. I rise to commend the minister for accepting the amendment. I would like to promise the minister that when he brings forward an annual report from his ministry to inform consumers of just what it is he’s doing, when he adopts the intent of my private member’s bill before the House, I promise not to faint from the excitement of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Be my guest.

Mr. Davison: I look forward to it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12 and 13 agreed to.

Bill 99, as amended, reported.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

House in committee of the whole on Bill 98, An Act to revise the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, if I might propose a procedure I’ll put it in the form of a motion. I move we stand down all sections of Bill 98 prior to section 11 until it’s dealt with. May I speak to the motion?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: If it is agreed by the committee we move directly to section 11 there’s no motion required. Is it agreed we deal first with section 11?

Hon. Mr. Welch: And then go back?

Mr. Swart: Agreed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps we could find out why we have to do this procedure.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is the one dealing with the election day.

Mr. Ashe: There are 15 amendments.

Mr. Breithaupt: With respect to the date of the election itself? I see.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It is agreed then?

Agreed.

On section 11:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 11 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “Polling day in a regular election shall be the Thursday in October that follows 45 days after the first Monday in September.”

I must apologize to the members of committee of the whole House. I should have called first the hon. member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) who is introducing the bill and who has an amendment on section 11.

Mr. Breithaupt: The amendment the parliamentary assistant is providing deals with a way of resolving, as I understand it, the problem of November 11 as a holiday, which really has nothing to do with this whole theme of Thursday voting. I presume if we can dispose of or deal with this other item first then the section will in effect be carried and we’ll have that amendment. But whatever the parliamentary assistant wants.

Mr. Ashe: The proposed amendment to section 11 doesn’t deal at all with the one I have. If this amendment carries, that’s one thing. If it does not carry, maybe the next time through we can pick up our amendment to section 11 which is appropriate, as the member says, to recognizing the possibility of a holiday.

Mr. Breithaupt: Fine.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I think it seems to be agreed by the committee we will first deal with the amendment of the member for Welland-Thorold. If that does not carry, then the member for Durham West will be able to place his amendment. Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I believe this motion is self-explanatory and I would ask the members of all sides of the House to give most serious consideration to it, though it may be difficult for some of them to pay close attention to what I’m going to say with regard to this because it is a practical measure, unlike comments which have been made by the Treasurer of this province and others.

The first thing I want to say about the proposed time for the municipal elections is the committee which was struck by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Association of Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario has not, in fact, made any recommendation as to date and therefore this does not contravene any proposal which they have made. In spite of what the member for Durham West said, the joint committee considering the amendments to the Municipal Elections Act was quite unhappy, not so much with the lack of consultation as with the unilateral decision of the Treasurer -- I can’t include the parliamentary assistant in this because he wasn’t here at that time -- to name a date for the municipal elections back in April, and bringing in Bill 49 to confirm that statement.

I gave some documentation of this when I spoke in the debate on second reading of this bill. Apparently it didn’t all get through to the member for Durham West and I would, therefore, like to reiterate today, what was said by this joint committee of AMO-AMCTO when they presented their report, called the final municipal elections report, in July. The joint committee agreed October had often been referred to as a preferable month in which to hold municipal elections. However, they realized there are timing problems which make November elections more practical. The committee was agreed the solution to these problems might be found if the timing or method of enumeration were altered. Before the committee could present its recommendation however, the Hon. W. D. McKeough announced the proposed date for the municipal elections and the dates of all the procedures for conducting those municipal elections to the April 15, 1977, meeting of the PMLC.

Then they went on to say: “The joint committee feels that it is unfortunate that the minister did not wait, as he had previously indicated, for the recommendations of the committee before announcing the above timetable.” As a result I presume, this report, which was the major report of this committee dealing with municipal elections, didn’t even include a recommendation or a comment as to the date because their prerogative to do so had been usurped by the Treasurer.

I’m not going to read into the record on this amendment everything said by the committee on this. But in the middle of September, Ellen Kerr, who was the chairman of that committee, again mentioned they were disappointed about the change in the election date and that the announcement was made prior to the minister receiving the committee’s report. In the response to Bill 49, they made the same comment, so neither the Treasurer nor the parliamentary assistant can say the date they have chosen, the second Monday in November, is a date recommended by the municipalities. That is a date which had unilaterally been decided by themselves.

Our amendment calls for the election date to be on a Thursday, 45 days after Labour Day. In second reading, once again, I pointed out this conforms to the provincial election date. The reasons a government committee decided provincial elections should be held on a Thursday apply as readily to a municipal election date as they did to that provincial election date.

Monday is often part of a long weekend for many people. A Thursday gives a working day for election officials and the candidates immediately prior to election day. This is necessary for both. Of course, a Thursday gets away from a Monday holiday. Even here, in the amendments we have submitted before us, before the bill has been passed, we find the minister has to bring in an amendment. Obviously in some year, the election day is going to fall on the statutory holiday, Remembrance Day. Therefore it is going to have to be moved to another day, which is a disadvantage.

