Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, through you, to introduce to the House 80 students from Whitefish Valley Public School, of Thunder Bay city and the adjoining municipality. They are with their teachers and their guides, and Mayor Walter Assef and Ald. Teras Kozyra, who are accompanying them and who are sitting in the Speaker’s gallery.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to welcome to the chamber this afternoon a group of 32 grade 8 students from Ecole Champlain in Chelmsford accompanied by their principal, Mr. Charbonneau. I hope you will join me, Mr. Speaker, in welcoming them to the chamber this afternoon.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I think members of the Legislature will agree with me when I say the students from the Kenora riding are the most travelled in this province because of the government’s Young Travellers’ programme. Today we are most pleased to welcome 35 grade 8 students from the Evergreen Public School in Kenora.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): We welcome them even though they get the runaround from their own members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peterborough.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of introducing to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, the members of Peterborough County Council who are accompanied by their wives and led by Warden Wilfred Ellis. Thank you.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention and to the members of the House that the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer) is celebrating his birthday today. The member, as you are aware, is the dean of the House. We are aware of the contributions he has made as a member for the past 38 years and his ability as a cribbage player. I would hope you would wish him well today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How was he ever born on May Day?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Workers of the world unite.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Kind of makes May Day a travesty, doesn’t it?

Hon. W. C. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to the member, but I should also like to point out to him that he is not necessarily the sole champion of cribbage in our caucus. I make that as an aside.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier had better win at something these days.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll tell the Leader of the NDP one thing we’re going to win at --

An hon. member: Let me guess.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, I don’t want to be provocative this early in the question period.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): No, we couldn’t get hold of the Premier later.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I haven’t seen some of the members opposite here that often in the last few days either.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ENERGY PRICES

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. members a matter of serious concern relating to the pricing of energy.

An arbitration board in Alberta on Tuesday decided that the field price of natural gas supplied by Gulf Oil Canada Ltd. to TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. should be raised to $1.15 per thousand cu ft. Substantially all of the other producers of natural gas, selling gas to TransCanada PipeLines, had agreed to be bound by the results of this arbitration decision. Unless set aside, this higher price will become effective on Nov. 1 of this year.

This award will be opposed by the government of Ontario with all the vigour we can command.

The proposed increase would worsen inflation and increase unemployment. The adverse impacts will ripple through the national economy. It is our view that it is in direct opposition to the current economic and social interests of this nation. It must not be permitted.

The government of Canada, with Bill C-32, the Petroleum Administration Act, enacted, is capable of setting aside the price determined by the arbitrators. Natural gas field prices must be held to current levels, which average 45 cents per thousand cu ft. The responsibility of the government of Canada is absolutely clear.

It would be impossible for hon. members to underestimate the far-reaching negative impact of this arbitration board award. The matter at issue is not simply a sale of natural gas by one producing company to TransCanada PipeLines, not at all. This case was, in essence, a test. Substantially all of the producing companies, which have natural gas under contract with TransCanada PipeLines, had agreed to be bound by the results of this arbitration award. Consequently, this award means that the field price of natural gas, now 45 cents per thousand cu ft, would jump to $1.15 as of Nov. 1 of this year, and that will apply to virtually all the gas purchased by TransCanada PipeLines for sale in Ontario.

The arbitrators followed the rules laid down in the Arbitration Act of Alberta. This Act requires that arbitrators, considering a new field price, take into account the price of alternative energy sources in markets in which the natural gas is sold. The result is that the prices of competitive energy sources can be marched upwards in a grim, lock-step position.

This inflationary spiral is confirmed in this award. The proposed increase in the field price of natural gas would result in natural gas not just achieving parity with crude oil at the citygate in southern Ontario, but in fact substantially exceeding it.

It’s really a case of racing escalators. It’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” game. It isn’t a game we choose to play.

The redetermined price of natural gas awarded by the arbitration board would increase the average citygate price in southern Ontario by more than 80 cents per thousand cu ft. The current citygate price is 82 cents. The citygate price in southern Ontario will have been doubled.

An Ontario family that uses 144 thousand cu ft of natural gas for cooking and heating -- an indicative consumption per family -- would see their costs increased by $120 a year or an average of $10 a month.

The total additional cost to our industry, commerce and homeowners would total over $550 million a year.

This is obviously unacceptable; nor is it consistent with the national interest; nor is it consistent with the conclusions reached at the first ministers’ conference.

At the conference Mr. Speaker, I stated:

“The government of Ontario opposes any increase in the price of crude oil or natural gas at this time. We do not believe the people of Ontario would support an increase. They recognize, as I recognize, that rising costs, fueling inflation, eroding job opportunities -- all inherent in permitting energy prices to rise -- is not the priority of today. This is not the task to which governments in Canada should be devoting their attention.”

Mr. Speaker, nothing has altered that could be construed as a justification for this unilateral and damaging action.

On Dec. 19 of last year, the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) -- then the Minister of Energy -- called for the speedy enactment of Bill C-32. He said, and I quote from the minister’s statement:

“Unless Bill C-32 is enacted quickly, the process of the redetermination of field prices will begin and move swiftly to conclusion by the spring. The field values mentioned could well become field prices effective on Nov. 1, 1975, as a result of the Arbitration Act of Alberta.

“Certainly field price levels equivalent to the field value suggested by the Alberta board could damage the economic prospects -- the economic fabric -- of this nation.”

Mr. Roy: Why did the Tories in Ottawa vote for it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Fortunately, this legislation for protecting the national interest, defined as urgent in this Legislature last December, is finally in position. It is critically important that Bill C-32 be promptly proclaimed and that the government of Canada assume authority over the price of natural gas moving in interprovincial trade.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Did the Premier tell that to his friend, Mr. Stanfield?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): What about Mr. Lougheed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I pointed this out very vigorously at the first ministers’ conference. I flatly rejected the comment of the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that “if there is not some agreement reached here, the price of natural gas will automatically escalate.”

I responded then, Mr. Speaker, and I respond now, that Bill C-32 should be proclaimed, and the federal government should recognize its responsibility to protect the national interest in the matter of the price of crude oil and natural gas at this time of economic stress within our country.

The Prime Minister has stated publicly that he desired a consensus; that bilateral meetings must be held between federal and provincial ministers; that meetings must be held between officials. Out of these discussions a consensus would be sought. It was understood that there would be no movement of natural gas prices in the interval.

Instead of discussions by national leaders there has been substituted an abrupt award by a three-man tribunal.

Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada must set aside the proposed increase in the price of natural gas.

The onus is on the government of Canada, and I have today dispatched to Prime Minister Trudeau a Telex outlining the concerns of Ontario and urging that Bill C-32 be proclaimed without delay --

Mr. Lewis: They said they won’t set aside the price increase.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and that it be used to protect the interests of the people of Canada, through holding the line on prices.

Mr. Roy: Does that apply to Ontario Hydro too?

Mr. Deans: Did the Premier send the Telex to Jamaica?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Transportation and Communications.

NORONTAIR SERVICE

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of the progress that has been made in the expansion of norOntair into northwestern Ontario.

Last Friday, the Canadian Transport Commission granted approval for the operation of norOntair service between Kenora, Fort Frances, Dryden and Thunder Bay, a service operated for the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission by On-Air Ltd. The inaugural run was made this past Sunday.

In addition to the daily connections from Fort Frances and Kenora to the Transair jet service through Dryden, there is an eastbound flight from Fort Frances to Thunder Bay on Saturday and a westbound return flight Sunday. These flights tie in with the service to Kenora and Dryden.

Service on the Fort Frances-Thunder Bay route will be upgraded this fall when Atikokan will be added to the route. The starting date for this new service will be dependent on the completion of the new airport at Atikokan.

If Transair receives approval from the CTC for a proposed second daily jet flight from Winnipeg through Dryden and Thunder Bay to Toronto and return, norOntair will establish a second flight to connect with Transair in Dryden.

The tentative date for this additional service between Kenora, Fort Frances and Dryden, subject to the approval by the CTC, will be June 1.

On July 17, phase two of the northwestern Ontario plan is expected to go into operation. It will provide daily norOntair flights between Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa, Thunder Bay and Pickle Lake.

The start of this service is, of course, subject to approval by the Canadian Transport Commission and the Ministry of Transport.

To provide these new services, the Ontario government has purchased two Twin Otters, bringing our total to five. A sixth aircraft will be required this fall to provide expanded service to these communities in northwestern Ontario.

Finally, I should like to point out that by the end of 1975, the Ontario government will be providing norOntair service to a total of 16 communities in northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the Premier following his statement having to do with the results of the arbitration in Alberta.

Since the government of Canada has already indicated that it intends to use the powers of the Petroleum Administration Act, which I understand had third reading yesterday after many months of delay, and while I am sure the federal government is anxiously awaiting the receipt of the Telex from the Premier of Ontario, has the Premier, his Treasurer or his Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) contacted their opposite numbers in the government of Alberta so that these dislocating and unnatural pressures do not necessarily have to be imposed from the producing province? Has he communicated with the government, indicating clearly the effects these pressures will have on this province, which is essentially the consuming province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, these concerns were registered with the Premiers of the producing provinces at the first ministers’ conference. I don’t think there was any doubt in their minds as to the views of the Province of Ontario and I shall be sending the same material to the Premier of Alberta. It is quite consistent with those things that were communicated two or three weeks ago.

Mr. R. F, Nixon: Supplementary: Since we appear to be heading for a 30 per cent increase in the costs of hydro-electric energy as well as this proposal of 40 per cent in gas -- which we hope is going to be turned back to zero, although we don’t know about that -- is there any particular policy of the government, through the Treasury or through any other ministry, to somehow cushion the effects at least of the increase in Hydro if, in fact, it goes forward in the next few weeks and months? Does the Premier, who must surely be as, let’s say sensitive, to the important impact on our own industry and our own individuals as anybody is, have a programme to cushion the effects of the Hydro increase, as well as the possibility of these other increases on our own consumers?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Especially senior citizens.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize what the Leader of the Opposition is saying and I won’t try to separate them as to two distinct issues, although with respect I believe they are. With respect to natural gas, we have taken the position and will continue to take the position -- and I hope that is clearly understood from my statement -- that the onus is on the government of Canada not to roll back but to maintain the existing price of natural gas during this period of some economic stress.

As it relates to the question of the proposed increase, or the application for increase, the Minister of Energy has dealt with this as it relates to Ontario Hydro. It is being referred, of course, to the Ontario Energy Board.

I would only state, Mr. Speaker, that the onus is there. It is on the federal government; it is what the federal government is all about. While I am not looking for any sort of confrontation as between the federal government and any of our sister provinces, I believe the economic situation is so serious that they must use that power that is given to them under that Act and discharge their national responsibilities in this instance.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They said they would do it, even without the Premier’s advice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: All of the pre-election rhetoric aside, since Donald S. Macdonald has already indicated that he would agree to 70 or 80 cents -- in one case a 55 per cent increase over the present price and in the next case a 77 per cent increase over the present price so we know that the prices are going up -- what is the government prepared to do to intervene on behalf of the consumers of Ontario after its fashionable anti-federal rhetoric is done?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party -- who is probably the greatest expert on rhetoric in this House, and I say that in a somewhat complimentary fashion --

Mr. Lewis: I wouldn’t have taken it otherwise. I wouldn’t have taken it otherwise.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- can call it pre-election rhetoric if he wants. The fact remains, this government is going to oppose any increase in the price of natural gas and we intend to continue.

Mr. Lewis: That’s stuff and nonsense. What is the Premier going to do when it happens?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: He had better tell Hydro that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa East with a supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Seeing the Premier is talking about the onus on the federal government on the question of the increase for natural gas and oil, would he not agree first of all that the onus is on him on the question of Hydro; and how about hearing a statement from him on policy, accepting his onus and saying that he is against the increase in Hydro? That’s where the onus is, here.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Ottawa East loves to make speeches. If he is asking me a question with respect to Hydro, the Minister of Energy has already dealt with it --

Mr. Roy: Right. Accept the onus here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I don’t want to get into a lengthy dissertation as to the differences between an increase in the price of natural gas, where there has been no increase in the cost of production, and this also applies to some aspects of oil, as against operators of a utility here that has no profit, is a public utility, with increasing costs entirely within that organization. I say, with respect, there is a distinction.

I know the member for Ottawa East would love to try and couple them together. I can only say we will discharge our responsibilities. We are in the process; it’s being referred to the Ontario Energy Board. But for heaven’s sakes, when are the Liberals going to stop defending their colleagues at the federal level and get around to making some decisions of their own?

Mr. Breithaupt: Tell the federal Tories to clean up their act.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I guess he is right. It is not pre-election rhetoric. I guess I misinterpreted it. It’s election rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow one more.

Mr. Deacon: Does the Premier not agree that one of the major problems is providing for a supply in the future, and that that is one of the things that has to be taken into consideration in Hydro and natural gas?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I find this a most revealing question. The hon. member is saying that, I guess, he supports an increase in the price of natural gas to provide for further exploration.

Mr. Deacon: I support what is necessary to assure supplies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we’re concerned about security of supply. That was the understanding a year ago. The royalty situation in both producing provinces, including the NDP administration in Saskatchewan, the federal government tax and the fact that those two jurisdictions couldn’t agree, have led to no further exploration as a result of the price increase of a year ago -- maybe five cents a barrel.

Mr. Deacon: Why are Hydro costs going up?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am saying here, and I say it very simply, that while we’re interested in security of supply and while we’re interested in further exploration, we cannot accept this proposed price increase as the method of achieving that. If the hon. member is taking that position, that’s fine.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ontario’s position last year led right into it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t the Liberals make it their policy? Why don’t they get up and say so?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ll allow one more supplementary. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary of the Premier: If the Premier is so concerned about stopping the unwanted increase in the price of natural gas, over which Ontario has no direct control, can he explain why Ontario’s government is taking no action to stop unwarranted increases in rents, over which the province does have control?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The member should look at socialist BC and socialist Britain.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the Speaker ruled that question out of order?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, it’s a telling point. The government should have tried. It doesn’t do anything except where it can grandstand; and it grandstands like crazy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition with further questions.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Education. In view of the 50 per cent to 73 per cent demands for salary increases from the high school teachers in Metropolitan Toronto, can he now tell us when he intends to introduce the legislation, which has been pending for a year and a half and which is supposed to bring some order and justice into the relationships between the school boards and the teachers’ professional organizations?

Mr. Roy: And he promised that legislation.

An hon. member: What’s the Leader of the Opposition’s position?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition is trying to get off a sticky wicket now, isn’t he?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): I’m not sure there’s a direct correlation between the two, because certainly the introduction of this legislation will not by itself rule out unreasonable demands, as are these demands that are presently reported in the Star. We’re hoping to bring the legislation in within the next few weeks.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: If we are going to be presented with the irrationality of a 73 per cent demand, would the minister not feel it is imperative, before the confrontation between the teachers and the Toronto board leads perhaps to the closing of the schools, that we have the sort of legislation which the minister has been working on for 18 months, and which is supposed to bring rationality into the dealings between the two areas? While we’re in a period of some peace between the teachers and the board, that’s the time for us to act. Why doesn’t the minister act?

Mr. Roy: He promised it a month ago; including control over certification.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m surprised, of course, that my friend shows practically no regard for collective bargaining negotiations or how they go on.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is not true; I have some regard.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is true, because I haven’t seen one sensible statement in the last two years come out of the Liberal caucus.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What kind of an answer is that? The minister is on his way out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let the Leader of the Opposition not worry about it. He’s on his way out.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They’ve gone all the way from wanting us to take over the school boards a couple of years ago --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister has made such a mess of education that he will not survive the election.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: Where’s the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They’ve gone all the way from wanting us to take over the school boards a couple of years ago to asking for legislation --

Mr. Reid: Where’s the legislation?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is irrational; and unrealistic too.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Just calm down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have called for order on various occasions. Will it be heeded?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, was that a threat?

Mr. Speaker: It might be. Has the minister finished his answer?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Leader of the Opposition’s two friends and colleagues sitting behind him wanted legislation brought into this Legislature --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you going to permit the minister to answer in this particular way? If he is going to deliver some sort of a political diatribe he should hire his own hall.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A question was asked and the answer, I understand, is being given. The minister gives the answer as he sees fit.

Mr. Lewis: If he had started this comeback six months ago, he might have made it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I know it embarrasses my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that two of his members asked for legislation to end the Ottawa strike. He opposed them and we still don’t know where the Liberal Party stood --

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): We never will.

Mr. Turner: Let the Leader of the Opposition tell us where they stand.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and we never will. The party that preaches local autonomy wanted us to take over this school board in the York county situation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Even the Premier is trying --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister doesn’t have to take sides; just bring in the guidelines.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the question was asked about the timing of bringing in legislation. I think we are straying quite a distance afield. Will the minister please answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have answered the question, Mr. Speaker. What is needed in teacher-school board negotiations is good-faith bargaining on both sides.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A new minister of education.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): He must give them the guidelines to do that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There have not been any real meetings between the Metro school board and their teachers at this point in time. I hope and I pray, and I request, that each of them gets down and starts bargaining in good faith. Let’s cut the rhetoric out. Sure, we all know that 73 per cent is an unreasonable request but let’s have them get down and bargain with the board in good faith. I tell my friend it doesn’t need our legislation to have them sit down and bargain in good faith at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Since good-faith bargaining is clearly not met either by the kinds of offers which boards are making or, I happily concede, the 50 per cent to 73 per cent demand which is not good-faith bargaining, why doesn’t the minister give a definition of good faith, as he has been requested, with the opportunity to enforce it either before the Ontario Labour Relations Board or some aspect of his ministry so that negotiations in this case don’t disintegrate the way they disintegrated in Ottawa?

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s afraid to bring it in.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my friend makes a very valid point. The only thing I would point out to him is that it’s very difficult sometimes to define good-faith bargaining.

Mr. Lewis: Nobody has tried in this province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think he and I disagree with what he has just defined as good-faith bargaining but I know there are other people who would disagree.

Mr. Lewis: I will draft it with the minister. We have a majority here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: We have a majority in the House. I’ll draft it with him.

Hon. Mr. Wells: At least he and I understand a little about good-faith bargaining, which is something the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know anything about.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? A supplementary, the member for Ottawa East first.

Mr. Roy: I would like to ask the minister if, when my leader talks about bringing in the legislation, the minister is not aware that in Ottawa one of the difficult issues was quality of education; and that can be settled by his bill on the criteria or guidelines for bargaining. Why doesn’t he bring his bill in -- he promised it?

Mr. Reid: Eighteen months ago.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The bill will be brought in here in a very short time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister promised it the first week of the session. We don’t believe him any more.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Everyone understands where we stand as far as bargaining on terms and conditions of employment is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The final supplementary, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House if in the draft legislation he is about to bring in there is a good-faith bargaining clause? Is he developing within his ministry the expertise for the enforcement of a good-faith bargaining clause?

