Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is a very great pleasure for me to draw your attention to two important delegations as our guests in your gallery. They have come from different parts of the world; in fact, from opposite sides of the globe. We have an important official delegation from the State of Macedonia in Yugoslavia which is headed by Dr. Gruevski, Vice-President of Macedonia. With him is my friend Dr. Zaharievski, who was the vice-president and who is now the manager of the largest bank in Macedonia.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Maybe they can lend us some money.

Hon. Mr. White: I will take anything that is going. Also with Dr. Zaharievski is Mr. Andonov from the secretariat for foreign relations in Yugoslavia and Mr. Simoski from the Yugoslavian embassy in Ottawa. We are very glad to have all of you gentlemen here today. At 10:30 we will be meeting in room 185 with a number of municipal heads -- one regional chairman, one executive alderman, and one or more councillors. Any MPP who is interested in joining us for this exchange is very welcome to do so.

We also have a distinguished group from the Mitsubishi Bank. The head of the delegation is Mr. Tsuyuki who is the senior managing director from Tokyo. With the managing director we have Mr. Kurumisawa and Mr. Masuda from the Mitsubishi Bank in New York, and Mr. Adachi, who is stationed here in Toronto and whom many of you know.

Sir, on your behalf and on our behalf, I am very pleased indeed to have these two important delegations here with us today.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I also have some guests that I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the House. They are grade 7 and 8 students from Jack Miner Public School in Scarborough. Would you welcome them please?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The Jack Miner school? An old Leamington boy.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether the Treasurer indicated that he was going to a meeting at 10:30. I thought we were going to do the Treasury estimates.

Hon. Mr. White: If this is worrying the Leader of the Opposition --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, not at all, I would just be delighted to see the Treasurer in two places at once.

Hon. Mr. White: -- what we are going to do is the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Irvine) and I are going to spell one another off. When one of us is required in this chamber, the other will chair the meeting downstairs.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT TRANSITIONAL GRANTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, that is the way they will do it.

On behalf of the mayor of Whitby, can the Treasurer explain the decision that was made not to give transitional grants to that lower-tier municipality in the new regional government, evidently the only one not treated to the transitional grant formula as was expected?

Hon. Mr. White: Well sir, I will offer an answer. Unfortunately, I brought all of the data with me yesterday to answer this question in full and I didn’t bring it today, thinking it wasn’t going to come up.

Very briefly, the situation is this: When an area is regionalized there are two forms of transitional grants, one to meet the extraordinary costs for the region as a whole and the other to accommodate certain boundary changes within the region. The latter form of transitional grant goes to the area municipalities. Since Whitby had no changes in its boundaries as a result of regionalization, it was thought not to qualify for this particular form of transitional grant.

The tentative figures went out to the region and to the area municipalities a week or two ago and, of course, as I say, Whitby was not on the list. The mayor of Whitby makes the point that they shouldn’t be punished or penalized because their boundaries were altered five years ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nobody could have been more co-operative than the mayor.

Hon. Mr. White: I think there is some merit in this argument, and I’ve asked my officials to reconsider the suggested grants -- because that’s all they are at the present time -- and I would hope that something can be worked out that is more or less acceptable to all of those concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s interesting.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIA FOR NUCLEAR REACTOR DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Premier if he has interested himself in the relationship of Ontario Hydro with the developments in India which have led to their exploding an atomic bomb? Are we still continuing with an exchange of technical experts at the top level with Douglas Point and our other atomic facilities? And was Ontario Hydro technology, which assisted in the establishment of the reactor, involved in this matter in any way?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can’t help the Leader of the Opposition with any information this morning. But I have asked for information as to what people from Hydro or what technology was made available, if any, and I hope to have that some time early next week.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since it’s now Canadian government policy to stop technical aid and the transference of any materials, might we presume that the policy of Ontario Hydro, which I believe called for the exchange of technicians, would at least be reviewed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume, and it’s only an assumption at this point, that anything that is done by Ontario Hydro would be done through the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa; in any event, I would assume that it would be done at their request. If they have cut off any further co-operation with India, that probably would include any personnel from Hydro. But as I say, Mr. Speaker, that’s only an assumption, and I will have this information early next week.

ALGONQUIN PARK EXPANSION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another question of the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), pertaining to the announcement, evidently made by a press officer of the Ministry of Natural Resources, about the substantial expansion of Algonquin Park. Is the Premier in a position to make a policy statement with regard to that, perhaps indicating how he is going to fulfill the previous commitment to establish an Algonquin Forest Authority, whether in fact there is a possibility of reviewing that concept and establishing instead a commission that would therefore not be overseeing the logging operations in the park, but in fact would be having a broader aspect in the policy, possibly dealing with the abolition of the logging programme there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that is still the intent of the government, and the minister is working very diligently on the proposed legislation to have an authority for Algonquin Park; hopefully we will have it introduced before we recess for the summer months.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: What would be the reasoning whereby an information officer would make a statement on the substantial expansion of the park, since it will, of course, involve public moneys, but it also is involved in an area of policy of broad provincial concern?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t answer that question. It’s a personal policy of mine that any significant government policy is not announced by an information officer, but hopefully by myself. I can’t state for the minister why this happened on this occasion. I believe he will be here Monday or Tuesday and could give the Leader of the Opposition an answer.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of Housing if his statisticians and those who gather specific material for him on the changing costs of housing and its availability in the province, have given him a more recent, updated report on the effects of provincial government policy, the mortgage policy of the government of Canada and the availability of mortgage funds to meet the changing prices of housing accommodation in Toronto and Ontario in general?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): In reply to the hon. member, first of all I should say we have no research statistical capacity in the ministry but we do receive reports from a variety of sources. All I can say at this time is that the situation, particularly with regard to mortgages, is very confused; the confusion having been caused by a series of announcements, coming during an election campaign which is going on, about there being some changes being made in mortgage arrangements by the federal government through the banks, and the lending institutions are completely unsure of their position at this time. The Bank of Canada having adjusted the prime rate twice over the past month has certainly caused a degree of uncertainty in the money market.

The indication and information that we’ve received is that the mortgage market at this time is in a state of confusion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister not feel that since the market is in a state of confusion, at least a substantial part of that is due to the confusion associated with the bill that is still being debated in the Legislature, which according to lawyers in this province -- who must contact the minister, as the member for his own area, as they have other members -- is in fact adding a measure of confusion which may mean that the sales of properties will have to grind to a stop until government policy in this regard is clarified?

Hon. Mr. White: The member is talking to the wrong lawyer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister aware that at the meeting of lawyers held the day before yesterday, the government appeared a complete laughing stock because it could not bring officials forward who even knew the principles and concepts of the bill that is presently before the House?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): And there were 1,500 of them.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Of course, my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen), will answer for the contents of the bill.

Mr. Shulman: Not very well.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As far as its effect on the housing market is concerned, the only effects that we have seen have been beneficial.

Mr. Shulman: A complete standstill. A complete stop.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): A supplementary, if I may: Mr. Speaker, the minister is forever quoting his friend Donald Kirkup. Would he like to comment on Mr. Kirkup’s most recent statement? He said, and I quote:

I’m predicting that with the vacancy rate now approaching an all-time low and with all types of housing starts likely to decline 20 per cent, it won’t be long before house prices begin to rise at substantial rates.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, for once I can disagree with Mr. Kirkup. The information we have --

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Only ministers can change their minds.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- is that real estate listings are up, many homes are available at reduced prices and prices are levelling off.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The minister doesn’t have the information on which he can base a statement like that.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That’s off the top of his head.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Those statements are coming to us every day, Mr. Speaker. As far as the trend is concerned, we see it turning rapidly into a buyer’s market.

Hon. Mr. White: No thanks to the opposition.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Would the minister kindly --

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

Mr. Deacon: I thought it was in order?

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister not agree that, while listings are up, the monthly cost of purchasing a home has risen sharply; second, that listings have risen because of the mortgage uncertainty much more than this tax; and third, would he not agree that all signs now point to a sharp drop in the construction starts because of the situation created by this government and the federal Liberals?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The hon. member is completely confused as usual.

Mr. Lewis: And the federal Tories.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I noticed that his leader, in a speech in Mississauga last week, quoted the hon. member for Ottawa Centre as saying that he had elicited some kind of an admission from the minister that 10 per cent of the HOME lots were going to those with incomes under $14,500.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, and he quoted the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Lewis: I said that in Mississauga. I quoted the member for Ottawa Centre. I always quote him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That would be a fundamental error.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s right. I think I should set the record straight, because there is a great deal of confusion and it’s mostly over there. One hundred per cent of the HOME lots in the Province of Ontario, not 10 per cent, are going to people earning under $14,500, and the constant repetition is not going to give it any credibility whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Would the minister indicate how many building sites in excess of the anticipated demand in the market this year the province will be providing, or assuring us will be provided?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 27, I will be making a comprehensive statement of all of the programmes which my ministry is putting into place, and the hon. member will have an opportunity to examine the figures in their proper context.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister consider $14,500 a year to be serving the low-income earners of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his speech in Mississauga pointed out that those under $14,500 represent 60 per cent of the people in Ontario, and certainly we are seeking to serve that income group.

Mr. Cassidy: Tell that to the people earning $3 an hour.

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

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister believe it is beneficial that the result of this bill is to have brought the housing market to a standstill?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I didn’t say the housing market had come to a standstill. That’s the hon. member’s statement.

Mr. Shulman: Ask anybody in the real estate field.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: What has happened is that it has been a combination of circumstances, included in which is the land speculation tax. High mortgages have had their effect. And obviously anything which brings the prices down cannot be disagreed with by my hon. friend.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: How can the minister, in answering the first question, immediately point out, in effect, that there is an election campaign going on and those statements are adding confusion to the market, when he knows full well that the statute which we are now debating in the Legislature is causing the very confusion he is talking about?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Question, question!

An hon. member: Question!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely that sort of a political intrusion is below the minister’s responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the tax has caused absolutely no confusion whatsoever.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It has disrupted the whole market.

Mr. MacDonald: All his back-benchers are bamboozled by it.

Mr. Lewis: They won’t complain back there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier is confused.

Mr. Lewis: That bill is a disaster.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Does this minister know that the housing starts this year are now 10,500 behind last year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We’ve reached --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. minister might make his response.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the CMHC figures indicate housing starts in Ontario are up by three per cent.

Mr. Lewis: No, that is a lie.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They have reached a record high of 286,000 this year --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition there is no confusion as far as the sale of houses is concerned. The tax has brought houses on to the market which would not otherwise have appeared.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It certainly has had a lowering effect on prices and from the point of view of my ministry nothing could be more welcome than the land speculation tax.

Interjections by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, has the minister seen the most recent CMHC figures for April which indicate that the housing start projection for 1974 is now 10,000 units behind the total? Those projections, once they reach April, are accurate. That puts us 10 per cent behind the production in Ontario last year. The minister’s speculative land tax is a catastrophe in terms of what it has done to the housing market.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the latest figures I have seen from CMHC, which arrived on my desk yesterday morning, indicate that housing starts on a projected basis are at 286,000 in Canada which is an all-time record; and Ontario is maintaining, its pace in relationship to other provinces.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: No, that is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition?

The member for Scarborough West.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Premier. Now that the major oil companies have completed their various increases, Gulf being the last, I guess a day or two ago -- Imperial 9.2 cents, Shell 8.8 cents, Gulf 8.4 cents -- clearly indicating there was some flexibility within the oil companies, will he not now, as Premier, intervene and at the very least ask that the prices be rolled back to the level which he agreed upon, which is apparently within the carrying capacity of some of the oil companies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be erroneous to say this was the price which was agreed upon. What was agreed upon in Ottawa, for the fifth or sixth time, was that the provinces would not object to the decision by the Prime Minister of Canada, that if there were not an agreement he would legislate the figure of $6.50 a barrel.

It is not our intention at this moment to roll back prices as they relate to gasoline. The government is concerned. It represents in our rough calculations probably, on average, one per cent or perhaps 0.8 per cent, depending on which figure one uses, higher than the estimates we used at the time of the discussions in Ottawa.

I want to make it very clear that there was no discussion at that time as to any increase which might be set by the retailers. This has also given us concern because there is some indication that the increase of, say, 10 or 11 cents, which varies all over the province, relates to the retailers, many of them independent, who have made this decision on their own. I find it interesting that the variation does go from about 8.4 cents to 9.2 cents but at this time, Mr. Speaker, we are not suggesting that there be a roll back.

Mr. MacDonald: Copping out again.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Is the Premier aware that 8/10ths represents $36 million to the consumers of Ontario and that the price increases, as they are registered for gasoline and heating oil, in Toronto will add an average family cost of close to $200 a year; and in Sudbury, as an example of a northern community, some $250 or $254 a year? Since that drastically exceeds the compensation which the Treasurer attempted to provide within his budget, does the Premier not think, now that prices have levelled out and he knows where he stands, that it is time to intervene?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the Treasurer’s budget, it included measures to offset the increase in the price of fuel oil, particularly for those income families at the lower end of the income scale. I think it is fair to state -- and the figures are not exact because the fuel oil season, fortunately, doesn’t start until next October or November, say -- our estimates still would indicate that the amount provided in the budget will more than offset the increase in fuel oil prices for a lot of families. There was nothing in the budget to offset the increase in gasoline prices. That was never intended.

SEATBELTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier. Would he like to comment on the assertion by, I think, a senior federal civil servant that the mandatory seatbelt legislation, which was indicated in the most recent Throne Speech, will clearly not occur in the Province of Ontario? That this civil servant’s reading of the discussions with civil servants in Ontario suggests to him that no such legislation will appear before us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by observations from the federal civil service. If they aren’t any more accurate on this issue than they are on some other issues one could mention on this occasion, I don’t think one need give a great deal of credibility to them. I am saying I don’t pay much attention to observations by federal civil servants as they relate to programmes of this government.

