role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 8, 1975

29th Parliament, 5th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L017 - Tue 8 Apr 1975 / Mar 8 avr 1975

ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

ONTARIO NET CASH REQUIREMENTS

HOME BUYER GRANT

ONTARIO MORTGAGE CORP.

FUEL TAX CHANGES

ONTARIO UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS

HEALTH SURVEY OF ELLIOT LAKE MINES

DRIVER LICENCES FOR HARD OF HEARING

STUDENT PURCHASES OF HOMES

OIL AND GASOLINE PRICES

MOBILE DENTAL SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

HOUSING PROBLEM SOLUTION

MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

OLD FORT WILLIAM

HOME BUYER GRANT

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

ST. MARGARET’S SCHOOL, ELORA, ACT

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

BOROUGH OF NORTH YORK ACT

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

PROTESTANT CHILDREN’S VILLAGE, OTTAWA ACT

BOROUGH OF YORK ACT

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM ACT

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I know members of the Legislature will want to join me in welcoming 35 grade 8 students sitting in the west gallery from the Central Public School of Sioux Lookout, Ont. I would point out that these students are led by their principal, Mr. Murray McFayden, and assisted by teachers Douglas Allen and Barbara Roy. I would further point out that they are assisted in coming to Toronto through the government’s Young Travellers programme to the tune of over $5,000, and these particular students have raised an additional $5,000 to stay in the Toronto area for over six days.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to. take this opportunity to welcome 22 students from St. Ursula’s Separate School with their teacher, Mrs. Fitzpatrick; and I would ask the members to join with me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, in the east gallery are grade 8 students from Hillcrest Public School in London. They are under the instructorship of Mr. McKellar and Mr. Rawlins; and I would ask the Legislature to join in welcoming these 68 people.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The hon. Treasurer.

ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, since 1969 the Ontario government has made a determined effort to alleviate the relative burden of property taxes. This was done in spite of severe pressures on the province’s own financial position.

However, tax reform, and notably relief of property tax burdens, had become one of the province’s high priority objectives. The approach to moderating property tax burdens has been to introduce a number of complementary measures.

First, the property tax credits: These were designed to provide relief from existing property taxes to low-income people. These credits were significantly enriched over the past few years to protect those most vulnerable to inflation. In 1975, the value of these credits alone should reach about $275 million.

Pensioner credits: An additional tax credit was made available to needy pensioners. This assistance has proved invaluable to these pensioners and is presently at a level of about $50 million.

Grants to school boards: The province’s overall support was gradually raised from 48 per cent in 1969 to 60 per cent in 1973 and is currently estimated at $1.5 billion. This move represented a significant shift away from the property tax.

School board spending ceilings: In addition to higher support rates, the property taxpayer is further protected by successful spending constraints imposed by the province.

In a number of critical and high cost areas, the province introduced considerably more attractive cost-sharing arrangements. This was the case for such functions as water and sewerage, transit, social assistance, libraries and housing.

The most significant reforms of transfers to local government were made in unconditional grants. The 1973 property tax stabilization plan involved a very large enrichment. It contained a comprehensive package of different unconditional grants to deal with a great variety of circumstances. It dealt with the problem of unequally distributed local tax bases; it dealt with a general local financing problem; it further recognized the differential fiscal need of communities that pay for their own policing; and it made allowance for special cost problems associated with non-permanent population.

The Ontario government also recognized the special circumstances under which the people in northern Ontario live. They face high heating costs, they face high costs for most commodities because of long-distance transportation costs; and their local governments face similar cost disadvantages. The unconditional grants package, therefore, contains a special support grant to northern Ontario municipalities to ensure generally lower property tax burdens in the north than in the south. In this way, northern Ontario households enjoy an offset-cost advantage over the south. This year, the special support grant to the north is being enriched considerably.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Oh cut it out.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): And we don’t get the services either.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The above comprehensive Ontario approach to relief of property tax burdens prevented the large increases in property taxes that would otherwise have been inevitable.

The past two years witnessed the effects of inflation on local government spending which far outstripped the revenue growth of its relatively inelastic tax base. At present the local tax base, of course, fails to reflect the very real growth that has occurred in property values during the past few years.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): That’s not the case in Sudbury. It’s the minister’s decision.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nevertheless, the measures taken by the Ontario government made it possible for the provincial average mill rate in 1974 to remain below the average mill rate of two years previously. In addition, property tax credits provided yet further relief from these already lower mill rates. During the same period, personal incomes in Ontario experienced a large increase and so did a person’s ability to pay. lit is fair to conclude, therefore, that the Ontario government reform has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the relative burden of property taxes.

In respect to the 1975-1976 fiscal year, the province has reviewed its total transfers within the context of the revenue-sharing commitment. The total estimated basic transfers in 1974-1975 amounted to $3,325 million, some $37 million higher than originally anticipated. However, provincial revenue growth turned out considerably in excess of the 11.7 per cent predicted last year. In other words, transfers to local governments would have reached as high as $2,392 million, if provincial revenue growth at 18.9 per cent had been taken into account.

The Ontario government, as I indicated last night, will fully honour its revenue-sharing commitment, including the shortfall during 1974-1975. As a result of considerable tax cuts, notably in the retail sales tax, the province’s revenue growth rate in 1975-1976 will be 10.3 per cent. Adding this growth rate to the full commitment for last year allows the province to increase total transfers in 1975-1976 by $380 million. This amounts to an increase of 16.3 per cent over last year’s total transfers.

Most of the dollar increase is accounted for by conditional grants, such as school grants, transportation, transit and social assistance. More modest residual increases to unconditional grants allow the province to deliver in 1975 some $60 million or 23.5 per cent more in unconditional grants than during 1974. In addition, special payments to restructured governments will rise by $5 million.

In designing the 1975 unconditional grants package, the government has emphasized greater simplicity for general support grants, the special cost problems for northern Ontario residents, the special position of the district of Parry Sound, as well as the unique and severe cost increases for municipalities with their own police forces.

In simplifying the general support grant by introducing a flat rate and removing the spending growth schedule, the government does not imply less urgency in restraint. The latter remains of the utmost importance.

The new general support grant I am introducing will provide greater certainty. It will be responsive to local tax effort and fiscal need and it will avoid many administrative complications. Northern Ontario residents will benefit from a 42 per cent increase in the northern Ontario special support grant. This will go a long way in further alleviating the differential living costs faced by those living in the north. A 69 per cent increase in unconditional grants toward policing will take much, of the sting out of the rapidly rising costs which are confronting municipalities with their own police forces.

I am also pleased to announce another important reform. As hon. members know, we have already introduced a fixed split mill rate differential of 15 per cent in all regional governments. This means that residential and farm taxpayers have a 15 per cent lower mill rate than commercial and industrial taxpayers. Outside present regional governments, however, the split in mill rates still varies a great deal. This year the government will standardize the fixed split mill rate at 15 per cent throughout the province.

This measure will greater simplify the apportionment process and make for significant administrative advantages, notably for local treasurers. It will also enhance overall equity as the split in mill rates will no longer relate to the particular assessment mix in each municipality. I have decided that in 1975 only we will cushion the impact of this change on residential taxpayers to avoid increases in taxes in excess of five per cent on account of this change.

In reviewing the period 1969 to 1975, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to highlight to you that the province’s total revenue has grown on an average by 12.6 per cent, while financial assistance to local governments has risen by 16.5 per cent per year. As a result, such financial transfers have increased from 24.5 per cent of provincial revenue in 1969 to over 30 per cent in 1975. This rise in the local share of provincial revenue in itself is worth over $500 million in 1975 alone.

The document I am tabling today contains all the details on the 1975 unconditional grants package. It also provides tentative estimates for the entitlements to those grants for each municipality. In

section 2 of the document we display for all municipalities the 1974 property taxes per household and the change in mill rates during the past four years. In

section 3 we show, on a more selective basis, the 1970 and 1973 values for offsets against property taxes in the form of tax credits and rebates.

I am pleased to make this document available to all members of the Legislature, to all our local governments and anybody else who may be interested in the province’s progress in tax reform and assistance to local governments.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), I wonder if the Provincial Secretary for Social Development can inform the House as to the progress being made in the continuing strike in Ottawa? Since his return from his holiday, has the Minister of Education had an opportunity to consult with his mediator, and what is the status of the negotiation at the present time?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’m very happy to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Education is meeting at this very moment with the Ottawa Board of Education and the teachers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Would the provincial secretary advise how long the situation in Ottawa is going to be tolerated, and what is the deadline for taking action here? Secondly, why has the minister waited so long to intercede personally in this dispute?

An hon. member: She is not interceding personally.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to answer those questions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll get to the member for Scarborough West next.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you. A supplementary of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld): Can the minister give this House and the thousands of grade 13 students affected by this --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Sit down. That doesn’t apply under the rules.

Mr. Speaker: To whom is the member for Carleton East’s question directed?

Mr. P. Taylor: It’s a supplementary on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West has a supplementary to the first question.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry. I think the burden of the question, although the member for Carleton East didn’t complete it, is roughly the same. Is it true that the universities in the Ottawa area have given an ultimatum to the parties that the settlement must be reached by April 15 or those grade 13 students who seek entry to university will be denied such entry? If that is so, has any member of the social development group, particularly the Minister of Colleges and Universities, been in contact with the universities about the situation?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of that ultimatum, but I think the question could be more properly directed to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since my colleague originally wanted to direct the question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities perhaps that minister could respond to it. Was he following this discussion at all?

Mr. P. Taylor: No, he was talking.

Mr. Roy: He doesn’t know what’s going on.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): A bit.

