Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 98, An Act to revise the Municipal Elections Act.

The hon. member for Essex North has the floor.

Mr. Ruston: I would like to say a few words with regard to this bill. I live in the area of Essex county which, a few years ago, was involved in a severe storm in December that disrupted the municipal election. Most of the municipalities in the county managed to conduct their elections on the day of the election, or finished the day after the election, without too much controversy.

Many members are aware, I’m sure, of what the city of Windsor did in conducting its election, which were later challenged in the county court. The actions of the elections officer, who was also the city clerk, were ruled valid by the county court. The decision was appealed in the division court, which also ruled the election valid.

It would appear from a layman’s point of view, that in this particular case the judge had no alternative but to rule in favour of the clerk’s conduct.

This was for two reasons. He could do nothing else under the circumstances. By the time it reached the division court, the council had been in office for about seven or eight months. If there had been an upset at that time there would have been complete chaos in the city of Windsor, through the school boards, the public utilities commission and the council. I would imagine that there wasn’t any other decision the judge could have made which would have been correct. I don’t suppose that anyone would want to be in the judge’s position having to make that decision, because, no doubt, under the law at that time some things were done that were not according to Hoyle, but done due to the circumstances at the time.

One thing that concerns me about the Act is section 69, “Declaration of an emergency by the clerk.” The actions of the clerk of the city of Windsor were comparable to those in section 69(3), which reads: “The arrangements made by the clerk under subsection 2, in good faith, shall not be open to question, or be quashed, set aside or declared invalid on account of their unreasonableness or supposed unreasonableness.” This is a new part of the elections Act.

This might be difficult for the clerk at times, if there was to be such an emergency as that in Essex county. On the other hand, if the election date is moved up to the second Monday in November the probabilities of anything like that happening again are very remote and perhaps wouldn’t happen in a 50-year cycle anyway.

There is no guideline set out that I can find which might guide the clerk. Apparently he must pretty well use his own judgement; of course, that’s really what section 69 says. I suppose it would be pretty hard for anyone to challenge it and say that he was unreasonable. Most clerks have responsible jobs and I am sure they are responsible people, so I suppose it would be difficult for anyone wishing to challenge an election. On that basis, I think it might be very difficult to find that the clerk was unreasonable in what he did in an emergency.

In the system of challenging anything, you now go before the county court, but I wonder whether the minister or the parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), can say if there has ever been any thought in any of their discussions as to having this challenged by way of a notice of motion. I understand that might be less adversarial to some extent. I discussed this with a friend of mine who has been involved in these matters to some extent and he thought it would be a less adversarial system if there was some way of doing it in that way. But that’s just a thought, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant might comment on that when he’s replying to those who have spoken on the bill.

Another area of the bill which I think is better than the old Act is section 33, dealing with persons whose names have been left off the list. I don’t want to get involved in discussing the bill section by section; these are some of the things that concern me in broad terms, but we can deal with them in detail in committee. My interpretation of section 33 is that you are allowed up until the closing of the poll to have your name added to the list by the clerk. This is of concern to me.

I can recall a number of years ago taking someone down to vote, without checking the voters’ list. The person had lived in the municipality for 35 years or 40 years, I think, but when we got there we discovered the name had been left off the list. We went to the clerk and found that the name apparently never had been put on the assessment roll, so he could not give him a slip to vote. To this day, I think, that person has never voted in a municipal election and yet he is Canadian-born and has lived in Canada all his life. He was very concerned because he didn’t think anyone would ever leave his name off the list. We all know, of course, that there is a list posted somewhere, but it is sometimes difficult to find. Most people, especially people who have lived in a community all their lives, just don’t take the time to look at the list to see if their name is on it; this is understandable. People moving in, of course, quite often will inquire because they are concerned whether their name is on the list.

I think we have to make sure that if someone’s name is left off by mistake or inadvertently that there is some way the clerk can put the name on the list even if they are not listed on the assessment roll, especially if we know that the people have lived in the community for a certain length of time. Certainly we don’t want to deprive anybody of the right to vote; in fact, we must do everything we can to see that their names are on the list and they are not discouraged from voting.

Another area of concern is whether the requirement of 10 electors’ names to be a candidate is enough. I don’t know. Where we don’t require any deposit or anything to run for office, I can see nothing wrong with having a larger number of electors to sign your papers to be a candidate. In a free democratic system, I suppose we shouldn’t try to discourage anyone, but I don’t think it would be much discouragement to anyone if we were to insist on 25 names. Again, it’s a thought, and I hadn’t thought of it as an amendment, but I am sure this must have been mentioned when the parliamentary assistant was discussing this with municipal officials. Perhaps he would have an answer that would be satisfactory.

I haven’t got a great deal more to say, but there was one thing I wanted to comment on. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) gave a great speech here before the dinner hour. He was saying they should vote in October. I can see why his party doesn’t have any farm people in the Ontario Legislature when he talks like that. He wants to have the vote in the second week of October. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in Essex county and southern and western Ontario that is about the busiest time for farmers there is, taking off the crop.

The asphalt farmers down there just don’t understand that you have to get your grain off in the fall of the year; it has to be taken off and you can’t be running up and down the roads campaigning for reeve or deputy reeve or council.

Mr. Swart: You don’t get your grain off until the middle of October? Boy, you are late up there.

Mr. Ruston: I am just surprised at that man, who wasn’t in municipal politics for 21 years. Maybe they voted to send him here to get rid of him, I don’t know. I am ashamed that man would want to deprive farm people of running for office and municipal council. And that is just what he was doing.

If he wants to have a vote in October in the cities and so forth, that’s fine. I couldn’t care less. You can have them the first of October or the end of September. it wouldn’t matter to me. But I am telling the House, as long as I am a member of this Legislature I’ll speak up. I don’t care what party decides they want the vote to be early in October, they are going to have to fight against me. I’ll tell you how long I can filibuster if I have to, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to bring a couple of those things to the members’ attention, and I’ll bring them up with the parliamentary assistant if he doesn’t answer them in committee.

Mr. Foulds: What kind of irrational remark was that?

Mr. Ruston: What does the member for Hamilton Mountain think of that?

Mr. Charlton: I am somewhat pleased to see this bill here, because it does provide some useful changes to the Municipal Elections Act. Contrary to the opinions of our hon. friend down this end, I sincerely feel the bill doesn’t go far enough in moving up the election date.

I feel very strongly the date should be in October, and in response to his comments about farmers and their ability to participate, I seem to recall a number of provincial and federal elections held in the fall, in late September, the middle of October, and late October. I haven’t seen any great lack of interest or participation on the part of the farm community in those elections.

When we consider the election date for municipal elections, we have to consider the participation of the electorate in the municipalities. One of the things we have to take a serious look at when we are considering is the kind of turnout we have had in Ontario in municipal elections. It is a turnout that runs between 25 and 35 per cent on the average -- and that’s just pathetic. We here have to be doing as much as we can possibly do to see that record is improved, to help bring municipal electors into active participation in municipal campaigns.

The Treasurer has indicated on a number of occasions municipal elections can’t be held any earlier than the date he is proposing in this bill because of the enumeration procedures. On a number of occasions I have worked in the municipal enumeration in this province and I am extremely familiar with the workings of that process. I find myself in a position of having to disagree very strongly with the Treasurer. Perhaps if he had ever worked in the municipal enumeration process he would know better. Maybe that is what he should do before making that kind of a decision.

Mr. Warner: He should go somewhere.

Mr. Davison: He should resign and do that for a living.

Mr. Charlton: Right. There is absolutely no reason at all why the enumeration procedure cannot be altered very slightly --

Mr. Martel: He has already left.

Mr. Charlton: -- and accommodate a municipal election day right across the province between October 16 and October 22. I would like to speak briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the proposition of some minor changes in the enumeration process so we can accomplish a much earlier date for municipal elections.

[8:15]

It would be no great or difficult task for the assessment commissioners who now hold the responsibility for the enumeration to tack one or two days on to the field time of their enumerators, which now totals far less than two weeks, in order that those enumerators could type up lists of the electors in the municipality by poll in an identical fashion to what we now use in the provincial and federal campaigns. We have definite proof that the process works and is not excessively complicated. The assessment commissioner could then turn those typed lists over to the municipal clerk as a preliminary election list and then continue on with his procedure as now set out. Any errors that he finds in the original typed lists through the process of his input can be forwarded to the municipality in the form of revisions.

The clerks of the municipalities could quite easily provide special enumerators, as we do provincially and federally, to go through the process of picking up those people who inform his office they’ve been left off the preliminary lists. There is already provision under the existing Municipal Elections Act for the clerk to issue certificates to those electors who present themselves to him after the revision dates are over, right up to and including the eve of the election. There is ample provision to see that every elector who is in any way serious about voting in a municipal election can be on the voters’ list and vote on election day.

In our caucus we have spoken to a number of assessment commissioners across this province about this particular proposition. It has been made quite clear to us by all of them we have talked to that there will be no great difficulty in providing those few additions to their procedure in order to make this process that much shorter and to move the election up into the middle of October. We had some suggestions from my colleague from Welland-Thorold that municipal elections should be held 45 days after Labour Day. This is a reasonable suggestion. It’s not only reasonable but it’s a suggestion we can achieve. The problem here, it seems to me is that there are far too many people hanging on to some very old and sometimes very questionable traditions.

The moving of the election date for municipal elections to the middle of October would do two things for municipal campaigns in terms of the electorate and of the candidates. It will give us an atmosphere and a circumstance in terms of weather conditions in which candidates can more easily talk to the electorate and the electorate will be a little more willing to listen to candidates, which hopefully will stimulate some more serious interest on the part of the electorate in municipal elections. There is far too little and it has become a serious problem in the municipalities.