Thursday, I think, has been accepted by the government as a good day for the election. I suggest if it is a good day for a provincial election, it is also a good day for municipal elections.

We suggest 45 days after Labour Day, just after the middle of October, is also a good time of year for municipal elections. The weather is better in the middle of October than it is in the middle of November. I think we all accept that, particularly in northern Ontario.

I pointed out before there are four other provinces which hold elections in October. Six of the other nine provinces hold elections at a date earlier than the one proposed by the government in Bill 98. I pointed out too that during the last 50 years -- and I guess the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is the only one who will remember back that far in this House -- there has only been one provincial election held later than October. Therefore the government itself must consider that November is not really a good time to hold provincial elections.

Mr. Nixon: We had a federal election in November. It was a great success, I recall.

Mr. Swart: That’s a subjective point of view.

Mr. Samis: Eighteen hundred and ninety-six was the year for us.

Mr. Swart: A columnist everybody here seems to pay some homage to, a Mr. Webster, in the Globe and Mail, made the comments after Bill 49 was brought down to hold the municipal elections in the third Monday of November. He stated: “Mr. McKeough proposed a change of polling date from the first Monday in December to the third Monday in November, but he will make no further concession to the beastly late year weather conditions which so often make Ontario municipal elections a mockery of democracy. Turnouts frequently climb no higher than 30 odd per cent, less than half the usual figure for federal and provincial elections, which are of course almost never held in winter or on its fringes.” He goes on to talk about another item and then said both of the arguments are nonsense. He said the argument against not holding it earlier is in fact nonsense.

[4:45]

Of even more significance than the weather, I suggest, is the fact our proposal would enable new councils to take office at the first of November. It would give any new members of council the opportunity to become familiar with the responsibilities; to do the necessary planning for projects in the following year and do the necessary pre-budgetary work that piles up early in the year, as all of us know who have been on municipal councils, making the situation at that time almost impossible.

I read into the record the comments of both Mr. Archer, as the commissioner for the Niagara region review, and Mr. Robarts, the commissioner for the review of Metropolitan Toronto, during the second reading of this bill. Those who were here and those who have read those reports will know they put forth substantive reasons why elections should be held in October and the councils should take office the first of November.

The 45-day period which we proposed in this amendment, compared to the 62-to-69-day period of running the election in Bill 98, I suggest would cause more public interest. Once the enumerators go around, the people say: “Oh, there is an election coming up, is there?” They forget all about it before the next procedures and the nominations take place. If you can shove it all in to a much shorter period, you get more interest by the public than dragging it out for a very long time.

When I spoke on second reading of the bill, the member for Essex North complained that it was a bad time for farmers.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, no. You should take that into consideration.

Mr. Swart: I come from a very important agricultural part of this province. The member for Essex North said in the debate of November 15, and I quote: “I can see why his party doesn’t have any farm people in the Ontario Legislature when he talks like that. He wants to have the vote in the second week of October” -- Of course, this doesn’t provide for an election in the second week of October at all; it provides for it in the third week, perhaps even the fourth week.

Mr. Nixon: Forty-five days after the end of September, or something like that.

Mr. Swart: -- “and I can tell you, in Essex county and southern and western Ontario that that is about the busiest time for farmers that there is, taking off the crop. The asphalt farmers down there” -- I presume he is referring to the Niagara Peninsula -- “just don’t understand that you have got to get your grain off in the fall of the year; it has to be taken off and you can’t be running up and down the roads campaigning for reeve or deputy reeve or council.”

I am not sure of the weather conditions there, but down in the Niagara Peninsula we usually take the wheat off in July; in August we take the oats off; we usually get the corn off before the latter part of October

Mr. Ruston: You haven’t done much farming; I can tell that.

Mr. Samis: His heart’s in the right place.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ruston: You want to go back to school.

Mr. Swart: I would suggest to the member for Essex North that he really is not terribly knowledgeable about farming when he makes those kinds of comments.

Mr. Nixon: Now you are asking for it.

Mr. Swart: It is past. The proposed date for the election is in fact past the busiest time for farmers in almost all, and perhaps all, parts of this province.

Mr. Ruston: Absolutely wrong.

Mr. Swart: I do resent, too, his comments about the asphalt farmers down in the Niagara Peninsula.

Mr. Ruston: The NDP.

Mr. Swart: I am not sure why he wants to insult the farmers in that area. He should know that in my riding alone we had two great kings over the last 20 years: we’ve had the winner of the Herd Improvement Association, the winner of the Crop Improvement Association --

Mr. Ruston: We’ve got Miss Canada.

Mr. Samis: What’s that got to do with farming?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, this isn’t a farm improvement bill.

Mr. Swart: In that regard I would just say finally that I think the regional council of Niagara represents the farmers there better than does the member for Essex North when it asks for the municipal elections to be in the middle of October.

Mr. Nixon: We were thinking of supporting you, but --

Mr. Ruston: I thought you had a good argument, but you spoiled it.