Mr. Lewis: Which bit?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well it’s the important matter dealing with the educational future of the grade 13 students in the Ottawa area, since the universities have indicated that unless they return to their classrooms by April 15 the universities cannot consider their applications, in the usual course of events, to continue their education. Is the minister aware of this problem and is he going to assist the students concerned in any way?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I heard an hour or so ago that it was reported that somebody had said that the universities were taking this position. I have not yet been able to find out whether, in fact, that is true or not. I would remind the hon. members, though, that university admission standards are up to the universities. There was a somewhat similar situation a year ago as far as students from York were concerned and that seemed to be resolved satisfactorily. However, I will undertake to find out exactly what has been stated to be the position, if, in fact, the universities in the Ottawa-Carleton area have said this, or if any other universities have said this.

Mr. P. Taylor: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One moment, the member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor: Is the Minister of Colleges and Universities aware of a document that apparently emanates from the Council of Ontario Universities dealing with this subject at great length, and that the universities acknowledged that because of the disruption of services some secondary schools and students in the province will be unable to meet the established

schedule in this connection? Is he aware of that document and the important statements made in that document with respect to this problem; and can he give any commitment to the thousands of grade 13 students in the Ottawa area that they will not encounter difficulties in getting admitted to Ontario universities and colleges?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m not aware of that document. If the hon. member could send me a copy I would be pleased to read it. Is that a document of the committee of the Council of Ontario Universities or a document of the council itself?

Mr. P. Taylor: It’s my understanding that it’s from the Council of Ontario Universities.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would appreciate it if the hon. member would send me a copy of it, because I haven’t seen one as of the mail that came in this morning.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that the usual practice for admission to university is for universities to take grade 12 results and the first term of grade 13 results? Why is there this apparent intervention by the Ottawa universities in this case when that’s the usual procedure?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, that’s the whole point. It is sort of a hypothetical question that has been asked as far as I’m concerned, and I’d like to find out the facts before I try to give an answer now.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Hypothetical or not, I take it simply -- I’m sorry go ahead; does the member want to get in on it?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Yes, I just wanted to broaden the question, Mr. Speaker, and simply say that since the Ottawa universities have also indicated that they are reserving places for Ottawa students in the restricted programmes -- the programmes with a restricted entry -- will the minister ensure that similar arrangements are made to accommodate students from Ottawa who may be trying to get into universities in the rest of the province?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I simply repeat: I am going to find out what’s going on, and then I’ll have a statement.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I take it, by way of a final supplementary Mr. Speaker, that it is the minister’s position that he would not tolerate exclusion by universities on the grounds which are implied -- whether or not he can pin it down. As minister he surely wouldn’t tolerate it; he would tell the universities there are other ways on which to judge for purposes of entry? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I thought the member was stating my position.

Mr. Roy: He doesn’t know it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is only the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to do that for him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, that was the final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: We have asked for supplementaries here.

Mr. Speaker: There have been enough questions on this now.

An hon. member: We have only had one supplementary.

An hon. member: It is an important issue to the opposition.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, one final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One final final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask the same minister, Mr. Speaker, if he would not limit his investigation of this to the Ottawa universities, but look specifically at Queen’s University? It apparently has sent out a memorandum to the school boards in Ottawa indicating the problem and indicating apparently that there will be no special approach taken to the Ottawa student because of this strike?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned that I would find out whether it is simply Ottawa and Carleton or the other universities.

Mr. Roy: Look at Queen’s.

Hon. Mr. Auld: One of the member’s colleagues has mentioned some document from the Council of Ontario Universities, which I would dearly love to see because I am not aware of it. I’ll find out what’s going on.

Mr. P. Taylor: It is coming right over.

Hon. Mr. Auld: But I’m not sure, from the questions being asked here, that the other members of the House have any more knowledge than I have on what the facts are.

Mr. Speaker: Has the Leader of the Opposition further questions?

ONTARIO NET CASH REQUIREMENTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, in view of the net cash requirements of about $1.7 billion that he told us about last night in the budget, what is his plan to borrow the $575 million on which is indicated in one of his budget papers the financing is to be determined? Is that by any chance going to be a follow-up on his predecessor’s trip to Yemen or Kuwait, or one of those places? Is he negotiating with that kind of offshore money; or is he going to go through the usual avenues in the money markets of New York?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I expect that we will, as the budget indicates, be using a judicious programme of using our reserves. We are certainly exploring a number of borrowing mechanisms, perhaps offshore funds. The Canadian capital market is particularly attractive, of course, and it’s particularly strong, as is the American market.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What are these reserves that we may have access to? Surely if the Treasurer is getting $750 million from the Canada Pension Plan, $200 million from the teachers and $130 million from OMERS, he doesn’t have, really, many reserves other than go on the market and borrow the money for this massive deficit.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The province carries cash balances at all times.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it possible that those reserves might even approach covering the $575 million which is yet to be arranged as well as $1 5 billion that we must substantiate and support and guarantee for Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr. McKeough: The reserves would be considerably more than the $545 million which is mentioned in the budget. But of course it would be imprudent to run them down completely.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: When was the last time the government of Ontario went to the market to borrow for the purposes of the government, independent of Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Offhand, I would think three years ago.

Mr. Lewis: Three years ago? For what purpose at the time, does the Treasurer recall?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The government of Ontario, over the last 10 years -- without giving

chapter and verse -- has been in the market and out of the market. We opened up the German market with the thought that it would ultimately be used by Hydro, as it was.

Mr. Lewis: Other than Hydro, are there any others outstanding?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we borrowed it ourselves on our own account. We also went into the Canadian market about four years ago. We, of course, ran up I think something in excess of $300 million of treasury bills.

Mr. Lewis: No, what about long-term borrowing?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We were in the Canadian market two or three years ago. The fact is that Ontario has in the last two years reduced its publicly-held debt by one-third.

Mr. Lewis: No. The Treasurer is begging the question. The question is when did he borrow -- long-term borrowing, let me be specific -- on the Canadian market for the purposes of the Province of Ontario, independent of Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Three years ago.

Mr. Lewis: Three years ago.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Does the Treasurer consider that we will probably have supplementary estimates of the same amount as last year and how is he going to finance those?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if they are necessary they may well be financed in the same way as this year’s excess spending was, by an increase in revenues. If the member would refer to the budget, he will find the very fine performance of the 1974-1975 fiscal year under the guidance and tutelage of my predecessor.

Mr. Lewis: Who isn’t here.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Who seems to have left the House momentarily.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t forget the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan).

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, who is in the great tradition of Ontario Treasurers as well. There is no question about that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the member for Rainy River to page C6 of the Ontario budget which showed that budgetary expenditures increased during the course of the year by some $484 million -- which is something in the neighbour of inflation last year I think that is a very good record indeed. Budgetary revenue increased by about the same amount and the budgetary deficit -- the interim budgetary deficit -- was actually $34 million less than that predicted by my predecessor one year ago.

Mr. Reid: How much was the government short on that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: How much were we -- we paid off last year some $200 million or $300 million in publicly-held debts.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer is getting as bad as the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White).

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would draw -- while I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is just like the Social Credit --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the member would stop talking and just sit down for an hour and read this budget it would be of great edification to him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Buying votes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And he might have some hope of understanding the finances of this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I might also point out --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, it’s great to hear the socialists are worried about provincial debt. We’ve now come full circle.

Mr. Good: Our children’s children will be worried about it.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Our children will never pay off the Tories’ debt.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that if members look at table C8 --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- they will find that the investments by this province estimated for 1975-1976 in such things as roads, public buildings, hospitals and universities, things which have a life expectancy of considerably more than one year --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The John Robarts Library?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I suppose.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that collateral for a loan?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I suppose -- why doesn’t the member sit down?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Why doesn’t he just sit down and go and read the budget? He doesn’t understand it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I know the government has $50 million invested there and in books.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That investment in capital assets, sir, is nearly $1,700 million which considerably exceeds the amount of the net cash requirements of this province. We are, in fact, putting into bricks and mortar and highways and things that make this province grow and be alive, $1,700 million. We will go on doing that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t he say some more while he is on his feet?

Mr. Lewis: What grows with bricks and mortar?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say this to my friend from Brant, that if he ever has any hope of leading his party, let alone leading this province, he had better get away from his horse and buggy mentality and come into the 20th century fast.

lnterjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We would like to hear the question of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a further question of the Treasurer on this matter.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer shook the rats out of the rafters with that one.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The rats at the back row there are leaving the ship. Doesn’t the Treasurer feel that his rocketship mentality, which in fact has added $4 billion net debt to the province in the four years since the present Premier took office, is going to be anything but in the best interest of the taxpayers and the people of this province? How can we possibly stand the kind of fiscal irresponsibility that this Treasurer is putting forward in a situation that is as inflationary as it ever was?

Mr. Roy: Let him shout his way out of this.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is thoroughly irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would simply say this, that the finances of this province are in good hands.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is selling the farm.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The financial statements of this province reflect the integrity --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): They certainly do!

Mr. Reid: We are almost bankrupt.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and they reflect the sound financial management of some 30 years of Progressive Conservative rule in this province; and it’s taken us that long to get rid of the vestiges of the Hepburn administration.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Not very good.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the question period has strayed away from questions and answers. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further different questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it’s not the 32 years we are worried about, it’s the last four years that have gone down the drain. I thought with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I could direct this question --

Mr. Lewis: It is not the last four years, it is the last 24 hours since the Treasurer started to float his budget.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Haven’t we seen that suit on the cover of the Sun?

An hon. member: Is this any way to run a hardware store?

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps we should ask the Treasurer this, but maybe it should be directed to the Minister of Housing. With the home buyer grant of $1,500 announced yesterday, has he a procedure, through his ministry, or the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations or through the Treasury, to monitor the costs of housing so that the price of housing does not take a quantum jump of $1,500 per unit overnight?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Does the member mean a price review board or something like that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, the leader of the New Democrats sure hopes so.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, it’s impossible to have a mechanism to determine whether housing will jump as the member has indicated. We expect the opposite; we expect to have a drop in housing costs and we expect to have consumer confidence restored.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister put that in writing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We will have buyers in the market who will take care of new and used vacant housing at the present time. It will assist us in the economy of Ontario and the economy of Canada. We expect to find that the related industries, which are very much affected, by the lack of housing starts will now be in the very prosperity that we have expected for the last few months in Ontario.