There are a number of other points raised by my colleague from Welland-Thorold. There was the point about consecutive hours off work in order to vote. There was the point about spending limits in municipal campaigns and disclosure of the source of funds. Both of these items are extremely important. I would suggest their omission from this bill is tantamount to saying municipal elections are just not as important as provincial and federal elections. I think it’s time we as legislators here decided that that just is no longer true, that the municipalities are as important, if not in some instances more important, than either the federal or the provincial level. The municipalities have got into programs and situations that make their function very important to the total picture of taxes that people pay.

If municipal elections are to receive the important consideration they should then they must be dealt with seriously in the same way that the provincial and federal elections are dealt with, by considering the things we have considered and are considering in terms of federal and provincial elections and federal and provincial election spending.

It was also suggested we should keep the polls in municipal elections open from 9 a.m., until 8 p.m., the same as we do provincially and federally. This bill provides for the hours to be 11 a.m., to 8 p.m., which is just another indication of how serious this government and our Treasurer are about the importance of municipal elections. They are relegating this process in the municipalities to second-class status.

As I said at the outset, I am very glad to see this bill here because it does provide some improvements. I would very sincerely request of all of the members that they consider very carefully all of the amendments that are put during the committee stage and consider them in the light of the real importance of municipal politics in this province.

Mr. Blundy: I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate on an Act to revise the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Bradley: Is this the former mayor of Sarnia?

Mr. Conway: A fine one at that too.

Mr. Blundy: Having spent a number of anxious moments in municipal elections myself over the years, I am quite aware of some of the practices that I feel have been beneficial and some of the practices that have not.

Several of the speakers have alluded to the fact that we must do everything we can to make it easy and attractive for voters in a municipality to go out and vote. It is indeed a very important election for those people. Those people who are elected in a municipal election are going to be dealing with the bread and butter issues that affect the people daily. Therefore, it is very important.

When I was the mayor I used to tell people, particularly school children, when I was trying to impress upon them the importance of municipal government in their lives, that the government in Ottawa could fold up and most people would not even know it had disappeared until they did not get an income tax form.

Mr. Germa: Especially if it was Liberal.

Mr. Blundy: I used to say they could fold up down in Toronto and we probably would not know for several weeks either. But if the municipal government and those things they sponsor folded up here, they would notice it as soon as they went home because the toilet would not flush. It is really a very practical and very close thing to the people in the municipality.

Mr. Bradley: What are we all doing here, I wonder?

Mr. Conway: Is that true in Moonbeam too?

Mr. Blundy: The record of the turnout of electors in municipal elections over the years has not been all that good. I believe the changes in this Act -- having been made, as I understand, in very close talks with the OMA, the PMLC and municipal officials, having been made in consultation with those people -- that are being suggested are good and will help to make the municipal election more easily and readily used by the people in the municipality.

The matter of changing the election date from the first Monday in December to the second Monday in November is a step in the right direction. It will help to overcome very largely the very bad weather we have had, particularly here in southern Ontario. Traditionally, we do not have really bad weather until the month of December. After that almost anything, weatherwise, can happen. I believe we really could count on reasonably good weather. This is an acceptable date as far as I am concerned.

I want to speak very briefly about suggestions that have been made regarding the changing of the hours of polling. They are currently 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. I have found this to be very acceptable. One has to remember in a municipal election it is a very long day because it isn’t as in a provincial or federal election where one may have three candidates or four candidates on one ballot to be counted. The election can almost be declared within an hour of the polls closing in a federal or provincial election, but in a municipal election it is not uncommon to have 60 to 70 candidates on the ballot on four or five ballots -- certainly four. You’d have the council, the board of education, the separate school board and public utilities commission for sure, and possibly others. And yes, you may have some questions on the ballot as well. So it takes an extremely long time to count those ballots after the polls are closed. The people have to be alert to be able to do it correctly so there are no mistakes.

The idea of opening the polls at 9 o’clock in the morning is foolish, in my opinion. I have visited the polls so many times in the past and the action that has taken place before 11 o’clock in the morning, in years when the polls were opened earlier, was absolutely negligible. By 11 o’clock in the morning, you do see some of the elderly people, the senior citizens, coming out and I think that is ample time in which to open the polls. There are two advance polls provided so people who want to vote ahead of election day because of their commitments of work and so forth are able to do so.

I strongly urge that we consider the proposals in this Act, the changes suggested. I believe they certainly meet with the changes I had hoped to see in the Act and I know they have been done with the advice and the assistance of many long-time municipal people in the clerks’ offices and otherwise; and who could know better than the people who have been doing this? Personally, I had hoped the bill would pass and I will certainly be glad to have more to say, Mr. Speaker, when it is considered in committee, clause by clause.

Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: Resign.

Mr. Conway: The Bette Stephenson of the NDP caucus.

Mr. Warner: Hey, watch that. Do you know where the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) is, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Bradley: He has resigned.

Mr. Warner: It seems to me the minister responsible for this legislation should be here.

Mr. Haggerty: He should be here, right.

Mr. Warner: One of the things that bothers me as we go through this crowded session is the fact we are all under the impression we have to steam-roll things through here. We happen to be dealing with what I consider to be an extremely important piece of legislation; I would think important enough to attract the attention of the Treasurer at least, but certainly important enough to warrant a full discussion on the matter, a discussion which should include an examination of our attitudes about levels of government and forms of government.

It seems to me that for too long in this country, we have viewed governments on a level system, a hierarchy, with the federal government up on top, beneath it the provincial government, and somewhere at the bottom the municipal government. I reject that notion. I always have. It seems to me we have three forms of government, three particular avenues, no one of which is more important than any other, it’s simply a different form of government. And do you knew, that very basic point is missing in the philosophy of the Treasurer, as evidenced by the lack of consultation which was very well documented by my colleague and good friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). I think he did a superb job of laying out, for all of the members in this House, the terrible litany of non-consultation that has taken place over a very long period of time.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is a very heavy-handed approach to the whole business of municipal polities and I, for one, am sorry the Treasurer sees fit to carry on in such a manner. It’s not right; it’s not the way things should be done.

[8:30]

I don’t believe for an instant, as the Treasurer seems to imply from time to time, that municipalities cannot be trusted to manage their affairs properly; to manage the money and to run the affairs of the local municipalities in a fit way. Maybe I’m being unfair to the Treasurer, but that’s the view that comes across, not only to myself but also to those elected municipal politicians.

Mr. Lewis: You can’t be unfair to the Treasurer.

Mr. Warner: He’s not here, so I can be as unfair as I like, I guess.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer answers to only one person, as he indicated today.

Mr. Warner: Yes, that’s true. It seems to me that it’s not just the so-called Edmonton commitment which obviously has been abandoned, I don’t think there’s any pretence about that any longer; that commitment is meaningless, it doesn’t exist.

Mr. Maeck: What does that have to do with this bill though?

Mr. Lewis: Everything.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not in this bill though.

Mr. Warner: That’s true, but it probably should be. I’m wondering if what we’re having in front of us is simply the benevolence of the Treasurer, what he declares to be benevolence, or is it really the result of consultation?

If the arguments which we have put forward are incorrect, I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant, who I gather has been sent here to carry out the responsibilities of the Treasurer.

He should perhaps explain to us where we’re wrong in our argument that consultation has not taken place; or if we are right how the Treasurer intends to change the process. What is the Treasurer going to do to bring about a better form of consultation? Those municipal politicians out there are not very happy with the way things are being done. They watched the Edmonton commitment being scuttled, and quite frankly what they want now in its place are some legislated agreements.

Mr. Speaker: Do I have to remind the hon. member that that’s not a part of the principle of Bill 98?

Mr. Warner: No you don’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cunningham: The member should read the bill.

Mr. Warner: In this particular bill, the government has decided on a definition as to who is going to vote, and the Liberals have an amendment to that definition. What bothers me is that we are not taking that portion of the bill and dealing with it in a separate, well-defined form.

The whole question as to who votes is a pretty serious one, and one which I suggest has a different kind of context in municipal elections than it does for provincial or federal voting. That is to say there is a very strong argument on municipal elections, in favour of allowing any person who has been here 12 months or longer the right to vote.

Mr. Cunningham: Abject nonsense. Can you vote in Britain? Can you vote in Portugal, or Italy?

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Mr. Warner: If the member for Wentworth North wants to vote in Portugal, he can go to Portugal.

Mr. Cunningham: No, I can’t vote in Portugal; that’s the point.

Mr. Warner: We have disturbed your dessert from dinner, I’m sorry about that.

Mr. Cunningham: I can’t vote anywhere else but Canada.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you go back to sleep?

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t intend to reawaken the member for Wentworth North.

Mr. Speaker: Your comments now are just as irrelevant as the interjections.

Mr. Martel: Don’t tease the bear, whatever you do.

Mr. Warner: No, I won’t tease the bear. Had the member for Wentworth North been listening, what I said is that there is a very strong argument in favour of allowing those people who have been resident for at least 12 months, or longer, the ability to vote in municipal elections on the basis that everyone pays municipal taxes. Whether a tenant or a property owner, you pay taxes for municipal services --

Mrs. Campbell: Or a merchant.

Mr. Warner: -- therefore you should have the opportunity to vote in a municipal election.

There is also an argument, a very logical, reasoned argument, that says perhaps you should restrict it to Canadian citizens or those of landed immigrant status. Since the federal government, and we agree, has always maintained that a landed immigrant has equal rights with a Canadian citizen, there are certainly reasoned arguments to be put forward on those grounds. What bothers me is that we have never gone through that kind of debate. You throw it into the bill, the Liberals attempt to toss in an amendment to satisfy whatever desires they have; and that’s wrong.