Mr. Swart: The arguments that have been put up against the October election day, and I’m sure the member for Durham West will agree, have not been primarily because it’s not a good time of the year or because Thursday isn’t a good day, but rather they say it can’t be done procedurally; you just can’t shorten a period down to 45 days.

I could quote the statement by Mr. Meen back in 1972, when they were debating the Municipal Elections Act, that it couldn’t be moved up any further than the first Monday in December. I won’t take time to quote that, but I will quote the Treasurer when he tabled Bill 49 on July 7. Talking about municipal elections and the day, he said: “This, in combination with the variety of other complex, time-consuming election procedures, has proved the third Monday in November to be the most feasible date.”

In his statement relative to the first reading of Bill 98, he made the following comment: “We have been able to adapt the election process to the earlier date without any deleterious effect on essential procedures. At this time we believe this change is the earliest possible within the constraints posed by these procedures.”

Then just last Friday, in speaking to the PMLC, he made these comments: “There are amendments before the House which will shorten the election, move the date once again from the now second Monday in November to October and shorten the whole process to 45 days. We’ve gone over the whole thing again with Revenue. We feel that it is not possible or it is only possible if the municipalities wish to assume the enumeration function. They might, I suppose, if we were going to pay for it. Regardless of who pays for it, it would represent a duplication of effort and additional costs, so far as we can figure out, of about $4 million. I am not prepared to pay the $4 million. I don’t know whether you are or not. I doubt it.

“I doubt that it could be organized for less than a year from now. I would simply have to tell you -- and George will say this on second reading -- that we believe the amendments which have been put forward are unworkable and impractical. If perchance at committee they should carry the House, the bill will simply have to be withdrawn, because it is as simple as that.”

Let me say as clearly and assuredly as anyone can that it is procedurally possible and practical to start enumeration the day after Labour Day and hold the election 45 days thereafter. In fact, the time frames of the proposals we make, which are incorporated in some twoscore amendments, are superior to those in Bill 98. It is done through a judicial mixing of municipal and provincial election procedures. It is done by getting away from the step-by-step, sequential procedure described by Mike Smithers in the September 1976 issue of Municipal World; and it might be wise to read that again:

“To understand the delay in reaching a solution to the procedural problems of a date change, it is necessary first to recognize the existence of an historical philosophy developed in the earliest election procedures in this province and continued in the latest statute enacted in 1972. Simply stated, it is a projection of the orderly manner of conducting life in an agrarian society with its sow-grow-reap methodology which requires each step in a procedure to be fully completed before commencing with the next step.”

I just say to you provincial elections can be conducted in 37 days. There are now only two differences in the electoral qualifications. One is the non-resident voters and the other is the separate or the non-Catholic school supporters. These are the only two differences between the lists that are used for municipal elections and the ones that are used for provincial elections.

I say it can be done and it can be done reasonably. To prove that it can be done, I want to deal with the two alternative procedures, our proposals and Bill 98 in some detail. I want to do that with some hope that the party on the right, if it can be shown that it can be done, might be willing to consider supporting our amendment.

I am conscious of the fact that the member for Waterloo North stated on second reading: “Unfortunately, the technical aspects of preparing for the election day are such they can’t move further ahead at this time. However, we welcome a chance in election dates to an earlier date, if this can be proved workable.” I think that it can be proved workable and I would like very much now to try to prove that it can work.

Under our amendment enumeration would start on the day after Labour Day and continue until Friday of the following week. which would be on September 15, if I could use the year 1978 as an example. The proposed legislation says that enumeration starts on September 5 and carries on for a period of approximately four weeks. Under the present Act it is September 30.

I trust that the parliamentary assistant will know that at the present time enumeration is done within the two weeks. For the assessment commissioners to get it all through the computer, they now have to have enumeration within two weeks. This does not really speed up the enumeration process per se. It may change the Act but it is all done now within the first two weeks. In fact, they tell me -- and I have had extensive consultation both with the assessment commissioners and with various clerks over this matter -- that they start feeding that computer usually within two or three days after Labour Day because there are those who concentrate on getting the enumeration done and having it back to them within that period of time.

Where we really make the change and do two things in parallel to make the procedures practical is that enumeration, plus the non-resident voters’ list which is currently always on hand with the assessment commissioner, are combined and posted as the preliminary voters’ list on September 15. I should explain that in a little more detail.

At the present time, the assessment commissioner has the record from year to year of the residents in a municipality, plus the non-resident voters, the owners and those who operate a business there. Four or five days prior to the start of the enumeration he sends a form out to each of the non-resident voters asking them if the information he has on file is correct. If it is correct they keep the form. If it is not correct they send it back or somebody else sends it back and they correct it. That, then, is fed again into the computer. The enumerators start their enumeration; as soon as they start bringing in their returns they are also fed into the computer.