Mr. Lewis: Is this government introducing such legislation then? In effect, is the Premier denying what has been said and will he proceed with the legislation as intended?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. If one will recall exactly what was said in the Throne Speech, I think it said the government would give consideration to it.

Mr. Lewis: Those lovely words. How the government pores over the loopholes before it drafts them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order, I want to make it very clear, abundantly clear, that the Lieutenant Governor of this province gives great thought to the preparation of the Throne Speech and I don’t want to take any credit for it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member didn’t read it.

Mr. Lewis: A further question of the --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member in favour of the legislation then?

Mr. Lewis: On what? Seatbelts? I am not answering questions, fortunately.

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier has to have some company.

Mr. Lewis: It’s the only time I am glad I am not on the Treasury benches.

ROUTE OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier another question. Now that the National Energy Board has indicated its dissatisfaction with the environmental studies attendant on the southern Ontario pipeline route, which have been carried out by the company, and has asked for further studies which will prolong this by many months -- conceivably even longer -- is it not now the time for Ontario to say that since one-half of the argument has gone, namely the time factor, we will therefore insist with Ottawa that the pipeline be built through northern Ontario because the other factor, the investment of the additional money, is clearly beneficial to the north?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government has always supported, in the final analysis, an all-Canadian route. Whether one can consider, say, going through the Sault Ste. Marie area and across and down, as a totally Canadian route I guess is arguable.

As far as the government is concerned, we have stated our intention and the contents of our intervention and I think it is very clear from this statement that we are as concerned and we are very encouraged that the National Energy Board now is showing some concern as well over the environmental issues. I can’t comment as to what length of time it will take, either the company or others who are interested in this aspect of the hearing before the NEB, to complete it but our position is maintained. It’s a very strong position with respect to the environmental concerns.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary question: Does the Premier not accept the contention that if we spend the money in building a so-called southern route it is likely to rule out, forever, what he concedes to be his first preference ultimately, namely, an all-Canadian route? If there are going to be delays, why not exert the pressure rather than sit idly by and watch this kind of delay, in order to get that ultimate solution immediately?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think we would be really guessing a great deal. The hon. member suggests that perhaps the economics of, or the amount of oil to be transmitted over, say, a second route wouldn’t justify it. I think it is very premature to make that kind of observation. A lot will depend on the world market situation, what is found further by way of oil in either Saskatchewan or Alberta and the success of the tar sands. I think there are many unknowns at this moment. I certainly wouldn’t make a judgement that if the southern route is used that this would preclude an all-Canadian or a northern route at some point in time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Surely the Premier would agree that the justification for the southern route depends on whether it is required on an emergency basis or not. The government of Canada has said that it is so required. Is there any information that would counteract that, which is available to the experts in the Energy department or available to the Premier? It’s either need on an emergency basis or it’s not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we’ve had no communication that I know of that would indicate that there still isn’t a very high degree of priority for the southern route.

Mr. Lewis: Except it is not happening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If such information has been made available, it’s only within the last day or so. I certainly don’t know of any and I question that there has been.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just so that the Premier will not be worrying about his loopholes. His Honour’s words were: “Honourable members, you will be asked to consider provisions for the mandatory use of automobile seatbelts.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Premier realize what he has done this morning? He has cast doubt on the Throne Speech, that’s what he has done.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sweeping radicalism.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have never cast doubt on the Throne Speech on this side of the House. It always represents a very excellent indication of government policy. It is only the negative folks on the other side of the House who cast doubt on the Throne Speech, and never with any great degree of success.

Mr. Lewis: So far.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So far.

SOUTHERN DEMING MOVE

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question, if I may, of the still Minister of Labour.

Mr. Breithaupt: Very quiet too.

Mr. Lewis: Is he too much in the throes to be bothered by a question?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): No.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Going into retirement.

Mr. Lewis: When a plant moves, as Southern Deming, a division of Crane Canada Ltd., did, from Marieville, Que. To Cornwall, Ont., paying wages rather lower than were paid in Quebec, with a history of four plant shutdowns in the Province of Quebec and rather bad labour relations, what does the minister do, by way of studying this kind of interprovincial shift of a company, in order to protect the work force in Cornwall and the area affected?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, by and large I think people in my area know darn well how I feel. As to the protection of workers, I have been very close to them and always will be.

In the case of Crane, I think at one point the hon. member asked me if there had been any incentives or forgivable loans from the government to Crane. There was no such thing. I, personally, as the member for Stormont and the city of Cornwall, never was approached by this company when they moved from Quebec into Ontario. I have had no representations from the trade union movement or from the workers insofar as conditions or pay are concerned. I would be only too glad to meet with them if they have a problem.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. No further questions.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. member for Kitchener.

HYDRO HEADQUARTERS CATERING CONTRACT

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in three parts of the Premier. Can the Premier advise why the catering contract for the new Ontario Hydro headquarters has apparently been awarded to Malloney’s without any tenders being called? Can he explain why the CNIB, which is Hydro’s caterer in its present headquarters, was not asked to compete for the new contract and apparently has not even been made aware that the new contract has been awarded? And can the Premier advise if this is the same Malloney’s that operates the Edelweiss restaurant at Ontario Place?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any of these matters. I would be delighted to get the information for the hon. member. I know of Malloney’s over here; it is the only one I know.

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

LEAD HAZARD FROM ELECTRIC KETTLES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), I would like to ask the Premier a question regarding electric kettles. What does the Premier think of the attitude of the T. Eaton Co., as reported on page 1, column one, of the Globe and Mail this morning, that it will continue the sale of kettles until the government’s tests are completed?

Mr. Breithaupt: But they won’t sell cigarettes!

Mr. Burr: Does the Premier not think that it should announce that it is suspending, rather than continuing their sale, until the tests are completed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess one could assume that there won’t be extensive sales of electric kettles, no matter what the policy is of the retailer. I must confess I have very little personal knowledge of the subject. I will try to get some information for the hon. member. I guess it will have to come from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa. That may be a little bit difficult to do, but in that the hon. member is much closer to him than I am -- geographically, not philosophically -- he might ask the Hon. Mr. Gray over the weekend when he returns home what the latest is and inform us on Monday.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a plot by the milk board to make us drink milk.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, in addition to thanking the Premier for his very helpful suggestion, I’ll ask would the Premier talk to his Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted.

Mr. Burr: Thank you. Because everybody doesn’t read the paper; everybody doesn’t hear the radio.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that the price of serviced lots has doubled in the city of Windsor over the past two years, and in view of the fact that the municipal administration regards Windsor as a housing crisis area, will the minister reconsider his decision and include Windsor in Ontario’s housing action programme?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation in Windsor, and at the present time, because of certain impatience on the part of some members of the House, we are concentrating all of our attention on those areas that are immediately identified as housing action areas.

We have never said those are the last areas that will be so identified, and certainly I hope that once we get the programme on the road in those areas that are now designated, we will be looking at what we call second-tier municipalities; and I can assure the hon. member that Windsor is included in that category.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): When are they going to do the first tier?

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Is the minister aware that the need for senior citizens’ housing in the city is 1,092 as of May 1 and that family housing accommodation needs registered 474, in addition to the regular needs in the community?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked that question several weeks ago --

Mr. B. Newman: No, I didn’t.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- and at that time I responded to him by saying our waiting list appeared to be under 1,000. I assume from his current figure that it has now gone slightly over 1,000.

We are aware of the problem, the housing authority has made certain recommendations; and we are investigating possible sites for early construction. As far as family housing is concerned, it is our understanding -- this is the information that has been given to me, Mr. Speaker -- that there is a sufficient quantity of family housing, but the problem is that the mix of size of family housing is not really conducive to full use. We are looking at that problem with a view to correcting it as quickly as possible.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George with a supplementary.

Mrs. Campbell: In the light of his remarks, could the minister advise the House whether, in the assessment of the Windsor area or any other area, the minister assesses on the basis of demand or on the basis of an investigated need?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are looking at submissions from the municipalities. I can assure the hon. member that we have heard from Windsor, from Niagara Falls and from other municipalities in the province, who have indicated that there appears to be an urgent need in their municipalities for acceleration of serviced lots for housing development.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister provide clarification about the housing action programme? As I recall, he stated in the House a couple of weeks ago that only 10 per cent of the lots under the housing action programme would de directed towards people earning less than $14,500 a year. Is that not correct? And does that not mean that only 10 per cent of the lots under that programme will be available for people who make up 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the population of the province?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I didn’t say that at all, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: It sure sounded that way.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the member doesn’t listen as carefully as he might. What I did say was that we had proposed a formula. The formula was based on the fact that 10 per cent of the lots should be transferred to OHC at book value and, presumably, we would use those lots for the HOME programme. Also, there were other lots which we were requiring to be sold to people in certain income areas.

That’s a formula which has been proposed. The developers have come back with counter-proposals, as have the municipalities on our proposals to them, and we are developing agreements which will be released by order in council as I assured the House during the reading of a bill which was passed here last week. They will be released to the House and the House will have an opportunity to examine them in full detail.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth is next.

RECOURSE FOR HOME PURCHASES

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. What would the minister suggest that people, who leased HOME lots and went to approved home builders, ought to do in order to get those builders to repair leaking roofs, leaking windows, flooded basements and any number of other problems which have arisen since the development in the Hamilton area took place last year and which obviously the builders don’t intend to resolve?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would say the recourse for the purchaser of a house under the HOME programme is the same as the recourse any home purchaser has. I would assume the member might wish to direct that question to my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Renwick: There is none, not for practical purposes.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Since I have already directed it to that minister and he has done nothing, is there any likelihood of this ministry, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, bringing in legislation which will protect home purchasers against shoddy workmanship and builders who refuse to return to complete the repairs to work which ought to have been done properly in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I can’t answer for my colleague. I know he is working on it. There have been some results from the conference held in Ottawa a few weeks ago --

Mr. Deacon: It’s been going on for five years.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- and the minister will undoubtedly announce policy when it has been decided upon.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Is there a financial holdback on mortgages to HOME builders and will the minister use that as a lever to force these people to do the work?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the holdback is exactly the same as the holdback on any other construction project. Once the period for liens has been cleared, there is no further holdback.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

DIAL-A-BUS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Could the Premier tell us, now that Ontario has substantially abandoned dial-a-bus for Metro and possibly for Sudbury, how much of the taxpayers’ money has been spent for current costs, capital costs, staff costs and consultants’ costs in connection with the whole dial-a-bus experiment failure?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course, the member for Downsview is one of those who are delighted to see the failure of any attempt to improve --

Mr. Singer: I am not delighted, I warned him in 1972 that it wouldn’t work.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- transportation facilities, whether it’s here or elsewhere in the province. I would only make this observation to him: While we are disappointed that two areas in Metropolitan Toronto have not been successful -- or three --

Some hon. members: Three.

Mr. Lewis: Three and the Premier is cutting the fourth off at the knees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I would say to him that one I know rather well -- it is in the new city of Brampton, the former community of Bramalea; prior to that, it was the township of Chinguacousy -- is working extremely well. Perhaps this is the land of area where the dial-a-bus systems will work to advantage.

Mr. Deans: Especially if they are black and chauffeur-driven.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to get this figure for the member, or the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) would be delighted, I’m sure as well.

Mr. Singer: Yes, he would be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would make this observation to the member for Downsview. It may be, as we attempt new forms of transportation and new ways for people to move without the traditional use of the automobile, we will find from either consumer reaction or from practical standpoints that some of them may or may not work. I would only say to the member for Downsview that unlike the reactionary approach of his particular party, we will continue to seek new ways and means of moving people.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They just want expressways over there.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary: While the government eagerly continues to seek new avenues of approach, could the Premier tell us how in the meantime the people in the northwest sector of Metro are going to be able to move back and forth when they haven’t got a road, they haven’t got a subway and dial-a-bus is a dismal failure?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Back to expressways again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Downsview is on the old campaign and if he is saying, as a matter of Liberal Party policy, that when the next provincial election is called -- whenever that may be -- the Liberal Party of Ontario is going to build the Spadina Expressway, I am glad to hear it and I wish he would say so publicly.

Mr. Singer: Did a lot of good up there, didn’t it?

An hon. member: Cities are for people.

Mr. Deacon: Has the Premier considered any other ideas for making use of existing modes of transportation, such as interchangeability of rail with buses; such as posting schedules of when local suburban buses might be expected so people don’t have to wail three-quarters of an hour or an hour for them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member want us to spend more money on tests?

Mr. Deacon: Would he consider introducing some modifications to existing modes of transportation so that at least they can be used by people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear this observation from the hon. member because, once again, consistent with the sometimes contradictory approach of the Liberal Party, I can only assume that the hon. member will be voting for the bill that we will be introducing to develop a regional transportation authority where these problems, in fact, can be resolved. I am delighted to hear that he doesn’t feel that this is any encroachment on local autonomy and that we now have his publicly-committed support to this concept.

Mr. Deacon: I have been making it for five years and the government has done nothing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister has answered the question by referring to his proposal for a regional transportation authority, are we to assume that he is going to go forward with this, although all of the regions except Metro Toronto have turned the concept down as being not in their best interests? Are we to presume that as a matter of policy the Premier is going forward in spite of those resolutions opposing it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall the resolution from the regional municipality of Peel.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well they are there from York and from Durham.