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t have that in his legislation anywhere.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend, of course, is saying we don’t have it in there; I would have to assume he has seen the legislation.

Mr. Lewis: I have my contacts.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m sure he hasn’t. I can tell my friend there will be something concerning good-faith bargaining in the legislation, because I believe, as a lot of other people believe, that is one of the key cornerstones on which we have to build legislation for bargaining in the public service. It will be there, along with a few other things.

Mr. Lewis: Then get it out here, define it.

Ms. Speaker: Order please. Are there any further questions?

EFFEGTS OF HYDRO BORROWING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes I would like to ask the Premier, in the absence of the Treasurer, if he has examined the reported effects of the Hydro loan of $100 million on the financial community and interest rates in Canada? The Hydro loan of $100 million is reported to have forced rates up by a clear one percentage point. Is he prepared to report on the effect this has had on housing costs, for example?

How is he prepared to find the $675 million additional borrowing the Treasurer reports we will need this year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This question should be properly directed to the Treasurer. I haven’t personally investigated. I am sure the Treasurer is quite aware of it and if he comes in time this afternoon I am sure he will be delighted to answer that question.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West with his questions.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps, in a sense, I have an extension to that question; because the Minister of Energy is back and I wanted to ask about it anyway.

When is the minister going to exercise some control over Ontario Hydro? It is now clear that the floating of the bond issue was literally thrown onto the market, without for instance putting it up to tender amongst the various institutions, with disastrous consequences for interest rates, particularly in terms of housing. Has he no control over Hydro at all?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I really think the question of the leader of the NDP is based on a few inaccuracies in some of the figures which were quoted in the paper yesterday.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, really?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I saw one report that quoted the interest rate of about 10.75 per cent, where it is actually 10.25 per cent. In sending out any bond issue --

Mr. Renwick: It was not. The interest rate was 10.75 per cent and the yield was 10.31 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member for Riverdale isn’t interested than he can at least be quiet and let me finish.

Mr. Renwick: Well, don’t confuse us.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): How would the member know what a bond rate is?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In any bond issue there is close consultation between Hydro and the Treasury and the advisers in the private sector as to timing and place of allocation. From the reports which I received this morning the issue is being well received.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister sure?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not likely to go to a premium, and it is not likely to be sold out quickly.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary: What about the consequences for the increase in the interest rates which are now being registered, and predicted to be applied to the housing market? The money is now drying up throughout the province partly as a result of this folly of Ontario Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept it as folly, and not being an expert on the total bond situation --

Mr. Roy: The minister is not an expert on anything. His suit isn’t bad though.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I bow to the member for Ottawa East who is an expert on nothing. Trivia and nonsense are his areas of expertise and he is very good at it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point is, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about moneys needed for 1975 to cover the operating and capital budgets of Ontario Hydro to meet their commitments in this year. It is not an excessive bond issue. It is being well received --

Mr. Renwick: Of course, because the interest rate is out of line.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and it is very well co-ordinated with the Treasury and other elements of the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the minister make it clear whether the decisions as to the timing and the allocation, if these market decisions are made in Ontario Hydro, in which case the minister would be involved to some extent; or by the provincial Treasury, in which case also the minister would be involved to some extent, in view of the fact that the Globe and Mail Report on Business says in headlines: “Ontario Hydro Issue Causes Bond Market Havoc”? It goes on to describe the consequences.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I really think, Mr. Speaker, from whatever little bit I understand about journalism, somebody writes a report and somebody else sitting at a city desk writes a headline. I think that was really badly exaggerated.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who was responsible for it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The borrowing for Hydro is very much co-ordinated between Hydro, the ministry and the Treasury.

An hon. member: They were all wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question: Will the minister report to the House where the decision was made to float that bond issue at the interest coupons and the yields which were reported in the press as being so substantially above what the market was prepared to take? The bond issue, as I understand it, is going very well because of the depression of all of the other bond prices and the automatic increase in interest rates. Will the minister inquire and report to the House about the decision-making process?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have just answered twice; I will answer for a third time. I will confirm it again with my staff, and if for any reason there is any deviance from normal procedure we will report, but this is co-ordinated with Hydro, the Treasury and the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary? The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Who are the ministry’s advisers and Hydro’s advisers; and in what way are they co-ordinating their opinions with others in the bond market? It’s obvious that other bond issues had not been digested and this one caused absolutely chaotic conditions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, once one gets into the overall question of the credit of the province and borrowing on the credit of the province, that question should be more properly directed to the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Premier. At any point in this process of energy costs is he going to indicate publicly what Ontario will do to protect the consumer when the price increases occur? Why is the Premier’s rhetoric so substantial and his solution so negligible?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course the Leader of the New Democratic Party gives up very easily. We have not given up with respect to the price of natural gas, or with respect to the proposed rates for Hydro, which are being referred to the Ontario Energy Board. We will determine what we do when there are facts there for us to deal with. At this moment we are saying “no” to an increase in the price of natural gas.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary!

Hon. Mr. Davis: The leader of the NDP would have us say that if it does, then we are going to --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right; that is what I’d have the Premier say.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course he would.

Mr. Renwick: Why can the Premier, on the one hand blame the federal government for procrastination in passing Bill C-32, and at the same time not introduce into this Legislature enabling legislation which will give the government authority to cushion and protect the consumer if and when -- and I think when rather than if -- the price increase occurs?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I say to the member for Riverdale in regard to introducing legislation that would “protect the consumer” -- protect the consumer against what? In terms of what a provincial government can do, if the hon. member is going to argue that we should have some way of rolling back a price determined in another province, by way of either royalty or tax at the federal level, I say with respect that it can’t be done.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, the Premier can cushion it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Cushion it.

Mr. Renwick: No.

Mr. Lewis: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. B. F. Nixon: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, a final supplementary; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it not true that by the imposition of a new royalty structure in this province the Treasury is going to extract from the profits of the oil companies here an additional $60 million this year, after criticising the other provinces for doing something similar? Why could that $60 million not be used in a programme, through the fuel tax or through a tax credit or some other procedure, to cushion the blow of energy increases? Apparently there is the prospect of gaining an additional $60 million through this province’s own royalty changes. Why should that not be used for our own consumers rather than for general revenue?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m surprised -- well I’m not surprised, I really thought the Leader of the Opposition probably would give up the fight sooner than the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

I am not assuming there is going to be a price increase in natural gas or oil. I’m not making that assumption.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There will be in Hydro. The Premier can examine it all summer, but he will have an increase in Hydro right after the election.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Liberal leader can make that assumption if he wants.

Mr. Roy: The Premier will be whistling in the dark.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Scarborough West with further questions.

Mr. Lewis: One of the premises of the budget, if the Premier will recall -- and I’m coming to an interrogative -- indicated stable energy prices. This government is about to permit Hydro to raise its rates, natural gas is clearly going up, and oil is clearly going up. Is this government ever going to provide Ontario with an energy tax credit which will cushion the blow; or has it some way of responding as a government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t really want to observe, but this same question was asked about four or five minutes ago. The answer here is very simple: In terms of Ontario Hydro, the Minister of Energy has made it very clear their application has been referred to the Ontario Energy Board. In terms of natural gas, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is saying it is inevitable, it is going to go up, it is going to go up in the next very few months, or weeks. If the price of crude oil, as in his view, is going to go up --

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the government here is saying, and saying as clearly as possible, that we will not support that increase and we will oppose it in every way we can.

Mr. Lewis: We will oppose it with the Premier, but what will he do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And the members opposite aren’t helping one darn bit.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not leadership, that’s abdication of leadership.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the member has further questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The leader of the NDP almost talks as if he wants the price to go up.

Mr. Lewis: The price is going to go up. The Premier is pretending it won’t.

Mr. Roy: The Premier knows that is what is going to happen.

Mr. Lewis: He is just posturing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, this is the question period.

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Housing, one last question.

Interjection by an hon. member.

LAND SEVERANCES IN BROCKVILLE AREA

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Housing: Is it true that after a speech to the Brockville Chamber of Commerce a couple of months ago he indicated that his ministry was going to establish an investigation into the question of land severances undertaken by the land committee in the areas around Brockville? Has he made such an investigation, and if so will the document be tabled?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the statement is true. As my staff has informed me, we are halfway through the investigation. I don’t know exactly when it will be finalized.

I want to determine, first of all, whether there have been any improper severances given. I will discuss the matter directly with the land division committee and with the municipalities before I do anything with regard to releasing whatever the results may be.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is the minister looking at the possibilities of conflicts of interest involved in there being people sitting on the planning board and sitting on the land committee whose land was engaged in the process of severing? Is that part of the inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

HYDRO BLOCK

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address a question to the Minister of Housing. Is he at this time in a position to table in this House the government proposals for the development of the Hydro block in the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not at this particular time. My staff and myself are preparing a proposal and I expect it to be finalized within the next 10 days or so.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I at least ask this? Is the minister prepared to tell this House whether there is to be a write-down of land costs in that block, and if so what the write-down is?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not prepared to say yes or no at this time, Mr. Speaker; or until I have had a full opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposal to say how we may proceed. Whether the cost of the land should be written down will come into consideration at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Stokes: Thank you. I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Is the minister aware that the chief of the Islington band at Whitedog has repudiated the statements made in the House by the provincial secretary and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), in the statement about the plans that the government has to assist them by providing freezers and this sort of thing, and that he attributes both of the statements to gimmickry and electioneering? Is the provincial secretary prepared to react to that sort of statement and do something positive on behalf of those people, who are suffering from excessive amounts of mercury in the fish?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repudiate a statement I haven’t heard about. I’d like to see the statement -- at least the statement which the chief is alleged to have made. I can’t understand what the hon. member is referring to. Is he making a suggestion that the chief doesn’t agree with the proposals which we have brought back --

Mr. Lewis: Yes. He says, “election gimmick and window dressing.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, that may very well be what he said. I would be surprised if he had. We had a very amicable meeting. What I reported back here was what they were happy with; and as a matter of fact --

Mr. Lewis: It is amazing how difficult the provincial secretary can make it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- they were going to get a resolution of the band council along those lines. If this is what the chief has written, all I can say is that it’s mischievous.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, mischievous.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What’s the matter? Well, at least mischievous.

Mr. Renwick: I thought they were glad to see the minister.

Mr. Lewis: Didn’t the minister say how pleased they were to see him?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, and that’s exactly what happened. If they weren’t pleased, they never gave any evidence of that.

Mr. Renwick: If they were pleased to see the minister, they were pleased to see anybody.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What we have come back here with as recommendations, as was pointed out by myself and my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, was as a result of their agreement to a programme which they said they would be happy if we carried through. They said they would provide us with a resolution from their band along these lines.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Misrepresentation. The provincial secretary should resign.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Stokes: How does this hold with the minister’s words, when they have said in the last paragraph:

“Allan Grossman and Leo Bernier of the Ontario provincial cabinet prepared and made the statement without my approval. This can only be construed by my band members as an election gimmick and window dressing on the part of the Ontario government. Would you please make this correction on the national and regional news, particularly to the Kenora area? [Signed] Sincerely, Chief Roy MacDonald.”

Mr. Martel: The provincial secretary should resign.

Mr. Lewis: The minister can attack him now and call him mischievous. Go ahead, attack the man.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will admit this to the hon. member, that our first inclination was to await the official resolution from the band.

Mr. Deans: That was the right one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, that’s perhaps what I should have done, in retrospect, now that this has been raised. But it was obvious that they agreed; they agreed verbally, the chief did and those of the council who were there --

Mr. Lewis: The minister has been pretty obvious --

Mr. Renwick: The minister mistook politeness for agreement.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If, in fact, we made any error here, it was to make sure that this House was advised as soon as possible of what our plans were --

Mr. Roy: It was done for political gain.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If we hadn’t done that, the members of the Opposition would have claimed we had misled them when I had said we would make a statement immediately on our return.

Mr. Renwick: No, we wouldn’t if the minister had made that explanation.

Mr. Lewis: Boy oh boy, is he inept.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

DESERTED WIVES’ AND CHILDREN’S MAINTENANCE LEGISLATION

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Attorney General regarding legislation called the Deserted Wives’ and Children’s Maintenance Act. Doesn’t the minister think it’s time that legislation perhaps should be amended to bring it into the 20th century, at least to 1975, and make the legislation applicable not only to deserted wives but to deserted husbands as well?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Yes, I do think it should be brought into the 20th century, Mr. Speaker, and we have moved very positively in that direction. As the hon. member probably does not know, the Ontario Law Reform Commission did a study on the supportive role of the parent. That study was returned from the printer last Friday, and I was given a copy which I have partially read. I will be tabling it in this House in the very next few days. It deals with a very integral part of the family law in this province, or what would hopefully be amendments to the family law programmes.

Secondly, as the hon. member probably knows, we have made representations to the federal government to have the Divorce Act amended to extend the jurisdiction into the family courts of this province insofar as divorce is concerned. So one cannot take an isolated piece of the whole complexion of this problem and move forward with it until one knows what the overall effect is going to be, as to whether the Divorce Act will in fact be amended, as I believe it will and should be.

Eventually we want to introduce legislation reflecting, certainly, a number of the observations made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission on the supportive role of the province; and we will be going forward this session, of course, with the former Bill 117 dealing with the assets of the family or family property.

Taking all of these components together, we hope to move on in a very positive direction, recognizing the obligations we have to husbands, to wives and primarily to children in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is considerable background noise in the chamber. It is very difficult to hear the answers, and the questions as well. One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister saying that it is his intention to amend that type of legislation, which applies only to wives, but that he is going to wait until changes are made in the divorce legislation? Are we going to wait for that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is not what I said.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

OMA FEE SCHEDULE

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the policy of her ministry to advise those physicians and others who might be interested of what the government has agreed with the OMA to pay for various fees, beginning today? Inasmuch as neither her secretariat nor the Ministry of Health has notified any physicians, is the minister aware that the OMA is charging $15.75 for this little pamphlet, whereby you can learn from them how much the new fees are?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that, and I think that is a question that more properly should be directed to the minister responsible for that.

Mr. Shulman: Is this not a policy matter?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): What are they paying her for?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

LAND SEVERANCE REGULATIONS

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Housing, if I can have his attention. The minister indicated at the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association meeting in Marathon last week that he was pushing forward with changes in the severance regulations in regard to land, particularly in northwestern Ontario but across the province, to reduce the requirement of 25-acre lots. Can he indicate when this might come about and what size lots will be required by Ontario Housing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this may come about as soon as I can receive the agreement of my colleagues, which I’m not sure I’ll get at this time. I’m proposing that this severance acreage be changed; I think it should be --

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister flying a kite?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not sure whether or not this will be approved, but I hope it will be approved very shortly.

Mr. Reid: One supplementary, if I may: Does the minister think he can impress upon his colleagues that, in northern Ontario at least, reducing the requirement of the 25 acres will go some long way toward reducing the housing crisis in that part of the province?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can assure the hon. member I’ll do my very best to make that point very clear to everyone.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

JUDGES ON POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as he is now replacing judges on police commissions, with which I agree, and thus removing them from a somewhat anomalous situation, why is he compounding the problem by not consulting the elected municipal officials about their replacements, rather than making what can only be considered or viewed as patronage appointments? Why is consultation not being made with the municipalities about the replacements of those judges on the police commissions?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I don’t understand the question on whether the hon. member is referring to provincial court judges or county court judges.

Mr. Bounsall: I am referring to those judges who were on police commissions and whom the Attorney General is now replacing and making appointments of other people in the community.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, there are two types of judges on police commissions. In some instances there are provincial court judges and there are also county court judges.

Speaking, firstly, of the provincial court Judges, Hon. J. C. McRuer, in his studies of police commissions some years ago recommended that judges not, in fact, have a role on police commissions in this province. This policy has been followed. It was announced by one or two of my predecessors three times removed that this was going to be the policy and it has been implemented over the past two or three years. I believe, at the present time, there are only two or three provincial court judges still sitting on police commissions within the province.

With reference, Mr. Speaker, to county court judges, the federal government, as I understand it, has before the House or a standing committee of the House, at the present time, legislation which, in effect, says that if a county court judge sits on a police commission following April 1, 1975, he is not entitled to accept any remuneration for so sitting. Whether that becomes effective as of April 1, 1975, or when it gets back into the House in Ottawa, if the date is changed to say April 1, 1976, I do not know. The Police Act -- I think section 10 -- says that a judge must sit on a police commission.

When we find out when that bill in Ottawa goes through referring to county court judges, I would presume that a number of those who are serving will decline to serve any further. Our Police Act will then have to be amended on the floor of this House to add some other class of person or persons for a county court judge to replace the county court judges.

Mr. Roy: That’s the phoniest answer.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Singer: It’s the first one. Why can’t the Attorney General exercise a little initiative of his own and do what Mr. McRuer recommended some years ago and what two or three of the minister’s predecessors three times removed have also nibbled at, namely, remove the county court judges from police commissions by our own legislation and not wait for this weird process that he has been describing? Remove such people as Judge Scott from the Niagara Police Commission immediately.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, that sounds as if the hon. member does not think that these county court judges make any positive contribution. I take umbrage at this.

Mr. Singer: McRuer didn’t want them on. The police didn’t want them on and the Attorney General doesn’t want them on.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would not identify myself with that statement. In many instances, the guidance and experience of county court judges on police commissions are without parallel in this province, Mr. Speaker. I do not share the same views as the hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: That’s not the issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We will see what the federal legislation is going to do and what the effective date will be. Then we will develop alternative legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware of the problem that has existed for a number of years as it relates to the ownership of land and title to --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is too much background noise in the chamber. We cannot hear the question. Will the member repeat his question?

Mr. Haggerty: Is the minister ready now, or shall we go behind here and talk about it? Thank you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have asked that the noise be cut down in the chamber. The member for Welland South, please.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Is the minister aware of the problem that has existed for a number of years as it relates to the ownership of land and title, in particular to lot 142, plan 77, broken front, Lake Erie and part of lot 24, Bertie township which now is in the town of Fort Erie? It has now come to light for some 300 property owners who are alarmed that they cannot transfer any property, and don’t have true title to their property?

Will the minister now bring in a bill to expedite the Crown letters patent to this particular property in question? I brought this to the attention of the minister some five years ago, I believe, hoping it would be corrected then.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member I will have a complete review made of the entire situation and bring myself up to date on it.

Mr. Roy: Is five years sufficient notice for the minister?

Mr. Lewis: A complete review?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich- Riverside.

