L027b - Tue 16 Jun 1998 / Mar 16 Jun 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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.
The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate? The member for St Catharines.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I must say sometimes you begin a speech by saying that you're pleased to be able to debate specific piece of legislation. I am anything but pleased to be debating this legislation this evening.
I think Bill 36, a bill which changes the election rules and particularly those rules which relate to the financing of elections, that is, the contributions that individuals and corporations can make and the amount of money that political parties and candidates can spend, is a distinct step backwards. It's one of the worst abuses of government power one can witness.
Where it comes from, so that our viewers at home know and so our members of the Legislature know, is essentially the back rooms of the governing party, in this case the Conservative Party of Ontario. Someone has probably gotten together - I think of Leslie Noble and Tom Long because they're well-known names in the Conservative Party, well known for some success during election campaigns. I can just hear Tom Long saying: "If only I can get my hands on $4 million, I can buy this campaign. I can win this campaign, no matter what."
That is most unfortunate because you see, when you make this change, you make it almost forever. It's like changing the rules of the Legislature. It is convenient for the government, particularly for the cabinet, the Premier and those who advise the Premier, the whiz kids, to have a Legislature where you can shove your legislation through quickly. Indeed, there may be some people who come from the business world who find this place to be less than efficient in their minds. I've said on many occasions, just as I would never suggest that a business should be conducted in the way a legislative body is because it's entirely different, so I say you cannot apply a business operation to the Legislative Assembly itself. Some government functions you can, but not to the Legislative Assembly itself.
What the government is doing is changing the election finances law probably forever, because let me tell you what happens just as I said what would happen with rules changes. I hope that if we, the Liberal Party, were fortunate enough to be chosen by the people in the next election, we would change the rules of procedure in this House. Indeed, if I were part of such a government, I would be advocating changing to make them more democratic.
But it is so attractive to a newly elected government to maintain rules which allow it to bulldoze its legislation through that it's very difficult to convince a cabinet to revert back. Similarly in this case, I know that Tom Long, Leslie Noble, Guy Giorno and others think this is really being smart: "We're really clever. We're going to change the rules so we can gather all kinds of money into the Tory coffers, into Mike Harris's party's coffers," and then spend it, I must say, very extensively, mostly I would suspect on huge television media advertising.
Those people who advocate that may feel that it is clever and that it benefits the party in power and therefore it should be accepted. What I say to you is, you are eroding the democratic system once again. People can quarrel with some of the legislation that you've put forward in this House, and there will be good arguments made on both sides and the people can make their judgement. Where I think you can't quarrel is where this government has continued to erode the democratic process, continued its assault on what we consider to be appropriate parliamentary procedure and fairness in election campaigns or in this House.
That is where I believe that members of the news media, for instance, have a role to play. If I were part of a government that was introducing this legislation because it would be of advantage to that government, it would be the role and responsibility of the major news media to be a check on that grab for power. I have been disappointed by the silence, indeed in some cases by the acquiescence and promotion of this legislation by certain elements within the news media, because what we're talking about is a governing party or a political party which is able to obtain huge amounts of money by catering to the very wealthiest people in our society and the most powerful people in our society and then abusing that power by making the process unfair and opening us more and more to the American system.
The reason I mention the American system is that I saw a debate on the channel we call C-SPAN the other night in the House of Representatives. There was a Democrat from Mississippi making one of the points that I've tried to make this evening, and that is that what you do when you make money more and more an important part of the campaign, paramount, king in the campaign, you take away from the little person, the person with not much power, the person with little money, the person who doesn't have the resources to donate to political campaigns, you take away that person's voice and you give a far greater voice to the multimillionaires of our society and to very powerful people and corporations within our province.
This isn't to say that they shouldn't have a say in the process. Most assuredly they should, but what you're removing is a sense of fairness. You know, fair or not, many people have called our Premier Mike Harris a bully, and I know that annoys some members on the governing side, and I understand that. But once again we see the bullying of the population out there, bullying in this sense by using not only the levers of power that the government already has for government advertising - and I mentioned the other day a pamphlet that went at a cost of almost three quarters of a million dollars to all Ontario, which was clearly, in my view and I think in most objective observers' view, a propaganda piece for the Conservative Party, and another put out by David Lindsay's shop called the Jobs and Investment Board, which is clearly, I think any objective person looking at it would say, a partisan pamphlet, and another one I see he has given out today.
My objection is not to putting out that information. That is the prerogative of political parties, and I accept that. If the Conservative Party were to do this, then I would say that's quite acceptable. What is happening is that all taxpayers in Ontario through government ministries are paying for clearly propaganda pieces for the government. There is a case for advertising in some cases, to provide direct information, and I've mentioned in the House that's the case.
My problem with this legislation is it stacks the deck. It stacks the deck in favour of the richest political candidates and the richest political party. You know what else it's going to do? It's going to discourage people from running in a campaign. In the United States today, to run in a campaign you either have to be extremely wealthy yourself or be beholden to wealthy sources of funding for your campaign.
Day after day, the New York Times and other major dailies chronicle the abuses of the political process because money is paramount. Look at President Clinton and the embarrassment that he has faced in the White House, for instance, because of allegations about fund-raising activities, and some members of the Republican Party. Why is that? It's because money plays such an important part in election campaigns.
1840
I hope that every editorialist in Ontario gives this consideration. If they agree with you, for instance, on what you are doing with Hydro, or disagree, that's one point. I think this is one where every person in the news media should be a check on governments extending and expanding and abusing their power, and that is what's happening in this legislation.
Look, there are parts of this bill that are quite acceptable; for instance, a permanent voters' list. Nobody's going to quarrel with that. I looked through the bill and spotted several things that I could say were acceptable, and if that were brought forward as legislation, this would be through this House very quickly. But of course what is part of this legislation is changing the balance, is making money a more important part of the campaign.
I want to share with members two statements which I read in the House this week which really capture, perhaps in more inflammatory language than some would like, a view of what has happened. A couple of days ago I said:
"Today is a dark day for democracy in Ontario. The Mike Harris Conservative government, using its new anti-democratic procedural rules, will begin the process of bulldozing through the Legislature a bill which will make money the king - the key ingredient in Ontario elections.
"Bill 36 allows for massive increases in the amount of money political parties and candidates can spend during election campaigns, exempts a number of expensive campaign activities from any spending limits at all and drastically increases the amount of money corporations and individuals may donate to a party or candidate.
"Mike Harris plans to abolish the watchdog over election spending and contributions - the Commission on Election Finances - at the very time when the public sees the greatest need for this policing agency.
"The result of this anti-democratic strategy, hatched in the back rooms of the Premier's office - the Harris Kremlin, as one reporter termed it - will be the Americanization of Ontario elections, with money playing an enormous role in the campaign; a campaign to be shortened in length so that massive media advertising will dominate, rather than door-to-door personal contact with voters.
"The Conservative Party, gearing its policies, legisation and regulations to the best interests of the very wealthy and the most powerful, will gather its rewards from this element in the form of huge campaign contributions which it will use to saturation-bomb the airwaves with expensive commercials.
"It is time for all who value democracy to demand that Mike Harris withdraw the bill, which stacks the deck in favour of the very rich and his political party, which represents the rich and the powerful."
Yes, I agree it's pretty powerful language and some would say somewhat inflammatory, but it is really how I feel about legislation of this kind, whether a government I would be part of or not would be introducing such legislation. The danger is in the principle, not in who's there introducing it and who's opposing it. I think it's important among people within government to challenge those who put forward this kind of legislation.
I put forward a second one, and it's got a reference in it that I think you declared out of order so I'll delete that. I'll just explain. The other day I used the term "governor Mike Harris," not with the capital G, like a state governor, but the small g. I think they don't want that reference made so I'll certainly respect that. I always like to respect, as my friend from Dufferin-Peel does.
"The people of Ontario should know that if...Mike Harris gets his way, the Conservative Party will be able to buy the next election.
"The rules governing Ontario elections will be rigged to heavily favour the party and the candidate with the most money, and these new election rules will be bulldozed through the Ontario Legislature by the huge Conservative majority on orders from Mike Harris.
"Massive increases in election campaign spending, dramatic increases in the amount of money that corporations and individuals may contribute to political parties and candidates, the exemption of major campaign activities from any spending limits at all, and the elimination of the financial watchdog, the Commission on Election Finances, will ensure that the deck is stacked in favour of the party and the candidates who tailor their policies, legislation and regulations to the wishes of the very wealthy and the most powerful elements in our province.
"The influence of big money interests will be paramount in Mike Harris's Ontario, just as it is in American politics where examples of election contributions buying influence and purchasing power are so numerous.
"Mike Harris Conservatives are not satisfied to abuse their power by using taxpayers' dollars to send blatantly partisan propaganda pamphlets to all Ontario households, as they have in recent weeks; now they want to ensure that big money will be king in the Ontario election process.
"All who value fairness in the democratic system should demand that...Mike Harris withdraw this outrageous piece of legislation in the interests of our fragile democracy."
I've been in this House long enough to know when a government isn't going to withdraw its legislation. You see, you're not getting the pressure to do so. One of the judgements you make of a government or of people is what they do when they think nobody is watching. Obviously, we're sitting at night, the news media have gone home for the day and not too many of them are going to be watching the legislative channel, because they put in a full day working here. That's even one of the plans, to show this at night when we don't have that kind of potential coverage coming forward.
I asked a question in the House today of the government House leader. He passed it to the Chair of Management Board, who has carriage of this legislation. I asked if the government was prepared to amend this legislation to remove the most offensive parts. I'm not saying that it would be developing a consensus. I think it would make the legislation more acceptable.
But let me tell you something: This legislation was written a long time ago and any meetings that took place between the three political parties represented in this House were essentially meaningless. The government had its mind made up that it was going to bulldoze through legislation which would in fact not only raise the limits of what people can contribute to political parties and candidates now but to build into the legislation that that amount would continue to escalate into the future. I think this is basically wrong. I think it's damaging to the electoral system under which we work.
It says expenses related to research and polling and travel expenses are added to the list of matters which are not treated as campaign expenses. Well, they are campaign expenses. I can tell you, Mike Harris will have an expensive jet to go around this province and he'll be able to pay for that and maybe pay so that it's large enough to have members of the news media with him. He's going to have the very best of transportation available, as are cabinet ministers. They will not have to count that as an expense.
The research that you're doing, that's a very broad term which allows political parties to spend money on a lot of activities in a campaign which are really promotional rather than research. Polling is another activity that can be very expensive. It is important to keep abreast of the issues and understand how the campaign is going. Again, stacked in favour of the government.
All of those costs should be included as costs in a campaign. There's no reason to exempt them other than to give the very rich Conservative Party a leg up, a distinct advantage; or a governing party, for that matter, whoever might be in power.
There are other aspects of the bill which certainly concern me very much. One is the shortening of the campaign. The purpose of shortening the campaign is so that the government backroom people, the campaign managers, know when the election campaign is going to be. By having a minimum 28 days, they simply buy up all of the good time on the airwaves and the good places in the newspaper and leave the scraps to those who are opposing them.
This means that what's really going to dominate is the mass media message, the huge, full-page newspaper ads, the television ads with the hot-button issues which pick on one aspect of society or another, and radio ads. The door-to-door kind of campaign that many of us have done, the personal contact, the public meetings, those are going to be diminishing in importance. With our new, larger ridings with more people in them, it's going to be more difficult to reach those people across the province.
The amount of money to be spent, as I say, even by an individual candidate or by a political party, expands. But what concerns me is that the more money you allow people to contribute, the more influence they're going to have on a political system. That's regardless of which political party is in power or what the circumstances are. I think you're moving down a slippery slope when you do that.
It's interesting that you sneak this bill in under the Hydro bill, a major bill which is going to receive coverage. One thing I've noted with this government is when it's ashamed of any legislation or announcement, the government tries to hide it behind some other announcement. If you're proud of the legislation, put it forward and defend it.
1850
I would like to go on at some length. Unfortunately, under the new rules, I'm confined to 20 minutes in this House on this kind of bill. There are some bills where obviously five minutes would be sufficient, or no time at all, but in a bill of this kind, its importance to our democratic system is such that it deserves far more than the time that I'm going to be able to devote to it this evening.
One exposure of this was when Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal leader, had a press conference out in front of the Legislature and said there was a seat sale. I'm afraid that's symbolically what is happening, the seats are for sale.
I don't want this Legislature to be a House where only the very wealthy or those backed by the very wealthy can be part of the Legislature. Many people here didn't begin their lives as necessarily very successful or wealthy people. They may have worked their way up. What you're denying to other people now with this kind of legislation is that opportunity. You're denying fairness in this province. You're taking a bill which has some good parts to it and ruining it by stacking the deck in favour of those who have the money.
But it's the system that is going to lose, it's the democratic system that will lose. Take my word for it, there are going to be people lined up trying to influence government and they'll have a greater ear because they've been able to contribute more money. That's unfortunate. A system should not be dominated by money. What we are seeing with this legislation is the Americanization of a political system, making money king in election campaigns in Ontario and hurting our democratic system badly.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I certainly appreciate the remarks from the member for St Catharines. When I speak to my constituents back home, sometimes they say to me, "Why is it that you sometimes say good things about Liberal and Conservative members when you're making these responses?" With respect to the member for St Catharines, it's simple for me to say good things about him when he's talking about these changes to the Election Finances Act because this is a time when I, as a New Democratic member, and the member for St Catharines agree very strongly with respect to the erosion of the democratic process that these changes are going to bring about.
What he really concentrated on was the influence of big money and how that's going to be used to the Progressive Conservatives' advantage in the next election.