Mr. Singer: He’s got to do something with those wasted dial-a-buses. Lend them a few of them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that York is not in fact -- in fact, there was some discussion yesterday. There is another regional municipality out of the four that I think is relatively important, and I know the Leader of the Opposition tends to ignore it and I think he is well advised to do so. The regional municipality of Peel has not rejected it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier has them in his back pocket.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is some internal discussion as to one of the municipalities within the region wanting to be the carrier, under, shall we say, the authority of the regional carrier, and that, I am sure, can be sorted out. But I don’t think that the region of Peel did in fact send me a resolution saying it didn’t support the concept.

If the Leader of the Opposition is saying there is some reaction to it, I don’t suggest for a moment that there isn’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Only a negative reaction.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the Leader of the Opposition says that it is not the right thing to do, then I would like him to get up and say so. We are relatively satisfied that if we want to resolve the transportation problems of the very broad area, including Metropolitan Toronto, it makes very great sense to have a form of regional transportation authority.

Mr. Singer: Stop a few more highways and waste a few more millions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If we want to come to grips with the problems raised by the member’s deputy leader -- his colleague to his right, philosophically and geographically -- I would say the only way we can bring this about is through some form of regional transportation authority. I can only assume that once again the hon. members will be totally divided on the issue.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier has lots of good ideas. Why doesn’t he use them?

Mr. Lewis: They have got nothing to do because he has no transportation policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some will be in support and some will not. We think it is the right thing to do.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No policies. The Premier feels like making a speech, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask him a question -- he won’t answer it because he can’t; he just makes speeches: Are we to presume then that he is abandoning his policy of consultation with the regions; after imposing the regional-type government on them against their will he is now presuming once again to decide what is in their best interest by way of regional transportation; and we are going to see this bill? Are we?

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is so typical of the Liberal Party in this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Answer the question!

Hon. Mr. Davis: They talk about consultation. Yes, we will have consultation. That doesn’t mean that government policy can always be developed on the concept of total consensus.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They don’t like it and they don’t like the Premier’s proposal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize that’s the way the Liberal Party would love to operate. As long as everybody is in agreement with what they want to do, they are then bold and courageous.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The regions don’t like what the Premier is going to impose, so he is going to do it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On occasion, Mr. Speaker, this government will, if it feels it is the right thing to do, after there has been consultation, have the intestinal fortitude to make a decision which may not be unanimously accepted by everybody.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is the difference between this party and that one.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, there has been a sufficient number of supplementary questions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Questions? How about the answers?

Mr. Singer: There are no answers, just speeches.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): How does it feel to be on the defensive?

Mr. Singer: Dial-a-bus? Krauss-Maffei? Great transportation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to a question asked previously.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

PROPOSED COTTAGE SUBDIVISION ON NAPPAN ISLAND

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked a question last week, and it was followed by a question from his colleague, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good), concerning the Nappan Island subdivision

Mr. Speaker, this draft plan was originally not recommended for approval and a letter to that effect was sent from the subdivision branch to the Seymour township council on May 28, 1971.

A revised plan was subsequently reconsidered, but again was not recommended for approval. The staff recommendation in each case was based on the overall concern for the area in general and the unsuitability of the land for individual subsurface sewage disposal systems.

On March 21, 1972, a letter was received from the township council advising of their approval in principle for the use of holding tanks for this subdivision and supporting the development of Nappan Island. In the light of this, and after lengthy discussions with those agencies which had previously raised objections, the basis for an approval in principle for a certain amount of development on the island was agreed upon.

Consequently, after exhaustive discussions between the owner and concerned agencies, the owner was given approval in principle by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs on Oct. 10, 1972. This decision was based upon the use of holding tanks and subject to a number of rigorous conditions. Approval in principle is felt to be necessary, since additional information was required in order to enable a more in-depth evaluation of the proposal by the staff of the then subdivision section of TEIGA.

An extensive study of the proposal was undertaken by the owner, and after a careful evaluation by the Ministry of Natural Resources and other concerned agencies, it was felt that the development could take place if certain controls were imposed. As a result, a meeting was convened on Sept. 30, 1973, in an attempt to resolve the remaining contentious issues affecting the proposal. Present at this meeting were representatives of govern- mental agencies, the municipality and the developer. After this careful appraisal of the various recommendations on the file, a formal draft approval was issued on Dec. 19, 1973, subject to conditions which incorporated the recommendations of concerned governmental agencies.

From the foregoing it can be observed that every effort is being made by the staff of the subdivision branch -- now the plans and administration branch of the Ministry of Housing -- to ensure that any development taking place on this site will be in accordance with the plans and stringent specifications of all concerned governmental agencies.

It seems to me that the matter has been carefully researched by the staff and if the developer can meet the very stringent requirements as laid down in the conditions, there will be no major problem with the development from a municipal or environ- mental point of view.

I’d be pleased to provide the hon. Leader of the Opposition with a copy of the draft plan approval so that he can examine the very, very strict conditions which have been laid down for final approval.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has now been completed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A total of 250 holding tanks there.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present to the House the annual --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It is good to see the Minister of Industry and Tourism begging.

Mr. Cassidy: Glad to know he really exists.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- report of the Ontario Development Corp., the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. for all of the loans made and all of the guarantees given for payment of loans setting out the amounts, interest rates, terms of loans and guarantees; together with names and addresses of persons to whom the loans have been made or in respect to whom the guarantees have been given for the fiscal year of 1973-1974.

During fiscal year of 1973-1974, an important increase has once again taken place in the activities of the development corporations. The number of loans and guarantees approved amounted to 401 applications with a total dollar volume of $59.5 million. This compares to 343 loans approved during the previous year with a dollar volume of $35.6 million.

Significantly, the greatest increase occurred in the financial assistance provided to the tourist industry, and has resulted from an expansion of the existing tourist programme which I announced in June, 1973. During the fiscal year of 1973-1974, the development corporations authorized 98 tourist loans for a total of $15.3 million in this industry. This compares to 45 loans for a total of $3.3 million in the year of 1972-1973. The expansion of the tourist programme will result in particular benefits for northern Ontario.

The effects of the creation of a development corporation for eastern Ontario during December of 1973 is being felt in bringing the services of the Ontario Development Corp. more fully into regional areas of the province.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I want to raise a matter while the Premier is still here. Last evening at 10:29, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), on behalf of the House leader, indicated that today we would be dealing with two pieces of business: one being the changes to the Municipal Elections Act, the other being the estimates of Treasury.

Last week we were told that we would be dealing with the speculative land tax followed by a series of bills, followed by the estimates of Ministry of Agriculture and Food. There was no indication at all that we would be likely going to the Treasurer.

Now, it just isn’t enough notice to tell us at 10:30 on a Thursday night that we are going to do Treasury on Friday morning. Surely to God we can expect that the government could talk to us about it in advance. Maybe I could suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to send a note earlier in the day, or perhaps the day before even, that if we go over into Friday that the chances are we may have to change the order of business.

We have responsibilities, as does the ministry. We would simply ask that there be a little consideration given to the members of the House in ordering the business and that some discussion take place. I am sick and tired of the changes at the last minute.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I will take the responsibility for answering the question.

Unfortunately, as far as the member is concerned, but very fortunately for me, the Premier and I had the pleasure of spending a day with the people of Ontario yesterday. And it was, indeed, a great experience. We were extremely well received too.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: What has that got to do with this?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is he talking about?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, if the members will listen they will find out. I have consistently called the order of business for the past two weeks. Of course, the opposition takes the position, which is their privilege, that it has not progressed very well.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I do not like the derogatory statements they make about --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Well, I don’t much care whether the minister likes it or not. Why in hell can’t he call business properly?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I have listened to the member for Wentworth do this week after week. Now, let him listen for a change. There isn’t one ounce of courtesy in his mind, not one.

Mr. Lewis: The minister knows and we know that the Camp commission is held up now because the minister’s colleagues can’t distinguish between government and the Legislature. It is time that the House business is ordered properly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One reason it is held up, is because of a particular problem we are trying to solve.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t think so.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to the House that the Minister of Agriculture and Food accepted an invitation to speak at a convocation today which complicated the calling of the estimates of his particular ministry. I therefore took the next one in line that was on the order, which I have shown to the opposition on more than one occasion, which was the ministry of the provincial Treasurer, and that is exactly what has followed.

As far as the item of legislation is concerned, I will let the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Irvine) speak for himself in regard to the urgency of this matter. And I will now call item 20.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care about that piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t care about what the member for Wentworth cares about.

Mr. Deans: That is exactly right. That is exactly right. Does the minister think this is a joke?

Mr. Breithaupt: I believe there is something that should be mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and that is, of course, that the Treasury estimates were third or fourth down the line. I realize that the government House leader has difficulty on occasion in bringing forward the kinds of items in the proper sequence he would like to follow. I might suggest that it would have been perhaps practical, if a minister who had been scheduled was suddenly called away, that we could have today reverted perhaps to budget addresses, if there was an hour or half hour that could otherwise have been used. If consideration could be given to something like that in the future, perhaps we would be able to make some progress.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the approach of the hon. member for Kitchener. My difficulty in most cases is from previous experience that I do not want to call a ministry that conflicts with a ministry or a committee that is sitting outside of the House. That is it plain and simple.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister continue to do the legislation, as he said he would?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: They understand that, because that was a demand made from across the floor; not by us. I try to facilitate them in that manner. In regard to the budget debate, I had pressures on me the other week to call the debate, and when I did so there was a great dearth of speakers. Therefore I have resisted at the moment, but we will consider that in the next week or two.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 20th order; second reading of Bill 65, an Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, in the absence of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of items that I think should be referred to, one more particularly than any other; in this bill, while we are making some minor changes to the Municipal Elections Act, we are still continuing to deal with one particular item in a way which we in the Liberal Party find unsatisfactory

I am referring, of course, to the items in section 5 which retain the words “or other British subject” concerning those who are able to vote in Ontario municipal elections. We believe that Canadian citizenship should be the only criterion on which a person should have a right to vote within an Ontario election.

I suppose that over the year -- and we have made these arguments when this bill and others dealing with electoral reform have been brought to the House in these last several years -- there was historically some view that those who had come from the British Isles particularly and had a tradition of a parliamentary form of government would, as a result, be able to fit in very quickly into our similar form of government.

However, the patterns of immigration have changed substantially. Many who have the technical right and ability to be known as British subjects come from countries where the parliamentary form of government is not as strong or as widely known as we might hope it would be here. On the other hand, those who have come to Canada in recent years have come substantially from other nations which are not under Her Majesty’s former Empire and now Commonwealth.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, we feel that amendments should be considered in these particular items and, we hope, accepted by the minister to remove this situation. The words “or other British subject” had some value in years before. We do not deny that in the slightest. However, with the changes in our own society, with the requirement that we believe it is important to encourage citizenship, we feel that now is the time to further amend this Act.

There are those of us who have looked with favour upon the recent changes in the federal Elections Act. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, all those persons who will be able to vote after 1975, I think, will have to be Canadian citizens and the matter of being a British subject will have passed in an honoured way into part of the history of our nation.

I think it’s time to pass this kind of continuing approach in an honoured way into the past history of our province. I think that the matters of residency, of Canadian citizenship and of the age of 18 years, constitute a sufficient and honourable package by which those who are going to have the privilege of voting within our election, and indeed the right to vote within our election, should come before the ballot box.

There are many other sections which I think can be dealt with in committee, because there are particular questions that we will want to ask, especially in some of the details with respect to reprinting of various lists and matters such as that. However, I think that the only item of real principle in this bill is the matter to which I have alluded, and I hope the minister will consider the amendment we are certainly going to propose in order to make this a better statute.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of matters that I want to speak about in connection with this bill. The hon. member for Kitchener has mentioned this matter of being a British subject and wanting to eliminate this. Perhaps that has some validity, although I would think that the federal approach where we are going to get this gradual change to Canadian citizenship over the years would be adequate.

There is one other thing which I would also like to stress in this connection. To me and to this group, citizenship should be available at less than five years when landed immigrants demonstrate that they want to become Canadian subjects. They buy property; they become part and parcel of a community; they learn the language; and they are anxious to become Canadian citizens. I know this is a federal matter. But certainly to me at least, there should be some provision federally for landed immigrants to become citizens well before the five-year period. That should be dropped to at least three years, and possibly less than that, if the qualifications can be met. However, that will come in due course, perhaps at the federal level, and it has very little to do with this particular bill under consideration today.

In the other part of section 5, I would like to stress the fact that we are maintaining the old part of the feudal system where we are giving property owners a dual voting power in municipal elections. I know this was cleaned up a bit in the original change a few years ago, but a person who owns property in two or more municipalities can still vote in those municipalities. A logical step at this time would seem to be that a person owning multiple properties in different lower level municipalities within a regional government should have only one vote in the total regional government. That should be incorporated here, and it isn’t.

I think also we have to face the fact that sooner or later cottage owners -- and this perhaps is one of the reasons this remains here -- who feel that they want something to say in the municipality where the cottage is situated will ultimately have to make a choice. If we are going to think seriously in terms of one man, one vote, they are going to have to think seriously as to where they want their vote to fall. It may well be their interests in the cottage country may be such that they feel their influence there should be exercised to the exclusion of the influence in the city where their principal residence may be. Eventually, I think, Mr. Speaker, this legislation must be revised to the point where one man, one vote does become reality at the municipal level, and cottage owners must make their choice as to where that vote should lie.