Mr. Martel: The minister is not for real.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that it would be helpful if he and his party were to get behind this very strong initiative in housing for Ontario --

Mr. Breithaupt: Certainly we won’t get in front of it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and make sure that everyone understands that these home buyer grants will be very much needed in the next few months in order that we do have housing for all of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister is so sanguine about the possibility of the prices going down, is he going to undertake, as a part of his responsibility, if not a monitoring operation at least some spot checks, so that we will find out in the next day or two if, in fact, the prices have gone down as a result of this initiative or, what is obviously going to happen, they are going to go up by a minimum of $1,500? Why doesn’t he find out?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we have a very progressive government, but I think it’s very difficult, in the next day or two, to determine whether or not the cost of housing through Ontario will drop or go up as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister could monitor this.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I expect we will be monitoring prices throughout Ontario continually and we’ll find, as I have said, that housing will drop in cost because of the housing starts which will come on the market. It will be a buyer’s market, not a seller’s market.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He is a dreamer.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Is the minister aware that as a result of the home buyer grants, word has already gone down fraternity road -- some three blocks from here -- that any group of students who want to can have a free fraternity house by merely transferring the ownership from one to another?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that’s not very supplementary to the original question.

The member for Ottawa-Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain, Mr. Speaker, why the government’s concern with first-time home buyers only emerged this year and why it will evaporate two or three months after the anticipated date of the forthcoming election?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we haven’t indicated that it will evaporate as the member has suggested.

Mr. Breithaupt: When will it evaporate?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we are saying is that the programme will be in effect for a three-year period.

An hon. member: Three years.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There is a $1,000 grant for this year; $250 the next year and $250 for the year after. If the member will look at the budget he will find that stated quite clearly.

We do feel that it will assist a lot of people; the same as the federal programme with its $600.

An hon. member: That’s $600,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The federal government’s grant of $500 for home buyers will be supplementary to our grants. We feel the federal government hasn’t gone far enough and we are indicating to the people that we are prepared to make sure that we do have housing available at affordable prices.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister not agree --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The original question had to do with any possible plan for monitoring the prices of homes. Some of the questions are getting far off that. Is your supplementary on this?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t ask a question which wasn’t a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure of that. The member for Wentworth may ask a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing whether he can tell me how many families will now be able to go into the housing market as a result of this $1,000 that will be made available to them, over and above the numbers that would have been able to go into the existing housing market?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, obviously that is a matter which can’t be determined at this time.

Mr. Deans: But that is what the minister is doing it for, surely?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It depends on the acceptance of the consumers and whether or not they wish to participate in this programme. We have made the money available and it is very obvious there are some very high-priced houses coming on the market right now because of these incentives the government is offering.

Mr. Deans: How many more people will be able to get a house as a result of this?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition?

The hon. member for Scarborough West with his questions then.

ONTARIO MORTGAGE CORP.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a question I’d like to ask the Minister of Housing; perhaps he can tell me whether I am right or not.

The amount of money promised to the Ontario Mortgage Corp. last year was $133 million according to the budget.

On Oct. 21, last year, the minister announced an additional $100 million -- $50 million in 1974-1975; $50 million in 1975-1976 -- indicating an expenditure of $233 million for the Mortgage Corp. None of the first $50 million was spent and in the budget yesterday the minister reduced the total expenditure for the Ontario Mortgage Corp. to $208 million. Why has the minister reduced the expenditure in such a crucial area by $25 million in such a few short months?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, whether or not we have reduced is a matter to be determined at a later date.

Mr. Lewis: It is part of the minister’s commitment.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we are indicating to the members of this House is the fact that we feel we now have private investments which will come in and provide mortgage financing -- which they should have done last year and didn’t do -- but we do have the confidence of the investment world whereby it will provide mortgages at reasonable rates.

An hon. member: Interesting.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This is what we have to have.

Mr. Lewis: Right, but the minister can see the fraudulence of this part of the budget --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: -- which, in fact --

An hon. member: Come on.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a supplementary.

The minister can see the fraudulence of this part of the budget, which in fact amounts to a significant reduction in the government’s commitment to mortgages from that which has already been announced in this Legislature. Is the rest of the supply package for housing equally fraudulent?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: Say yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, a question like that doesn’t deserve an answer, but because it comes from the leader of the NDP who can’t understand --

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- what housing is all about --

Mr. Cassidy: He understands. We are worried about the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and who doesn’t understand that we are providing housing --

lnterjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- I’ll tell the member and every other member of the House that the mortgages will be provided where necessary. The programmes will be provided when necessary and the programmes will proceed as we have indicated.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister knows all about housing, evidently, why is it that his efforts last year were such a disappointment, surely, to himself and the citizens of Ontario, when the housing starts dropped off and when mortgage money was precisely what we needed?

The minister himself said that the companies would not contribute it. What makes him think they are going to get into that business this year? Just because they like him?

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): The member should consider the reaction of some municipal councils.

Mr. Lewis: It is the weakest part of the budget. It is nonsense in the budget.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that there is more than the provincial government, there is more than the federal government, and more than municipal governments involved in housing starts. There is the private sector, which is responsible for the majority of the starts, and has been.

Ontario was the leader in housing starts as far as provincial governments in Canada are concerned. Ontario did better than the United States and overseas and the rest of Canada. Therefore, the government of Ontario led the way as far as housing starts are concerned. The federal government, if the members care to check it out, did very little in regard to providing housing starts throughout Canada and in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The federal government contributed $407 million to CHMC.

Mr. Lewis: Even the budget went down 10,000 starts.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister indicate to the Legislature how the 10,600 units of senior-citizen, socially assisted and rental-subsidy housing breaks down? How many units in each category?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we had indicated this before. It was approximately 1,600 family units, 7,000 senior-citizen units -- 1,000 of that being in Metropolitan Toronto -- we had a 2,000 figure community-sponsored, and we also indicated before that community-integrated housing would provide 1,500 starts, which is up a couple of hundred.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister saying?

Mr. Deans: That was a statement.

Mr. Lewis: Does he mean that that supposedly new commitment in the budget was in fact the statement that he made in this House?

Mr. Deans: About a month ago.

Mr. Lewis: I guess about a month ago. Is that also an exact repeat of what he said before?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It’s a regurgitation.

Mr. Lewis: We are really beginning to isolate the components, aren’t we? It amounts to nothing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, it’s unfortunate that the leader of the NDP cannot understand that the housing --

Mr. MacDonald: The minister doesn’t understand it; that is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- projections that I have stated in the House have now been related in the budget.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I see.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is housing for Ontario which we projected a month ago, yes.

Mr. Lewis: Ten thousand six hundred a month ago --

An hon. member: But they never did anything about it.

Mr. Foulds: A recycled announcement.

Mr. Deans: The minister is a disaster, he really is.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

FUEL TAX CHANGES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Treasurer, how did the $19 million that he is returning by the changes in the fuel tax portion of the budget break down? He will recall that he said it would be of special benefit to northern Ontario. How much for institutions? How much for the resource sector? How much for other areas?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I haven’t got that information here, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to get it for the member.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

ONTARIO UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

Mr. Lewis: What is the exact unemployment rate for Ontario on the basis of the new figures this morning?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Seasonally adjusted today, six per cent.

Mr. Lewis: Is that all?

Mr. Reid: Does the Treasurer have a prediction of what it is going to go to? Mr. Speaker, supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: Isn’t it interesting unemployment wasn’t in the budget statement? There was no mention made of it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member for York South is muttering --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It wasn’t in his public statement.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It certainly is. It certainly is in the budget statement.

Mr. Lewis: Not once in the public statement.

Mr. Renwick: Not once in the public statement.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It certainly is -- what we refer to and what we expect is going to happen with unemployment this year. It’s nice to hear those people over there worried about unemployment. I have been sitting here for two months and it is the first time they have asked that question. They are so worried about deficit financing they have forgotten about getting people back to work. That’s their problem over there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Martel: The Treasurer lectures almost as much as the Premier.

Mr. Lewis: You know, Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer’s problem is that he forgets that the member for Peel North is still Premier through one more election. The Treasurer is just too anxious.

SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the Treasurer precisely how many new jobs will the retail sales tax exemption on production machinery and equipment -- that exemption, concession, credit -- provide?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was 1971 when they predicted the exact figure --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We don’t have a number on that.

Mr. Lewis: He never has. All he knows is that it is $100 million for the corporations tax. How many jobs will it cost?

Mr. Speaker: Order please; order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that I think I said last night that it came from the United Auto Workers. That is wrong, and I apologize to the House. It didn’t come from the United Auto Workers. The suggestion came from the Ontario Federation of Labour and I want to put that on the record.

An hon. member: Does he?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Shall I put on the record what the Treasurer told use about the OF of L?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member for Scarborough West just doesn’t understand. He just doesn’t understand that to compete in the world today our industry has to be competitive, and if he would get that through his head he would be a great leader. But they have to be able to compete, and to compete their costs have to be low and that’s important.

Mr. Lewis: They need $410 million worth of public money as a corporate gift over 2½ years. This budget is a disaster in that area. It’s a straight gift to the government’s friends.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The leader of the NDP is the only disaster around here.

Mr. Martel: They could be looking for campaign funds over there.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague, the hon. member for Wentworth, nudges me to ask the minister, since he was Treasurer pro tem, does he recall how many jobs the investment tax credit -- the identical programme to this one -- created in 1971 to 1973? And I urge him to be careful in his response.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have that information with me.