It really makes you wonder why it is that we're debating this bill in the final couple of weeks of this session. What's the pressing urgency that we have to be dealing with this bill now? I think that's something that people need to be asking themselves. Why is it that a government with a huge majority wants to ram through legislation like this, which certainly I'm not getting any calls for in my constituency office.
People aren't concerned about election finance reform. They're concerned about things like health care. They're concerned about the quality of their children's education. They're concerned about the textbooks that are going to show up in their classrooms in September that are going to be published by, many times, American-based or American-owned publishing companies. Why is it we're not debating things like that? It really makes me wonder.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): It's always a pleasure to comment on the member for St Catharines. He's well known as an eloquent speaker in this House and the passion of his argument you certainly can't ignore. However, some of the facts of the matter perhaps don't necessarily back up his passionate plea.
In the 1990 provincial election the Liberals outspent the New Democratic Party by a wide majority, and yet on September 6, 1990, Bob Rae found himself to be the Premier of Ontario and had won that election.
Again in 1993, I think you would find that in the federal election of that year the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party federally spent about the same amount of money and yet it is a well-documented fact that the Conservatives fell to a two-seat party in the federal government. Money didn't seem to have a big impact on that particular government.
Again, in the election that brought us all to this place in 1995, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives I think spent about the same amount of money, give or take a small percentage. They spent about the same amount of money and the Conservatives in that election garnered 45% of the vote, more or less, and the Liberals were in the 34% ballpark.
In the 1997 by-election in Ottawa West, a member of the Liberal Party was elected by a considerable margin, even though our party spent $4 to every $3 that he spent. That election couldn't be bought because the people of Ontario can't be fooled. The people of Ontario vote for substance, they vote for policy, they vote for what they believe will serve them best.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The member for St Catharines has very accurately described a whole host of concerns that we have about this bill, which he has described as another direct attack on the democratic process in this province. I appreciate the member for St Catharines emphasizing one of our greatest concerns, which is that this bill is going to raise the amount of money that can be spent on elections and that's going to mean that there will be more money in the hands of the Progressive Conservative Party to spend on advertising, that money will count for all and advertising will count for all.
It's appropriate that the member for St Catharines stresses this concern because he has been vigilant in over and over again showing how this government, beyond all governments in the past, has used taxpayers' money to advertise government propaganda which does not serve the purpose of informing the electorate in any way, shape or form.
So I know the member for St Catharines is not in any way surprised that the emphasis of this government in bringing about changes to the Election Finances Act is to ensure that they have enough money in their party coffers and enough freedom to spend it during election time to be able to carry that advertising campaign right through this very short writ period when we don't have enough time to counter it with door-to-door contact with the electorate or an opportunity for the electorate to really become informed about the substance that the member opposite has just spoken about.
I know the member for St Catharines is not surprised that they did slip this bill in under the cover of the Hydro bill because, as House leader for our party, he has raged against the tendency of this government to do that from the day they introduced Bill 26 under the cover of a presentation of a budget.
I know the member for St Catharines is not at all surprised that this government has launched what he has called yet another direct attack on democracy, because this, after all, is the government that gave us the two-for-one special on democracy, which has us sitting here this evening yet again in what the government describes as a sessional day, even though there's no question period, which allows them, by having two days in the course of 24 hours, to ensure that they can ram their legislation through even faster than before.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The member for St Catharines I think is bang on. What this is all about is a government that says: "We're worried that we're not going to be able to win the next fight with the fair rules. We're not going to be able to do it so we're going to change the rules to suit ourselves." They're going to make it possible for them to go out and get extra money because they know they've got problems.
Mr Lessard: Ottawa West didn't work.
Mr Bisson: It didn't work in Ottawa West, but the point is they're very vulnerable when it comes to their record on health care, they're very vulnerable when it comes to their record on education, and those are two issues that I see, according to the polls, people care most about. You look at the polls and you get a sense that maybe the government can pull it off again, but when you start looking past those numbers - and that's something the people in the whiz kids' office are doing - they know that they're vulnerable. They're saying, "How can we overcome this image that we have as a Conservative government on these issues that people feel strongly that we're doing a bad job in, namely, health care and education?"
They want more money, so they change the rules so that they can go out and raise more money. Why? Because they're going to be able to buy more TV ads, more ads in the paper and various types of marketing tools that they can get in order to try to build the case about how they're not doing these things that actually they are doing. So this is what this is about. It's about a government that says, "We're going to try to buy our way into the next election."
The other thing that I think is important to note is it's not just a question of money, because it is also an issue that the government is changing some of the rules; for example, shortening the election down to 28 days. Who do you think that gives a benefit to? Anybody who's an incumbent and the government. That's who has the benefit when you have a short election period, because it doesn't allow the opponent, in this case the opposition or somebody running against an incumbent, the ability to mount the campaign and to be able to develop the message and get the message heard by the voters. Obviously in this House there are more Conservative members that are incumbents, so they have a stronger proportion of the ability to win in a shorter election. So this is about a government changing the rules, saying, "We can't win a fair fight, so we'll change the rules just like we did in the House, and we'll do what we can to win."
1900
Mr Bradley: In responding, I appreciate the comments of members of all the political parties. I'm heartened a bit by the member for Halton North suggesting to me that money can't buy an election. That does give me a bit of hope out there at a time when I see a bill which is maybe a bit negative.
My concern, however, is the impact on the whole system, that the higher the contributions that can be made, the more chance there is that governments are going to be influenced by these kinds of political donations. I hope that's not the case, but that certainly has been what's happening in the United States.
In the United States now - it's quite appalling to those of us here - even in a presidential election year, sometimes they'll get less than 50% of the people voting in the United States. One of the reasons for that is the extreme cynicism that exists in the US, because they believe the system is corrupt. The chances of corrupting the system are far greater when money plays a more significant role.
I think you would be equally critical - you mentioned political parties having an advantage or not having an advantage. It may or may not be successful in winning a campaign, but once a government is elected, my problem is that all of those contributions may have some influence. I don't think that's good for any of us.
That's why I really feel that editorialists, columnists, people who write think pieces, should be looking at this legislation and calling the government to account, whatever government would do it, for increasing its power, increasing its advantage and poisoning, I believe, the system. I would have preferred that we have a consensus of the three political parties. My last hope is that the government would at least accept and entertain amendments that we might suggest in the opposition.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Lessard: Most of the time when I start my remarks, I say what a pleasure it is to be able to stand up and engage in debate with respect to specific bills, but with respect to this bill, the bill to change the election finances rules, it's not one that I really take a lot of pleasure in being able to participate in this evening. I think many of the changes that are being made are really to the detriment of the democratic process that we have in Ontario.
I'm proud to belong to a party, the New Democratic Party, that has democracy as part of its name. I like to think, no matter how cynical the members of the Progressive Conservatives may be, or for that matter how cynical some members of the voting public may be, that there are many of us here in this place who really do respect the principles of democracy and want to do what we can to try and uphold those. That's why it's so unfortunate that we happen to be debating the bill that we're debating tonight.
One of the things that is unfortunate is the fact that we are debating it tonight. This is something we should be debating right after question period so that as many people as possible, including the media, are here to view those debates. But here we are debating it at about 20 to 7, during the evening, when most people have other family obligations they need to be engaged in.
We're debating at night-time because the Progressive Conservative government changed the rules to permit us to have an extra sessional day between 6:30 and 9:30 at night. Of course, it gives us an opportunity to accomplish more things here in the Legislature, but the significant thing is that what it does is eliminate the opposition's opportunity to have question period. We lose a question period every time we have to sit and debate legislation at night-time.
I know, Speaker, you're aware of many of the changes that are being suggested or being proposed in this legislation, but really what it amounts to is that this government is trying to buy the next election with a massive increase in the spending limits for political parties. We know that increasing spending limits is going to benefit the Progressive Conservative Party and their big-money friends. Their supporters have the capacity to raise large sums of money, to make huge donations. Many of them are corporations. We in the New Democratic Party get very few donations from corporations. Most of our contributions are from ordinary, average working people - many of them aren't working people - donations of $25 or $50, whatever people are able to afford. I can tell you, having been through three elections myself, how difficult it is for members of the NDP to raise money for campaigns. We know that people who have the ability to raise large sums of money are going to benefit the most from these changes that have been implemented.
One might wonder why a government that has a huge majority wants to be ramming through this legislation. Why is it that they bring it up towards the end of the session, in June, when traditionally changes of this type are only brought in after agreement by all members of the Legislature: the NDP, the Liberals and the Tories? Usually changes to the rules that affect elections are only brought in if there's a consensus between all three political parties. To me, that makes a lot of common sense. Why is it that the government wants to use its majority to try to ram through changes to the Election Finances Act? I think that's something that people who are watching here this evening should be asking themselves. Who is it that's going to benefit? Why is it that the government is using their majority to ram through this legislation?
It's not bad enough that we're having to debate this towards the end of the session and at night-time. I suspect that towards the end of this week, probably Thursday, there's going to be another time allocation motion tabled, debate with respect to this is going to be cut off, any opportunity that opposition members have to voice their opinions, to voice the concerns of the public, is going to be cut off once again when this government uses its majority to ram through a bill and to limit our ability to debate.
One of the things that these changes are going to do is permit $1.3 million to be added to central campaign expenses. I think $1.3 million is a lot of money. It's not just the money, but it's a 50% increase from what it was before. This is something that wasn't recommended by the election expenses commission, by the way, which is an argument that government members like to bring up on a regular basis. They say: "Well, the election expenses commission is made up of members of all three parties. They agreed to many of these recommendations, and therefore it really is something that we should all agree to." This is a change that wasn't agreed to by the election expenses commission, it didn't come from their recommendations, and it isn't something that should be here for debate as part of legislation without the consensus of all three parties.
One of the things the Mike Harris government has also done is that they've excluded some major expense items. I'm going to get in a little bit later what consequences some of those exclusions have as far as I'm concerned. Those are things like polling and travel expenses. Those are going to be removed from the spending limits. That's going to permit the Tories especially to be able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on polling and on travel expenses that they hadn't spent before, they weren't able to spend before, and that certainly the NDP isn't going to be able to spend in the next election because we're not going to be able to raise the money. It's as simple as that.
The other thing they've done is to cut the campaign period from 37 to 28 days. Having gone through three election periods and campaigns, I like to try to get around to visit as many electors as I possibly can. I think it's important for all of us when we're out campaigning to get out and speak to as many people who can vote for us as possible, to make that personal contact, to get out and talk to as many people on their doorstep as you can. I like to run when I'm out campaigning. It's great exercise. It's good to get out in the fresh air and do that. Certainly having to run for only 28 days instead of 37 could be less physically exhausting, but it also does provide some benefits to the government members, and I want to tell you why.
1910
I can try to get around and maybe wear out a pair of running shoes, but people who are able to effectively campaign without having to go door to door are going to benefit from a shorter campaign period. How are they going to benefit? They're going to benefit by using television, radio and newspaper advertising. That's really the way they're going in the United States. Their campaigns generally aren't based primarily on making personal voter contact; they're based on making contact through advertising campaigns. That's where I can see many of the changes that are being suggested in the election finances reform act going to. They're going to favour people who have the money to engage in expensive media campaigns during elections. That's really what these proposals are all about.
I don't think we want to be going down that American road, because we see what those advertising campaigns have deteriorated into in the United States. They don't run campaigns to try to inform voters. They don't try to tell them about the policies or the reasons people should vote for them. Most of those election campaigns are based on attack ads, attacking your opponents, trying to make them look bad, trying to get people to vote against somebody instead of actually voting for somebody. It's sleazy politics. It's democracy in its worst form. I don't see why we want to go towards using that American example to run election campaigns. I just don't see why we want to do that.
The other thing they've done is that they've doubled the amount that individual corporations can contribute to election campaigns. Once again, the Tory members will argue, "Well, you'll have the same opportunity as we do." But I've explained that we don't have the opportunity to raise large sums of money, because we don't have corporate friends with deep pockets like the Tory government does. The fear I have is that what comes with those large corporate donations is the expectation that there's going to be some sort of payoff afterwards. We've seen that with the Latner family and their bid for the Niagara Falls casino. It raises the suspicion that if you make large corporate donations, you expect to get the payoff after the person you got elected gets into elected office. I don't believe that's the way we should be going in Ontario as well.
The other argument the Tory members make is that raising the amount of money that can be spent on a per elector basis is really going to bring us in line with what the federal rules say. In actuality, this brings spending limits even higher than the federal limits. That's an argument I don't think they can use.
One of the reasons I'm quite concerned about the increase in the amounts corporations and individuals can donate is the changes with respect to the tax credits for political donations. That's being increased as part of this legislation as well. The tax credit is going to be increased to 75% for the first $300. I think the public really needs to understand this, because when you're making donations to political campaigns, you always get a tax credit. You get to deduct that; you get a credit when you fill out your income tax at the end of the year. What that means is that really we have a publicly supported electoral system here in Ontario, something that I agree with. I think we need to have a publicly supported democratic election process in the province. But who benefits the most? Who benefits the most are those who can contribute the most. By getting these tax credits, it means that the general taxpayer is really subsidizing the person who can make the biggest tax creditable donations to political campaigns. The benefits are going to those who have the ability to pay the most. All of us are paying for that benefit, and I think we need to do what we can to ensure that the ability to receive a tax credit is a reasonable one that we're all able to take advantage of.