In connection with the shortening of the time for registration of voters, I am a bit concerned there. We are cutting that down quite drastically. There is no reason, in my opinion, why we couldn’t use the device we use in the upper levels of government where we issue supplementary lists and register right up to within a reasonable time, a week or so before the actual election. This would give time to get out the supplementary lists and put them in the hands of the people who are concerned. To shut off the lists at the time specified here would seem to be leaving too big a gap between the time of a shutoff and the election. Many people don’t get too excited about elections until they are pretty close, and for many reasons. Perhaps people are out of the country on holidays or away on business, and until close to the deadline of the election they may not find it convenient to get their names on the list. If we could provide for supplementary lists to be issued just before the election and the deadline set a week or so before the actual voting day, I think the bill itself could be greatly improved.

The other sections of the bill are pretty well housekeeping and I don’t think they need too much comment here this morning. We agree with most of them. We will support the general principle of the bill but we do want to register these objections to certain clauses and certain subclauses that we find here today.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt the routine of the Legislature to introduce to my colleagues 35 students from the Medonte West Central School of Hillsdale, Ontario, who are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Goodall. They are situated in the west gallery; and I know that the hon. members would like to join with me in welcoming them.

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

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to dwell on the aspects of the bill which have already been covered. I would like simply at this time to express my concern, as the bill is before us, that we are still considering the two-year term of office. I worry about this because it seems to me that having a two-year term, particularly in the light of the major regional involvement of government, simply enables this government to centralize power more and more to itself and takes away from the local or regional municipalities the opportunity to do any long-range planning or study for their area.

I recognize the fact that in enlarging a municipal term of office, one does face the problem that under our system once elected there is no opportunity for recall. Nevertheless, at this point in time I cannot understand why, day after day, I hear minister after minister in this House charging municipalities with responsibility for housing, charging them with responsibility for garbage disposal, charging them in many cases with responsibility for local transportation systems and all other sorts of planning which require time and continuity.

What happens under such a shortened term is that in the municipality, as here, what you get is control by the civil servants. I’m not denying their ability, but you get that kind of control because they have the continuity which the elected representative does not have.

I recognize the fact this is not new in relation to this particular bill, but I would like some response from government as to whether any consideration is being given to this matter, with possibly some kind of co-operation with the municipalities to face the very question of the possibility of recall where there is an extended term so that they may have, in fact, the opportunity to take the responsibilities which so many times they are charged with neglecting. I would like some response, because I feel very strongly on this.

It is rather strange, if you consider a municipality such as Metropolitan Toronto, with its heavy fiscal responsibility and with the population which it administers, and then contemplate the strange situation where a province, such as for example Prince Edward Island, has the opportunity for greater self determination. It doesn’t make sense.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Kitchener and I feel impelled to enter the debate at this time, having heard what he had to say about the inclusion of British subjects as qualified electors.

These remarks somewhat disturbed me because it is very fashionable in Liberal circles, consistently during the past 10 years, to keep working on the gradual erosion of all aspects of the British connection, monarchical symbols and other items in our heritage.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The member, Sean O’Sullivan and John Diefenbaker are in the same camp.

Mr. J. R. Smith: I am very proud to be associated with all of those individuals, Mr. Speaker, and I am certain most of the electors in my constituency would also be proud of that association.

Mr. Cassidy: The member wants to make sure it is on the record just in case.

Mr. J. R. Smith: The founder of this party, after all, was Sir John A. Macdonald, whose famous line was: “A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die.” I think that was always a very proud aspect to be able to look at our passports -- a Canadian citizen and a British subject. We know full well the federal government has enacted legislation which eventually will oblige -- or compel by legislation -- all Canadians wishing to vote in future federal elections, who are presently British subjects only, to qualify as Canadian citizens as well.

This has been a move many people have taken up and have so qualified; but, Mr. Speaker, there are also many individuals to be considered. I am thinking particularly of the heavy immigration to this country from the United Kingdom in the early part of this century. These people are now in their late 70s and 80s. They have worked and fought for this country through World War I; they went through the great depression, and at that time the taking of Canadian citizenship wasn’t really considered a necessity. It was considered almost as dual citizenship.

As this country has matured, things have changed. Nevertheless this is a group Pierre Trudeau might think he is getting at and eliminating a lot of these people by forcing them to take out Canadian citizenship. Mr. Speaker, by the same token I think it is a very underhanded drive and a concerted effort to eliminate this faction, particularly this group of people.

There has been very little immigration from the United Kingdom in recent years. This is hitting at those people who have been in this country, many of them for 50 or 60 years. They love Canada and I am glad at least the Province of Ontario continues to recognize their rights in this country and that they qualify for voting in provincial and municipal elections.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I feel the remarks alluding to me by the member for Hamilton Mountain have impugned my loyalty to the Crown. There is no member of this House who is more committed to the monarchical form and system of government which we have in Canada than am I. There is no member of this House who is more proud to be a Canadian and who places his Canadian citizenship, as it should be placed, in supporting this form of government we have which I subscribe to as the best form designed by man.

I think that not only some 20 years’ service in our militia forces but various other aspects of my activities in this community and the Province of Ontario should have saved me from that kind of comment by the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The member for Hamilton Mountain should withdraw his remarks.

Mrs. Campbell: He should withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Renwick: An apology is in order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I support a couple of comments made by the member for Yorkview on this particular bill, Mr. Speaker. I think in practical terms it is going to introduce some real difficulties in the conduct of municipal elections because of the further advancement, to a date even further ahead of the election, of the making up of the election lists.

I have been through this in a practical way as the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine) has. But in an urban riding in particular, I think the problem is probably more intense than it may be in a town like Prescott.

In an urban riding in a downtown ward, for example, there is a fairly high rate of movement of people in and out because of people living in apartments, in rooming houses and so on. It is more difficult to carry out the enumeration. People are more liable to be away on holidays and that kind of thing. It is harder to get information from the neighbours about who is there and who isn’t there. The enumeration is therefore liable to be less accurate because of when it is taken, because of the transiency rate and all of these other factors.

In addition, for a number of reasons which we simply have to put up with -- it’s a fact of life -- people don’t tune in to the fact of there being a municipal election, and therefore of the need of their getting on to a voters’ list, until the time the campaign is in full swing.

What that means is that until the candidates are actually nominated -- and that usually means around the official nomination day, 14 or 18 days before the election -- people really aren’t tuned in, apart from those people who are constantly politicized, such as local Conservative organizers or local New Democrats. As far as the public in general is concerned, it couldn’t matter less until the last two weeks when they really come to grips with it.

The situation is not all that dissimilar from the federal election where the enumerators in the past week have been finding that many of the people they are enumerating are only now aware that a federal election is on. Inevitably there will be that five or eight per cent federally who will be coming into committee rooms some time around mid- or late June to ask: “Am I on the list?” and then reacting. And, equally inevitably, there will be some who will find themselves disappointed.

At the municipal level, the Act continues to permit a certificate procedure in order to allow people to become entitled to vote right up to election day -- it may even include election day -- and allows swearing in, in small municipalities. Once again, though, in a large municipality it is left to the local election officials as to whether that right to get the vote through a certificate is accessible, whether it is easy to get or exceptionally difficult.

It isn’t that long ago in the city of Ottawa that the telephone numbers for checking your name on the voters’ list used to open at 9 a.m. and close at 5 p.m., the hours that people were at work, and there were so few lines that the lines were constantly jammed. It was no use. People would phone day after day and eventually they would give up and say: “Oh, the heck with it.” That situation is getting a bit better.

In a city the size of Toronto it may be very difficult for many people, particularly the kind of people who are most likely to get overlooked or left off the enumeration lists, to get to a central place in order to swear and have a certificate filled out. As I recall from the amendments, personal presence is required, rather than simply the name being passed in by the workers for a particular candidate, as can be done on the supplementary list. Is that correct? Perhaps the minister could nod his head if I have it correct. Okay.

This means, then, that after about November 4 or 5, when the supplementary list is closed, as I recall, the people are going to have to get down to the city hall or some other place, unless the electoral officer in the clerk’s office of that municipality ensures there is somebody in each ward or in each district at easily accessible times in the week or so prior to the actual election. And we leave that up to chance.

I would suggest that the supplementary procedure is almost useless. We get most of the voters, of course, with the preliminary list, the enumeration being made in September. But the supplementary list wall catch very few, apart from those electors who are picked up during the process of cross-checking previous assessment lists say, and that first electoral list. We’ll get the typos and the misprints, but we won’t get the people who were missed during the stage of the actual enumeration.

The other point I want to comment upon, Mr. Speaker, is the question of the entitlement to vote. The member for Yorkview has said, and we state as a party, that the multiple vote for people living within the same regional municipality should end -- and it should end in this particular bill. It was an oversight in the last one; I don’t know whether the government intended to leave it in or not, but it simply seems to us to be wrong that some person should have the right to vote five or six times for members of Metro council in the municipality of Metro Toronto or 12 or 13 times in the city of Ottawa, depending on where they happen to own property or where they happen to be assessed. That’s crazy. I know we are working towards this by a certain process of evolution, but just for the record, the elimination of the multiple vote within municipalities has done a great deal to solve the kind of problem that again existed in downtown areas, such as the downtown wards of Toronto, London or Ottawa, where as many as 15 or 20 per cent of the “electorate” were, in fact, non-resident property owners, lawyers or other people who are on the assessment rolls as non-resident. Nevertheless, there are still many suburban merchants, lawyers and other people like that who wrongly have the vote in areas where they own property within the same regional municipality, and that should end.

The question about people who own property in another part of the province, for example in a cottage area or in another municipality hundreds of miles away, is clearly not as serious. On principle, I think the position probably ought to be that people elect where they wish to carry out their municipal vote, and that as part of the process of signing in, there would simply be a declaration that this is where they choose to vote if they happen to have the right on their assessment to vote in two or three places. That would mean that cottage owners could decide to vote either at their principal residence or at their cottage residence. Nevertheless, the government isn’t prepared to go that far at this stage, and for that matter I don’t think we would insist upon it either. But the question of multiple voting within a regional municipality should be dealt with at this time.

The third thing the member for Yorkview commented upon and on which we heard from the member for Hamilton Mountain was the question about the entitlement of non-Canadian citizens to vote. I have to declare interest in this since my wife, who has been in Canada for about nine years now, is a British subject but has not yet chosen to become a Canadian citizen, despite my blandishments and encouragement.

Mr. Breithaupt: She wants a way out!

Mr. Cassidy: The crunch may come for her in the 1976 federal election, when I understand she will not have the federal vote.

It seems to me, as a New Democrat, that the municipal vote of all the votes is the one which impinges most closely on an elector, whether he is an owner or a tenant. His kids go to local schools if he has a family; he trips over the potholes in the street outside of his residence; he suffers if the neighbourhood deteriorates because of inaction by the local government. In many cases if he has a problem with government at whatever level, be it local, regional, board of health, board of education, provincial or federal, it is the local alderman to whom he feels closest and to whom he often will go first.

It seems to me that the participation in political life at the local level is a very valuable means of learning about this country, and that it is a right that ought to come to people very early when they come to this country. The process of leaving one’s own country, of becoming a landed immigrant, of living in Canada for a year, of working, of contributing at all three levels in taxes to the life of the country, all bespeaks a very substantial commitment to Canadian life. It is a sufficient commitment, Mr. Speaker, that I would suggest, as a New Democrat, that we should give the municipal vote to landed immigrants who have been in Canada for one year.

That would include British subjects obviously. It would also include people who have come to us from Italy, from Portugal, from the Philippines, from Japan, from Hong Kong and from any other part of the world. It is hard to see the problems of some treasonable plot to take over municipal government by a bunch of people coming from Botswana or something like that. That is simply not going to occur. It would simply recognize the degree of commitment that people have when they settle in Canada and the degree of involvement that everybody feels in local government. I think this would be particularly important because of the fact there are certain areas of our large cities that have naturally become immigrant reception areas. For example, the area just to the west of the Legislature here in Toronto, and parts of my riding in Ottawa, are the areas to which immigrants naturally go and spend their first few years in Canada. They often then move to other parts and become more integrated in Canadian society.

During those early years, the schools that educate their children and the services that are provided to their homes and to their communities are provided by governments in which they have little or no say. It seems to me it’s important that we shouldn’t leave 20, 30, sometimes even 40 and 50 per cent of the population of some of these wards disenfranchised because of the state of municipal election law.

I would therefore urge the minister that he accept or even introduce an amendment that rather than confining the vote only to citizens and British subjects, it be extended to all landed immigrants who have been landed in Canada for more than one year. God knows what kind of objections will be raised. I am sure it’s easy to raise a few. Those objections, Mr. Speaker, will apply, I would suggest, to an infinitesimally small minority of landed immigrants.

The suggestion that they are not fully Canadian until they take out citizenship is absurd. The suggestion is really absurd that a person should be disenfranchised at the municipal level who has been in Canada, in some cases for six or seven or 10 years, and who has had that kind of commitment to the country, but who doesn’t happen to have taken out Canadian citizenship for various reasons. The suggestion -- I am sure that some members of the Conservative Party, I hope not the minister, are capable of it -- that this would somehow enfranchise the Mafia is equally absurd, and it’s a slur on a particular immigrant group who have contributed a tremendous amount to Ontario society.

So I very seriously urge the minister to consider this proposal. If the bill isn’t coming back in committee today, he should discuss it with his officials and maybe even with the cabinet, and introduce it as a very concrete way of showing that not just the government but all parties in this Legislature welcome the contributions being made to Ontario by the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have come to this province over the last few years.

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

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to the members who are present in the House a group in the east gallery from Roseville Public School -- about 70 grade 8 pupils, parents, teachers under the leadership of principal Stephen Payne and vice-principal George Plantus, both of them my former pupils. I should like the members to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I’ll cede to my leader.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Well, thank you --

Mr. Cassidy: Did he say “secede” or just “cede”?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: “Accede.” I appreciate the gesture of my colleague and I will look forward to hearing his comments on the bill as well.