[5:00]

There would be no difficulty, whatsoever, they assure me to send out the notices to the non-resident voters one, two, or three weeks sooner; have those returned, and turned over to the enumerators, who could add those to the enumeration they do; compile that list and post it up on a pole or some other place within the polling subdivision, exactly as they do now in a provincial election. That would be the preliminary voters’ list, which would be on the pole for everyone to see on the 15th. This would also go to the clerk of the municipality, and would be his preliminary Voters’ list, which he would then check over, as he does now, and then send it to the Voters.

The present procedure is that the enumerator must turn all of the information back in to the assessment commissioner, which of course they would still do under the present procedure, except that they would tick off the names and compile the voters’ list. They must turn it back in. It takes approximately three weeks to punch this all into the computer and get the lists back out. Then that list must be turned over to the clerk by October 6. That is then the preliminary voters’ list of the clerk.

What we are talking about here is a saving of three weeks. Under the procedures which our party proposes, you can have the preliminary voters’ list on September 15; under your legislation, Bill 98, you can’t have that preliminary voters’ list until October 6, that is three weeks later. This is where the real saving in time can take place.

I would point out that there would be practically no additional costs in this procedure. You might have to pay the enumerator a little more, if they have to compile the list, but they have to do this also for provincial elections. By this process we would be able to get the lists prepared three weeks earlier.

In the meantime, the assessment commissioner can still be feeding the computer, find any duplications and inform the clerk, prior to the court of revision, so he can make any changes required.

We also propose that there be special enumeration, as there is in the provincial election. This special enumeration should start on September 18, if I am using a 1978 example. The voters’ lists are put up on the 15th, turned in to the clerk on the 15th; the special enumerators are then appointed. Where any notification is given that somebody has been left off the list, they will go out and pick up these names in exactly the same way they do now in a provincial election.

That would carry on until October 3, which would be two weeks. The court of revision would be held from October 4 to October 6, three days, and that court of revision would finish 13 days before election day.

Under the present procedures -- and this is pretty significant -- the lists would have to be posted by October 21, 22 days before election day. The court of revision ends October 27, 17 days before election day. That would mean persons would have only one week in which to check whether their names are on the voters’ list and to get their names put on the list, if not. Under the procedure which our party proposes they would have three weeks. They would have two weeks and two days of special enumeration and then another three days of the court of revision. I think it becomes perfectly obvious that it’s much easier then to get one’s name on the voters’ list than it would be under the procedures which we have in Bill 98.

The clerk makes the changes in both cases as a result of the revision and, in the case of our amendment, as a result of the special enumeration. That is done 13 days before election day in our case and 17 days before election day in the case of the bill we have before us.

Under our proposals election day in 1978 would be October 19. Under the proposals of Bill 98 it would be November 13. Nomination day in both cases would be three weeks prior to election day -- September 28 in the case of our amendment arid October 23 in the case of the bill which we have before us.

That is a brief explanation -- perhaps not so brief -- of the procedures which could be put in place, practically and feasibly, if we were to establish the election day as the 45th day after Labour Day. Let me point out some of the advantages of our proposals. Because preliminary lists are posted in the polling subdivision where a person lives and are there for 21 days before the end of the revision, compared to a maximum of five with no local posting under Bill 98, electors are much more apt to know if they’re on the list. I think that’s a factual statement. There is no question about it.

If they have only five days to find out if they are on the voters’ list and if there’s nothing posted up on local poles in a local subdivision, I suggest to you most of those who are left off are never going to get on the voters’ list. If you have the preliminary list up on a pole in the subdivision and have special enumerators so you only have to send out a special enumerator, then they will get their names on the voters’ list. It is much easier to get on the list under our procedures than it is under the procedures in Bill 98.

Again, in the proposals which we make, the preliminary list of electors would be posted 13 days prior to the final nomination day, compared to two days under Bill 98 which is before us. The latest day for posting of the preliminary list of electors under Bill 98 is two days before the nomination day. That can make it rather difficult for a candidate who wants to check the voters’ list to see if his nominators are on the voters’ list and wants to deposit that list two or three days before the last day for nomination. It makes it extremely difficult. Our proposals give 13 days from the time of the preliminary list is up until nomination day. I say that’s a big plus.

I want to say also that formerly, and under Bill 98, the clerk could spend many days, and often did, being available to revise lists as electors would come in to him. He has certain time limitations when he has to have the final court of revision and the first court of revision, but he can carry on ahead of that time and most clerks did spend a lot of time at it.

Under this proposal, the special enumerators would pick up the names which are left off the voters’ list, up until the three days of the court of revision. He would only have to be there for three days at a court of revision, which certainly takes some of the load off the clerk. Again, I should point out these proposals are based to a very large extent not on some abstract theory but on the practices followed in provincial elections at the present time.