Mr. Lewis: No, because they are throwing the money away.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would have really expected that my friend, the leader of the New Democratic Party, would have talked today about this year’s budget instead of something that happened three years ago. He is living in the past. Come into the 20th century and join the rest of us. He’s worse than the Grits. Both of them are in the same camp.

lnterjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Could we get back to the question period? The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege,. Mr. Speaker, I don’t mind being slandered, abused or vilified, but don’t ever tell me I’m worse than the Grits!

Mr. Breithaupt: Even we’ve got to draw the line somewhere.

Mr. Lewis: I have some pride left.

Interjections by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Well, that’s the only approximation of the Grits I have.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

HEALTH SURVEY OF ELLIOT LAKE MINES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Health, when will the report on the health condition of the workers in Elliot Lake be tabled in this Legislature? Will it be in advance of Dr. Tidey of this ministry meeting with the workers on Friday in Elliot Lake? Will the minister meet with them earlier this week? Since they seek that report can he tell us about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to table the report this week. I did listen carefully to the member’s Throne debate speech the other day. He referred to Dr. Stewart and to other people. I took those comments very seriously and, in fact, invited Dr. Stewart, other members of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and other ministries to a meeting last week to review the report that was prepared by my staff, and we did so. We found certain disagreements between the things that our staff were preparing and the things they said.

I asked that they review the data in that report and reach an agreement and that’s being done right now. Once this agreement is reached we will be ready to go public with it.

Mr. MacDonald: It is a more legitimate excuse than usual.

Mr. Lewis: It is amazing. They waited a year. No further questions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East.

DRIVER LICENCES FOR HARD OF HEARING

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: The minister has received a number of representations from various associations representing the hard of hearing, and in some cases the deaf, regarding the criteria for licensing drivers, Will the minister undertake to study these special problems faced by these people in order to determine whether or not the licensing criteria are fair and reasonable?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are already doing that. We have had a number of submissions from various associations interested in that very topic, the question of the deaf drivers or those whose hearing has been impaired. We are looking at all of these submissions and we are meeting with experts in the field to determine how we can fairly deal with this licensing problem.

Mr. P. Taylor: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister say if there are any reliable statistics available to show the risk factor among the deaf and hard of hearing as compared to the risk factor in drivers suffering other forms of disability?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’m not familiar with whether there are statistics available or not. My own personal feeling is that I don’t recall seeing any statistics that would indicate that this is any more of a risk than any other form of disability.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

STUDENT PURCHASES OF HOMES

Mr. Shulman: May I ask a question of the Minister of Housing that was ruled out of order before, Mr. Speaker? Is the minister aware of and is he doing anything about the problem of groups of students buying a house in turn daily, transferring it back and forth or from each to each, and ending up with a free house at the end of several weeks?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I am not aware.

Mr. Shulman: Okay.

Mr. Deans: Is there anything he is aware of?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

OIL AND GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Treasurer: In light of his announcement yesterday, his concern about inflation and his discussions in the past, especially about the increasing prices of energy and fuel oil and the discussions that are going to take place this week, why doesn’t the minister take the approach of the Liberal administration in Nova Scotia and pass a law that would require oil companies to get approval from the government before increasing their prices? Apparently it has been very successful.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The Treasurer is just copping out.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask one supplementary, is there any truth to the rumour that the situation in Nova Scotia has been so successful that this province is looking at that approach vis-à-vis the increases in the price of oil?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

MOBILE DENTAL SERVICES

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Does the Minister of Health recall making a commitment that he would look into the dental needs of remote communities in northwestern Ontario? Does he recall specifically that I brought to his attention that the community of Upsala hadn’t had the services of the railway dental car for five years? Is the minister aware that because of other priorities, such as $400 million to the corporate sector, he doesn’t have the money to provide dental services to this town of Upsala for at least another two years, which will mean seven years between visits?

Mr. Laughren: The same is true in many other communities.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I certainly recall the first two parts of the member’s question. I did review the matter, as the member knows, because he has correspondence from us. I still don’t have as much money as I would like to have for all the programmes and it happens, as I have found out, I haven’t got enough money to expand that particular programme in spite of a budget that I assume is very close to $3 billion.

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary: Does the minister think it is more important to reimburse the corporate sector to the extent of more than $400 million than it is to provide something as basic and as essential as dental services to northwestern Ontario?

Mr. Lewis: That’s the question. We’ve let $108 million go down the drain but we can’t have a dental plan.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The hon. member, I think, is confusing horses and cows in this issue.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Completely.

Mr. Stokes: It is our money the minister is using too.

Mr. Lewis: The government is giving that money away -- and it has already lost its corporate contributions.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Huron with his question.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: In connection with the environmental impact legislation, can the minister tell us when the submissions to the green paper on environmental assessment were made public?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated in the House at the time that I would take that under consideration. We have reviewed it and it is public information; anyone can come and see it at any time. We have not reproduced all the submissions and reports because they are about 5 ft high. They are in our offices for review by anybody who would like to come and take a look at them.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary: Can the minister say how many submissions suggested that it be made mandatory that notice of an undertaking be given to interested and affected individuals?

Hon. W. Newman: I can’t tell the member exactly because there were about 170 submissions, and at one time in the House I did answer a question and gave the details of the various submissions of the green paper; but I can’t tell the member specifically how many there were.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Good: Since this is the very basis of and an important factor in the environmental assessment legislation, would the minister say that half or three quarters of the submissions indicated that persons living in the areas or others should be involved in the hearings when an environmental assessment hearing is being held? How many suggested that?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, any environmental assessment hearing we hold will be open to the public; there will be necessity for a public hearing. The proper advertising will appear in the local news media, as we do now for environmental hearing boards, and people will have their chance to have their input.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HOUSING PROBLEM SOLUTION

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Now that we have seen his budgetary proposals for the nine-month period ending in December of this year, can the minister explain to the House how he proposes to protect tenants against rent increases that are unjustified, and how he proposes to make accommodation available to people earning less than $10,000 a year within their capacity to pay?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, it would be great if the member for Wentworth would ask a question only once. This is about the 15th time he has asked the same question, and I am going to give him the same answer.

Mr. Deans: That’s right, and I am asking it because the minister is doing absolutely nothing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are going to provide housing for the people in Ontario --

Mr. Deans: Is that so?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let the member get that through his thick head if he can.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is in trouble; he is in trouble.

Mr. Deans: Is it the opinion of the minister that all of the people of Ontario earn over $10,000 a year? Is it the opinion of the minister that, within any of the housing programmes that he is offering, it is possible for a person working in Ontario, earning what is ostensibly the average wage in the Province of Ontario, to get into any single one of the programmes? And is there a programme anywhere, either in fact or in the planning stage, that will provide reasonable accommodation at a reasonable cost for people who earn reasonable wages?

Mr. Lewis: The answer is no, he doesn’t have one.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes; the answer is yes.

Mr. Deans: Where?

Mr. Lewis: Name one.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Rainy River.

MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the member for Hamilton West, who is in charge of manpower in the Province of Ontario. Can the minister indicate what he is doing? What is he doing, first of all? Can he indicate, for instance, that he has pinpointed the need for manpower in the various parts of the province? Where are those areas, where are we short, what skills are needed and what has been his input into the Dymond commission on apprenticeship?

Hon. J. McNie (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions asked.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister can take them as notice.

Hon. Mr. McNie: Yes, I think the House will be interested to know that today the deputy ministers from the other provinces concerned with manpower are meeting in our city. It’s a task force that is preparing for a meeting in Ottawa with the Minister of Immigration and Manpower, Mr. Andras.

One of the issues that they are addressing themselves to is how they can best collect and utilize the various resources that are available.

We’re very well aware of the fact that across Canada today there is a growing unemployment problem. Together -- and I say together -- we’re looking with the other provinces and the federal government to try to find ways in which we can increase, among other things, the mobility of the work force, recognizing that in some areas there is a shortage of employment, and in other areas there is abundance of work.

In some areas, including the member’s own riding, Mr. Speaker, the greatest problem is turnover. The turnover in some industries is as high as 100 per cent. As the member knows, we were there in January, along with the federal people, and discussed the question as to how we might improve the situation. We are doing the same thing in other parts of the province, again working with the Canada Manpower people.

It is a very complex problem and anyone who has been following the figures would know they have changed very drastically during the last two or three months. May I reassure the House that we are very close to this situation.

One of the things that we are doing -- in answer to the first question asked by the member -- is to try and co-ordinate the efforts of about nine ministries involved in one way or another in the development of our human resources, and to co-ordinate those with the other provinces and with the federal government. I think I may say it is being done with some success.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

OLD FORT WILLIAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I might. Can he tell me if there is any present-day military significance to Old Fort William?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There’s a firing squad there for the member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I didn’t get the question. It sounded like a stupid one anyway.

Mr. Foulds: I am asking the minister, Mr. Speaker, if there is any present-day military significance to Old Fort William?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There might be, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: Can the minister then explain why a freelance photographer and writer was denied permission to take photographs of Old Fort William on March 19, 1975, and whether that was denied by the ministry or by the construction firm involved?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I can’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, could the minister get an answer for me?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No.

Mr. Deans: Why won’t he?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East.

Mr. Foulds: Why can’t a citizen take photographs?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I can’t hear the member for Simcoe East’s question.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): A question of the provincial Treasurer --

Mr. Laughren: Some tourist attraction -- they can’t take pictures of it.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, I still can’t hear the hon. member.

Mr. Laughren: if the minister would answer his questions we wouldn’t be interjecting.

Mr. Deans: He is not saying anything.

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. G. E. Smith: A question of the provincial Treasurer: Under the programme to stimulate home ownership, where he has announced a $1,500 grant toward the assistance of the purchase of a first home, will this same grant apply to the initial purchase of a mobile home?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: It says so in the budget.

Mr. Ruston: Read the book.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes presented the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for the year ended March 31, 1974, and the annual report of the Ontario Highway Transport Board for the year ended Dec. 31, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Snow presented the report of the Public Service Superannuation Hoard for the year ended March 31, 1974.