I mentioned how we shouldn't really be going towards the American model of election financing. Because I live in Windsor, I see the advertising in Detroit. I know what election campaigns are like in the United States, what they look like when they're advertised on television in Windsor, and frankly it's a prospect that I don't want to see crossing the border into Ontario. I see a system in the United States that has over the years really disfranchised those people who can't afford to participate in the democratic process. Because of that disfranchisement, people just don't get out to vote the way they should in the United States. In the last presidential election, about 30% of those who were eligible to vote in the United States actually took advantage of the opportunity to do so. It's unfortunate that people feel their voice is not going to be heard. That's why they don't participate. They don't participate because nobody's going to listen to them, because they don't have the money to try to influence the process. Because of that, they no longer participate.
That's not the sort of system I want to encourage to happen in Ontario. I want to have a system that encourages as many people as possible to participate. I'd like to hear from the government members how they think these changes to the election finance rules are going to encourage more people to participate in the democratic process in Ontario. I don't see that. The message I see from this legislation is, "We want to encourage those who have the most money to participate in the democratic process." I don't think that's what we want to see here.
I had an opportunity to read through a magazine that is very popular in the United States. It's called Campaigns and Elections. That is where the democratic process is going in the United States. It's a business over there. There are a lot of people who can make a lot of money in the elective process in the United States. You know what's even more interesting? The front cover says, "Take the Money and Run." These are the burning political issues in Campaigns and Elections in the April 1998 edition. That's what they talk about when they're talking about democracy in the United States. These are some of the issues that are being highlighted in the editorial by Ron Faucheux.
The title of his editorial is "Setting the Bar." In it, he says: "In the past, too many reformers" - and this is talking about reform of the electoral process in the United States - "have concentrated on imposing campaign contribution caps and spending limits. The result has been an unintended consequence: Politics has become more expensive than ever."
They've really had an unlimited system in the United States, and what they've been doing ever since is trying to bring some semblance of order into the process. They've tried to bring in reforms to cap election expenses and they've been unable to do so. By trying to bring in some of those standards, this is what he says:
"For standards of any kind to be accepted by real-life political combatants...they must be practical as well as reasonable; they must also not tilt toward any partisan political movement or class of candidates. Any criteria seen as serving the interests of any of the current players...will never get off the ground. That's why voluntary spending limits, mandatory ad formats or a shortened campaign calendar and bans on attack advertising won't fly."
1920
They've realized in the United States that they really need to reform the political process, but they find they're unable to do so because they just can't get those proposals to reform the political process to fly. Nobody's going to agree with them. Everybody feels as though they're going to tilt the balance in favour of one side or the other. That's why it's important, when you're bringing forward proposals to change election finances and the election rules, that it be done by consensus, that it not be seen as favouring one special interest, that is, those who have the ability to pay the most; that it doesn't favour just the rich, those who have the money to try and influence the political process. It can't be seen to favour those, and that's exactly what we're seeing in this case.
He goes on to say that most campaigns won't risk running harmful news stories or criminal prosecutions or the attack from the opposition. He talks about dishonest campaigns and dishonest results. He talks about how difficult a process it is to try and reform the political process in the States, how difficult it is to try and make campaigns more ethical. He says: "The task is hard, maybe impossible. But until political professionals can talk about ethics and propriety with a straight face, and have cause to fear the practical repercussions of violating reasonable standards, the endeavour to set a higher bar is a valuable one, indeed."
These are the issues they're talking about in the United States. What they're trying to do is say: "How can we make campaigns more ethical? How can we raise the standards of sleazy campaigns in the United States?" They've found it almost impossible. We don't want to go down that road. It's the wrong direction.
Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): The member for Windsor-Riverside has just given the most unique reason we will ever hear in this chamber for maintaining a longer than necessary writ period. Here is this young gentleman with the slimmest, trimmest, most svelte figure of probably anybody in this chamber, and he just stood here and said he likes a 35-day writ period because that's when he gets to campaign and lose weight. In the interests of the health of the member for Windsor-Riverside, we probably should have a five-day writ period in terms of maintaining the body weight you have. Anyway, you said that; I didn't.
It probably points to the fact that this is a good bill. Bill 36 obviously is such a good bill that the members opposite can find no stronger debating arguments than to talk about the fact that they need a seven-day-longer writ in order to lose weight that they don't already have.
What we should talk about here is what happens in other provinces. The members opposite might not know that six other provinces in Canada have 28 days of writ period or less. They might also like to know that we are the seventh province that's going to have a 28-day or less writ period. Bear in mind it's the minimum. It doesn't say it's going to be 28 days; it is a minimum.
The other thing I want to say very quickly about funding limits -
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think the previous speaker is absolutely right, the member from Windsor is slim. But I'll tell you something: There will never be another slim Tory. They're fattening their wallets. That's what they're doing, and it's weighing heavily on them.
What I find very strange about Bill 36 is that we had a committee in place, a committee formed of the three parties, and none of them, not one member of that committee, was in favour of what's before us. As the member for St Catharines pointed out earlier, this bill was written six or maybe eight months ago. Your minds were already made up. You were doing well with the bank managers and the big companies, so why not take advantage of them? What you're doing is again ruining the integrity of politicians, not only in Ontario but right across Canada, by taking advantage of such legislation.
You know, there isn't a day when we aren't being criticized that politicians are looking after themselves and that's it, that they're trying to make money, big fat pensions. Well, this kind of legislation is doing exactly that. It's inviting rich people, not the ordinary person in Ontario but the rich only. This will come back to haunt you very shortly.
Mr Bisson: I want to thank the member for Windsor-Riverside for the comments he made about this act. I think the member was perfectly right when he talked about the Americanization of not only our health care system in this province or the Americanization of our education system or the Americanization of our civil service, the government is also intent on following the way of Newt Gingrich and a whole bunch of other right-wing lunatics in the United States. They're trying to put into Ontario a system that is much more American when it comes to how you raise money, how you finance yourself during an election.
I fundamentally oppose that, from a couple of perspectives. First, fundamentally it's not a very fair process, because what you're doing is really giving those people who are well connected in the business community the ability to raise money at fairly large rates, and that gives the advantage to the Conservative government, without any stretch of the imagination.
The other thing it does, in a way, is attack democracy, because what ends up happening is that winning an election depends on how much money you get, eventually. Under the type of rules the government is putting forward, if an individual says, "I want to run as an independent," or it happens that a party in a riding, whether Tory, NDP or Liberal - probably not so much the Tory party - doesn't have the ability in a certain riding to raise the dollars, they'll basically be out of the game.
I think we need to take a look at a way of trying to give candidates an opportunity to get their message out. It's interesting to note that in England, the Labour Party under Blair is actually looking at putting the financing of elections under a public law, that basically there'd be no fund-raising. Everybody would get equal access to public broadcasts and other media and everybody would be given a certain amount of money so that every party and every candidate has an opportunity to get the message out.
This government is saying they want to give themselves the advantage. It's as simple as that.
1930
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm pleased to deal with the presentation by the member for Windsor-Riverside. On the one hand, the member for Windsor-Riverside said the benefits go to the person who pays the most and what he's looking for is a reasonable tax credit for all. At the same time, he said that if there's too much money in the system it's going to disfranchise the voters, and he referred to the United States' system.
The fundamental fact is that it doesn't cost anything to vote. The bottom line here is that we're talking about participating in the political process. There have been standards set. Unlike the United States, we are setting standards with respect to spending limits. The party spending limit will be at 60 cents per voter, which is consistent with the 1997 federal party spending and reflects the cost of inflation over 12 years. There's also going to be a 96-cents-per-voter limit, which brings us in line with the federal spending per voter according to the 1997 federal election. The fact of the matter is that there are going to be party spending limits and voter spending limits, which is a far cry from what we see in the United States, so we actually are setting the standards here.
You were talking about tax credits and benefits going to the people who have the most to pay. What we are doing is opening the election process to allow everyone to make a donation to support the democratic process. If you do not pay any provincial income tax, you will get a tax credit cheque back as a refund of your donation. The fact of the matter is, the system is being opened very broadly.
The other parties are making the pitch, especially the member for Windsor-Riverside, with respect to his US experience. I didn't know you had to live in Windsor to be aware of what was going on in the United States, but the bottom line is that it doesn't cost one cent to vote, and the system is being made fair.
Mr Lessard: It doesn't cost anything to vote; he's right about that. But one of the things we need to do is encourage people to exercise that opportunity to vote, and unfortunately what is being proposed here is advertising to try and influence people's voting behaviour. It's saying to people, "If you have money, you can participate because your vote will count." What we need to be saying to people is, "It doesn't matter how much money you have; your vote is going to count." That's what we should be trying to encourage.
The member for Simcoe Centre, whom I'm happy to see - I don't think I've seen him here before - mentioned the limits to expenses.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Windsor-Riverside, you're not supposed to comment on whether or not members are in the House. You need to withdraw that.
Mr Lessard: Yes.
He mentioned the limits to campaign expenditures, but he doesn't mention those huge exclusions to polling and the leaders' travel.
I'll take the comments of the member for Mississauga South as a compliment. She mentioned other provinces' limits as far as the election periods, but what she doesn't mention is the impact that has when it's in combination with the changes to election finances. If we're just talking about the length of campaigns, perhaps that's something we could compare between provinces, but we do have to compare that in combination with the spending limits.
The member for Cochrane South makes a good point with respect to the privatization agenda of this government and how it impacts on our health care and our education system, things that we really should be debating. What we're debating is the privatization of the democratic process, selling democracy to the highest bidder, when really we should be talking about a more publicly funded, publicly limited election process.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments with respect to Bill 36, which is legislation to improve the election process in Ontario. The opposition parties have spent much time, it appears, on two major concerns they have with respect to this legislation. One is something that they call a sense of fairness or the increase of money that's available to all members of this place plus the various political parties. The second argument they seem to be concerned with is that of process, and they have spent much time with respect to that and how this legislation came about.
What they haven't of course talked about or indicated - I assume from their silence that they do support some of the other amendments to the legislation, which perhaps I could summarize briefly, and then get into the issue of dealing with what appear to be their two complaints to the legislation.
One item that I assume they are supporting is the philosophy of a permanent voters' list.
Mr Bradley: No problem.
Mr Tilson: The member for St Catharines says he has no problem with that.
I assume also that the members of the opposition do not have any problem with the temporarily absent voters being given the right to vote. I haven't heard any complaint about that.
The third item which I assume they don't have any problem with is the posting of voters' lists. The member for St Catharines says he supports that. Of course that was a private member's bill that the member for Ottawa South, the leader of the official opposition, introduced and which I think had all-party support. That was to do away with the posting of voters' lists around the various areas in the community. It was mainly proposed because of a safety issue. Women and seniors would no longer have to put their names out in public where anyone can walk up to a telephone pole or a post office and find out where they live.
The fourth item which I again assume the opposition supports is that of the ability to test new procedures during by-elections. There has been absolutely no comment from the opposition on that, and I assume they support that. I think we have to continually look at new ways to improve our electoral system. This is one of them. New technology is constantly being developed, and there's nothing wrong with having pilot projects tested during by-elections, processes that will change how we vote. I assume from their silence that they don't have any objection to that. We need to have the flexibility to test new procedures if all parties agree with the chief election officer, which is what section 4 of the bill proposes.
The fifth item to which I trust they don't have any objection is the fact that electors can be added on to voters' lists on election day. I'm not sure, but I believe that can be done to a certain extent now and that this will be clarified. Using the proper identification, everyone in Ontario who is eligible to vote will now be able to register on election day.
The sixth item is that all political advertising must show sponsors, which is section 62 of the bill. In all political advertising, parties, candidates, individuals, unions, associations and corporations that are sponsoring an advertisement must display their name for voters to be informed as to who is trying to influence their voting decision. I assume from their silence they don't have any objection to that proposal.
Section 60 of the bill states that registered charities cannot make political contributions in Ontario. I don't want to provoke the Liberals, but we all know why that section is there: because of some trouble during the time the Liberal government was in office.
The eighth one which I trust they support is that affiliated political organizations can no longer accept donations. That's section 65. I assume they have no objection to that one.
The ninth one is that the new offence of bribery is added to the act, a section which everyone has been silent on. I assume that no one has any concern with that as well.
The 10th item, which is one that may be controversial but no one has talked about it, is that recounts will be applied automatically if the spread is less than 25 votes.
Mr Bradley: No problem.
Mr Tilson: The member for St Catharines, on behalf of his party, says he doesn't have any problem with that either.
The other item is with respect to rules for proxy voting being made simpler. Individuals who know that they are not able to vote on election day can get a proxy.
Those are some of the changes to the bill which do not seem to be contentious and which members of the opposition have indicated they will support.
I then turn to two of the items, and there may be three, but two that I can determine they are concerned with, different forms of it.
The first one has to do with process. The opposition says that we are simply ramming this through the House without any debate or consultation, any discussion among the parties. There has been talk from the various members of the opposition how in the past - they refer to the 1986 piece of legislation, where there is consensus, and after consensus and all-party agreement we agreed to changes to the Election Act.
1940
I am going to summarize a little bit what I understand has gone on since 1986 to counteract that. I'll look forward to hearing from other members from the House who have been around a little bit longer than I have, who perhaps can correct it.
The election commission was formed in 1975. As I understand it, the commission is made up of two appointees from the Liberal Party, two appointees from the New Democratic Party and two appointees from the Conservative Party. I think someone from the law society is also on it, and there's a chair, whose name is currently mentioned continually. His name is Jack Murray and he has had some affiliation with the New Democratic Party.
The last time this legislation was changed was in 1986. For anyone who has run in elections since then, there is always criticism as to how the process should be improved. One is enumeration. Anyone who goes around and hears the complaints from constituents about the enumeration process and whether they are on the voters' list or not on the voters' list and whether their name is spelled correctly knows that the legislation cries out to be changed. So 1986 was the last time there were changes to the legislation.