I found the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain extremely offensive -- and I must say that to him. To indicate that our party, federally and provincially, is embarked on some sort of a plot to cut the so-called British connection is something that is offensive to hear and which I must object to at the first opportunity.

I must also assure the hon. member that is not so, that the policy of the party is not that; it is rather to recognize the role played in a modem nation, not on the basis of “a British subject I was born and a British subject I shall die” -- a phrase that I really didn’t think I would hear again in this House -- but rather on the basis that this nation has its fabric and its strength now not only in those who came in the past and are still coming from the British Isles and what used to be called the Empire or the Commonwealth, but those who have come from nations in all parts of the world and who are just as proud of being Canadian as anybody from Hamilton Mountain or South Dumfries township or Ottawa Centre.

I don’t want to get too exercised about this and I don’t want it to sort of develop into some comparison of antecedents as to who is more strongly Canadian than anybody else, but I would just say that the time has come in this Legislature when a section such as section 5 which says one doesn’t have to be a Canadian citizen as long as one is a British subject in order to take part in political activities here -- electoral activities at the municipal level -- surely that day should be gone?

We had expected to put an amendment in committee which would strike that out. We believe the policy of the government of Canada to phase it out is a good way to do it, because it has been part of our tradition that one doesn’t necessarily have to be a citizen of Canada. As a matter of fact, until a few years ago there wasn’t such a thing; a person was a British subject if he lived here and that was the basis upon which he took part in our democratic process.

We should be proud of the fact that has changed. When people say the policy of our party is against those people who come from the British Isles and don’t chose to become Canadian citizens, I reject that. It simply accepts the reality of the community as it is, with 200,000 Italians living in this city alone.

The concept put forward by the member who just spoke and who said there are certain communities to which immigrants tend to come first and then they move out into the rest of the nation is only partly true. I happen to represent a largely rural area. I have a substantial mix of all sorts of people from different nationalities. I think of my next neighbour who comes from the Netherlands with a big family and is one of the best farmers in our area.

To suggest the British subjects have some sort of a right to vote because they took part in the defence of the Commonwealth or something is just pure rot. These people fought in two wars and suffered far more than I did and, I suggest, far more than the member did. It is simply a concept that is unacceptable.

I tell the members it is very hard when one talks to them about their democratic rights and why they should become citizens and take part in the democratic process. They say: “These people who have recently come from England don’t have to take out citizenship. Why is that? Isn’t it true that you are run from England, so to speak?”

These are the questions put to me and, of course, we say this is not so. We are proud of our traditions and the extraction of our method of government and the extraction, I suppose, of many of our concepts and ideas. But we are also now proud of the independence of our nation.

For that reason, since it’s been raised under these terms, I must ask my colleagues to oppose this bill in principle. We will offer an amendment and we will be prepared to discuss it, but I would hope the minister could give us some statement that at least government policy is going to follow the changing traditions of our nation and base the requirements on Canadian citizenship, on being a resident in the municipality and being of the age of 18. Surely these are the qualities that are reasonably acceptable?

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House would give further consideration to the continuing inclusion in this bill, under section 5, of the special rights of the British subject.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak with respect to section 5 on another topic, because I notice, if I am reading it correctly, there is discrimination here: Discrimination against ladies and against women’s liberation.

The new section 12 starts out, “A person is entitled ...” and so on and at the end, just before clause (a), the last line reads, “second Tuesday in October in an election year he ...”. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it should be either “he or she”; or I would suggest the word “he” be deleted and the words “that person” be inserted. I would move that. And the same actually --

Mr. Cassidy: The member is obviously being influenced by sitting next to the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: She’s done nice work.

Mr. Kennedy: Members can see the benefits of sitting beside very astute lady members.

Mr. Cassidy: That makes 75 male chauvinists left in the Tory government.

Mr. Kennedy: Similarly, Mr. Speaker it applies to the new subsection 13, just before clause (a), where the word “he” is rather offensive in that it should be “that person.”

Mr. Cassidy: Isn’t it a pity the member isn’t concerned about equal employment rights for women?

Mr. Kennedy: I would either move an amendment or perhaps the minister would see the validity of this observation and move it on behalf of all the lady electors in this great province and ensure that women electors are not denied any rights.

Mr. Cassidy: Doesn’t the member know that women are grossly underpaid compared to men in this province?

Mr. Kennedy: Is it the desire of the Speaker that I so move or will the minister?

Mr. Cassidy: Has the member fought for a universal day-care system in this province?

Mr. Kennedy: Pardon?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I think it’s going into committee of the whole House and we’ll deal with it at that time.

Mr. Kennedy: The minister will take it from here, will he?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make a few comments on this bill and the first is the one which has been the most popular so far this morning and that is on section 5.

One of the good things concerning legislation is that there should be more uniformity. The Education Act specifies that to be a candidate for membership on a school board an individual must be a Canadian citizen. I had an instance in the last municipal election when a gentleman who was a British subject attempted to run as a school board official and was denied the privilege.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have uniformity, one of the requirements should be that the individual be a Canadian citizen.

The other point I wanted to comment about concerns publishing the notice in a newspaper having general circulation in the community. That is under section 12. In the larger communities, we are confronted with newspaper stoppages as a result of strikes so I think there should be an alternative and that would be to use other media. I would suggest that radio and television or cable television be included so the public could be informed, in case of a newspaper strike, of the last day of filing and the preliminary list of the electors.

The third area on which I would like to comment, Mr. Speaker, concerns the selection of the polling stations. I think in each community there should be a number of polling stations on the ground floors so that our handicapped, our elderly who have walking disabilities and difficulties, do not have to go to their closest polling station to vote or to the polling station in which they happen to be recorded as an elector. There should be a series of these scattered around the community to accommodate those who have this physical handicap. They should not be in the city hall in a large community because transportation difficulties would be one of the problems that may confront a citizen in an attempt to vote. They should be regionalized. In the city of Windsor there could be half a dozen scattered throughout the community.

They could be not only for those who have physical handicaps, but could be for others who would prefer to vote on the ground floor level. There are senior citizens’ centres in many communities so we do have areas on the ground floor level which could be selected as polling stations to accommodate those who have some type of physical handicap. The physical handicap might be just for the given day, election day only, and they should have that privilege of voting without adversely affecting themselves.

Too often polling subdivisions or polling stations are in homes and one has to go down a half a dozen steps and that is asking a little too much. In the selection of polling stations, I think wherever possible they should be located in homes which have the fewest number of stairs for the individual to climb and they should be, where possible, on the ground floor level.

The other suggestion I would make is the consideration or having polling stations in hospitals so our sick could actually vote in the hospital and would not have to vote by proxy or be physically transported from the hospital to the polling station.

Mr. Speaker, these are the few comments I have concerning this bill.

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

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few comments.

First of all, I think it is significant that when the School Administration Act was changed, in 1968 I believe when we went to county school boards, it was the present Premier (Mr. Davis) of the province who accepted the amendment in the standing committee that one of the criteria for a member of the school board is that he must be a Canadian citizen.

This has been something which we thought at the time would over the next few years be followed up in all our general legislation dealing with elected personnel, and also the right to vote within the province. So I too am surprised to hear the present situation which gives the right to vote to Canadian citizens along with British subjects so opposed by a member of the government side, some six or seven years after it was first introduced into legislation in the province.

We have been unable to get this idea across in any other legislation. When we proposed that the chairman of our regional government should be required to be a Canadian citizen, that idea was not accepted by the government.

But it applies to members of the boards of governors for universities. We have had that idea accepted by this present government at three of the universities across the province; first at the University of Toronto, then at Waterloo and recently at Western. So we find that it is a very gradual process. But I feel, as does the leader of my party, that we should be proud to be Canadian citizens. Anyone living in Ontario and wanting to participate in our democratic process should be proud enough of his country -- after they have been here some time -- that he or she should want to become a Canadian citizen. I see nothing that reflects anything on any British subject by saying that if they do not choose to be a Canadian citizen they should not be given the right to vote.

There are one or two other matters, Mr. Speaker, to which I would like to refer under sections 53 and 55 of the Act. It concerns a voter who is required under certain conditions -- if his vote is challenged, or if someone has already voted -- to swear an oath. One of the new amendments in this bill eliminates the various forms in which an oath may be taken.

My concern is this, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: I would hope the elimination of that section, which states the various forms in which an oath can be taken, would not eliminate the right to affirm rather than take an oath. It is surprising at times the number of people who do not wish to take an oath but reserve their rights to affirm. All of our legal procedures allow the right to affirm, rather than taking of an oath. I would hope that this section, which repeals the manner of the selection of the type of oath to be taken -- because now all oaths are in one prescribed form -- I would hope that the one prescribed form would deal only with the taking of an oath and would not deal with the right to affirm.

As mentioned by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, the amendments in the bill, state that the returning officer must provide a polling station in hospitals which are inhabited by senior citizens, veterans’ hospitals, old people’s homes and things of that nature; but it makes it permissive now, instead of compulsory, to require a polling station to be set up in nursing homes of over 20 beds. I am wondering why this change is being made. Why should nursing homes not be included with other types of hospitals in which a polling booth must be established?

I wonder, too, Mr. Speaker, why a regular general hospital is not included in the list of institutions where a polling station is required to be put by the returning officer? Perhaps when the minister responds he will answer some of my concerns.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on just one point in this bill, and that is the continued inclusion of the words “or other British subject.” I am sorry the member for Hamilton Mountain has taken himself out of the chamber. Perhaps one of his colleagues could indicate to him that I had a few comments in regard to this and draw my remarks to his attention.

I was a member, Mr. Speaker, of the select committee on election law that was set up some time ago. We discussed this very point; in fact I think I put a motion before that committee that the words “or other British subject” be deleted. I was supported in that motion by my Liberal colleagues, by the NDP, and fascinatingly enough by one or two of the Tories. The now Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), I recall, was quite determined that the words “or other British subject” were not appropriate in an Ontario election law.

However, if there are Neanderthals to be found in government they can be found amongst those who inhabit the back benches of the Tory party; and the Neanderthals of that day voted against the deletion of those words “or other British subject.”

I was fascinated to learn that the member for Hamilton Mountain talked about the two wars in which this country has participated since 1914 --

Mrs. Campbell: He certainly wasn’t in them.

Mr. Singer: I know many members of the House took part in those wars. The member for Hamilton Mountain is perhaps a bit too young to have taken part.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Singer: For myself, and I think for those members of the House who were part of the armed forces, we took part as Canadian citizens; and we were proud to be Canadian citizens.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Under the maple leaf emblem.

Mr. Singer: This doesn’t mean that we have no affection for the British connection or the Commonwealth, for the great legacy that the British government has given to the world, for the language, for parliamentary customs, for the judicial system and so on.

But surely, Mr. Speaker, this government has to come into the year 1974 and recognize what Canada is all about. We are here because we are Canadian citizens. We like our country. We are where we sit in this Legislature because we think we can be of a little service to this province and to this country -- not really to the Commonwealth of Nations and not really because we are British subjects, but because we are Canadians. That is what this argument is all about.

From time to time, the government breaks through, as my colleague from Waterloo said, and a great spate of nationalism sweeps through to the boards of trustees of universities and we have something in the Corporations Information Act -- all sorts of important changes have been made.

Now why should we listen to the Neanderthal mumblings of the member for Hamilton Mountain when once more we come to debate the continued inclusion of the words “or other British subject.”

Surely it makes abundant good sense, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who wants to participate in an election, as a person who lives in this country and as one who wants to share the democratic privilege, should at least become a Canadian citizen, no matter what part of the world he came from.

I would urge the minister to clear up what some of us feel is a very serious matter by agreeing with the criticisms that have been put forward.

I am sure it is not a real point of government policy. It’s a point that is put forward once in a while by Neanderthal-like people, who get up occasionally and make speeches. By 1974 I would have thought that idea would have disappeared.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I share the dismay that has been expressed about the jingoism of the statement by the member for Hamilton Mountain, but that is obviously now going to force a division in the assembly on the principle of the bill because of the feelings expressed by the members of the Liberal Party.

I just want to make our position clear on the bill. We will support the government on the bill because we believe that the qualification for voting should be not only Canadian citizenship with respect to municipal elections, but should also be somewhat larger than a class limited solely to Canadian citizenship. That class is, as expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre when he spoke, namely persons who have landed immigrant status in Canada of at least one year’s duration. That would include, as my understanding would be, British subjects as well as a large number of other people who have made their commitment to this country and have been here for some considerable period of time.

For that purpose, therefore, when the matter comes before committee we will deal with it appropriately; but I just wanted the record to be perfectly clear as to the position of this party with respect to the division which will undoubtedly take place in a few minutes. The reason of course is perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that at a municipal election level, we should disqualify, for up to and beyond five-year periods, persons who have made a very profound commitment to the country by leaving their homes in Greece, in Italy, in Portugal and in any number of other countries in order to come here and contribute to the life of the country, persons who are paying taxes at the municipal level and who, as my colleague the hon. member for Ottawa Centre also has said, cannot be charged on any basis of having some lack with respect to their loyalty to the country. That is a very earnest and positive commitment. Therefore, while we would wish the clause to be somewhat widened, we will support the government on the bill and then in committee deal with the extension to which we have referred.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I also would like to make some comments about this matter of Canadian citizenship.

