L026b - Mon 15 Jun 1998 / Lun 15 Jun 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think there's a quorum present.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is a quorum present?
Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker: The member for Muskoka-Haliburton.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
The Speaker: Muskoka-Georgian Bay. I apologize.
Mr Grimmett: That may come at some future date, Mr Speaker.
ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS
Mr Grimmett, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 36, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act, and to make related amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur le financement des élections et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I should indicate at the outset that I'll be splitting my time this evening with the member for York-Mackenzie and, if time permits, the member for Northumberland.
It's a pleasure this evening to commence the debate on second reading of Bill 36. I think this is certainly a piece of legislation that is worthy of debate and one that contains long-overdue reforms to ensure that our elections are conducted properly, to ensure that the rules surrounding the electoral process are made more clear and simpler to understand. Many of the reforms in Bill 36 are a logical follow-up to the Fewer Politicians Act, which, you'll recall from the last session, reduced the number of ridings in Ontario from 130 to 103.
The changes that are occurring in a number of ridings and the changes that have occurred in our society have resulted in a number of bodies making recommendations for reform in the electoral process in Ontario, and these reforms have taken place in other jurisdictions as well. Tonight, while I'm speaking, I'd like to point out how other jurisdictions compare to Ontario and how it is essential that we make sure that our election rules are in keeping with the demands that Ontario has at the present time.
I'll give just a little background on how this legislation came to be before us. In 1991, efforts began to look at the legislative documentation regarding elections, and at that time the Legislature appointed an ad hoc committee to bring in recommendations for reforms to the electoral process. It's important to note that each of the parties in Ontario had members on that committee - all three parties were represented - and the committee was responsible for proposing amendments to the Election Finances Act after each election. In an attempt to provide some sort of foundation for change, the all-party Commission on Election Finances and the chief election officer had proposed a number of reforms designed to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. The commission proposed these amendments to the all-party ad hoc committee.
In Mr Bailie's report entitled Looking to the Future: Electoral Reform in Ontario, the chief election officer recommends reform of the current system with several goals, including simplification and efficiency, the elimination of duplication, improved cost-effectiveness and modernization of the process. The all-party committee accepted many of these proposals, modified others, rejected some and even created their own recommendations. The committee submitted its recommendations to the Legislature on April 25, 1994. At that time, however, no legislation was forthcoming, and our government has finally responded to those recommendations made by the commission and Mr Bailie for the reform of a process that has not been updated in recent years and needs to be modernized.
I thought I'd spend a little time summarizing some of the important reforms that are contained in Bill 36. One of them that has been talked about for some time, especially at the time that we brought in the legislation to reduce the number of ridings, is the creation of a permanent voters' list. One of the supporting arguments in favour of reducing the number of ridings, to have the same number of ridings as the federal ridings with the same boundaries, was to make the creation of a permanent voters' list simpler and more cost-effective for elections that occurred in Ontario regardless of whether they're provincial or federal.
The registry that is being created by this legislation is similar to registries that currently exist in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec. The chief election officer for Ontario has encouraged the Legislature to proceed along this direction, and it's estimated that the creation of a permanent voters' list should save $10 million during each election. That is a significant saving to the taxpayer. The technology that is involved in the permanent voters' list makes it easier to track and update the lists and makes it simple to join the registry through the production of a driver's licence or other similar proof. In high-mobility and new subdivision polls enumeration can occur to ensure the accuracy of the lists. That is an issue in a lot of elections, making sure that in a high-mobility area the list is accurate.
Section 11 of the bill speaks to the issue of temporarily absent voters and how they are able to get the right to vote. Under the bill, if you're a Canadian citizen and permanent resident of Ontario for 12 consecutive months who intends to return to Ontario, you can vote in a provincial election for up to two years while you're temporarily out of the province. It also opens the voting process for individuals outside of Canada because of military service and makes it easier for students to understand the rules around getting the right to vote in the riding in which they are residents. It also deals with the sometimes difficult issue of Canadian foreign service and Ontario foreign service employees and how they're able to get registered in the correct riding and then are able to vote.
1840
Section 19 deals with the posting of voters' lists. This should be an issue of great interest to the official opposition since in the last session the leader of the official opposition introduced Bill 2, which called for removal of the public posting of the voters' lists in each polling division. Clause 19(3)(a) of this legislation responds to that suggestion by the leader of the official opposition.
This is a personal safety issue. It's a personal safety issue because by removing the requirement that the voters' list be posted, women and seniors will no longer need to be concerned that anyone can walk up to a telephone pole or a post office and know that the person lives alone. We would encourage the official opposition to pay heed to that section, and certainly the fact that the leader of the official opposition proposed that in a private member's bill should be reason enough to support the legislation.
Section 4 of the bill allows for the testing of new electoral proceedings during by-elections. We all know that the technology around elections is changing constantly. There needs to be an avenue to test this. We feel that good governance requires the flexibility to be able to test these new procedures. The chief election officer agrees with that and has recommended that section be in the bill, and that's why it's there.
The electors can be added to the voters' list on election day. Many of us have gone through this procedure where you're living in a jurisdiction that perhaps hasn't been your home before. In previous elections it was only in rural areas really where it was possible to get sworn in on election day without difficulty. Section 18 is going to make it easier for people in that circumstance to get sworn in or to get on the voters' list because they're in a new area.
Section 62 of the act requires that all political advertising must show the sponsors. This is in keeping with our desire to have transparency in the election process, and all political advertising, regardless of whether it's done by parties, candidates, individuals, unions, associations, corporations, whoever is sponsoring the advertisement must display their name for voters to be informed of who is trying to influence their voting decision.
Under the act, registered charities cannot make political contributions. We're turning a guideline into legislation. People who give their money to a charity for charitable causes don't give it to them for political donations. Again, this is to increase the transparency in the political process.
Section 65 deals with affiliated political organizations. They cannot accept donations any longer. This has been referred to by some as political soft money, and the door has been closed to political soft money. Under the old system there was no tracking of affiliated political organizations, on how they received moneys, and no limit on the affiliated political organizations that donated to a campaign. That's no longer allowed. Everything must be run through the party to ensure public disclosure of funds, and I think that's the way the public would want it.
We've added a new offence of bribery in section 44. Section 37 deals with recounts. If the spread is less than 25 votes, it's no longer necessary to request a recount. That's automatic. The process will start immediately and there won't be any need for the parties to the election to embarrass themselves or their opponents by requesting a recount. We've also simplified the rules around proxy voting in section 14. Individuals who know they're not able to vote on election day can get a proxy. These are changes that are saving money for the taxpayer. We're reducing bureaucracy and modernizing the process. It should save $1 million a year and $15 million in an election year.
The chief election officer has recommended a permanent voters' list. Recently, in the Toronto Sun, he indicated that it would allow for a shorter election period, since there wouldn't be the requirement, as there used to be, for a nine-day enumeration period. If you look at other jurisdictions in Canada, you'll see that the use of shorter time limits on elections has become quite common.
I'll just summarize what the minimum time limits currently are in Canadian jurisdictions. In Ontario the minimum is 37 days. The bill proposes that we go to 28-day minimum. If you look at Alberta, they have a 29-day minimum, BC has a 28-day minimum, Manitoba 35 days, New Brunswick 28 days, Newfoundland has a minimum of 21 days -
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): How many people live in Newfoundland?
Mr Grimmett: - Nova Scotia 36 days, Prince Edward Island 26 days -
Mr Wildman: Oh, how many people live in PEI? It's about the size of Sudbury.
Mr Grimmett: - Quebec 33 days and Saskatchewan 29 days.
The member for Algoma seems to think there's some correlation between the size of the jurisdiction and the number of days in the election. But from my own experience in the 1995 election, during the early days of the election, going around knocking on doors, a remarkable number of people said to me, "Is there another election going on?" They didn't even know there was an election going on. There really is a very low voter awareness of elections when you have what I think was a 42-day election. It was remarkable the number of people who said to me, "There is an election going on?" They didn't know.
It is this change that enables us to move from the current period of 37 days to 28. That's because there is no longer a need for an enumeration period. We also estimate that there would be a $1.4-million saving from reduced space and equipment rentals and staffing if we were to have a shorter period for elections.
Mr Bailie's recommendation to dissolve the Commission on Election Finances will save up to a million dollars per year. No other jurisdiction in Canada has two separately run departments to oversee their election process. You have to look at other jurisdictions and compare; you have to have the courage to compare Ontario with other jurisdictions. What we're doing is bringing Ontario into line with other jurisdictions on many of these changes.
Mr Jack Murray was the chair of the commission. He was a past provincial president of the NDP, and recently he urged us to get on with the reforms. I quote him: "Enough time must be provided for the commission, riding associations and accountants in the parties to familiarize themselves with the changes." The opposition has indicated that they wanted all-party agreement on all the changes. In fact there has been all-party agreement on a number of occasions over the last seven years. The all-party finance commission in 1991 and the all-party ad hoc committee in 1994 were able to reach agreement on the changes. Frankly, our responsibility to the taxpayers does not include waiting for the opposition to determine who actually represents their parties' views. They had representatives on the commission and they made recommendations, and many of their recommendations are contained in this legislation.
If we turn now to spending limits, most of the provincial and the federal election laws do not have any restrictions on contribution limits. We believe restrictions provide a more accountable election process, and that has been set out in Ontario for some time. Again, to compare other jurisdictions with Ontario, when you look at the recommended contribution limits, you look across Canada and see that a surprising number of jurisdictions have no limits on the contributions that can be made to a political party. For example, the federal government has no limits on the contributions that can be made to a political party, no limits whatsoever. British Columbia has no limits; Manitoba has no limits; Nova Scotia, PEI, Saskatchewan - no limits on the amount of contributions that can be made to a political party, none. If you look at the riding associations, those jurisdictions also do not have limits on the amount of money that can be contributed to a riding association.
This legislation very clearly upholds the Ontario tradition of requiring contribution limits, and the limits suggested in the legislation are the same as those the election commission recommended, and that's an all-party election commission.
When you look at the suggested spending limits on local candidates, the recommendation from the commission had been $1.40 per elector. Currently, the process in Ontario is rather complicated: $2 for the first 15,000 electors, $1 for the next 10,000 electors and 25 cents for the remaining electors. What we're suggesting and what the legislation sets out is that we adopt the current expenditure at the federal level of 96 cents per elector.
1850
When you look across other jurisdictions, that 96 cents per elector is what the federal limit has worked out to be after the last federal election. When you look at Manitoba, their limit is $1.25 per elector, far in excess of what we're recommending at 96 cents. New Brunswick's is $1.75 per elector. Newfoundland's limit is $3 per elector. That's more than three times what we're recommending. In Nova Scotia the rule is $1 per elector for the first 5,000 and then 85 cents for the next 5,000, 75 cents for the rest. Prince Edward Island's is $1.75 per elector. There's a pattern here. Other jurisdictions in Canada are in excess of what we're recommending. In fact, what we're recommending is exactly what the federal government has.
That's also exactly what was recommended to us by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who in a letter expressed, "If the federal expense limits were high enough for the recent federal election campaign, why are they not high enough for Mike Harris?" They are. They're exactly what we've put into legislation and that's exactly what we're proposing to do.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that if we were going to go over to the federal ridings, we should also be looking at the same spending limits. There you have it. Obviously the Liberal Party is flip-flopping again in indicating that they have some difficulty with this legislation.
I thought that I'd close by referring to a recent editorial in an Ontario daily, the Chatham Daily News, in which they indicate that they feel that this legislation makes a lot of sense.
"The legislation in question cuts the length of the campaign from 37 to 28 days, standardizes the amount candidates can spend per voter at 96 cents, excludes research, polling and travel costs from the spending limit, slightly increases tax credits for political contributions and introduces a new enumeration system and permanent voters' lists.
"Opposition members pounded their desks and made such a flap over the changes, eight of them were ordered out of the Legislature.
"Although the recommendations came from an all-party committee, the government did introduce the changes without all-party consent, which rankled opposition members."
The editorial goes on to say, "For our money, a shorter election campaign means less rhetoric and standardized spending and a revamped enumeration system makes, dare we say it, common sense.