Mr. Morrow, from the standing procedural affairs committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

Protestant Children’s Village, Ottawa

City of Brantford (No. 1)

Borough of York

City of St. Catharines

City of Ottawa

Borough of North York

Peter Allan Gifford and others

St. Margaret’s School, Elora

City of Brantford (No. 2)

Town of Cobourg

City of Toronto (No. 1)

Town of Kapuskasing

City of London

City of Toronto (No. 2)

City of Windsor

Hartford Limited

City of Toronto (No. .3)

City of Sarnia.

Your committee recommends the filing fee, plus penalties, if any, be remitted on the application of the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation, the application having been withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, this bill provides production controls for egg production in Ontario.

ST. MARGARET’S SCHOOL, ELORA, ACT

Mr. Worton moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to incorporate St. Margaret’s School, Elora.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Culture and Recreation Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: This is its abolition.

Mr. Stokes: Where are the regulations?

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to effect the transfer of various programmes from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and the Ministry of Community and Social Services to the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Brunelle, moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to provide for the payment of Unconditional Grants.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this bill consolidates into one Act the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1974, the Regional Municipal Grants Act and the Property Tax Stabilization Act, 1973.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Municipal Act provide for the following:

They delete the sections in the Act which outline the method of calculating the general purpose mill rates. The differential between residential, farm and commercial mill rates will be standardized at 15 per cent across the province, and calculated in accordance with the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Payments in lieu of taxation under

section 304 will now be made in respect of certain previously exempt institutions, such as provincial educational institutions and agricultural research stations.

Payments for the educational institutions, such as the schools for the deaf and blind and agricultural colleges, such as the one in Ridgetown, will be calculated at $50 per student place.

Payments for agricultural research stations will be calculated on an acreage basis, as is currently done for provincial parks. This formula provides $5 per acre for the first 100 acres, $2 per acre for the next 9,900 acres and 50 cents an acre on the acreage in excess of 10,000 acres.

In addition, at the urging of my friend, the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), the amendments delete the limitation in the Act which restricted the payment under

section 304 to no more than 25 per cent of the net municipal levy, which solves his problem with Montague township.

BOROUGH OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Morrow moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

PROTESTANT CHILDREN’S VILLAGE, OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Morrow moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting Protestant Children’s Village, Ottawa.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

BOROUGH OF YORK ACT

Mr. Leluk moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the Borough of York.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

Mr. Villeneuve, on behalf of Mr. Johnston, moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. Beckett moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. Beckett moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Bounsall moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to establish Matrimonial Property Rights.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes that marriage is an equal partnership and, upon a divorce or annulment, the total value of the combined assets of the spouses acquired during marriage shall be divided equally between them. In addition, a husband or wife shall not dispose of the matrimonial home without the consent of the other spouse.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before you call the orders of the day -- unfortunately the gentleman has just left, but I wanted the record for this day to be correct -- I want to draw to the attention of the House that the former member for Algoma-Manitoulin, well respected by all members, was sitting under the gallery today.

I wish to table the answers to questions 5, 6 and 10 on the order paper, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to regulate Political Party Financing and Election Contributions and Expenses.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way since one day in this House a private member’s bill was debated, I think at the instance of one of my colleagues; the hon. member for York West (Mr. MacBeth) had been scheduled to speak against it, but he was adaptable, because earlier that same day the Premier (Mr. Davis) had suddenly changed his mind in midstream.

One of the highlights of the goings-on in this House was the fact that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Gilbertson) was unable to change his mind. He had a speech prepared to talk against an election expenses bill and he didn’t really care very much whether the Premier was in favour of it or not; he went on and delivered his speech. I am sorry that he isn’t here; we would like to hear from him as to how he now regards the bill and whether he believes what the Premier does or doesn’t believe; it might be of some historical value to him.

Mr. Speaker, this bill naturally is going to be supported by my colleagues and myself because we believe this bill is a very important part of the electoral process in the Province of Ontario. We don’t think that there is any point at the moment in giving a long history of why it is here; suffice for the day that it is here. As I say, in broad terms we are going to support it.

There are a number of problems that arise out of this bill that frankly make it a little hard to understand, and I would hope as this debate goes on here and in committee that there could be and should be some substantial revisions.

For instance -- and I am just going to list about four or five of the problems that I see -- there is the clause about the restriction of spending insofar as it relates to advertising. I believe that is

section 38. The original report of the Committee on the Legislature advocated there be no such control. However, there was a dissent, given interestingly enough by the Liberal appointee, Mr. Farquhar Oliver, who was recommended by my leader to sit as a member of that commission. The recommendation of the commission was not accepted by the government, but on the other hand the dissent as expressed by Mr. Oliver was not accepted either.

It is strange to me why the government has now chosen to opt only for the control of advertising expenses and for limiting advertising to a 21-day period. Advertising expenses, certainly in the area of Metropolitan Toronto, are not particularly meaningful at all. I would very much doubt whether any candidate who runs in the Metropolitan Toronto area spends any money at all on radio, on television or on advertising in the daily newspapers.

Over and beyond that, the kind of advertising that is looked at by the Act affects some members in some sections. Why, Mr. Speaker? In very of all the complicated machinery I that is set up here -- the audit accounts, the reports, the documents and so on -- why is there not an overall control of the amount that can be spent? It makes no sense to me at all that there cannot be, that it is too difficult to administer, that there should not be.

Certainly one of the main purposes of this statute is to let the horses run equally from the gate to give them a fair chance, to more or less have an equality of electoral opportunity, electoral expenditure, full disclosure and that sort of thing. So why can there not be some sort of a limit on the expenditure? There is a limit suggested for these advertising expenses. It is not an unreasonable limit to attach to all expenses. Or, if the formula seems a little bit low, why not raise it a bit? Surely, Mr. Speaker, it makes good sense that there should be overall control of the amount that can be spent by any candidate or any party in an election campaign.

One of the anomalies that seems to emerge from this statute is the question of contribution by the candidate himself or herself. It would seem that a candidate can only contribute the sum of $500 to his own campaign. It puzzles me as to who is going to pick up the deficit, if there is a deficit campaign. These things have been known to happen.

Somehow something goes wrong and the bills are more than the receipts. The people who have been good enough to extend credit, printers and poster painters and people who make pickets to put signs on and all that sort of thing, expect to be paid. If they can’t be paid by the candidate, who is going to pay them?

I think, as soon as this aspect becomes a little more known, candidates are going to find that it’s perhaps just a bit difficult to get credit from the suppliers; because if the supplier is going to be put in the position that he can’t legally be paid by the candidate and the candidate doesn’t want to break the law and he has already put his $500 into his own campaign, we have great trouble.

Mr. J. F. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I like it. Don’t change it.

Mr. Singer: I would hope somebody would do something about that.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there is another unfair incident in this, and that relates to the definition of what is a candidate. A candidate, as defined in the Act, is a person who is duly nominated in accordance with the Election Act -- that means after the writ is issued -- or is a person who is nominated by a constituency association, or a person who, on or after the date of the issue of the writ, declares himself to be an independent candidate. That’s fine, I suppose, and it’s simple and it’s straight forward, except that it gives certain people a very substantial advantage.

It gives the members of the Legislature who are intending to run again a very substantial advantage because they can delay their nomination until after the issue of the writ, but they can be running very hard long before the issue of the writ. Their expenditures are not controlled until, in fact, the writ is issued, because until the writ is issued they are really not candidates. I don’t think that this goes to the principle of equality that the bill seems to strive for.

In England, a person is a candidate as soon as he has given any indication that he might be a candidate, whether he is a member or whether he is not a member. If a political type goes to a meeting and indicates to that meeting he is interested in being a candidate in X constituency, as of that moment he is a candidate under their legislation and he is accountable from there on in for the money that is spent by him or on his behalf in advancing that kind of candidacy. I think here there is an undue and unfair advantage given to people who are not formally candidates as they come within the definition of this Act. I would hope that something can be done in relation to this.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled and I am unhappy, both as a lawyer and as a politician, about the meaning of

section 1, subsection 4, which talks about trusts. I always understood that when a trust is established there has to be someone who establishes the trust and there has to be a beneficiary and there has to be a purpose for the trust. There are nice Latin phrases that we were taught in law school that apply to this. There’s the person who puts up the money and there’s the beneficiary of the trust. The statute does not define trust in any way, and I'm puzzled as to what the trust is that the statute talks about.

If the Progressive Conservative riding association of Durham has $10,000 in its kitty, is that a trust? If so, it is a trust for whom? Who has the right, in law, to go to the court and say: “You must account to me for those moneys. You must tell me how it’s going to be spent. I have a right, from time to time, to choose the people who are going to be in charge of it”? Or, if the money is taken for a purpose, that I, as a member of that association, don’t think is proper, do I have any remedies? Can I pursue those remedies in court? Can I tell somebody how the trust should be administered, or can I go to court and enforce those rights?

None of those things are dealt with in this statute. And the word trust may have been very meaningful to the draftsman of the statute, but I think that we are just looking for great difficulty and trouble when we don’t bother to define it here. Trust has to have a beneficiary. The Latin phrase is cestui que trust; the person for whose benefit the trust has been set up. And there falls from the setting up of the trust, in law, certain rights and remedies that can be enforced in the courts.

If what is meant in this section, and throughout the Act where trust is referred to, is that any funds in the hands of a riding association are held in trust, then the Act should specify for whom they are held in trust, and who has enforceable rights in regard to them.

Now, it has been suggested to me when I raised this question with some people I was talking to, that I was talking about a very technical legal matter. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it’s much more than a technical legal matter, because in the absence of a definition and in the absence of a unit or an entity known in law as a trust, these words in the statute as they now appear are almost meaningless. And it’s just more or less begging for trouble. When there are directions about funds held in trust, they have to ha dealt with in a certain way.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I’m unhappy as well with either the grammar or the parsing or the setting up of that

section 4. I presume it is meant to mean that if there are funds held in trust, that within 60 days of the coming into force of the Act, which is April 13 -- that’s five days from now -- a report has to be made to the commission of the total amount of the funds that are in.

