Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), there are three essential points here. First of all, the amendment would restrict over all campaign expenditures, but I point out, sir, that this has been tried in a dozen jurisdictions all over the world and in no case has it been successful. I had occasion at 6 o’clock tonight to mention the fact that the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), the principal socialist -- the second principal socialist --

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): There is no principled socialist.

Hon. Mr. White: -- confessed to our standing committee on justice a week ago that he spent something over $40,000 in the last 3½ years on what is essentially a campaign activity; that is, an office of his own in his riding. This is a small example of many that could be offered to prove the fact that there is no way of constraining these expenses over a lengthy period of time.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): What about your executive assistant running all over the place doing constituency work?

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Stokes: There is nothing wrong with it, but call it what it is.

Hon. Mr. White: My executive assistant has never done anything political in his life.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, the hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Serving the people; that’s what it is.

Mr. Stokes: Some people.

Hon. Mr. White: So the first point I want to make is that it has been tried elsewhere without success. It hasn’t worked anywhere in the world and this is the reason the royal commission recommended against it.

Now I come, sir, to the next point, that this advertising constraint of 25 cents per voter doesn’t effectively apply in Metropolitan Toronto ridings.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. White: That’s right. That’s right it doesn’t, because they don’t use mass-media advertising. It does apply very much in medium-sized communities like my own, and there are many other representatives here of communities not unlike London South, where these are very real constraints and where these constraints -- 25 cents per voter -- will drive down the expenditure in mass-media advertising by 10 or 20 or 50 per cent. That’s the reason we’ve singled out that particular measure.

We’ve singled out this measure also because it’s a particular expenditure which can be qualified, where costing can be done precisely by the commission itself and by opposition parties, so it is easily policed. I offer that in contrast to the form of conscription the NDP has, of putting union organizers from Saskatchewan into by-elections and general elections hero in Ontario, bringing socialists from all over Canada into a particular riding or half a dozen selected marginal ridings --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Do they pay them?

Hon. Mr. White: -- and where it would become impossible, as experience has proven, to quantify the cost of that particular contribution.

My hon. friend, the member for Downsview, who has offered these amendments, is being somewhat inconsistent, I do believe, because it was only a few hours ago --

Mr. Stokes: That’s something like you talking on behalf of Premier Moores in Newfoundland. Do you want me to dig up some of your old speeches made in Newfoundland?

Hon. Mr. White: -- that he himself was begging the House to support an amendment which he himself offered, to enable a candidate to pay $20,000 toward his own campaign --

Mr. Stokes: Ontario’s red Tory goes to Newfoundland.

Hon. Mr. White: -- in contrast to the present maximum of $500.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): On a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member with his point of order.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, if the minister had listened he would recall that what I said was that after you take the amount of contribution, the amount of payment back, you can get up to a maximum amount of $20,000. If the minister could read and understand, he could put the figures in this amendment together with the figures in the other and find out they are both entirely consistent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Hear, hear. That is a point of order if I ever heard one.

Mr. Chairman: I am not denying that is a point of order. Will the hon. minister continue?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, sir. That’s exactly what he said. He said the present constraints -- which amount to $2,000, plus $2,000, plus $500, plus $500, for a total of $5,000 -- were far too little, post facto, for a candidate and that the candidate should be enabled to pay $20,000 post facto. That is what he said, sir.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t say that at all. I said if we want small businessmen to suffer we will enact this legislation in this present form.

Hon. Mr. White: And that will be voted on shortly, no doubt, and I hope and trust I have confidence the House will turn that down.

Mr. Singer: Why does the minister dislike small businessmen?

Hon. Mr. White: So now we have a series of amendments offered, completely in conflict with similar motions offered by the member for Downsview less than three hours ago. So for these several reasons, sir --

Mr. Singer: Why does he hate small businessmen?

Hon. Mr. White: -- I would ask that the House turn back this and the other amendments.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It will.

Mr. Chairman: Before I recognize the --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Minister of Education want to make an announcement? We very rarely see him in here at night.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to interrupt this spirited debate to recognize the member for Scarborough North.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I think it’s quite appropriate that we have the galleries full tonight for the debate on this very important bill.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): More than the benches have been filled.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where are all the Tories?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think these are good citizens from the riding of Scarborough North --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): That’s why you’re putting on the big show.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, a good number of them are members of the Scarborough North Progressive Conservative Association.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that who they are?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think they’re very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to be here to see this government putting through one of the most progressive pieces of campaign disclosure legislation in Canada.

Mr. Stokes: We could have applauded, but not that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Some of our friends over there perhaps will come to realize that one day.

Mr. Chairman: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join with the minister in welcoming the good taxpayers from Scarborough North because they, along with the other taxpayers of the province, are going to be called on under the provisions of this bill to pay an average of $6,000 to each bona fide candidate in the constituencies in the next general election. I’m not sure what the total bill will amount to but it will be substantial. The point is directly on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Downsview. I believe wholeheartedly that if we are prepared to dip into the consolidated revenue fund of this province to pay for election campaigns, the other side of that coin, or those many coins, must be that a limit on expenditure be established. I cannot understand what kind of conscience would lead the Conservative government to say, on the one hand, we’re going to provide the original ante, the first $6,000, in every one of the campaigns out of public funds and not at the same time say there will be a limit. In other words, you’re going to get the $6,000 and then turn to those barrels of money you keep in the basement of the Parliament Buildings, or wherever your headquarters is, to spend without limit.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If democracy is to be served, I would think the taxpayers, perhaps if they thought about it very carefully, would say we should give every bona fide candidate, whatever his or her political allegiance might be, an opportunity to put forward his or her basic alternatives to the issues and to campaign with at least a coverage of a mailing and some advertising. Beyond that, there must surely be a limit so that no party and no individual with access to unlimited funds -- as the Conservatives have been in the past -- is going to be in a position to buy an election or buy a government.

Mr. Chairman, I believe wholeheartedly that the amendment put forward by my colleague must be supported. If we are going to support the contention that we are going to pay the basic cost from public funds there must be a limit and anything else is truly unconscionable.

Hon. Mr. White: No, sir, I can’t let this pass. It’s the Liberal Party that’s going around this province bragging it is going to spend $5 million on the next election.

Hon. Mr. Winker: What do you say now?

Hon. Mr. White: Now I hear them say, “Apply constraints at the riding level.” And I hear at the same time the member for Downsview saying, “Let the rich candidates who earn $20,000 be almost unconstrained.” What we’re going to do, sir --

Mr. Singer: How much did you return in 1971? Can you tell us?

Hon. Mr. White: Just a minute. What we’re going to do, sir, is take the advice of the royal commission insofar as overall expenditures are concerned; they not having worked anywhere in the world --

Mr. Singer: They have so.

Hon. Mr. White: If somebody could offer me some information of a successful model, we would be quick to take it.

Interjection by hon. member.

Hon. Mr. White: What we’re going to do, sir, is place limits on mass media advertising which all of us can police.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): You’re on your way out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What we’re going to do, sir, is limit the contributions in, which is a precisely measurable amount where particular penalties can be effectively applied.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Cash in and cash out.

Hon. Mr. White: That’s the reason, no doubt, that my hon. friend the Minister of Education was able to say in front of these great Conservatives -- I knew they were Conservatives when I saw them --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): You’re looking in the wrong direction, they’re on the north gallery.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: My wife and I have learned in the last 25 years that you can spot a group of Conservatives by their looks, they are so good looking.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): They are not all as beefy and good looking as you are.

Hon. Mr. White: And so intelligent looking.

An hon. member: The working class socialist.