INTER-CHURCH APPEAL

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier concerning the Jan. 22 appeal from the leading churches of Ontario for aid to foreign nations in self-development plans: How many letters has the Premier’s office received on this subject and how many has he answered?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have the feeling the numbers are now probably in the low thousands -- perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 -- I haven’t looked at the most recent list. We are endeavouring to reply individually to each one of those who have written. If a letter comes in with, say, half a dozen names attached thereto, we endeavour to write to the person who sent in the list of names. We are corresponding with all of them and really it’s a very good opportunity to acknowledge the interest they are taking in this proposal. I will get the exact number but I think I am right that it is perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 letters.

Mr. Roy: All handwritten?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, a lot of them are handwritten. The member is quite right.

Mr. Burr: A supplementary: How close to a decision is the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really thought that would have been the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I joined the group personally about a week ago and certain discussions are going on now. I agreed to meet with them, I think, or have some further communication with them three weeks, I believe it was, or a month after the meeting we had which was roughly a week ago.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING FIELD OFFICES

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing in regard to the decision of the ministry about 1½ years ago to decentralize and give the regional office in Sudbury the power to make decisions in regard to severances and subdivisions. Apparently now the order has gone out that this decentralization will be discontinued and that henceforth, a month or two from now, the decision-making power will be brought back to the Toronto offices. Could the minister explain the reasons for this?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe this decision has been made as the member has apparently thought it might have been. We are at all times reviewing the activities and the operations of our field offices, If they are not satisfactory, we want to improve upon them. It may be that some staff have been removed from Sudbury and put in another field office or our head office but I would say the office in Sudbury will still be continuing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: A supplementary: Would the minister assure me that the right of making decisions will remain within that office as it is now?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the right of making the decisions will be left there as long as we have decisions made and we had better have decisions made as quickly as possible.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Here it comes -- the reinterpretation of Chief MacDonald.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Damn right. Mr. Speaker, in asking a question earlier during the question period, the member of the opposition who asked me a question in respect of the visit to Whitedog and Grassy Narrows misled this House by misreading from a document, sir. I think it’s very --

Mr. Deans: That’s very serious.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the minister should not make that direct charge.

Mr. Renwick: Well, let’s read the piece.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I didn’t say he deliberately misinformed the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Read it. The minister said he misread it indirectly.

Mr. Speaker: I think it’s not necessary to use such words.

Mr. Stokes: I read from the document.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Speaker will give me other words to use in their place, I would be very pleased to do so.

An hon. member: He may have misled.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The point is that in reading portions of the so-called statement by Chief Roy MacDonald --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Signed by him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- he at least gave the wrong impression to this House. If I may, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Stokes: No, I quoted directly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Put the whole thing on the record.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He never quoted me directly at all.

Mr. Stokes: I quoted MacDonald directly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member should have taken time to read this thoroughly.

Mr. Lewis: No, the minister should stay in St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, this is dated April 29 --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, that was the day.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- which is on the Monday -- which is on a Tuesday, as a matter of fact. I made the statement in the House here on Tuesday.

Mr. Singer: Sometimes it comes on Wednesdays.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Except in Leap Year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is a letter purportedly signed by Chief Roy MacDonald to the Canadian Press, referring to two days previously:

“Dear Sirs:

“Last evening, April 28, 1975, on the regional news emanating from the Winnipeg CBC television news, you reported I made the following statement: [In other words, Chief MacDonald is quoting what he says the CBC television had stated on April 28. And here is the quote:]

“‘The chief of the Whitedog Indian reserve near Kenora says there has been a moderate improvement in the social conditions for Indians in northwestern Ontario recently, but more jobs are still needed on reserves.

“‘Roy MacDonald says he has asked the Minister of Natural Resources, Leo Bernier, for better timber areas so that native people can create their own employment opportunities. He says residents of the Whitedog reserve are completing construction of a grocery store which will sell high-protein foods. Chief MacDonald says he hopes this will lessen dependence on fish which has been found to contain high levels of mercury.

“‘The Ministry of Natural Resources has hinted that the provincial government has found the solution to food needs in the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves. Allan Grossman visited the area last weekend to see what alternative food supplies might be found to replace mercury-polluted fish. He said in the Legislature the government believes the problem has been solved and that he would make a statement tomorrow on the matter.”

“[And here is what Chief MacDonald has said:] “‘Allan Crossman and Leo Bernier of the Ontario provincial cabinet prepared and made the statement without my approval.’”

That, of course, is correct. I don’t ask anyone from the outside to get approval to make a statement.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is going to blame the federal Liberals next.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Read on. Read on. It gets better.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: “This” -- referring to the making of the statement, nothing else -- “can only be construed by my band members as an election gimmick and window dressing on the part of the Ontario government.”

Now, in fact, Mr. Speaker, what the chief is objecting to --

Mr. Singer: The election gimmick, yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is what the members of the opposition insisted I do -- make a statement in the House as soon as I returned -- and that’s all he is objecting to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The oral question period expired some time ago.

Mr. Lewis: Is that an attack on Chief MacDonald?

An hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. Lewis: What does he mean, sit down?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has the floor.

Mr. Stokes: I have a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: State your point of privilege.

Mr. Stokes: In the opening comments made by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, he intimated that I had misled the House.

Mr. Deans: He didn’t intimate, he said.

Mr. Lewis: Withdraw.

Mr. Stokes: And I want him to withdraw that implication, because all I did was quote directly from the last paragraph of this letter, which is a direct quote from Chief Roy MacDonald and signed by him.

Mr. Deans: Exactly the same as he did.

Mr. Stokes: I think he should retract that statement.

Mr. Martel: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the opposition has done today and in order to make sure that they are happy --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- we will not take any action until we in fact have the resolution from the hands.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister take his seat?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, now we become vindictive, do we? What a nice fellow he is, to penalize Grassy Narrows because of the opposition.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister changed the wording, which I figure is the equivalent of a withdrawal of the first charge.

Mr. Lewis: That wasn’t a withdrawal.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, let him get on his knees.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that wasn’t a withdrawal. We would like the minister prostrate on the floor of the House. We will be satisfied with nothing less.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Ewen from the standing private bills committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments;

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment;

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr32 An Act respecting Harford, Ltd.

Your committee would recommend that the time for presenting reports by the committee be extended to Thursday, May 15, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent physicians and practitioners who opt out of OHIP and bill patients directly from charging persons over 65 years of age and persons receiving public assistance greater amounts than are paid for the insurance services under the Act.

The purpose of the legislation as well, Mr. Speaker, is to preserve the universality of the plan and to make sure the amount charged over and above the OHIP fee does not become a deterrent fee for people at the bottom end of the income scale.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

REPRESENTATION ACT

House in committee on Bill 22, the Representation Act, 1975.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, are you able to advise us at this point whether there is intention by the government to bring forward any amendment with respect to this bill, as had been suggested by the minister would be possible?

Mr. Chairman: I was just going to inquire whether there were any comments, corrections or amendments to the bill. Perhaps the House leader might like to indicate this.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I would like to suggest that we refer it without amendment for third reading.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, on section 3, please.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister of Housing.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Before the bill proceeds to third reading, if the hon. members would allow me, as I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss this bill in the House because I was away at various times, I would like to snake some remarks as the bill pertains to my particular riding. I will make them brief.

Mr. Cassidy: Did the minister read the Toronto Star?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I just want to say that it is, in my opinion, a very sad day for the people of Grenville-Dundas when they have found that they have been separated after a very long time, not only by provincial boundaries but through their many communities of interest. We look forward to the addition of our friends to the north, but I would like to point out to the hon. members that this has to be a classic case of an independent commission not being aware of the actual facts, whatsoever, in regard to how boundaries should be redistributed.

Mr. Cassidy: Where has the minister been all this time?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The leaders and the members of the opposition have, in my opinion, done a very good job in making sure that their goals were attained in most cases.

Interjection by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: The members thought the minister was the most powerful member of the cabinet.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: However, as far as I am concerned, the government of this province was unable to obtain certain changes that should have been made because of the fact that we would have been accused of gerrymandering. I wish to point out very clearly to all members here today that --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister has been bulldozed. Now he knows how it feels.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- the independent commission appointed by this government has, in my opinion, made a very sad and very crucial decision when it decided to separate Grenville-Dundas. I believe the boundaries should have been extended. I believe the boundaries could have been adjusted around the affected areas in eastern Ontario. It will not, in any way, affect the opposition members because they are not going to be elected in any event.

An hon. member: What are you crying for then?

Mr. Cassidy: The government said that about Stormont and it also said that about Carleton East.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All I am trying to say today, Mr. Chairman, is that the boundaries that are now coming into force --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is in a panic, Mr. Chairman. He knows it will be repeated.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- will certainly have very definite repercussions in regard to some of the people in my area. I say, on behalf of the people of Grenville, that we are very sorry indeed to lose Dundas, to which we have been very close, and I also say to the people that we will be working very closely with them in the future. Thank you very much.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Did the minister submit a brief to the commission on this?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the committee that the Chair was a little lenient in this case. That really should have been discussed on second reading, but I realize that the minister wasn’t here.

I would like to have the concurrence of the committee that we deal with the bill clause by clause and then if there are any discussions on boundaries we should deal with that when we come to the last section. Is that agreed?

Mr. Cassidy: Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): I would like to make a comment on section 1 of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: On section 1? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Roy: East.

Mr. Chairman: Ottawa East.

On section 1:

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is I want to stand here and defend that commission, which I felt was independent, from some of the remarks just made by the minister.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Don’t leave now, Mr. Minister, we’re going to vote.

Mr. Roy: He’s had the occasion for the last year, almost, to make representation before that commission. To come into the House and make those types of remarks I think is unbecoming a member of the government and a minister of the Crown.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Foulds: Did he present a brief to the commission?

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, on the same section, I think it must be abundantly clear that the changes that have already been made in this bill had been made by an independent commission outside this House. If anyone in this Legislature now tries to make any changes in this bill, it must be considered as straight political gerrymandering and nothing more than that.

The changes have been made by an independent commission. We’ve had all kinds of chances to make our views known. Whether they accept those views or whether they don’t accept those views is what keeps the integrity in this bill. An independent commission has made the changes; any changes made in this bill by this Legislature have to be construed by the commission as taking it out of their hands and not allowing it to be done independently. I think it’s a sad day when the minister, at this late date, gets up and makes a speech such as he just made.

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Chairman, I would like to endorse the remarks of my colleague from Ottawa East. Since I come from eastern Ontario, and since the riding of Stormont is being changed and will absorb the people of Dundas, we welcome them.

Second, Mr. Chairman, our riding association appeared before the commission to make representation to this effect. The minister’s riding association had the same opportunity. He knows it’s too late.

Mr. Roy: He knows it.

Mr. Samis: He had a chance to do it. We’re in the opposition and we did it in Cornwall. He could have done the same thing in Prescott and made a representation according to the law, not like this.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: On section 1, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a very brief comment which is that it’s unfortunate one would have to consider even making proposals at this time in the House. I don’t think any of them will be acted upon.

The facts are, as the member for Waterloo North knows, that the commission in all its great independence found it necessary to vary the size of urban and rural ridings by about 20,000 apiece. That made a sham of the idea of independence and that’s why a lot of the second reading debate, Mr. Chairman, was devoted to finding a better way so we could get a better kind of redistribution the next time.

I agree it is done now and we’ve got to live with what’s been done. I must say that urban concerns are so paramount in the province that urban people themselves are concerned about what’s happening in the rural environment although the rural members in many cases, who sit in the back benches, do not seem to be. It really is a pity that the chance to bring representation into the last third of the 20th century was lost by the commission.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on any other section of the bill? Section 2, the member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, on second reading I raised this point about “the legislative assembly shall consist of 125 members.” I did not appear before the commission but the reason I raised this is that I am concerned about the cost and the proliferation of government in this country.

Canada is probably one of the most over- governed countries in the world; we have layer after layer of federal, provincial, county, regional and municipal. When I see the cost the people of Ontario have to pay to support a member and when I consider that probably 50 per cent of the members presently here do not even participate in the debates and take hardly any interest in what goes on, I cannot see that we have gained anything by adding eight members to this legislative assembly.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Speak for yourself.

Mr. Germa: I suspect all we have gained is an expenditure of probably another $800,000 to operate this House because I wouldn’t be surprised if it cost $100,000 to keep each member in this chamber going.

Mr. Roy: Don’t worry about it. We will get rid of some of these guys next time.

Mr. Germa: I’d like my thoughts to be identified with this position, that it is not necessary to increase continually the size of representation. If the minister is interested in some facts which I laid on the table during second reading debate, I showed the various representations of various Houses, from the House of Commons in London, England, to the elected body in the State of New Hampshire.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Your riding is not affected by this.

Mr. Germa: I’d like to remind the minister that the smallest state in the United States, New Hampshire, has 485 members which I think is a travesty of the democratic process. I think we do not need 125 members in this assembly.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is almost direct representation.

Mr. J. R. Smith: It didn’t affect the north.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, there is no quorum and there are only five Tory members present.

Mr. Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Chairman: We now have a quorum.

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

On section 3:

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could the government say who is carrying this bill through the House? it’s in the name of the Minister of Culture and Recreation, and I haven’t seen the minister here this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, I moved it.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh good, okay. Mr. Chairman --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: For the record, I would point out that the Chairman of the Management Board was one of only five Conservatives in the House, but that we thought we would call a quorum in order to --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: -- give the government members the opportunity to have some exercise before proceeding with an election.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. member will confine his comments to section 3 of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: It is remarkable --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: It is remarkable, Mr. Chairman, just how many of them came out of the woodwork this time, as compared to last Monday.

Mr. Chairman: Please, the member will return to the comments on section 3.

Mr. Cassidy: How could you chide me like that, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, my amendment to section 3 is intended to deal with a particular problem, which has for various reasons been left untouched by the commission. The commission was instructed to consider the matter of communities of interest to try to respect ward boundaries, township boundaries, county boundaries, and so on, where it could; and to try to bear in mind questions of social and economic congruity -- neighbourhoods and that kind of thing.

They failed to do that in the case of the city of Toronto. One hesitates to suggest it, Mr. Chairman, but it does happen to be the case that the strip ridings which have been preserved in central Toronto are ridings which automatically favour the Conservatives, because they allow the north Toronto voters to swamp the voice of those voters south of Dupont or south of Bloor Street.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I know. I have an amendment on that. You have the chance now to declare that you don’t believe either in representation by population or in the principle of community of interest, because you can oppose the amendment that I am about to put.

If you wish to support it, I would welcome your support. You would then be on the side of many residents and citizens in this city. You would be on the side on the Ontario municipal board, of Mr. J. A. Kennedy, who ruled on the block wards in the city of Toronto two or three years ago. And you would be on the side, I think, of almost every expert political scientist, and so on, who has looked at the questions of representation and on the need to have a system of block ridings in large cities, or block districts that allow various communities -- social, economic, ethnic and so on -- to be adequately represented.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 3(1) of Bill 22 be amended by adding at the end:

“But that the schedule be amended by striking out the descriptions for the 10 ridings within the city of Toronto and instructing the electoral boundaries commission to draw up boundaries that will respect the social, economic and ethnic community of interest of neighbourhoods of the city by creating block rather than strip ridings, and to report these proposed new boundaries to the House within one week.”

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Start all over again.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I’m just suggesting that the job be done for the city of Toronto. There are ample precedents. I had thought of suggesting an amendment that would tie this House to a specific set of boundaries, but given the fact that other business before the House will probably take a week or so to bring before us, even if the government intends to disregard its opinion polls and go to an election this spring, it seems to me that there is ample time for the electoral boundaries commission to redraw the boundaries within the city of Toronto.

We’ve commented on disparities between rural and urban ridings and other problems with the electoral boundaries commission, but this is a specific problem in one area, which for reasons that are hard for me to understand the commission simply did not come to grips with. There was ample guidance and advice to commission that it should look at the boundaries within the city of Toronto and come up with a set of boundaries that do respect a community of interests.

The member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), who I hope will support the amendment -- she nods that she will -- is aware of the fact that the six central ridings in Toronto stretch from somewhere north of St. Clair down to the lakefront. As a consequence, there is an enormous gulf in terms of community of interest.

The member of St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), for example, has a riding that stretches from the mansions of Forest Hill and around Upper Canada College, on the one hand, down to the low-income housing of Niagara St. and the housing on Toronto Island on the other.

The member for St. George, and it’s to be said to her credit that she had strong support from all areas of her riding -- she nods to that as well -- has a riding which also spans a strong diversity of interests. There are times when a member such as she, who has certain talents and is known broadly within the city, can attract substantial support from all parts of a riding like that, whether they be low-income, middle-income or upper-income areas. But I think it would be foolish to suggest that is the case for all members in the Legislature, for all politicians or for all parties.

It is very difficult, as I was arguing the other day, Mr. Chairman, for a member within his own conscience to somewhere reconcile the conflicting interests when he represents a large variety of different interests. If there is a Conservative government, then there’s going to be a natural propensity for a member from a downtown Toronto riding to think about and to listen to the voice of the people in the northern half of the riding because those are people with whom he has a stronger community of interest, of ethnicity, of schooling, of income, of common pursuits and recreations, of cottages and everything else.

When we win some of those seats in this election, Mr. Chairman, one could argue equally strongly that it may be that the New Democrats elected for those particular ridings might have an overly strong propensity to talk and to think of the people who are on more modest incomes, who belong to the labour movement, who are working people and who are mothers with problems about day care and that kind of thing, and to ignore the concerns of the people in the northern half of those particular ridings.

It’s also fair to say, though that in addition to the difficulties of a member reconciling those interests, there is also a very strong tendency for those strip ridings both to violate neighbourhood concerns, which may cut across two or three ridings, and to make it difficult for the people in the southern half of those strip ridings to get fair and adequate representation.

Their voice is less likely to be heard in this Legislature because, for a number of reasons, their vote is not as strong, their turnout is not as strong, their information about politics is not as strong, their access to information is not as strong and their access to education is not as strong. Neither is their access to the vote as strong, among other things, because of the time it takes in this province for an immigrant to get a vote in a provincial election, which on the average is of the order of not just five years, but in fact eight or nine years. From the time the immigrant lands in Canada to the time he votes for the first time in a provincial election may well be longer in many cases.

Bearing in mind that the immigrant must register first:

1. He may be here on a visitor’s pass, to begin with.

2. He must then decide he wants to become a citizen -- and he may not decide that for months or even years after the five years of citizenship eligibility have passed.

3. Having registered, he must clear the hurdles of getting through the Citizenship Court, which may take a number of months.

4. If his or her control of the language is inadequate or his knowledge of the country is inadequate he may, in fact, be denied citizenship, or fear denial and therefore not apply.

5. When an election comes -- and it may take up to 3½ years after acquiring citizenship for an immigrant actually to come up and coincide with a provincial election -- finally the immigrant will, in fact, have enough confidence and knowledge about what is happening in Canada that he votes in the first provincial election at which he is entitled to vote.