"Hardly the stuff of dastardly plots.
"If Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty (who called the changes `an underhanded attempted to turn the next election into the largest seat sale in Canada's history') is serious about replacing Mike Harris, we urge him to save the rhetoric for truly meaningful issues."
With that, I'll conclude my remarks.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to join in this debate on an issue of significant importance to the voters in this province. I have to say that I find it ironic that in the course of debate members opposite have referred to this bill as a threat to democracy. To the contrary, and I think there's no doubt, as I speak to constituents about this bill, about the intent the government has with regard to this legislation, it's clearly understood by most Ontarians that this is in fact in support of democracy, because it supports accountability, it brings more transparency to elections, it speaks to the issue of costing, it speaks to the issue of how we go about conducting elections and making sure we do so more efficiently. It's very consistent with the commitment that our government has shown and demonstrated, that we intend to fulfil our promise to the people of Ontario that we would bring efficiency, reduce duplication and return to the taxpayers of this province value for dollars.
One of the first initiatives of our government was to reduce the number of politicians in the province. In that regard, you will know that when we head into the next election there will be considerably fewer members seeking election in this province than in 1995. That in itself brings with it some challenges for some of us in this chamber, but that act in itself, to reduce the number of ridings in this province, was in the interest of ensuring that we bring the highest degree of efficiency to how we do business in the Legislature of this province.
As you know, we've reduced the number of ridings in this province to the same number that exists for the federal elections. So it was suggested, and I believe that most people I speak to understand the rationale, that if we're going to be running in the same territories as federal members, the level of spending be consistent with the federal level of spending for elections.
Members opposite seem to have significant difficulty understanding that rationale. But as they contemplate the concept, as they think about how their federal counterparts are able to deal with a certain level of funding for the size of riding in which they run, I think they too at the end of the day will understand that this makes a great deal of sense. In fact, it makes a great deal of common sense.
When we take a look at this bill, in the explanatory note it makes reference to the fact that, "The amendments to the Election Act include the creation of a permanent register of electors, changes to residence rules for determining entitlement to vote, shortening of the campaign period and a variety of technical changes."
When we speak about the issue of democracy, I recall that in the last election there were a number of constituents who came into my office, and I'm sure other members here shared the same experience, individuals who were going to be out of the country during the period when they would be eligible to vote either at the advance poll or on the day of the election. Many times these were people who were keenly interested in the election process, keenly interested in participating in the democratic process but, because of how the Election Act was written, were precluded from voting. In this change, we're saying to all people who are eligible to vote in Ontario that they will have their democratic right to cast their vote or to designate a proxy to vote on their behalf and in accordance with their direction. That simply makes a great deal of sense. It's something that I believe voters in this province have been calling for for some time.
Along the same line, we have taken the initiative in this legislation to preclude the posting of voters' lists. Again, this is something that has been an irritant, a concern, particularly to women and seniors, who have been subjected to having the public voters' list that indicates their name and their place of residence posted in very public places, whether that's on a telephone pole or wherever else. Certainly, in the interests of privacy and for the protection of women and seniors in this province, who can argue with this important step, who can argue that simply makes a great deal of sense for people in this province?
There's also the issue of the creation of a permanent voters' list under section 15. Many of us have been wondering why the province hasn't gone there sooner, given the cost that's involved with each recurring election, whether that be municipal, federal or provincial, to go through the process of enumeration. Also, unfortunately, many times if the enumeration process is not carried out efficiently, if they haven't detected early enough that their name is missing from that voters' list, the result often is that people are denied their right to cast a vote. This bill opens the door and allows us to move on with establishing a permanent voters' list that will, according to the estimates of the chief election officer, Warren Bailie, save some $10 million each election. That again is something we can't, as members of this Legislature, simply ignore. In the interests of doing this right, we have to move forward.
1900
Also, in this bill we see some important steps forward under section 62 with regard to political advertising. I believe this has been of serious concern to many people in this province, that when you're in an election period you see advertising in the print media, perhaps radio and television, that carries with it a political message, but people don't know where it's coming from. They have no idea who is sponsoring that advertisement, who's sponsoring that commercial. Section 62 of this act will require that all political advertising must show sponsorship.
There's nothing wrong with special-interest groups participating in getting a message out or advocating on behalf of a particular political party. That is not only allowed, it should be encouraged. But at the end of the day what's important is that at least those who read the advertisement, at least those who see the commercials, can identify who is sending that message to them, so in that context people can make up their mind whether the advertising has credibility, is something they choose to believe and to base their vote on. Again, in the interests of transparency, in the interests of preserving democracy within this province so that people can make their decision as to who they're going to vote for on the basis of fact, on the basis of objective information, this is an important part of the amendments that are being proposed under this legislation.
The amendments to the Election Finances Act include increases in donation and spending limits, as well as inflation indexing and assignment to the chief election officer of the functions currently performed by the Commission on Election Finances. There has been a great deal said in debate around this bill that the increase in funding or in allowable donations is going to be somehow counterproductive to the interests of democracy in this province, yet as I indicated before, this is consistent with the fact that we are significantly increasing, in some cases, the size of the ridings. We are bringing this into line with the limits of the federal jurisdictions.
When we think about this issue of the financing of elections, we have to keep in mind that, particularly in today's age, it's not simply a matter of printing brochures and delivering them. Certainly, someone in your position, Mr Speaker - you, I know, will want to spend as much as possible on effective communication, because you've had a difficult task here. You will want to be sure that the voters in your riding have factual information about the issues on which you are running. You will not want special-interest groups to have an advantage in terms of how they're lobbying with the electorate. You will want to have the resources, and I know you'll be supported by people in your riding who will make those donations to your election campaign to ensure that the message gets out about the good work that you've done and about the good policies on which you will be running in this next election.
The amount of money that has to be spent today as compared to money that was spent 10 or 15 years ago in an election campaign is significantly different. To take out an advertisement in a newspaper, to take space and time on television is certainly considerably greater than it has been in the past. We have to bring our method of communicating with the electorate into the realm of reality today. Not to do so would be a discredit to the responsibility that we as members of this Legislature have, and this bill will allow us to communicate more effectively.
The issue of reducing the time frame for the writ period: There has been some concern expressed about the fact that this wouldn't provide us with enough time to communicate with the voters, that they want that extended time frame.
Speaker, that was unfair, this message that you've just passed on to me. I'm shocked, I'm dismayed, but I'm not surprised. I wish you well.
Now where was I? The issue of the 28-day writ period. We're communicating daily. I recall the Common Sense Revolution was a document that articulated the policies very clearly on which we as a political party and now as a government based our promises to the people of Ontario. That document, the Common Sense Revolution, was published a good full year before the writ period. There's nothing at all to stop the members opposite, opposition parties, from clearly articulating before the writ is dropped what you stand for, if you can find something that you stand for.
We won't be partisan in this debate, but it reminds me of the comment that was once made, "You can tell he's a Liberal because he has both feet planted firmly in mid-air." I have a similar recollection of a comment about an NDP, but I can't share it. I'll share it with you later, Speaker, in private.
We urge members opposite to begin to share with the people of the province what you stand for. What are those policies that you would come forward to the people of this province with? When will you be clear that you will repeal Bill 160? Feel free to do that now, to let them know that you will reintroduce the number of school boards that have been reduced, to reintroduce employment equity legislation, to reintroduce legislation that will once again create an unlevel playing field in this province, to take away workfare. Feel free.
1910
We urge you to come forward early, come forward now. We know there will be another election very soon, and we would be interested to know precisely what it is you do stand for. You don't have to wait for the writ period. We all have an obligation to communicate as clearly as possible with the people of this province as to how you will manage the affairs of this province, how you will deal with job creation, how you will deal with the issue of confidence in the direction of this province, not only economically, but what you will do to ensure sustainability of social services, what you will do to ensure that the health care system in this province is not only maintained but improved and brought to the point where everyone in this province will be assured that when they need health services they will be there. You can't do that, and you know that, if you can't be first fiscally responsible.
We believe that the changes we are bringing forward in this legislation, when it is approved by this Legislature, will be in the best interests of the voters of this province. It will improve accountability within the electoral process. It will ensure that people in this province can get the message succinctly, clearly, and when they get a message, they will know who is giving it. They will know whether it's the union that is delivering the message through the airwaves, with funds that have been deducted from employees' wages as union dues. They'll know that.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Or the Family Coalition.
Mr Klees: Absolutely. The member opposite says, "Or the Family Coalition." Clearly it's important that people know whether the message that's being delivered is coming from a group of people who care deeply about the family, who care deeply about values that have been traditionally held in this province, absolutely. And we want that to happen. This bill will ensure that that happens.
I urge members opposite, it's not too late to reconsider your position on this bill. I can't imagine that you would want to go back to your electorate and have them know that you voted against a piece of legislation that brought accountability, that brought transparency, that reduced the cost of elections. How can you do that? I suppose you will have to explain that, along with many of the other votes that you've cast in this Legislature: opposed to workfare, opposed to reducing the deficit, opposed to creating an environment in this province to create jobs. You'll have an opportunity to explain that, and my colleagues will welcome the opportunity to clearly defend the record of this government. But we will be doing it as well against the backdrop of an election process that is clear, that is accountable, that is transparent. People will know what it is that we stand for, they will know well what it is that they can expect from us.
Mr Wildman: You will be doing it against a barrage of advertising paid for by big money.
Mr Klees: The member opposite, the member from Rainy River -
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Algoma.
Mr Klees: The member for Algoma speaks about advertising, implying that the advertising that would be paying for the messaging of our party would come from big business. Let me assure the member that the vast majority of contributions that come to our party, that come to me in my riding and have come in the past, come from small business, come from individuals, come in $25 and $50 amounts, come from individuals who care about the democratic process and who, quite frankly, have been fed up with a system of government that has bowed to the wishes of some large organizations, whether that be unions, whether that be other lobby groups, and I think it's time that we became very transparent in terms of who is paying for the advertising, who is paying for those signs on the lawns.
Mr Wildman: The National Citizens' Coalition.
Mr Klees: Yes, and nothing at all wrong. We welcome those contributions that come from the unions and we welcome contributions that come from the National Citizens' Coalition. But let it be clear, we also believe that every citizen of this province, every voter should know where it is coming from, and that is what this bill will do. Why would you oppose that? Why would you be opposed to ensuring that the voters of this province understand who is doing what, who is saying what in this province? We welcome you to reconsider your position.
I would like to leave some time for my good friend. In closing, I would like to also read what a newspaper has said about this. Interestingly enough, this comes from the north, for the member for Rainy River -
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): He's not here.
Mr Klees: Algoma. Let me see if he can guess - where is the member for Rainy River? No, I can't say that. He's probably here in spirit.
This is from the North Bay Nugget. Let me read it to you. The headline is "Election Changes Are for the Better." "The only people making a fuss over changes in Ontario election regulations are opposition parties. Voters are likely to agree with most of the adjustments and yawn about the others," in the wise words of the North Bay Nugget.
Again it begs the question, why would opposition parties oppose such commonsense changes that bring the Election Finances Act into the current day, that make the necessary changes to add democracy into the process, to add accountability, to add transparency into the process? We don't understand how the opposition parties could oppose it and we ask them to reconsider their position.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I certainly appreciate the opportunity to address the issue of Bill 36, which is way, way overdue. It's some 12 years since this was updated last, and it's certainly about time that we got down to the seriousness of it.
It's nice that the previous government, back in 1994, saw some light and struck a commission to look at this. There are some three NDP members sitting on it, two Liberals and two Conservatives, as I understand. It was unanimous. They all agreed with the recommendations coming forward. I think it's interesting at this point in time that the Liberals would jump up and down and yell and scream and cry and create a fight. That's obviously what they're trying to do: grab media attention, create a fight, on an issue that they totally agreed to in the first place. It's not too surprising, the steady flip-flop of the Liberals, that once again they would do that kind of thing on an issue such as that from the commission they sat on, fully agreed, and then they come into the House and start -
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You can't mislead the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for St Catharines, can you withdraw that, please.
Mr Bradley: I will be happy to withdraw that.