Mr. Breithaupt: You can certainly tell a Tory but you can’t tell him much.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: I am serious.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. minister return to the amendment, please?

Hon. Mr. White: I am serious on this.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): I suppose you are the exception that proves the rule.

Hon. Mr. White: I am indeed.

Mr. Chairman: Will the minister continue please?

Hon. Mr. White: No sir, I don’t want to take you away from section 32, but I want to say this, I am not kidding when I tell you my wife and I have concluded, after two decades of political experience, you can tell a Conservative by looking at him or her.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But you can’t tell him much.

Mr. Chairman: I draw to the hon. minister’s attention that section 39 --

Hon. Mr. White: When I see these lobbies fill up with socialists, I could tell you it’s a very sad sight.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t play to the gallery, John.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Foulds: John, you are beginning to sound more like W. A. C. Bennett every day.

Mr. Lawlor: More like W. C. Fields.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, you could do worse than that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not much.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What did Barrett do with your profession, can you tell me that?

Mr. Foulds: Pardon.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: You heard me.

Mr. Foulds: Not quite.

Hon. Mr. White: Well anyway, sir, we have debated this at some length before 6 o’clock and now again for the last 10 or 15 minutes. I can only say this, that the moment we can find an example anywhere in the world where overall constraints are working, we are prepared to adopt it. Until the time comes, where there is one such successful experiment, we are not going to embed it in the statutes of this province only to have it in some way corrupted.

Mr. Martel: You people should talk about corruption.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Martel: It is the last party that should be complaining about corruption.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have before me an amendment. I am seeking your advice on the matter.

First of all, on a point of order, is Mr. Singer’s amendment in two parts, are there separate and distinct amendments as you take it, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Singer: If I could be of some assistance to you. It is written on two separate pages, but it is really the same amendment.

Mr. Chairman: It is the same amendment but there are two pages.

Mr. Lawlor: Make it two parts, because we like one and don’t like the other.

Mr. Singer: Well I don’t really care. It is the same principle; and the same stubborn minister is going to vote it down anyway.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): The Liberals don’t really care --

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps if it would be of assistance to the hon. members we could deal with the amendment in two stages.

Mr. Lawlor: Right, okay.

The amendment I have before me partially covers the member for Downsview’s amendment. It goes further, though, in one of the sections, and I would ask for your indulgence in submitting it just the way it was written out and let it go at that.

Mr. Lawlor moves that section 39 of Bill 3 be amended by changing the figure 25 in subsections (a) and (c) to 12½; and by changing the figure in subsection (b) to 25.

Mr. Lawlor: You will note, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Downsview has correlated on subsection (b) but not on the other, although I get the impression he probably isn’t all that much disturbed about the other one way or another.

The reason for this amendment, as in the case of the Liberal amendment under this head, has to do with the grotesque and exorbitant amount --

Mr. Singer: Could I ask the member a question?

Mr. Lawlor: Sure.

Mr. Singer: How could you possibly spend $5,000 under subsection (c) and get $6,000 back out of the public purse?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s pretty good business.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: Are you really asking me that question; or let’s ask the minister for a change?

Mr. Singer: Yes. I can’t quite follow the member for Lakeshore on that.

An hon. member: This only applies to advertising expenses.

Mr. Lawlor: I was saying that the sums you leave yourself with respect to advertising are very great sums indeed. They certainly give you all the swat and elbow room with respect to inundating the other less affluent political parties in the province in the way in which you successfully did the last time when you bought up all that advertising time. We really got rocked between the eyes on that occasion with every form of shibboleth and every form of banality.

They are slick guys you have got working for you down there on Bay St. and they have the Brooklyn accent. They know the style. You don’t hire them and pay them that money for nothing and the effect is a kind of an indecorum on the democratic principle. It’s a form of -- from our point of view -- a little bit of an obscenity. Since you fellows are so grotesquely opposed to obscenity these days, parading up and down on a law and order platform, we thought maybe you wouldn’t want to commit any obscenities yourself.

In this particular area are the very vast sums which you know that we at least have no access to nor can pretend to have access to and which you this afternoon gave us less access to by cutting us off at the knees with respect to our provincial party. The riding funds are fine. It’s the provincial central fund precisely for purposes of access to the media, to television and radio, that we are being throttled on. The form of evisceration you perform is very effective indeed in this particular area too.

We find these sums are much too great. They do upset the internal balance of the democratic process of getting one’s message across, being able to address the public and being heard. When one party has the predominance of power in this way, the whole machinery becomes extremely questionable.

I admit that you write it in for your own benefit. It is highly partisan. It is a biased form of serving your own interest. You have got the loot. You are going to use it and you want all the room in the world in which to exercise that privilege. Nevertheless it runs counter to your deepest motivations behind this legislation and what you are seeking to do, to give some kind of equality of status in the voices heard in this community. You amplify your own voice a thousand times and diminish others.

If you are going to have some kind of equality, we wouldn’t be able to match the figures we are giving here, 12½ cents per head. We’d never find that kind of money. You could easily, no problem about that. We are prepared to put up with that amount of discrimination and that heavy a load against us. We can forefend against that.

As you well know, we have other means of meeting the electorate. We go out and meet them at the door. It is very hard, struggling work. You sweat a lot in the process and you get bitten by the odd dog but at least you talk to people personally and in a direct way. This is what elections are all about. You are using the mass media.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: You don’t do it to the extent that we do, nor have you the pertinacity. You don’t stick to it the same way. You use the mass media in the province to an extent that we couldn’t possibly nor would we wish to. According to McLuhan and according to the powers that be, the electronic media have an enormous impact upon human personality these days. There is no minister of this House who knows that better than he because he is very much aware of Lewis Mumford and Marshall McLuhan’s works in these areas of saying what the impact is. I give him credit for that but knowing this and knowing it so deeply, there is no reason in the world why he shouldn’t modify this legislation either along the lines given by the member for Downsview or in accord with the principle enunciated by us here tonight.

I would ask you to reconsider this proposition and give some thought to setting your sights, your ceilings a little lower than you presently do.

Hon. Mr. White: This is the strangest thing. We have heard for 3½ years accusations that we, the Conservatives, spent $5 million in 1971. That was never true.

Mr. Breithaupt: How much did you spend?

Hon. Mr. White: That was always false.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Tell us what you spent.

Hon. Mr. White: That was always a lie, that accusation. Now we have imposed limits on advertising amounting to something over $1 million.

Mr. Singer: Something over, yes. Was it 10½?

Hon. Mr. White: And the claim is now made that this $1.2 million is too much. Why should that he? Well, I suppose, first of all, because the NDP doesn’t dare put their leader on TV if that can be avoided.

Mr. Lawlor: On a point of personal privilege. What is going on?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: Watching the leader of the NDP of recent date, his image is almost transmogrified.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s almost as mellow as the member for London South (Mr. White).

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Has the hon. minister finished his comments at this point?

Mr. Lawlor: None of these snide remarks.

Hon. Mr. White: The NDP deliberately kept their leader off television in 1971, and the effort will be redoubled in 1975.

Mr. Breithaupt: Going to spend twice as much.

Hon. Mr. White: In 1971, the NDP bragged that they had, for the first time ever, more than $1 million to spend.

Mr. Lawlor: We have grown more humble in a sense.

Hon. Mr. White: So, these amendments are a form of posturing, which I think don’t reflect the true state of affairs. And certainly we, on this side of the House, cannot accept it.

Mr. Foulds: Why not? Why can’t you accept it?