Mr. Lewis: It’s an absolutely asinine amendment.

Mr. Warner: I don’t mean the merits of the amendment. I mean it’s wrong that we should deal with it in such a superficial way. We need to deal with it in a separate, defined way. We need to take a very careful, reasoned approach to the whole thing. It’s too important to be discussed in such a cursory way, by way of an amendment.

Mr. Bradley: Besides, you didn’t think of it first.

Mr. Warner: No; because we did think of it first, we realized it was too important to be dealt with in such an off-hand way as tossing in an amendment an hour or so ahead of when we debate the bill.

Mr. Lewis: It is exactly the way the federal Liberals behave. You did it federally, but you couldn’t get away with it provincially.

Mr. Warner: Yes, and no one would expect anything more from their provincial counterparts.

Mr. Cunningham: Abject, with a big A.

Mr. Warner: You know, Mr. Speaker, as I have been reminded by my colleague from Scarborough West, I recall very vividly the federal election of 1972 when it was suddenly revealed that the federal Liberals, unannounced, had decided they were going to take away the previous voting privileges of a segment of the population.

Whether or not it was a good thing is not the point. The point is it was done very slyly, unannounced, and caused a great disruption. It should have been dealt with properly. It should have been debated in a serious, open form.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, the government will consider very carefully the arguments put forward by my colleague from Welland-Thorold regarding the election day, because make no mistake about it the half measure offered by the Treasurer of Ontario is not good enough. Half measures are always good enough for Liberals but they’re not good enough for people who want real reform in municipal politics.

The message has been coming through to the government on this bill about election day. It’s been coming through pretty loud and clear. People want to go out to vote in October. They don’t want to risk snowstorms, even in November, and certainly not in December in northern communities. They want to be able to vote in October.

I know the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) is aware of the feelings of the municipal politicians of Metro Toronto on the matter of voting in October. That brings me to a very serious matter as it relates to Metro Toronto, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant can give us some words about it. You have decided in the bill, contrary to what the majority of politicians of Metro Toronto want, that you’re not going to have a three-year term. There may be some logical arguments that you can string together as they apply to the entire province of Ontario, and we may be willing to accept them, but I would like to know on what rationale you base not having a three-year term as it would apply to the large urban centres such as Ottawa, Hamilton, Metro Toronto and others. Because as you are well aware, the complexities of municipal affairs in these urban centres require some long-range planning; they are of a magnitude which demands a prolonged period of time, and two years simply isn’t good enough. If the government is determined it’s going to stick with the two years no matter what anybody in Ottawa, Toronto or Hamilton says, no matter what Mr. Robarts says, or anyone else for that matter, then I would like some indication tonight as to whether you are going to change your mind when it comes to the legislation pertaining to Metro Toronto which you’re supposed to be bringing in sometime in the spring of 1978.

If the government doesn’t have any answers, then is it at least saying we can have a full and open discussion with those large urban centres? While it may be in the best interest of a lot of rural municipalities to have a two-year term, perhaps it is not in the best interest of the large urban centres. I would like to know what’s wrong in allowing those urban centres, which so desire it, to have the opportunity of setting a three-year term.

The proper thing is that each of those municipalities, such as Metro Toronto, should have the option of setting a three-year term if it desires to do so. Let them decide whether they want a two-year or three-year term. I would appreciate some comments on that.

Some of the municipal officials, by the way, feel quite secure about the three-year term, they are quite willing to put it on the ballot. I would like to know the government’s answer on that score. Is there something wrong in the municipal officials in Metro Toronto putting that question on the 1978 municipal ballot, as a decision to be made by the people in Metro Toronto as to how many years they want the term of office to be for their elected officials? Pretty scary isn’t it? It sounds like real democracy. I suppose it’s at that point the government will back off, but I would appreciate some comments in that regard.

In conclusion, I am very happy to see the bill come forward. I am not very pleased at the manner in which it has come forward, because it sounds to me as though it’s what the Treasurer would best describe as his benevolent hand in the whole affair rather than a proper kind of consultation. I am not very pleased about that. That kind of process surely has to change. As I sat and listened to my colleague from Welland-Thorold, I was very confident about and express some pride in the amendments which will be forthcoming from our critic. As a knowledgeable person for some 21 years in municipal affairs, he brings to this Legislature a knowledge which is absolutely first rate and a concern which isn’t paralleled by anyone.

Mr. Cunningham: Certainly by you anyway.

Mr. Warner: Did I awaken you again?

Mr. Cunningham: You certainly did with your comments on municipal affairs.

Mr. Warner: I apologize for having awakened him, Mr. Speaker. I should know by now that the member for Wentworth isn’t interested in securing knowledge.

My colleague from Welland-Thorold will be putting forward some amendments. I hope for the sake of good legislation the government is listening very carefully, because those amendments come forward as positive steps to help improve a weak bill. We want to strengthen the Municipal Elections Act. We have the opportunity to do it here tonight, because we have the opportunity to share the expertise and knowledge of my colleague from Welland-Thorold. I ask for support on each one of those amendments, because they will make for a better municipal life in the rest of Ontario.

[8:45]

Mrs. Campbell: Having really been challenged by the last speaker, I feel that it is somewhat important that I lend my voice to this debate. I have listened to this great reform group which thinks that moving the date from December to November to October is real reform. I would like the answer to the question that I think is the inevitable one, particularly with the chaotic situation in municipal financing: What happened to the undertaking of the former Treasurer, Mr. White, to give consideration to either changing the fiscal year for the province or changing the municipal year to correspond? It seems to me that when you have a municipality such as the city of Toronto, and you find her in a negative grant position for educational purposes, then it’s time that the people of the city of Toronto, as well as in other parts of Metro, should have a greater voice in the planning of their municipalities.

It seems to me that only if you face up to the very real problems of any day, which at this point is in conflict with the provincial and federal fiscal dates, are you in a position where you can really try to plan, when you and you alone are going to be responsible for your educational costs, as Toronto was this last year.

There is no question in my mind that the three-year term ought to prevail in the area of Metropolitan Toronto. I have not had the opportunity of discussing the feelings of people in other parts of the province. But why on earth should the city of Toronto, raising 102 per cent of its educational costs out of the property tax, be treated like some second-class corporate body because the Treasurer doesn’t even pretend to understand the problems facing the municipalities in the Metro area at this time?

The Treasurer is putting more and more of the financial burden on Metropolitan Toronto, and yet he can’t trust that municipality to plan on a three-year basis. Those of us who have had anything to do with either the financial planning or other planning in a municipality of this size certainly have to tell the parliamentary assistant that it’s ludicrous not to permit a three-year term for a body that one day may actually follow Alderman Gilbert’s plan and demand to be a separate province. You know, that’s not so funny as it seems.

If the government’s going to put all the financial responsibility on Metropolitan Toronto, then for goodness’ sake the government should grow up and let them mature and have the opportunity to decide their own future on a basis that is compatible with the wishes of the people of the Metropolitan Toronto area.

The kinds of dates I am talking about are Liberal dates, because they are a reform, if we can bring it about. Certainly I wonder why the present Treasurer has been so at odds with the former Treasurer --

Mr. Bradley: Where is he, anyway?

Mrs. Campbell: -- in every particle of this bill, and why, he also apparently is at odds with the recommendation of Mr. Robarts in the Metro plan.

Mr. Conway: All those Tories are desperately trying to forget John White.

Mr. Cunningham: Yes. Where is he now?

Mr. Conway: Farming in Edwardsburgh.

Mrs. Campbell: You know, I suppose it really counts for naught that we stand here trying to make some reason out of this legislation. It’s very strange, when you don’t want to do something about the Metropolitan Toronto you always put it off until the decisions about the Metro plan, but then when you want to change something you do it without discussing the Metro plan.

Those two points are points which I must make and make strongly. Otherwise, with the way in which you’re proceeding, if you have your elections as proposed in this bill you may one day wake up to find, because of the lack of ability to plan on a proper basis, you may have bankrupted some of your municipalities in the Metropolitan area.

I suggest further consideration be given to this matter. I don’t like to say Toronto should have some special privilege over the others, but I certainly think a municipality as large as Metropolitan Toronto, with its financial problems and financial responsibilities, particularly in the field of planning for human concerns, will have to have a longer period of time than the provisions in this particular bill.

Accordingly, I would hope we would get to the amendments. It is good we have this bill before us, but certainly I’d like to see some enlightenment in so far as it pertains to Metropolitan Toronto.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bounsall: Various of my close colleagues here have advised me and adjured me to speak for an hour. Let me tell the rest of the House, I may not have enough points to fill up that amount of time.

Mr. Conway: Well that doesn’t usually stop you, Ted.

Mr. Lewis: It certainly did, we are governed by points.

Mr. Bounsall: That didn’t stop me before, but I can’t get quite as angry over this bill as I do over OHIP and the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, the main point I want to speak on in this Act respecting municipal elections is the timing of the elections, the advance from the first Monday in December to the second Monday in November. It is certainly not a sufficient advance. In 1974, the first Monday in December, an election day in Windsor, a disaster befell us. We had some snow. Now it may not be unusual to get a little snow that early, but it’s certainly unusual to get 18 inches of snow, something which may not bother too many other communities, but it caused quite a concern in Windsor.

The procedures under the Municipal Elections Act were not sufficiently clear for the clerk to know what to do with respect to cancelling the election, what to do with polls that were on the borderline of having opened on time and with a bunch of polls that really didn’t get opened that day at all and didn’t get ballot boxes out. Subsequently, there was a lot of confusion, which the press tended to compound for the first five or six voting hours on that day, as to whether the election was taking place or whether it had all been cancelled till the next day; or for a given elector whether his poll was open that day and he had to get to the poll or whether his poll was in fact one that didn’t get open on time and could be cancelled till the next day.