In 1991 the commission, as I understand it, this group of representatives or appointments from all parties, got together and decided there should be some changes. They formed an ad hoc committee which deliberated for a period of time, I think about three years.
In fact, a memorandum of agreement was finally reached. Barbara Sullivan, a former member of this House who sat with the Liberal Party and was the Liberal Party's representative, signed the memorandum of agreement on April 25, 1994, which document I believe has been filed in the House. Tom Dyson represented the Progressive Conservative Party and Evan Simpson represented the New Democratic Party.
Many of the changes that are now proposed in this bill are set forth in this memorandum of agreement, which was agreed to by all parties. I think there was further documentation that people could refer to, but this was the start of it. This was the start of the changes to the current legislation that is before us today in the form of Bill 36.
So this was an ad hoc committee that made this report, and this documentation then went to the commission. The date of this document that I have is April 25, 1994. As I understand it, this report, this memorandum of agreement, was presented to the ad hoc committee, which again was made up of the representatives I spoke of, and it was accepted unanimously. So I get concerned when I hear members of the opposition saying there has been no discussion, there has been no consensus, there has been no agreement. Here is one agreement that was signed by at least one member of the Liberal Party, or then a member of the Liberal Party, Barbara Sullivan.
In 1996, the commission incorporated these changes and made their recommendations. The recommendations consisted of much of what was in this report, which was agreed to by all parties. That's consensus; that's discussing the problems that we have. Many of those who have had experience running in elections know all the various difficulties that we have with respect to elections. That includes the money part of it, the whole talk of money which they say we've created to help ourselves; we have an advantage because we're the government in power etc. These changes were agreed to.
Then we get into 1997 and, as I understand it, there were meetings of the House leaders.
In 1998, as I understand it, there was some sort of committee with Mr Duncan, the member for Windsor-Walkerville; Mr Christopherson, the member for Hamilton Centre; and the Chair of Management Board, Mr Hodgson. They met twice, as I understand it, to discuss all these things. The member for Windsor-Walkerville can stand up and correct me, but as I understand it, at that particular point in time things started to get very political. All of the agreements, all of the discussions that had taken place really since at least 1991, all of a sudden there was a problem. "We don't agree with what's going on. We don't agree with all of these changes. There's too much money being spent."
Your parties agreed to that. The New Democratic Party agreed to that. There were two meetings, I believe, and the comment was made to the effect that if there cannot be unanimous consent to the passing of this legislation, then there's no consensus and the whole thing should be turfed out the window. So there would be no changes to the Election Act.
I'm simply saying in response to all the criticism that has come forward from the members of the Liberal caucus and the New Democratic caucus that there have been no discussions, that our government has simply prepared all this stuff in the last couple of weeks and is ramming it through the House, that's not true. These things have been discussed on a regular basis at least since 1991, and possibly before that.
I've only got a few minutes left.
That's one of their issues, the issue with respect to process, that we are ramming this through the House without consulting with the other parties. There has been all kinds of consultation over the last number of years. Representatives from all sides of this House have come to an agreement and put it forward. In fact, there's at least one document flying around which I have here and which is in writing, signed by representatives from all three parties, one a Liberal MPP.
Then we get to one of their issues that they call the "sense of fairness." The member for St Catharines uses that a lot. In other words, there's too much money being spent on elections, notwithstanding the fact that every one of us in this House knows that it's going to cost more to run an election. It's going to cost more because our ridings are bigger.
Compared to some of the northern ridings - the member for Timiskaming was speaking the other day and he talked of the size of his riding. In my riding normally today I go from Bolton to Honeywood and it takes me about an hour and a half to drive through that area. I can appreciate that there are many others in this House that you probably need a plane to cover areas because of sparse populations. With the new additions, the riding that I will be looking at is part of Wellington and part of Simcoe. It will be at least two hours to travel from one end to the other, and that's in good weather. Many members of the House could stand up and talk about their own experiences and how much time it takes them to travel - even longer.
Just the advertising, putting forward one's view - the member for Windsor-Riverside talked about advertising and how we're spending too much money to sell our stories. Of course, that's what elections are all about. Elections are all about trying to express why our views are good views, good policies with respect to the operation of this province. The Liberals and the New Democrats are spending the same way. It's going to cost more. The ridings are larger. We're still going to be saving an immense amount of money because of the downsizing of the number of seats, but it's still going to cost more. We will need more to operate, to put forward these views in these elections.
I made a comment last night that I understand the Liberal Party in particular is in the hole and has some financial problems and debt problems. I don't know how many millions they're in the hole. I know all about that. I sat with the Conservatives in 1990 -
Interjection.
Mr Tilson: I understand you're in the hole. If you want to deny you're in the hole, that's fine, but I understand that. The Conservatives were known to be in the hole at one time as well. That's the way the game rolls around. If your policies are accepted, the public will support you, the public will provide financial assistance to you, the public will provide volunteers. That's the way it's worked. Do you think it worked any differently when Mr Peterson was running this province? Were you in the hole then? Now you're sitting around and saying: "Oh, the poor old Liberals. We're having trouble raising money." Of course you're having trouble, because your policies aren't exactly the clearest thing in this province. If you'd come together and come out with some clear policies, you might find more people giving you money. But don't blame it on this legislation. This legislation is trying the improve the Election Act, not trying to improve your coffers.
1950
The New Democratic Party is saying the same thing. They're in financial trouble as well, but not as bad as the Liberals, and I understand that too. Of course, they were turfed out of office. People didn't accept their policies. Naturally, if you don't accept their policies, why would you contribute to those particular parties? They're not accepted, so you don't give money; whereas on our side right at the current time the public is supporting our policies and wants us to continue on with the good work that we're doing around this province.
To say that the spending of money, that because the Conservative Party has a better financial position than the other parties - it's just fallacious to make that comparison that says this act is causing all that. This government is being reasonably successful with the way it's raising money because of our policies. The Liberals, on the other hand, are having a lot of difficulty raising money.
I hear stories that the Leader of the Opposition is going to different fund-raisers and he had to cancel a few. One was in Brampton, where he had to cancel his fund-raiser. Why did he cancel his fund-raiser? Nobody came out. Nobody supported him. So it is a little strange when you come into this place and start talking about the fact that we're getting all this money that's been given to us, and it's because of this bill that we've got all that.
Mr Bradley: The Barnicke bill.
Mr Tilson: You can call it what you like, member for St Catharines, but I submit to you that the public is accepting the policies of the province of Ontario and it has nothing to do with this piece of legislation.
I've just got a few minutes left and I'll conclude by saying I've outlined what I think are excellent changes to the election process. We all know it's needed and I would like to hear more members of the opposition indicating whether they support that as opposed to hanging around on these policies as to whether the process has been any good. Either say the changes are needed or they're not needed. It's a red herring to start talking about the process when in fact the process was quite adequate. The same goes with the issue of funding.
Those are my comments. I hope all members of this place will support this legislation, including the members of the opposition, who know that this legislation is needed to improve the electoral process in this province with respect to making this a better democracy.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): As we have discussed this bill last night, the member might recall that there are two pieces of legislation played here and three committee reports over a period of roughly 10 years. The government has chosen to selectively paint this as though each of those bodies was dealing with the same issues.
What the government has done is picked what it wants, put them together into one package and effectively raised the amount of money that an incumbent party can spend. The member opposite talked about who can raise money and who can't. If the government's policies were so darned popular, they wouldn't need to double the amount corporations could give. They could rely on small individual contributions. This bill is about money, it's about who has it and what you can buy with it.
When you shorten an election period you have to do more advertising, which costs more money. When you raise the amounts that you can spend in either a local or central campaign, you need money. What we're saying, and what we advocated through all the meetings, is that (a) there ought to be consensus on how we make the rules, (b) money ought not to be the major determinant of a party's ability to get its message out, and (c) if the government really wants to improve elections in this province and wants to control money and influence in this province, why didn't you deal with things like controls on pre-writ spending? Why are you wasting taxpayers' money on needless propaganda? This is all about money. This is about who can buy advertising. This is about who can get the message out. It has nothing to do with democracy or fair play.
Mr Lessard: I think the member for Dufferin-Peel makes a very interesting point, and that is that if people like your policies, then they'll be inclined to make contributions to your political coffers. That's very true, but who is it who has the money who can make those contributions?
Certainly expectant mothers on social assistance aren't going to have any money so that they can make contributions. This government even took away the $37 they used to be able to spend on food. They don't have the money. People who have seen their tax cuts eaten up by increased tuitions, user fees for health care, having to buy more supplies for their kids at school, having to pay increased prices for their prescriptions, don't have the money to make contributions to this government's political coffers.
We know who can pay. Those are the people who have the most money, people like Conrad Black, people like the Latner family. Those are the people who can make big contributions. They're going to benefit from the big tax credits as well and they're going to have some expectations when they make those sorts of contributions. What do you think they're going to expect in return? They're going to expect the government to implement more policies that they are going to like that are going to encourage more contributions to the political coffers. So it's going to be the government that appeals to the people who have the most money that's going to get the most political contributions.
That is the system that we don't want to see. That's the Americanization of the democratic process. It means selling the democratic process to the highest bidder. It really exposes the Progressive Conservative Party as the Republican Party of Ontario. They're going the same direction that Newt Gingrich went down in the United States a number of years ago. That's not the direction. It's a wrong direction. It's not too far too fast.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just want to comment briefly on the remarks made by the member for Dufferin-Peel. I think he made a lot of very good points that are very worthwhile. The fact is I think he calls it as it is.
The thing I'm concerned about, as are a lot of members here, has been the length of the campaign. I remember many years ago the federal government was 54 days and theirs went down to 37. Ours has been 37 and they're reducing that. We looked at other parts of the world where some of them have three-week campaigns. I think the length of the campaign here and this modification which was agreed to by the commission is the appropriate step to take.
They also looked at some of the other recommendations that were made by the commission and the fact was it's so much per voter. When I heard it was $1.40 I thought it should have been the same as what the federal amount is because it's based on the ridings being the same as the federal. They changed that to be accepted. I know it was one of the Liberal Party's recommendations, and I agree with that.
There are a few things in here that are very worthwhile. I know the opposition always have to have something that they want to change, or to give them some length of talk, with regard to money. But the fact really is that you can only raise so much money during a campaign and only spend it during a campaign. The other thing is, the pre-writ is where some of the changes have been made. A lot of people don't spend a lot of money pre-writ. There probably are some, but we were never in the habit of doing that. We waited until the time came when the election was called to spend the money.
There are some key issues in this legislation which the member for Dufferin-Peel very well and thoroughly explained, and I agree with him. This legislation - the amendments with the shorter period of time, the more money for the campaign, which is the same as what the federal government's is - should be acceptable, and I have a feeling that most of it is acceptable to all members.
Mrs McLeod: I liked so much of what the member for Dufferin-Peel had to say. It almost made me hopeful that we could restore some sense of the integrity of the political and the democratic process when I hear the member for Dufferin-Peel say that elections aren't won on the basis of money, elections are won on the basis of substance and good policy and people's respect for good government. I liked that so much that I wished the member for Dufferin-Peel would make the same arguments with his own government caucus and his House leader and his Premier.
I think the member for Dufferin-Peel should go back and say: "Since elections are going to be fought on the basis of good government and the substance of our policies, why do we need this bill that maximizes our ability to win seats by virtue of how much money we can spend to win them? Why would we want to create the perception that we're out to buy seats when in fact we could go out and win this election on the basis of the substance of our policies and our record of good government? Why would we want to bring this bill in? Why would we want to bully it through? Why wouldn't we go back and get some consensus on the kinds of changes that would foster good democracy that all of us could agree on?"
2000
Of course there's one reason why he can't make that argument back to his caucus: Because his government has been all about spin. That's what they've been about for three years and they want to carry that particular record into the next election campaign. This is a government that spends millions on advertising its propaganda, on getting its spin out. This is a government that is about to misspend $100 million on textbooks in a process that has been rushed through in order to get photo opportunities for Conservative members in September, and I suggest to you that there is no more record of good government for this government to run on than there is going to be quality in those textbooks. No wonder they want to maximize their ability to spin the electorate through dollars spent on advertising in the next election campaign.
I think it's interesting that this government wants to focus on this kind of a bill and to ram it through just as they have attacked democracy in so many other ways.
Mr Tilson: I'd like to thank the members for Windsor-Walkerville, Windsor-Riverside, Simcoe East and Fort William for their comments on my remarks.
With respect to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I have difficulty following what he's saying in this debate and I'm sure at some time he'll try to assist me. All I know is that there are a number of documents which are actually signed by former members of your caucus, former appointees of your caucus, which support the changes in this bill. It's as simple as that. I don't know how you can come along and say, "This never happened." It did happen, and there's at least one document filed at this table: It was an actual MPP, Barbara Sullivan - I can't remember her riding - who signed documentation supporting the changes encompassed by this bill.
The member for Windsor-Riverside talks about the wealthy corporations, the wealthy individuals. He's no one to talk. I seem to recall lists. The member for Cochrane South is looking at me very inquisitively, but I seem to recall at one point your New Democratic caucus had tremendous support from union leadership with respect to this legislation. They gave you a lot of money, so don't throw rocks.
I'm just going to close, I've got about 20 seconds, by reading an editorial from my favourite newspaper, the North Bay Nugget, of June 11, which says:
"The most welcome change is a reduction in the campaign to 28 days from 37 days. That's plenty of time in today's world for parties and politicians to make their points. Most campaigns consist of repetitious speeches and promises given by different people in different parts of the province."