Hon. Mr. White: If the hon. member will recall Lewis Mumford’s principal point with respect to decentralization, as well expressed in the “Pentagon of Power,” he will remember the very persuasive and compelling arguments of Mumford with respect to the need for getting power from the centre into the periphery of organizations and society.

That is the reason that I, among others, insisted that the ridings have the same total amount of money, the same per capita amount of money as the centre itself. So, that the natural inclination for the centre to acquire power wouldn’t be in some way exaggerated by this bill. And so we find ourselves in a form of equality.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come off it.

Mr. Lawlor: Except you got the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Hon. Mr. White: And for that reason the NDP motion, which would have the effect of ploughing twice the resources into the centre as exists in the constituencies, is completely unacceptable to me. And for these reasons, sir, I would ask once again that the House turn back the amendments offered by the socialists here tonight.

Mr. Foulds: You know you are a charlatan.

Mr. Chairman: I would alert the members of the committee that we will deal with Mr. Lawlor’s amendment as an amendment to the amendment. We will, I assume, stack that along with Mr. Singer’s amendment, and deal with them at the conclusion of the debate.

Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Singer: Section 40, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 40; the hon. member for Downsview.

On section 40:

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, section 40 deals with foundations, and as it originally appeared in the standing committee it made the setting up of a foundation a permissive matter, and the foundation was supposed to receive the moneys the party had in hand prior to the coming into force of this Act.

I would have thought, listening to the minister a few moments ago, that he was much anxious and eager to declare publicly how much money the Tories had in hand. Now, I urged upon him an obvious course whereby this could be done in the standing committee, but he rejected it there. So let me urge it upon him again tonight. In the committee he did accept the fact that a foundation be compulsory, and that when any party had money in hand, after the passing of this Act -- which, presumably, might be tonight or tomorrow or whenever -- that it had to put it into a foundation, and the foundation had to be handled in accordance with certain rules.

He accepted the compulsory feature of the foundation, but the next feature he rejected. I said it was important that the amount of money in the foundation be declared, so that he could put up or shut up. He talks about how much money the Liberals might have had or might intend to spend. We have some belief, for some peculiar reason, that the Tories have an awful lot of millions of dollars in hand. We would like to know how many dollars they’re going to put in the foundation.

So I’m going to be moving an amendment in a few moments, Mr. Chairman, that will make it compulsory that when a foundation is set up that there has to be filed with the commission a statement of the amount of money put in the foundation. So, that if the Tories only have $100,000 in hand now, or if they have $5 million in hand now, they will declare it. And they will declare it to the commission and it will be available as a part of the public record just how much money we have. And I know we will be anxious and eager to declare how much we have in hand, and so will the NDP.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Tell us now.

Mr. Singer: Now, I think it only fair, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. minister wants to be as fair as he is talking about being, he should go along and subscribe to this amendment.

The second thing is that the minister talked about equality of opportunity in elections, and the whole statute is apparently designed for that purpose. It would seem logical to me that if there is going to be equality of opportunity in elections the parties should start off reasonably equal from the starting gate. We’ll even let the Tories have an advantage in this one. But in the second one everybody should be even. Let every party be compelled to put into the foundation all the money they now have in hand and to declare publicly to the commission how much it is, and let them either spend it in this coming election or else let the money escheat to the Crown. Let it be given to Her Majesty the Queen in the right of the Province of Ontario, in the event that you don’t spend it. Mr. Chairman, I ask you, what could be fairer and more equal and reasonable than that?

Mr. Singer moves that section 40 be amended by adding after the word “year” in subsection (c), “and the amount in the foundation,” and that there be added a new subsection, subsection (d): “If there are any funds left in these foundations after the next general election held in Ontario, such moneys shall then be paid to Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Ontario.”

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill to prevent the Liberals from announcing what they have in their foundation. Given the nature of the amendment, one would expect them to be honour-bound to do so, and so we will all look forward with some interest to seeing if they have got some or all of the $5 million in their coffers that they have promised the people to spend in this election.

Insofar as the other parties are concerned, the royal commission said very clearly that the rules should not be changed in the middle of the game, that the funds in trust with the several parties should be established in a foundation according to law, and that the transfer of moneys, whether that be interest or capital, should be fully revealed, as transfers were made to the parties, to the constituencies or to the candidates. We have accepted the royal commission’s recommendations in full. That’s our position, sir.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is not a royal commission.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): What is this royal commission stuff?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to move a subamendment.

Mr. Lawlor moves that section 40(c) of Bill 3 be amended by inserting after the word “report” the words “of the assets and.”

Mr. Lawlor: The purport of the amendment is precisely along the Liberal lines with a different kind of wording. We would like to be on the record as independently being opposed to this section --

Mr. Singer: A rose by any other name.

Mr. Lawlor: -- both, my friend, vis-à-vis the Liberal coffers and the ones over there. We suspect that they have outdistanced the Liberals somehow.

Mr. Singer: I would agree with that.

Mr. Lewis: No, I am not sure of that.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, no, they didn’t do as well in Montreal as they thought they were going to do.

Mr. Lewis: These beggars have been gathering money in the bushes for six months now.

Mr. Breithaupt: It has taken us 32 years to get where we are now.

Mr. Lawlor: My considered judgment is that they are pygmies beside the ghosts. The real ghouls are over there. The Minister without Portfolio knows it, and he set up these foundations on that very basis. We want to lift the veil on this. You don’t want to lift the veil on it, and I don’t blame you. On the other hand, unless you do lift the veil, again you are betraying in a basic way the principle of the legislation and what it’s supposed to be all about, a public disclosure of funds, an overt, open-breasted revealing of what goes on behind the scenes during an election campaign and in preparation therefor, so that we will know where the monetary balances fall in this society and who rules the roost by way of the holdings of money. In this society money sings. It’s the only thing that does. You don’t hear people singing any more on the streets, at least, but you hear money.

Mr. Turner: We hear you.

Mr. Lawlor: You hear the jingling. Well, I’ll try to break out in song any moment now.

Mr. Lewis: It is the only lyrical note in the Legislature.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, well, it’s because I’m a pied piper and I belong to the socialist hordes and all we have is song left to gladden our hearts. The only thing is that the echoes missed yours too. In this particular area it seems four simple words would have that effect.

An hon. member: That seems reasonable.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister knows the covert quality of the thing, the thing that was wrong with Watergate, the thing about the American system, about everything being hidden and, most of all, it had to do with election funds, with these funds being snaffled through, laundered money all over the place.

An hon. member: Laundered money!

Mr. Lawlor: All that Machiavellian covertness that’s written into this Act. You perpetuate that here in terms of this legislation. You don’t want to make this type of fundamental disclosure. Again, it will come about. It’s in the cards; it has to be. It’s a democratic principle. You can’t operate on an aristocratic principle, as you have for so long, in terms of hidden resources and using them in the particular way in which you do.

You would be a pioneer of history if you would break through this evening and give some recognition to this principle. What you are is a mincing posture of a reformer at the present time in terms of this legislation. You move crab-wise toward eternity and it takes a long time to get there in that particular step.

If you moved in the area along the lines I propose the whole thing would become unveiled. It would be open to the public. They could make their own judgement. People are going to vote Conservative. They’re going to vote anyhow. They’re going to say: “Yes, we are the well-to-do, by and large, as we are and we’re proud of a party that has gone against such pelf and lucre.” It has attracted such respectability that it’s able to do so. This is a signal sign of the election on their foreheads.

Mr. Maeck: Is that right?

Mr. Lawlor: And they’ll say: “On the other hand, look at those paupers over there. They haven’t got anything to reveal. It’s funny that they haven’t even got panches in the rear of their pants.” Did I say “panches” instead of patches? Well, there you are -- this is what happens when indignation strikes. When I see a thing overjuggernauted by great hordes of money --

Mr. Lewis: We will reveal all.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): What a vivid imagination.