Another big advantage, I suggest, is that under our procedure there would be uniformity of procedures. Every election year there would be a regular 45 days between the start of enumeration and election day. Under the proposals in Bill 98, you’d have one year with 62 days and the next year with 69 days. It’s very difficult for a clerk, a returning officer, to set up uniform procedures when you have a variation in the number of days and when many of the provisions of the Act are related to the start of enumeration; many other provisions are related to election day in time. Because of that, there is a great confusion in the procedures. I’m now going to hope that the member for Durham West will comment on this. Do you know under Bill 98 before us, the periods for the court of revision will vary from one day to seven? If you take a calendar and look at it for the years ahead, the final day for the court of revision in some years will fall on the first compulsory day for the court of revision. One day on which the court of revision must be held.

I may be wrong, but I suggest to the member for Durham West that was not fully explored in this bill. In fact, I talked to a prominent member of the committee and he said, “No, we didn’t realize that in the bill in some instances there would only be one day provided for the court of revision.”

I’ll tell the member for Durham West the exact dates, if I may. If Labour Day falls on Monday, September 6, according to Bill 98 election day will be Monday, November 8. The only day that a court of revision will have to be held is Friday, October 22 -- one day. I can read you the sections of the Act. Let me give them to you. Read section 24 (b) and section 25 (3) of the Act and you will find that my allegation is correct. The last day and the first day for the court of revision are the same days.

Under our proposals, the election date can’t fall on a holiday, but of course it can under Bill 98.

A procedural advantage of our proposal is that the clerk would also have two weeks to print the voters’ lists. Under your proposal you have as little as eight days to meet the compulsory time -- as little as eight days to have the voters’ list printed. Even then, they will only be posted in his office and the other two prominent places five days before the final day of the court of revision.

[5:15]

Under our proposals or Bill 98, and they are the same in this respect, nominations will be held prior to the final court of revision.

Arguments were put forward by the minister previously that we must finish the court of revision so we know the voters’ list is accurate before nomination day. Of course, that has been the practice up to now. But Bill 98 steps over that boundary line and so that is no different to the proposal which we are putting forward.

Through both our proposals and Bill 98 there can be inadequate time to go through notification procedures to take someone off the voters’ list, if you read section 28(2). We propose, in our amendment of the bill, that a person would be notified by the clerk by registered mail if he is taken off, for instance, on the second last day of the court of revision, and the reasons. If his name was incorrectly removed he could avail himself of section 33, which is the clerk’s certificate to allow him to vote, or under section 56, which permits him to vote on election day by taking an oath.

We feel that these proposals are exceedingly practical. The real change in them is in the matter of the preliminary lists, whereby under our proposals they would be a combination of the enumerators’ list that you pick up on enumeration and the non-resident list as provided by the assessment commissioner. The assessment commissioner would still have the time and the opportunity to cross-cheek all of these -- the same amount of time as he has now -- to get them into the court of revision for any changes. They tell me the changes are normally not great in the non-resident list, not anything as great as they are in the other lists. In normal instances there are not more than five changes in a thousand in the list.

In every way, we suggest that our proposals are as feasible as, or more so than, those we have before us in Bill 98.

I say to the member that if you assess these proposals objectively you’ll find they are workable. There is no extra cost. I don’t know where the $4 million comes from. I presume that that is a second enumeration that is proposed. Am I correct in assuming that?

There are no extra costs. We just do the enumeration the same way that it is done now and it would provide an efficient framework for the conduct of the election. I suggest that it will provide for more involvement in the elections and, perhaps, enhance turnout.

I hope that I have persuaded my colleagues on my right that it is a practical plan and that they will vote for our amendment to this section. Whether they do or not, all they will succeed in doing is delay it; it’s going to come. Elections are going to be held in the middle of October, because it makes sense. Like most other progressive measures, whether it’s health insurance, rent review or whatever, the NDP has promoted and popularized it, then the government finally backs down and accepts it.

I suggest this proposal we have for the election date in October be considered and I hope the parliamentary assistant will deal in detail with my proposals. If he can point out flaws in them I would be glad to have them. If he can’t I hope he will admit they are practical. I suggest that it will come in this province.

Mr. Epp: In speaking to Bill 98 and in particular to the amendments that the member for Welland-Thorold has introduced, I want to say that we wanted to give him the opportunity to introduce these so we could dispense with them in one way or another and get on to some of the other amendments, some of which we have proposed and which we hope will find favour on both sides of the House.

The election date that has been incorporated in the bill is the one that will get the support of this party, Mr. Chairman. We feel the amendments proposed are not going to give sufficient time for the preparation of the municipal election.

A matter of which all members of this House should be cognizant is the preparation for a municipal election is much more cumbersome than for a provincial or federal election. There are many more questions being asked at the municipal level and therefore it’s important that accurate answers be obtained and recorded.

Another aspect is the member for Welland-Thorold mentioned by having the enumeration and everything crowded into a shorter period -- and I understand I have the attention of the members for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) on this -- you are going to have more interest. I submit the interest is not reflected by the turnout in having a short election period but in having presentable candidates and very interesting issues -- something in which the people are interested and to which they relate easily.