All of those things deter immigrants from voting before they have been in a country for up to nine or 10 years. Yet south of Bloor St., in the central Toronto ridings, a large proportion of the population are immigrants and their voice is thereby swamped, because there is a much lower proportion of the population which is eligible to vote in the areas south of Bloor St. in Toronto than in the areas north of Bloor St.

If they were block ridings, as was suggested, for example, by the Confederation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations in its brief to the boundaries commission, then that factor would sort of level itself out, because the ridings would cut off more or less at Bloor or at Dupont and, therefore, the southernmost tidings would have a high population but in general might not have as high a number of eligible voters because of this immigrant factor.

The northernmost ridings would have a higher proportion of voters but they would not be put in a position of swamping a group of people with a different social, economic and ethnic community of interest and different neighbourhood interests.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to go on at great length. I read last time from the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision about block wards. It is a pity that, in fact, they couldn’t have 11 ridings in Toronto and that those ridings could not correspond to the municipal wards. That would make a much more logical situation for the city; a much more sensible and comprehensible kind of situation.

But, given that there is one fewer riding, Mr. Chairman, it would still seem reasonable that those ridings try to correspond with ward boundaries and that the tidings try to respect neighbourhoods and respect social and economic and ethnic communities of interest rather than violating it.

All I am suggesting here is that rather than suggest a particular map, the commission spend the day and a half it would take over the next week to come back to us -- it can come back to us with the first map proposed by CORRA, with the second map proposed by CORRA, it can divide the city at Bloor St. in a very rigid kind of fashion, it can do any number of things like that, but the decisions need only take a weekend and do not need to delay the government’s options if it does choose to call an election now.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment be supported, and that we exempt the Toronto ridings from the coming into force of this Act, in effect, for one week until this great oversight of the commission can be corrected and we can get a fair basis of representation for the Toronto ridings.

May I say this to the minister, I’ve been vigorous but, I hope he realizes, not too partisan in putting forward this proposal and I hope that he would react to it in a vigorous, non-partisan and positive fashion, because I think it is a worthwhile amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I am rising to support the amendment. When the matter was before us on second reading I spoke on the same question. I could not do anything else, and I would like to make it abundantly clear that when I was at the city of Toronto I supported the block ward system for the reasons which have been given.

I was somewhat hesitant to rise at this point in time lest it be deemed that in doing so, since I represent one of those ridings, I might indeed be gerrymandering at this point, so I am very happy to rise and support the motion of the member for Ottawa Centre.

I am very appreciative of his remarks of me and happy that he did not put me in the same question that he asked of other members the other day.

It is a fact that the people in the central portion of the city of Toronto particularly, -- although it really also applies, as has been indicated, to the Beaches-Woodbine area in the east and to a degree to the High Park area in the west. Generally there is a consistency of position in those downtown areas which in my opinion ought to have representation of itself.

I have to say I don’t think I have had difficulty in representing the whole of my riding, with all its variety. But it is important, it seems to me, that we look at the community of interest as we see it in this representation bill. We have certainly the position now that the urban ridings are not receiving the kind of consideration they ought to have. One only has to sit in this House to recognize the fact that the large urban areas do not get the consideration of this House, by and large, that they ought to get by reason of the way in which the rural-urban representation is set up.

When you multiply that factor by the fact that within the urban areas themselves there is this kind of dichotomy one certainly has to question the way in which this matter has been determined by the commission.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose that as with everything else that we do at this time is going to have very little effect on the outcome of the situation but I would tell you that the urban centres are going to have to have a greater voice in this House. It is ridiculous that city of Toronto ridings should have about 72,000 people on the 1971 census -- believe me that is not anywhere like the true situation today in my riding -- to have that and have Muskoka with 30,000 is totally, utterly unwarranted when we go through the motions of a representation Act at this point.

I cannot speak more strongly about the situation than I have and I trust some consideration will be given to the amendment by this Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I would rise and support the comments made by my colleague, the member for St. George. The members will recall that when the original motion was brought before us upon which so many members of this House spoke at the end of January, I had some rather lengthy comments to make with respect to this entire ward structure matter within the city of Toronto.

You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that I referred at that point to a series of letters I had received from Mr. Robert W. Barclay who, in fact, had set out in very good detail a proposal for the division of the city of Toronto into 10 constituencies. He had drawn the boundaries very well and with great consideration and the ridings which came forward followed very strongly the ward boundaries we have had referred to us this afternoon. This matter has been of some concern particularly to those of us who share the views raised not only by the member for St. George but also by the member for Ottawa Centre. There is a strong community of interest and necessity which should require a change within the city of Toronto. Certainly the arguments which were made before the hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board and the results of that decision are all well known and need not be repeated at this point.

We are concerned that, as I understand it, a map had been prepared by the commission that in fact did set out boundaries based upon the block system. This apparently was not approved and, as a result, did not form that portion of the report which the commission brought in as a result of its earlier deliberations and which formed either the boundaries on the first map or on the reprinted map that we had last fall.

I do believe that the points raised are of sufficient concern that indeed a brief period of time could be taken by the commission to once more review this matter. Certainly the members residing in these various constituencies and representing them have a certain input and view to make on this particular problem. A number of them, particularly on this side of the House, have spoken with respect to their views. But I’m sure that members on the government side as well have particular views concerning this matter of homogeneity which has been referred to by those who have spoken over the life of this commission’s report and in this debate, both on second reading and this afternoon.

We certainly support the motion that has been made by the member for Ottawa Centre. The views which have been expressed in the House on several occasions by members of both the opposition parties, we believe, are worthy of further consideration. I hope that the government will be able to accept this serious suggestion.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on Mr. Cassidy’s motion?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a few comments on this particular motion that has been put forward. I think that the most pertinent comments that have been made so far this afternoon are those made by the hon. member for Waterloo North, who said that any change in this bill at this time would be an abrogation of the whole concept of setting up this independent commission to bring in new ridings for this province.

This commission has met over an extended period of time. There has been a great deal of time for input from all those who felt that there was something wrong with its first recommendations. The suggestion that has been put forward in this particular motion about the city of Toronto was put forward to this commission, as were many other suggestions from hon. members of this House. There have been changes made several times, and the commission has brought back, as it was instructed to do --

Mrs. Campbell: Through Tories, it has.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that that’s absolutely wrong. I would ask the hon. member to stand up, if she says that now, and impugn that the commission, under Mr. Justice Campbell Grant, Mr. Lewis and Prof. Sansom was not an impartial one. Is that what she is implying?

Mrs. Campbell: I have never implied that, Mr. Chairman, at any time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member just said that there had been changes brought in for Tory members.

Mrs. Campbell: I said by Tory members.

An hon. member: Look at Middlesex and see who has got the advantage. They saved the riding.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think the member will find that if there are any people individually disturbed, they’re probably more Tory members than others. But they’re willing to accept what we have here.

Mr. Cassidy: That is because of the voting power that was already in the system.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that for this House to vote on any amendment at this time to change this bill would abrogate the idea of an independent commission which has given lots of time --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): We can’t abrogate our own responsibilities.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- to bring in and to take changes from the members of this House.

I just also would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have to reject some of the garbage, I might say, that my friend was banding out about the representation in the Toronto ridings. I’m not going to quarrel with him that there may not be times that the changing in the size of the boundaries could come about. But when I look back at the men and women over the years who have represented strip ridings in Toronto, I would reject completely the kind of nonsense that he’d told us today --

Mr. Cassidy: So many of them are fine Tories.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- about people only representing one part of that riding. Look at the men and women, like the hon. members for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko), for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), for St. George and others. They represent all the people. They have represented them adequately and they’ve represented them well. For him to suggest that because we don’t have a riding that is made up of one homogeneous social class we’re not going to get adequate representation is, I think, a very false kind of theory. I would hate to see us get to the point where we feel in this House that members can only be represented by people of their own class coming from an area that roughly represents their own class. That’s a pretty poor theory for a democracy and for the kind of assembly that this is.

I think you could even make the point, although I am not going to make it strongly, that a person could better represent and be a better spokesman for his riding and be a better person to bring judgements on legislation in this assembly if he represented a wide spectrum of the social order in his riding, because he would have a chance to find out the viewpoints of a whole variety of people from one end to the other which, of course, they can do in the strip ridings. To say these are totally bad and the way they have been drawn is bad is wrong, I think, and I certainly reject that. I think the proposition put forward insofar as block ridings are concerned was put forward to the commission and obviously, in its wisdom, it was rejected. I don’t know why it was rejected; that would have to be asked of the commission but its members obviously rejected it. They had a chance to consider it several times and they have now brought in the final report.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if we believe in the integrity of an impartial commission appointed, as we did, by this Legislature -- not by the government but by this Legislature -- to bring in the new boundaries we are now duty-bound as members of this Legislature, after all the process we said should go on has gone on to pass this bill now and allow it to set the boundaries for the new ridings.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ontario.

Mr. M. B. Dymond (Ontario): Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this with a good deal of interest and I look back on the days when we were under the old system of redistribution. I recall very clearly the loud complaints and the bitter criticism levelled against that system. Before the 1967 re-alignment this House accepted the concept of an independent commission; everybody wasn’t pleased then, everybody isn’t pleased now, Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that in all things affecting human life nothing which can be done will please everybody but at least this seems to be about the most fair way that any Legislature has yet devised. There will always be complaints about favouritism, or gerrymandering or what have you.

However. I am not going to participate in this debate about Metro ridings or any other ridings. As far as I am concerned, I am delighted with the electoral district which has been established out of the one I now represent and which will continue to be represented by representatives of this party, I know.

I am, however, concerned about another type of change that does no harm or makes no threat against the basic principle of realignment of boundaries. In the new riding, it was Ontario riding and is now designated under Bill 22 as the electoral district of Durham North, we stand on two regional municipalities, the region of York and the region of Durham. I did not realize at the time when the first proposal came forward that the population in the two regions would be almost identical. Indeed, sir, it is within 500 of each other.

It would seem to me that the government needs to devise a system which will make it possible to bring about changes in name which I am asking for on behalf of my people without the formality of resubmitting it to the boundaries commission. Really, this has no effect on the boundaries whatsoever. Indeed, I believe the government of Canada has a way whereby the cabinet has authority, or did have at least, under its Act to change electoral district names.

I recall when the riding of Oshawa-Whitby was established. The name in the report was the electoral district of Oshawa. By authority of the government of Canada that became Oshawa-Whitby.

This is a plea I make, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my people. The people of York, who are going to form half of this riding now called Durham North under this bill, feel they have lost their identity. They have been known as York riding since Ontario became a province. They naturally feel they have lost something in losing their identity in the name of the riding and I would urge the government to devise as quickly as possible a mechanism which will make it possible to change the name of the riding without interfering with the boundaries whatsoever. All I ask, on behalf of my people, is that this riding be known not as Durham North but at Durham-York.

Mrs. Campbell: I’d like to speak on a point of clarification as a result of what the Minister of Education has said. I want to make this point abundantly clear; and I made it clear, I trust, in my opening remarks.

I am perfectly satisfied with my riding so far as I personally am concerned. I am only representing in this House, in the support of the block system, that which has been adopted by the city of Toronto for its ward structure and that which, in my opinion, the people feel is proper. And I don’t want any possible misunderstanding of my position in this House. I don’t care how you slice it, St. George will be won by Margaret Campbell the next time around.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, just so that there be no doubts about it, I certainly wasn’t suggesting that the hon. member was suggesting anything else than what she has just brought out. I just thought that during her remarks she had said something about there had been changes that only the Tories wanted. I was trying to point out that we just, of course, reject this. That isn’t the case. This was an impartial speech.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I should clarify here that we should deal with the amendment that Mr. Cassidy has moved and then we can consider any further amendments to the schedule before we carry section 3.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it’s clear from what the Minister of Education has had to say that the government has dug its heels in and does not intend to agree with the amendment that I have put forward.

I would like to make a couple of points in response to the minister, just for the record, before we go to a vote. Perhaps I can say that in the spirit of co-operation we don’t intend to call a vote on this particular section as long as it’s clear for the record that the government has decided to dig in its heels and to perpetuate the strip riding system. We disagree with the government. We think it’s wrong.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): The member wasn’t listening very carefully.

An hon. member: The changes were made by an independent commission.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, let me come to that now. If the minister had listened to the amendment when I read it, the amendment does not try and impose an alternative. It says to the commission, “We don’t think that you carried out your terms of reference in looking at the social economic and ethnic community interests for the Toronto riding, or with the congruity of ward boundaries and that kind of thing. Therefore,” we say to the commission, “go back and do it again and come back to us with a system that will respect that community of interest.”

We don’t tell them what they have to do. We don’t give them a map. It is my understanding, in fact -- and I think the member for St. George mentioned this too -- that they did prepare a map of block ridings in the city of Toronto, and for some reason they decided not to look into that. My feeling about the independence of the commission, which the minister knows, is that it isn’t that the commission isn’t independent; it was relatively independent. The bias was because of the class and breeding of the members, and they just weren’t very good in many ways in what they had to do. That’s probably by-the-by.

They are an independent commission and it’s proper that they be asked to come back with a system of block ridings, rather than this House making those particular amendments. But it is equally proper for us to say to them: “Look, we think you blew it.” This is in the same way that I would have liked to have seen the House send the whole map back to the commission and say: “Look, you’ve got a bias in here in favour of rural Ontario and against fast-growing urban parts of the province. You blew it there, too, and something ought to be done.” But we aren't going to do that at this particular time.

I would point out to the minister as well that nobody has anything to say against the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, the member for Bellwoods, or other members who have represented downtown ridings. They are honourable fellows, all of them. I’m sure that all of them have, in their own ways, tried to represent the people -- whether they were below the salt or above the salt, below Bloor or above Bloor. They have tried to sort out on an individual basis the problems that are particularly concentrated in the working-class ends of their ridings.

But just this week, if I can give a couple of examples, the papers reported about a woman who has been struggling for a full year to get a disability pension under GAINS, because she is completely incapacitated for work and has been enmeshed in red tape for all that period of time. You have the case of the government coming in with a $250,000 subsidy, in effect, for the township of Norfolk which today, or last night, enabled them to definitively break the strike of the CUPE outside workers down in that township. The union has now abandoned the strike and has told its members, to go off and find jobs elsewhere.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): What has that got to do with redistribution?

Mr. B. G. Hodgson: It has nothing to do with the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the point I wanted to make is that the hon. members for the downtown Toronto ridings individually have certainly looked after or, I’m sure, have tried to look after the problems of their people. But they’ve also supported a government which has perpetuated a system in this province that has favoured corporations, that has disfavoured working people, that has disfavoured labour, that has kept people in poverty --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Get back to the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: -- and therefore those problems that they deal with on a Band-Aid basis have continued.

Mr. J. R. Smith: Nonsense.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is unwilling to accept that that is one of the results when you have a strip riding system, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is the difference between the Tories and the socialists.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): If there’s anyone who would make that redistribution of wealth, it is you.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Insofar as it would make a difference, Mr. Chairman, whether the members elected from south of Bloor St. were Tories, Liberals, New Democrats, Social Creditists, Action Canada or members of some other party, I think the minister would have to accept that they would be more effective within their caucus and within this Legislature in articulating the problems and seeking long-term solutions rather than Band-Aids, than they can be when they try to reconcile all of those interests within their heads. I’m sure that the record of the last 32 years demonstrates that particular point.

I’m sorry that the government resists this amendment. I think the amendment does respect the independence of the commission. I hope that some government members, in a miraculous flash conversion, will support the amendment and allow it to be passed. All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly about the comments of my colleague the member for Ontario. He mentioned that the name of Peel is disappearing, which is regrettable, except I would point out that it is perpetuated partially in the north in the new riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. It is to be hoped that in a further redistribution, Peel will go on to remain in the annals of the names of the riding. It is also quite true, Mr. Chairman, that the federal arrangement does permit name changes down the road; Peel South federally was changed to Mississauga, although the boundaries remained the same, so apparently it’s done with ease. Therefore, I would be in sympathy with his suggestion.

Sections 4 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 22 reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that 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 22, the Representation Act, 1975.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM ACT

House in Committee on Bill 3, An Act to regulate Political Party Financing and Election Contributions and Expenses.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to Bill 3, and if so, to what section?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Section 2 is the first one I would like to speak on.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, section 2(d) deals with the appointment of the chairman of the commission. Since the theory behind this Act in principle is insofar as is humanly possible the Act should be administered and the commission should be made up as impartially as possible, it would seem logical to me that the chairman of the commission, rather than being appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, should be appointed by the Legislature, in the same manner as the Speaker is appointed. I would therefore propose an amendment at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Singer moves that subsection (d) of section 2 be amended to read: “The chairman of the commission who shall be appointed by the Legislature for a term of not more than 10 years.”

Mr. Singer: I think that would be in keeping with the principle of this Act and I would think it is a reasonable amendment. I might even go one step further, Mr. Chairman. It would occur to me -- and it did occur to me and to some of my colleagues as we thought about the possibilities of who might be the chairman -- that someone like Arthur Wishart would perhaps be a logical person.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): How would they explain to Roman?

Mr. Singer: I would certainly be prepared to either nominate him in the House as chairman or to support his nomination if somebody else put it forward, but I think it should be an act of the Legislature that should appoint the chairman and I would urge the minister’s co-operation in this kind of a move.

Mr. R. C. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Recommend John White.

Mr. Singer: I think the Legislature should appoint the chairman of the commission and that is the thrust of this amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: John White? How could he be the campaign manager and the commission chairman at the same time?

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment concerning Mr. Singer’s amendment to subsection (d) of section 2?

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Well, sir, this is an idea which might have had consideration at an earlier stage. I have never heard this suggestion made by any person, in the standing committee or elsewhere for that matter. This was not the recommendation of the commission itself, although it spent many months pondering the various elements within the recommendations which are now this bill, and for that reason I would ask the House not to make this amendment.

I think perhaps it might be wise for the commission itself, when established, to consider this suggestion at that time.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, since we are in committee and there are going to be a number of amendments, most of which I suspect the minister is not going to accept, my colleagues and I are going to ask for a division on this and, since there are a number, that there be no vote but that the votes be stacked and we have the vote at the end. So if you want to call the “ayes” and “nays,” I think we’ve got five here who will stand.

Mr. Chairman: I assume that the Chair will not need to re-read the amendment. All those in favour of Mr. Singer’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Is it the wish of the committee that we stack the votes and then deal with them at the completion of the considerations of the committee?

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed. Any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section, and if so, to which one?

Mr. Singer: Section 19 is the next one I have.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before 19?

Sections 3 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 19:

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, section 19 is the section that deals with contributions, and those who have read the Act, certainly those who were down in the standing committee, are familiar with it. To refresh my memory, as well as those of other members, it sets out a scheme whereby in any one year $2,000 can be given by a person or a trade union or a corporation to a party, and $500 to a constituency association, except that you can multiply that by four and get up to $2,000. Those amounts can be doubled in a year in which there is an election.