Mr. Lawlor: -- my mind turns over and grows dull under the impact of all that money. Maybe it’s straight human curiosity, if nothing else, to learn just how much is involved in the party. We’re quite willing to make disclosure. Our disclosure is already made. We know precisely how much we get and where we stand and we make no bones about it. We’re rather proud of it and we want you to do the same thing.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Singer has moved the following amendment --

Mr. Lewis: Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. I want to hear the minister.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. White: I’m repeating myself, sir, except to say that there’s no reason why the NDP can’t reveal what they have in their foundation if they wish to do so.

Mr. Lewis: We would be happy to.

Hon. Mr. White: We are once again following the advice of Mr. Douglas Fisher, ex-MP, ex-NDP, or present NDP, whichever he may be.

An hon. member: No, he’s ex-NDP.

Hon. Mr. White: We’re following the advice of Farquhar Oliver.

Mr. Lewis: He told the government to put a limit on the expenditures. Why doesn’t the government follow it?

Hon. Mr. White: He said you shouldn’t change the rules in the middle of the game. The government’s position, sir, quite frankly, was not to change the recommendations in any way unless there were obvious and compelling reasons for doing so.

Mr. Martel: The government only uses those words when it is convenient.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When it suits it.

Hon. Mr. White: We’ve accepted this recommendation from the commission once again.

Mr. Lewis: Like the trade unions clause.

Hon. Mr. White: I do feel myself compelled to observe that shortly before 6 o’clock the hon. member was putting forth special pleading on behalf of the allies of the NDP in a way that was completely inconsistent with the remarks that he has just made now in this latter section.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, because the government is discriminating. It is acting against --

Hon. Mr. White: We have adopted the commission’s recommendations almost in toto, and where we’ve departed from the commission’s recommendations we have done so to make the bill more stringent than it had recommended.

Mr. Foulds: Against the NDP.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, just as a footnote, the minister abandoned the Camp commission recommendation on the section we were discussing before 6 o’clock because it suited his purposes. It’s nefarious and not very honourable. It makes no great difference in the world. You understand that and we know that, but you chose to discard the Camp recommendations when it suited your purpose.

Let me tell the minister what some of us believe. I don’t think in this clause there was anything independent about the Camp commission at all; not anything independent. They agreed to keep the foundation money private. They agreed to the so-called “no change of the rules in the middle of the game” because they were sure that you wouldn’t accept other things unless they did.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. I want you to know what I believe. I don’t believe in the independence of that commission at all. You are trying to tell me that Dalton Camp didn’t speak to the Premier (Mr. Davis) in the process of the preparation of those recommendations? You are trying to tell me that behind the scenes the Tories didn’t intimate what was going on?

Hon. Mr. White: Did Doug Fisher talk to you?

Mr. Lewis: No. Well, Doug Fisher talked to me occasionally but not about the substance.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Terrible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I hesitate only because Doug Fisher talks to me very rarely, on the commission or off the commission.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): That’s because he is an ex-NDPer.

Mr. Lewis: That’s because he is an ex-NDPer, because he has a very ambiguous feeling about the Lewises; so he doesn’t talk very often, generally.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I don’t think it is ambiguous.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague from Wentworth says he doesn’t think it is ambiguous at all; I think he’s probably right. The reality is that there is no independence in this move at all; this is a buy-and-sell operation. You accept the other recommendations, we will allow the privileged secrecy of the government to be maintained; that was the saw-off, that was the quid pro quo.

Mr. Turner: What nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: We all understand that, but it makes a sham of the legislation if the legislation involves revealing the sources.

You want to know what’s in the NDP foundation? Your curiosity can be sated quickly, you know. There is not all that much. How much is it now in dollars?

Mr. Turner: The member for Lakeshore wouldn’t know.

An hon. member: How much have you got in your pocket?

Mr. Lewis: I would be glad to trade the information with you privately if you like. If you’ll tell us what you have we’ll tell you what we have.

Mr. Turner: Tell us.

Hon. Mr. White: What is it in dollars, what is it in roubles?

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, there may be more in roubles than there are in dollars, as it happens. I won’t know until they get back.

Mr. Martel: There must be a little hatchet around here. The Minister without Portfolio would fit the bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: You should try to find out how much it is in US funds.

Mr. Martel: The minister is a born hatchet man. He is right back where he started from sitting in that seat.

Mr. Chairman: I think we should return to the amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I have never thought of you as a hatchet man.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have.

Mr. Lewis: I’ve always thought of you as a sinister presence manipulating the Tory party; but never as a hatchet man, never that.

I say to you that if the legislation is to be given substance, then what all of us have in the foundations at the point when it takes place should be revealed. We have less to reveal than most, I admit; but it all should be made public and it makes a mockery of the Camp commission recommendations.

That they should have agreed to this is a simple part of the barter of the political process. It reflects no honour on anyone. That you should be defending it is perfectly understandable, but don’t give it divine sanctions by saying the commission indicated. Good Lord, you’ve discarded the commission at will when it serves your purpose.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, just before the minister answers, I must take exception to this unwarranted accusation of partiality.

Mr. Deans: Unwarranted.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of course unwarranted. We paid them $150 a day to be impartial, didn’t we?

An hon. member: The three of them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of course, and they are still working, as far as we know. That commission is still going on.

Mr. Lewis: For life, snail-like to eternity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: For anybody to say that those three commissioners somehow were sawing off for political reasons is unconscionable. These were three people who have extensive political experience in their previous incarnations with each of the three parties represented here. I thought there was something rather magical about the fact that they were brought together under these circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, it is magic all right; it is supernatural.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, it is also unwarranted that the hon. Minister without Portfolio conducting this legislation should be saying that he is accepting the recommendations of the commission in this case when he certainly wasn’t prepared to accept the recommendations of Farquhar Oliver in his views for a limit, which were certainly valid and should have been accepted by this House and which may still be accepted if we vote properly in the amendment that is before us.

But I believe wholeheartedly, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does bring us into an entirely new era of politics in this province. With the exception of the coming election when the government party had an opportunity to raise substantial funds -- that was back in the Shouldice days before that revelation came forward, when Ross was still raising money --

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Shame on you.

Hon. Mr. White: Shame.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What do you mean shame? If there is shame it is right over there.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): What about the Harbourgate?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If there is anything shameful about it, it is that you people employed a political toll-gate to raise money after the election of 1971 --

Mr. G. Nixon: That’s nonsense, and the member knows it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and you are sitting back and waiting to spend it right now.

Mr. Havrot: That’s garbage.

Mr. G. Nixon: Do you believe that one?

An hon. member: What about Fidinam?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be supported on all sides and the Kelly-Shouldice toll-gate should be revealed once and for all before this next election so that the people of the province know just what the Tories are prepared to do to try to buy yet another election. And I’ll tell you, you won’t be able to do it.

Mr. Havrot: Tell us about the Harbourgate scandal.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Lewis: Give us a little lecture on treason now. This is the moment for Rene Levesque.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: Norman Webster is wrong. The Leader of the Opposition isn’t tough, he is nasty. He is nasty and he is a bully. And to rush half way down the aisle in a classroom to berate a modest French-language teacher is not my idea of tough.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: Now he stands up again with his cranky, nasty attitude, which he himself typified once again -- when was it, Saturday night?

Mr. Breithaupt: Ah, poor baby.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, it’s not going to work, is it? We know it is not going to work.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I wonder if we can get back to the reading of the amendments?