For instance, if we were to follow that suggestion, you should have a higher turnout for provincial elections as opposed to federal elections, because some provincial elections are run over 37 days. If you go through all the elections in the last number of years, you will find there’s a bigger turnout for federal elections which are usually over a span of 58 days as opposed to about 37 to 40 days for provincial elections. Therefore I submit just to crowd something in over 45 days does not necessarily guarantee and really isn’t a factor in bringing out more people on election day. The reason people don’t come out for municipal elections in great numbers is because they are not as interested in the candidates or the issues as they might be.

In trying to keep this debate short as I realize there are a lot of other amendments to which we want to talk, I will conclude my remarks by saying we will support the government on having the election date on the second Monday in November.

Mr. Ruston: The member for Welland-Thorold made remarks about the agricultural industry in western Ontario. I would think if the former president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had won his seat in Middlesex for that party, he would have brought to the attention of the House the problems there could be if this voting day is held in October. Since he wasn’t able to win, there isn’t anyone to bring the member up to date on what’s going on. Just to advise the member, all the soya bean and corn crops were taken off in Essex and Kent counties this year after October 10. Maybe you should be aware of what goes on. I can think of at least 57 or 58 farm people in my own county who are elected to council who would have been prevented from running for office if it was this early. I want the House to know and the member to realize that situation.

Mr. Ashe: If I may go backwards, in reverse order to the speakers, I would just like to acknowledge and show appreciation for the remarks by the member for Essex North in support of the early November date and to recognize the points he made on behalf of the agricultural community, which we are all striving to help in every way possible.

The member for Waterloo North obviously recognizes that we can’t simply talk about some time frames and relate them specifically in terms of so many days to do this and so many days to do that. I think everybody recognizes that we can do anything we want, practically speaking, in any time frame; but what we are concerned about is the results that come out at the other end. There is not sufficient time in what is being proposed by the New Democratic Party.

The member made two particular points, one of them to the effect that interest is not generated in elections because of the time frame being too long. That is a fallacy, of course, and I think the very valid example made by the hon. member vis-à-vis a federal election versus a provincial election backs that up.

In practical terms we can talk about days and dates all we want, because we are in the process -- and many of us have been for many years, whether it be on the provincial scene or formerly on the municipal scene. But in the minds of the public -- let’s not kid ourselves -- in practical terms, and particularly so in a municipal election, the election process starts at nomination day. Very little is highlighted before that time as far as the public is concerned. I think that in itself makes it significantly different from relating to the date when an election writ is issued that calls either a provincial election or a federal election. So I don’t think the argument about cutting down the time frame to generate more interest is a valid one at all.

The most important point made by the hon. member for Waterloo North is really the crux of the problem as it relates to the proposal of the hon. member for Welland-Thorold. I refer to the direct, distinct and significant differences between the kind of election data gathering that takes place during a municipal election versus the kind that takes place during a provincial election process.

During a provincial election, in practical terms, other than the citizenship and age qualifications, you are literally gathering names. A body means a name means a vote. It’s not quite that simplistic; I appreciate that. But for all practical purposes, that’s really it.

When we are talking about a municipal election, we are talking about a much longer process. We are talking about resident electors. We are talking about non-resident electors. We are talking about verification of ownership. We are talking about discussing school support and verification of school support.

All of these things take a great deal more time, not least in terms of the physical accumulation and verification of these names, both by mail in the case of non-resident persons who are being enumerated, but even in person for those who are being enumerated locally.

The most significant point being forgotten in the procedures suggested by the New Democratic Party is that we want to come out at the end with a reasonably accurate and complete list.

The hon. member for Welland-Thorold on many occasions said, “They tell me.” “They tell me,” I assume, is probably one person --

Mr. Foulds: No.

Mr. Ashe: -- who, hopefully, has an assessor function. I don’t belittle that fact; I assume that’s the case. But the “They tell me” I’m putting forward for the consideration of this House is the people who have to administer it, not only in one particular jurisdiction, and probably a relatively small one, but right across the province. And they tell me -- that is to say, the numbers of people involved in the process -- it is virtually impossible without the almost complete duplication by the municipality of what the province is doing now. I say duplication, because the province would have to do it anyway.

[5:30]

The hon. member for Welland-Thorold said the joint committee did not make any recommendation regarding the election date. That’s true; they did not. They did not make a recommendation versus our date in any way, nor did they comment or make any recommendation to do with the one that’s proposed by the hon. member for Welland-Thorold. So although he leaves the suggestion that the one suggested by the government is an arbitrary one, I suggest that the one being proposed by the hon. member is, in terms of the process that we went through, equally as arbitrary.

As for the election day being on a Thursday or Monday, I’m told that the joint committee did not consider this in any way -- that is the reason they did not comment on it. We’ve had discussions as recently as last week with the chairman of the joint committee, Ellen Kerr from Sudbury. She saw no problem with Monday elections. The point that some hon. member brought out last week about access to the clerk over the weekend in her mind was not a valid one.

Mr. Foulds: That was one clerk in one place.