However, where I discover some considerable difficulty is in subsection 3 of section 19 which deems money to be used in a political campaign by a candidate as one of those donations. A candidate is limited to putting $500 of his own money into his own campaign, and that’s all.

There have been -- and those of us who have been in politics a while will know of this -- occasional campaigns where there has not been enough money collected to pay all of the debts. The people who supply the printing or the posters or the lawn signs or what have you have a habit of liking to be paid. They’re small merchants who have provided services. They are small retailers and small businessmen and they have advanced their goods and their services on the credit of the candidate, by and large -- really only on the credit of the candidate, because in these affairs, the buck stops at the candidate. There’s no one beyond that to whom the responsibility can be put.

This section limits the candidate to putting in $500. Supposing there has been a deficit campaign, what happens to the printer who isn’t going to get paid, who can’t be legally paid by the candidate? The minister said if that ever happened all the good people in the riding would rally together and throw some more money into the pot. The minister is a little more optimistic than I am. Perhaps it’s because of the minister’s experience of always having been elected on the government’s side. But if you get elected on the opposition side or, worse still, defeated -- either on the government side or on the opposition side -- it’s very hard to appeal to all those good people in the riding to rally for the sake of the defeated candidate who wasn’t even representing the party which won the election and say, “Come on, fellows, let’s get together and pay the good old printer his money because he was a nice fellow. I, the candidate can’t pay him but you, my good friends, should put the money in and pay him.”

Alternatively, the minister suggested, “Well, too bad for the printer, but you can pay him off over a series of years. You can give him $500 every year until the thing is finally retired.” I don’t think that’s fair and I don’t think it’s a reasonable way to expect elections to be run.

The minister says it’s a problem and people are just going to have to live with it. I’ll tell you what is going to happen, Mr. Chairman. When printers in the various constituencies and other suppliers of election services become aware of it, they’re going to stop extending credit, and not because they mistrust the candidate, but because they’re going to know that the candidate is limited to $500. If there is a deficit position in the election financing, the user of those services is not going to be able to put in the money.

However, it’s easier perhaps to state the problem than it is to state the solution. I stated the problem in committee and now I think have a solution that’s going to depend on this amendment carrying and another amendment to section 39 carrying. The thrust of my amendment will be that, if there is a deficit position, the candidate can apply to the commission for permission to pay the deficit and the commission, if it feels the circumstances warrant it, shall give him that permission to put additional money into his campaign up to a limit which will be set out in section 39.

The minister made the argument, when I put forward that suggestion in the committee, and I think reasonably validly, that --

Hon. Mr. White: What limit?

Mr. Singer: I’m suggesting 50 cents a voter, which is roughly $20,000 a riding, that you can spend up to $20,000 in a constituency.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Ridiculous.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): What kind of people can afford that?

Mr. Singer: Pardon?

Mr. J. R. Smith: What members could afford that?

Mr. Singer: The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), when I suggested a $10,000 limit on everything, said, “my goodness gracious. I could never run a campaign on $10,000; I spent $13,000 last time.”

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): He’ll need more this time.

Mr. Singer: I don’t know how much he will need.

Hon. Mr. White: The member for Ottawa Centre has spent $45,000 since the last election.

Mr. Singer: The member for Ottawa --

Mr. Cassidy: It was well spent, too, in financing services in the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Whatever it is -- I’m not wedded to the $20,000 figure -- I’d think there should be a limit on top expenditures and I’ll argue that one when we come to section 39.

I would think if there is a deficit position disclosed by the audit and statement the candidate has to put in -- he is required by this statute to put it in -- and he goes before the commission and says, “We’ve overspent. There are several of our suppliers who are not going to be paid, who can’t legally be paid by me. I will now want permission to put more money into the pot to pay those debts,” the commission can give him that permission up to the extent of whatever the top limit is.

I think that makes some sense but to do that properly you have to make that allowance here in 19 and put a top limit on in section 39 when we come to it.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am going to move an amendment. It is not that well drafted and I notice that legislative counsel is over there and he can certainly clean up the wording.

Mr. Singer moves that section 3 be amended by adding after the word “commission” the words, “provided that if the accounts of a candidate as filed with the commission show that there has been more money spent during the campaign period than the total of what has been contributed to the candidate and paid to him under the provisions of section 45 [and section 45 is the payment back out of the public purse section] a candidate may, with the permission of the commission, contribute more than is permitted to be contributed by him by section 19 as long as the total received on behalf of the candidate from contributions and reimbursements under 45 and his own contribution do not exceed the amounts set out in section 39.”

Mr. Singer: It is not the most expertly worded amendment but its intention is quite clear and I would be prepared to have it rewritten by legislative counsel.

The minister is aware of what I am getting at. I think it is an important problem and I think it is one we have to wrestle with. I think we have to establish the credibility of candidates who are running and allow them to carry on and represent themselves as responsible people to people who are going to supply services. If there are services and/or goods supplied, the people who supply them should be able to get paid and have a reasonable expectation of getting paid and getting paid legally.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, we will not support this amendment. It is meaningful only to people who have very large incomes of $50,000, $60,000 or $100,000 a year or who have inherited great wealth or who have substantial retainers and that kind of side income in order to permit them to consider funding to the tune of $20,000 or so a campaign which went into deficit.

On this particular point I think we are ad idem -- is that not the word? -- with the minister in saying the candidate should be bound by the same rules as everybody else. The rules themselves in my opinion are extraordinarily generous because they will permit a candidate directly and by means of his party to give $2,500 per annum to his riding; $5,000 in an election year. More than that, he can contribute by means of his spouse as well. Surely that is ample flexibility and surely there is a responsibility on the part of a candidate and his committee to keep from going too excessively into debt on the one hand, and on the other on the part of a riding association and a party to bail out those few campaigns which might go seriously into debt.

We will, therefore, not agree with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand the section will be passed when we vote on this amendment or can I bring up a point after the vote in relation to section 19?

Mr. Chairman: Is it on a previous subsection of the section?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, really it is. Maybe I could just make the point, Mr. Chairman, because I am not going to bring an amendment on it. Just to continue in the vein I was talking in -- the minister has heard this argument downstairs but I will make it here in the House for the record. It seems to us that the spending limits that have been put into this bill remain unrealistically high and should have been reduced. They permit any individual, trade union or corporation to give 4,000 bucks per annum in an off year and 8,000 bucks in an election year and --

Mr. Singer: Bucks?

Mr. Cassidy: Dollars -- and a man and his spouse who work as one economic unit can give $8,000 in an off year and $16,000 in an election year. The sums that are involved are quite out of proportion to what people earn in the province today. The idea of broadening participation does not, in my view, seem to be accomplished by means of this particular section; or if it is accomplished, it just simply means that we have broadened participation from a half of one per cent of the population, in the case of the old parties, to one or 1 1/2 per cent.

I would also suggest that the extra amounts permitted during an election year are not really reasonable. In an election year you broaden participation. A lot of people who are inactive financially, or in other ways, outside of elections, become active. Therefore, whether it’s a small merchant or an architect or a businessman or a trade union or an individual contributor, you get a large pool of contributors who are willing to donate financially to a campaign who are not so turned on by a party that they will contribute to it for its ongoing support. Therefore, it seems to us that it’s not necessary to have such a substantial increased contribution limit during the course of an election year.

We would have suggested that the amount be limited to $2,000 per annum to each registered party or its constituency association, or any combination thereof. So you can go anywhere from $2,000 for one riding to $2,000 spread over 20 ridings, whatever you want to do. The present somewhat artificial distinction should be abandoned, since the minister himself has acknowledged that there is nothing to stop moneys given to a political party being earmarked for a particular constituency association.

I have been thinking about that, Mr. Chairman. It strikes me that in fact there is nothing to stop money being given to the London South riding association, for example, within that $500 limit by a partisan of the member for London North (Mr. Walker) who earmarks that money given to London South and asks that it be passed through to London North. And then the London South association, being co-operative about these things, could, in turn, pass that amount of money on to London North. It seems to me that infinite amount of earmarking could be done, so that it is just a matter of bookkeeping in order to avoid the $500 limit.

At any rate, we don’t see much point in a specific limit to constituencies, provided that the overall limit on contributions is realistic. Now, the House knows how the vote will go on this. This government would have opposed this particular amendment, and, since there are one or two points on which I want to concentrate, I don’t propose to bring an amendment at this time. But that’s the way we feel about these overgenerous limits on contributions in section 19.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on Mr. Singer’s amendment? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, I couldn’t support the amendment. The commission investigated this matter carefully. The committee itself heard these arguments in the standing committee on justice. The committee has passed the section in front of us. I think one of the efforts being made here is to give a poor citizen the same opportunity to run for the Legislature as a rich citizen. The idea that the rich candidate can avoid all of the rules post facto, with or without the consent of the commission, is anathema to me personally.

We all see examples here of wealthy citizens who have been able to entrench themselves here -- the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson).

Mr. Singer: The member for London South (Mr. White) -- London South, yes.

Hon. Mr. White: And so one of the objectives is to put the less prosperous citizen on the same basis as the more prosperous citizen, which this bill helps to do. To give the advantage post facto, instead of in advance, I think does not in any way overcome the disadvantage which I mentioned.

I think it’s worth mentioning, sir, that no candidate has been successfully sued in Canada --

Mr. Singer: That’s not so.

Hon. Mr. White: -- for campaign indebtedness, or so I’m told by experts in this field. I continue to hold the belief that the obligation is a joint one involving the candidate, the constituency association and the party, and that provision should not be made in a bill of this kind to single out the candidate for particular or exclusive responsibility for the indebtedness.

I do believe that candidates for election and successful candidates for election bear an inordinate financial burden as it is. As the member for Downsview has pointed out, a candidate together with his constituency association and the party has a period of time in which to clear off the indebtedness. In fact, a candidate may himself give in any one election year $500 plus $500 plus $2,000 plus $2,000, for $5,000. From a practical and ethical point of view, I would hope that a candidate would never have to contribute any more than that election year maximum.

My friend from Ottawa Centre says the spending limits are too high, although he was candid enough to confess to us that he himself spends more than $11,000 a year, mostly generated by his friends, to maintain a continuous campaign, so to speak, in his riding.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, it is raised by people in my riding.

Hon. Mr. White: That is correct. I’m trying to make that clear.

Mr. Cassidy: It is continuous service to the riding.

Hon. Mr. White: When he objects to the limits in this context, it is rather at odds, it must be said, with the $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000 -- what shall we say? -- that the member will spend from one election day to the next election day. Once again, I think these limits are sensible.

Mr. Cassidy: It costs us $40,000 a year just to keep you in the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. White: If they are too confining, there will be minor inventions attempted which would be completely contrary to the spirit of the Act. I do believe, sir, that the spirit of the Act is extremely important in this matter. The standards established, as well as the legal terminology, will have an enormous effect on candidates, constituency associations and parties.

Certainly we, as the Progressive Conservative Party which brought in this historic and revolutionary legislation, are determined to be the party to be most effective in its application.

Those are my comments on this section.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: The minister sets up straw men, knocks them down and waxes emotional. You forgot to say this was the best statute in the whole world; I thought that was part of the litany. You forgot that one.

Hon. Mr. White: I’m going to say that on another section.

Mr. Singer: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the amendment I propose has nothing to do with rich candidates or poor candidates as the member for London South knows full well I’m talking about a figure for a candidate’s operation which is not unreasonable in light of what has happened in past elections, provincial and federal. I’m not singling out expenditures by Gillies, White, Robarts, Dalton Camp or people like that.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): How about Cafik?

Mr. Singer: I’m talking about a figure. I put forward a $10,000 figure and the member for Timiskaming suggested he could never run a campaign within those limits. I don’t think $20,000 is elaborate at all. The suggestion from the minister that this would allow rich people to take over is a bunch of nonsense and he knows it.

The minister knows far better than I how much was made available to each Conservative candidate, 117 of them, who ran in the election in 1971. If that didn’t make many of them rich candidates, I’d like to know what it did make them. I don’t think this is an untoward amendment at all. I think it is a reasonable one. I think it is one that is going to be repeated throughout the province particularly when and if printers, sign painters and suppliers of goods and services are not going to be legally paid, and I think that’s important.

The minister got an idea from someone, I don’t know who it was, that there had never been a candidate successfully sued for an election debt. I say that’s utter fable.

Mr. Drea: Norm Cafik.

Mr. Singer: There are lots of candidates who have been sued for election debts and judgments have been given against them. These things don’t make legal history; they aren’t reported at great length in the law journals. There is nothing very unique about printer A suing candidate B for goods and services and getting a judgement for the amount of those goods and services. I am quite sure that anybody who wants to look through the law journals is not going to find a simple case for debt reported, because it makes no brand new law.

Judgements come after every election against candidates who haven’t paid their bills. Whoever gave the hon. minister that advice just didn’t know what he was talking about. If he said there were no unusual cases reported along that line, I could go along with it, but there have been cases.

It is unfortunate that occasionally candidates appear who don’t pay their debts after the election is over, and it makes it more difficult for other people who run in the same general area, because the people who supply those goods and services get a little suspicious of supplying goods and services on credit during an election campaign. There are a lot of people in this chamber who know that to be absolutely true.

This is an important amendment and I would hope the minister will not give us a snow job. If he doesn’t want to accept it, as he has indicated he doesn’t, that’s fine. But don’t surround it with all the nonsense and all the fable, because it just isn’t so.

Mr. Chairman: Does anybody else wish to speak on this amendment? I take it that the committee agrees to stack this amendment and deal with it at the end of the considerations.

Sections 20 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Section 31, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: On section 31:

On section 31:

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and direct about this. The question of affiliation fees, which are a form of membership for members of the labour movement, has come up repeatedly during the course of this debate, first upstairs and then downstairs when we were meeting in committee. I have to say that the minister has been ungenerous in the way in which he has treated this particular matter, and that he may even have helped to lead us into some mistaken understanding of the previous section, section 31.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, there has been a renumbering and, in fact, I am speaking about 32, to which I have an amendment. I can make my comments to 31 on 32? Can I refer to 32, on which I want to move an amendment?

Mr. Chairman: Shall we carry 31 and continue the comments on 32?

Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, section 31, which we have just passed, was said by the minister and was said by the legislative counsel to cover the question of affiliation fees for members of trade unions because of the fact that it allowed a trade union affiliation fee not to be considered as a contribution but to be passed through in the form of a membership fee.

That seemed to be okay. I’m afraid that there is a certain problem on our part, that we didn’t read the fine print as carefully as we should have, because it also says that the party or the constituency association shall “maintain a membership list indicating the amount of such fee or fees paid by each member that is allocated to the political party or constituency association, as the case may be.”

If I can go back to the beginning of the question of affiliation fees, they amount right now to the sum of 10 cents a month and they give the individual trade unionist the right to vote in the riding to which he belongs and, therefore, are a membership fee giving him the same rights as any other direct member of the party. All he has to do is identify himself to the riding executive and state that he lives in that riding and that he is an affiliated member and has the support of his trade union secretary or treasurer. They also give an affiliated member of a trade union the right to participate in the selection of the delegates representing those affiliates at various levels of the party, at provincial council, at provincial conventions, the federal leadership convention and so on and so forth.

They are, therefore, quite different from the contribution that is made by a local or the contribution that is made by council of trade unions, or a national trade union or provincial trade union or whatever, which do not provide any rights to vote at all. They are also quite different from the contribution by a corporation to one of the older parties, which also does not provide that corporation with the right to vote within the councils of that particular party.

We have maintained that the corporate money may provide influence, but when it comes down to the democratic structure of that party the votes that are taken by representatives of individual members in every case. That’s true of all three parties, as for example at leadership conventions. I wish that the minister would understand that particular distinction.

The difficulty arises that in the labour movement there are now 18 locals across the province, for example, which have affiliated status and have more than 2,000 members, and they are in violation of the Act effective today, or whenever the Act comes into force, because of the way in which the affiliation fees are going to be considered. In order to bring them back into conformity, we’re going to have to ask the labour movement or the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party is going to have to ask them -- if they happen to have any affiliates, because it certainly is just as open to them to have affiliated trade union members as it is to us if they should so desire -- to ask them to get a list of members who were affiliated from those trade unions.

Their difficulty is that in many cases their membership may change month by month. In some cases where you have fairly transient kinds of trades, it may change on a very high level, Mr. Chairman. Every year or so a democratic vote is taken by the members of that local to confirm or continue the affiliation or to resist a disaffiliation. There is no question, therefore, about the support or the endorsement that is involved in directing their funds to provide those rights of membership. That’s not the problem. But there are enormous practical problems involved in saying there should be a membership list; and enormous problems as well in terms of interfering with the way in which the labour movement has traditionally worked.

As far as corporations are concerned and as far as individuals are concerned, there is not that interference involved in this particular bill, Mr. Chairman. As far as most sections of the bill go as well, the government has scrupulously sought to follow the recommendations of the Camp commission. However, when it came to the question of trade union contributions, the government acted otherwise. I don’t know if I can find the reference here. The minister knows it and I can just quote it in general. The Camp commission report said that, “this is a traditional means by which trade union members contributed to the party of their choice and, therefore, should not be interfered with by the Act.” There has been a gross interference by the Act, Mr. Chairman, because these contributions which are directed by individuals have been convoluted or changed and deemed to be contributions by trade unions.

If the president of Imperial Oil or the executive of a small machine shop or whatever, wishes to give a personal contribution, that contribution is not deducted from the eligible contribution that can be made by his company. That’s true even in the case where it is a one-person company or a personal corporation, where his family, for example, controls the corporation. They can each give individually and they can still have their company give individually. We do not require that there be a list of the shareholders of a corporation to back up any donation it gives to a political party; nor do we require, as the minister suggested privately a couple of times, that in order for a corporation to give there should be positive support in the form of a signature or consent, given by each individual shareholder. That has not been done, either. Within the corporate structure it is acknowledged that, if the board of directors approves a donation to a political party, then within the limits set by the Act, that’s okay.

Trade union structure is far more democratic than is corporate structure, Mr. Chairman. As we’ve indicated from the record, there have been disaffiliations. There have been tough fights. In certain cases you have 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the plant which has opted out where there has been a strong campaign to do that. In every case an individual has the right to opt out so that his money is not directed into a trade union.

We’re talking about a way in which a large group of people are unable to participate in the political process. That was one of the purposes of the whole series of reforms that was suggested by the Camp commission. But now the government, gratuitously and perhaps in a way trying to contribute to its own partisan advantage, has come in and interfered with this particular form of financing of the political process, Mr. Chairman, I can’t say very much more. The points have been raised in committee.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 31 of Bill 3 be amended by renumbering section 31 as section 31(1) and adding section 31(2) as follows:

“Affiliation fees of not more than 10 cents per month from any member of a bargaining unit represented by a trade union shall not be considered contributions for the purposes of this Act.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we’ve tried to accommodate the minister’s comments in making this particular amendment. We’ve left the existing section 32 as its stands. I’m not sure why it’s in there, but we’ve left it as it stands in order to close off a loophole that the government apparently may have seen.