Mr Wildman: If he withdraws that, does that mean you can mislead the House?
The Deputy Speaker: Come on now. The member for Northumberland.
Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for recognizing the need to withdraw that statement. It's much appreciated that you followed up on that.
That's been the situation and the member for St Catharines understands that. The representatives on the commission did agree to it and now they're trying to pick a fight, recognizing that it's a good time for political opportunity.
Mr Bradley: You are cherrypicking -
The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines, come to order.
Mr Galt: Just looking at some of the issues in this particular bill, and the 28-day minimum length of appearing for campaigning purposes from the time of calling the writ until election, certainly this is something that the public have been asking for for some time. They've been saying they're tired of all these signs out in the countryside. They want a shorter election period. It does not take longer than a month to get your message across. Really what's going on here is responding to the issues and responding to the concerns that the public of Ontario have expressed for some time. There's no question that communications have changed over the 12 years. Certainly you can get your message out an awful lot faster than you used to be able to get the message out with all the electronic media, there's no question.
1920
By example or comparison, in England it's only a 21-day period. Surely to goodness if they can do it in 21 days in England, we in Ontario can do it in 28 days. Over and above that, we have a permanent voters' list, so it's not necessary to go out and develop the voters' list each time. There's going to be a tremendous amount of saving just because of this permanent voters' list.
I think it's just ideal to be moving ahead with combining Elections Ontario and Elections Canada. There's no point in having two bureaucracies to run the very same thing. Just right there alone, combining those two departments, we'll easily be saving a million dollars or more.
I did mention, as the member from St Catharines came in and brought to our attention, this all-party agreement with the commission that was struck in 1994, some 12 years to get around to making changes, and here we are, the opposition just trying to pick a fight for the sake of picking a fight. I understand that. It's good politics to pick a fight over something you think you might get public attention from. They've certainly tried, but I'm sure they must be pretty disappointed with the little bit of public attention they have ended up getting because of this particular fight that they've picked.
We've made an awful lot of changes in this government, one of them being changing the shape and configuration of the riding, with the boundaries now coterminous with the federal boundaries, reducing the number of provincial MPPs from 130 to 103, a reduction of 27. There's certainly going to be a saving in the House in the next term. I can see the real concern the third party has, with the ridings they now have. I can understand why they're quite concerned, but it makes so much sense to reduce the size of government.
We've been doing a lot of other things to reduce the size of government, from eliminating the gold-plated pension to getting rid of the tax-free allowance to -
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Galt: I notice the member for Lake Nipigon and the member for Algoma are very enthused about this. They really appreciate what has happened to the tax-free allowance and to the pension.
We've reduced the size of cabinet, dramatically reduced the size of political staff that each minister has, got rid of the subsidized barber shop and the subsidized restaurant. We've come a long way in making the kinds of changes that the public, the taxpayers, the ratepayers of Ontario have been asking for for a long time.
Coming back more specifically to this one, just getting the riding sizes consistent, the public will now have a better understanding. I know just the poll that I live in, federally it's cut north and south and provincially it's cut east and west. They go to different polling booths in different locations and it's very confusing for the public. With these changes there will be consistency from provincial to federal elections and people will understand the politics and what is happening.
It's interesting to look at some of the research and polling in the past. There have been no limits until here, in 1995, the commission made a suggestion of a limit, recommending we set up guidelines. But I think, as the member for St Catharines mentions, what's interesting is that previously the Liberals spent five times as much as the Tories on research and polling. It's obvious, in spite of the comments they make that we have extra money in the bank and therefore it's going to be to our advantage in the upcoming election, that spending five to one in the previous election did not do the Liberals any good. They still had the same number of seats, approximately, that they had prior to the last election.
The spending limits, in spite of what the commission recommended at $1.40 for each of the voters - that seemed quite high - are now in this bill at 96 cents per voter, consistent with the federal government. I would think the member for St Catharines would be very appreciative that it's been set at a level consistent with the federal government.
Mr Bradley: This is consistent with the Republican Party in the US.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, member for St Catharines.
Mr Galt: It's interesting to note that back in the last provincial election there was quite a range. It was all over the place, from as high as $2.05 in Rainy River to as low as 51 cents in York Centre.
Mr Wildman: Why was that?
Mr Galt: That's because of the way it was set up. Now we're getting that all straightened out. It was very inconsistent before. Maybe that's why the member happened to accidentally win in Rainy River, because they could spend so much up there. It's hard to say. I wouldn't be surprised.
I think the changes that we're making here are going to be very helpful for the voters to better understand the election process in general. There's going to be some consistency in the riding sizes and there's going to be some consistency in what can be spent.
I also think it's interesting, in connection with the federal government, that there are absolutely no limits on what can be donated. We have very specific limits on what can be donated. I know the member for St Catharines has been very concerned about this, but he should really pay attention to the kind of limits that your federal cousins have in Ottawa, and there are just no limits whatsoever.
Mr Bradley: I have control of this House but not that House.
Mr Galt: You may think you have control over this House, but that may be a figment of your imagination, that you have control here. Just ask some of your backbenchers in your own party and you may find that you don't have as much control as you think.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Northumberland, direct your comments to the Chair, please.
Mr Galt: Certainly, Madam Speaker. That was through you to the member for St Catharines. I had no idea you might misinterpret that.
Madam Speaker, I draw to your attention the Chatham Daily News, "Election Changes Are Not Sinister." It comments in here, and I think it's quite interesting what they have to say:
"The legislation in question cuts the length of the campaign from 37 to 28 days, standardizes the amount candidates can spend per voter at 96 cents, excludes research, polling and travel costs from the spending limit, slightly increases tax credits for political contributions and introduces a new enumeration system and permanent voters' list."
It goes on to say nearer the end of the article:
"For our money, a shorter election campaign means less rhetoric and standardized spending and a revamped enumeration system makes, dare we say it, common sense.
"Hardly the stuff of dastardly plots.
"If Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty...is serious about replacing Mike Harris, we urge him to save the rhetoric for truly meaningful issues, of which there are plenty."
In winding up, just to highlight some of the issues that are being changed in this particular bill, one is a permanent voters' list created.
Mr Wildman: Good idea.
Mr Galt: The member for Algoma agrees with that: "Good idea." So does the member for Lake Nipigon. The member for St Catharines is holding his head pretty steady, but there are a lot of nods on the other side of the House agreeing with this particular position.
Also, temporarily absent voters are given the right to vote. Certainly that's the way it should be. I spent a year in Indonesia with CIDA, and while I was there I gave up my right to vote, but I did not get the opportunity to give up my right to pay taxes. I had to pay Canadian taxes while I worked there for a year but I did not get a chance to vote in the federal election that took place while I was there.
Third - through you, Madam Speaker - the ability to test new procedures during by-elections.
Fourth, electors can be added to the voters' list on election day.
All political advertising, including interest groups, must show ad sponsor. It doesn't matter how many of your unions get out there to campaign for you; the public should know that it's coming from a union or whoever is out there on your behalf.
Registered charities cannot make political contributions in Ontario. I can't imagine a political party that would extract funds from a charity, but obviously it's necessary. Maybe the third party and the official opposition get their funds in strange ways.
Affiliated political organizations cannot accept donations.
A new offence of bribery is added to the act. Wow. Terrible that in our culture we have to put that in, but obviously it's necessary.
Recounts will be applied automatically if the spread is less than 25 votes.
I think this is an absolutely excellent bill that's being brought forward at this time, Bill 36, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Election Finances Act, and to make related amendments to other statutes. Because of the content of this bill and its 12 years in coming, I can very enthusiastically support it and I'm sure that all members of the Tory caucus can enthusiastically support it. I would suggest that members on the other side of the House relook at this bill because there's a tremendous amount in here that's going to be helpful to both of those parties.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the time.
1930
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Bradley: This bill is all about putting more money in the pockets of the Progressive Conservative Party, the governing party in Ontario. It increases substantially the amount of money that corporations and individuals can donate to a political party or individual candidates. It increases substantially the amount of money that candidates and political parties can spend in an Ontario election campaign. It limits the campaign period to such an extent that the government gains an advantage because it knows when the election is going to be and purchases all of the television time for that.
I can tell you, the smart characters - I won't use the second part of that I was going to - who sit in the back rooms of the Premier's office and who sit in the back rooms of the Conservative Party really think they're being clever: "Oh, we're really clever. We've got this great idea. We will buy the election. We will change the rules so that money is king in Ontario." That's the way it is in the American process.
It was interesting. Last week, while we were discussing certain things in this House, the House of Representatives in the United States was talking about campaign spending and financing. They were running into many of the problems on an ongoing basis that you people are heading to with this particular bill.
Here you're going to abolish the Commission on Election Finances, the watchdog over the spending and the contributions that can be made in this province. You are exempting from any consideration at all, any limits at all, certain activities such as polling and research, which you will define very widely. This is all so that all the money that you've gathered from the richest people in this province and the most powerful people in the province, the people to whom you have geared your policies, your legislation and your regulations - so you can gather the money from those people to try to buy the election. You've stacked the deck with this bill.
Mr Wildman: I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Northumberland, the member for York-Mackenzie and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay. I find it a little bit strange logic to try to justify the changes that are being proposed in this legislation on the basis that they were approved by the commission. First, that ignores the fact that there are a number of changes in here that were not proposed by the commission. But the government members say that they were recommended by the commission and then in the next breath say that they are going to eliminate the commission. If they depend so much on the commission, why are they eliminating it?
Also, the suggestion that this makes things more transparent: I wonder if the members are suggesting that the election campaigning that we've had in this province for the last 20 or 30 years was less than transparent and that we don't report who contributes funds to our campaigns. Surely that is required under the law.
The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay compared a number of jurisdictions in Canada and pointed out the length of campaigns in the various jurisdictions and the expenditure limits and so on in a number of jurisdictions. I find it strange that a member of the governing party would do that in this instance and yet not do that in others.
Why is it that a member of the governing party, the Minister of Education and Training, for instance, doesn't get up and read how much we spend per capita for post-secondary education across Canada and compare Ontario to the other jurisdictions? We are last, by the way. He doesn't say that because of that we should be increasing it, but in this case they say we should be doing this because it's done in other jurisdictions.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I want to congratulate the members for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, York-Mackenzie and Northumberland for their speeches. They were all excellent.
A point that needs to be made is that most of these changes came from the election commission that was appointed by the NDP government, a commission of seven people. Five of those people were from the opposition benches, two Liberals and three NDPers.
Dan Girard of the Toronto Star had this to say: "The opposition parties are open to ridicule because Liberal and New Democrat officials agreed with the proposals when drafted by the commission last year." It's a very good point.
I think it's also very relevant when we look at some quotes from Dalton McGuinty. Mr McGuinty says that if we are going to go over to the federal ridings, we should also be looking at the same spending limits for federal ridings.
Dwight Duncan, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, says, "If the federal expense limits were high enough for the recent federal election campaign, why are they not high enough for Mike Harris?"
The answer is that indeed they are. We've done exactly what Mr McGuinty and Mr Duncan have asked for; 96 cents is the spending limit for local candidates, the same as in the federal election. If you compare that to other jurisdictions, one might say that's not a high enough limit. Alberta has no limit. In Manitoba it's $1.25. In New Brunswick it's $1.75. In Quebec it's $1. We're below all of those jurisdictions.
Also Mr McGuinty and Mr Duncan wanted us to have the federal limits. Spending limit of recognized parties: 60 cents per eligible elector in Ontario. Last federal election: 60 cents. We've done exactly what Mr McGuinty, Mr Duncan and several others on the other side have asked for, including five of the seven opposition members on the election commission.
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member quite correctly in the first instance attributed something to the leader of our party and to myself, but in the second instance it's patently not true.
The Deputy Speaker: You have to withdraw the second part of your statement. You can't say that.
Mr Maves: On the second part, let me rephrase -
The Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. You can't correct the record that way.
Where are we here? One more? Questions and comments? No more questions and comments? Okay, the member for either York-Mackenzie or Northumberland can sum up.