As a result, in the spring of 1975 I proposed a private member’s bill dealing with amendments to the then Municipal Elections Act in which I proposed the very latest an election should be held municipally would be one month earlier than that, the first weekend in November.

I wasn’t quite aware at the time of all the factors involved in the advance work required to go into an election. A poll of various people at that time, particularly in Windsor, indicated that that would be an appropriate time, a time at which in Windsor we certainly would never expect and very seldom would get snow, let alone 18 inches of snow.

The proposal that it go to roughly mid-October, which our party is proposing, is an even better suggestion than I had in that bill. Whatever steps need to be taken to ensure that municipal elections can he held that early would very much benefit the turnout and participation in municipal elections, and that is something we all wish was much higher than it is.

The second point I find of interest and concern in this bill is that over the last few months several of the large municipalities have contacted me -- certainly the city of Windsor has -- with regard to the length of term that would be covered by those elected municipally. Invariably the word has come through that larger municipalities would prefer to have a three-year term, while from other municipalities comes the information that many of the townships and the small towns are content with the two-year term. I can see with that attitude why the Provincial Municipal Liaison Committee in its brief did not come down any firmer than it did on the three-year term versus the two-year term. That is the situation which exists in Ontario. The larger municipalities almost invariably want that three-year term. There is no intent by this Legislature, I would not think, to impose a three-year term on the small municipalities and townships which very much do not want a three-year term and are happy with their two-year term.

What we need very much in this legislation, which should be amended to accommodate it, is a clause enabling the municipalities, whatever their size, to choose what length of term they are going to have. It will be no surprise as the large municipalities choose the three-year terms and no surprise as the small municipalities choose the two-year terms. That is what should occur very much in this bill. This would satisfy all of the municipalities across Ontario to the detriment of no one that I can see in the province. Whether they have a referendum or not to determine which their electors would like is up to them.

I am sure this is a correct reading of what the elected officials in municipalities would very much like to see, namely, for financial and planning reasons, the large municipalities going to a three-year term, while the two-year term is what the small municipalities would like to see. Why this Legislature in this bill just doesn’t allow that to happen is beyond me. I very strongly support a clause which would enable municipalities to choose whether they wish to have the two-year or the three-year term.

I would also like to make a comment on one other section of the bill. I am pleased to see that the clerk is given powers under section 69 of the bill to adopt any necessary procedures for the conduct of a poll when an emergency situation arises on polling day. The private member’s bill I had was much more specific in this area and suggested various alternatives for the emergency situation. But I believe what we have in this bill is general and gives the clerk sufficient power to make whatever arrangements he deems necessary, bearing in mind whatever emergency situation has arisen. On this, I think we are all really speaking of weather. Something else may occur, but it is mainly a weather situation particularly as the bill stands with the election day still in the second Monday in November, which is not very much an improvement over what we have. The way we have left it, with the clerk being able to adjust to that situation and in very general terms giving him the powers generally to do what he deems necessary, is a well-written section of the bill.

[9:00]

The last subsection, subsection 3 of section 69, in which his decision is not open to question, is also a step forward when one considers the arrangements made by the city clerk of Windsor, John Adamac, and the decisions he had to come to on that Monday in December 1974, when the situation arose at Windsor, to proceed with the election in those polls that managed to get open on the Monday, and those polls that did not manage to get open on time on Monday voted the next day. That whole situation was then challenged in the courts.

Subsection 3 of this section would forever forbid the questioning of the arrangements made by the clerk in all good faith -- they are assumed to be in all good faith right in the Act -- to take account of those emergency situations that arise. This is an entirely new section of the bill and certainly it is one which will be welcomed by the city of Windsor as it spent some considerable amount of time and money in preparing the defence of the court challenge of that clerk and what he did.

Certainly the Municipal Elections Act at that time was not at all clear to the clerk as to what his powers were and what he could do about it. Despite phone calls to the Treasurer at that time, one John White, and contacts by myself with John White on the Sunday night and the Monday morning -- the snow started to fall early Sunday morning and kept coming down -- we were again left in a situation of not knowing what it was that could be or could not be done. Section 69 certainly is a step forward in keeping election challenges out of the courts and gives the clerk the proper amount of discretion to use when an emergency arises.

What I feel most strongly about in this bill is that the elections should be held as early as possible in the year -- mid-October seems eminently reasonable -- and certainly we should have an enabling clause in the legislation allowing municipalities to choose between two years and three years.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise in general support of this particular bill advanced by the government. Along with a number of other speakers who have spoken previously, I comment that it has been a long time coming, but certainly we on this side of the House are delighted that at long last it has arrived.

I would like to commend the member for Durham West for piloting this bill through the Legislature in place of the Treasurer, who apparently has deemed it not important enough to be here. Perhaps he has a good reason for not being here, but certainly I commend the member for Durham West in this regard.

I would also commend the member for Waterloo North, who has outlined the general stand of this particular party on this bill, and the member for Welland-Thorold, who has obviously done extensive research and has come forward with a number of rather interesting amendments that will have to be looked at very carefully as we proceed through the committee stage.

I would also like to thank the clerk of the city of St. Catharines and the representatives from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario who have commented on certain aspects of this bill. I note in some of the changes that have been made since the original printing of the bill that the government has been wise enough and certainly conciliatory enough to make some of the changes based on the suggestions that have been put forward, and I think it should be commended for that.

Obviously to many of those of us who have served in the municipal field, the paramount part of this bill is that which changes the date of the election. Even though it advances it perhaps not as closer to the summer as some of us would like, it certainly is an improvement to advancing it to the early part of the month of November.

I think the elderly citizens in our constituencies, the infirm, the ill and many who have found it inconvenient to be able to go to the polls, will be very delighted with this particular change which does move it forward. Those working on election day, who often have to trek through the snow and sit in cold gymnasiums, et cetera, will also find it a distinct benefit to advance it even the small amount it has been advanced.

The members who represent Windsor would all have vivid memories of the famous election there which was a shemozzle because of the weather, partially because it was scheduled so late in the year. I realize it can happen again.

Mr. Lewis: It wasn’t a shemozzle. It changed mayors, for heaven’s sake; it was a great victory.

Mr. Ruston: An NDP mayor won.

Mr. Bradley: That’s what I say, it was a shemozzle.

Mr. Lewis: It might not have happened otherwise.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Is shemozzle a parliamentary word?

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in regard to that, and I recognize I shouldn’t comment on interjections --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. You are out of order.

Mr. Bradley: -- but as a member of city council in the city of St. Catharines, I often wondered if they were running a federal parliament, a provincial parliament, or a municipal council in the city of Windsor because so many of the resolutions which had nothing to do with municipal affairs seemed to emanate from the city of Windsor.

Mr. Bounsall: Good social conscience down there.

Mr. Bradley: It’s of course very easy to make decisions when you don’t have to take the responsibility for them, and I suppose you’ve got to take that into consideration.

Mr. Martel: You are starting to sound more like Trudeau every day.

Mr. Bradley: I’ll go back to the regular train of thought and speak to the question, Mr. Speaker. You’ve been quite tolerant in this regard.

I would also mention the fact, and I think other members have pointed it out, that the candidates for election who used to have to go out in the cold will appreciate this legislation. The member for Welland-Thorold mentioned this, I think. In the last municipal election -- he may be familiar with it even though he was in the House at the time -- we were out with the icicles coming from our ears and our noses and our wet hair as we went about campaigning. I’m sure the people at whose door we showed up were not too anxious to open the door and listen too long to the words of the politicians.

Mr. Warner: In your case, that’s understandable.

Mr. Bradley: Whether they are at any other time, I’m not sure, but at least they had an excuse at this time for closing the door, and I’m not sure that contributed to an excellent democratic choice.

We have heard from some it would be a real problem to avoid the precedents of the past which saw councils take office on January 1. We have the inaugural meeting right after New Year’s and somehow this is established as the proper manner of conducting business. However, I must say personally I’ve never found this to be a particularly sacred time of the year to have a new council take over. I certainly see no problem with a city council taking over, or a regional council, or a schoolboard, on the first day of December. In fact, as has been pointed out, there would not be harm in them taking over even earlier if the date could have been advanced. It does give them a longer time to plan.

Mr. Foulds: How about November 1, Hallowe’en?

Mr. Bradley: As we all know, the fine representatives of the civil service give us an awful lot of guidance in providing those budgets anyway, and I’m not convinced that politicians themselves have a substantial effect on budgets, many of which contain set costs.

We will look at some other aspects of the bill which are rather interesting and probably worthy of support, and also at some of the amendments proposed to this bill. Certainly I will be prepared to speak on these amendments when we come to that particular stage, because I think a couple of them are certainly worthy of commendation.

The one which should be easy to implement is that providing three clear hours for voting. There are those who will say you’re somehow going to be hard on small businesses, because they’re not going to be able to comply. But I think if we look at the voting hours that are provided, we’re going to find that it’s not going to cause any hardship, once every two years, to implement this particular recommendation. Certainly on a personal basis I see this as being of positive benefit, and I’m certain this party will support that particular amendment.

Also, I heard mention of the three-year term for municipal politicians, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) mentioned that. He makes some very good arguments as he feels the municipal politicians would put them forward. As a municipal politician, I must say I always thought the three-year term was excellent, because it meant I didn’t have to go through an election in that one extra year.