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I rise to join the second reading debate. I'm not surprised that the nearly monopolistic Black press likes what this bill contains. The nearly monopolistic Black press, whether it's the North Bay Nugget or the Owen Sound Sun Times, don't like monopolies except their own, but certainly the nearly monopolistic Black press likes what the government is doing. Big surprise.
I rise more in sorrow than in anger to speak on Bill 36 and I want to say at the outset that the member for Dufferin-Peel made some good points. This is a large bill, containing many changes, not just to the Election Act but to the election expenses act, and one would have to be a fool not to support a number of these measures. I think the member from Simcoe made that point as well. There are many changes in this package that I think deserve support. But I want to speak to three issues tonight that will provide the basis for my rejection of the bill in principle.
I want to say as well to the previous speaker, who I thought made a good speech, I don't really care about what went into this bill, except I know good people worked hard. As a member of Parliament, I have before me a bill and that's what I will deal with. I'm not altogether concerned about every stage of its gestation. I simply know what I have in front of me and I have Bill 36 and I want to speak to that around three particular areas.
I am saddened that this bill will abolish the election expenses commission. I think that is a very serious mistake. I don't know that anybody's referred to this, but if you haven't read the third report of the so-called Camp commission on the Ontario Legislature, published in September 1974, I think you should read it. It explains where the commission came from.
Essentially - and I don't have much time tonight so I'm not going to go on unduly, but reading from that third report - Dalton Camp, Farquhar Oliver and Doug Fisher, three people who spent a lifetime, virtually most of their adult lives, in the business of party politics and around governments, were asked by Mr Davis to look at the political situation in Ontario nearly 30 years ago. One of the things they observed was, and I thought this was particularly an interesting observation because as they surveyed the landscape - listen to this. This is what they say on page 13 of that report:
"We, the commission, conducted an examination of the electoral returns by candidates in certain Ontario ridings in the Ontario general election of 1971, all candidates being obliged to file under the Election Act. As a result of this study and as a general observation, we concluded that the present Election Act as it applies to the reporting of expenses is neither suitably observed nor enforced."
They said it's time to have a commission to give some oversight and enforcement because the old order, which left things in the hands of, yes, the chief election officer, was simply not doing the job that was legislated or expected. Mr Camp, Mr Fisher and Mr Oliver made a very good rationale for saying, "Here is an independent commission that is going to give some independent, rigorous oversight." Now we stand here tonight and say it is time to wash that away. I say, my friends, we make a serious mistake and I think we will regret that.
I repeat again, the argument that they advance in support of the commission is that the election law was simply neither "observed nor enforced." That's why they recommended a commission and now we're going back to the days prior to 1974. I think on that ground alone this bill should be rejected, not just because the commission's not there but, I say again, what was the rationale for the commission? It was a very good rationale. I wasn't a candidate in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but I'm a bit distressed to be told by political pros like Camp, Farquhar Oliver and Doug Fisher that it was just an illusion, little or no enforcement on all sides.
A second point of concern to me is the campaign period. I am a person who has campaigned for over 22 years in a large, and now increased, rural constituency. I don't believe that 28 days is appropriate, particularly for the rural and northern ridings, particularly the northern non-urban ridings. I understand and I certainly can appreciate how in some of the urban and suburban ridings 28 days might be appropriate. But let me tell you, in the new Algoma-Manitoulin, in Kenora, in the new Renfrew and in Frontenac-Hastings-Lennox and whatever, you're going to be expected to go from Kaladar to Pittsburgh township and a lot of other small places. There is an expectation that the people and the electors are actually going to see and hear from the candidates, and 28 days is simply not enough time.
The irony is, of course, that what we will have, folks, is - and this is where we get again the perversity of unintended consequences. We're making the campaign shorter, but effectively we will make the campaign longer. We will make it much longer. I'm going to tell you as an incumbent I am unduly advantaged by this 28-day period. I suppose at one level I should say hallelujah, good for me. I don't think it's good for the system in my constituency.
But there's another aspect. This is not going to produce the desired results. Campaigns will get longer. In fact I said earlier today at a caucus meeting the formal 28 days will be the dénouement, it will be the kind of after-period. I'm telling you, I expect to start my next campaign about January 15. Look at the American example. It has become an endless campaign. That's what's going to happen, mark my words. If you think that by limiting the campaign you've limited the campaign, you have done exactly the reverse. The campaigns will go on and on and on.
2010
The reality is that everybody is going to be out there campaigning. The warm-up period is now going to be for six months, and again we only have to look at the United States, but there are other examples. Of course, as the campaign effectively is longer, so are the requirements to fund it, and that's my third objection: the money.
I heard somebody earlier tonight saying: "Oh well, the charity clause. You know why that's in there." That's my friends in the government rightly castigating the Liberals for the Patti Starr affair. You're absolutely right to do that. I was there. I'm probably the only Liberal who has not yet met this woman. I don't want to embarrass a good friend of mine who belonged to the Davis government - the only thing I'd ever heard about Patti Starr came from a member of the Davis government. I remember some very colourful language about a very interesting fund-raiser from north Toronto, and I always remembered the name. But you're absolutely right, we deserved to get our posteriors booted. But if you think that's where the debate ends, of course it doesn't.
I'm not going to use time tonight to go through the chapter and verse. I could say to the New Democrats: "Look at that Stupich affair in British Columbia. Look at that mess, the Nanaimo bingo society." I look at the disgrace that we've now got in Saskatchewan, where it looks like the government caucus in the 1980s was an organized criminal conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer. What have we got now? We've got about 10 convictions; we've got at least one suicide. I would have said it was one of the most antiseptic political cultures in the free world - just aghast at what happened in what we thought was innocent and pure Saskatchewan. Have there been political scandals involving money? You bet. Again, Messrs Camp and company make that point. That was something they were trying to clean up.
When I got here in 1975, these were the new rules. I don't think we have made a more significant and positive step than Mr Davis made with the support of the Legislature in enacting that legislation. I come from a political family, and I can tell you this, those of you who have, as I said here last night, put your name, your family honour, your integrity on the line: There is nothing in this business we are in that will more quickly and more permanently besmirch your reputation than the money problem.
One of the great tragedies - no, not a tragedy of my life here. When I think of some of the people I have known here, some of the best people and some of the near lifetime burdens they carried because of money, and I think of my own grandfather, my own family - I'm telling you again, that was all pre-1975; election expenses, what you had to do to pay these bloody bills, the kind of compromises that you were forced into - I don't ever want to go back to those days and I don't want any one of us being unduly compromised in that connection.
Let me tell you, the greater the reliance on money, the more likely that is going to be a reality. I said here, again I think it was last night, I try to read the New York Times most days. The American press, most especially the New York Times, is just entertaining every day about what is now one of the great debates in American society, and that's campaign financing. The one character that the Times, perhaps unfairly, has picked on is Senator Pothole, now, as they said in an editorial last week, Senator Quid Pro Quo, Alfonse D'Amato. He's currently the chairman of the senate banking committee. He has raised for his upcoming campaign, according to the Times analysis of his return, 17 million bucks. What he appears to be doing is just toll-gating Wall Street. He is influence peddling, but he's not the only one.
On the other side, what could be more pathetic than that spectacle last year, 18 months ago, of the apparently virtuous Vice-President Al Gore trooping out of some Buddhist temple on the west coast with garlands around his neck and all kinds of questionable money in his pocket. And the list just goes on and on. If you think that any of us is immune to that, think again. I say to my colleagues in the House, not to the wire-pullers, not to the consultants, not to the fast-buck artists behind the curtain, it's your name, it's your integrity that's on the line.
One of the things about having been around here for a while is I have seen good people walk through that door dishonoured by this wretched business. By the time they found out, the tears were everywhere and there was not much you could do. In too many of those cases it was the pernicious influence of the need for money, the pernicious influence of money.
There's been a lot of talk here, but nobody here can deny the reality that at the central level we have made exclusions that effectively raise the spending limits for the central parties by a couple of million bucks. That's a very real thing. It does something else, by the way. It increases the need for money. Also, I say as a member of the Legislature, it further reinforces the power of the central office and the party leadership.
According to a lot of independent academic analysis, it's already too great a power in our system. There's a lot of talk of too many politicians and the rest of it. You know what the independent academic analysis shows of our system? That the dominance by the central party office and by the party leaders is greater than just about any place else you'll find in the old British Empire Commonwealth, and this legislation just strengthens it even more.
But money and the need for money - I'm not here just to condemn the Conservative Party, though they sponsored this legislation. Let me say as a Liberal, I've been a party activist for a fairly long period of time. I am getting sick and tired of the mail I get from my party at all levels because all they ever seem to write me about is money. I don't think I'm very different. I hear from my Tory friends they are equally sick of it.
Mr Bisson: I thought it was only us.
Mr Conway: I think I speak for everybody. If you get mail from your political party these days, nine times out of 10 it's, "Write us another cheque for more money."
Hon Mrs Marland: I got one from Howie last week.
Mr Conway: I may have it, but that's not the point. I say it as somebody who understands the realities of public life, and I'm not here to argue for some kind of ridiculous, nonsensical set of proposals. But make no mistake about it, Bill 36 raises substantially the need for central parties to raise money. It also changes significantly the campaign period. It not only makes it longer but, as I said earlier, it excludes certain kinds of campaigning.
Look at the US. The mess of the 1970s led to a whole series of changes. Look at the unintended consequences. They put some controls on what was called hard money and now what is the great bane of the American political system? Soft money. Everywhere, every place you look, there's soft money and there's somebody out there raising it. As a group of men and women who have made the sacrifice to get involved in public life, do you really want to join that parade, whether it's Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich? Have you seen the debauchery and the debasement that is now the everyday life of an American politician? I don't wonder for a moment that, as the fund-raising becomes more frenetic, public esteem for the whole lot of them just drops day by every day.
If you look at the debate today in the US about the tobacco stuff - of course aided and abetted by Howard Baker and some Democrats. They retire Congress and then they sign up for some wild and questionable lobby that will fill their pockets with retainers. But we have a problem as a class. We're not in very high esteem, and this increasing reliance on the money business is not going to help us as a collective. The opportunities here to toll-gate and to peddle influence, we'll dress it up and call it something else, but look at what the New York Times found out about Senator Pothole. It couldn't be clearer.
2020
I'm going to tomorrow speak on the Hydro bill, and let me be very honest: That bill - Bill 35, I think it is, the electricity reform bill - will present the greatest commercial opportunity for political consultants and fund-raisers that this province has seen in half a century. You could finance the next six elections on the commercial possibilities of that one initiative. It is a multibillion-dollar business that is going to be opened up and it will be potentially the grandest barbecue of all. You'll say, "No, that couldn't happen." Come back tomorrow and I'll tell you a little bit about how it did happen in the past. It may never happen again, but I look around me and I see nothing to give me confidence that it is not going to occur.
You might think it's just the US. Have you been following British politics in the last decade? The sleaze factor at Westminster - we have British MPs selling themselves at I think £1,000 a pop for an order paper question. It was just unbelievable. It's hard to imagine that people would do it, but more than one of them did it.
So I say in my remarks tonight, many of these changes ought to be supported. Three of these changes I think are very seriously wrongheaded. The abolition of the commission is fundamentally and seriously wrong and it ignores very powerful advice tendered 25 years ago by some very thoughtful and experienced people representing the main political party. I think for rural and northern ridings the 28-day period is unduly short, though it is of course tailor-made for the suburban political culture in which we live. The expectation is now you'll only communicate with your electorate through glitzy television ads. That's essentially the new political dialogue, and this policy assumes that's the way it's going to be for 90% of the population into the future.
Most seriously, I repeat, my fundamental objection has to do with the fact that this bill increases by a substantial measure the opportunities for central parties to raise and spend money. It allows exemptions that are very significant and I think opens the door, as many others have observed, to the pernicious influence of American-style big money, which is the cancer of their politics, and it ought not to be welcomed here so gleefully because, as far as I can tell on the basis of my analysis both in Canada but also in the United States and in Britain, it is a cancer that will continue to debilitate the body politic, will continue to debase our collective reputation, and in some real respects will not serve the ends that even its sponsors imagine.
With those remarks, Madam Speaker, I'll conclude my speech.
Interjection: You don't look like a madam to me.
Mr Conway: Oh, sorry.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I've been called worse. Questions and comments.
Mr Bisson: That was an interesting comment.
To the member from Renfrew, it's always interesting to listen to him deliberate in the House. He raised a point that hasn't been raised in this debate that I think is quite important for people to listen to and that is the whole issue of abolishing the Commission on Election Finances.
The member is perfectly right because what he's saying is that basically the commission was put in place for a very specific reason. Under the old system, before the commission was put in place, it was very difficult to assure ourselves that candidates in the riding associations, and I guess to a certain extent the parties but probably less so, were following the rules exactly to the T. What they thought, and that's what came out of the Camp commission, was that it was really important to have an independent commission that could look at what candidates and the riding associations are doing and assure ourselves that people, when running in elections, are following the rules set out by the act itself.
There is a danger when you go back and say we're going to abolish the commission and we're going to put that power to the chief electoral officer - because I have confidence in our present chief electoral officer. I don't have any bones to pick with this individual. I think he's a very respectable person. But once you've got the ability to transfer that amount of power to an individual, what happens if in the next election Premier Peterson or Premier Hampton or - I can't remember the Liberal guy's name; sorry - anyway, what happens if the future Premier says, "I want to put my friend in that particular position," and decides to make a very political appointment? Then you have a lot of power with that appointed individual to turn a blind eye towards the Premier's candidates and their riding associations. We need to recognize why the commission was put in place: to make sure and to perceive that everything is squeaky clean. This is going in an area where we don't want to go.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have the pleasure of addressing the comments made by the member for Renfrew North. At the outset I'd like to congratulate him for a wonderful speech, very candid. Certainly many of the points he made would be difficult for me to engage him on. However, I want to address a couple of points that he raised.