Hon. Mr. White: I would say, sir, that the Lewises got even with Douglas Fisher a little bit tonight -- just a little bit, ambiguously.

Mr. Lewis: Here now, that’s almost personal.

Mr. G. Nixon: You said it -- nobody else.

Mr. Lewis: Douglas Fisher is also the grey eminence in the New Democratic takeover in this province.

An hon. member: How many provinces have you got?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. minister return to the amendment?

Hon. Mr. White: He was absolutely true to form, though, I think. And once again the Liberals put down the boy orator from Grey riding.

An hon. member: He did it!

Hon. Mr. White: He should have been in the Senate 10 years ago.

An hon. member: He will be.

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, the government can’t accept these recommendations for the reasons given by the commission itself.

Mr. Lewis: A boy orator! That’s fantastic.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Singer has moved that section 40 be amended and Mr. Lawlor has moved an amendment to the amendment.

Shall we stack these amendments to deal with them at the end of the deliberations? Agreed.

Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on any other section?

Shall the remainder of the sections carry?

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, before you carry the sections, let me say that it has been a very great pleasure for me to carry this bill which the Premier himself introduced. Time will prove this to be the most historic reform measure to be brought before this particular Parliament --

Mr. Breithaupt: In all modesty.

Hon. Mr. White: It now sets a new style, not only for Canada but for other jurisdictions in the world, in putting the matter of financing and expenditure in an open public setting.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Put the shovel aside.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: This is an historic reform Act, which will find its niche in the history books of this country --

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, my God!

Hon. Mr. White: -- and which has been brought into being, as one might expect, by the Progressive Conservative Party, which is the reform party in the Province of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Sections 41 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? Are these Conservatives in the galleries?

An hon. member: They sure are.

Mr. Lewis: Are they?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I couldn’t understand the reason for this little performance of yours, but now it becomes clear.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: I would make the same speech to a socialist gathering in London if I could find one.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Call in the members.

Mr. Lewis: This is in fact --

What is happening? What are you doing?

Mr. Chairman: I thought you had finished so I said to call in the members.

Mr. Lewis: You’re muzzling the House.

Mr. Chairman: The members will listen for a few moments before we call them in. I’m sorry.

Mr. Lewis: I’m only going to take a moment. This is in fact --

Interjections by hon. members.

On section 57:

Mr. Lewis: This is, in fact, a useful piece of legislation, reforming financing, we concede, in several ways, with two immeasurable deficiencies which are the only things history will record.

No. 1: You refused to put a legitimate ceiling on election expenditures, thereby reinforcing all of the negative features which have characterized campaigns. No. 2: You refused to meet the integrity of this legislation by revealing what you have collected so far, therefore, entering this election on all the nasty rules of the old election. For that, you will be noted and be rated.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It seems this is developing into a philosophical debate. I would say that we are not dealing with any particular section of the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the final section of the bill, actually in response to the comments made by the Minister without Portfolio who said this would be the shining -- did he say epitaph? -- to the Conservative record. I think since he has called me a mean politician, cranky and nasty, he certainly would not want it forgotten that the thing that sparked this legislation was the $50,000 donation by Fidinam Ltd. to the Conservative Party and nothing else. That’s what brought it forward.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Call in the members.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, could I have 60 seconds to reply to the Leader of the NDP?

Mr. Stokes: This is becoming a debate.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, are you going to call the minister to order?

Hon. Mr. White: The reason we are not introducing overall constraints is that they haven’t worked anywhere in the world. There is no way that the some $40,000-odd expended by the socialist from Ottawa Centre in the last 3½ years can be brought into this kind of accounting.

Mr. Lewis: They wouldn’t have to be brought in.

Hon. Mr. White: In so far as the foundation is concerned, every nickel --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, surely the minister is not going to be allowed free rein to ride roughshod over the rules of this House. You should call him to order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, you should call him to order and enforce the rules.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The Chair has been listening very patiently to all the debates and it seems to me that the hon. minister is speaking to section 57, much as the other members were too.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order, sir, I didn’t call the Leader of the Opposition mean. I called him nasty and cranky.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order. What section are you speaking to?

Mr. Foulds: On section 57. It is a pity that this particular bill, which is intituled --

An hon. member: What section?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: Will the walruses please be quiet, Mr. Chairman? On section 57, it is a pity that the bill is intituled the Election Finances Reform Act.

Mr. Lawlor: It is a great pity.

Mr. Foulds: It is a pity that the word “reform” is in there.

Mr. Lawlor: Let’s delete it.

Mr. Foulds: It should be deleted. It is a pity that this particular minister, who has had a kind of meteoric career in Ontario --

Mr. Lewis: Mediocre.

Mr. Foulds: -- has had to carry this particular piece of legislation, because his particular epitaph will be that he went out not with a bang but a whimper. Thank you.

Section 57 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

The committee divided on Mr. Singer’s amendment to subsection (d), section 2 of Bill 3, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 24, the “nays” are 39.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost and the subsection and section carried.

Section 2 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Singer’s amendment to subsection 3, section 19, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 13, the “nays” are 50.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost and the subsection carried.

Section 19 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to section 31, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 11, the “nays” are 52.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost and the subsection carried.

Section 31 agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the remaining amendments, I believe we are prepared to take the first vote and dispense with the reading of the remainder of the amendments in order to benefit the House.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): You are a little embarrassed.

Mr. Singer: Read them, then.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I will accept that proposal.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this be agreed?

Mr. Singer: The Treasurer wants them read.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I am not sure what we are agreeing to, so let’s have the vote.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair will read Mr. Singer’s amendment.

Mr. Singer has moved that the first 10 lines of section 39 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

The total expenses incurred by a political party, constituency, association or a candidate registered under the Act, including the expenses incurred by any person, corporation, or trade union with the knowledge and consent of the political party, constituency, association or candidate shall not during the campaign period exceed --

[The second part of the motion read:] That the amount of 50 cents as set out in the third line of subsection (b) of section 39 be changed to the amount of 25 cents, and that the amount of 25 cents as set out in the third last line of subsection (c) of section 39 be changed to the amount of 50 cents.

The committee divided on Mr. Singer’s amendment which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Lawlor’s amendment to the amendment to subsections (a), (b) and (c) of section 39 of Bill 3, which was negatived on the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost and the section carried.

Section 39 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Singer’s amendment to subsection 4 of section 40, and adding a new subsection (d), which was negatived on the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost and the subsection carried.

The committee divided on Mr. Lawlor’s amendment to section 40(c) of Bill 3, which was negatived on the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 40 agreed to.

Bill 3 reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 3, the Election Finances Reform Act.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before we discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, I would like to say that the minister is presenting his estimates this evening for the 14th time to this assembly.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would like to say that he has done it with distinction and to our knowledge he is the best Minister of Agriculture and Food who has ever existed. I want to assure the House with every degree of assurance I can give that this will not be his last time.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): May I ask the House leader a question? Is it his intention to bring in supplementary estimates before the election?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Absolutely not.

Clerk of the House: The 12th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Is this the minister’s swan song?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Chairman, I would say that everyone is so delighted with this historic piece of legislation that has been passed tonight that we are all just in a very jubilant mood.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I am not sure it is the legislation that has done it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Naturally, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the kind words of the House leader of our great party, which is in power now and which I have no doubt will continue in power for many years to come.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Is this a little pep talk for the troops?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that when the House leader asked me this afternoon if I would be prepared --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): This is the biggest crowd of Tories I have seen for a long time.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has the floor.

Mr. Martel: All the noise has come from that side of the House. Why don’t you call them to order?