Mr. Ashe: Granted, one clerk, one place. But she was the chairman of the committee we were involved with on a consultative basis for an extended period of time. So, hopefully, she was speaking, at least in some degree, on behalf of more than just herself.

The other situation, of course -- and I think I alluded to it earlier is that it’s acknowledged that virtually anything can be done in a given time frame, as long as you’re willing to pay the price. But it is our suggestion that the time frame as proposed by the New Democratic Party, is impracticable, considering the fact that as the lists come together -- and I don’t dispute the fact that the computers start running sooner, probably virtually two or three days after Labour Day -- early returns by the enumerators are being fed into the computer. That just further, in my opinion, proves the time element that is required, because even that extra time is required because of all the processing involved.

It takes approximately 1,200 hours of computer time, much of that with duplicate and triplicate runs, to take out from the lists the duplications of the feed-in -- duplications of non-residents who own more than one piece of property in a municipality other than the one in which they reside -- so they will only have one vote, which is all they are entitled to. There is going through the duplications of property owners who, inadvertently or in some cases possibly consciously, have indicated school support to more than one school system, which is illegal. So again, the computer has to run through all of the lists to do this.

Although it’s suggested that a lot of this might be done manually, we suggest that in fact to do it manually to come up with any kind of accurate lists would not save time at all. It would probably, in fact, be more time-consuming than the computer, which now takes several weeks to confirm.

There are other reasons why the lists must be relatively accurate and, of course, they are not recognized in any way during the provincial election process, because they are not needed. The actual school board support lists come out of this process. The juror lists also come out of this process. So cutting down the time frame, of course, again only causes more probabilities for error. In the opinion of the people who have to do the job the only way it could be done was if the municipalities would like to take over the enumeration process per se and, in effect, duplicate the work that would be done by the assessment department.

We once again went back to consult with the joint committee. We heard a resounding response through them and I think we’ve heard it, as have all members: The municipalities said they do not wish to in any way take back any part of, let alone all of, the enumeration process and the associated expense that goes along with it.

The process at the moment operated by the province costs something like $4.5 million. It is estimated that even if they were able to take that over completely -- and not even talking about duplication, because of the extra costs involved such as additional staff within the municipalities, higher costs of computer time, higher costs for the other goods that have to be bought, various paper that can’t be bought in the same quantities -- that there would be anywhere from 30 to 50 per cent added on to those basic costs at an absolute minimum. If the whole procedure had to be duplicated, you’re talking about upwards of $6 million in additional costs, which I am quite convinced the municipalities do not wish to take on at all.

There was a reference by the hon. member for Welland-Thorold to one of the advantages related to taking office on November 1. Again, I don’t see that as any great advantage or disadvantage, as a matter of fact. I think it is just a matter of practicality. You take office, as proposed of course in Bill 98, at the first of the month following the date of election. I don’t see any great advantage for taking office sooner. As a matter of fact, we have had some feedback on the basis that this would actually be something negative. There has been some concern expressed by the odd municipality, directly and indirectly, that you have a council taking office in a previous council’s fiscal year. They are concerned about the one month proposed.

Under the proposal by the hon. member for Welland-Thorold, in fact, this would make it two mouths. In the minds of those people there were concerns about the balance of the fiscal year and under this proposal it is doubled from one month to two.

There was a reference made to the former minister, the Hon. Mr. Meen, who was minister in 1972. I might just point out to the hon. member this government does recognize times and systems do change. When they do change, we acknowledge those changes and update them.

It is quite conceivable the same things will happen in the future. I don’t deny that; that is quite possible and quite probable. But we don’t like to go from the frying pan into the fire, which is really what the hon. member is suggesting.

As for the actual posting of lists and the extra time being suggested that lists could be posted, how long do the lists stay on the posts? Our proposal is based on feedback from municipalities and the consultative process with the joint committee. It, in fact removes and reduces the obligation for that kind of posting. Everybody recognizes first of all, how long do the lists stay on the posts? Regardless of whether they are intended to be there five days, 10 days or 20 days, for all practical purposes they are lucky if they survive one day. As a matter of fact, who looks anyway? I think it is just a lot of hogwash to suggest this is a big plus.

Really the icing on the cake was the suggestion the candidate must know who is on the list so when he goes around and very meticulously gets his 10 names he has to go and check to make sure they are on the list. And again, for those who have been in municipal politics -- or even, I suppose, provincial politics where you are looking for 100 names -- in recent history anybody who leaves it to getting exactly 10 names or exactly 100 names is a little bit short somewhere anyway. I don’t think that is a very valid situation. We all know within Bill 98, once the clerk has certified the list of eligible nominators they will not be invalidated by any further changes to the eligible electors.