Mr Klees: Let me sum up. I think we have had an opportunity this evening to discuss a very important piece of legislation. We've had the opportunity to set forward very clearly for the people of this province the rationale behind bringing this legislation forward at this time. We made it very clear that it is in the interest of bringing accountability to this process which the people of this province honour. It is their opportunity to come forward and to cast a vote for the government of their choice.
Surely it's important that during the course of that election process the people of this province should have the right first of all to make contributions financially and in kind to the process. Surely it's important that people, as they hear advertising, whether that be through the radio, television or in print, know who is sending that message. The disclosure behind the advertising that's contained in this legislation is ultimately in the interest of democracy and a clear understanding of what the message is.
The fact that we are bringing the electoral process into these days - the Berlin Wall has fallen. People are using automatic tellers at the bank. We're no longer using an abacus. It's time we brought the Election Act and the Election Finances Act into 1998 and beyond, and that's what this legislation will do. Members opposite, you can stay in the past if you like; we're moving forward with the people of Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Windsor-Walkerville.
1940
Mr Duncan: This evening I will be sharing the time we have allotted to us with the member for Timiskaming.
Tonight we have heard the beginnings of debate, and I noted with some interest that the member for York-Mackenzie suggested that this bill is designed to bring accountability to the process. I note rather sadly that the minister responsible for this bill wouldn't even address it in the House when he brought the bill forward, wouldn't give a ministerial statement. In terms of accountability and transparency, isn't it odd that the government House Leader would call this bill at night time, when the media are gone? Isn't that odd? And it's not planned and not deliberate. We ought not be surprised, because everything we've heard tonight so far twists, distorts and selectively uses comments and quotes out of context.
Let me begin by talking about what the bill deals with and where the government formed the basis of its legislation. We're dealing specifically with two acts, the Election Act and the Election Finances Act. In the course of the last eight years, there have been three distinct groups working on three distinct parts of the two pieces of legislation without considering both pieces at the same time, or taking into account the full view of the electoral process in this province, either prior to this bill or certainly subsequent to it. Obviously they haven't considered that. They have dealt with and brought together, in addition to those proposed changes, changes of their own, changes that don't come out of any of the three documents.
I think it's also worthy to note, and we will be talking a little bit about this, that there are items that they ought to have considered. There are items that all three parties ought to have considered when looking at electoral reform in this province; specifically, pre-writ spending by political parties and how that is unregulated in this province; the use of government money, government advertising in the pre-writ period; and finally such things that are related to campaign financing and election law as lobbyist registration and more accountability.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I recognize on the other side the member that's sitting on the desk, but I don't know who the member behind the desk is. I wondered if you could explain it. There's one of our members sitting on the desk.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I don't know what you're talking about.
Member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Now I see what you're talking about.
Mr Duncan: What is important to understand is that the government has taken certain aspects of different reports and pulled them all together. The net effect of those changes is to stack the election process in the favour of incumbent governments, particularly those governments that are well off financially.
I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about the changes that are contemplated in the act, in Bill 36, because the government members really didn't deal with the more contentious ones. They dealt with a number of amendments that, while important, certainly don't constitute a risk in the view - I can speak for our party, but probably in the view of either political party on the opposition benches. There are numbers of amendments that have not received public debate because they are relatively minor in nature. There are others that are acknowledged, important changes, such as permanent voters' lists, which I think are worthy of consideration. But I'd like to talk for a few minutes about several of the major changes that the government contemplates and discuss what we believe to be the real implications of those changes.
First of all, one of the most significant is the writ period being reduced to a minimum of 28 days from its current 37 days. The government members opposite have talked about how this fits with other jurisdictions, and the fact is it doesn't. It's all over the board how long, ranging from 28 days to 37 days, 33 days, 30 days. What we found particularly intriguing about this particular amendment was that initially the government tried to suggest that the chief election officer had endorsed it. Our phone calls, which were subsequently confirmed by the media, indicated that simply was not the case. That was more government spin, more spin paid for by generous contributions to the whiz kids and other assorted experts who have crafted this document and have put it into the hands of this Legislature. In fact, no one recommended that; it came out of nowhere. Why? That's the question we asked ourselves. Let's consider for a moment what the implications of a shorter writ period mean.
First of all, it means a greater reliance on advertising, and advertising, yes, costs money - big money. It means a greater reliance on money. It means that a party that raised millions in one year will have a distinct advantage over others that didn't. So it's not about what's good for the electorate, it's about what's good for the governing party, what's good for the Harris government, what's good for the Tories. It's about more money.
Mr Galt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound had an excellent point, but what he forgot to mention was that the member sitting on the desk was actually a bear. It was a product of China that was distributed earlier in the day by the NDP. I thought it was important -
The Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat. This is not a point of order. Come on now, there's a member in the middle of his speech.
Member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr Duncan: It's obvious the government doesn't want to talk about this legislation, for good reason, and I say to the member for York-Mackenzie and others who suggest that we might want to change our position, absolutely not. We're quite comfortable with our position.
The shortened period is not about better campaigns. It's about more money; it's about more advertising; it's about buying elections; it's about large contributions to one political party. It came from nowhere. It wasn't recommended by the commission, it wasn't recommended by the chief electoral officer, it wasn't recommended by the ad hoc committee; it was recommended by the whiz kids, the backroom boys, the same people who worked for Brian Mulroney. It's designed unequivocally to give a leg up and a hand up and a dollar up to a government party that's awash in cash. That's what that particular amendment is about, and any talk about an improved process is nonsense.
If the government were serious about following up on the Fewer Politicians Act, then why don't you simply reappoint the federal returning officers? Oh no, that's much too good a trough to follow up on. If you are so interested in making a level playing field, why didn't you talk about or initiate discussions about limitations on pre-writ expenditures? In the pre-writ period prior to the last election, the well-to-do, well-moneyed party spent almost twice as much as the opposition parties, not including what they can do this time and what they're doing this time with paid government advertising. Every week, in every major daily in Ontario, there have been paid government advertisements. In addition to that, we see this, blatant, crass political advertising paid for by the taxpayers of this province, as if you don't have enough money in your own coffers. We see it.
1950
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: While we don't mind the member advertising the pamphlet, which comes to about half of what the Liberals spent when they were in power, I don't believe we can use props in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: It's a good point of order. You're not supposed to use props in the House.
Mr Duncan: This is the other one they mailed, at considerable cost to the taxpayers -
Mr Preston: Madam Speaker, I don't mind them using their advertising -
The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Sit.
Mr Preston: Oh, okay.
The Deputy Speaker: After conferring with the table officers, it's not a prop per se but it's causing a disruption in the House and therefore can be construed as a demonstration. So I ask you not to do that, please.
Mr Duncan: I'll read from my notes and I'll talk about what that member's afraid of.
Mr Preston: Point of order, Speaker: The man is making fun of the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat, please.
Mr Duncan: I'm not making fun of the Chair, I'm making fun of you because you don't want to debate it. You don't want to take accountability for both of these pieces of government-paid-for propaganda. You've cut money from hospitals, you've closed schools -
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Just take your seat. Member for Brant-Haldimand, I ask you to please come to order.
Mr Duncan: You've cut money from schools and hospitals and you send this garbage out under the guise of democracy? Wrong. The shortened writ period is all about this kind of bullying. It's all about stifling debate and buying advertising. It's all about undermining democracy in this province. The members ought to discuss this bill and not their silly points of order.
Once again, I want to turn my attention for a few moments to the contribution limits. The government members have made an argument around the issue of contribution limits. They have suggested -
Mr Preston: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: The man said it was "a silly point of order," and you agreed that it was a good point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Brant-Haldimand, I don't think it's fair to keep interrupting the member's speech unless you really have a valid point of order.
Mr Duncan: Madam Speaker, I did not consider your ruling to be silly; I considered the member opposite to be silly.
I want to talk about the changes to contribution limits. The government members talked about that and how there's no limit on federal contributions, and they're absolutely right about that. I suspect they probably didn't want to discuss the other part of that equation. They conveniently left out the part that federally there are limitations on tax credits, half of what they're proposing in terms of tax credits. They didn't want to talk about that.
So the people of Ontario understand, the maximum contribution limit to political parties is being raised from $4,000 right now to $7,500 - almost doubling it, but not quite. In addition, under the Corporations Tax Act, corporations can now write off $15,000 in aggregate contributions to political parties. They didn't mention those figures in their discussions because they obviously didn't want to, just like they don't want to talk about this bill tonight, just like the minister didn't want to address it when he introduced the bill, just like they stand up and interrupt because they don't want to talk about it. They do it in the dark of night and they have no debate, they have no hearings. Of course they don't want to talk about that, because those members know full well what this is all about. This changes the entire process and it gives the advantage to those with money.
In addition to the central party increases, they're now proposing to increase the limits on contributions from $750 to $1,000 per riding, with certain maximums. Again, they didn't want to talk about that, and they didn't want to talk about it in the context of a shortened campaign period. Of course they didn't. Their game is about trying to change the rules to their benefit and make it appear as though they're not. They were quite prepared, until we intervened, to more than double the average riding expenditure. That was well reported earlier this year. Then they got afraid. They put that one through and then they take everything we said out of context, as if we support everything they did.
Yes, I agree that the riding limits should be exactly the same as the federal limits. That is what we did propose some months ago, when the then government House leader suggested publicly, I remind the members opposite, that they were going to proceed with those riding expenditures, limits that were contemplated first by the commission and then obviously by the government.
They talk a lot about that one small amendment and they talk about a number of other amendments that we don't disagree with. A permanent voters' list we can agree with, some of the routine changes that are being made for the election process we can agree with, but let's talk for a moment about the changes to the central campaign spending and what their significance is. I want to address it in the context of the government's last official return, the 1995 return, to show you how people whose motives are suspect can twist the truth and make an argument that on the face of it would appear compelling. The member for Niagara Falls suggested that somehow we supported the 60-cent-per-voter spending limit the government is proposing, as opposed to 40 cents, saying that copied the federal rules. In fact (1) that is not the federal rule and (2) we never supported that in writing or publicly or anywhere else, for that matter. That is an example of the kind of distortion that is being created.
Just so we'll understand, the members opposite said that the federal government has a 60-cent-per-voter limit. They don't. It's a formula that doesn't come close to 60 cents per voter. What is the effect and impact of that? It doubles the amount the central campaign can spend. Let's take some raw numbers from the government's return. By the government's own figures, current political party spending, their overall limit is $2.69 million. Under the proposal, going from 40 cents to 60 cents, you go to $4.048 million. We've also proposed to exclude travel spending and polling spending. Let's not take the election. Let's take the governing party's, the Tories' last return, 1997, which wasn't an election year, to show you the magnitude of what these little changes mean, these little transparencies, these little things that are designed to clean up.
Last year, by its own report, the government spent $352,000 on travel. On polling last year, 1997, they spent $609,000. If you take those figures and add them to the government's acknowledged limit, your total spending from the central party in an election period goes from $2.6 million to $5 million. That's a difference of $2.3 million, an 86% increase. Then the clever member, I forget which one, said, "Look at our 1995 return and you'll see we spent nothing on polling." Wrong. Look at the background documents. You showed your polling under the consultants line. You buried it, you hid it, you didn't want people to know. Now you propose to disband the very body that is charged with being a watchdog over that same kind of sleazy politics. That's what your policy is all about.
I felt compelled to share with the government members opposite, who have been dutifully reading from their briefing notes and dutifully reporting out half the story, the reality that these changes, these significant changes, alter dramatically the amount of money a political party can spend at the central level during a campaign. You can spend a lot more. So what's this all about? Is it about democracy? No. Is it about clarity of process? No. Is it about a more informed electorate? No. It's about money and it's about who can buy more advertising and it's about who can spend more.
The government members have made light of the fact that historically in this province we have arrived at electoral law reform on a consensual basis. This time no such luck. The government had no intention of even trying to reach consensus. There was room for negotiation and the government closed the door on that. The government wants to buy the next election. They don't want to limit spending. They don't want to control their own abuses. They want to change the system to their advantage. That's what it's all about. It's about gaining an advantage. That's what this bill's about. It's not about democracy; it's not about transparency of process. It's about who can raise the most and who can spend the most. I wonder who that might be.