Viewing it objectively as a member of this Legislature, however, I can recognize the benefit of having two years in that the municipal level of politics, even in some of the larger municipalities, is different from the federal House and provincial Legislature. Many of the decisions made are instant decisions and many of the changes made are somewhat radical changes at the local level, even taking into consideration the fact the province has such great powers. They are the kind of changes that require the ratification or opinion of the electorate in terms of an election, and therefore I would be rather reluctant to see us move to a three-year term. I would find it rather distasteful, if we’re going to have an election Act, to have across the province the option of having a three-year or two-year term. I would suggest in many municipalities it will be three years because of the self-interest of those of us who have served at that particular level. I know we always say it’s for planning and financial purposes, but I’m afraid when it really comes down to it it’s the fact that people don’t want to face the electorate quite so often in municipal office.

Mr. Martel: In a few months from now you’re going to see what it’s like again, if it goes that long.

Mr. Bradley: I won’t make predictions. I assume we will go the full five years in this particular House, as the opposition parties and the government --

Mr. Martel: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Bradley: -- work together for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Martel: Oh you’re going to prop them up are you?

Mr. Roy: It’s you guys who are going to prop them up, once you have your leadership decided.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bradley: I was somewhat concerned, initially, about the particular date being the second Monday in November, because it might fall on Remembrance Day. But I have been informed, in consultation with those responsible for presenting the bill, rather than the election coming on Saturday as some of us might have interpreted by the term, “the next preceding day,” my understanding is it would be held on the Tuesday; I think that should alleviate the fears of some of us who are rather concerned about that aspect of it.

I also find a very positive movement the fact all qualified electors will be allowed to vote on money bylaws rather than only owners of land and long-term tenants. Of course we recognize nowadays, particularly with the level of rents we see in many areas, that those who are renting and those who are boarding are also those who are paying, indirectly, the taxes in the community, and therefore they should have a say and a stake in the financial decisions being made. This is certainly a positive step in the right direction.

Another aspect of it I find very useful is the section which says only the name and address will appear on the ballot. One of the tricks of the trade in municipal politics in years gone by was to attempt to elevate oneself to a rather high position. Someone would say he was the president, for instance, and put president on the ballot. It could have been the president or vice-president in charge of sharpening pencils of a particular one- or two-person firm.

Mr. Foulds: What have you got against small business?

Mr. Bradley: Nothing at all against small business. We are the party which has promoted small business in Ontario, and therefore I feel very proud of that.

Mr. Foulds: That’s not on the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: There are those who would put lawyer on the ballot, and there might be those who think that simply because they were lawyers they were more learned people, even though those of us who are not in the legal profession recognized long ago that is not the case. This really removes that abuse. It removes the trickery played with terminology in terms of one’s particular classification for employment; and I think this is certainly a positive step and one which should receive the support of all members of this House.

I note also, and this I suppose really arises out of the situation in the city of Windsor, the clerk is given powers to adopt necessary procedures during the emergency. I think as long as these powers are well-defined that is all right. I’m concerned if they’re not well-defined there could be a problem when the clerk takes it upon himself or herself to make certain decisions which might have rather serious legal ramifications at some time in the future. So as long as they’re clearly spelled out this is probably another step in what we would say it the right direction.

[9:15]

Members who represent constituencies in northern Ontario, the extreme southwestern Ontario and around Welland for instance, would find extremely useful the fact that notices required under the Act may be printed in the French language as well as the English language. In many constituencies in this province this would not have a major effect, but certainly there are many where the French-speaking population is rather large and this is a step in the right direction. It is certainly one which refers to the kind of justice we are talking about in the context of the debate on national unity.

Some of the concerns that are expressed are expressed by those who have to actually carry out the terms of the Election Act. In this Legislature we make a lot of laws which we don’t have to necessarily administer on a personal basis or as a body. One of the things you notice when you sit on municipal councils is that you are often critical of senior levels of government which pass laws which they think are reasonably good laws, but when it comes down to it, we find they are extremely difficult to administer and are not reasonable laws. They are not practical laws as they relate to particular municipalities. I think we always have to be careful of this.

One of the amendments presented by the member for Welland-Thorold appears attractive in the beginning, but when we really examine it it isn’t quite so attractive.

Mr. Foulds: It’s even more attractive when you examine it.

Mr. Bradley: I don’t mean the member for Welland-Thorold, I mean the amendment. Certainly the member for Welland-Thorold is very attractive in the manner and length in which he speaks in this Legislature. Being from the Niagara peninsula, I have been subjected to his verbiage in the past; listening to his speeches in regional council and reading them. In many cases they do contain some rather good ideas and in many cases they do not.

But to get back to the hours, the change proposed would be to lengthen them by beginning at nine o’clock in the morning. As many other speakers have said, very few people, outside of perhaps a member of this Legislature who wants to vote and then leave for Queen’s Park, very few electors in this province take advantage of the fact they can vote from nine o’clock to 11 o’clock in the morning.

The manner in which a municipal election differs from federal and provincial elections should be quite obvious to those who have had scrutineers present at the time of counting of the municipal ballots. When you have questions on the ballot, when you have the lengthy separate and public school boards lists, the regional council, and perhaps you have a county council as well as a city council, and so on, by the time the people have finished counting ballots in those areas which don’t have voting machines -- I must say that the city of St. Catharines has taken the progressive step of beginning a system of voting machines, although perhaps I am going out on a limb saving that now because we might well find out later on they are not working and then of course I will blame the local council of which I am no longer a member -- however, to continue, this will not be such a problem in my constituency, but I am certain it would be in many other constituencies where the people would be there until midnight or one o’clock, or even two o’clock in the morning in very close elections doing the counting. To avoid this, I think we should remain with the present hours.

There is a large number of ballots. There is a large number of candidates. The hours are already long. If we take into consideration the fact that many of the people who work in these elections are rather elderly people, it would be unfair to keep these people unnecessarily longer; and I am not saying that we should bend the laws of elections simply because of the personnel involved, but I am saying it is a bit unfair and impractical to make their day longer.

Any movement which would change or extend the period of time during which voting proxy certificates may be obtained is good. As the election comes up many people are unclear about the rules for proxy voting. It is because they are unclear that they postpone getting themselves involved in this process only to find that it’s then too late. Any extension of this particular period would again be a step in the right direction.

One aspect of the bill could cause problems. I don’t think it’s a major concern, but it is a concern nevertheless, and that is the stipulation about the hours during which a person may file nomination sheets. I think if it were to say “at regular office hours” it would perhaps clear up a lot of confusion. If it states by six o’clock or five o’clock in the afternoon it is confusing because many municipalities work different hours. It can be daylight saving time, it can be -- well, it can’t be, in this particular case, daylight saving time in November so there is no problem that way, but if we moved it into October it could be a problem.

I would be concerned about this, because some may operate from 10 to six; some may operate from nine to five, or eight to four. I think perhaps including “during regular office hours” would certainly be a benefit.

An obvious change, and I am sure it is housekeeping to a certain extent, is the aspect of the bill which clarifies that a DRO or a poll clerk can’t be a candidate at the same time. I don’t know whether this did occur somewhere to bring this forward, but certainly this is something that should be looked after rather quickly, because that could be a conflict of interest.

As we get into the amendments that have been proposed by members of this House, I will take the opportunity to make further comments. I am of the opinion there are a couple that are obviously good amendments. One that I think should be considered carefully is where a person’s name is deleted from the voters’ list, that that person should be so notified by registered letter. I think this is perhaps a positive step and one which might be overlooked in a bill which contains many other elements to it.

I have spoken generally in favour of this bill as a positive first step. I recognize, also, that it does not include any mention of controlling election expenses. I am somewhat concerned, because local councils do have the ability to change zonings. While I am not aware personally of any specific case where undue influence has been brought on a particular member of council by one who may have contributed to the election of that member to council, or board of education, whatever it might be, the opportunity is still there if that person is owed some monetary obligation by the person who has been elected.

So it might well be that at some time in the future we should be looking at this aspect of election expenses --

Mr. Davison: No time like the present.

Mr. Bradley: -- by putting limitations on them and by having disclosure of those amounts over $100, a publication of those names, just as we have at the federal and provincial level. Perhaps this is not the right time to include it in this bill, but it is worthy of future consideration. I think the government should be implored to give that some consideration before the next election. There may be some aspects of municipal politics that are not similar to provincial politics, and therefore, we would not have exactly the same legislation.

I am generally in favour of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the debate and the exchanges as we look at the amendments.

Mr. G. I. Miller: My remarks will be brief, but I would like to make a little input into the debate. I feel that anything to encourage a great participation by the general voting public has to be the ultimate goal of this Legislature. As we all know, municipal elections aren’t all that well participated in by the voting public at large.

Restrictions also have been applied by the government in power over the last years by bringing in regional government. This has eliminated many people from participating by giving their time. I know many people in my area would like to participate at the municipal level but, because of the workload of the councils under the regional system, it has prevented many of them from participating. I think that’s a regressive step.

Mr. Bradley: I never thought of that. That’s another reason why we need regional government.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to think too that moving the voting day to the second Monday in November is a step in the right direction, because weather conditions can be miserable the first Monday in December, as has been proven so many times in the past.

By having the second Monday in November as our election day, it should be to the advantage of the electorate at large and it perhaps will contribute to a better participation by the public.

The one thing that does concern me is the fact that three weeks is allowed after nomination. That is a long period of time, and again it could be a time factor that could affect the participation of candidates who don’t want to contribute three weeks of their time in being involved in an election. I question whether it is necessary to have that three-week period before the voting day.

Another point is that, since unity in Canada is a very serious question at this time, I think a person entitled to vote should be a Canadian citizen and perhaps the phrase “or other British subject” should be removed. The NDP has indicated that you should only live in Canada for one year, even as an immigrant, but I would have to disagree.