The hon. member talked about the court of revision period -- that there could be as little as one day up to seven days. I would refer him to section 25(2) which guarantees a minimum period of five days. So, although in theory, on the calendar, what he suggests could happen there is a guarantee of a minimum period of five days.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we have covered most of the points that were covered. The big items, of course, in more specific terms are the impracticability of coming up in the time suggested with any reasonable lists. We should recognize the multi-purpose use of the various lists. They are not just eligible voters’ lists. They carry much more to them. The process of making sure they are reasonably correct takes a longer time frame than is suggested.

I will acknowledge at this time it is possible that at some future point in time, maybe even three years from now, possibly one more week will be found and elections could move up to the first week of November. We will be looking at that. We would much rather propose to this House the elections next year be a little more conservative.

Mr. Breithaupt: Careful now, careful.

Mr. B. Newman: You just spoiled it.

Mr. Ashe: Small “c”. We would propose that the operation be handled a little more conservatively, if that’s better, to see if there are bugs that weren’t anticipated. It’s often fine to look at something on a piece of paper but I think everybody would acknowledge that you learn by going through a process.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are more likely to look for bugs than we are.

Mr. Ashe: If there are no great problems next year in cutting it back to the second week of November, I am quite sure we will be examining the possibility of moving it back one further week. I must say there is no possibility at all at this time, with current computer and mails -- with the knowledge from the computer, with the way the mails work and what have you -- of cutting down any time from the verification process. If -- and I say if -- we are able to find another week in the future, it would be to cut down the enumeration period to a one-week period.

Mr. Swart: There are a few comments I would like to make. I regret the parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Durham West, dealt in generalities unfortunately, and did not deal with the specific issue which I had raised. He is absolutely wrong in stating -- and I would like him to comment further on this and read the section of the bill -- that it provides for a five-day minimum court of revision. On page 11, section 24(b), it says: “The clerk shall fix the places at which and the times when revision of the list will be undertaken, and such revision shall commence no later than 14 days after delivery of the list to the clerk under section 22.”

Then under section 25 (3) it says: “The last day for the filing of applications for revision of the preliminary list shall be the 17th day immediately preceding polling day and such applications may be filed with the clerk during his normal office hours.” The only reference made to a five-day period is in section 25 (2) which says: “The day of posting copies of the preliminary lists and of publishing the notice under subsection 1 shall be at least five days before the last day for filing applications for revision.”

I suggest that if my concerns were great before they are much greater now, if the parliamentary assistant doesn’t know the difference between the posting of the lists and the court of revision. I also want to say he didn’t mention the very short period which exists under this Act now, only five days from the time of the posting of the lists until the final day of the court of revision. I would like to hear him comment, if he would, as to whether he thinks that is adequate. When the only notices will be the posting of the list up in the clerk’s office and two other places in the municipality, how are people going to know if they are off the voters’ list? The provision where you send out notice where people vote may remind them of the election day, but it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with putting people on the voters’ list.

When I say that people in the field have given me their comments with regard to the feasibility of our proposals, I am talking about people who are actually working as returning officers, as clerks in municipalities and as assessment commissioners. They are not people who are sitting at Queen’s Park. They are people who year by year are actually working in the field. They tell me our proposals are practical.

I regret you’ve thrown in red herrings or straw men or whatever you want to call them by saying that this would mean putting back to the municipality the cost of enumeration, which would be up to $6 million. The hon. member for Durham West knows very well I made no such suggestion whatsoever. We would carry through with the enumeration process, the whole process, exactly in the time frame in which it is done now, except the enumerators would compile the lists at the end of their enumeration and put them on the pole. There would not be one day taken away from the assessment commissioner to check if there was any overlapping of names, any non-residents who now should be taken off. The time frame would he identical except the enumerators would take responsibility for taking off the lists.

[5:45]

One other comment I want to make in this regard deals with the enumeration. I’ve been told by people in the field there is no difficulty within this time frame. It’s twice the length of time the provincial enumerators have. In addition to the date being known ahead of time so they can get the enumerators and instruct them ahead of time, the enumerators in the municipal elections are provided with a sheet for each home -- and I have copies here -- which lists the names of the people from the last enumeration and all the nine things which they have to fill in. The length of time taken to do that type of enumeration is little if any greater than it is for a provincial enumeration and yet they have twice the length of time in which to do it.

I suggest it is practical and I’d like to have had, and perhaps still will have, a little more detail with regard to the item, particularly with regard to the five days minimum for the court of revision.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, to attempt to get a vote taken on this I don’t wish to comment further. As far as the hon. member’s references to section 24 and 25 related to the revision and period and so on are concerned, we’ll look at that again and report back to the committee. I don’t think it’s really too relevant to the vote we’re attempting to get made.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to section 11, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 21; nays 68.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendment.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 99, An Act to regulate the Discounting of Income Tax Refunds.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just before we break for dinner, may I explain to the House there was some misunderstanding in connection with a meeting tonight of the standing statutory instruments committee. Therefore that committee will in fact not be meeting tonight at 9 o’clock as published in the church bulletin so would you amend the notice paper accordingly. Perhaps we might call for the first private member’s bill now and then we will be back here at 8 o’clock to have a little discussion about it.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.