His point about the integrity of the individual member is one that we all should keep in mind. Certainly it's one that I keep in mind whenever I'm going to work on this job, and I think it's one we all have to remember as we face the rigours of going into a campaign etc.
In the discussion about the length of time a campaign should provide to a candidate, however, I must say I disagree with the member for Renfrew North that 28 days is not enough. I think the size of my riding, or the riding that will soon be remembered as Muskoka-Georgian Bay, is probably roughly the same as Renfrew North and it is difficult to get around and see everyone in 28 days, but I can clearly recall from the 1995 election that the people in Muskoka-Georgian Bay - I don't know about the people in Renfrew North - did not have an appetite for the campaign during the first two or three weeks of that campaign. I know that from personal experience, going around and speaking to people at the door, because I worked very hard going door to door during that campaign. I can tell you that an awful lot of people didn't even know the campaign was under way, and as I said, they did not have an appetite for the discussion.
The other comment about an endless campaign - I'm a rookie member here. I haven't been here before, I haven't served in opposition, but it seems to me there is an endless campaign in this place already. It was under way in 1995.
Mr Bradley: I want to commend the member for Renfrew North on his very thoughtful speech. He is a person who (a) has been in this Legislature for some 23 years, and (b) perhaps even more important, is as widely read as anybody I can remember serving in this Legislature, and that's important, because he has looked at the history of this province, the history of fund-raising, the history of elections, he has looked at experiences in other countries, specifically south of the border, where many problems have arisen with campaign financing, both in the donation end and the expenditure end. The advice he provides to members of the House is advice we should follow.
He also indicated clearly that there are many aspects of the bill that if the government had brought in the bill with simply those aspects - not dealing with fund-raising, not dealing with the abolishing of the election finances commission, not dealing with the shortening of the campaign - you would see a consensus. The member for Windsor-Walkerville, who so ably represented the Liberal Party in that committee, indicated clearly that there were many parts of the legislation that were quite acceptable, and probably acceptable to all members of the House.
The contentious issues are the ones which will give politics a bad name or a worse name than it has at the present time, will demean the process, will get people into trouble, will perhaps exclude some people from becoming involved in politics. If a candidate is starting out, he either has to have a lot of personal funds himself or herself or has to be beholden to somebody who is raising those funds. That person is compromised right from the beginning and may look at the option of entering politics and decide that should not be the option that he or she shall exercise.
I simply ask the government, as I'm sure my colleague does, to reflect upon what has been said in the House and to accept amendments which would improve this bill considerably, perhaps make it more acceptable to the people of this province.
2030
Mr Lessard: The member for Renfrew North has many years of experience in this place, and I think we should pay attention to his remarks and the wisdom and experience he has to offer. He talked a bit about the elimination of the election expenses commission. I think that's something we should be wary of. The job of keeping a close watch on election expenses is one that is really too big for just one body to deal with, and we shouldn't be eliminating the election expenses commission.
He also talked about the influence that money will have in the next election campaign as a result of the changes that are being brought about and the opportunities to make money from many of the items on this government's agenda, and he spoke specifically with respect to the opportunities to make money on the deregulation of Ontario Hydro.
We know that when we go through this exercise as a result of the government's introduction of legislation to deregulate Ontario Hydro, there are going to be many lobbyists coming to make presentations to our committee. There are many in the energy business from the United States and Great Britain and elsewhere in the world who want to get a foothold in the Ontario market who will be appearing before our committee. Many of those people will feel that they will have a better chance of getting into that market, influencing the way the hydro market unfolds, by making campaign contributions to the government that brought in these reforms, the Mike Harris government. It is an endless campaign. It's a campaign that should be focused on convincing people to vote for the government, not through big money.
The Speaker: Response, member for Renfrew North.
Mr Conway: Thank you, Mr Speaker Stockwell. I apologize for not realizing that you had taken the chair from the Deputy Speaker.
With that said, I want to make one final observation about some of the unique characteristics of our democracy, because as has been said by others, one of the features of the Ontario political culture is that it is a culture in which there is very strong dominance by cabinet and by the leadership of the cabinet, irrespective of whichever party has been in office. We have a relatively weak parliamentary tradition.
What we basically have, and what we're going to have more of with these changes, as Mr Hodgson would like, is what some would call an increasingly plebiscitarian democracy, where once every four years you go and get a chance to elect almost a presidential-style cabinet government. But that's it. You only get that chance once every four years, and once the Parliament is elected it's very much under the sway of the cabinet. I'm not saying that as a partisan observation, because it's as true of the Liberals and the New Democrats as it has been of the Tories. So, shorten the election period and you reduce even further the opportunities and you conversely strengthen the power of the centre.
One of the realities that Mr Hodgson and Mr Harris are very anxious not to talk about as they advance the Fewer Politicians Act and as they advance Bill 36 is, what measures are this government and the Conservative-Reform party prepared to advance to reduce the power of the Prime Minister and the cabinet or the central party office? I haven't seen anything - lots of measures to reduce the powers of Parliament further and to reduce the role of the individual member, but nothing yet to reduce the real power, which is the power of the Premier, the party leader and the central party office.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I always like to listen to the member for Renfrew North. In fact, it's a bit daunting to speak after he has. I was just complimenting him today on his very good abilities in speaking and in fact told him - no disrespect to their leader - that I think he would have made a great leader.
I like to listen to the member for Renfrew North also, though, because he is a veteran member of this place. I like to listen to other veteran members as well: the member for Algoma, the member for St Catharines, other members who have been around this place for a while. I used to like to listen to some of the Tory veteran members at one time. I have to ask, where are their voices in this debate? I can tell you now, they should know better, and I believe some of the veteran members of the Tory party who have been around this place for a while do know better, just as they fundamentally knew better that the rule changes were wrong, because those people have been around here.
I'm still learning. I consider myself one of the newer members, I was elected in 1990, and I know how this happens. I see how power can be centred in the Premier's office. I don't mind saying that. It's the nature of the beast here. I also see new members - I think that some of the veteran members are seeing this in the Tory party as well - who come into government, are in the back benches and are never going to make it to cabinet, and some of them are deserving and some aren't, but there isn't room for everybody in cabinet. They have no say in any of the decision-making. They're the government. They're in power. They're whining, they're complaining, they're thumping their desks and stamping their feet and saying: "We're the government. Why aren't we getting this bill through? Why aren't we given more power? We should be. We're the government. We won the election."
That's what happened with the rule changes, I can guarantee you. If I had been a fly on the wall in a caucus meeting - I can even guess some of the members who were stamping their feet and saying: "Hey, we're the government. We want more power." I'm not going to name names today, but they did the same thing with the rule changes as they're trying to do, as they are doing in fact, with the changes to the electoral act. They're doing the same thing. They're cherry-picking. They stand up and say there were three reports over a vast number of years, there has been wide consultation, "We're not doing anything that nobody recommended; everybody agreed to this in the past," but we know. We are not fooled. What they have done is cherry-pick so that they don't all come together.
The same thing happened with the rule changes. They said: "Oh, we've done what the federal government has been doing or is doing. BC does this, Nova Scotia does that. These are good rules. We're just picking the rules from other legislatures." But what they did there as well was cherry-pick, so there is no comprehensive package, whole, to the changes.
What happens with both of these rule changes, it really is the beginning of the erosion - in fact, I would say that we're far beyond the beginning of the erosion of democracy in this place. I think people should be concerned. I think that people should be paying far more attention to this issue. I remember the fuss that was kicked up over the first one that we had to sit in, the omnibus bill.
Mrs McLeod: The bully bill.
Ms Churley: Thank you. The bully bill, Bill 26. We had to take extraordinary actions. People talk about Liberals and New Democrats working together. That was one example where we did come together, because we looked and worked to try to at least hold that bill up, and we were somewhat successful, to give people more opportunity to find out what was in it, because it was very clearly a huge attack on democracy and the way traditionally things were done in this House.
That is the same thing that is happening here with the finance changes for elections. It benefits the government, the government in power, just as the rule changes did. Because of that and because of the sit-in or the so-called filibuster at that table - I remember it well - for nine days, we were able as an opposition to hold up the House while we were able to get information about the education bill out there to the public, because that was going to be rammed through as well.
The problem now is that as a result of those two actions, the government then changed the rules so drastically that the opposition has no power any more to do anything except break rules, which I think fundamentally the opposition doesn't want to do. That's what we have now, rule changes designed, along with the two-in-one sessional days we have now - we're whipping through bills. The public have no idea what's going on out there most of the time; there's too much happening.
2040
I believe to some extent, interestingly enough, it is because of the rule changes, which were made to benefit the government so they can ram things through daily and every evening, that there's not a whole lot of attention being paid to this bill. I believe that this bill should take some extraordinary action on the part of opposition and the public out there, because what it means, why the public should be concerned about it, is that we're on this slippery slope, going down, down, down; we're losing the kind of democracy that people are used to in this place.
Mark my words, there will be members of this government back here in opposition some day, perhaps not too far off. Then you are going to see. I know there are some who believe you're going to be like dictators and be there forever. I know you believe that, but trust me. You think that partly because you're changing the rules to your benefit. I don't have the opportunity to raise that kind of money. I run a grass-roots campaign.
Hon Mrs Marland: Remember when you ran.
Ms Churley: Yes, you should see the corporate donations I get, Margaret; not a great deal. I don't think many corporations feel they're going to benefit greatly by giving Marilyn Churley, the environmentalist and feminist from Riverdale, a lot of money. I would say that's true of many other groups out there, so I depend very much on grass-roots support. I ran my first campaign, as I'm sure did others, very much as a grass-roots, community-based candidate who depended almost entirely on the door-knocking and grass-roots campaigning, seeing people at the door, talking to them about the issues and raising money on a local level.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): And you won.
Ms Churley: Yes, but it's not going to be the same any more. You've increased the size of my riding and you've lowered the length of the campaign. There are fewer days to get out there in a bigger riding. You've increased the spending so it's going to move from a grass-roots, knocking-on-doors, direct contact with the voters to a sophisticated media campaign. Those who have the most money will benefit from these changes in the rules. I would say that I think it's a disgrace, but I also think it is a mistake.
When you have exemptions, for instance, like travel, what does that mean to most people out there who aren't involved in campaigns? They say, "Buses."
I remember when Mike Harris's bus rolled up in Riverdale. I forget the slogan on it now, but I was a little shocked and surprised to see that bus.
Mr Baird: "Common Sense Revolution."
Ms Churley: Oh, it said, "Common Sense Revolution," right. It rolled up in Riverdale. People are used to seeing leaders, even, campaigning around in buses. What this is going to mean in a shorter campaign, and I believe the member for St Catharines mentioned this, is that you're going to be able to afford to hire jets, and you will, because you're going to be able to get the money from your corporate friends for your leader, your Premier, to fly around and have a very slick, quick campaign.
Our party is not going to be able to afford that kind of campaign. I think that amounts to buying the election. That's essentially what you're doing here when you shorten the campaign period and you allow exemptions like travel, like research. Well, let's say travel reads "jets." Research: What does that mean? I'll bet you that's going to just kind of trickle into certain kinds of media campaigns and things. What exactly does that mean?
Then you're polling. Polling, as we well know, is very important to campaigns.
Hon Mrs Marland: Not to mine.
Ms Churley: The member for Mississauga South says it's not important to hers. I'm talking about the central campaign, member for Mississauga South. I know you're not that naïve. I don't personally poll either. I'm talking about the power in the leader's office, the Premier's office, and the need for the central campaign to keep its finger on the pulse of how the public is reacting to the campaign almost on a daily basis.
All of these expenses are now, for the first time, being exempted, will not be counted any more. When I hear members from the Tory party get up and say that this was almost all-party agreement and it's not about buying the election, times have changed, we're doing what the federal government does and the ridings are the same size now, that is not quite the way it is. The federal ridings are now the same size but they have a longer campaign period. The per-voter cost now is up to the same amount but for a shorter campaign period, which means actually it's more. That is common sense.
I would say to the members that this is actually a very serious issue. I also would say to the members that I think you're not really paying attention to the implications of it or perhaps you are, because I would assume, in fact I know, that most of you, if not all of you, are in a position where you can raise a lot of money from your corporate friends.
I have a feeling that those of the others from both opposition parties who said that these rules were cooked up some time ago by the so-called whiz kids - I don't know, was it the member for St Catharines who first started calling them whiz kids? It seems to be the name we give them now. But the whiz kids in the back rooms decided to cook this up. It's a very dangerous game they're playing as we notch down the democracy in this place so that more and more and more what we see is the government having complete control over the legislative agenda.
I've been around here long enough to know that it can be very frustrating when you're in government. I've been on both sides now. I was a minister in the Rae government and I'm now sitting in opposition here. I know what it's like to be in government and have an agenda and you want to get on with it. It's frustrating when you're being held up by the opposition parties.
But I would say that we have a great deal of power in this place. We can make laws, we do make laws, that have huge impacts on our constituents, on the people of our communities, and in the workplace we have a huge influence. We have to exercise our power carefully. The more we ram legislation through, without the ability for there to be - yes, frustrating sometimes because you know at the end of the day you're going to pass the bill anyway - but to give the opposition the opportunity to debate the issues, to read the bills, to get the public involved; the reality is you don't always get what you want but you mostly get better legislation.