Mr. Warner: Who said that?

Mr. Martel: We didn’t say that.

Mr. Deans: We’re talking about municipal elections.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I think our citizenship shouldn’t be taken lightly. It is something we should cherish, and we shouldn’t be giving it away too freely.

On the other hand, I think we like to be identified as Canadians and perhaps the fact that a Canadian citizen should be the recognizing factor for being entitled to vote would be a good move at this particular time. It would show impartiality. No matter what nationality one is, it shows no partiality.

I believe this bill also permits scrutineers to be 16 years of age. Again, I think it is a step in the right direction to get our young people involved in our democratic system, which I feel is the greatest that can be provided for any country. I’m proud to think that our young people can get involved and I think they should get involved at an early age so they will understand the system. Anything we can do to encourage that is an improvement.

With those few brief comments, I would like to say again that we support the bill as it has been presented, perhaps with the exception of a uniform time. I know my colleagues who have spoken on it have said that 11 to 8 is perhaps enough time for the polls to be open. However, I think a little consistency with the provincial and federal elections would be beneficial and it would be less confusing. Perhaps an opening time of 9 to 8, or even 10 to 8, would give more people an opportunity to vote. For instance, if the Legislature is sitting and we have to wait until 11 for the polls to open, it wouldn’t give us that opportunity. I think again maybe consideration should be given to uniform hours to correspond with the hours in provincial and federal elections. With those few comments, I would like to leave that with the bill.

I have one further comment. We have only had one week to study the bill. It was only presented to us one week ago which certainly doesn’t give us much opportunity to research it and have any input on it.

[9:30]

Mr. Martel: Support our amendments then. We have looked at it.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I hope the government would take into consideration, as it presents bills, giving us more opportunity to research and prepare for debate on them.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to add a few comments to Bill 99, An Act to Revise the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Martel: What is this? A filibuster?

Mr. Haggerty: It looks like it.

Mr. Martel: They want time to read the bill tomorrow.

Mr. Haggerty: I do want to concur with some of the previous speakers that it is time to advance the election date for municipal elections in Ontario. Perhaps November is not suitable to some of us, but it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps October is the month. The argument put forth by some of the previous speakers, or even the Treasurer, is that we may have difficulties in enumeration. Maybe we should be looking at the policy established in the United States. I am a strong believer that we should have preregistration for elections in Ontario.

Many times when a candidate is out in a municipal election, or even a provincial election knocking on doors, he meets people who have no interest at all in casting a ballot. I think it is rather important that persons running for office -- and they are dedicated persons who take on this task of representing the people in municipalities -- should know the persons among those they are contacting who are really interested in going to polls to vote on that day. There could be a saving to the province of Ontario, and even to municipalities, by having a preregistration day for voting, so that one knows the persons who are likely to cast ballots on that day.

I am a little bit alarmed there is nothing in the Act that would include other communities in Ontario having the right to elect a council. I am speaking of the unorganized communities in northern Ontario. We have been promised a bill for two or three years now to give them representation and local government rule, but to this day the government has not brought in a bill to give them that opportunity to be represented at a local level.

I am a little bit alarmed also at explanatory note No. 12 which says: “Notices required under the Act may, at the option of the municipality, be printed in the French language in addition to the English language.” It refers to section 119. Let’s take a look at that particular section. I think this is a step in the right direction that we do have the forms printed in both French and English. It is necessary in certain communities in the province of Ontario. I can think of the city of Welland and even the city of Port Colborne. There are a number of French-speaking people in those communities.

But, let’s just see what section 119 of the Act says: “The minister may by order prescribe the forms required for the purposes of this Act, which forms may be in both the English and French languages. Any notices required to be posted, published or mailed under the Act may, in addition to being printed in the English language, be printed in the French language. The use in a municipality of forms prescribed in the French language under subsection 1, or the printing of notices in the French language under subsection 2, shall be determined by bylaw of the council of the municipality.”

When one looks at that, it says, “the minister may by order prescribe.” I have often heard of the expression in the House that we are looking for local autonomy, but when the minister has the right to step in and to interfere further in municipal laws -- one might call it that -- or operations or functions of local council where he “may by order prescribe the forms,” I think that is going a little bit too far. At present municipal councils and electors are intelligent enough to make that decision themselves at that level. I would like to see that particular section, section 119, removed to permit having it in French and English where it is necessary.

The other concern is the glossy references that were made to the member for Welland-Thorold. I might go a step further and say after all he is the “father of confederation” in the Niagara region, one of those responsible for regional government in the Niagara region. He is knowledgeable in this particular area.

Mr. Davidson: You’re kidding.

Mr. Haggerty: Oh definitely; one of these times we may secede from the rest of Canada too, you never can tell.

Mr. Davidson: On a regional council basis.

Mr. Haggerty: To get back to local autonomy and the financing of municipal elections, I am quoting here from the AMO, which has asked the government to give consideration to limits on the size of donations from a single source, independent verification, publication of campaign finances and tax credits to contributors. In many municipalities where there is a strong mayoralty contest there is a large amount of money spent. I suggest there should be some accountability as to where these funds are coming from.

The matter of the three-year term was considered at the meeting with the MLC and AMO. They suggest that a three-year term is acceptable to them. If we look at the records of elections in Ontario we find about 50 per cent of the previous council is usually returned to office, so you have continuing experience at the council table. About 25 per cent of the members running for a municipality office are returned or accepted by affirmation, so there shouldn’t be any difficulty in accepting the three-year term.

It has been spoken of before. Sometimes a new person elected to council needs that experience and perhaps during a two-year period he just gets his feet wet, he gains experience and he is ready to continue with what he thinks is best for the community. I think there is nothing wrong with extending municipal office to a three-year term; even Robarts has recommended a three-year term and suggested perhaps it should include the larger municipalities. Perhaps we should have something in this Act to say that any municipality of 75,000 or over should be entitled to a three-year term for council. I see nothing wrong with that. I hope there is an amendment to consider that.

The other area that I would like to discuss is the ward system, mentioned in section 21. Under the region of Niagara bill there is some difficulty if a municipality, for example, wants to establish a ward system within a municipality. They have to go through much red tape to have boundaries for a ward system established. They must have a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board, and you are looking at perhaps two or three years for approval. I suggest that something should be in this bill, so that if by resolution of council they call for a ward system, then I think that should be granted. We talk about local autonomy, and this is one area where if the municipality wants a ward system it should be granted.

On the advance polls, I think the member for Welland-Thorold suggested that should be changed. There should be two days for advance polls in municipal elections. They should be spread so that enough persons would have sufficient options as to when they will vote. Perhaps it should be an all-day Saturday advance poll and one evening session.

The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) discussed the long hours of the poll clerks and of those working in the polls. I would leave the polling time from 11 o’clock in the morning to 8 o’clock at night as at present

The Act says the clerk has the right to supply equipment for polling places. I think there should be a clear understanding in the Act that accessibility must be made available to those persons who are disabled, persons in wheelchairs. I can recall in the last provincial election that I, myself, along with my candidate, had to pick a chap up in a wheelchair and go up a large flight of stairs. I’ll tell you, it was a tough go for both of us to get him up there -- what some people won’t do to get a vote.

I think there should be easy accessibility to the polling places. Above all they should be kept at ground level. Regarding the matter of the long hours for the people working in the polls, I think meals should be supplied by the municipality. For many persons working in the polls it’s a long day. They go almost until midnight counting the ballots, if you’re including two school boards, the regional councillors, local councils, mayor, and the council-at-large. You could also have utility commissions being elected. There’s a number of them and there are quite a few ballots to be counted. I suggest some consideration be given to those persons working in the polls and meals be supplied.

Regarding the matter raised previously that there should be two nomination dates set, I think one is sufficient. Also under the present Act I believe you have to have 10 electors sign a candidate’s slip for him to qualify as a member running for council. I’m not too happy with that type of section in the bill. I believe I’d like to see the old method, the old nomination night in municipalities when the previous councils had to stand up. It was their accountability night. I know many persons throughout the community haven’t had an opportunity to question some of these councillors about their term of office for the past two years. I believe at nomination night they have to really show their colours and be accountable.

This new method of bringing in 10 persons to sign a candidate’s slip, I just can’t see that as much benefit to the electors in the community. There’s very little press coverage given to that particular day of official acceptance of the candidates. I would suggest maybe this area should be changed, it should go back to the old way of being accountable to the taxpayer. I see no reason why we should have two nomination days as mentioned by the member for Welland-Thorold.

One of the difficulties I find facing councils today is the matter of the municipal budget. If we moved the election date up to November so they can take office on December 1, as my colleague from St. George has discussed and brought to the attention of the members debating the issue tonight, it may alleviate this difficulty. I find today, under the present circumstances, a municipality has a difficulty in bringing in a budget, in some cases before the end of June. I can remember in my days on council we used to have the budget prepared at the latest by March 1 of that year. Even school boards used to have their budget in by that time. But since the regional government came into the Niagara Peninsula, we find sometimes the regional budget is not struck until sometime in June. This causes some undue hardship to the local councils in establishing or setting their mill rate and getting out their tax notices.

At one time municipalities used to give the taxpayer a break if he could pay his taxes sometime in January. The municipality I represented, even Welland county council, used to have it in their bylaw that if you paid your county taxes at the beginning of the year there was a certain rebate given. The reason was a municipality was not required, in a sense, to go to the bank and borrow some heavy financing to carry on for a period of six months. I’ll tell you municipalities going to the bank early in December now will carry a heavy financial load at a cost to the taxpayers. I suggest there must be some other method of financing this.