An hon. member: Where’s the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): He’s in Russia.

Mr. Lewis: He is not in Russia; he is in Romania.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): He’s in China; he’s in China.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. All those who are interested in agriculture will please come to order and let the minister proceed.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I gather that all my friends in the House, regardless of what side, are interested in agriculture, some more than others, and some much more knowledgeably than others. If my friend from York South learns something about agriculture in Romania, it will be all to the good for him. I am not sure what good it will do the rest of us but it may be good for him.

This afternoon, when I was asked to proceed with these estimates this evening, I welcomed the opportunity to bring them before the Legislature for the consideration of all members of the House. I also want to take this opportunity to make a few announcements that I think are of interest to the farm people of the Province of Ontario.

First of all, we all recognize the number of young people now leaving our agricultural colleges and going back to the farms. Fifty per cent of the agricultural graduates of our four colleges of diploma agriculture across Ontario went back to the farm in the last two years, 20 per cent of the four-year graduates went back to the farm from Guelph last year, and I assume that about the same percentage is going to the farm this year as well. The graduates who have not gone back to the farm in the agricultural colleges of technology, which are operated by our ministry, are going into agri-business where they are providing a service to the farm community which is badly needed and certainly required.

We feel that many of these young people, having graduated from college, and many young people who would like to become established on the farm, would welcome the opportunity to participate in what I would like to describe as an Ontario young farmer credit programme.

The programme will consist of bank-guaranteed loans, without limit on the loan, to a maximum of $25 million to start within this year. It will apply to young farmers 18 to 35 years of age. It will be a conditional type of loan in that there may be some who are beef farmers and who are experiencing the difficulties that we are all familiar with in the beef industry today; they will be able to have the loan for two years, with interest payable only, and for the remainder of the 10-year loan they will be able to pay interest plus principal.

The interest rate will be prime plus one per cent and the young farmer will first of all make application through the local agricultural representative, who will be able to work out with him a programme which would justify the loan, his method of repayment and how he would go about operating his farm, whether he owns the farm or whether he rents it or whether he owns and rents at the same time. There are many young farmers who have got their start in the past, Mr. Chairman, by renting land to get established and by getting around them some capital equipment to start them off. We think this method will provide a source of guaranteed credit to them by the Province of Ontario that will avoid the necessity of going to credit institutions that might charge a rate of interest which might not be as acceptable as the rate of interest which is involved in this type of a loan programme.

We hope to have the forms in place for these loans to be acquired from the local banks just as soon as possible, but, in the meantime, we will be getting word out to our agricultural representatives who will assist the young farmers to prepare their applications. The applications will then be submitted to a committee here in the head office of our ministry, which will review them, approve them or suggest some changes that may be needed for the advantage of the young farmer. He will then take it to his local bank. We are hopeful that he will have no further difficulty in getting the kind of credit that we think is necessary to continue to develop agricultural land in this Province of Ontario. To my way of thinking, it’s a move forward and in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman, I have been approached by my good friend and colleague, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), on a number of occasions. He has brought to me the concern that he has expressed for the beef cattle people of Manitoulin Island, which has a reputation, which it has enjoyed for many years, for high quality production beef cattle. This is one of the greatest and earliest sources of high quality beef cattle for the feedlots of Ontario.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Why don’t you include Algoma in that, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would also pay tribute to my friend, the member for Algoma, who has also drawn to my attention the concern of the beef cow-calf operators in his area as well. We all recognize the problem that they have faced. It is not dissimilar to the problem faced by many beef cow-calf farmers throughout Ontario. Frankly, there is no easy solution to a problem of such overproduction magnitude as we find apparent in the beef cattle industry that pertains not only to all of Canada but to all of North America and, in fact, on a world-wide basis. We think cattle prices are bad here. I have reports of cattle prices from New Zealand and Australia, of dressed beef there that is going into storage because there is no market for it to go to and they have to market the cattle at 19 cents a pound, wholesale dressed beef prices.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): They are the 1945 prices.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It’s a way back beyond that, as far as that’s concerned, and that’s a very depressed situation. Now we’re hopeful that if Japan opens up its markets, as it may, there will likely be a movement of beef into Japan. As many members are well aware, they had to cancel many of their orders to divert dollars to purchase energy that might otherwise have gone to pay for the contracts of meat that might have gone into that country. That’s just one illustration of a problem that exists the world over.

However, there seems to be a bit of optimism at the moment in the beef industry. How long it will last no one knows, but certainly the American market has bounded back, Omaha prices yesterday being in the 43- to 45-cent range --

An hon. member: Of the bulls.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and that is about Toronto prices for the first time for many months. It looks as though that may continue for a few weeks or months, but no one really knows. Certainly, the number of cattle on feed in the United States is far below what it has been for a great many years and it may well be that feedlot cattle supplies, the top quality beef, may be drying up to some degree, certainly in the United States and in Canada, so that while there is an abundance of stocker and feeder cattle that normally would be going into the feedlots they are going to have to go to grass or they are going to have to go to the slaughterhouse and be slaughtered without proper finishing. Nevertheless, that beef is moving across the counter. There has been a drop in retail beef prices, since October up until the end of March this year, of some 20 per cent in Toronto retail prices of beef. That, to me, is significant in what it has accomplished as far as the increase in per capita consumption of beef is concerned. It has been quite phenomenal. We are almost back up to the levels of 1972, which was an all-time high as far as meat consumption in Canada was concerned. That has not let the beef go into storage; it has moved it across the counter. So storage stocks of beef are not at levels one might have expected them to be with the enormous kill of cattle we have had. It has ranged at an all-time high for the last several weeks.

With regard to the farmers of northern Ontario, we have had a system of northern Ontario grants, Mr. Chairman, which have amounted to $210,000. That has been designated as special northern Ontario grants to the districts of northern Ontario. They are administered by the local farmers in the respective districts. The secretary of the committee is usually the agricultural representative in the respective district of the north and the programme is administered by the local farmers. They make the determinations as to what is to be done with the money allocated to their respective district.

With the request made by my friends from Manitoulin and from Algoma, and certainly supported by my colleagues in cabinet from northern Ontario -- one of them, the Minister of Community and Social Services, (Mr. Brunelle) sits here with me tonight --

Mr. Foulds: He is the only one of your cabinet colleagues with you tonight.

Mr. Martel: You will manage to get everybody in before you are finished.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- we have approved the doubling of those grants for northern Ontario effective as of now.

Mr. Martel: Must be an election year.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It will mean special grants of $420,000 for those farmers who may decide to use that money for whatever purpose they see fit within their own district. That, of course, is in addition to the grants available on a regular basis which pertain to all farmers throughout Ontario.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that in 1974 our ministry paid out over $60 million in direct grants to farmers. These were grants which had to do with farm tax rebates; the 50 per cent capital grants; and the interest subsidization on junior farmer loans. We have something like $75 million still out in junior farmer loans throughout the Province of Ontario at four per cent and five per cent interest. We make up the difference between that and the normal rate of interest the government is paying for money and that’s charged through our ministry. It is a direct subsidy.

We have paid out money on interest subsidization for farm tile drainage loans. Most farmers in Ontario who have used the loans, and there are literally thousands of them who do, make application to the local municipality for the money. The money is provided through a debenture guaranteed by the Province of Ontario at four per cent interest. The province, our ministry, picks up the difference between that four per cent rate and the pertaining rate at which we borrow.

We also pay out grants of one-third on all municipal drains throughout Ontario. In the 11 counties of eastern Ontario we pay out two-thirds of the cost of those municipal drains.