I’m interested in the comment made by the hon. member for Riverdale about the idea of someone with landed immigrant status. Although we feel that has merit, we are concerned about the fact there would be no need at any time for anyone to take out citizenship if that were the only criteria, and there should be moves made by us to persuade the federal government to shorten the period from five years to a lesser period for those who have decided to make a commitment to this country to become citizens of Canada. When we get before committee of the whole House we may be able to work out an amendment which would provide for voting for a period if they had taken out landed immigrant status but had not yet had an opportunity to exercise their right to become Canadian citizens.

I would like to add my comments also to this matter of being a British subject. I was born 54 years ago, a WASP, in this city. And I’m proud of being a WASP. I also have come to recognize the tremendous contribution made by other people who have come from other backgrounds and other beliefs and who make this country great, because this country is a mosaic. Our legislation is such that time and time again we tend to insult and denigrate the position of these others, because we WASPs haven’t recognized their own feelings of pride which we should be trying to increase and emulate.

I can understand the problem that is faced by people who have emigrated to this country from the British Isles many years ago and who are proud of being British subjects, because I am proud of being one too. But I also recognize that this country will not be a strong country until all who come here recognize they have equal rights and an equal position with us as Canadians; that there isn’t a special privilege because we happen to come from British stock or some other background that gives us an advantage over someone else who has arrived from Italy or Germany or some other part of the world, who in himself or herself has made a commitment to make this a great country.

I am pleased there have been moves made where there is going to be an opportunity for people to learn in school in their own native language. One of the moves being made by the Toronto Board of Education that I think is most progressive is that in a school which is in a Greek or Italian neighbourhood, the prime teaching language would be Greek or Italian or whatever the language of the prime area may be, and English a second language. It is well known that people are much more secure in themselves, in their whole being, if their heritage is not being threatened and is not being denigrated. I urge the minister to remove this clause which puts the British subject in a special position and to be consistent with other legislation.

We are certainly no longer in a position where we can be snobs, those of us who have this background, because we recognize that the true riches of this country are made by all the peoples of whom it is made up; the native peoples and those that have come from different backgrounds, whether white or otherwise. Canada’s future depends upon our recognizing the basic nature of what a Canadian is. A Canadian is one who has made a commitment to this country and cut his citizenship ties with any other country from which he may have come. These people are truly Canadians.

It’s interesting, in a study that has been made recently of the history of French-Canada and English-Canada, to recognize the very strong common thread that runs between the French and the English who became Canadians, who decided after they came to this country that their country was no longer France or Britain but Canada. They were a race who were known for their enterprise, for their adventurous nature in exploring the realm of North America, of working indeed with the native people in a way that neither of the two major parent countries, France or England, were capable of understanding. If you read the background and the history of those who are truly Canadians you’ll understand that.

Let’s come up with legislation here that recognizes indeed that we are Canadians now. We are not ashamed of our British or our French or our Italian or German background or whatever it might be. In fact, we are proud of it. That doesn’t mean those who have the right to decide who will govern our country should be other than those who have made a commitment to be Canadian, whether they be landed immigrants who haven’t had sufficient time to become citizens or otherwise. I do urge the minister to make a change now so we are consistent throughout.

The other point I wanted to make Mr. Speaker, is that made by the member for St. George on the need for the minister to consider changing the principle of the two-year term. There is a problem in municipal government that is unique. The party system that makes it possible for us to have official opposition roles that are so important as part of this legislative system is not practical on local councils. The size of the council and the whole structure is one point that makes it impractical; and the fact that, the municipalities are creatures of the provincial government or subject to it is another reason.

For that reason I have never supported the principle of having the party system prevail in local government. But I do think it is important that we consider ways of extending the term of office far beyond the two-year term to four years or five years.

If the government does that, as the member for St. George said it would be necessary for us to introduce some system of recall, some manner in which those who are elected are going to be accountable to those who elected them on issues that are disturbing -- in fact on any issue. So often in the past we have come across examples where councils are elected and as a group just don’t give a dam, and are completely unresponsive to citizens’ wishes. Because they are not in a position to form an opposition or otherwise to be made accountable in a normal way, citizens get very upset. That is one of the reasons why in my discussions with local citizens and local groups, I have found them opposed to extending the term of office. When I have raised the possibility of a system of recall being included in municipal elections to overcome this, they feel that would have many advantages.

It is as important that we do long-term planning in local government as it is in this government. I would urge the minister to give consideration to this and, in his planning and discussions, to explore with people the possibility of extending the term and backing it up with a system of recall of some sort.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a few brief remarks on this bill. I didn’t anticipate doing so but since there has been some discussion on a couple of items I’m interested in, I thought I would make a few brief remarks.

One thing I am concerned about -- and I think the member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned it -- is polling places and the accessibility of polling places. I am thinking of this in all elections actually, when we have homes or places such as that to vote at and inconvenience for people getting in to vote. I wonder whether the time will ever come when we can have permanent voting places; it may have to come to that I think.

Nowadays in a municipal election we vote in certain areas at certain homes or certain halls and so forth which are available. Then when the provincial election comes along the polls are moved because the party in power decides it will vote in this area at some other places. If it’s the federal election, maybe there is a different party in power so we vote at John Doe’s down there instead of Joe Blow’s, which we used in the provincial election. People are rather confused all the time, especially when we have a changing population.

As the members know, a number of people are moving much more now than in years ago and it seems to me to be an inconvenience. Something we are going to have to look at, probably, is permanent voting places. I think our schools would be one of the places we are going to have to look at. There again, with the 12 days allowed teachers for whatever they think they might want to do in those 12 days, we could be classifying one of those days as a closing day when there’s an election and we could use our schools for that purpose.

I think that is an idea we should be looking at very seriously now because if we are going to have the pupils out of school for 12 days of the year I don’t see why we shouldn’t make arrangements to have our polling places at the schools. They can have a holiday on that particular day. I think that is one thing we should be looking at very seriously. Our schools are always accessible. I think 95 per cent of them are at ground level where people can walk right inside without any steps to speak of at all. I don’t know why this hasn’t been thought about before but I have never really heard it mentioned since we have had these 12 development days.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is really nothing to do with that in this bill.

Mr. Ruston: Polling has something to do with it; and voting. You didn’t read the bill, Mr. Speaker. My goodness, I’m surprised at you. I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you read all the bills and knew everything that was going on and in that way you could tell if people were in order or not. Now I have my doubts. I’m surprised; however, that’s all right.

Mr. Speaker: I was priding myself on having read it.

Mr. Ruston: That was one thing. Another thing, of course, is the one mentioned here quite a bit and the member for Hamilton Mountain seemed to take exception to what one of our members said.

I think we should have uniformity in this. With the federal government having passed legislation making it mandatory that one must be a Canadian citizen by 1976, I believe a great deal that no matter when we vote -- in a municipal election, provincial election or federal election -- we should have uniformity. In the past in municipal elections, a farmer’s son got the vote but the son of a man who lived in a town didn’t get the vote in a rural area. The people were so confused. Then, when the provincial election came along, everybody had a vote. Now we have done away with that, thank goodness, and everyone over the age of 18 votes in municipal, provincial and federal elections. At least we solved that problem. But the problem I can see in what the member for Riverdale I think it was, mentioned that after one year’s residence he can vote in the municipal election; there again it would be more confusing.

We have got to get this into a uniform routine where once you are eligible to vote, you are eligible to vote in all elections. I don’t think there is really any difference whether you vote for a municipal politician or provincial or federal. You should have the right to vote for all three of them, not just for one at one time and then for the other one five years later. I think we have to make our voting uniform so that people understand it. We have a hard enough time now getting the people out to vote and making sure they are on the voters’ lists and sometimes they get disenfranchised over a very minor thing, so I think that’s very important.

I believe very strongly that one should be a Canadian citizen to have the right to vote. Maybe I have a little partiality in this since my family has married into it. When we all get together we say we have a united nations, and we are pretty proud of it. Some of them have been born in different parts of the world, and one has decided not to have Canadian citizenship. Having been born in the United States, she decided she would maintain her American citizenship so she doesn’t vote here. But that’s her decision.

If people are going to live in Canada, make their living in Canada and bear the fruits of the social advantages that Canada has over any other country in the world -- they are much better; some people are coming here now looking at the social benefits that we have at the age of 65 -- I think they should be willing to take out their Canadian citizenship. If they are going to live here and make their living here and reap the benefits of our country, they ought to.

I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that it should be in the Act that you must be a Canadian citizen.

Mr. Speaker: Any further speakers to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There has been quite a bit of discussion in regard to one particular item, the matter of the British subject, but I think first of all I would like to explain to the members how this amendment to the Municipal Elections Act came about.

We have had very full discussions in recent months with the clerks’ advisory committee of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. We have had very long discussions with the provincial-municipal liaison committee. We have had resolutions from various municipalities. We have had discussions with Metro and with the city of Toronto. What we are trying to do really is to amend the Act to suit those who are working with the Act; and I think that we have, on the overall, achieved that aim.

What we would wish to do is to make any reasonable amendments, but I must say to the members that the liaison committee has said to us that it agrees with all the legislation we have proposed. They have seen a draft of this legislation and I have received their word on that. We want to have this approved as quickly as possible so that the clerks and treasurers and the assessment commissioners can go ahead with the necessary procedure which we have to have for this year’s elections.

Mr. Cassidy: The government controls the timing in this House.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Before we go into each member’s concerns, what we are doing here is an amendment which has been agreed upon by a great many people, not just the government itself.

I would like to start off, with the member for Kitchener and I guess probably we could deal with quite a few people in this particular item of section 5(b), regarding the matter of British subjects.

This matter was discussed with the provincial-municipal liaison committee and other people at great length and there are various views on it. No one had a firm conclusion as to whether it should be left in or taken out.

I personally have some very strong connections with the British people. I certainly don’t wish to see us sever any ties with them. I also have some very strong views in regard to Canadian citizenship. I think it’s time that we stand on our two feet and say the qualification should be a Canadian citizen.

I am not aware whether or not the government will support me on this particular item, but in any event I am making the statement and will be making an amendment.

An hon. member: I think not.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will make an amendment to the Act as it is at the present time. I am disturbed that certain remarks were made this morning which were detrimental to this House. I agree with some of the views that have been expressed by members of the Opposition.

Mr. Cassidy: So much for the member for Hamilton Mountain. He is cut adrift by his own ministry.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I cannot go along with the views expressed by the NDP that landed immigrants should be allowed to vote after one year. I must say to all members that I think one should be a Canadian citizen, one should be a resident in a municipality and one should be 18 years or over in order to vote.

Mr. Renwick: We agree with the residency and the 18 years.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Yorkview, the member for Ottawa Centre and maybe someone else too -- I have made some notes here -- brought up the question of whether or not they should be voting in more than one municipality. We agree there is only one way they can vote, as far as the new regions are concerned; that is in the area municipality they have one vote, but they have another vote if they own land outside the area municipality.

I think the same thing applies to those who have permanent residences and temporary residences in the way of cottage owners. We must allow the people in Ontario to have the right to vote in their permanent home and the right to vote outside.

Mr. Cassidy: What democratic principle that is based on is beyond me.

An hon. member: No taxation without representation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Therefore I strongly object to any amendment which would remove the right of the person to vote in more than one municipality.

Mr. Cassidy: Any anachronism to be found will be supported by the Conservative government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for St. George and also the member for York Centre brought up the matter of uniformity of elections. What we are trying to do in this particular instance is to bring on all elections at the same time. I think this is very necessary. We have in the past had elections going on at many different times throughout the province. What we are doing in this particular case is making sure that elections will be at the same time starting in the fall of 1976.

We have to consider in the future the point that was brought up by both members as to the length of term. I think we have to have further discussions so as to decide how we might broaden the term as it now exists. There is some merit, in my opinion, in considering the possibility of having longer terms for regional municipalities or large cities.

I don’t know where one cuts it off. I’d like to have more time to discuss with the elected people in the province any amendment we might want to make to this particular term of two years. I say to the members that we will do that in the coming months to try to find a satisfactory solution which will allow people to plan for a longer term. I recognize the validity of this, and I think all members would too.

There is also the fact that we must look at, that smaller municipalities may have to have only a two-year term.

I give my commitment to the members that we will endeavour to come up with a resolution to this problem of a longer term for municipalities.

Mr. Deacon: May I suggest what is needed is a longer term planning period.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s possible if they have the proper staff and proper people elected.

Mr. Deacon: That is putting too much weight and emphasis on the bureaucracy.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have turned back more powers to the elected people, as the hon. member is aware I am sure, than ever before; and we intend to turn back more.

Mr. Deacon: But to a regional level which is beyond reach of the people.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But we also have to make sure the people who elect those people are protected also.

The member for Peel South brought up a very good point.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister the secret agent for the Liberal Party?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We certainly don’t want to have any discrimination, nor have we as a matter of fact, if I can find my notes here. I understand the Interpretation Act, under section 27, clause (j), provides that wherever the word “he” is used in legislation it includes the word “she” in its use. The opposite is also possible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If it would make the members happier, certainly I would be only too pleased to see that we amend this particular legislation to make it very clear that it applies to both he and she; no problem.

Mr. Renwick: Whenever the “she” is used.

Mr. Cassidy: That is victory for the rights of women. It’s the biggest advance for women that’s been made in this Legislature for a decade.

Mr. Renwick: Next to cutting out the transportation home at midnight.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned the possibility of a strike interfering with the publication of notices but in the legislation we do allow the clerk, regardless of whether or not there is a strike, to print and post the necessary notices of elections and the enumeration lists. I don’t think this is really a matter that should concern us. It is covered in the legislation at the present time.