The province comes in with its commitment to the municipalities and the region comes in with its budget much earlier than they have been in the past. I think it’s time we looked at the matter of the fiscal year of the province and the calendar year of the municipalities. Perhaps they should be consistent with one another, with one following the other just as the province has. I throw these out to the members here tonight who might give them some consideration.

[9:45]

In all, I support the bill in principle. I’d like to see the date advanced to October 2, but I do support the bill in principle.

Mr. Samis: I’d like to make a few comments on the bill. Some of the main matters have obviously been covered by previous speakers with regard to such things as an earlier voting date in the fall. In our particular part of the province, we are some- times susceptible to storms such as was experienced in Windsor, so obviously we would support that. The idea of the uniform voting day is essential, because an essential problem in municipal politics and the whole concept of municipal democracy is the degree or lack of participation in voting and in the whole democratic process.

For example, I happened to notice in the province of Quebec, they had elections on Sunday. They have tried to use Sunday as a device to stimulate more public participation, assuming more people would be off work. Even there, in the city of Montreal and in Quebec City, the voter turnout is seldom beyond 40 to 45 per cent. I know in the city of Montreal, the average is generally between 25 and 35 per cent. We’re talking of budgets of over $1 billion or $2 billion and with a turnout of that sort my feeling would be if we were to diversify the dates, even if it were just two or three in one particular year, it would seriously weaken the public focus and public interest. I would strongly support the idea of a uniform voting day in the province of Ontario.

My colleague from Welland-Thorold has pointed out some of the amendments he intends to introduce with regard to the idea of extended hours for people to vote.

One aspect I would like to focus on is the lack of public financing in this bill. It seems to me, there’s an essential difference between municipal politics and any other form of politics as practiced in this country. When a person decides to enter, he enters as an individual. He has no organization or political party backing him. He has to start at the very basis of the individual contacts and build up his own organization or group to finance the campaign and get himself known.

Obviously, when you’re on the council, you have the automatic advantage of publicity, your record and public exposure. An individual who wants to break into politics at the municipal level has no set organization to start from. Provincially we start off with a party label. Most of us have a riding association or riding organization, already established in advance that we can use. We have a provincial leader who will focus attention on our party. The provincial media will help focus attention on our party. We’re given free-time political broadcasts. We’re given, frequently, space in newspapers to get the party message across.

All these things give a candidate at the provincial or federal level tremendous advantages over someone running municipally. I think it’s extremely important that the municipal level barrier that prevents a lot of people from getting involved, namely the lack of funds, or the fear that somebody might go deeply into debt if they were to run a good campaign, has to be removed.

If you put that in the context of a two-year election, the fact we’re not going to extend it to three years or four years means we’re focusing on the idea people should participate as much as possible and as frequently as possible and have the council and the local government as responsible as possible to the electorate. That means more elections and obviously that means more money and necessitates organization, advertising, et cetera. I think it’s on that basis something has to be done to allow somebody of modest or ordinary means, modest financial resources, to participate.

I happen to know, in some municipalities just beyond my riding, of some people who did offer themselves for public office. A couple were successful but decided to drop out because they just couldn’t afford to run a second or third time because they were working class people. They weren’t businessmen, they weren’t lawyers, they weren’t contractors; they had rather modest incomes. Democracy should afford equal opportunity for those who want to get involved, and not make it on the basis of their pocketbook or their financial capacity but on their ability and willingness to serve.

If the Treasurer argues, as he did in his meetings, that this would cost the government more money and that the province shouldn’t get involved in financing at this level, then obviously there are ways of getting around that if there is not going to be direct financing.

First of all, I think every citizen in this province has a right to know who is financing political campaigns. In 1974 the federal government, the Liberals of all people, obviously because they were a minority government and because they were forced into it by David Lewis and the NDP, did come across with an election financing bill that did give the people of Canada the opportunity to find out who was financing the political parties. I notice there was a report came out from the election officer, I believe it was two weeks ago, informing us how much money had been raised by the three political parties nationally and how it was broken down between corporations, individuals, unions, businesses, et cetera.

I think that’s extremely important, because there is an awful lot of cynicism in politics that he who pays the shot calls the shot. Too many people are answerable to backroom boys, financiers, lawyers, contractors, patronage seekers, ward heelers and people of that type.

We have to open up the political process. We have to make the people realize that this era of backroom politics, of deals, of payoffs and control via the dollar, has to end. We have done a reasonably good job of opening up the political process federally, we have done a reasonable job provincially; but we have left the municipal scene untouched. I think that’s a major fault of this piece of legislation. There is no initiative to try to get some form of public disclosure on financial contributions.

I dare say if we applied the same standards to the municipal level as we use federally and provincially, namely $100 maximum from an undisclosed source, that would still protect the anonymity of those who want to contribute to a personal friend, whether it’s $25 or $50; yet it would still give the possibility, if some contractor or somebody wants to influence one candidate or bankroll a candidate, of the citizens knowing who is giving $2,000 or $5,000 or $10,000 to one particular candidate. The people are the ones who will pay for it after the election, when the contracts are awarded or the patronage is given out, or under-the-table deals are made. I also think if we are not prepared to fund candidates publicly, we should devise some formula for some degree of control on advertising.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is talking about something that isn’t in the bill rather than speaking to the principle.

Mr. Samis: I am suggesting an inadequacy in the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That’s out of order on second reading.

Mr. Davidson: He is speaking to the principle.

Mr. Samis: The principle is that the government should not become involved in any aspect of financing in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: It is a principle that is nonexistent in the bill.

Mr. Samis: Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the inadequacies of the bill is the absence of any involvement in this aspect of municipal elections.

Mr. Foulds: Good, well put.

Mr. Samis: I obviously deplore that absence and that inadequacy. I will not prolong it beyond saying I think that’s a fundamental weakness in the bill.

In closing I would like to deal with another aspect that was mentioned by my colleague from Erie just previously, that is the absence of sufficiently strong wording for the clause dealing with the printing of notices whereby it says that it may be done in English or French. Coming from a riding where the two languages are officially represented at the local level, where our population is almost evenly divided, where there has for too long been an attitude in some municipalities, especially where franco-Ontarians constitute the minority, I find their rights are dependent upon the goodwill or the good nature or the disposition of the majority. If they are sufficiently well organized or powerful or influential or connected, then it will be published in their language. But if they are not economically powerful enough, then they have to depend totally on the goodwill of the majority.

In 1977, considering the national situation, considering what’s been done in the province of New Brunswick in terms of language rights and considering what has to be done in the province of Ontario, I think the days of that concept of depending on the goodwill of the majority, or hoping they will condescend to publish it in both languages so that people can read it, have to come to an end.

This is Canada 1977. In a year of federal-provincial relations and the obvious challenge to our national unity, I don’t think we can continue that particular concept. I wholeheartedly commend and support my colleague from Welland-Thorold for his amendment and for his desire and struggle to get, as a compulsory, mandatory, obligatory regulation in this bill, the publication of all notices for electoral purposes in English and French.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on the bill. While it is very difficult to say something that hasn’t been repeated -- and maybe repeated a second, third, or fourth time -- I do want to make mention that one of the reasons the bill is before us is the snowfall in the city of Windsor back in 1974 and the inability to get someone with authority who could have postponed that election for one and/or two days.

I can recall my own personal involvement in that situation. I was contacted by the city clerk the day before the election and I attempted to get in touch with the Hon. John White, who was the Treasurer at the time. After a series of phone calls, the operator at Queen’s Park did get hold of him and the municipal clerk, John Adamac, did have a fairly lengthy conversation with the Hon. John White. But nothing could be done; no one seemed to have any authority.

In this bill authority is going to be given to the city clerk to use his own discretion as to whether the election date should or should not be postponed. I know there is some concern on the part of some members that he may not exercise his discretion as carefully as they would like him to exercise it. But, knowing John Adamac back in the city of Windsor, I have no fear for that at all.

Mr. Foulds: Where is the cabinet for this important bill?

Mr. B. Newman: One of the portions of the bill makes mention of election day, and the advancing of the election day approximately three weeks is a step in the right direction. And if the three weeks doesn’t prove to be in the best interests of the electorate, then I see no reason why at some future date we couldn’t advance that once again and put it at an earlier date if necessary.

Mr. Foulds: Always do everything by halves; if necessary, by quarters.

Mr. B. Newman: The bill does have a whole series of clauses that do concern me. I don’t intend to bring all of them to your attention, Mr. Speaker, but I do refer to section 18 of the bill, which says, “a polling subdivision shall not, so far as is practicable, contain more than 350 electors …”

There is nothing wrong with the number 350, but if you have approximately 10 candidates for the mayoralty, up to 40 running for council with an election at large, another 10 or 15 running for the utilities commission, more than 20 running for the public school board and the same for the separate school board, and then another 10 or 15 running to be separate school representatives on the public board, you can have 60 to 70 candidates, plus any questions that may be on the ballot.

Mr. Laughren: Trudeau called it participatory democracy.

Mr. B. Newman: It’s nice to see so many individuals involved in the running during an election; that doesn’t disturb me one bit. What does disturb me is that having 350 electors in a poll sounds like too large a number. The poll should be substantially smaller. Rather than the 350, I would use a maximum of 250. In that way the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk are not liable to make as many, or any, mistakes. They will not have to work as hard, the line-ups will not be as long, and they would do their work with despatch and with maximum efficiency.

[10:00]

If you do have an awfully long list of names and a large number of electors from one poll, it makes it extremely difficult to operate well. I know from the little experience I’ve had in both municipal and provincial elections that the large polls are the polls in which everything seems to operate much more slowly. If mistakes are made at all, they’re generally made in those larger polls. I would have preferred to have seen a smaller number than 350 electors per poll. I know that can be taken care of when we go into a clause-by-clause study of the bill.