2000
I want to go back for a couple of moments and talk about the abolition of the election finances commission and putting the powers under the chief election officer. They say they don't have that federally. They don't, but you know what? They don't have individual reporting federally either. So again you're mixing apples and oranges.
The whiz kids are smart enough to know that's not the kind of issue that's going to light up people's minds out there and get people concerned about what's happening to our election processes here in this province. I suggest to the government members opposite that you ought to think through what the implications of all these changes are and not consider them in an isolated fashion, because, my friends, you too may find yourself on the other side some day. Some of you have been there. These changes shift the balance to money, they shift the balance to those who give money, and they take it away from those who don't have it.
The government has also increased the tax credits on contributions. They talk proudly about how much these changes are going to save the taxpayers - a permanent voters' list. They don't talk about how much the tax credit changes are going to cost and who the beneficiary is going to be. Like so much else, the debate is selective and limited and not completely informed.
What it comes down to, in our view, is that how we govern elections first of all ought to be agreed to by the three official parties in the Legislature, or, if there were four, whatever the official parties, there ought to be consensus, number one. That's important, because what makes this law particularly important is it governs how we elect members of this assembly. When a government with a majority imposes its will without that consensus, and we have seen in the past that consensus can be reached on these issues, what it means is we're no longer interested in a fair process; we are interested in making it work for the government, for the party with the money.
The other aspect from a global perspective - it has been suggested that somehow there was some kind of opportunity to negotiate. That was not the case. It never was the case. The bill was written and there was no opportunity for discussion. If the government were serious about clear and transparent processes, they would address the tough questions. What about pre-writ spending? If the government is concerned about that process, release to us now how much you've spent since January 1 of this year, first of all on party advertising but, more important, on government advertising. Tell us what that means and tell us what the significance of these documents is. Tell us what possible good this could be.
I would much rather have taken the money you spent on this and invested it at Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor, or Windsor regional, so there wouldn't be people lying on cots. It's really interesting. One of the government members challenged us about what we stand for and where we'll be. We'll have that. But I remind the government members of your broken promises. You've got no money for health care, but you've got lots of money for cheap political advertising. You've cut money from classroom education, but you've still got money for cheap political advertising.
You have an obligation to the people of this province to withdraw this bill and let the official parties in this Legislature come to consensus. I don't care what the Chatham Daily News says, I really don't. This is about a much more insidious and long-term thing than that. This is about the very fairness of our processes. This is about who's going to have money, who's going to win elections, who's going to be able to influence elections.
It's unfortunate that the government takes such a cavalier attitude to these types of issues. If they were serious, they'd deal with lobbyist registrations and then maybe situations like Casino Niagara wouldn't be going on the way it is right now. Maybe it wouldn't be happening. You talk about what other jurisdictions have done. You're the slowest in bringing forward lobbyist registration. Why wouldn't you do that, if your concern is with democracy and with process? Why wouldn't you do it? If your concern is so pure and so good with respect to the costs to the system, then I challenge you, appoint the federal returning officers. Forget the patronage orgy. Reappoint them.
But you won't do that, because this bill has nothing to do with democracy and it has nothing to do with process and it has nothing to do with transparency and it has everything to do with money, who has it, and it has to do with power and who can buy it, and it has to do with a party that will do anything to keep power. It will change the very laws that govern the way we elect our representatives. It will not consult. It will not have hearings. The minister responsible for the bill won't address it in this Legislature. You won't have committee hearings. Why? You don't want to, because this has nothing to with democracy, it has nothing to do with process; it has everything to do with money and influence and how you can control the process to your advantage.
Some of the members opposite suggested that perhaps we ought to reconsider our views. We won't. We see this as a major issue. We're going to be talking a lot more about Casino Niagara, we're going to be talking a lot more about lobbyists, we're going to be talking a lot more about money and the process. You've got to look at the bigger picture. It is the view of the Ontario Liberal Party and its leader, Dalton McGuinty, that when you look at the big picture, this bill is not about democracy, it's not about transparency; it's about money, it's about who can pay for elections, it's about advantage and it's unfair. Withdraw the bill. Let's work out a consensus piece of legislation that all parties in this House can live with and that the people of this province will be well served by.
2010
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for sharing his time this evening, and it is interesting that this debate is happening in the evening. As he very ably pointed out in his speech, while the press goes home and things are quieter around here, the government is attempting to get this bill through, which I think is very similar to what happened last week.
I would say to people that they may have read in the newspapers and maybe caught on a few TV clips that there was quite a ruckus here in this House. The reason is, as has been ably said by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, that up till now three parties in this House have reached consensus in the past on how election law should be written in this province.
I think our leader Dalton McGuinty said it very well, that as young boys and girls on the playground we all know that when we want to change the rules, we do that by consensus. We work that out and we change the rules of the game by consensus and then we proceed with the new game. There's nothing wrong with changing the rules. Of course, they do have to be modernized, but we should do that together. This should not be about, at this time, taking advantage. Once the contest begins, then let the best party win. That's democracy. But I think we should all be agreed on the rules. I think that's very important and I think, through that, the general public should be assured that there is a level playing field, that there is fairness in the system for all and that any of the three parties would have a chance of seeking re-election.
Certainly the cards in this deck are stacked in favour of the government party; there's no doubt about it. What we're seeing with this set of changes in the election law is really an Americanization of our election system. That is basically big-time money, big spending, big fund-raising so that you can finance that big spending. That's really sad to see. It's very sad to see.
I look across the way here. Myself and other members in this House represent rural ridings where electioneering is more of a personal business. The modern-day phrase is "hands on," but I guess in the old days you'd say "eye-to-eye contact." The goal of a candidate in rural Ontario, as much as possible, and I'm sure in most ridings, is to try to meet as many people as possible, to have a face-to-face encounter with the elector to debate the issues, to tell the elector where you stand and to debate that. In rural ridings it's very personal.
I would say the number one activity of a candidate is door-to-door, is not a big TV media buy like you're selling a bar of soap. It's getting around to as many households as possible, to press the flesh, as we say in politics, to make that contact. That's exactly what we want to do, to go around and make that contact and engage the electorate in debate.
We who do this all the time somehow feel that the electorate is constantly, every day, as involved in politics as we are, but of course that's not the case. We all have families to raise, we have lives to live. People are very busy and they don't focus all the time on politics. But the vast majority in this democracy, in this country, do focus on politics during election time and that's the time to go out and engage people in debate.
Activities such as door-to-door activity, what we would call main-streeting, getting into very small towns and hamlets and somewhat bigger centres and getting on the streets, walking down the streets, going into the businesses, talking to people who are shopping, again almost forcing that engagement during that 36-day period that it used to be, are very important, and it doesn't take a lot of money to do that. Most of us don't have that much money when we raise money for our elections. In fact, most people are left with debts and work very hard in the next four years through fund-raisers of various kinds to try to eliminate those debts to prepare oneself and one's party at the riding level for the next campaign.
This is really going to be changing the face of politics in Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: I just want to clarify a ruling I gave, perhaps elaborate on it briefly, on a point of order raised by the member for Brant-Haldimand about props.
I've been doing a little research with the Clerk since then and I want to clarify that in fact what the member was holding up at that time I would not consider a prop. It was part of the issue he was discussing and it was part of the information he was giving.
However, let me remind members that signs and other kinds of props, perhaps like those Teddy bears that were on the desk earlier, would be considered out of order. But in fact, to be clear, those pieces of literature at that time within the context of that debate were not out of order.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I understand your confusion, if it was a little confusion, because it seemed to me that the member for Brant-Haldimand himself was a prop.
The Deputy Speaker: I don't think that's a point of order. Could you start the clock again. Thank you for your indulgence, member for Timiskaming.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for that clarification, Madam Speaker. I was just about to bring up the same subject. I felt the point my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville had made was very important. If this government's intention was truly to clean up the political process, then the government should have gone beyond the consideration of only those moneys spent to convince people to vote for one's party, oneself, during the campaign period only, and extended that over the full term of government.
As the member for St Catharines and others in our caucus have brought up day after day, week after week this spring since this government has been very prolific in its publication of propaganda throughout this province, we have seen, where there is no restriction at all, an almost unlimited amount of propaganda coming from this government sent to most households throughout this province; two pieces of literature that I would say any politician would be very proud to produce as campaign literature, quite frankly. It is very well done, very professionally done, and it was very expensive; very expensive not only in its production but also in its distribution.
Yet there are no laws in governing the distribution of this. In fact, what's interesting about this, of course, is that it is not the expenditure of a political party. This is you and I, ladies and gentlemen, right across the province paying for this stuff through our taxpayer dollars. That's what's happening there and, quite frankly, we think that's wrong.
We think a political party is within its right, obviously, to be spending money that is raised through the political process to try to convince people that what they're saying is correct, to communicate to people the pieces of legislation, the reforms that they would like to make in Ontario, as they see it. That's a legitimate part of the process. But it seems month after month we are getting a proliferation of propaganda from this government that continues to flow at taxpayers' expense. I'd say to the government members, who seem to be very quiet over there right now, that this is something that a lot of Ontarians would be very pleased to see you tackle, especially now that you're in government. Now would be the time to do it. I think hats would go off to you to do that for sure.
These so-called reforms, changes in our election law, are about money, about spending more money, spending money to convince people to support a government. When you look at what's going on in the political process right now, this government certainly has catered, and in fact they have not denied that, to the more affluent influences of this province. Through their very large fund-raisers, they have coffers that are overflowing with dollars. I imagine they were scratching their heads in the back rooms a few months ago, asking themselves: "Gee, this is so great, we've got a lot of money, but how in the heck are we going to spend it? Our law doesn't actually allow us to spend all this money that we've been able to raise."
The answer, of course, would be just to raise those limits. "Why don't we do that? Why don't we raise the amount of money that we can spend both at the party level and at the local level? Not only could we raise the limits, but why don't we exempt some major expenditures that are very crucial to modern, high-tech electioneering such as polling, which is very expensive?"
Mr Bradley: Who said that? Tom Long
Mr Ramsay: I think it was Tom Long, probably, who advised -
Mr Duncan: Or Leslie Noble.
Mr Ramsay: Or Leslie Noble - who advised the Premier and the Chair of Management Board that: "This would be another way that basically we sort of," as they would say in government, "take this off book. We could just take some expenses and not have to report them at all, and then we could really let her rip." That's what's happening: They're letting election expenditures rip to infinity, because these areas are not going to be reported at all.
2020
What that means, really, in planning an election - and a lot of it would be called pre-writ, before the election itself actually starts - or right through the election, is to be able to spend up to millions of dollars. Quite frankly, it's very easy today to spend millions of dollars on political polling, to basically take the pulse of the people of Ontario. The way polling works today with daily polling, you do these rotating polls day in, day out, starting months before the election and rolling right up through the election. This is the way to do it, and if you've got the money you can have a handle on what every Ontarian is thinking on a day-by-day basis. That's how politics is working today. Of course the advantage of that is to be able to tailor that message to fit exactly what the electorate would want to hear. That's a tremendous advantage.
One of the new techniques this is allowing involves polling also, but polling has changed. In the old days, polling was asking people what they thought. But there's a new type of polling, called a push poll, which actually in a way is campaigning, is advertising. It's not only advertising, it is actually pushing propaganda in a most sinister way, because while it appears to be a traditional poll asking questions, you can couch the question in such a way as to suggest the answer, or to suggest an activity is going on that may not necessarily be going on. You can plant those sorts of ideas in people's minds. What you've done through the new technique of push polling is now given unlimited, unbridled access to this sort of advertising propaganda with no election expense cap on that at all. Now polling, rather than just being a tool, becomes a weapon, and that weapon is being unleashed because there is no longer any financial cap on it.
That scenario is a far cry from the election that I'm talking about, the elections that I run, have run for four times so far and will do again in the next election, whenever it is called, and that is to make that personal contact with as many of the electors as possible in the riding, as it's going to be called, of Timiskaming-Cochrane.
This is really quite embarrassing for all of us. It smears all of us as politicians that at a time when my local hospital is being severely cut, when people in my riding unfortunately depend on social services because there is just not the employment in northern Ontario that there should be, when these people are being cut, when these critical services are being cut, this government is saying to all the politicians in Ontario: "Go ahead and spend money on getting yourself re-elected. Spend as much money as you want." It's going to be almost unlimited now. Boy, that's wrong.