The fact of polling booths in hospitals was brought up. Unless I misunderstood the member, the Act provides for polling booths in hospitals and makes it permissible to have a polling booth in a nursing home. The point we are making sure of is that --

Mrs. Campbell: Not in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I understand it does require a poll in a hospital. If I am wrong, I would like the member to correct me on that.

Mr. Good: Read section 28.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Section 28 reads “where in a municipality there is situate a hospital or other institution,” and I think if we carry on with the whole of section 1, the member will find out there is the necessity to have a polling booth there. It says “shall be provided in such an institution or upon the premises.” That is pretty clear as far as I am concerned.

Mrs. Campbell: That section means such institutions, and it relates to a special kind --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It goes on: “And may be provided in a nursing home or other institution of 20 beds or more in which the chronically ill or infirm shall reside.” Therefore, I think we have hospitals included in our legislation. I would be willing to have my legal staff look into it to clarify it, if there is need of clarification.

The member for Waterloo North brought up the necessity for an oath and thought that a person should only affirm that they are qualified. I don’t know how one would do this and I would be interested in hearing his views, when we go into committee of the whole House, as to how one would affirm without taking an oath. I think one would have to have the oath. I would be pleased to have his views on it, though.

Mrs. Campbell: It is a recommendation because he believes in religious freedom.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Essex-Kent, and I think one other member, mentioned the accessibility of polling places. This is a matter of local jurisdiction. To my knowledge they always make them as accessible as possible, on the ground floor. I don’t think this is a problem which should be dealt with in legislation but should be dealt with at the local level. I think the local people should make sure that polling places are accessible.

Mr. B. Newman: How does a wheelchair patient get in?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That is a matter which should be dealt with at the local level and certainly they should provide a polling place in an accessible spot.

Mr. Cassidy: No.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I think they do in most cases.

Mr. Cassidy: There should be the right to transfer the votes of wheelchair patients to other places and the government should have an amendment to that effect.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, every member has his own views, but in any event what I am saying to you is that is my interpretation of what has transpired here this morning. I say again the people who are very much affected, the local elected people plus the locally appointed people, are the ones who have requested these amendments be put through as quickly as possible. We will make the necessary amendments that I have mentioned in the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 65. Shall this motion carry?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption we are going into committee and the minister will be bringing amendments in the form suggested on this side of the House, we will not divide.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the bill is to be ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, do you not call for the “ayes” and “nays”? On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: We are supposed to have a voice vote on the bill, I believe.

Mr. Speaker: I asked if the motion shall carry and there were no “nays”, so the vote is carried.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the way we do it here.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, that’s fine. Another flip-flop by the Liberal Party. It opposes the bill until it backs down at the very last minute.

Mr. Ruston: The member didn’t know what was going on.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: I didn’t know the Liberals supported the government.

Mr. Renwick: I guess the member for Hamilton Mountain was right. There is some question raised here.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have to get the amendments made up now.

Mr. Cassidy: This may be his last day as minister.

Mr. Renwick: Just think a little bit.

Mr. Cassidy: Wait until the Premier finds out what he is doing.

Mr. Renwick: Let him just think before he does that.

Mr. Cassidy: He caved in under pressure from the opposition party.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I find it difficult to listen to both people at once.

Mr. Deans: He did say he thought it wasn’t a bad idea. He did say that, didn’t he?

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

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

House in committee on Bill 85, an Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

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

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, the first four sections appear to be reasonably direct because there are some minor amendments which are being tabled concerning some general provisions in the Act.

The first section about which we would have any comment to make, of course, would be section 5. The minister has, as I understood it, decided to bring in an amendment and I would look forward to having the amendment placed by the minister.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before section 5?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, we also have an amendment to section 5. I gather the minister has one.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me a minute to get the proper amendments, we will do so.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): This is going to be a pretty interesting amendment.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Are you really going to do this?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Are you sure you heard right, or are you going to tell him what to think?

Mr. Deans: I am going to speak to the section -

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: He doesn’t have to move his amendment. I can speak to the section before the amendment comes, if you don’t mind. It is going to be interesting, how we are going to deal with this. If we delete “British subject” --

Mr. Renwick: I know how we are going to deal with it. I would like the chairman to have his usual impartiality in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: He will.

Mr. Deans: I want to know. I want to direct a thought to the minister. How could it be that a British subject would not be eligible to vote in municipal election but would, by law, be eligible to run for office? Because he would. I am speaking about running for municipal office. In order to do this -- this is inconsistent with existing legislation. I’ll wait until he comes back.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Speak against the amendment.

Mr. Deans: I am going to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister is consulting his legal advisers but we are about to see a rather outlandish situation in which the minister has decided, with a stroke of his hand, to disenfranchise a certain group of landed immigrants in Canada who are eligible to vote provincially.

Mr. Chairman: Just a moment. I don’t mind a general comment like the last one but let’s wait for the minister’s amendment before we get into the specifics of it.

Mr. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to --

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to make a motion then, Mr. Chairman, and move our amendment-

Mr. Chairman: No --

Mr. Deans: You can’t stop him.

Mr. Renwick: You can’t stop him from moving an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: There was an agreement to wait for the minister to bring his amendments back here.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Cassidy: We didn’t agree to that, no. I would move that clause 5 be amended by deleting the words “or other British subjects” in subsection 12(b) and subsection 13(b) and by substituting the words “or a landed immigrant of at least one year’s residence in Canada.” I will send that over to you and --

Mr. Chairman: Since there was an agreement to wait for the minister to bring in his amendment, I would appreciate it if you would hold this.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, there was no such agreement.

Mr. Chairman: There certainly was.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can speak --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mir. Deans: The minister cannot bring in his amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I am not going to put the amendment. Furthermore, there was an agreement, because I let the member for Wentworth make some general observations while we were, in his words, “killing time.”

Mr. Cassidy: We were on clause 5, and it is quite open for the member for Wentworth to make general comments on clause 5. I am now presenting an amendment to clause 5 in the form which it is considered.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: You’ve done it again, Don.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister ready with his amendment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will be in a moment.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister is not ready with his amendment. I suggest very seriously that you are bound by the rules of this House to accept the amendment we have just put forward.

Mr. Deans: We must proceed with the business of the House. We can’t sit and do nothing.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. And if the minister chooses to bring in an amendment subsequently, that can be considered. I am just writing it out. Possibly the member for Riverdale wants to make one or two comments about the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has precedence, and the minister is waiting to bring in his amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is a member of this Legislature, like every other member.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The minister does not have precedence in the committee of the whole House. Let’s not remake the rules this morning.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I thought this was agreed to a few minutes ago.

An hon. member: It was.

Mr. Renwick: It’s not a question of it being agreed to at all --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, if you will recall the earlier comments on second reading and the comment I made to Mr. Speaker that the matter would not be divided on since the minister had apparently accepted our amendment, that when the matter was then called for committee I rose and commented that we would be looking forward to having the minister’s amendment because there seems very little value in continuing with the discussion of a section if it is about to be amended. If the minister chooses to place his amendment now, we can of course discuss the section or otherwise.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, as usual, I would like, once again, to make our position clear. We are not --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Renwick: We in this party are not about to disenfranchise any group of people in the Province of Ontario.

An hon. member: You are right.

Mr. Renwick: If the Tory party and the Liberal Party have fallen into the trap that they are going to disenfranchise a group that already has the municipal vote in Ontario, fine --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You keep saying that. You will have to say it a lot.

Mr. Renwick: I want to see the legerdemain going on under the gallery that can produce the result of limiting the municipal vote in the Province of Ontario to Canadian citizens, without disenfranchising British subjects who have had the vote in some instances for many years.

Mr. Deans: Fifty or 60 years perhaps.

Mr. Renwick: What we were talking about was something quite different; that was, to extend the franchise to include persons whose connection with the country is recognized as landed immigrant status. But let’s not get ourselves into the box at this hour on a Friday afternoon, because of the ridiculous statements made by the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith), of finding ourselves disenfranchising British subjects.

You can’t disenfranchise the British subjects in my riding over anything but my “nay” vote. I am suggesting that I am glad to see that the whip is in here because he obviously feels equally strongly with me.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): I am not the whip.

Mr. Renwick: The former whip or whatever he was.

I was just going to say, are you going to disenfranchise British subjects or not?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on section 5, I would just suggest that it would be quite possible for us to change this bill even over the hon. member’s “nay” vote. That is precisely why we are here. We are here to provide amendments, both from the opposition and from the government, and to vote upon them after discussion. If the hon. member for Riverdale wants to vote against us, that would be quite all right with me --

Mr. Renwick: We tried to put an amendment and the chairman won’t accept it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- because in this particular circumstance we have discussed at length this morning the proposition that the time has come for us to move towards the emphasis on Canadian citizenship as the citizenship requirement to take part in municipal elections. I would also hope that it would be extended through other areas of government as a matter of policy, as in fact it has already been extended in certain specific matters that have already been discussed by the House.

For anybody to suggest that we are taking action against any group is unwarranted --

Mr. Renwick: You are taking the vote away.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- because surely, we in this House, have the responsibility to emphasize the --

Mr. Renwick: The member is taking the vote away.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- duties and responsibilities that go with Canadian citizenship.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Now we were prepared to divide the House on second reading on that basis. The minister gave us his commitment, which we heard -- and, Mr. Chairman, I’m sure you heard it as well -- that he agreed with our position; that he had discussed the matter with those people at the municipal level and they really couldn’t make up their mind; that some people felt it should be one way and some the other --

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- that undoubtedly the Minister without Portfolio has responsibility in this area; that he has the power to express a view which he has already done. And I would presume his cabinet colleagues and his supporters in the Conservative Party would support an amendment of the type which was indicated which would be surely just to strike out the words “or other British subject.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister has got his amendment now. If he does, then in fact I will yield to the minister in order to find out the wording that he wants to put forward.

We’ve made it clear what we want to do. He’s indicated clearly in the House that he wants to strike out the right of British subjects to vote at the local level, but I would like to know what his amendment is and perhaps we can deal with that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, it’s not our point, in speaking as I did before, to disenfranchise anyone. What we said was that we are going to --

Mr. Deans: That’s what you’re doing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- try to make it uniform as to who should vote in elections. Now there is, as I understand it from our advisers, no uniformity in the way of voting at the present time. I expressed a personal opinion that for municipal elections I felt -- and I stand on that -- that it should be a Canadian citizen; that it should be someone over 18 years old --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And a resident.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and a resident of the municipality. Those were the qualifications that I mentioned before and I repeat them again. The hon. member has spoken very strongly about disenfranchising some of the British subjects in his municipality. It is not our intention to do so.

Mr. Deans: That’s what you’re doing. Are you going to move your amendment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But I say to you that when you say that we want landed immigrants to vote, then you are going --

Mr. Deans: Are you going to move your amendment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- much farther than we would, with a qualification of one year.

Mr. Renwick: I understand that, but what about the first part? Are you going to move the amendment?

Mr. Deans: Are you going to move the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment here.

Mr. Deans: Let’s hear it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I realize that this amendment will create some problems in other areas.

Mr. Deans: Are you going to move it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: However, I still think that we should do it.

Mr. Deans: Why don t you do it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as I am concerned, I intend to move this amendment.

Mr. Deans: Well, we will wait breathlessly.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves that section 12, clause (b) of the Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by striking out “or other British subjects;” and further moves that clause (b) of section 13 of the Act, also as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by striking out “or other British subjects.”

Mr. Deans: If I may, Mr. Chairman. Why don’t you stand it down until Monday?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, originally when the bill was called I had spoken with respect to this particular item. Some other members of the House, certainly in our party, have found favour with and have commented on these views with respect to this particular situation. We certainly support the amendment that this minister is bringing forward for involvement of persons who can vote in municipal elections.

As I said in my earlier remarks on second reading, we do not in any way want to disenfranchise those persons who can become Canadian citizens if they choose from voting in an Ontario municipal election. That is at least my understanding of the situation. I believe that persons who vote within Ontario at the municipal level should be Canadian citizens and I think that this is a positive step.

We are not attempting in any way to denigrate the heritage or history of the province. Nor are we attempting to deal unfairly with people. We are, rather, being positive and suggesting that in a situation such as this those who have committed themselves to Canadian citizenship should have the right and, indeed, the personal responsibility to vote for their elected representatives.

The matter of being a British subject is no longer the strongest outside immigrant route, and as a result, under the present legislation, or as it would have been proposed, we are really discriminating against many others who might have been here for a year or so. Because some come from one country within the Commonwealth they would have a right to vote, and someone else who comes from another country out- side of the Commonwealth would not have a right to vote.

Mr. Renwick: We want it both ways.

Mr. Breithaupt: That distinction is not a fair one, because those who have come to our country and committed themselves to citizenship are surely the best group upon which we can uniformly decide what the responsibilities of elections are within the province.

The members in the New Democratic Party have made suggestions about rights that could be given to landed immigrants, and indeed there may well be merit in this and a further amendment may well come on this section with respect to the encouragement of landed immigrants to involve themselves in the electoral process, by giving landed immigrants the right to vote perhaps within a year or so of coming to Ontario. There is some merit there, because that could be an encouragement for people to get involved at the municipal level, with the anticipation that once they did become citizens they would of course have the right to vote at the provincial or federal levels. I think that that is worthy of some consideration.

However, at the present time we are dealing with the amendment which the minister has put forward. We believe it is a positive one and we will certainly support it and assist the minister in a division, if he requires it, in committee.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, the truncating and the positive discrimination involved in this thing can perhaps be highlighted by indicating that if I had it my way, there would be more added rather than something subtracted, mainly that after the words “or other British subjects” I might be disposed to add on “or those of Celtic origin.”

Mr. Breithaupt: I am a Celt.