And I presume as well -- and I’m not at all sure of this -- that this only applies to funds for a constituency association or the future candidacy of any person. If that’s what it means, I think the

section could be a little more clearly written. If that is in fact what it means, and this trust that we’re talking about does not apply to party funds, are party funds in any way controlled at all? This gets to be a very, very difficult thing to contemplate, and actually the only reference that I could find was in

section 39, where we talk about foundations.

section 1, subsection 4, does not apply to party funds, then I guess we’ve got to go to

section 39, where we talk about a foundation. The setting up of a foundation is permissive -- it’s not mandatory. If a party has a large sum of money -- which may or may not be a trust -- and if the party, I suppose, comes to the conclusion that it isn’t a trust, and that it doesn’t want to set up a foundation, what in fact happens to that money? Is it accountable for in any way? Should it be accountable?

If we’re going to have a starting position, would it not be reasonable, Mr. Speaker, to include the party funds under this trust concept that is purportedly being set up in the earlier section? Should there not be a mandatory setting up of an accountability of party funds? And should sub (

c) of 4 not apply, and within 60 days after the day when that

section comes into force, a party as well as a constituency “should report in writing to the commission the existence of such trust and the total amount of the funds therein”? That’s what sub (

c) says.

It would seem to me that if the

section is going to be meaningful it should say something like that. Otherwise the gap is just so broad that the real purpose of the statute is probably going to be defeated. I have heard rumours that a party has presently in trust -- is that the word? -- has control of a large sum of money which it apparently is going to use for election purposes. Is that money going to be accounted for? How is it going to be accounted for? Is it a trust fund? Does the commission have to know about it?

Do they have to set up a foundation and be governed by -- obviously they don’t have to set up a foundation; they can if they want. What happens to these moneys if somebody comes to the conclusion they are not in trust? Can they be spent in ways that don’t bring the provisions and enforcement of the Act into play?

These are things that I think have to be worried about at some length if this statute is going to be meaningful. My colleagues and I believe that the statute in principle is a good one. We will support it and I would hope we will hear from the minister who introduced it, the member for London South (Mr. White), when he comes to reply as to how he proposes to deal with some of these apparent obvious difficulties. I am sure there are more.

We will be introducing some amendments, hopefully to try to take care of some of these things which we believe are deficiencies. We would hope the minister has already studied some of these problems and has some amendments ready himself.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, this legislation is based primarily on the Camp commission recommendations and it grows out of a growing public concern on two matters. First, the skyrocketing costs of elections these days and, secondly, the undue reliance of the Liberal and Conservative parties on corporate contributions and the NDP on trade union contributions.

The Camp commission assessed that reliance on the part of the old parties at 90 per cent on corporate contributions, and on the part of the NDP at 40 per cent on the trade union movement. I am not going to dispute those figures; I just cite them as an indication of the conclusion they came to, though I think they might be disputed to some degree.

Apart from the disclosure of the sources of contributions politically, the bill fixes limits on party revenues which can be received from any single source and it seeks to broaden the base of political contributions. In other words, to democratize the financing of political parties.

I would like to discuss each of these concerns in brief for a moment. The first concern is with regard to the skyrocketing of election costs.

I am not certain, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is going to achieve the objective which is set in this connection. The Camp commission fixed no limits on what might be spent in an election. The majority of the commission supported that proposition because they felt it was impossible to police it. Therefore they operated on what is otherwise a rather sound principle -- that if one has a law that can’t be enforced, or if one hasn’t got a law that can be enforced, don’t put the law on the books because it just brings it all into disrepute.

The minority view was that there could be a ceiling fixed. The bill sort of falls half-way in between. The government indulged, if the minister will forgive me for saying so, in a bit of political posturing by saying, “This is too important an area and we must move in and fix the limits on what is undoubtedly one of the major areas of escalating costs, namely, advertising.” I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the limits which have been fixed merely legalize exorbitant levels of expenditure.

I won’t take the time of the House at this point with the team effort that we’re going to present in discussing this bill. I will leave that to some of my colleagues who are particularly interested in it.

If there is effective enforcement on the limits of giving from any single source, and if there is an adequate switch to public financing away from those traditional private sources, then future elections could be held at the level at which they now are. I seriously doubt whether you could reduce them, Mr. Speaker, but I repeat, I think you might be able to hold them at the level that they now are.

But if, Mr. Speaker, there is no effective enforcement, and instead of a switch of some of the expenditure to public money there is just simply a supplanting of the traditional private sources of money with the public sources of money, then I venture the prediction that we’re going to be spending more on elections, not less. If that is the case, I would assume that would confirm my conclusion that this objective of the Act is a rather shaky one.

I move to a second concern; that of broadening the base of party financing. Some major steps have been taken and I would concede that they are real steps forward. For the most part they are paralleling what has already been done in the federal legislation, namely a rebate of personal and corporate income tax -- the familiar figures now; 75 per cent on the first $100 and so forth. However, the explanatory note in the bill, I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister, is not accurate, because the explanatory note in the bill states this legislation “implements the basic recommendations of the report” -- that’s the Camp commission report -- “with the following major differences.”

It lists differences, but it doesn’t list the fact that nothing has been done, either in this bill or in the companion amendments to the personal income tax and to the corporations tax, to implement what is in my view that key recommendation of the Camp commission namely that there should be in addition to rebates the $2 checkoff for each person who files an income tax return. In other words, the person would have the right to designate the party of his choice -- and I presume that it would be one party of his choice -- and the $2 would be sent on his behalf out of the public treasury.

The explanation that I have received privately in discussions with the minister and with others in the cabinet is that the reason why this is not either in this bill, or in the companion bills amending the Income Tax Act, is because the federal government objected to it. As I understand the federal government’s position, it is ready to permit provinces to parallel anything that it has done in relationship to tax collecting and exemptions and things of that nature, but not to go beyond it.

I just want to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, that if that is the position of the federal government I suggest it’s irrelevant, because all this government wants to know presumably, in light of the recommendation of the Camp commission, is what people want to have done on their behalf. We now know that we have the so-called purple-coloured

schedule on our income tax filings in which we deal with Ontario tax credits and things of that nature, and presumably there is a box --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Not next year.

Mr. MacDonald: Not next year? Well, a comparable kind of

schedule in which a person filing an income tax return could indicate what contribution would be made on his behalf. All the federal government would have to do is to indicate that X number of people wanted the contribution to be made to the Conservative Party, to the Liberal Party, or to the New Democratic Party. There would be no money out of their treasury. It would be reported back here to Queen’s Park and Queen’s Park makes the contribution.

So I can’t see what substance there is in the objections that are being made by the federal government if this government is willing to proceed and implement all of the recommendations of the Camp commission.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is extremely important, because I concede that the rebate is going to result in much heavier personal contributions and there will be a compulsion on parties to seek to broaden the base because of the $2,000 ceilings -- $4,000 including the contributions that can be made to local riding associations -- and therefore they will be getting more money conceivably into the party by that broadening of the base.

But, particularly for the old parties -- and I’d be the first to concede, in some instances for the New Democratic Party -- where they get from certain trade unions a contribution of some thousands of dollars, that large contribution is now going to be out the window and it’s going to take a lot of work to get the smaller contributions to make up for it.

My very serious concern is that in switching away from the traditional sources which had become so concentrated we make very certain we do get a real broadening of the base, and quite frankly this simple little proposition -- which is a steal from the American scene that the Camp commission indulged in -- of a checkoff of $2 from the public treasury to the party of his choice, or party of her choice, is the real opportunity for broadening the base of political financing.

After all, I suppose 50 per cent as many people who file income taxes vote in this province, and therefore we get the opportunity for broadening the base for ongoing party purposes in the fashion that the Camp commission was quite eloquent in saying was necessary if we were going to escape some of the unfortunate features of party financing.

There is another point in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that I’d like to mention. The historical record in Canada in terms of enforcing legislation dealing with fund raising and election financing of any kind is really the sorriest record that one could conceive of. There has been no enforcement at all; no real effort at enforcement. As a matter of fact, the House may be interested in just a few, brief reminders to be found on pages 18 and 19 of the report of the committee on election expenses that was done at the federal level and dated 1966.

Back about 1906, 1907 and 1908 a fair amount of political flack developed because of charges of electoral and administrative corruption and patronage in the civil service and things of this nature. As a result of that the government moved at that time toward some electoral reform, including -- believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, listen to this -- including the prohibition on corporations from making any contributions to a candidate or a political party.

I suspect most people in Canada would hardly believe that that is the case. As a matter of fact I’m a little curious -- and I suppose I should have checked and confirmed this -- as to whether that really is still on the statute book, that no political contribution can be made by a corporation to a candidate or to a political party. We know, of course, that no attention was paid to it.

As was pointed out in the one speech in the House of Commons some years later, there was no lessening or slackening of corporate contributions, there were no prosecutions of these who made the contributions, there was no effort or no intent on the part of the government that passed the bill to enforce it and, indeed, there was no effort on the part of the opposition to seek to have enforcement of the legislation.

The point that K. Z. Paltiel, professor at Carleton University -- who was the research director for the Barbeau commission and who has in subsequent years pursued his interest in this whole phase of political science and writes periodic articles to bring the picture up to date -- has made time and time again in his books -- I suppose the most well known being “Political Party Financing in Canada” in the McGraw-Hill series -- is the fact that the enforcement of election regulations and fund raising and efforts to root out corruption and things of that nature has been honoured in the breach consistently all down through our history.

My fear, Mr. Speaker, is this, that if we don’t have real assurance of alternative sources for fund raising there is going to be a very strong compulsion once again on the part of the parties, on the part of those who have the responsibility -- or rather the extreme difficulty of enforcing this legislation, to cut corners, to continue the old procedures which are trying to be rooted out here, or which at least are trying to be reduced in their impact by this broadening of the financial base.