In discussion in the committee, the minister seemed to say very clearly that as long as a membership fee was an affiliation fee -- say an affiliation fee of $1.20 a year that gave rights of membership -- that was okay by him, except for the fact that he thought it should go through under the presently numbered section 31.

All I’m saying to him is that we appreciate his good wishes. We appreciate the comments that he made -- a bit gratuitously, but all the same I think they were well meant -- that the NDP does not have the same financial sources as the other two parties and has tended to be underfinanced. We also appreciate the other comments he made, but in practice he’s not implementing that agreement that he seemed to give in words. We are asking him to agree now to this amendment, which would allow affiliation fees to be given in the traditional way, as the Camp committee recommended. We recommend nothing more than the Camp committee recommendation -- nothing more than that at all.

I would ask very much that the minister agree with this, Mr. Chairman, rather than having a policy that seems to hit at one party in particular. The Camp committee was pretty fair, you know, and I wish we could keep it that way, rather than deviating from it just at the points that hurt one particular party.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, we cannot support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think this is hitting one party any more than another party. Presumably, as these democratic unions come together they offer their support to the several parties represented in this Legislature.

I don’t see this as being any particular difficulty. It is true that unions may choose to utilize the new section 31 instead of section 32, and in the process will have to list the members of the union who are deemed to be contributors and members of the NDP. But surely this is part and parcel of the whole spirit of the Act. While it is true it is a bit of a nuisance to record those names in a big union or a small union, it’s a nuisance for constituency associations and others to record every penny received and every penny expended. So I think the nuisance in itself is not reason enough to change it.

My hon. friend from Ottawa Centre brings more passion to bear on this than he might in other circumstances, because through no fault of his own he missed the meeting we had scheduled with certain union leaders; and then, again through no fault of his own, he wasn’t in the committee when the section was passed. So he’s trying make up a little bit for the lost ground and redeem himself in the sight of these very outstanding union leaders who were more or less prepared to lynch him after those two mishaps a week or so ago.

At any rate, substantively speaking, I see no meaningful inhibition insofar as affiliation fees are concerned. If the union is large enough that this becomes a financial constraint to overall contributions, they can reorder their affairs as provided under new section 31; and while this in itself is a little bit of a nuisance, there are many features of this bill which are somewhat of a nuisance to thousands of contributors, to hundreds of constituency associations, to hundreds of candidates and so on. That nuisance is the price we pay for having an open, public financing system as provided for in this great bill.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Well I don’t have to redeem myself, so I want to talk about it for a minute.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, you have to redeem yourself for many other errors.

An hon. member: We won’t go into that.

Mr. Deans: My colleague the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) tells me that was a religious reference -- is that true?

I always thought that the purpose of this bill was to obtain open disclosure, more or less, of financial transactions related to political parties. It wasn’t intended to cause any undue or unnecessary extra work. It wasn’t intended to cause either or any political party any undue or unnecessary hardship. The purpose was to try to get above board the contributions of individuals, corporations and trade unions to political organizations.

Over the last number of years, the trade union movement has contributed openly, publicly, with full disclosure, to the NDP. There has never been a doubt in anyone’s mind at any time that the trade unions contributed to the NDP. The amounts they contributed were public. The manner in which the contributions were determined was public and democratic. They did, in fact, comply, as one segment of society, with the general objectives of the legislation.

There were never any under-the-table contributions. The contributions from any segment of the trade union movement to the NDP -- and in some instances I might say to other people in other parties, but primarily to the NDP -- was a matter of public record. There was never any question about it. Nobody suggested for a moment -- and I don’t think this minister is suggesting -- that there was anything underhanded about the way in which they dealt prior to the Act coming in.

Now, if it is true that the purpose of the legislation is to regularize and to make more open the political financing procedures of political parties, then it ought not to be used in any way to try and reduce the levels of support that are available to political parties from any sector.

I want to suggest to you that the arrangements that had been previously in effect between the trade unions and the NDP had caused no hardship. The procedure that was followed was a very regular and open process. Affiliation within the trade unions to the New Democratic Party was in most cases -- I can’t say in all; I haven’t had a chance to look at every case -- but in most instances it was at a level less than the full membership of the union involved in order to make allowances for people who may feel under certain duress, or who may feel under some pressure not to opt out. There was, in the contributions that were made on behalf of that union to the party, an allowance, in most instances, for that group of people who would feel uncomfortable about opting out.

Let’s look at the procedure sensibly for a moment. The procedure that is used, as the minister knows, is a very normal procedure. There would be a notice of motion placed on the agenda of a meeting that at a subsequent meeting there would be a discussion and a vote held with regard to affiliation of that union and its members to the New Democratic Party. A period of time, not less than 30 days to my knowledge, but certainly in most instances more than 30 days would elapse between the time that notice was posted and the membership was made aware of the meeting and the day the meeting was held for the purposes of discussing affiliation.

When that meeting was held, every single member of the union was entitled to be present -- every one; and every member of that union was entitled to vote for or against the affiliation. The normal procedure used by the unions of which I have personal knowledge was that the amount of the affiliation -- in other words, the percentage of the affiliation that they agreed upon -- was in proportion to the vote cast.

Even if it turned out that 100 per cent of those present voted, in addition to that they made allowances that there would likely be people who would not want their 10 cents a month to go to the NDP. Once the vote had been cast, the ballots tabulated or the hands counted and the decision had been reached, assuming it was in the affirmative -- that they did want to affiliate -- they said to the members: “If there is one among you who would not like to have his money go to the NDP, you are free to inform the recording secretary of that and your money will not go for that purpose.”

I really must say I can’t think of any other organization in the world which deals as fairly as that. I say to you that when any corporation sits down to make a decision or when the board of directors sits down to make a decision on the appropriateness of making a financial contribution to the Conservative Party, or the Liberal Party no vote of the shareholders takes place.

No notice of motion goes out to the shareholders of that corporation asking if it would be okay to hold a meeting 30 days later, the purpose of which would be to discuss whether or not an appropriate sum of money should be sent to either of the other two parties, the Liberals or the Conservatives. There is no opportunity for the shareholders to vote prior to that money being sent, nor is there a consideration that some of the shareholders might support the NDP or someone else. There is no option to opt in or out in those cases; none, no option. The board of directors, acting on behalf of the shareholders, goes ahead without any authorization of any kind, without even having to report the size of the contribution or to show it in the books in an open and aboveboard way.

We understand that what you’re saying is you’re attempting as a government to destroy the financial arrangement there was between the NDP and its supporters. Let’s put it squarely before the public -- that’s what you are doing. It has nothing at all to do with whether it’s appropriate or whether it isn’t. What you’re really about is that what you can’t do at the ballot box you’ll do behind the scenes.

There is no justification for that. There was not one single hint at any time of anything untoward or underhand being done with regard to the affiliation of the trade unionists to the NDP. There never was. I don’t understand why the government, acting through this minister, feels compelled to alter a structure which has been in existence and which has been the financial backbone of this party over its entire history, other than vindictiveness; other than an attempt being made by the government on its own behalf and on behalf of its friends in the Liberal caucus to undermine the NDP.

Mr. Singer: I hadn’t heard that.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Sometimes I wonder why the member for Downsview doesn’t become a Conservative. He’d be quite at home there.

Mr. Deans: That’s the purpose of the exercise, that’s all it is. There is no other reason.

Hon. Mr. White: You are having a pipe dream.

Mr. Deans: The right to affiliate and to pay a membership fee, predetermined by a convention is not the same thing as making a contribution to a political party.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: The decision as to how the membership fee and how the affiliation will be made, is surely a matter for discussion between the people who want to affiliate and the party with which they want to affiliate. I don’t understand why we’ve got into this mess. I don’t really understand why you’re doing this. If it isn’t for vindictive reasons; what are the reasons?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): They are happy with the 60/40 relationship.

Mr. Deans: What are the reasons? Why is it that you feel it necessary --

Mr. Stokes: It’s 60 for you and 40 for them.

Mr. Deans: Why is it that you feel it necessary as a government to tell that segment of society which has always operated openly with regard to its affiliations and has always done so in a very structured, reasonable, predetermined, legal way --

Mr. Stokes: Responsible.

Mr. Deans: Responsible, my colleague says; it has always been that -- why is it that you feel it necessary now to move in on that segment and to deny it its democratic rights?

Hon. Mr. White: What are you talking about?

Mr. Deans: That’s what I am talking about. Their right to decide whether or not they can affiliate their membership.

Hon. Mr. White: You don’t even understand these two sections.

Mr. Deans: I most certainly do and you are putting obstacles in the way unnecessarily.

Mr. Lawlor: Only two left.

Hon. Mr. White: You had better reread 31.

Mr. Lawlor: He knows what the game is.

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, what?

Hon. Mr. White: You had better reread 31. You are not comprehending the import of 31 in the light of 32 as presently written.

Mr. Deans: It is okay for you to say I don’t comprehend the import of 31 in the light of 32.

Let me say to the minister that either he doesn’t understand the relationship -- you don’t understand that -- or else he chooses to ignore it. It can only be one of those two explanations.

There is no justification at all, in any way, for infringing on the rights of those unions to proceed as they have always done; and as you admit, it is open.

Hon. Mr. White: Nobody can proceed as he has always done.

Mr. Deans: I am sorry; pardon?

Hon. Mr. White: No person or association can proceed as they have always done. That’s why this is a reform Act.

Mr. Deans: You are assuming, from that statement, that change for the sake of change is a worthwhile thing.

Hon. Mr. White: Never.

Mr. Deans: The fact of the matter is that the procedure followed in the affiliation process was a much more democratic procedure, allowing for individual expression and allowing for collective action. What you have done is say they can’t do that. There is no reason they can’t do it; they can’t simply because we have to change this around here.

If you could tell me it is better; if you can tell me that’s a better way to deal with it; that you will know more about the organization, you will know more about the contributions, you will have a better handle on the contributions and you will be more able to expose the degree of financial involvement under your Act than was previously available, then of course there should be change.

If there was something wrong with the way it was done; if it was somehow hidden, if it wasn’t done openly and above board and democratically, with lots of notice, lots of participation and with the option to opt out at the end if you still didn’t like the decision of the majority; if you can tell me there is something wrong with that procedure, then there should be change. In heaven’s name, what other organization in the world says to people, “We will give you notice, the opportunity to speak your mind, the opportunity to vote, and if you don’t like the decision of the majority you can opt out”?

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Do you raise your hand or walk up to the man in charge?

Mr. Deans: You don’t have to do that. All you do is put a note in his hand and say: “Please, don’t allow my money to go there.” What other democratic system provides that kind of option?

Good lord, I can’t think of anything more democratic than to say to a man who has been defeated on the floor of any meeting: “No matter what the outcome, if it goes against your wishes, you can opt out.”

Mr. Kerr: Does he get police protection?

Mr. Deans: Don’t be silly. It’s a lot more serious than that.

Mr. Kerr: I know.

Mr. Deans: You don’t allow that politically. You don’t allow it in here. You don’t say to people out in the community at large that, after there has been a democratically held meeting and a vote taken, if you don’t like the outcome you can say, “No, I’m not going to do that.” In the trade union movement they allowed for that; and then you turn around and tell me you couldn’t leave it as it was?

What kind of nonsense are you talking about? Why do you feel it necessary to change what was a perfectly democratically arrived at decision?

I understand that other options open to us as a party. I know that in dollar terms it isn’t going to cost us a single solitary cent by someone else’s calculations. I don’t really care too much about that. What worries me is why you intrude into something which was already public.

If you were saying to me that now there has to be a vote of the shareholders and that whatever the percentage of the moneys, based on any criteria with regard to the income of the corporation --

Hon. Mr. White: Could I interrupt the hon. member for just a minute?

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Hon. Mr. White: I would be quite willing to entertain a change to the section, providing affiliation fees were a matter of opting in --

Mr. Deans: But they are.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and we parallel that on the corporate side by saying that shareholders, when levied upon by their board of directors must opt in also, because this is the analogy. It’s false to compare contributions given by the corporate body to contributions given by members of a union at the behest of the union. A true analogy is funds given by the corporation and funds given by the trade union from the trade union’s treasury and not from the pockets of the union membership.

If my hon. friend will accept the principle of opting in insofar as affiliation fees are concerned for both members of trade unions and shareholders in a corporation, then I think perhaps we could make some changes.

Mr. Deans: It’s a red herring and I am not going to get sucked into it, because it just happens that I know the game.

Hon. Mr. White: It would be a very fair game.

Mr. Deans: I am going back to it because it is important. You talk about opting in. I want to tell you, first of all, that there is the option to opt in. The option is exercised at a meeting when one’s hand is raised or one’s ballot is cast. That opts you in or out.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, could we put that in the bill?

Mr. Deans: It’s already there. When the meeting is held and the people cast their ballot, they opt in or out.

Hon. Mr. White: This being the case, can we put it in the bill?

Mr. Deans: it is already there.

Hon. Mr. White: You have no objection to it going in the bill?

Mr. Deans: There must be a meeting held --

Hon. Mr. White: That is not opting in.

Mr. Deans: You can be cute.

Mr. Stokes: He is just being obtuse.

Mr. Deans: No, he is not being obtuse, he is being cute. There’s a difference.

Mr. Lawlor: He is being cutely obtuse.

Mr. Deans: The fact of the matter is that there is already an opting-in process. In addition to the opting process, there is an added safeguard that the individual can opt out if he loses.

I say to the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Downer) who is celebrating one of his birthdays --

Hon. Mr. White: His 29th.

Mr. Deans: -- can he think of any organization that he belongs to that affords people the chance to opt in by a ballot, and then to opt out if they don’t win?

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Every Sunday.

Mr. Deans: Does he know of any?

Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Yes, our church.

Mr. Deans: Where? Church- You don’t opt in or out there. Hopefully we are all in.

I don’t understand why the minister is being the way he is in this, because when the vote is held and people exercise their privilege to vote, whatever way they vote is their indication of opting in or out initially. That’s the first option open to them. They opt to become a member or not to become a member. If the majority opt to become members --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The majority of those present.

Mr. Deans: They are all entitled to be there. They don’t add it up at the end of --

An hon. member: The majority of ballots cast --

Mr. Deans: That’s true of any organization.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Those present here vote.

Mr. Deans: Don’t pull in silly things like that. If the majority opt to go into the affiliation process, the minority then, having lost the vote, are still entitled to opt out. And not only that, any number of the majority who may at some time change their mind are still entitled to opt out. At any subsequent time, given the same notice of motion, another meeting can be held at which the whole matter can be reconsidered.

You can’t tell me that’s not democratic and fair. You couldn’t sit and tell me that, because I know you wouldn’t be telling me what you really believe. You can’t tell me it isn’t democratic and fair.

You may not change it, that’s fine; but I want it on the record. I happen to think that given the wide range of procedure that has to be followed; given that there has to be the notice, given that there has to be the meeting with discussion, given that there has to be a vote taken, given that there is then the further option that if you personally don’t like the outcome of the vote, as an individual you can say: “I don’t want any part of it”; given that’s the democratic process, then I can’t think of a better one.

You can tell me about different ones. There are different ways of doing it, but they’re not any better and they don’t provide any more democracy and freedom of choice. You may have a different system; it’s not necessarily any better.

The system that is in effect at the moment satisfies by far the majority of the people involved. It’s not a matter of us, meaning the NDP, getting an edge in the financing, because that’s not likely ever to happen, in terms of total financing of campaigns or anything else. I just, frankly, put to you that everything that you’re looking for is already there -- everything.

I don’t understand why you won’t just accept what is already in place, because it satisfies every single criterion of Camp. It goes further, in fact. It also satisfies every single criterion of any democratic system anywhere in the world. What you’re doing is tampering with democracy, and you’re doing it to satisfy your own ends.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, from time to time during the past four elections I had wondered how democratic the procedure was, because the NDP was getting the dimes and I was getting the votes. However, my eloquent friend, the acting leader of the NDP, and I use the word “acting” advisedly, has persuaded me as to the purity of this process. Now I am asking him if it wouldn’t be appropriate to enshrine this pure democratic procedure in the bill before us, by requiring affiliation fees to be on an opting-in basis, insofar as they affected both members of a trade union and shareholders of a corporation.

Mr. Deans: In response to the question, if it would be possible for us to stand the section down and to draft a section which would say, (a) that there must be notice of any meeting to be held for the purposes of affiliation, (b) that that notice must precede the meeting by 30 days, (c) that every member of the organization is entitled to take part in the meeting, (d) that a vote shall be taken at the meeting at the choice of the membership, (e) that the person not satisfied with the outcome of the vote may inform the organization of his or her intention --

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute.

Mr. Chairman: Point of order.

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order, sir, we are not talking about contributions from a trade union treasury or contributions from a corporate treasury. What we are talking about under sections 31 and 32 are affiliation fees.

Mr. Deans: That’s what I’m talking about.

Hon. Mr. White: I put a proposition to the hon. member: Let’s put both members of a trade union and shareholders in a corporation --

Mr. Deans: There is no affiliation process.

Hon. Mr. White: -- on an opting-in basis insofar as levying affiliation fees is concerned.

Mr. Deans: Well, then, let’s go back again. As I said, you’re cute but not clever.

Hon. Mr. White: Fair and square.

Mr. Deans: Cute but not clever. First of all, the corporation don’t affiliate to the Conservative or the Liberal parties. There is no affiliation process, none. So, we’re talking about two entirely different things.

Hon. Mr. White: There is no levy on shareholders.

Mr. Deans: There is no affiliation process from corporations to the Conservative or the Liberal parties.

Hon. Mr. White: No levy on shareholders.

Mr. Deans: There is, though, a determination made by the board of directors to contribute out of the profits to the Liberal and Conservative parties. That’s another matter. That comes under contributions.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): What makes you think you’re so pure, my friend?

Mr. Deans: We’re not pure. I’m trying to prove to you that there’s something wrong with your thinking in it.

So, therefore, you can’t talk about opting in on an affiliation basis from the corporations because they don’t do it. Okay? Then you agree with me on that? They don’t do it.

What we are talking about in this discussion is one segment of society that contributes in a membership way, or affiliates itself as direct participating members in this political party, the NDP. That’s all we’re talking about. You’re not talking about anybody else. You’re not talking about any of your friends. You’re talking about our friends. Those are the ones you’re talking about.

The intention of the legislation is clear. The intention is to make it so damned difficult that they can’t affiliate; that’s the intention.