Mr. Lawlor: I might even extend the principle to the Gallic coast of France, which has contributed so much to British government. Or if you pushed me, Mr. Chairman, I might go down to Basque country in northern Spain and all the influence of the Basques upon the Spanish Armada where they were wrecked off the coast and landed somewhere in Limerick, where they made up little rhymes for one another and hence the derivation. It might be very valuable in this particular context.

But being broadminded and full of magnanimity this morning, I say that the term “British subject” -- and I can’t refrain from saying that the one thing my forefathers were most anxious to do was to sacrifice, if that’s the word, their British subjectivity. They managed to extricate themselves after a number of centuries and today they are in a magnificent quarrel among themselves. But leaving that aside, the term has come in world politics --

Mr. Renwick: Are you speaking about the Irish troubles?

Mr. Lawlor: -- to assume a very wide dimension indeed. People from Pakistan, people coming from India, the numerous people arriving on our shores today from the Caribbean islands, and people from Northern Ireland, etc., have all fallen under this designation for a long time. They have made their homes here.

The last time this kind of question arose in the Legislature, about three or four years ago, I can remember an inundation of individuals phoning me, writing me, about being pilloried, about somehow being subjected to what they consider -- and this is one of these emotional, ticklish issues, I am warning you. As a matter of fact the only reason I am standing here at the present moment is to use up time, Mr. Chairman, to gain a few moments for the minister so that --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: -- his thought processes may get back into congruence of one land or another, and he may have an opportunity to consult the powers that be over here before he plunges himself into this. You may think it’s a minor matter -- what’s a few words? -- but we will find in due course what it is.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to move the sub-amendment. I have already sought to move it, but as per the agreement which you seem to have understood existed, we were to wait for the minister’s amendment first, so I therefore reworded the sub-amendment.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 5 be further amended by adding the words in subsection 12(b) and subsection 13(b) “or landed immigrants of at least one year’s residence in Canada.”

Mr. Lawlor: After the word “citizen.”

Mr. Cassidy: I think it comes clear -- after the word what?

Mr. Renwick: After the word “citizen.”

Mr. Cassidy: After the word “citizen;” I’ll just write that down.

As other members of my party have made clear, we are seeking to enlarge rights rather than to diminish them. I find it exceptionally curious that the member for Grenville-Dundas would be proposing to strip away from a certain group in Ontario society at the municipal level a right which they continue to enjoy at the provincial level.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: And I would suggest the sub-amendment that we are putting forward, is consistent with the provincial election law which demands of British subjects who have the right to vote at the provincial level in Ontario that they have at least 12 months’ residence in Ontario. Now, we have said there 12 months’ residence in Canada; if the minister wished to make it 12 months’ residence in Ontario, we wouldn’t particularly object.

But it seems totally inconsistent that British subjects are to be disenfranchised by the weight of this minister and his government at the municipal level when they continue to enjoy the right to vote at the provincial level. In fact, when the question has come up in the past, the government has been staunch in its defence of the British connection. And for the member for Grenville-Dundas, with the origins of that particular county and that particular part of the province, to be the man who breaks that connection without putting anything in its place is, it seems to me, a particular affront to the traditional roots of the Conservative Party.

I am not trying to make a particular pitch for any particular vote. I am suggesting that on general principle anybody who makes the commitment to come to Canada, to stay in Ontario, to land here -- we know that most of them remain here once they have landed and stayed for more than a few months -- that they should have the right to vote at the level that affects them most --

Mr. Renwick: You cannot take the vote away.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and that this is an excellent way of acclimatizing people to Canadian political life, of teaching people about their political rights which in certain cases they did not enjoy in their home country, of preparing them to exercise the full responsibilities of citizenship when, after the six or seven years that it takes on average, they become Canadian citizens and have the right to vote at the provincial and at the federal levels. It seems to be a very good introduction to Canadian political life and that is why we comment this sub-amendment to the minister, which enlarges rights rather than do what the minister and the Liberal opposition are doing, which is to take rights away.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves an amendment to the amendment --

Mr. Deans: Well, we want to speak on it.

Mr. Cassidy: There’s no vote yet.

Mr. Chairman: Can I read his amendment first? I just want to have it clear in my mind, all right?

Mr. Cassidy moves the amendment to the amendment that section 5 be further amended by adding in subsection 12(b) and subsection 13(b) the words, “or landed immigrants of at least one year’s residence in Canada,” after the word “citizen.”

I have it clear in my mind -- because there have been some deletions on this paper -- that that section would read “is a Canadian citizen, or landed immigrant of at least one year’s residence in Canada.” Is that right?

Mr. Deans: That’s correct.

Mr. Chairman, I have got to confess I am a little amazed at the change that is being suggested in the committee. This instant policy worries me because there are very far reaching effects. I suspect, if I may say so, that it is the kind of change that really ought to have had prior approval by the cabinet. It is an alteration of the existing policy of government, a vital alteration that affects a goodly number of people across the province. No matter how the minister couches it, he is about to disenfranchise a large number of people in the Province of Ontario.

That kind of a change requires more than a five-minute consideration.

Mr. Breithaupt: We have been at it two hours now.

Mr. Deans: Well, that’s fine, but five minutes in terms of the ministry. It requires considerably more than just to stand up and say, “I personally feel and therefore I am going to make the change.” The minister and I know that he personally feels a lot of things, but that doesn’t always sit with the cabinet.

I am really quite distressed by the prospect of what will occur as a result of this. There are people in this country who have contributed considerably to the growth of the country. They have contributed for a number of years and have had certain rights conferred upon them by law, and they exercise those rights. They have exercised them in electing the Conservative government here as they have exercised them in electing opposition members. They have exercised them in electing council members and even to this day they are entitled to exercise those rights in electing federal members.

A change of this kind is a very serious and severe break with the traditions of Canada and the traditions of Ontario. It is not something to be taken lightly. I think if we were going to consider changing the electoral requirements, we should have given more serious consideration to the suggestion of my colleague. It may well be that as we put it forward one year may not be enough, maybe there should be a time period in excess of a year.

If there is to be a change in the eligibility of individuals in Ontario to vote at municipal, federal or provincial elections, we have to consider whether we should do it by disenfranchising those who currently have a right or by extending it to others who are also contributing. These people are, as are all other people, entitled to own property. They are entitled to pay taxes. They are entitled to take part in every other sense in the Canadian way of life. If the minister is going to begin to change that, then surely he should begin by deciding what their entitlement ought to be, whether or not maybe it is reasonable that a person who isn’t entitled to representation should be entitled to own property. I think that this is where the thing should begin.

I want to urge the minister, since it is 12:51 and we are not going to vote today, to stand the section down, take it back to his cabinet colleagues, and consider whether this is really the appropriate thing to do, notwithstanding what his own personal feelings might be.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, before we have any further debate, I am fully aware of the seriousness of this particular section. I said it was a personal view and I am quite prepared to stand it down; but I do think that we have to have uniformity and I have been advised that we do not have that. There may have to be an amendment which is not before us at the present time. All I say to the members is that I feel it is time that we do come up with uniformity throughout Canada and that includes, in my opinion, the municipal elections.

However, I will be quite happy to stand the section down until the first of the week and listen and try to understand what the member for Ottawa Centre was saying in regard to landed immigrants.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That’s pretty hard.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister can’t do that with the arguments that were given.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I just don’t follow the two arguments that were given to us from the NDP.

Mr. Deans: Did the minister understand what I said?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I understood what you said, but I would like to give more consideration to what the member for Ottawa Centre said. I think that’s fair enough that we do so. I would therefore suggest that we stand section 5 down at this particular time. It will give us all time to consider the ramifications.

Mr. Cassidy: You are the one who needs it especially. We know where we stand. The Liberals seem to know where they stand.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: We can’t just have a personal opinion. You speak for the government when you put that amendment.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be very much remiss if we didn’t discuss this section in its entirety and fully, as all members should. We’ll do that on Monday, I would suggest.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, just before this is dealt with in any way, even the standing down, I would commend to the minister’s attention the discussions and the reports -- I tried to find them but I couldn’t quickly lay my hands on them -- of the election law select committee, when these aspects were discussed. Certainly it isn’t the intention of my colleagues or myself to disenfranchise anyone.

Mr. Deans: It sure is.

Mr. Cassidy: It sure was.

Mr. Singer: There were draft clauses in those reports, and I think the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) would remember them, which dealt with this specific facet, that people who presently have the right to vote be continued in that up to a certain period of time and be given a reasonable time to become Canadian citizens. I think the federal Election Act has a similar kind of requirement. That could well be incorporated as part of the same thing.

I agree that it would be unfair arbitrarily to remove the right to vote from people who had the franchise for many years under what was then the law or under what is still the law. On the other hand, the business of Canadian citizenship --

Mr. Cassidy: They’ve flip-flopped just as much as you have.

Mr. Singer: I wish the member for Ottawa Centre could sit quietly just once and listen to somebody else’s view other than his own.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): We would if the Liberal opposition had any.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): What’s wrong with you this morning?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: What I am trying to say, Mr. Chairman, if you could keep the yahoo quiet, is that this is a --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Singer: -- question that has been under serious discussion by members of this Legislature for a long period of time, as to the kind of consideration that must be given to not unfairly disenfranchising people who have the right to vote under existing law. There are draft clauses in the select committee’s report, so we are going back several years.

Mr. Lawlor: Be honest with yourself. Are you reversing yourself or not?

Mr. Singer: The federal people did the same thing and I think we should move forward. With those precautions, then the amendment, I think, can properly carry. I can’t accept the blanket kind of amendment that is put forward by the member for Riverdale. I think that’s unreasonable and illogical, but I think the amendment put forward by --

Mr. Cassidy: It’s not a blanket amendment, it’s a very good one.

Mr. Singer: -- the minister, after the suggestions that came from this side of the House and from the Liberal Party, are logical and reasonable, and that is what we want with appropriate safeguards. I think a little research within the department would turn up, for example, the kind of clauses that we will be glad to support to protect those people who might be otherwise unfairly dealt with.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with those members who have said that we should consider both of these amendments carefully over the weekend --

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, that’s right.

Hon. Mr. White: -- in part because there are only four socialists in the House. I think it would be too bad to embark upon this new course of action when the socialists are so obviously and grossly under-represented here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: For hour after hour there were about three Conservatives in this House.

Mr. Cassidy: You weren’t here when your minister made the mistake.

Mr. Foulds: Our 20 per cent attendance is equivalent to your 20 per cent attendance.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): And it’s not quality either, I’ll tell you that.

Hon. Mr. White: No.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Foulds: In fact, we have 25 per cent attendance.

Hon. Mr. White: If I may speak for a few minutes seriously and substantively, I understand the several points that have been put forward. I agree with my colleague that there should be a consistency in the requirements for electors at the several levels of government right across this country.

Mr. Ruston: Right, uniformity.

Hon. Mr. White: I quite understand the argument being advanced by the NDP that the franchise should be broadened and not narrowed, and I am going to come back to that in a moment. I understand likewise the Liberal position which is to say that the clause “or British subject” be now removed.

Mr. Cassidy: We could vote with the government. It is also the government’s position.

Hon. Mr. White: I, myself, am a new Canadian. I wanted to vote when I became of age and I thereupon renounced my American citizenship and became a Canadian citizen. I think that was not inappropriate. I think if I wanted to be an elector for municipal councils and other levels of government that it was incumbent upon me to become a Canadian.

Mr. Justice McRuer, in his monumental work, urges that directors, governors and others in quasi-public institutions like universities, be Canadian citizens in that they are dispensing a very substantial amount of public moneys --

Mr. Lawlor: That’s okay.

Hon. Mr. White: -- which adds some strength to the argument and to the amendment being offered by my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio.

Mr. Lawlor: Not really.

Hon. Mr. White: At the same time, it is beguiling to think that a landed immigrant, having been here for a year, would have the apprenticeship training, so to speak, of entering into a municipal election.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, that’s right. It is a constructive suggestion.

Hon. Mr. White: So this is a matter that no doubt all members of the Legislature will want to think about for a few days. I do believe that if such an amendment were adopted by the committee the elector would thereupon be automatically qualified to be a candidate for municipal council.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s correct.

Hon. Mr. White: This poses a conundrum, does it not? The member for Lakeshore nodded his head in agreement with Mr. McRuer, if I’m not mistaken.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, that’s right, on the McRuer thing,

Hon. Mr. White: If we are to require members of the board of governors of the University of Western Ontario to be Canadian citizens, as I do believe we are --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. White: -- is it not reasonable to require persons on municipal councils to be Canadian citizens in that they are spending enormous amounts of public money also?

Mr. Breithaupt: It is the happiest choice, we think.

Hon. Mr. White: So, here we are, torn between our desire to educate and involve the participation of newcomers and at the same time to protect the integrity of the body politic at its several levels here in Canada. For these reasons I think we should give careful consideration to the matter over the weekend and then come back, having informed ourselves, having had the opportunity no doubt of discussing it with our colleagues, and come back in with a thoughtful and decisive point of view to express by way of legislation at that time.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a very diplomatic retreat. I commend the minister for that statement.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Chairman, can I suggest that when we think this over we seriously consider that whatever action we decide upon should take place some years hence.

Mr. Cassidy: Let’s never rush into the future.

Mr. Lawlor: How about 50 years?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I think it is quite proper to advise the public that we are going to do this interpretation and that it will take place several years from now, otherwise I will find myself voting against my colleague which I really don’t want to do. If the Treasurer is worried about only four over there to call a vote, I am with them, so there would be five.

Mr. Deans: We know that. That is why we sent the member for Riverdale home.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I would like to advise the hon. members that on Monday we will proceed with Bill 25.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.