I remember some years ago, just to deal finally with this point, an

article that the late Blair Fraser wrote in Maclean’s Magazine which was entitled, “Our illegal elections.” He pointed out that all of the elections, federal and provincial, were illegal because of the manner in which the funds were raised. He asserted -- and nobody ever challenged him -- that the heart and soul and spinal column of old-party funds at the provincial level come from those who have contracts to do work for the government.

It is precisely that kind of thing that it seems to me we want to get away from and that this bill seeks to get away from. It further seems to me we are going to be much more assured of the prospect of getting away from it if we have real alternative sources, a real genuine broadening of the base. The most effective way to get a real democratization of political financing, I suggest, is going to be by this purely voluntary proposition of being able to indicate that $2, a rather small sum, will be sent from the public treasury on your behalf.

Perhaps there is another footnote I would like to make to this, Mr. Speaker, and that is that this kind of thing has been tried by parties and hasn’t worked.

I can remember a few years ago -- I won’t name the spot -- somebody within the framework of the New Democratic Party said, “You know, we’ve got thousands of people out there who vote for us. In a given riding we may get 10,000 votes. If we’d only get people to send in $1, we would have $10,000 and our problems would be greatly relieved, if not solved, in terms of financing the election.” As a result, they decided that they would experiment.

In this certain city they ran newspaper ads that cost approximately $450 or $500, inviting people to send in the money. Well, you know what happened, Mr. Speaker: They didn’t get in enough money to cover the cost of the ads.

That isn’t just true of the New Democratic Party. In some of the reading I’ve done this past year, I recall one instance in which the federal Conservative organizer, back in the early 1940s, attempted to have this kind of a campaign, appealing all across the country, to get money in by voluntary contributions of small amounts. It was a flop -- it was an utter flop.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Action Canada.

Mr. MacDonald: We can’t engage in compulsion, but at least in this instance we could have rather a simple voluntary procedure of ticking off a little square indicating the party that you want to make a contribution to and it would come out of the public treasury. It seems to me it would be the greatest single step towards achieving the broadening of the financial base and therefore the objectives of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment about what I think is the potentially great strength of this bill, and that is the so-called commission on election contributions and expenses. In contrast, while I acknowledge that the federal legislation is a real step forward, I think its great weakness, as Prof. Paltiel has underlined, is the fact that there is no machinery for effective enforcement. There is the chief electoral officer and his chief financial officer, and that man would need to be Solomon and an octopus with a thousand heads and arms and legs and everything to do the job. It simply is an impossible job.

But what we have done in the Province of Ontario, on the Camp commission’s recommendation, is to establish a commission which is going to be made up of appointees, two appointees from each party, plus a full-time chairman and the chief electoral officer. The function of this commission will be to be both a watchdog and a counsellor to all those who are involved. They will have the powers of investigation. They will have the complete powers of a public inquiry, if necessary. There is, of course, all the auditing procedures.

Presumably they are going to have field people who will move into a constituency, when and if necessary, and sit down with local people to acquaint them with the procedures in the earlier stage, if it becomes necessary to do something other than just providing booklets and explanations. That I think is the assurance, the greatest possible assurance, that this bill is going to be more enforceable. Indeed I would hope it will be more enforced than all the other bills which have preceded it down through the years and which really were a travesty.

There are a number of areas which are grey areas. The member for Downsview has cited some of them. Some of them didn’t seem as grey to me as they did to him; conversely some of the things which I think are grey, he may think are as clear as crystal.

Perhaps the first comment I want to make is that it is inevitable when one moves into this kind of field, with all of its complexities and with all its areas in which at some point there has to be adjudication as to what the rules are, what the guidelines are, we are going to have a continuing watching brief with somebody having the power to adjudicate and say, “This is the guideline; this is how we’re going to operate.”

Since that body, the commission, has representatives of all parties on it -- it’s an administrative detail, it’s really non-partisan -- it will likely he that it will be able to get cabinet agreement or a consensus, even though its members may vote and have some division of opinion along the way on occasion.

Let me cite two of these areas which bother me. The first one is in

section

Section 20 states that a contributor is to contribute only the funds belonging to him. Let me create for members a little scenario.

A certain organization or a certain individual wants to make a sizable contribution to a political party or a sizable contribution to a certain candidate. He can’t do it within the limitations which are imposed upon him so he goes to 20 different people and says, “Here is $100” so that names wouldn’t be revealed -- or $500 when names would be revealed -- and says, “Put them in.” Under the Act, the spirit of the Act is going to be violated because they can only contribute their own money.

I’m just a little uncertain as to how the government is going to come to grips with that and how it is going to avoid the violation of the Act.

I suppose it’s just a case of being a watchdog and when the government finds instances in which it thinks it’s being violated, it will move in and, if it can get documentation of it, the penalties are imposed. We hope the lesson will be learned and it won’t happen again; but it’s an unfortunate grey area that may cause trouble.

Section 23 is another one. It says:

“Where any corporate person, corporation or trade union with the knowledge and consent of a political party or a candidate promotes the political party or the election of the candidate or opposes any other registered party.”

Than it goes on. How is the minister going to be able to say with certainty that such-and-such a person took action or such a corporation took action for or against a candidate or a party with their knowledge or consent? How is he going to be dead certain about that? Again, it’s a grey area.

It may well be that one has to state these grey areas and work at it, knowing that the law will be violated, and then just play a double role as watchdog in that connection.

Perhaps it’s like the Human Rights Commission which says people aren’t going to discriminate on the basis of race, colour or creed but we know somebody is going to do it because he’s always thought that way. We counsel him otherwise and if he can’t see the error of his ways and the fact that he is violating the law, the next time he does it, he’s charged. Maybe it’s that kind of an approach. I don’t know but it’s a grey area that rather disturbs me.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): How about an anonymous donation?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, anonymous donations are another grey area. If one gets an anonymous donation, one is supposed to send it back if one knows the source; alternatively if one doesn’t know the source, one sends it to the commission.

Mr. Singer: One can find it lying on the doorstep sometimes.

Mr. MacDonald: I will let the minister let his imagination go off in any one of six different directions as to how one can play games with that. How he is going to enforce it I’m not certain, but there it is.

There are other areas which I think are in the category that I referred to in reference to the comments of the member for Downsview. I think we are just going to have to count on experience being the guide. The commission then sets forth the guidelines, as they are entitled to do, under

section 4, subsection (l)(j).

I know of one case the minister has given some thought to, and I know that my colleague from Thunder Bay is disturbed about it and I understand others are. That is the requirement that all the money must be kept in one bank account. Well, one bank account in Thunder Bay, if you just pause for a moment to consider the proportions of Thunder Bay, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It is 110,000 square miles.

Mr. MacDonald: -- it is an unnecessary kind of restriction and perhaps we should take a look at that kind of thing.

I want to deal for a bit in the final part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, on two sections that I am disturbed about, because I think they violate principles rather badly or they conjure up the prospect of administrative complexities and difficulties that are really mind-boggling. The first one that I want to refer to is

section 30, in which it states that the first $10 or any portion thereof that is a membership fee shall not be receipted and therefore, open to be able to get a rebate in filing on income tax.

I think to be very fair and frank on this, Mr. Speaker, the Camp commission may well have put this clause in here to meet the situation in the New Democratic Party. Our basic membership fee is now $10. Without bothering the House at any great length, that fee is split, a portion of it going to the riding association; a portion of it going to the provincial party and a portion of it going to the federal party. We know elsewhere in the Act it says that one can’t have money going from the federal to the provincial level and vice versa.

I think the Camp commission concluded that if they were just to exempt that fee, then they would get out of all of those complexities that existed within the framework of the administration in the New Democratic Party. What they didn’t realize, however, is that they are not lessening the problem at all. If a person contributes a sustaining membership, which is a contribution beyond the basic membership, of any figure that he wants -- maybe $25, $50 or $100; it may be done on post-dated cheques over the period of the year and so on -- there is also a division of that among all three levels of the party.

The net result is going to be that it doesn’t really solve the problem. The net result of administration is going to be that if we leave that

section in there the first $10 can be receipted as a contribution to the federal party and, therefore, a receipt will be sent out for the first $10 on the federal legislation. Anything beyond that would have to be in the provincial legislation.

That is a piece of nonsense. Without taking too much time, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that all you have got to do is go back to the next convention and change the constitution as to what the level of the fee will be. It may be down to $1 or $2 rather than $10. You can circumvent it. It is not necessary and it is just an undesirable proposition.

Members of the House may be interested to know that we have a bit of guidance from the federal experience already, even though they are less than a year old in trying to cope with these problems.

The federal legislation in the first instance was interpreted as saying that memberships would not be included as an item that could be receipted and, therefore, one could get his rebate on income tax. That was the first

interpretation that was placed on it. In Ottawa, to a very great extent,

interpretations on the Act are made by the federal revenue department because they handle the income tax, and one had better please those boys because if he doesn’t, he will be running into trouble at a later date.

So all parties, as most people are likely aware, or spokesmen or representatives of all parties, met with the federal revenue department in countless meetings over a period of a number of months to iron it out. What I wanted to report to the House is that, after about two or three months of wrestling with this, all political parties agreed that it was administratively a nightmare and that the government should make the receipt eligible from the first dollar right through and forget the membership altogether. I suggest that is sound in principle, in the context of what the Camp commission is saying.

What the Camp commission is saying is that we are interested not only in the funding, the viable operation of a party at election time, but we are interested in the viable operation of a party between elections, and if the government’s interest is there, and this whole bill is designed to meet that interest, what’s the point of making the distinction between the money that went in as a membership, because it’s always small, and money that went in as a contribution not described as membership. In short, we certainly will move an amendment and I hope that the case is such a reasonable one that the minister might be willing to move himself in eliminating that $10 feature there.