I am saying to you, tell me where there is one shred of anti-democratic behaviour in the existing procedure followed. You tell me where there is one shred that deserves that it should be altered in the way that you have decided to alter it; given that we are not talking about anyone who supports you -- you meaning the Conservatives or the Liberal Party -- but given that we are talking only about supporters of the NDP.

Show me one shred of evidence that the procedure followed, starting with the notice of motion, going to the meeting, going to the vote, going to the right of the individual member, if he loses, to opt out from what the majority decided; given that every single dime buys a membership in the party which entitles them to take part in every aspect of party organization; it gives them the right to attend conventions in appropriate numbers to the numbers affiliated. It gives them the opportunity to put on the record their views with regard to policy within the party.

You show me any other organization that has democracy to that extent. You tell me what’s wrong with it. You tell me where the opting in process doesn’t already exist, then we can talk about something that we both understand.

I am saying to you that right now when those people go to that meeting and vote --

Hon. Mr. White: May I ask --

Mr. Deans: One moment. When those people go to that meeting and vote, they are exercising their option to opt in or to opt out. And from that point on, having once exercised the option, they are then entitled, if they didn’t win -- in other words if they didn’t get what they wanted; if the vote went against their wishes -- to go ahead and do what they want in any event.

Now, for God’s sake, tell me that there is something anti-democratic about that. Tell me there is something wrong with that procedure. Tell me that that doesn’t satisfy every single direction and every single criterion of any group of individuals that have ever studied election or party financing anywhere in the world.

Now you can ask your question.

Hon. Mr. White: Does my hon. friend know how many unions in this province are touched in any way by the new section 32?

Mr. Deans: I am sorry; do I know? I think there are probably six. I can’t recall the exact number, I believe it’s about six.

Hon. Mr. White: Will my hon. friend agree that the relatively small number are the very largest unions with the most sophisticated equipment, office staff and so on? And will he not concede that those small number of unions, be it six or 16, can readily meet the provisions of new section 31?

Mr. Deans: No, they cannot readily meet the provisions; they cannot readily meet the provisions -- that’s the difficulty.

Hon. Mr. White: They can bring themselves within the four corners of the provisions.

Mr. Deans: They can bring themselves within the four corners at some considerable expense to their union membership.

Hon. Mr. White: We are all affected by this bill.

Mr. Deans: You are not affected by this section of the bill one iota.

Hon. Mr. White: We are all affected by this bill.

Mr. Deans: You are not affected one single whit by this section of the bill. The Conservative Party is not affected in the slightest by it. What you are doing is using your 74, or whatever number of members it is, to try and crush the trade unionists who want to belong to the New Democratic Party.

And that’s what’s wrong with your bill. You can’t tell me one single thing that they do that deserves that this be done to them; not one. You can’t. What they have asked for is so reasonable, and the procedures they follow so sensible, there isn’t another organization anywhere that follows those kind of procedures and makes those kind of allowances. And you tell me that you are not going to allow them to continue to do that. You know why -- because you are afraid of them. You are afraid that their support for the NDP is much stronger, perhaps, than you would like to see it. Since you can’t defeat them at the ballot box -- you don’t have enough members to do it -- and because you can’t defeat us at the ballot box either, you are going to defeat us by foul means if you can’t do it by fair.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: That’s exactly what you are saying. There isn’t a single reason in the world -- not one reason in the world -- why you would attempt to do this other than for political gain -- not one; not one. I don’t understand it. I didn’t make this kind of address in the committee because I frankly thought -- I’ll be quite honest with you -- li thought that once you have heard the procedure --

Hon. Mr. White: You weren’t there.

Mr. Deans: I was there.

Hon. Mr. White: Not for this section you weren’t.

Mr. Deans: I thought that once the minister had heard the way the procedure was followed, he would automatically agree it’s a very democratic way to do it. I didn’t think for one minute he would resist. In fact, when my colleagues came from the committee and said it wasn’t going to be changed, I didn’t believe it. Above all else, given that I understand he is very political, I thought he was also reasonable --

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): He is also very sensible.

Mr. Deans: I expected that the government, understanding the procedures followed, would have agreed that those are the kinds of procedures they would like to see followed in any organization. I thought that if it had to draft measures and means of determining how people could or could not affiliate, it could have used those measures and means exactly as they are and applied them to any other organization affiliating with the Conservatives or the Liberals, if that was their wish, and they would have been considered to be fair by everyone, because they are fair. They are fair in the extreme, and I don’t understand the minister’s resistance.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Certain remarks have been made here that cannot be let go unchallenged. There is an assertion or an implication that we are in some way disadvantaging a particular group, namely trade unions and trade union members --

Mr. Deans: The minister is making it more difficult.

Hon. Mr. White: -- in a way that’s not the case with other organizations or groups of citizens. Exactly the opposite is true, sir. Under new section 31 the NDP, which put the request, have the opportunity of deeming that annual membership fees paid for membership may be considered to be a contribution, which apparently is their wish now, although it was not their wish as interpreted by the commission --

Mr. Deans: It is not.

Hon. Mr. White: -- or it may be considered not to be a contribution. The very large unions that find the new section 32 somewhat restrictive can operate under that permissive clause in section 31.

So, in contrast to the allegations of my hon. friend, not only have the unions and union members not been prejudiced but they’ve been given certain privileges not available to other citizens, quite frankly. To eliminate the very modest constraint, which is implicit in section 32, as suggested by the amendment proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre, would heighten that difference.

I came into the committee without any strong views on either side of this question --

Mr. Deans: I was told that.

Hon. Mr. White: I was guided by the committee and the committee members. As the discussion evolved, it became abundantly clear that the Conservative members on the committee and the Liberal members on the committee were dead set against providing additional special privileges to a particular group within society.

The objective of keeping everybody on more or less the same plane is what led the committee, by a very large majority, to put before the House the section which we’re now considering. For that reason, I simply couldn’t accept an amendment.

Mr. Deans: Let me say that when one talks about the very large majority, the minister of course has to understand that it would be made up of Conservatives and Liberals. That’s quite obvious. It wouldn’t be in the interest of either of them to accede to what was going on previously, not because it was wrong but because it happens that what the minister has proposed is restrictive, more difficult and more costly than the procedure that was followed previously. That’s why I don’t understand why the minister brought it in in the first place.

I wouldn’t have expected the Conservative members or the Liberal members to have risen to the support of the NDP in their request that this section be changed. The reason I didn’t expect it was because we’re in politics and advantage is important; at this particular point I am talking about the advantage that we have.

If the minister doesn’t think the procedure followed was right, then he should tell me where it was wrong. He should also tell me where the procedure followed wasn’t more democratic than the procedure that the government is imposing. Let him tell me how he can consider the right to have an affiliate membership in the same way as he considers a donation. They are entirely different things.

On the one hand the membership entitles each and every individual to participation on an equal basis, to representation in party affairs on a basis established at conventions which enables those individuals to have a say in the internal workings of the party. That’s different from a contribution. A contribution is that they would like to see you get elected. The other also carries with it the obligation to work, to provide all of the background administratively, policy-wise, participation-wise which is so necessary if a democratic political party is to survive.

On the one hand you are talking about their right to affiliate and the procedures they will use, which I claim are infinitely better, with far more opportunities for getting out than any other I have ever heard of; on the other hand you are talking about the right of groups in society to make contributions. That’s another matter altogether; an entirely different matter and if you deal with them separately you would see it.

Any group at all which is identified as a group could affiliate with the Conservative Party and in so doing should have, assuming your constitution would allow it, rights which enable them to take part actively in the party’s affairs. The way in which they determine their affiliation is within the broad outlines of the constitution of the party and their own constitution as set out by their own membership.

That’s the difference. You talk about apples and oranges; they are both fruits but they are not the same and that’s where you’ve got a problem.

I say we have a problem. Certainly we can get around it; of course, we’ll get around it but damn it, why should we have to get around it? Why do we have to go through all the mental gymnastics? Why do we have to hire the people to do the job of getting around an Act when the Act doesn’t make sense in the first place?

I regret, really, that we are reduced to this kind of discussion because the whole thing is so ludicrous. The right of those people to affiliate with the party has been there since 1961 -- before 1961 -- and prior to that there were other arrangements since 1959, I guess it was, to date, that right of affiliation has been there. It has been open to every single individual who wanted to know anything about it, to know how it was done. The procedure I outlined to you before has been the procedure followed and if you want to regularize that procedure to make sure they do go through all those particular steps, I’ve no objection.

I’ve got to say to you that you couldn’t ask for a better procedure. You could apply it to any other group. You could take it and use it. I’m sure they’d be delighted to let you have it. It’s the only procedure I know of, as I say, which allows the man who loses to opt out anyway, after having once been given a chance to opt in or out. I don’t understand you; I don’t understand your thinking.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, there are ample provisions for trade unions under a variety of sections in this bill. Nearly all trade unions can continue to operate as they have been under the new section 32. A very small number of very large and sophisticated unions will find section 32 a new constraint on the total amount of money which they can give. They can thereupon use new section 31 as the members opposite must know.

I am asking myself, since they must know this, why the alarm? Can it be that the continuing and increasing failures of the NDP have led to a certain lack of confidence on the part of these big unions? Can it be that they are now going to draw down their contributions from their own treasuries and by way of affiliation fees, giving as an excuse new section 32? Frankly the alarms are much more passionate as expressed by members of the NDP than by the union leaders who have spoken to me.

Mr. Young: I have never heard you being willing to assist the unions that way.

Mr. Deans: When you got to that level this debate had deteriorated even below the level of your normal debating capacities. It must have taken --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. R. C. Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, can I ask you a question: How have the rules of the House been changed to allow a bill that has been in committee to be reported back to the House and then go back into committee of the whole House?

Mr. B. F. Nixon: We always do that.

Mr. Lawlor: We have for a long time.

Mr. Deans: That’s the rule.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: That has never been a rule in this House as long as I can remember. I just ask you when that was changed.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t know when it was changed, but we are debating an amendment to section 31 as proposed. We’ve got to deal with it.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I am suggesting to you that any such amendment should have been made in the standing committee, not in the committee of the whole after it has been reported back to the House from standing committee.

Mr. Lawlor: You make your suggestion, but you will have to face reality.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I simply think this whole procedure is out of order according to our rules --

Mr. Lawlor: You may dislike it, but we find it opportune at the moment.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: -- and I would like to have it clarified, sir.

Mr. Chairman: I would inform the hon. member that I feel it’s in order.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the hon. member it’s exactly the procedure we followed with Bill 72, the Education Act --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: But two wrongs don’t make a right.

Mr. Foulds: -- and it is enshrined in the standing orders of the House.

Mr. Chairman: I am ruling that we are in order because we are debating an amendment to a section that wasn’t presented in committee.

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order. Let us now proceed, having gotten ourselves to this stage of the legislative process, but let this not be considered a precedent if the rules provide for an alternative course of action. I am quite prepared to proceed with this committee stage, but if the rules say standing committee or committee of the whole House but not both, I think this should not be seen as a precedent.

Mr. Deans: The rules don’t say that.

Mr. R. C. Hodgson: We’ve never had it before.

Mr. Foulds: The rules do not say that. The rules say very clearly that the bill can go --

Mr. Lawlor: We’ve done this many times.

Mr. Foulds: -- to committee of the whole House and amendments can therefore be put.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the members look at rules 48(c) and 49. I think those rules set out the procedure whereby a bill, when returned from standing committee, ordinarily comes back to the stage of committee of the whole House. If the bill is dealt with, of course, further amendments can be made on the benefit that members who had not been in committee would have the opportunity to enter into such a debate. As a result, once that is proceeded with, the bill of course is then ordered for third reading in the normal fashion.

Mr. R. C. Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, on a farther point of order, I think the debate should not be repetitious. It is now the third time that I have heard some of these arguments, both in standing committee, here and on second reading, and I think you have to keep very strict order.

Mr. Chairman: Well, there are a great many members who did not have an opportunity, as the hon. member for Kitchener said, to hear it in committee because they were in the House. Rule 49 says:

“When a bill is considered by the committee of the whole House, the chairman shall inquire whether any comments, questions or amendments are to be offered and to which sections and will call only such sections. [This is what we have been doing.] If no sections are so designated, the bill will be reported as a whole.”

Mr. Foulds: Good ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: One comment to the member for Wentworth, I was going to call him to order. He has been very repetitious for the last 15 or 20 minutes and I was going to call him to order, but I see he has left the House.

Mr. Singer: That is why; he knew you were going to call him to order.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We in the New Democratic Party are incensed at the way this matter has been handled, before the House and in committee. As the chairman has pointed out, a number of us have been required to be in two places at once and, not having telepathic powers just yet -- although being able to read the mind of the minister fairly well, even at a distance -- were unable to participate as fully as we would like to have. This is our opportunity and I would ask for your indulgence in taking that opportunity.

It is a shame at this time in your history, when you are bringing in legislation which has universal import, which fundamentally and in spirit and purpose would not be partisan legislation -- it’s supposed to be beneficial to all across the board -- that the note of partisanship should be introduced and that it should be an operative factor throughout in the mind of the minister and the utilization of various red herrings drawn across the track.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to read what the basis upon the foundation of this whole piece of legislation said. In the Camp commission report, page 34, it talks about group contributions: It says:

“Earlier in this report, we have noted that individual and business contributions may be channelled through a non-profit organization, as the federal Act now allows. Where such a simple expedient exists, limitations on donations are not enforceable.

“Against these possibilities, the commission proposes that financial contributions from organizations or groups -- other than corporations and unions -- be allowed only on the basis of the limitations governing individual contributions; that is, any such organization may donate any amount of money through a candidate or a party, but the contribution must be made up of individual voluntary donations, all of which must be disclosed and itemized as the source of the amount, and all of which, in conjunction with other contributions the individual may have made, must be within the limitations set down in the Act. Tax credits would be issued to the individuals if so desired by them.

“As an exception to the above, the commission recommends that employees, union members or salaried members of any bona fide organization, be allowed to contribute to a political party through the check-off procedure, without regard to and independent of any other political contributions by the participating individuals, provided that: their contributions are voluntary, or are made according to the constitutional authority vested in the organization concerned; and the amount of the check off is not more than 10 cents per month for each contributor.

“This practice is a familiar and well-established one, notably with trade unions. And since the individual amounts are nominal, the commission would wish to encourage such a practice rather than inhibit it.”

What does the minister do? He prefers to inhibit it rather than encourage it. I won’t go to the length of hurling across the floor accusations --

Hon. Mr. White: Rubbish.

Mr. Lawlor: -- that this resembles the Bennett legislation of British Columbia. It doesn’t go that far; there is far more suavity in this House. Nevertheless, it does severely wound us and cripple us in the largest trade unions in the province, and you know it. You, as a supernumerary matter, instead of leaving the section alone and drafting it precisely along the lines as indicated by the three- man commission, which had far more objectivity and which was far more outside the political spectrum than you or this government, would not recommend it or take it at its face value. No, you had to get in the little niggling clauses. You had to get in the thrust. You put the stiletto in between the third and fourth ribs, and you haven’t quite turned it yet.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Let’s get back to the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s your purpose -- that’s what the whole thing is about. We have good reason over here to be incensed. It’s a rotten piece of partisan politics.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Use all of Camp; why just a part of it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: Listen, we are not a rich political party -- we never were. We’ve had to struggle from the very beginning just to exist over against you moguls. It has been a very difficult thing for this party to keep its head above water. If you could sink us by way of monetary measures -- and that’s the capitalist way of sinking anybody -- you would drive us into the ground through money. You have never succeeded in doing that. We still held up our heads and we floated --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: -- and ran in elections on virtually nothing -- and won very often, too.

Mr. Carruthers: Socialist capitalists.

Mr. Lawlor: You think at this time in history you can emasculate us and cripple our financing.

Interjections by an hon. member.

Mr. Foulds: Will the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) stand up if he wants to make a speech? Stand up if you want to make a speech. Get recognized by the Chairman.

Mr. Drea: Anybody can make a million.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: Listen, your partisanship against trade unions these days, as I listen to you on various occasions -- including yesterday in private bills -- is becoming something atrocious. What kind of malice have you got against these organizations of which you were such a beneficial member at an earlier time? But I’ll leave it aside.

Mr. Drea: You’ve milked them for years.

Mr. Lawlor: Let’s talk to somebody important.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s a pretty serious allegation. You’ve got a persecution complex.

Mr. Lawlor: We are being hamstrung and you know it. You gloat over it, I suspect, in secret and in silence.

Hon. Mr. White: May I interrupt my hon. friend for just one moment? There are a half a dozen or a dozen trade unions affected by new section 32.

Mr. Lawlor: They are the big ones.

Hon. Mr. White: They can utilize their automatic mailing equipment and so on to fit themselves within the four corners of section 31.

Mr. Lawlor: It won’t help.

Hon. Mr. White: So, what’s the problem? The only problem is they may be glad to have an excuse not to continue their present level of contributions --

Mr. Lawlor: You have your ceilings on there.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister is a dreamer.

Hon. Mr. White: -- because of the lack of success of the NDP.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, the minister has the floor. The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Wardle). Has the member for Lakeshore finished?

Mr. Lawlor: I was contending --

Mr. Stokes: What do you mean, was he finished? He was interrupted on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: I am asking the member for Lakeshore; I’m not asking the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Lawlor: No, no, he stood up on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish the floor?

Mr. Lawlor: I always defer to him on this matter.

I say that we have always been an impecunious and struggling political party. The legislation as a whole we welcome, of course, and haven’t fought. It is just in this single instance, which was taken cognizance of by the very body that reported to you and to this government in a totally non-partisan and kind of sovereign way. But you saw fit to move in.

Listen, your coffers are full. The Liberal coffers are pretty damn full. What’s the man in the pin-striped suit been doing? My friend here has been out scurrying around in the underbrush for two years now, garnering the chips.

Mr. Roy: What is the member for Lakeshore talking about?

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Come on, get on with the bill.

Mr. Foulds: All the lines between Ottawa and Toronto were tied up.

Mr. Lawlor: Your treasuries are full. There is no disclosure of that, nor is there any intention of there being.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: We rely on the little man and his 10 cents a month for heaven’s sake and you fat cats are talking $100.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: Come off it. What kind of partisan legislation is this? It is a most grotesque instance of discrimination written into non-partisan legislation. Don’t worry, when we become the government it will be changed damn quick. It will be changed damn quick. And, you know it, despite all your palaver, all your subterfuge and all your pretending not to understand. I give the Minister without Portfolio far more credit than that. You know what is going on; you know what the game is.

Mr. M. B. Dymond (Ontario): The member for Lakeshore is not well cast in that part.

Mr. Drea: Why doesn’t he buy a house in Scarborough?

Mr. Lawlor: You are just playing the game according to your rules. I’d hate to play euchre with you early in the morning, with all those cards under the table.

Mr. Foulds: Marked ones.