Again, it's like we've heard lately, the politicians basically voting money for themselves. That's what we're seeing here at Queen's Park. This is probably the very worst. This is voting more money for ourselves to keep ourselves in this job. Those who can raise the most and spend the most will probably be the most successful. That's rather sad, because politics is moving away from that sort of activity of personal touch, of personal contact that I described, how elections go on in most of the regions of this province, to more of a Madison Avenue selling of the candidate, the party, an idea like a bar of soap. That's where we're moving and that's very sad.
We look at our neighbour to the south. Those of us interested in politics of course are very interested in American politics. In most of those areas, in techniques and campaigning methods, they lead the way in the world. They have the most money and they have the most modern, most highly sophisticated technological methods of campaigning. We look, sometimes with envy and sometimes with disgust, at how mechanized and how technologically sophisticated it has gotten. With that, it has gotten very distant from the people, unfortunately. As I said, we are now selling ideas, flogging them like a bar of soap, and that's rather sad.
But this now is what this government is heading towards. In fact, what they've done, with the money and with the campaign period being shortened and with loosening the restrictions as to when advertising during the campaign period can begin, is really gone down the road of Americanization of our elections. That gets us further and further away from that personalized election campaigning that has really been the hallmark in this country.
With the greater size of our ridings now, with the riding redistribution that happened last year, which takes effect as of the next election, those of us especially in rural northern Ontario find our ridings are now doubled in size, maybe double the number of voters we have to contact. Why in that case would you now shorten the length of time it would take a person such as myself to get around during that shortened period to meet people? I have less of an opportunity to do that.
What the government is basically saying is: "Don't worry about meeting people directly. Don't worry about debating the issues, forcing people to take a look at the various issues that are out there and engaging them in debate. Forget about that. All you've got to do is get some boys and girls there in some of these smoky back rooms and get the best Madison Avenue advertising firm you can and plan a most incredible, modern TV campaign to reach out to everyone. We're going to give you the money to do that and you can sell that platform, that candidate, like a box of laundry detergent."
That's where we're going. The more we go down that road, the less important it is for the voter to come out to the all-candidates' debate. In ridings such as mine, every community has an all-candidates' debate, usually sponsored by a community group that puts it on. Sometimes they're broadcast on the radio station, sometimes not, but there's usually very keen interest in that and people come out because they want to hear the views of all the candidates.
In my area in the last couple of elections we've had at least five candidates in those elections, not just three from the major parties, but usually candidates from other parties also. People get highly and intensely engaged in those campaigns and they do come out. They come out in the winter and they come out in the spring or summer. They'll come to a community hall and they will not only come out to view and observe an all-candidates' debate, but they will take part in that. They will engage the candidates in political debate. I think that's the way of democracy. But this government, while it on the one hand talks about trying to be closer to the people, trying to restore democracy, is basically downsizing democracy, just like they're downsizing everything else.
I know this government just loves these fancy titles for bills, very truncated, long-worded titles for bills, and I think this bill probably should be titled "An Act to downsize democracy by giving advantage to those who raise and spend the most dollars," because that's exactly what this bill is about.
It's also interesting to point out that there is tremendous frustration and resentment today among the electorate. I had this expressed last Thursday night while I was in a town hall meeting on Lands for Life in northern Ontario. Maybe democracy today only exists one day every four years, that being an election day, when people can actually go out and vote for whomever they wish. They can toss out a government, they can bring one in, but then after that, governments tend to do what they wish to do during that four-year mandate.
While as an opposition member I will argue strenuously, as we have - you can tell by some of the demonstrations we've had in this House over Bill 26 and other bully bills brought forward by this government - still in the end however badly I object to some of those things you've shoved down our throats - there's the Toronto bill and the bully bill, Bill 26, that brought all the downloading and the amalgamations - you have won the democratic right to bring those things in. I wish you'd engage this House and the people of Ontario, through your mandate, in discussion, and try to bring about consensus to bring the change that you wish, but I suppose in the end you still have that right, because you were elected, to shove those things down our throats, whether I like it or not.
2030
But I think it's a very different matter to unilaterally change the election law, to actually set the rules to your advantage. Doing that is now challenging the very foundations of democracy. As I said, it is one thing to shove your ideas down our throats; you do have the majority of members. But to break the tradition of this House - to have representatives, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville was our representative, sit around the table with the two other parties to hammer out, not always getting your own way, but to hammer out an agreement as to how election law should proceed in this province with the consensus of all three parties is the fundamental tenet of democracy in this country.
The Mike Harris bully government has broken that. They are bullying the Legislature again, bullying the two opposition parties, and writing up election law they way they see fit, to their own advantage. That is absolutely wrong. While I am here to represent everyone in my riding and I do that to the best of my ability, I feel I have a special responsibility to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. While I am also charged with representing the interests of people, and I unfortunately have very few of them in my riding, who are very affluent, very powerful, maybe through their profession or their industry, they certainly have the ability to represent themselves very ably.
But there are many, especially in a riding such as mine, Timiskaming, in northern Ontario where there is still 13.5% unemployment in northeastern Ontario. In my riding it's closer to 23% or 24% with an average industrial wage under $25,000 - very different from some of the ridings the colleagues across the way represent. I have a special responsibility to speak up for the needs of those people, the vast majority of the people in my riding. Those people don't have a lot of money to give to political parties. In fact, most of those people can't afford to give any money away to a political party, to a politician, because their full-time job is being charged with taking care of their families and themselves. They don't have that luxury, which is a right but also a luxury, to donate that money.
They don't have the power to influence the outcome of an election. They just have to hope that there are enough candidates out there speaking for their family's needs and their needs that would represent them. I hope that I can find the means elsewhere to mount a campaign so that I can speak for them, because they can't contribute to it. But in ridings where there are people with a lot of means and a lot of industry, a lot of manufacturing plants and mills, those businesses and individuals will now have the right to give $1,000 to an individual candidate and $5,000 or $10,000 to political parties, up from the $4,000 cap there was before.
Just as we're seeing in society today the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, what this bill does is make the rich even more powerful now in our democracy. It gives those that have the money, that have the luxury of being able to contribute to the political process at the upper end of the limits - which is thousands and thousands of dollars, in some cases, almost as much money as some people are trying to live on - a tremendous advantage. That's wrong. That is absolutely, fundamentally wrong.
What it does is no longer make this a level playing field. It's giving advantage to those that have money and therefore the political views favoured by those people that have money are going to be the views that prevail, because in the end the money will prevail. The group that spends the most, is able to hire the most effective Madison Avenue advertisers, that's the party that's going to prevail. It is going to be those views that prevail. That means the most affluent are going to get more tax cuts. That means that the marginal working poor, who have probably the most ignored family situation in our society, are not going to be removed from the tax rolls as they should be. The working poor should be freed from that tax burden so that they, in their struggle, can keep as much money as they can to keep their household together, their family together. That's what's going to be important.
But who in an election campaign will have the ability, through the donations, to really speak for them, or if there are some such as myself and my colleagues who will be speaking for them, will our voices be heard? Will our voices be drowned out by the big-money voices, by the big, powerful ads, because I won't have the big media buy in my area? I will not be going down, as it would be nice to do, I suppose, to the local television stations and the northern networks to say, "I want a big media buy through this vast 700-kilometre-long area that I hope to represent next time." I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm going to be running around door to door trying to meet people and going to those all-candidates' debates.
A candidate with a lot of money can go and do those media buys and saturate the airwaves. Another advantage that the governing party is going to have is that in this system they and they alone will know when the election is going to be called. They will decide that. So in advance, since in the next election we can start putting the ads on TV much sooner, and radio ads and newspaper ads, they will be able to purchase before we even know there's an election coming up, and through their ad agencies, make all the ad space purchases. They can buy up the very best space in the newspapers, buy up the very best time slots on television and radio stations.
They will be able to do that early and get all those spots done, because they know exactly when that's happening, where under present rules - I know people really appreciate this - we really can't start the advertising until the last couple of weeks of the election. When I talk to people, by the end of that final week towards election day they're quite sick and tired of that many ads anyway. But now, a very short period after the writ is dropped and the election is started, the ads will be able to roll out. They'll be able to roll out to newspapers and radio and television, and roll out they're going to, because the Mike Harris Tories are probably working on those ads today. They've got some of the cleverest people in North America.
Mr Duncan: They're running them already.
Mr Ramsay: My colleague says they're running them already, and that's true. They're doing a lot of pre-election spending, because they've got lots of money, and they're going to start to do that now.
They have tremendous advantages by being in government. That's our system and I accept that. They get to choose the date, but with that earlier starting date for the advertising campaigns in the election, they now have a much bigger advantage than a governing party that preceded them has ever had in the past. That's wrong. What's going to happen is that big money is going to take over the governing of Ontario, and the party that purports to take care of big money is the party that's going to continue to win.
Those voices out there of those who are powerless, who are really struggling to survive, are going to be less heard in Ontario; the voices that have the money behind them are the ones that are going to be heard the most. That's really sad. That is certainly going to affect the outcome of campaigns in the future, and as we walk down that road of American campaigning, it's really going to change the face of democracy here. It's going to move it to a more depersonalized, mechanized, high-tech process and remove it from the people contact of the past. There will be less time to make that contact with people, and with the amount of money candidates are going to be allowed to spend, that money is going to go into the very newest and most high-tech propaganda tools that are known to humankind and that money can buy. That's the type of election we're going to see, not just way down in the future but the very next campaign.
This bill that is before us is here to be passed before the end of June. This government wants this ready just in case they want to call an election this fall. I know they are looking at a window of opportunity there as a possibility, but probably not a window they'll take. It's a window I wish they would jump out of, but they don't want to. It will probably be next spring. But this law is there, ready for the spending of more money than the people of Ontario have ever seen spent.
What's also interesting about this that a lot of people don't realize is that it means more taxpayers' money being spent because of the whole tax credit system that funds 50% to 75% of these donations, so it is going to cost the taxpayers money. That's why, for all those reasons, we are very much against this bill.
2040
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Questions and comments?
Mr Pouliot: I certainly welcome and echo the sentiments expressed by the members for Timiskaming and Windsor-Walkerville. They are right in this instance. Beware. This is in fact the last straw. It's come full circle. You will now be entitled to spend twice as much, or approximately thereof, as is the case at present on your central campaign.
Picture this: straight from the United States of America, an ensemble, a conglomerate, a cocoon of right-wingers working in a field, under a climate where it's winner take all, the power of the purse. If we're not careful, if this comes to pass - they will use their majority muscle one more time to make it pass - if you're not rich, you will be hard-pressed to be re-elected or to become elected, unless you are a puppet of the rich and your masters will call the shot, because if you're an ordinary person with a run-of-the-mill riding association, you cannot match this kind of money.
Our only recourse, our only hope is the vigilance and the determination of each and every voter in the province to see through this scam. This is indeed the last straw. This time they've gone too far. Democracy should not be the result of the ability to control and, quote, to buy the will of the electorate.
Mr Grimmett: I'm pleased to make some comments on the speeches by the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Timiskaming. First of all, I thought it was kind of strange that they made such a big issue out of the matter that we're speaking about this evening. I would have thought that the local press in my riding followed the debates in the evening just as well as they do in the daytime. I know they pay close attention to the debates on television, both in the evening and in the daytime. I thought it was perhaps a little insulting to the Queen's Park bureau that they might not be watching the debates in the evening.
On some of the more substantive issues they raised, I want to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for his note that he sent over earlier to me. I didn't follow his advice, but it was certainly appreciated. He indicated that the idea of reducing the number of days in the campaign from 37 to 28 had come out of nowhere, but in fact it came from the chief election officer who said to us, said to the government, "You can save $10 million if you eliminate the nine days for enumeration," so 37 minus nine equals 28 days. That's where we came up with the 28 days; it came from the chief election officer.