This is simply an illustration of the types of grants we have paid out. Of course, we have a sizable amount of money put out in the industrial milk production incentive programme, which is 20 per cent forgivable over a period of five years. I think that amounts to about $40 million in round figures already out on those loans.

We have a fairly substantial programme going along which I think is meaningful to the farmers of Ontario. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted, through you, to advise the members of the Legislature and the farmers of Ontario that this government and this Ministry of Agriculture and Food will continue to provide the kind of leadership, the kind of service, the kind of assistance to help farmers help themselves which has always characterized this government. We welcome the opportunity to do it. We will continue to do it.

As we go through these estimates I will welcome to this table in front of me the new Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food who is in the wings tonight, Mr. R. Gsordon Bennett, who is well known to Ontario farmers.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I want to add my congratulations to those expressed to the minister in the presentation of his 14th annual agricultural estimates budget. I know that he has been a very durable person in a particular --

Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): Very capable one, too.

Mr. Gaunt: -- form of activity where longevity isn’t really one of the strong points. The minister has managed to endure through the years and to stay with this portfolio -- a rather difficult portfolio, I might say -- and he has been able to weather the storms, the ups and the downs, and come out on top.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): The member is halfway over there, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member for Huron-Bruce is right. Very capable -- that’s right.

Mr. Gaunt: Well, I must say that I haven’t always agreed with some of the policies, but I recognize that --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We wouldn’t expect you to.

An hon. member: He’s done his best.

Mr. Gaunt: -- the minister has tried his best and put forward his best effort; and I think he is recognized as being capable and well respected throughout the agricultural industry.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): But not as respected as the member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Foulds: Even though working with difficult colleagues.

An hon. member: Easy to replace.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: How would you know?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s the good news; and now the bad news.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, there’s no bad news.

Mr. Foulds: The good news is the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the bad news is the Chairman of Management Board.

Mr. Gaunt: In any case, I wanted to get on with the estimates tonight and to deal with some of the programmes the minister has announced; and I was particularly interested in the Ontario young farmer credit programme. I’m not sure I can identify this programme --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Gaunt: -- with any one particular person, but perhaps I can associate it, at least in part, with my good friend the new Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Gordon Bennett, whom I must congratulate at this point. I have known Mr. Bennett for many years. He served as agriculture representative in Huron county for a number of years. He was very highly regarded. And so I pay tribute to him and wish him the very best.

I don’t know whether this particular programme is going to really serve the critical need that exists in the farm community today insofar as young farmers getting into farming is concerned. I listened rather carefully to the minister and I understood him to say this was a bank guarantee the province is going to undertake for young farmers who are getting started in farming and who wish to have added capital for the operation. Undoubtedly that is a very important need and hopefully this kind of programme -- I think it’s $25 million that the ministry is setting aside for it -- will be of some assistance in that very critical and important area. I would certainly hope so.

I think, though, that when one takes a look at the overall problem related to the agricultural industry in the province today, one can’t help but he somewhat saddened, discouraged and even depressed, at what one sees. Ontario, over the past number of years, and specifically 15 years, has been losing its place as the pre-eminent agricultural province in Canada. I think this has been due to the policies and lack of commitments of this government in relation to agriculture.

I was very startled to see some figures that showed this in a rather dramatic fashion where in many of the major commodities we have slipped back in terms of production over the past number of years.

The cattle output, for instance, taking the years 1960 to 1964 -- and I’m quoting from the table that was part of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture brief when they presented their story to the cabinet six weeks or so ago -- the figures indicate that the cattle output now as compared to the Sixties has dropped two per cent, the hog output has dropped 3.3 per cent during the same period, the egg output has dropped 1.5 per cent and the poultry output has dropped 3.8 per cent.

The only area in which we’re holding our own here in the Province of Ontario is in the field of milk production. We’re holding our own both in the industrial milk production and in the fluid production. Even though our population is increasing, the actual output is remaining fairly constant or edging up slightly.

I think in a province such as this, a province that has enjoyed the status agriculturally that Ontario has enjoyed, this kind of picture is to be regretted. Such a deficit from the provincial requirements is certainly a serious cause for concern in a world where food resources are increasingly scarce. I think it’s fair to say that we have a lot of the attributes to produce agricultural foods and commodities in this province, and it seems for one reason or the other that we’re not fully utilizing them.

Interestingly enough, I notice that Saskatchewan, for instance, last year I believe it was, in 1974, for the first time overtook Ontario in farm cash receipts. Four years ago, in 1970, Ontario’s gross farm income was double that of Saskatchewan. And so we’ve seen a consistent pattern --

Mr. Haggerty: The minister shakes his head. You can’t believe it, can you?

Mr. Gaunt: -- over the last 15 years, where a number of these other provinces have gradually increased their total percentage of the agricultural output while we in Ontario have declined. Ontario’s share of the Canadian farm production in major commodities has declined persistently over the last 15 years. That was one of the major points that was made --

Mr. Martel: A socialist plot, Bill.

Mr. Gaunt: -- in the Federation of Agriculture brief which was presented, as I indicated, a few weeks ago. We have good soils, a favourable climate and an invaluable farming area, particularly in its capacity for producing a variety of foods, and it seems to me that it’s really unthinkable that we should let such an outstanding opportunity go by default with such clear warnings of its international importance all around us.

People are starving in many places throughout the world and we here in the province are, as I say, for one reason or the other, declining consistently in our agricultural productivity and output. Unless we take positive action to reverse the present drift, we will be in a serious deficit position in all of the major food items within the next 20 years. As I understand it, according to the people who should know, if the present trend continues unabated we will be importing 60 per cent of the food needs in this Province of Ontario by the year 2000.

Mr. Haggerty: We are doing quite a bit of it today.

Mr. Gaunt: There are other things on the agricultural scene that are rather disturbing and unsettling. The matters of rapidly rising input costs have been related in this House time and time again, I don’t want to repeat them at any length, other than to say that the inputs of fertilizer, baler twine and machinery are continuing to escalate at very rapid rates and, when combined with falling prices to the farmers, are putting them in very difficult financial straits indeed.

I don’t think it is a case any more of a farmer being able really to get by by simply tightening his belt. We are at an entirely new price plateau now with respect to input costs. At one time when farmers faced depressed prices they were able to cut back on their demands and they were able to curtail their requirements insofar as the various inputs were concerned and so they were able to get by the rough periods. I don’t think that applies any longer, particularly with the prices we are experiencing at the moment. They just simply can’t do it. I have a number of feedlot operators in my riding who are losing huge sums of money. I was told the other day that one operator in my area had lost $84,000 in 1974 on his beef operation and many of the other beef operators have lost corresponding amounts.

I say again, that it is simply not possible for a farmer to ride out the rough periods any more. Unless something is done by this ministry, and hopefully in concert with the federal ministry, then I think we are going to be in very serious trouble in this province agriculturally and perhaps throughout the entire nation.

I think energy is one of the big factors in input costs with respect to farmers. Huge consumption of gasoline, diesel fuel and hydro takes place on the farms. These things are very important to farm people. When the price of these commodities goes up, it certainly affects the farmers in a very dramatic fashion.

The 30 per cent increase in hydro rates that is proposed is a situation that is going to affect the farm community very dramatically. It is interesting to note that rural residential rates are lower than farm rates. Farmers use about two per cent of the total kilowatt-hours in Ontario, but this amounts to more than four per cent of Ontario Hydro’s total revenue. That’s an inequity that should have been corrected long ago, but it hasn’t been. When we are talking in terms of hydro going up 30 per cent, this certainly has a very bad impact on fanners and their input costs because they are not able to get that back out of the marketplace. They can’t pass that added cost on, as can many other people in the system.