We know time after time after time, as this government continues to ram bills through, which you do now daily, time allocation after time allocation after time allocation - people have no idea it's all happening so fast, what's going on here. As you ram these bills through, look what happens. They're full of holes, they're full of mistakes.
Look at the Minister of Municipal Affairs' tax bill. Is it the fourth time he's had to introduce yet another bill to correct mistakes? It still isn't working. We're still hearing from administrators that it isn't going to work. We know that people's taxes in Toronto are going to go up as a result of this. Part of it is just because the government continues to ram things through without consultation, without listening to issues raised by the opposition.
You know, some of the time some of the issues raised by the opposition are actually helpful, but there are so many know-it-alls over there in that party who are absolutely convinced that they have all the answers, that there is nothing that any member of the opposition, including the veteran members, can say that will change their minds. The reality is, often there are good comments, good suggestions coming from some of the members from this side of the House, and the government refuses to listen. We're going down a very slippery slope here. I believe, for instance, the member for Mississauga South should know that, because she's been around a bit longer than me. How many years now, Margaret?
Hon Mrs Marland: Fourteen.
2050
Ms Churley: Fourteen years. She is somebody I'd consider to be a veteran in this place who has seen the House from both sides herself now. She's made it, she's become a minister in the government and she's played the role of opposition.
What we're having here, in summary, is rule changes to the Election Act, the finances in particular, that are going to benefit the party in power. In this particular case these changes are going to benefit the Harris Tory party, who during its three years in office have indeed started a revolution in Ontario. It's a revolution that has helped the wealthy and big corporations in this province and that has hurt poor people and average people.
I see it day after day in my constituency office, where I see more and more, as that crack gets wider and wider, people falling into it daily and where there are no safety nets any more in those cracks. I see people who have a mental illness who have to leave their jobs because they can't get their drugs any more. This is happening to a constituent of mine right now. I've been talking to his doctor. The only way he was able to get his drugs, because he didn't fit under the rules any more, was to be admitted to hospital. He lost his job. I see a young, pregnant woman with no support - 17; she'll be 18 in August. She's pregnant with no support, from a very poor area of my riding. She can't get any social assistance because she's not yet 18 and she's going to be thrown out of her apartment because she doesn't have the rent to pay. Those are just two examples.
Another one: A mother whose young son is 12, a brilliant young boy but who has some very serious aggression problems and is a danger to both his mother and his brother. She is going through incredible hassles. She can't get him placed. Finally they agreed that he could be placed somewhere in Peterborough, that far away from a supportive mother and brother who wants to help out. She cannot get him placed anywhere else. We're still working on those. We see people who have been victims of the family support plan. I have just mentioned a few today, and these are real people.
When I say that this government has worked very hard to change labour laws and to change other laws to benefit the corporations, to benefit the richer people, the people who already have power and money in our society, that is what we're seeing enhanced here today with this bill. It gives those people with power and money, many of whom have too much already, even more power and even more ability to influence this government, to influence and gain even more power.
I think that is shameful; I really do. I don't think the corporations out there, given the way this government has listened to them already with the kinds of financial rules in place, need that much more power. But other members who have talked about this are right: The more money they give, the more power they are going to be able to exert.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's always a pleasure to have a chance to comment on a speech made by the member for Riverdale. She talks a lot about influence buying, the purchasing power of influence. I think it might be wise to recollect from the 23rd Annual Report of the Commissioner on Election Finances just exactly the magnitude of the average contribution to a political party in this province in 1996.
The average individual contribution for the NDP was $81, for the Conservatives it was $121, for the Liberals it was $169. I'm not really sure how much influence $81 or $121 buys you, but those are the facts. When it comes to corporations - very interesting when it comes to corporations - the average corporate gift for the Liberals in 1996 was $930, the average corporate gift to the New Democrats was $910 and the average corporate gift to the Tories was $522.
I'm not really sure exactly what the member for Riverdale is talking about when she talks about influence and the purchasing power. This really is much ado about nothing. The member for Riverdale talked a lot about us ramming things through and no consultation. Just this afternoon I sat in committee with a colleague of hers from Welland-Thorold, Mr Kormos, who went to great lengths to tell the people at the committee that Bill 22 is a waste of time: "The committee is eight days in consultation. What a waste of time. We shouldn't be doing that. Too much consultation." Now the member for Riverdale says here tonight we ram things through. So I'm not really sure: this afternoon, too much consultation; tonight, not enough consultation.
A comment from the Chatham Daily News, a paper that's very dear to my heart because it's from my riding:
"For our money, a shorter election campaign means less rhetoric and standardized spending and a revamped remuneration system makes, dare we say it, common sense. "Hardly the stuff of dastardly plots."
Mrs McLeod: The member for Riverdale has covered a number of issues of very real concern to members of this House, I'm sure, such as the cherry-picking that the government likes to do when they reference where they had taken their ideas from for this legislation. We've certainly seen evidence of the cherry-picking. Every time we've asked this question in the House we've had the Chairman of Management Board saying, "You know, all we wanted to do was to follow the federal rules for election expenses."
They of course are cherry-picking in the responses because they know full well that when it comes to the spending limits for the central party, they are well in excess of the expenditure limits which are recognized by the federal party. In fact, they are something like $2.3 million in excess of the federal spending limits, which will buy a great deal of television advertising for the central party in the next campaign.
They also cherry-pick when they want to talk about recommendations of previous committees, because one recommendation that's in this legislation which didn't appear on the part of any committee, any commission, any independent party, was the idea that we would have a shorter election period than either the federal government or the current election period.
That is a very real concern to the member for Riverdale, as she is noted as somebody who likes to believe, as all of us, I think, like to believe we are running grass-roots campaigns in which the purpose of the campaign period is to be back talking to our electorate, being held accountable as individuals to our electorate. A shorter campaign period makes that virtually impossible and increases, as the member for Renfrew North has said, the dominance of the central party which the Progressive Conservatives, Mike Harris Conservatives, are going to make sure is well funded.
Mr Carroll, the member for Chatham-Kent, is being disingenuous at best to suggest that corporate donations prior to the last campaign were somewhat similar. He ignores the fact, which he knows well, that being in government offers a certain advantage. As the member for Renfrew North has pointed out, should there be a Hydro fire sale at some point in the future, that will be very beneficial for government. The casino influence might be even greater in the next -
The Speaker: Thank you. Questions and comments?
Mr Lessard: I want to commend the member for Riverdale for very insightful comments with respect to the changes to the Election Finances Act. One of the questions she raised was why the government with a big majority would want to bring these changes into place now, changes that have traditionally been made with the consensus of all the parties in this Legislature. Why would they want to bring in changes that could affect them to their detriment if they ever found themselves to be opposition members?
One of the points that the member for Riverdale made is that, when in government, members must realize that there is the possibility that they may not always remain in government, that the changes they're making now may some day come back to haunt them. I hope the members on the other side in government take that point.
The member also talked about the shortening of the campaign period and how that affects our ability to engage in a grass-roots campaign, where it's important for all of us to get out to visit as many electors as we can. I happen to think that that personal contact with electors is very important. I don't want to see a campaign that becomes highly centralized, that's based strictly on the results of polling and big mass-media buys on TV, on radio and in newspapers. I think we should have a campaign that's not focused solely on who can buy the most television ads and have the greatest influence.
The member for Dufferin-Peel talked earlier about how if people like what the government is doing, they'll be more inclined to provide it with funds. Well, I say that if people agree with the government, they'll vote with them without that undue influence by large media campaigns. Why not have an election like that?
The Speaker: Questions and comments.
2100
Hon Mrs Marland: I wish all members opposite would do an accurate comparison of exactly what is in this bill, because when they talk about our bill adopting the same limits as the federal government, they're totally wrong. The fact is we are setting limits for contributions to riding associations and to recognized parties, whereas federally there are no limits.
Let me just say something more than what the opposition are saying. I think each one of you tonight have stood up and spoken as incumbents. You've said, in the first person: "I need more time to campaign. I can't campaign in 28 days." May I just suggest to you, and I can say this having been in opposition for 10 years, you can get re-elected if you have served your constituents well. Our government will be re-elected with 82 or more seats because we have served the people of this province well.
The thing you have to remember is that if you have six, eight or 10 weeks to campaign, if you have not served your constituents as an incumbent, you won't get re-elected. It's not about how much money you spend or how many polls you can conduct in your riding; it's about the fact that after you are elected you start the very next day to serve your constituents. On that merit alone, you deserve to be re-elected, wherever you sit in this House, I would suggest. Each of us has a role, whether we're in opposition or in government. If we look to the needs of those people who elect us in the first place, and serve them as it is our privilege to do, we will be re-elected. It won't be a matter of whether we've got four weeks in a writ period or 10 weeks; it will be because we've served them for the duration.
Ms Churley: First, to the member for Mississauga South, she should know better. She's been around for a long time. She knows what happens in election campaigns. I think what she said is a real insult to some of the people - in fact to her party in the past and to both opposition parties - who did not get re-elected, who we all well know were very good members and were very good to their constituents. That is not a fair assessment and she knows it. In fact, it raises the question as to why they're raising the limit in the first place. If her premise were to rest on any solid ground, then there would be no reason to raise the limit. So it is illogical as well as unfair.
I would say to the member for Chatham-Kent, I want to see where you got those figures. I can't argue them now, but there's something wrong with those. I'll talk to you later. But let me say, it raises a serious point, and that is, the government in power, and that's what we're talking about here, has the power to raise a lot more money generally from corporations - and boy, do you guys have an opportunity, as has been raised by other colleagues tonight, even perhaps from the sell-off of Hydro. You have more of an opportunity to raise from corporations at this point than we do.
I would say to the member for Fort William, who's been speaking for quite a while on this issue, that I think she and I come from the same roots to some extent. We're grass-roots campaigners.
I would say that as an incumbent, with all due respect to my opponents - I take nothing for granted - I have a good chance of winning the next election. In fact, I believe this is a disadvantage to the non-incumbents. I do have an opportunity to get my name out there, to be out helping constituents. I think it's a disservice to the newcomers. They won't have enough time.
The Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to enter the debate on second reading of Bill 36, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act. I think it's important to look back to 1994 when the Common Sense Revolution was released, in May 1994, a year before the election. That document, which won great approval across this province, set out to cut taxes in this province, and we've done that. We've seen 66 tax cuts since this party took office when they were elected by the people of Ontario.
The Common Sense Revolution also talked about cutting government spending, and we've done that, while still protecting health care. In 1995, the spending on health care was $17.4 billion; today it's $18.5 billion, and that's in spite of the federal Liberal government cutting over $2 billion in transfer payments to this province. As a government we've been able to not only protect but enhance health care by the tune of $1.1 billion. That's important to keep in mind.
The Common Sense Revolution also spoke about removing barriers to job creation and removing red tape, and we've done both of those. We've seen the massive number of jobs that have been created in this province through the policies of this government.
There are many other promises made in the Common Sense Revolution that we've kept. One of the promises was to reduce the number of provincial legislators to match the number of federal legislators. We are going from 130 to 103. That was brought in with the Fewer Politicians Act, Bill 81. The changes that we're seeing today in Bill 36, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act, have a great deal to do with Bill 81, because it reflects the changes in the number of ridings in our province.
It's important to note that the Election Act and the Election Finances Act have not been changed in 12 years. That's going back to 1986. It needed to be changed to reflect the changes in the Fewer Politicians Act, as I mentioned.
The all-party Commission on Election Finances reviewed the Election Finances Act and made recommendations to reflect the current election needs, including increased spending and contribution limits. The chief election officer for the province recommended changes that would modernize an outdated process through a reduced writ period, to a minimum of 28 days and I believe a maximum of 56 days. That would also create a permanent voters' list and a reduced bureaucracy by combining the Commission on Election Finances and the office of the chief election officer. The opposition paints it that we're eliminating one office, but the reality is we're combining the two that have to do with elections.
Bill 36, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act, modernizes and increases the transparency of the electoral process in this province. It creates a permanent voters' list in section 16 of the bill. It's important to note that the federal government and British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec currently have a registry, so Ontario would be joining those provinces in having a registry. This is something that I mentioned was asked for by the chief election officer, Warren Bailie. It's estimated that this change would save $10 million in each election for the taxpayers of Ontario. That's $10 million per election. I think that's very significant.
The technology that is available today makes it far easier to track and update the list so that we're able to keep accurate voters' lists in Ontario. It's very easy to put your name on the registry. You can do it with your driver's licence or at a municipal office or when you're filing your income tax return, as I did this year, and ticked off the box to have my name put on the federal voters' list.
It's important to note that when people did their income tax returns, they did see a reduction this year in their income taxes yet again, fulfilling a promise of this government.
This bill also provides for temporarily absent voters to be given the right to vote, in section 11 of this bill. If you are a Canadian citizen and were a permanent resident of Ontario for 12 consecutive months and intend to return to Ontario, you could vote in the provincial election for up to two years while you are temporarily out of the province. It also opens the voting process for individuals who are out of Canada because of military service, students, the Canadian foreign service and the Ontario foreign service.
2110
Section 19 of the bill also deals with private member's Bill 2 which was introduced back in September 1995 by the Liberal leader, who was not the Liberal leader at the time. Bill 2 called for the removal of the public posting of voters' lists in each polling division. I think that's an excellent idea and I see no reason why the opposition parties would oppose that. It's a personal safety issue, especially for women and seniors in our province. I know that affects people in my riding. This is something the opposition should not be opposed to.
It also allows the ability to test new procedures during by-elections, so if there's Internet or telephone access, if there's some new technology that would be available in elections, if all parties agreed to a new procedure it could be used in a by-election.
The bill also allows for electors to be added to the voters' list on election day in section 18 of the bill, which is very important.