The other idea the member for Windsor-Walkerville wanted to debate was the issue of whether he had encouraged us to go to the federal limits. Just so I don't make any error, I will read the letter that the member for Windsor-Walkerville wrote to the then deputy government House leader:
"I'm writing in regard to the changes to the Election Finances Act proposed by the Commission on Election Finances. Dalton McGuinty has asked me to take the lead for the Liberal caucus on this issue. The government argued quite strongly during the debate on Bill 81, the bill that eliminated 27 ridings, that if the federal ridings were good enough for the federal government, then they were good enough for the provincial government" -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to commend my colleagues for their remarks. Put very bluntly, what we have in this legislation is the government unilaterally changing the rules and firing the referee. Since the issue is campaign financing and the way in which we organize elections, this is a matter that I think ought to give some very real pause to everyone in the assembly.
I spend some time watching American politics. Theirs is a diseased democracy and the cancer that's killing American politics is money, big money. In fact I've been sitting here the last hour reading the last two or three issues of the New York Times and every bloody day there's another editorial about the pernicious effects of big money in American politics, a complaint that citizen politics is being replaced by big-money politics.
The tragedy in this, I say to all honourable members who put themselves, their personal integrity and their families on the line, is that in the end it is your integrity that is going to be compromised here. When I first came here 23 years ago, the assembly was beginning to deal in a positive way, under the leadership of people like Bob Welch, with trying to clean up the problems of an earlier time. I think real progress was made. I certainly agree the change needs to be made from time to time.
But the tragedy for me is that for all of us who come here it's our reputation, it's our integrity that's on the line. I've been around this business long enough to know that at the end of the day in big-money politics a lot of very good people and their reputations are ruined, not because their intentions weren't good, but because some of their agents got over-zealous and it was their name and their reputation on the front page of the Globe and Mail or someplace else.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I want to take this opportunity to comment on the speeches from the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Timiskaming. I want to point out that I too am shocked that this doesn't appear to be a central issue for the electorate, and would agree with your concerns around the way in which it was brought forward, around the lack of consultation, around the insistence of the government that this be pushed through in a time frame that doesn't really enable the electorate to think very clearly about the long-term effects of a bill like this on their ability to exercise their democratic rights within the province.
It is indeed a real concern that this government with this bill and with so many other of its actions has shown real disregard for the democratic process and has shown itself willing to risk the efforts that have been made to clean up the whole aspect of money as a form of trying to exercise power within the political sphere.
The more we can continue to alert people to the ultimate dangers of a bill like this, the crass political opportunism we see on the part of the government in pushing forward a bill like this at a time when they alone can benefit from such a thing and are responsible for really taking to a new low their whole treatment of the democratic process - I thank you for exposing that on your behalf.
2050
The Acting Speaker: Response, the member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr Duncan: My colleague from Timiskaming I felt put the issue in its best context of the night when he talked about what this means back home, whether it be in a rural northern riding or whether it be in a large urban riding in the south. It is about money and it is about a changing playing field. It's about moving from a system where we choose candidates based on personal contact, based on all-candidates' debates, into an era where advertising and money mean more than a thought, mean more than a deed.
What this bill means overall is it stacks the deck. It gives a government, particularly a government that has no compunction about raising money, a government that allows situations like the Niagara casino to happen, a huge advantage that the opposition parties simply can't meet.
As the leader of our party, Dalton McGuinty, said, this is about the Americanization of our system. This is a seat sale. It's about buying elections. It's about unfair advantage. It's about what we're all about, and it's unfortunate that this government's all about money. It's unfortunate that they don't want to work on a consensual basis. But I guess we ought not to have been surprised by that. We've gotten used to it by now.
This piece of legislation will pass this House. The government will have its advantage. The government will buy even more advertising than it is now. But all the advertising in the world won't save this government from its ultimate accountability, and Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party are not going to let you forget this bill, nor will the people of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Algoma.
Mr Wildman: Before I begin, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent for our party to defer its leadoff, as the critic responsible, the member for Hamilton Centre, is not present.
The Acting Speaker: Unanimous consent? Agreed.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate that from my colleagues.
I rise to participate in this debate because I believe this to be a very important debate, one that's central to our whole system of government. I don't want to overdramatize it, but as someone who has gone through seven election campaigns in this province and has seen changes from time to time in the electoral process across Ontario, I really think it's important for us to try to put this bill and these changes in the context of what is central to our political system: the ability of citizens to participate in the political process by choosing candidates, choosing policies, and making decisions about issues that are of importance to them individually and collectively across the province. So this is really central to our political system and I believe it to be a very important debate.
It's not just about how much it costs to put the electoral machinery in place. It's not just about who can contribute and how much, although that is important because that in itself is part of citizens' participation in the electoral process. It's more about what we value as Ontarians, as citizens of this democracy, about citizen participation in the political process. I think it is a very important debate.
There was some discussion earlier this evening about whether or not the media really was interested in this. The media has written stories about this and so on and I value the role of the fourth estate in our political process. They play a very important role of raising issues, publicizing, informing the public and so on. They play a very important role, a non-electoral role but a very essential role in our political process. But I'm not surprised if they may not be paying too much attention this evening. After all, it is prime time, it is after the normal working day.
I think in some ways the changes, particularly the mechanical changes, may seem to many people somewhat arcane and not particularly related to their experience as citizens. I think that may be one of the reasons why there may not be significant interest in this particular debate, even though I see it as central to the political process in Ontario.
I look at Bill 36 and I'm concerned about the content of the bill. I'm also concerned about the process that has led us to this debate. Again, though, I want to put it in some context. I've observed over the years that in democracies like ours, unfortunately, oftentimes citizens don't become involved directly in the political process unless they come to the conclusion that some issue or some policy is going to directly affect them or their families or their community. I suppose that's natural and understandable. But very few actually take the position that whatever change occurs in Ontario, however remote it may seem, in one way or another affects them and their community.
The other thing I find most alarming, as someone who believes in the political process and has participated in it for most of my life, is that where democracy is not usually threatened, citizens, people, tend to take it for granted. We've seen a decline over the years in voter turnout in election campaigns. As we talk about the Americanization of our system through this process, one should keep in mind that turnouts in American state election campaigns and congressional election campaigns are very poor compared to ours. It's not something that we who care about democracy would want to emulate.
It's interesting that other parts of the world that have not enjoyed the democracy that we have don't take democracy for granted when they finally achieve it. One just has to observe the occurrences in eastern Europe to understand how important it is to most of the people living in those new emerging democracies to be able to participate in the political process, to be able to influence political decision-making and political decision-makers. They don't take it for granted.
As someone who has visited the most populous nation in the world a couple of times and has a tremendous interest in that area, partly because my little girl comes from China, I'm struck by the image of the young man standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square that we all saw in that photograph, and sometimes wonder if many citizens anywhere, but certainly in a democracy, would see the chance to participate politically as seriously as that young man did. None of us know what ever happened to him nine years ago in Tiananmen Square.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): They don't have democracy.
Mr Wildman: No, they don't have democracy. That's why I wonder - I hope the member understands I'm not being partisan when I'm talking about this. The fact is that in a country where they do not enjoy democracy, those people who are concerned about democratic issues take them very seriously. Unfortunately, in a society where we do enjoy democracy, many citizens do take it for granted and don't participate. Why we would want to emulate our great democratic neighbour to the south, where political participation is even less than ours, I'm not sure.
2100
In terms of the mechanics of this bill, there are certain things in the bill that all of us who value democracy would want to support. Obviously there are some mechanical changes to the Election Act which are non-contentious, things like permanent voters' lists, eliminating having to have scrutineers go around in the first nine days of every campaign and make up new voters' lists. That's an old-fashioned, outmoded approach to collecting voters' names and addresses and ensuring that they're on the list. All of us would support that change. It's certainly non-contentious.
There are other things: maintaining the advertising blackout period. There are reasons that was established in the first place. We accept that it should be maintained.
There's one of particular interest to me, representing a large northern riding that is going to be doubled in size so that it runs somewhere in the neighbourhood of 700 miles from one end to the other in the next election: the change in the northern spending limit, additional spending for six northern ridings from $5,000 to $7,000. That makes sense. The $5,000 was established in 1975 and hasn't changed since. Obviously the value of $5,000 in 1975 was considerably more than it is now, in 1998.
So there are things that we can all support here that are just mechanical.
The suggestion that there should no longer be third-party advertising within the blackout period has some resonance with me. I think that probably makes sense. I would hope we would have the chance to have discussion with the public and with various interest groups and people who are interested in the political process across Ontario to hear what their views are on that one.
I am concerned about the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada, in dealing with the federal election law, has been very sceptical of attempts to limit third-party advertising in the political process. I would hope this government is going to agree to have hearings on this bill so that we can get into that particular matter, because it is very contentious and raises all sorts of legal and constitutional issues that we should be exploring before we accept that change. But as I say, personally I have some sympathy with that change and I hope we have hearings about it.
There are other changes here, though, that are quite problematic.
It has been suggested that because the provincial electoral officer suggested we could have a permanent voters' list and would not have to have enumerations for the first nine days of every election campaign period, we could shorten the minimum election period from 37 days to 28 days. One does not follow from the other. Simply because we have a permanent electoral list doesn't mean we have to shorten the campaign period. When you consider that our ridings in many cases are being doubled in size - in southern Ontario the geographic size is increasing but it's not as problematic, but the population is. In some areas in urban southern Ontario, the population is going to be very large in these new ridings.
In northern Ontario and other parts of rural Ontario, the geographic size is unbelievable. The riding that I would be running in next time, Algoma-Manitoulin, runs from Killarney, which is south of Sudbury - it's a beautiful place - all the way along the North Shore, including all of Manitoulin Island, to Sault Ste Marie, not including the city of Sault Ste Marie, and then north all the way to Manitouwadge and Hornepayne, and including Chapleau. It's an enormous area, and it's going to take time for all of the candidates from all of the political parties to get around. In 28 days you would not be able to spend one day in each community in that riding, even in the larger communities of the riding.
The other interesting point is that the suggestion has been made that we should move to a media-type campaign in the modern day, an electronic type of advertising campaign. The point is, in a riding like that, there is no media outlet that covers even a large portion of the riding, much less all of it. In the southeast end of the riding they get Sudbury media, in the central party of the riding they get Sault Ste Marie media, and in the north end of the riding they get Thunder Bay media. There is no media outlet that covers the whole area. There certainly is no newspaper that covers the whole area.
It has been suggested that because the riding sizes are increasing to the same sizes as the federal ridings, we should therefore have the same spending limits as the federal. I suggest to you that doesn't necessarily follow, but again I would like to have hearings about this so that we can hear from the public, the people of Ontario, the citizens we represent, to hear what their views are about this before we make a decision.
I am very concerned, though, about not just the change in the contribution levels or the expenditure ceiling but about what is no longer counted. That is what is significant here. This bill takes polling and travel for the central campaigns out of the spending limits. It also takes out the cost of campaign headquarters from the spending limits. In a large northern riding, a very well off riding association could have headquarters in many, many communities and it wouldn't be counted under the total limit. I don't understand how the other side, the people who are in this House proposing this, can justify that.
The government has also suggested that all of these proposals were proposed by the commission. That's not correct. The commission did not suggest shortening the campaign period. And even though they justify what they are proposing on the basis of the commission's recommendations about expenditures and campaign ceilings, this bill proposes the elimination of the commission. How can you say, "We're only doing what this commission wanted and we want to put in place what the commission said," and then also say, "But again, of course, we're going to eliminate the commission"? Talk about having it both ways.
I think it is unfortunate if we allow the expenditures to be escalated to the point where we become like American legislators. I don't know a great deal about state politics, other than Michigan, which is neighbouring my area of northern Ontario, but I do know something about American national politics, and I can tell you that a congressman, again recognizing that a congressman has to be elected every two years, as soon as she or he is elected has to begin raising funds for the next election, and they have enormous amounts of money that they collect. In some of the large urban areas they collect millions of dollars.
The interesting effect of that appears to be, if you look at the history of congressional elections, that once a congressman is elected, it is almost impossible to defeat that congressman. They are almost always re-elected. Even when there is a shift in the presidential election, congressmen get re-elected. Why? Because the challengers have a very difficult time raising the equivalent amounts of money required to really challenge the incumbent. That's what is alarming.