Mr. Lawlor: Pure blackjack and you are the dealer, aren’t you?

Hon. Mr. White: While my friend is pausing for breath I will say if there is any special advantage contained in this bill it is in favour of the trade unions, because I point that every trade union branch may contribute up to this maximum, and if the UAW has 100 such locals it can give 100 times $2,000 plus $2,000 plus $500 plus $500.

Mr. Lawlor: What about the big locals in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. White: What is the case of the automotive industry itself? It has three kicks at the can instead of 100 for the UAW. So, if there is any advantage in here it is for the trade unions.

Mr. Lawlor: You know you are making dents. We wouldn’t be protesting so bitterly if you weren’t.

Mr. B. C. Hodgson: The member for Lakeshore lost the case.

An hon. member: Where were you when he yelled at Dovercourt?

Mr. Lawlor: Dovercourt? Are you a member of this House?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: What it’s going to mean is a bit more walking, a bit more door-to-door to get a few more votes for the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: We will manage to do that too.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Pat, watch your blood pressure.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Has the member for Lakeshore got anything more to contribute on this?

Some hon. members: Always!

Mr. Foulds: He says more in one pause than all the Tory members do in a whole speech.

Mr. Lawlor: It doesn’t seem to me that we are getting through very well. You have had many days.

Mr. Roy: Make a speech for a change.

Mr. Lawlor: At least we will raise our voice in protest and tell that you have set up a discriminatory piece of legislation and we will go to the country when the time comes and say the same damn thing. We will prove it to them.

You know it is true, and while you have some kind of intoxication I suspect over your palaver, over the business to play this kind of game, it is beneath the Minister without Portfolio. He is a better person than that. He has better quality. He knows what he is doing to this party. All right, that is the way we play politics in this province. There is no necessity for it. It is regrettable and even shameful that it should have come to pass in this particular way. We will raise our voice against it and we will keep the debate going to drive it home. At least we will get that much catharsis out of the situation.

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, those charges are not true. They are provably false and are part of the pre-election hysteria that emanates from a party that is going down the drain just about as quickly as any party could.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: You watch us.

Mr. Foulds: That’s one of his more rational speeches.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): I have listened day after day, also in committee, with a good deal of patience to certain things said by the members of the New Democratic Party. They are great people to talk about democracy, Mr. Chairman. They are great people to talk about discrimination but in this particular bill, on this particular section, the members of the New Democratic Party, through their donations from the trade unions --

Mr. Foulds: We don’t make donations to the trade unions.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s peanuts to what you people pay.

Mr. Wardle: -- do not show democracy. as I understand it. They may show a new democracy, not democracy as I understand it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The new brand.

Mr. Wardle: What they do is show discrimination.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Mr. Wardle: I mentioned this in committee, Mr. Chairman, and I think it’s worth repeating.

Mr. Foulds: Is anything you say worth repeating?

An hon. member: What about you? You’ve never said anything here as yet.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, when a member of the PC Party gets up, it’s very difficult to speak because these people don’t want to know the truth when the truth is being spoken.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They are afraid of it.

Mr. Wardle: What I said in committee, Mr. Chairman, was this and I think all trade onion members should ponder this. If a union has 100 members, rather than stand up and say their election funds should go to the New Democratic Party when no doubt many of those members are members of the Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservative Party, why should their union dues go to the New Democratic Party?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Undemocratic.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. G. Nixon: No way.

Mr. Lawlor: Many of them opt out; hundreds do.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to do is understand their philosophy and it’s very difficult.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s called democracy.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You listen now.

Mr. Wardle: I made this particular suggestion and here’s a very good --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No, you listen. You might learn from it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. Let’s have order for the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. Wardle: I am making a suggestion I think is perfectly democratic and I urge the NDP to accept this. A union has 100 members and they decide they are going to make a contribution of, say, $1,000 to political parties. They have a secret ballot and they vote what percentage of that money will go to the New Democratic Party, Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. If the Liberal Party, say, gets 25 per cent of the members, it will get $250.

Mr. Young: The same for shareholders of corporations?

Mr. Wardle: The PC will get its percentage and the balance will go to the New Democratic Party. To me, Mr. Chairman, this is perfectly democratic and the way it should be done is by a secret ballot.

Mr. Bounsall: The Chairman should vote on it. We’ll buy it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You didn’t pick up the minister’s offer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Wardle: I made this suggestion in committee but the New Democratic Party didn’t feel this was possible. That is not democratic in their eyes but why isn’t it democratic? The other thing I wonder about, Mr. Chairman, is why, with all their catering, they receive less than 20 per cent of the labour vote? Why is that? I am sure it’s because the people in labour realize the free enterprise system is the enterprise system which gives them their jobs.

I challenge the New Democratic Party, I challenge the people in labour unions to bring that suggestion up at their meetings. Let’s have a secret ballot. Let the union funds go to the party of the members’ choice by secret ballot.

Mr. Dymond: The leader would never let them.

Hon. Mr. White: I would have no objection to this change but I think it is a little late to incorporate it in the present bill.

Mr. Stokes: Will you do the same for corporations?

Hon. Mr. White: Perhaps it could be considered for the next session.

Mr. Stokes: Will you do the same for corporations?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Sure.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury has the floor.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, I am particularly interested in this amendment before the House and I can only treat with scorn and ridicule the presentation made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I know he has been paying trade union dues for these many years now.

Mr. Dymond: Your stock in trade -- scorn and ridicule.

Mr. Germa: All of these little merchants in Ontario are all big trade unionists. This is precisely his background and he knows not of what he speaks when he speaks about how to operate things within a union hail. I am particularly interested in this because I am a member of one -- the biggest --

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Wardle: On a matter of personal privilege, I come from a trade union family, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Germa: Tell me the last year you paid your union dues.

Mr. Chairman: That is immaterial.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I come from one of the largest unions in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. White: This will be your last session here, so make the most of it.

Mr. Stokes: We will guarantee it is yours.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It is yours for sure.

An hon. member: Do you know what the Sudbury Gallup poll said? You are tied with the Communists.

Mr. Stokes: You saw the writing on the wall.

An hon. member: Remember the Sudbury Gallup poll? How many seats do you have in the north? One? Two?

Mr. Chairman: Order please. If this House can’t come to some order and deal with the business --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Germa: I’m quite familiar with your friend Joe. Joe doesn’t scare me at all, because the Conservatives in Sudbury ain’t going no place and you know that. They haven’t elected a member in Sudbury for 25 years, and it’ll be another 25 years before they elect another one. Even your friend Joe Fabbro is not coming to this House. I’ll guarantee you that.

What I was saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I belong and I’m a dues-paying member of the biggest local in the Province of Ontario. I know that this sly minister knows exactly what he’s doing when he brings in legislation like this. He is going to cut the throats of the members of this particular organization. I was in that union hall on three different occasions in the past 10 years when a motion was put to donate from their dues five cents per member per month. That was voted on democratically arid it carried three times, on three different occasions, by a majority of three to one.

Mr. Jessiman: By a show of hands?

Mr. Germa: If you do not believe in the democratic process, then what are we all here about tonight?

Mr. Dymond: By secret ballot?

Mr. Germa: I hear some members calling for a secret ballot. Let me tell you something else about the way things happen in a union hall. At another meeting we spent $250,000 one night, without a secret ballot, to buy our union hall.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Fat cats.

Mr. Germa: If there is a proposition on which a union can spend $250,000 without a secret ballot, surely they can spend five cents without a secret ballot. That proposition is completely ridiculous.

Mr. Wardle: It is the principle.

Mr. Germa: During the debates, Mr. Chairman, certainly there were members who were supporters of the capitalist parties. I don’t deny that at all. They did make their point that maybe the union should make some donation to these particular parties, but that was defeated by the democratic vote. Their voice has been heard; they’ve had their opportunity.

Mr. Bounsall: As in any election.

Mr. Germa: Your proposition that this has to be a contribution from the union involved is just ridiculous. It’s not a contribution from workers who have by democratic choice decided to support a certain political party at the rate of five cents per month. I object strenuously to this provision, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to reiterate that if we do accept the proposition from the member for Beaches-Woodbine, maybe when the International Nickel Co. is sneaking that $100,000 under the table to you guys, you’ll consider peeling off a little bit of it to us, if that’s what you’re talking about when you think that this --

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order, this kind of allegation is completely unfair and completely unworthy of this debate.

Mr. Jessiman: That is all he is capable of.

Hon. Mr. White: I have no idea if Inco gives us a five-cent piece or what they give us.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well we have no reason to believe they didn’t give it to you.

Hon. Mr. White: It is unfair to use these words, “sneak under the table;” having in mind, if I may pursue this for a moment, that from now on they’re confined to $2,000 to each party per year --

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, I can see Inco confined to $2,000.

Hon. Mr. White: -- whereas the Steelworkers can contribute $2,000 to their party or to a party for every one of their locals. Let’s not talk about Inco sneaking anything to anybody.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is unfair.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister feel at a disadvantage?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury has the floor and I would like him to come back and speak to the amendment.

Mr. Germa: I know the minister is not so naive as to think he is going to be able to police these corporations in their contributions to the political party of their choice.

Mr. Lewis: They will find a way.

Mr. Germa: They will find a way with all their padded accounts and all their loopholes. You know how they do it, you are an expert in the field. Don’t tell me you are going to police them properly. I’ve met them on the street, and I know how they function.

Mr. Foulds: The minister is going to be a special consultant to them on acquisition.

Mr. Germa: He knows very well, and it’s never been denied, that corporate executives have said they contribute to the political parties on the basis of 60-40-60 per cent to the party that is in and 40 per cent to the party that is trying to get in. I refer to those two parties there, the Conservatives and the Liberals. Don’t tell me they don’t put money under the table. They have admitted it, and you know it.

Mr. chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, each corporation, and all of its affiliated subsidiaries and affiliated companies, is confined to $2,000 a year.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Each?

Hon. Mr. White: No, not each, in total. If Inco has 100 subsidiaries, Inco and its 100 subsidiaries are confined to $2,000 to each party each year. Once again, in contrast, every local of the Steelworkers, of which there may be 100, can contribute the same $2,000.

Mr. Foulds: How many of those corporations have a democratic vote of their shareholders to approve of the contributions.

Hon. Mr. White: They don’t levy on their shareholders.

Mr. Deans: They do.

Hon. Mr. White: They don’t compel their shareholders to become affiliated members --

Mr. Foulds: It doesn’t come out of the profits or the dividends, does it? Where does the money come from if it doesn’t come from the profits or dividends?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. White: This is what I have said -- and I’m glad the leader of the NDP is in here -- let’s fix this up and put it all on the same plane: Let’s require both corporations and trade unions to require opting in for affiliation. Let’s have it completely parallel between unions and corporations.

Mr. Foulds: They own you. What do you mean affiliate?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: We are quite prepared to have it parallel, provided the procedure currently used in the trade union movement is applied equally to the corporate sector.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You had better quit while you are ahead.

Mr. Lewis: We had that secret meeting in your office and ironed all this out. Have you told that to the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. White: No, I didn’t squeal on you.

Mr. Lewis: You haven’t talked about that yet. Maybe we should talk about it; maybe your colleagues would like to know.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: By implication, the minister intimated that unions or the members were compelled to make this contribution. I am going to tell you again -- I just told you five minutes ago -- that on three different occasions in the union of which I am a member, we did vote by a majority of three to one to make a contribution to the New Democratic Party; and I resent and object to you using the inference that we compelled those members to make the donation.

If you want to draw a parallel, at what point in time did any shareholders’ meeting of any corporation in Ontario take a vote of the shareholders to support your political party? If that’s not extortion, I’ve never heard of it; if that’s not compulsion, I’ve never heard of it. What shareholder ever had an opportunity to vote that he would support your political party? You tell me that.

Hon. Mr. White: What corporate shareholder has ever had a levy placed on him by his board of directors? None.

Mr. Deans: Every single one.

Mr. Germa: Where does the money come from?

Hon. Mr. White: If it is so perfectly democratic, how is it that the NDP have all the signs in many sections of London and I win every poll in those areas? Do you think there is a little bit of persuasion, shall we say involved?

Mr. Deans: What kind of pressure and arm- twisting do you apply?

Mr. Lewis: Did you ever think that was a non sequitur? Ponder it for a while.

Mr. Chairman: All in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will say “aye”.

All those opposed will say “nay”.

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this vote with the rest?

Agreed.

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, section 39.

Mr. Chairman: The sections will carry to 39. Agreed?

Sections 32 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, section 39 is the section that for some reason the government suggests puts a ceiling on expenses incurred for advertising in the 21-day period, quite contrary to the recommendation made by the majority of the commission. I think it should be noted that the majority of the commission was Dalton Camp and Douglas Fisher, the Tory and the NDP nominee. Quite contrary to the recommendation made by them, the government did yield to the pressure brought upon it by members of both opposition parties and by the media and, in its usual compromising way, attempted to impose a ceiling on advertising expenses, and only on advertising expenses.

For a large part of the province this ceiling, even if it was meaningful insofar as controlling expenses during an election campaign was concerned, could have no meaning to candidates who are running in large cities. Certainly in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the more than 30 ridings in that area are covered by large and expensive daily newspapers, many radio stations and many television stations. Very few candidates I know in any of the parties, even if they had the money, would participate in advertising in the media, by and large because of the expense and, secondly, because the coverage being given is far too great for any riding. You’re paying for coverage, you’re not paying for effect. For a very large number of ridings in the province this advertising expense limit is completely meaningless.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, the thing that puzzles me is why the government in its compromise singled out only advertising and the particular type of advertising it defined, which is media and outdoor advertising. As everyone of us knows, and knows full well, there are many more expenses during an election campaign than advertising. There are pamphlets, lawn signs, committee room expenses, telephones, staff expenses and on and on. If there is going to be any top limit on election expenditure, surely the whole thing should be dealt with?

What did the minister tell us downstairs in the committee? He said, “It doesn’t work anywhere else in the world.” That statement is about as effective as his statement that nobody has ever sued a candidate for election expenses. There are many jurisdictions where it does seem to work and work very well, and the United Kingdom is one of them.

Hon. Mr. White: Name one.

Mr. Singer: The United Kingdom.

Hon. Mr. White: Oh, ho, ho.

Mr. Singer: Oh, ho, ho. Yes, the United Kingdom.

Hon. Mr. White: You’ve got to be kidding.

Mr. Singer: Do you know what happens in the United Kingdom? It’s policed. One party watches the other and the system of elections in the United Kingdom is far better controlled and is far less expensive than in any jurisdiction on the North American continent. If you had been there and looked at it you would have seen that. If you had been there and talked to the candidates, the Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom, whether they be Liberal, Conservative or Labour, they would have confirmed that to you. We went to party headquarters and our select committee were there and we discussed that with them. Certainly, I came to that conclusion and I think your colleague from Victoria-Haliburton -- was he on that committee that went to England?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: No, I wasn’t over there.

Mr. Singer: All right. Some of the members of the House were there, and certainly it was my feeling that members of all parties came to the same conclusion.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: They would have listened too much to the member for Downsview and not to me.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, you were there, I believe, and I am sure you came to the same kind of conclusion.

In any event, what we have created here is a very elaborate system of reporting and a system of auditing. We’ve brought in the Institute of Chartered Accountants and they have sat with us and they have suggested certain amendments, and we’ve gone along with them because they’re an important part of this. If all of this system of reporting and the forms and the auditing and accounting is going to work, why can there not be a system of checks insofar as end expenses are concerned?

That is the really important thing, Mr. Chairman, that this statute should be talking about. If there is going to be disclosure of what comes in, surely there should be a limit on what goes out.

The minister, a little earlier this afternoon, in answering one of my suggested amendments, said he wasn’t really worried about it. He wouldn’t accept it because he thought it would be protecting or giving an advantage to rich candidates. If there is anything that gives an advantage to rich candidates, or candidates and/or parties that seemed to have for a peculiar reason an ability to raise lots of money, it’s unlimited permission to spend as much as they want in an election campaign.

I just can’t accept at all, Mr. Chairman or in any way, the argument that it is impossible to control. What are our control mechanisms?

We’ve got a commission. There are going to be on that commission two members from the Conservative Party, two members from the NDP and two members from the Liberal Party. There is going to be a chairman appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. There is going to be a bencher of the Law Society. There is going to be the chief electoral officer of the province or the Clerk Rod Lewis. All of those people are there, and they are going to set up rules and regulations and forms that are going to govern the functioning of this Act.

That’s what we’ve been talking about. The accountancy profession is being called upon to certify the financial statements that are submitted and that information is going to be made public. If it is believed that you can certify what comes in and keep the system honest, why can you not similarly certify what is going out and keep the system honest?

Surely, Mr. Chairman, one of the objects of this statute, if it has any real purpose, is to control what is coming in, control what is going out and make public declarations of what has been happening in the election campaign. The government has only taken half the step. In avoiding taking the other half of the step, one must wonder about what their motives are. One must wonder why they have deliberately avoided the expedient of writing in a system of control of all expenses. If what the hon. minister says has any meaning at all, how is it that he believes that you can control advertising, but you can’t control all of these other things? I just don’t understand it.

Mr. Chairman, this point has been made many times.

Hon. Mr. White: May I answer that question? May I just comment very briefly?

Mr. Singer: I’m not going to prolong my remarks. I’m going to move these amendments to section 39, which I think will take care of the most glaring, serious and obvious deficiency that exists in the statute.

Mr. Singer moves 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 candidate registered under this Act, including 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”

Mr. Singer: That will replace the existing first 10 lines. I will move a companion amendment to that.

Mr. Singer moves 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.

Mr. Singer: The thrust of those two amendments Mr. Chairman is this: The section will be amended, if my amendment is adopted to cover all expenses; and the expenses will be, in the case of a registered party:

In relation to each elector, 25 cents -- that’s subsection (b); and in the case of a candidate 50 cents, which is subsection (c). Now 50 cents, in the average constituency, would amount to something like $20,000.

Those figures perhaps are going to be met with great shock by those who think this shouldn’t be done and that it’s too much. If you want to reduce it to $10,000, I couldn’t care less, but I think there should be some control on it. I’ve suggested controls that I think are not unreasonable in light of the circumstances.

I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that these amendments be accepted by this committee in order that a very meaningful addition be made to this statute, without which the statute is not going to function nearly as well as it should.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, they are unacceptable for reasons I’ll give at 8 o’clock. But let me only say that the member for Ottawa Centre has already spent more than $40,000 on his campaign.

Mr. Deans: What!

Hon. Mr. White: And there is no jurisdiction in the world that has found a way to control these expenditures. That is what he told the committee.

Mr. Foulds: That is a lie.

Hon. Mr. White: It is not a lie. He’s spending more than $11,000 a year on his election centre there.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. It being 6 of the clock I do now leave the chair and will return at 8.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.