I look around too and I see the consequences of unguided urbanization. From 1966 to 1971, 500,000 acres went out of production. I think we are only starting to suffer the consequences of that particular event.

It seems to me that we must have a commitment on the part of this government to preserve good agricultural land. We have talked about this time and time again in the House. I have talked about it a number of times in the estimates, but as yet we see no firm commitment on the part of the government in this regard.

Good land continues to go out of agricultural production. Farmers continue to leave the land in droves. There were 127,000 fewer farmers in 1971 than a decade earlier, and a loss of more than seven farms every day.

Between 1961 and 1971, Canada lost 1.7 per cent of its farm acreage. Ontario lost 14.1 per cent, eight times the national average. If that rate continues, Ontario’s supply of arable land will disappear before the year 2,000; or as my leader said in the Throne debate, before the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) celebrates his 90th birthday.

It seems to me these are things that are very tough to face in the agricultural community. We have, on the one hand, the fact that input costs are going out of sight, while on the other hand the prices are falling back. The costs of an efficient corn grower, I am told, have increased over the last two years by over 55 per cent. Total net farm income last year decreased by 23 per cent; and again this year there’s a further decrease expected, in the neighbourhood of 12 per cent

That’s the reason I say, Mr. Chairman, as one looks around and sees the situation as it presently stands on the farm today, it’s rather sad and even depressing. That’s why I say this government is going to have to come in with some form of policy, an Ontario farm income protection plan, which we talked about last year, which the federation talked about this year, and which I would like to talk about for a few minutes tonight.

I think really this is the only long-term answer with respect to assuring farm people that at least they will get their cost of production back when they produce the food. In my view, unless they are given this kind of assurance, we’re going to continue to lose good agricultural land to urbanization. We’re going to continue to lose farmers to the cities and to industry; they’re going to continue to leave farming in droves, as they’ve done in the past decade.

I think that this government has to commit more than the $20 million it has committed to the stabilization programme. That $20 million is just a drop in the bucket for the kinds of things that have to be done if the minister really felt seriously about this matter -- to launch the types of programmes that are going to give the farmers in this province the type of guarantee we’re talking about.

If the $20 million was applied to the corn growers in this province -- as was indicated in the most recent edition of Farm and Country -- it would provide protection of 20 cents per bushel. Current production costs are $2.50 per bushel; price predictions for harvest are $1.50 per bushel. So, the 20-cent protection would leave an 80-cent deficit.

If the amount was applied solely to protect pork producers, it would amount to $6 per pig.

I think we can assume that this kind of programme would be spread throughout a number of commodities, and just wouldn’t apply to any single commodity. And so, when we take a look at it on that basis, we see that the programme is really a negligible one, to say the least. It really wouldn’t do anything for the farmers to meet their increasing production costs.

Last year’s operating expenses for Ontario farmers totalled $1.6 billion. The proposed $2 increase in the well-head price of oil would cost Ontario farmers an additional $16.8 million in one year, so it would almost wipe out the entire benefit of the $20 million on that one item alone.

I think Ontario farmers deserve better than that. After all, Ontario farmers did pay $31 million in property taxes last year; $194 million in wages; $113 million in interest payments; $247 million for farm machinery; $98 million for fertilizer; $452 million for feed; and $16 million for seed and plants.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the government were really serious about doing something for the farm community, they would certainly redirect that $108 million they’re giving to industry for production machinery, which really won’t produce one job. I think all of us who look at the programme will readily admit that. There’s not one job guarantee in the entire $108 million, and yet you’re providing this kind of thing to industry. If you can do it for industry, it would be far better to do it for the agricultural community. It would certainly do a lot more good for the total economy if it were applied in the agricultural industry, rather than where it’s being applied at the moment.

I notice the BC government has budgeted $27 million for income assurance in 1975. It expects to pay out something just a shade over $26 million in claims. The Ontario farming industry has roughly six limes the volume of BC agricultural production and I think it is fair to say we should be prepared to provide at least six times the amount of money to support our agricultural industry in this province as is BC.

Mr. Martel: Isn’t the Minister of Agriculture and Food the one who said the socialists do nothing for the farmers? Was that you who said --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. You will have your chance.

Mr. Martel: I want to ask the minister. Every time he gets up he rants about socialists.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Huron-Bruce has the floor.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I was just making the point that in this province I think we simply have to countenance the kind of income protection plan promoted by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. There are certain aspects of it which can be adapted, I am sure; basically the concept is sound as far as I am concerned.

I know the matter of the OFA being the sole negotiator is a point of contention but I think that’s a point which can be negotiated. There’s no reason in the world why all members of the farm organizational community can’t sit on that negotiating board. I am sure that kind of thing could be worked out with the federation and with the other farm organizations in the province.

I don’t see that as any great stumbling block. I say again I think the concept is sound. I think it’s workable and I think the minister should definitely consider it.

This kind of income protection is necessary when one considers that farmers in this province are making 2% times more money per year from increased land values than from product sales. It’s no wonder they are leaving the land.

If one considers the amount of benefit the total economy derives from pumping this kind of money into the agricultural community, I think it can be substantiated that it produces a benefit which far outweighs most, if not all, money spent in other sectors of the economy by government.

Ontario farmers and, indeed, farmers throughout are the best spenders in the world; if they make a dollar, they spend it. I think the resulting lift to what the Treasurer has termed the sagging economy would be remarkable indeed if this kind of money could be pumped into the farm community. It would not only provide the security which is absolutely necessary to farm people in this day and age, it would reverberate through the entire economy, from the farm gate right up through the entire system.

When one considers that one out of every three jobs in this country is either farm connected or indirectly related to the production, manufacture and processing of food, I think we can readily see what sort of impact would be felt with that kind of expenditure in the agricultural community.

I think the minister has an obligation. I know of no finer way for him to put his seal on the agricultural community as he moves into the sunset of his political career than to come in with --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gaunt: -- this kind of income protection plan. I know he has thought about it. I know it has a certain attraction for him but I suggest to him that he would be doing the farmers of this province a real service if he would make an announcement now that he was prepared to commit this kind of money to see that the farmers are given this kind of assurance.

Mr. Martel: The House leader won’t give it to him.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll give him anything he asks for.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Minister, go ahead and ask for it quickly.

Mr. Gaunt: Don’t leave it until an election is called, do it now; because I think we all realize that if people are going to be fed in this country at reasonable prices we have to ensure that our farmers are going to make a reasonable return --

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Minister, that is real power.

Mr. Gaunt: -- on their investment, for their labour and for the risk that they put into the production of food. I don’t think we can expect our fanners in this province to carry the full risk of food production any longer, and this is a way in which the government can show its intention and say to the farmers of the province: “Look, we don’t want you to bear the brunt of the vagaries of the marketplace any longer. We’re prepared to help you.”

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member must have been reading the minister’s speeches. That is exactly what he is going to say.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would complete his remarks.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I’m just about through. I can finish up in a minute or two if you want, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martel: To adjourn the debate you will need a motion to sit past 10:30.

Mr. Gaunt: If you wish, I can wind up very quickly, or if you want me to carry on tomorrow, I can do that too. The only thing is, Mr. Chairman, if I start tomorrow I’ll be another 20 minutes.

Mr. Chairman: Do the hon. members of the committee agree?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will return to the consideration of the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Clement). So that they can be prepared, I would like to inform my colleagues in the House that on Monday our first order of business will be item 11. I hope, if the minister is available to me, to call item 10. Tomorrow I will announce the business further.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of supply of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.