Section 31 is an even more complicated one, and if the House will forgive me I am afraid I have got to give members a bit of an explanation as to the relationships between the New Democratic Party and the trade union movement with regard to affiliation fees. What this

section says is that any affiliation fee that is paid by a local union to the New Democratic Party will be deemed to be a contribution from the union rather than from the individual members in the union.

In the first place, I just want to give members some indication as to why that is a violation that is just false. It’s wrong in principle. It’s an inaccurate reflection of what the situation is, because what happens is that when a union decides that it is going to affiliate to the New Democratic Party it does so by giving notice of it, it is considered at the next meeting, if the majority of people vote for it then the union is affiliated.

Usually, to be very frank -- I will let members in on a secret within these four walls -- most unions will affiliate about 80 per cent of their members, partly because it’s cheaper to do it that way and partly. because they concede that there will be some people --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Yes, but they have their price in obtaining a good spokesman too.

Mr. MacDonald: -- who are opposed, who are supporters of other parties, and they are left out. They are sort of not included. However, the constitution of the New Democratic Party -- not of the union, of the New Democratic Party -- says that any individual member of a union which has collectively decided by a majority vote that it wants to affiliate to the New Democratic Party has the right to opt out and say: “No contribution shall be made on my behalf.” The point I am making is that it’s an individual decision.

It’s an individual contribution that is being made on his behalf, even though it may be sent in collectively from the union on behalf of the 50 or 100 or whatever members there happen to be.

There’s a second feature that I wanted to draw to the members’ attention and that is that in the constitution of the New Democratic Party it is stipulated that a trade unionist who has become an affiliate member of the party through his union can then pay, if he wants to become an individual member, not the basic $10 but the basic $10 minus $1.20 -- the 10 cents a month that was sent in in his affiliation fee. In short, once again the affiliation fee is deemed to be an individual decision.

However, let me not try to make my case wholly on the basis of circumstances within the New Democratic Party and our constitution, that some members may view with a degree of scepticism. I know the hon. minister is never sceptical.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t know why.

Mr. MacDonald: I don’t know why, but let me go to Camp --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): He is just a Candide of this world.

Mr. MacDonald: -- to pages 34 and 35 of the Camp commission’s recommendations. I want to read about three or four paragraphs here. It is talking about group contributions and then it says:

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

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

Would the minister note that? “The commission would wish to encourage such a practice rather than to inhibit it.” Well, I suggest that

section 31 is not only going to be an inhibition, but it’s going to be a real compulsion, a real obstacle to affiliation.

Let me give the minister the really classic case to show the inequity of this section. Say there’s a union that has 1,600 members in it, and it decides to affiliate: presumably they pay $1.20 a year in this instance for all 1,600 of them, so they’re going to contribute close to the $2,000 in their affiliation fees. That means that they’re denied any opportunity to make any contribution beyond that affiliation fee. I suggest to you, sir, that’s unfair.

Indeed, I want to suggest that it becomes ludicrous when we consider the example of the union of my friend from Hamilton, the big steel local at Stelco which has 10,000 members in it. Their affiliation fee is going to be in excess of the $2,000 that this bill has fixed as a limit. In other words, their affiliation fee is going to put them in contravention of the Act by paying the affiliation fee alone.

I let my case rest there and we can discuss it further if there is any aspect of it that is unclear. But it seems to me that the

section is based on the misconception that that contribution is a group contribution,

whereas it is not; it is an individual contribution, as indicated by two or three aspects of the constitution of the New Democratic Party. Secondly, it’s the kind of thing that the Camp commission urged should be done, because it is a way of broadening the base of political parties and their membership, and the financing of them.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this bill, along with those portions of the companion bills that deal with the amendments to the income and corporation tax acts, is going to go to a standing committee and there will be opportunities for public representations to be made and, therefore, an opportunity to discuss this with some outside input.

I am very pleased that’s going to happen, because I think we want to thrash through the detail of this now to make it as fair as possible, as clear as possible and as uncomplicated as possible. And in many of these sections there is not clarity or there are elements that I think are unfair, as in sections 30 and 31. Certainly it’s unnecessarily complicated.

At that stage, like the Liberal Party, we will certainly be making some amendments. Perhaps the minister will anticipate some of them and be willing to introduce them himself at the committee stage. As for the bill itself on second reading, we will support it in the New Democratic Party. With all of the problems that it is going to create, it is a step forward and one that we welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on this bill. I believe that most of the comments have been covered by the hon. member for Downsview and the previous speaker, but the one point I would like to make is that obviously the introduction of this bill is a reaction of the government to the feeling among the people of this province that elections cost too much money and that political parties are spending too much money.

I am firmly of the opinion that rather than decreasing the costs of operating elections and equalizing the opportunities of all people to take part, this bill in effect will increase the total expenditures of political parties, particularly at the constituency level.

Consider, first of all, that the average constituency of perhaps 40,000 voters is going to have an input of approximately $6,000 from the provincial coffers. Then there’s going to be the case of collection in many constituencies that hasn’t existed before because of the tax writeoff that’s going to be given, particularly the 75 per cent tax writeoff that’s going to be given for contributions of $100 or less.

I know this may not be true in the larger more urban areas but certainly in the smaller municipalities of 50,000 or 75,000 and the rural constituencies this really does broaden the base front which collections can be made. I would suspect that much more money will be collected locally because there will be a lot of people who will be prepared to contribute $100 knowing full well that 75 per cent of it actually is coming from the coffers of the provincial income tax.

In that way I believe there will be much more money available to candidates across the province without even considering the funds which may be provided to them through the foundations which might be established by those parties which now have large sums of money -- or that party which may have a large sum of money to place into a foundation and distribute across this province to its constituencies before the oncoming election.

I think when we consider these matters in that light it becomes apparent that unless we have on overall restriction on the total expenditures a candidate or an association at the constituency level might make, what we are going to have is higher expenditures than we ever had before. The public, in the long run, is certainly going to be disillusioned by what otherwise could be good legislation.

I suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that in order for this piece of legislation to be acceptable, not only to us as members and to the political parties we all represent here but also to those people who really count, the general public, we must have overall control on the expenditures that can be made both at the provincial level and at the constituency level. I would suggest that a 50 cents per voter expenditure level should be set for each constituency in the province.

In other words, in the constituency I was discussing a few minutes ago, the total amount that could be spent to stay within the terms of this Act would be $20,000. In this Legislature we all realize that there are campaigns which have cost far in excess of that, both at the provincial and the federal level. These are the type of campaigns that really turn the public off and this is the reason for this type of legislation.

I would suggest to the minister that rather than have those sections of this Act which control the expenditures of advertising for 21 days prior to the election, he take the bull by the horns and include in the Act an amendment to provide total overall expenditure control. Certainly I would agree with those who say this will be very difficult to police and very difficult to control but obviously in any type of Act such as this it would be left to the commission naturally to make the final determination.

I do believe also that in this type of legislation the policing of the Act falls not only on the commission and the chief electoral officer but also falls on the parties themselves. In other words, they are going to watch each other. This is what has happened in other jurisdictions and this is how they have made it work.

From the observations that were made by a number of us while in England, the legislation appears to be workable and to be enforceable. There have been a number of cases in England where candidates who have been successful have been unseated because of the enforcement of the Act based on information provided by the other parties. So policing becomes not only the responsibility of the commission established here, but also becomes that of the other parties concerned and, in fact, the general public.

So I would suggest that if we are going to have public financing, public assistance to candidates and to political parties, then we have to have a definitive line above which expenditures cannot go. I think limiting expenditures insofar as advertising is concerned will be as difficult to enforce as any other type of expenditure limit. Although some other expenditures could be made under the table, or may be made some other way, I think you’re going to have that type of expenditure whether you have this Act or not. Of course, those people who take

part in that type of political games are covered under the Election Act, as well as being covered here.

There are also a couple of other points which I would like to make that rather baffle me. In

section 37, subsection 3, the amount that a candidate or a constituency association can be charged by a publication for an advertisement has to be the same as what the publication charges other advertisers. For the life of me I cannot understand why that isn’t extended to include the other media as well. We’re all aware in this Legislature that there are many television and radio stations across this province that have two or three rates, and at election time they always seem to come up with a fourth rate that they apply for political advertisements. This rate is much higher than what they ordinarily charge to other advertisers.

So, if you’re going to cover that contingency in regard to periodicals -- and I presume periodicals in that

section would also mean newspapers -- then I cannot understand why the other media are not covered in the same way.

The other matter that I wanted to cover and bring up a bit more is the question of the overrun of expenditures -- which the member for Downsview also mentioned -- and the fact that candidates will not be responsible because they can only contribute $500. Perhaps we’ll all be walking around having to pay cash for any type of advertising or any type of a promotion which candidates of their constituency might want to do. Because, certainly as I read the Act, there is no responsibility left for payment of debts after an election if, in fact, there is an overrun of expenditures.

Along with that, I see that

section 35 allows for the borrowing of money by a political party, constituency association or a candidate, but in

section 36 it says that no persons, etc., can guarantee these loans. So when you put that together with the fact that the candidate himself cannot contribute more than $500, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to understand what would happen if there were an overrun of expenditures in a campaign. Certainly the money can be borrowed, according to

section 35. And, according to

section 36, the candidate can co-sign or provide collateral responsibility for the repayment of the loan. But if the loan is, in fact, in excess of $500 he will be outside of the Act, because if he’s called upon to repay that note he will be expending and contributing to his own political campaign in excess of what he’s allowed under the Act. I, for ones would like to see that discussed more fully by the minister and explained as to what the intentions of the Act are.

These are the only points I believe that I wanted to bring up that have not already been covered as fully as I would wish. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to cover any ground that has been covered already. I welcome this bill as one of progress. I personally feel that it hasn’t faced the issues quite clearly.

As I understand it, the purp