This bill, which is being brought forward unilaterally - and I hope the government isn't going to push it through, but it appears the government may be prepared to do that - gives the advantage to the incumbent, just as the American system tends to give the advantage to the incumbent. Incumbency is an advantage at any point in an election, but to make it so expensive to challenge the incumbent makes it almost impossible to defeat an incumbent government. That's what this is about. This is a government that has determined that it should remain in power, and it is not only prepared to make the argument in a campaign on the basis of policy, on the basis of program, but it is prepared to fix the operation to make it so it will stay in power. That is what is the challenge about democracy in this bill. That is what is alarming about this bill.
2110
All of us in this House are prepared to make arguments on the basis of ideas, policies, different approaches to resolving the issues. All of us should be prepared to have that exchange of ideas on as close to a level playing field as possible. There should not be any attempt by one party to tilt that field in their favour so that the others are always going uphill. Money has always been an important part of our election campaigns, but it should not become the most important thing and the central part of our political system so that all of those who participate are able to participate on the basis of their pocketbook rather than their ideas and their views.
Surely we must have hearings on this bill so that the citizens of Ontario can express their views before it becomes law. It should not be forced through on us.
The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Dufferin-Peel.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have comments to the member for Algoma on his remarks this evening. He has said a number of things, one of which is that he doesn't like the process, that he is concerned that there has been a consensus in the past, although I think that was on one occasion in 1986 -
Mr Wildman: Twice.
Mr Tilson: Twice. Two occasions. There are a number of other provinces where this process we're proceeding with is followed.
That's your view. Our side of the coin, of course, is that the Liberals and the NDP walked out of that process. They could say why they walked out, but the fact of the matter is that they did walk out.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): That's nonsense, absolute nonsense.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Kingston and The Islands, you're not in your regular seat.
Mr Tilson: Whether or not you like the process, the fact of the matter is that this legislation cries out to be changed. We've all talked about the changes in our electoral process that need to follow. For the life of me, I can't understand why the member and other members in the opposition are spending so much time with respect to process. The legislation needs to be changed, and we're changing it.
The main argument of the member for Algoma and the other members of the opposition seems to have to do with money. They seem to be consumed with the issue of money. I know the Liberal Party is in debt. I know that. I know the NDP is having trouble. Both those parties are having trouble raising money. They seem to be attributing that whole issue with respect to this act. That has nothing to do with it.
Mr Wildman: You're being silly.
Mr Tilson: I'm not being silly. The member says I'm being silly. The fact of the matter is that if the public supports the philosophy of a particular party, they're going to support that party with people, with volunteers and with financial contributions. That's what has happened. The problem is that the public did not support the NDP's philosophy that came about in the last five years. In fact, they threw you out, and they do not support you. That's one of the reasons why you're having trouble raising money. It has absolutely nothing to do with the spin you're trying to give on this piece of legislation.
Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate the comments from the member for Algoma. As a northern MPP and as someone who has contested three elections, I am a little concerned - or more than a little concerned; I am very concerned - with what the state of democracy will be during a 28-day campaign through an area that is about the size of New Brunswick in the particular constituency that I presently represent, one that ranges from places from Killarney through to Manitouwadge and includes places like Meldrum Bay and even Coburn Island with its dear two residents. They deserve an opportunity to see a candidate seeking public office come at least into the vicinity during that election campaign. There will be and always are at least three political parties, sometimes as many as five or six, contesting the election, and I believe the public needs to have that opportunity. But the distance is roughly, so members understand this, like campaigning from Windsor through to Quebec City.
Mr Klees: How does the federal member do it?
Mr Michael Brown: The federal member does it in 37 days, not 28. That's how.
To me, it will be about media. It will be about selling corn flakes or detergent more than ever. It will not be about assessing the capabilities and the views of individual candidates. I think that is not in the interests of democracy. We have seen south of the border what the result is. The result is steadily declining voter participation in their elections; they are sad even compared to ours in terms of voter participation. We see fund-raising scandals daily in the American press, because it has become about buying elections. Even people with the best of intentions are roped into by their surrogates.
Mrs Boyd: It's always a pleasure to have an opportunity to congratulate my friend from Algoma on his grasp of the real issues that come forward in this place. He was accused by one of the opposition members of being partisan in his remarks. I think if they are reviewed, people will realize that he was not partisan at all. He was really talking from his experience, his lengthy experience, about how elections actually work, particularly in the north, particularly where this government appears to have absolutely no concept of the difficulties that are involved in terms of running elections in the northern part of our province and, I would suggest, doesn't care very much because I think they obviously know that their actions give them very little opportunity to have electoral success there. So they've written it off in a lot of ways. Of course, as my friend pointed out, the ability of people to buy elections by tilting the scales in their own interest may indeed prove to make that prediction not true.
But I would say one thing to my friend from Algoma. I think he's right that incumbents have an edge. However, it's going to be very interesting for us in this coming election, when there are many incumbents who are contesting ridings with other incumbents, to see exactly how that all plays through. It's another issue around the kind of imbalance this particular bill is bringing to the situation that we ought to take into account, that in a situation like that, the number of dollars able to be spent has a much greater effect than it does in a normal circumstance.
Mr Galt: I compliment the member for Algoma on his presentation, well thought out and presented.
I do take opposition to some of the comments he made as it relates to the commission and its proposal. Wasn't it indeed the chief election officer who recommended the shortening by nine days? This was due to the permanent voters' list and it being therefore unnecessary to go through the enumeration process; we wouldn't have to have the enumerators going door to door in a process that really has not worked out very well in the past. Certainly the accuracy of the voters' list left a lot to be desired. I expect with a permanent voters' list it's going to be much better in the future.
I thought his comments were interesting comparing the American system and how difficult it is to beat a congressman and the advantage that he was referring to of an incumbent. Well, we did not see too much advantage to being an incumbent in the election of 1995. We did not see too much of an advantage to being an incumbent in the election of 1990. We didn't see too much of an advantage to being an incumbent in the election of 1985. This keeps happening. The incumbent currently in Canada - world-wide - really doesn't have much of an advantage. Maybe once upon a time they did, but that's certainly not what's going on now.
2120
I was really quite taken by the two-minute comment from the member for Dufferin-Peel about why the money comes in, and I think he really has it in the right sequence here. The horse is in front of the cart, not the cart before the horse, in this instance. The popularity is there; therefore, people come out to the fund-raisers and are willing to spend to support a party that they believe in. You don't win elections because of the money; you win the election because of the support, and because of the support the funds come in.
The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Algoma.
Mr Wildman: I want to thank the members for their comments.
In response to a few of them, the member for Northumberland is incorrect when he suggests the commission did recommend the 28 days. That's not true. The chief election officer said they didn't need nine days for the enumeration of the permanent voters' list. The commission did not recommend the 28 days. In terms of the American experience, he will find that in those elections he mentioned, the number of members of Congress who actually went down is not very great; the percentage is not very great. Newt Gingrich has remained the majority leader even though the presidency has changed.
In regard to the member for London Centre's comments, I appreciate what she said, and the member for Northumberland also mentioned about incumbency not being a great advantage. That's true; it isn't. It may be 5% to 10% of the votes at the most, but how it may change in terms of -
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: With regard to my friend from Algoma-Manitoulin, both of us have a particular interest in a particular riding. He's quite right comparing it to Windsor to Quebec City; that's the distance of that riding. Just look at southern Ontario. There isn't any media that would cover all of that, so you can't have a media campaign, and in 28 days it is impossible to get around to every community.
I would just say to the member for Dufferin-Peel that our concern is that people and volunteers will not be as important, but rather money will be more important, and the process that I'm concerned about is that we will run into the problem of more, not less, influence-peddling in our political system, something which nobody desires.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Mr John O'Toole, the member for Durham-East.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair this evening as the Acting Speaker, the assistant deputy whip.
It's a pleasure this evening to address and participate in the second reading of Bill 36, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act.
I have with me the report by the chair of the commission that was looking at it, Jack Murray, to the then leaders of the House. Of course, those leaders have since changed. I also have a copy of the bill with me.
I've listened to the issues being raised by the opposition and third party in the last couple of days, and I'm really in some dilemma here to understand where the problem is. They like to imply and perhaps give the viewer a mistaken impression that we are the party of the rich. In fact, we are the party that is committed to doing exactly what we said.
I was looking at some of the research into this Bill 36 discussion tonight. One of the members of the committee at that time wrote our House leader now, and I'll quote for the record here part of that transcript, if I may, with your permission. I would like to quote all of it, because it's really quite a hoot when you read it.
The government argued quite strongly during debate on Bill 81. We all know that Bill 81 was the Fewer Politicians Act. We made a commitment, as you would know, Mr Speaker, going into the election to reduce the number of politicians to equal exactly what the federal members had. At that time it was 99. Of course, the federal Liberals bumped it up to 103, as they would be given to do. It was always our intention to match the federal and provincial boundaries, and for the right reasons. We were for less government. We promised less government.
To continue this on Bill 81 that eliminated or reduced the 27 ridings, if the federal ridings were good enough for the federal government, then they were good enough for the provincial government. Liberals asked, "If the federal expenses were high enough for the recent federal election campaign, why are they not high enough for the Mike Harris government?"
I'm pleased to share with the House that that's precisely what we've done, in a mode that's reminiscent of most of the things we've been doing recently: listening and responding.
How are we responding? I looked at some of the numbers from the most recent federal election, and of course there's really only one party federally. There are three or four on the other side, but there are 18,700 voters. If you take the amount of money spent, if all the parties had 301 candidates, it turns out there was an average of 60.5 cents spent for each vote.
If you go through the numbers, there were several proposals, as you know. The member would know that there were proposals brought forward - for instance, currently every member is entitled to spend 77 cents. That's what it works out to. The commission itself had recommended that it be $1.40 per elector; we proposed 96 cents. If you take the 96 cents, that's what I would use, the same as my federal counterpart. A Liberal MP in my riding of Whitby-Durham is allowed to spend 96 cents.
What I actually spent in the last election was probably half that, and I would dare say most of the members here didn't spend anywhere near the limit. But there are large ridings in the north part, like Rainy River, that need the opportunity to have a fair and reasonable amount of money to get the information to their constituents. After all, that's what each and every one of us here want.
What are we spending? Exactly the same as the federal member would spend. That's my commitment to the people of Ontario: not one cent more, and in fact as much less as I can possibly manage.
All of this is very accountable. If you were to read the bill, everything that's spent is auditable, whether it's an amount that's equal for ads, for polling - all of that is auditable and reported and open and transparent so the public can see it precisely.
Of course, then we looked at the recommendations of what the federal spending limit would be at the central party level and what the central parties are spending at the provincial level.
Mr Bradley: Why are you increasing it?
Mr O'Toole: The member for St Catharines is barracking over there. I've heard that phrase used; I like to use it the odd time, respectfully. But we're going to actually be spending a little bit less. We've committed to 60 cents. That comes out to a total amount of $1.56 at the central party level as well as at the riding level. That amount, by the way, is still less than the federal amount. I'm convinced that everything we're doing here addresses a number of the important changes.
There were a couple of times during Bill 81 that surprised me. Those watching this evening will know that Mr McGuinty is the Liberal leader of the opposition party. Many people don't know him, so I'm introducing him. He's not here this evening, but I am mentioning it respectfully. It's part of those free advertising dollars. During Bill 81, he was on for less government - that's his kind of approach - but he wasn't even here for the vote. I checked the record. He was not here for the vote, yet he's opposed to these things.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, and I know my friend for St Catharines probably intended to raise this as well: As we all know in this House, it is out of order to comment on the presence or absence of a member.
Mr Gerretsen: How often is Harris here?
Mr O'Toole: Respectfully, because the member is not here, I'll withdraw, but it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't here.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, cease, please. Member for Durham East, I acknowledge the point of order. You're not to imply that a member opposite or any member of the House is not present. I ask you to withdraw that.
Mr O'Toole: I withdraw that comment. I just wanted to make sure that I understand the issue -
The Acting Speaker: It is now 9:30 of the clock. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2130.