Another very important aspect is that all political advertising must now show its sponsor. That's contained in section 62 of the bill. This brings transparency to our election process. All political advertising by parties, candidates, individuals, unions, associations or corporations who are actually sponsoring these advertisements must actually display their names for the voters to see who is actually paying for this advertisement. This is a very key thing.
As has been mentioned here tonight, registered charities can no longer make political contributions in Ontario. I think that has been debated quite extensively here tonight. Also, affiliated political organizations cannot accept donations.
Also, in section 44 of the bill, a new offence of bribery is added to the act. I think that is good news.
Something else that's very important is that recounts will automatically be applied if the spread is less than 25 votes. That's contained in section 37 of the bill. Currently, if there's a tie, the returning officer casts a vote. But now, if this bill is passed by this House, we'll see that there is an automatic recount in the case of a spread of less than 25 votes.
Also, the bill allows the rules for proxy voting to be made simpler. Individuals will now be able to have proxy votes through this bill.
The bill, in subsection 58(2), also mentions that any deregistered constituency association - currently, if a constituency association has been deregistered, after two years any money that may exist in their bank account would go to the chief election officer. But in this bill, that money actually would go to the party that raised the money. That's important, because that deregistered constituency association raised that money on behalf of its party and it's good that it will go to that party, whether it's the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP or any of the other parties in this province.
Section 70 of the bill deals with the per-voter costs going from 40 cents to 60 cents. Currently, if you look at the system that is in place, it's $2 per elector for the first 15,000 electors, then the rate becomes $1 for the next 10,000 electors and 25 cents per elector for any additional electors. That has now been changed to 96 cents per elector, so some ridings will actually see a reduction in what they can spend. If you look at the 1995 election, in the riding of Rainy River, the parties were allowed to spend $2.03 per voter, while in York Centre that amount was 51 cents. So what we'll see is 96 cents right across the province, which I think is good news for the people of Ontario.
I have sat here tonight and listened to the opposition parties, and they've gone on about how this bill is somehow a plot or conspiracy to raise money for the Conservative Party. They talk about the rich corporate friends. But what we heard here tonight from the member for Chatham-Kent is that the average political contribution by corporations is higher for the Liberal Party and the NDP, and the Conservative Party was third in the average contribution made by corporations.
If you go a little farther and actually look at where parties get their money - this is very important - in 1995, 79% of all the Liberal fund-raising dollars came from corporations, yet 21% -
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Three quarters?
Mr Newman: Almost 80%; 79% of the Liberal fund-raising came from corporations and 21% of their fund-raising came from individuals.
If you look at the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario you see that 18,000 individuals made personal donations to the Progressive Conservative Party; 52% of the donations were from individuals for the Conservative Party and 48% for corporations.
When you look at those numbers, you can see that the Liberal Party is the party that actually relies on corporate donations and not what they've been espousing here this evening, that somehow the Conservative Party is the party of the corporate sector. We've seen in these figures that it's not.
In Scarborough, for example - Scarborough East, Scarborough Centre or the riding of Scarborough Southwest - if you look at where the bulk of the donations come from in those ridings for the Progressive Conservative Party, they're not from corporations. They're from hardworking individuals who strongly believe in our party and the platform we have. It's not the corporate sector making the major donations, but individuals and families who make $15 and $100 contributions to their local riding association.
Overall, I want to repeat that 79% of the fund-raising dollars in 1995 for the Liberal Party came from the corporate sector and only 21% came from individuals.
While we're on the topic of the Liberal Party, it's important to know that during the last election the Liberals spent five times the amount that the Progressive Conservative Party did on polling. I would have thought they would have learned their lesson in 1990, not to rely on polling, but perhaps they haven't and I encourage them to keep doing their polling.
This bill brings about several changes, as I've mentioned. You may ask, why the changes? The government is simply responding to the recommendations made by the Commission on Election Finances and the Chief Election Officer for this province, Warren Bailie, to ensure that this process is changed, because this process has not been changed in 12 years and definitely needs to be modernized. The changes will bring tax savings to our taxpayers in Ontario, will reduce the bureaucracy, modernize the process and will save $1 million per year and at least $10 million per election. Mr Bailie also recommended a permanent voters' list that will itself save $10 million. With a permanent voters' list, he told the Toronto Sun, we could run it in 10 days shorter.
That's what we've seen in this bill, which allows the minimum writ period now to be 28 days, because we've seen nine-day and 10-day periods required for enumeration. That permanent voters' list will definitely help.
The election finances commission and its chair, Jack Murray, who I might mention is a former president of the New Democratic Party here in Ontario, has urged the government to get on with the reforms. He said, "Enough time must be provided for the commission, riding associations, accountants and the parties to familiarize themselves with the changes." I agree with him. That's why it's important to move forward with this bill so that we can change and modernize the election system in our province.
We had a commission that was set up from all parties, and we have the opposition out there creating media stunts and crying foul because the government is introducing this legislation. It's sad to see them doing that.
The opposition simply wants to delay the election process because they didn't approve of their own representatives' views. They, like all the parties, had representatives on that and now they're not agreeing with that. Frankly, it's the responsibility of the government of Ontario to move forward to change the election system to reflect the changes in ridings, and it's important to keep that in mind.
Now that we have matched the federal ridings, the boundaries, and will now have 103 ridings in Ontario, we're now matching what the federal spending limits are and I think that's important. As I mentioned, it's down to 96 cents per voter.
2120
This bill deals with election reform in our province. It also deals with the tour issue. Right now without this legislation, tour, research and polling have no limits, and they actually have nothing to do with getting to the voters. That's what this bill will deal with, and legislating items like this will ensure consistency and transparency.
We've also legislated the exclusion of travel to ensure a level playing field. This is something that, for example, the members in northern Ontario have told us, and we know that their travel expenses alone could eat right into their spending limits and affect their ability to run a good, solid campaign. It's the opposition members who hold the northern ridings, not the Progressive Conservative Party, so I say this is something that is good for them.
With respect to spending limits, the limits have been changed to reflect what the federal Parliament has for its members. Thirty per cent of the ridings in Ontario will actually see a reduction in per voter spending in this province when you look at all of the changes.
This bill brings about a lot of positive changes. The permanent voters' list will be created. Temporary absent voters will be given the right to vote. The posting of a voters' list has been dealt with. The ability to test new procedures during by-elections has been dealt with. Electors can be added to the voters' list on election day. All political advertising now must show its sponsor. Registered charities cannot make political contributions in Ontario; that money was raised for charity, not for political purposes. Affiliated political organizations cannot accept donations. A new offence of bribery has been added to the act.
As I mentioned, we'll have a recount automatically if the spread is less than 25 votes. There will be no need to go before the courts to get a recount. That will automatically be granted by this bill, and I think that's good news. As I mentioned, the rules for proxy voting will be made simpler.
All of these changes modernize the election system, reform the election system and make our system more transparent. This is indeed good news for the taxpayers who are the voters in Ontario, who decide ultimately who they will send to represent them here in this Legislature.
The limits have been changed, there is the permanent voters' list, as I've mentioned, and also keep in mind that the bulk of the donations being made to the Progressive Conservative Party comes from individuals and not from corporations, which is quite different from the Liberal Party.
With that, I will conclude my comments and look forward to hearing responses from my fellow members.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mrs McLeod: The member opposite has spoken about reasons why he believes that this legislation is good legislation. I guess my basic question is: If the legislation is good, then why did the government want to slip it in under the cover of the Hydro bill in the hope that somehow we wouldn't notice it? If it's good legislation, you'd think the government would want to shout it from the rooftops.
If there are so many points of agreement on what is good in this legislation, and we've acknowledged on this side of the House that there are many aspects of this bill with which we could agree, if the member believes that there are many points of agreement, why has the government abandoned the traditional process of seeking all-party consensus for any changes that are going to be made in the way in which we're elected?
It seems to me that if this is truly good legislation, then we should go back to that process of finding the areas in which we're in agreement and push those through jointly, as opposed to having this legislation imposed on all of us and bullied through. The reason the government is bullying it through is because there are some very key areas in which we cannot agree.
We could not agree with this government's original proposals for increasing the spending limits at the riding level. They've reduced those somewhat, but only as a result of the essential public shaming our leader did when this government proposed its original, horrendous increase in spending limits at the riding level, the kind of public shaming that I think the government's crime commission would really consider to be quite appropriate in many other circumstances.
We cannot agree with the dominance of the central party that will be created by this significant increase in spending limits for the central party, increases which put the spending of the central party in Ontario far beyond what the federal party is able to spend.
We cannot agree with the loss of the election finances commission. The member for Renfrew North spoke earlier about not wanting to go back to a day in which none of the guidelines for election expenses could be enforced. The integrity of the process does reflect on the members of this House.
Ms Churley: The member for Scarborough Centre did what many government members have been doing while debating this bill, reading from the briefing notes that had been supplied to him. Let me say that he's got it wrong again. He made a point of saying that all three parties agreed with these changes. That is not a fact. The reality is that there has been cherry-picking here. There are at least three components of this bill which we're all talking about - I don't know if you're listening or not but it appears as though you're not - that all parties did not agree to. That is our beef. We have been trying to tell the members of the government that we're very concerned about the increased riding spending limits, the huge central party increases and the exemptions. Those are three areas that were not agreed on by the three parties. We have real concerns about that.
As other members from both opposition parties said, and will continue to say, we agree with updating the act. We support, if not all, most of the other clauses in the bill. I can't see why the government members will not sit down with us and try to find a compromise that we can all live with on those three very contentious issues so that we can come forward in a non-partisan way, which is the tradition of this House, to work together, because no government in power should be allowed to make unilateral rules which will affect the electoral process in this province for years to come. It should be worked out between the three parties. You're refusing to do that. I would say to the member, stop reading the notes and listen to what's really happening.
Mr Hudak: I'm pleased to rise to add a couple of more comments to the debate. The debate tonight has centred around money to a large extent. The opposition members seem to feel that more money will be spent to fool voters. They look, it seems, in this debate with great disdain upon the intelligence of voters to make reasonable decisions. That's disappointing.
I think there are some examples. In the California primary recently, on June 2, Al Checchi, the owner of Northwest Airlines, invested $40 million to win the California primary nomination for the governorship. His opponent spent $14 million. Neither one won. In fact, Gray Davis, who could barely afford to pay for advertising and television, was the Democratic nominee, not because he spent money but because, it says in the article in the Economist, he had the best record, a record of competence in his role, and also was somebody the voters felt they could trust because he keeps his promises.
The same lesson occurred in the Republican primary. Darrell Issa, the Republican candidate, outspent Matt Fong four to one in his campaign, and the voters chose Fong because of his experience in running government in the past. He had a good record, kept his promises.
The voters went for the person they thought was the most competent leader to take those positions.
An interesting lesson as well: The California Teachers Association spent big bucks trying to defeat a measure on bilingual education. The voters rejected those advertisements and supported English immersion as opposed to bilingual education.
Another criticism of Checchi is that during the campaign he changed his style from a limousine-driving outsider, a Ross Perot-type businessman, to a tough liberal Democrat who marched with Martin Luther King and such. This sounds to me like a Liberal campaign.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The member has just made the best argument I have heard so far tonight for not increasing the limits. Obviously, it doesn't need to happen. But that's not what I want to address in my comments tonight.
I want to talk about the 28-day election period and what that will be like in the large rural ridings. I want you to just think about for a moment what might happen in the case a government fell. I'm sure the people over on the other side remember Joe Clark and his unfortunate fall from power when no one expected he would.
You've got a 28-day election period. You would assume that two of the parties don't have nominated candidates, or all three, I suppose, or as many parties as there would be. You would probably have about 21 days to actually go out and see an electorate.
The constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin, for example, would be the distance from Quebec City to Windsor in terms of driving time. That's what you're trying to accomplish in 21 days. In the meantime you also have to raise the limit, about $70,000, which is about double the limit that presently exists. That's what would be faced by a candidate of each of the parties in 21 days.
I don't think that is a highly democratic process for the people of Manitouwadge, Killarney, Meldrum Bay, Thessalon, Chapleau or Elliot Lake to be faced with when they have to make a decision about who will govern their province. I ask you to think about this for a minute.
The Speaker: Response?
Mr Newman: I appreciate the comments from the members for Fort William, Riverdale, Niagara South and Algoma-Manitoulin. I know the member for Fort William doesn't like any bills the government brings forward, even private members' bills. She doesn't like this bill. Last week she was against safe schools. I don't know what's going on. But I understand her concern for fund-raising, for the number of Liberal fund-raising events that have been cancelled across the province due to a lack of ticket sales -
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Lack of interest.
Mr Newman: - lack of interest across the province.
To the member for Riverdale, I say that we're always listening.
The member for Niagara South mentioned money. I think that ties back to the member for Fort William and the fact that Liberal fund-raisers are being cancelled right across the province.
In case anyone didn't hear the first time, 79% of the Liberal fund-raising dollars came from the corporate sector and 21% came from individuals, hardworking people, whereas in the Progressive Conservative Party, 48% of the donations came from the corporate sector and 52% from individuals. I know that gets them a little upset on the other side. I know the member for Chatham-Kent raised the issue that the average corporate donation was higher for the Liberal Party than for the New Democratic Party, and coming in third place in average corporate donations was the Progressive Conservative Party.
The member for Algoma-Manitoulin mentioned the 28-day writ period. He failed to mention it's a minimum 28-day writ period, as was pointed out, and the maximum is 56 days. If it's going to take him 21 days, if he's going to waste one week of the four weeks out there wasting time -
The Speaker: thank you. It now being 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2133.