One of the other points that concerns me with the legislation is the need for uniformity. I’m pleased that, wherever possible, the bill does attempt to make uniform procedures as between the Municipal Elections Act and the provincial Act. That is a step in the right direction. I would think that the next step would be at the federal level so that all three follow the same type of procedures. The printing of the names is exactly the same. The numbering uses the same principle. The reverse printing is exactly the same. The size of the circle opposite or at the end of the name and everything else should be as close as possible to the procedures in the other two elections that are held.

In other words, municipal, provincial and federal elections should use paper exactly the same and so forth so that once an individual gets the pattern of voting, he isn’t confused when he comes from a provincial election into a municipal election. Municipally, we have a whole series of ballots. I think that’s a better procedure than the American system where you have the bed-sheet which makes it extremely complicated.

Mr. Roy: That’s unparliamentary.

Mr. B. Newman: Maybe the paper should be coloured on the one side, so that at least if the ballot sheet is turned over then one knows whether this is a ballot for the mayoralty as opposed to the utilities or any one of the other elective offices.

Mr. Philip: Coloured paper causes pollution in the sewage system.

Mr. B. Newman: As far as polling subdivisions are concerned, the bill makes mention that each polling subdivision should be in a place “that is most central or most convenient for the electors and is furnished with light and heat and such other accommodations and furniture as may be required.” That is generally provided. The thing that does concern me a bit is that quite often the rooms are small, if it’s in a private home.

Mr. Foulds: There isn’t a cabinet minister in the House.

Mr. Laughren: Where is the cabinet? Where did the cabinet go?

Mr. Pope: You guys don’t want them.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Nickel Belt stop mumbling?

Mr. B. Newman: If they are in a school, there is practically always a substantial number of steps to climb up or to go down. That makes it a handicap for not only those who are physically handicapped, but also for the elderly climbing any types of steps. In every community during a general election or a municipal election there should be some polling subdivisions on a ground floor to which anyone that is handicapped should be allowed to go whether he resides in that polling subdivision or not. He should be given a transfer certificate so that he could go into another polling subdivision and not inconvenience himself.

Further to that, I think there should be drive-in voting. There is no reason why a handicapped person couldn’t sit in the car and the election officers come to the individual, check his name, give him the ballot, allow him to mark the ballot and then put it right in the box. There is nothing wrong with that at all. We do that with our money in the banks. We do that in the post office.

Mr. Haggerty: Have a credit card.

Mr. B. Newman: But we don’t do it in probably the most important expression of democracy that we have, that is, the right to cast a ballot. The individual who is handicapped should have exactly the same rights as those of us who are blessed with not being disabled in any fashion, other than maybe -- speaking for myself only, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have got to look at the handicapped. We want them to exercise their franchise, and yet we don’t make it convenient for them. This is one of the things that is lacking in the bill -- and maybe I should not be speaking on it because it is lacking in the bill, but if there is a possibility of an amendment when it comes to clause-by-clause study, I hope that will be taken into consideration by the member who is piloting the bill and that such an amendment will be put in there to convenience the handicapped people who want to exercise the franchise.

The bill lowers the age of scrutineers to 16 years. I think that is a good, forward step. As one of the previous speakers mentioned, we want to interest our youth in the democratic process. So we are going to have to attract them into the polling subdivisions and having them as scrutineers, I think, is a good thing. Maybe we should allow high school students, to sit in at polling subdivisions, not necessarily only as scrutineers but as observers so they can see the whole electoral process and, as a result, go back better informed and maybe pass that information on to their fellow students.

I notice the bill also states: “In municipalities having more than 5,000 electors, the clerk shall mail or cause to be delivered to each dwelling unit in the municipality a notice advising the elector or electors therein of the location of the polling place in which that elector or those electors is or are to vote.”

That is good, it has been done in the municipalities. But I just cannot understand, when we have this in the Municipal Elections Act, why we don’t follow exactly the same procedure when it comes to provincial elections. I think the same thing should be done there.

There is no reason why each of the three, four, five or six political parties should go ahead and send the same information to each of the electors when the chief returning officer --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member will heed his own admonition and stick to the principle of this bill. We are not talking about provincial elections.

Mr. B. Newman: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will return to it, but I make the point that we have to look at other things when we are looking at this. We also hope the member piloting the bill through will pass this bit of information to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and take that into consideration.

Mr. Bradley: Who is in charge over there?

Mr. Warner: If you can find him. He is hiding somewhere.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I did make mention of drive-in voting not being in the bill. I think it should be in the bill to permit the use of a car to drive up and vote at a polling subdivision.

Mr. Davison: How about public transit voting?

Mr. Bradley: Who is the acting Premier?

An hon. member: George, you have been promoted.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that essentially was what I was going to say concerning this bill, other than that schools and churches are not necessarily always the best locations for polling subdivisions. One of the bad features about the use of schools and churches is that they may put six polls in the area in one school. As a result, people have to come from a greater distance to vote. All you are doing, by doing that, is discouraging people from coming out to vote. Recalling the snowstorm in the city of Windsor back in 1974, I can understand why quite a few people did not go out to vote. In addition to the snowstorm and the inconvenience it caused, the fact that people had to travel almost a mile, and maybe even a lot farther than a mile -- and I am referring to an urban voter, not a rural voter -- doesn’t encourage an individual to exercise his franchise.

The other comments I would have liked to make, but which you have ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker, had to do with the limitation on election expenses and the publishing of the contributions.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, we are on the municipal elections bill --

Mr. Riddell: Remember the three Ss.

Mr. Laughren: I want to get through this debate quickly and get on with the bill on occupational health. I’ll do what I can to speed up the debate. I would like to add my support as a northern member to the 45-day interval between Labour Day and the municipal election date as put forth by my colleague from Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). It was driven home to me this last weekend when I was laying a wreath on Friday, November 11. The snow was blowing down my neck and into my shoes and all parts of my body were frigid. I couldn’t help but think that the Treasurer or his people who drafted the bill, hadn’t spent much time in northern communities around the middle of November. I really do believe that northern communities do have a right to have a greater input into this. It may not matter very much to the southern communities whether it’s the middle of October or the middle of November. Therefore, their views are not as important as the views of those in the north to whom it really is important whether or not it’s the middle of October or the middle of November.

It would not have cost the Treasurer anything to have moved back the date as suggested by my colleague. That is what should have been done. It would not have interfered with the provincial or federal elections. If it had, then let the federal and provincial people take note that that is an automatic date every year. They can take that into consideration when they are setting their election date. There is no reason that could not have been done. It’s a sensible suggestion.

The other question is the whole one about the time off from work to go to the polls. Three hours seems to me to be most reasonable. We all know the problem of getting people at municipal elections out to vote. The percentage turnout is abysmally low, so we must do what we can to increase the turnout. That is just one way. I know it is not the ultimate way; the ultimate way, of course, is to introduce party politics at the municipal level, so that people know what the municipal politicians are standing for. They stand for a platform with certain policies, therefore it would encourage turnout at the polls.

Mr. Roy: You guys wouldn’t get elected.

Mr. Laughren: That may be the opinion of the Liberal member.

Mr. Roy: They sneak in in the Ottawa riding.

Mr. Laughren: But I can assure you in the long run ratepayers at the municipal level are going to start demanding a different kind of return from municipal politicians. They are going to start saying, “We know something is wrong with the whole principle of property taxation and that the determination is made in Queen’s Park. It is not made at the municipal level.” Sooner or later that is going to start sinking in. Sooner or later politicians in Queen’s Park are not going to be able to use municipal politicians as scapegoats for increased property taxation. That is going to happen. It is already happening now.

The more we can increase participation at the municipal level in elections then I think it serves us all better, because we will get the message more clearly here at Queen’s Park as well. It is fine to say that the municipalities are creatures of the province and if that is the case, it certainly is under the BNA Act, then we have an obligation to listen to those people, and to listen to those politicians much more closely than we do at present.

The only other point I would like to make is the whole question of a limit on expenditures and full disclosure, requirement for disclosure, and the right of the municipality to make that determination. I would suggest it should be a requirement under the Municipal Act, not even left to the discretion of the municipalities. But I could certainly support my colleague that it be at the discretion of the municipality.

[10:15]

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I talk about party politics at the municipal level, it permeates the whole municipal scene in, well, almost an under-the-surface kind of way. Right now at the municipal level there is party politics and it does involve the expenditures and it does involve disclosure, because the establishment in municipal politics in the province of Ontario by and large is Tory. By and large, the Conservative government in Ontario has done a very good job of wooing and attracting municipal politicians. One need only look at the Conservative benches -- and I don’t say that in a disgruntled kind of way. I say it in an envious kind of way.

Mr. Davidson: The working man can’t pay for the campaign, that’s why.

Mr. Lewis: You could say it in a disparaging way.

Mr. Laughren: They have a very good job. There is the odd exception such as my friend who is our critic and my colleague from Sudbury and others from this party who have been very active in municipal politics, but by and large we know that as long as the bulk of municipal politicians represent the Tories there is a need for disclosure and a limit on expenditures in municipal elections. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. Germa: Especially in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Laughren: That’s right. There’s probably no better example than Thunder Bay.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Thunder Bay is an example. Imagine if there was disclosure in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Laughren: Ah!

Mr. Hennessy: I spent $140.

Mr. Laughren: That’s why we need disclosure. Exactly.

Mr. Hennessy: I don’t spend much.

Mr. Laughren: No, you don’t. It’s who spends it on your behalf that bothers us. That’s what’s bothering us.

Mr. Lewis: That’s $140 at one lunch. What did you do for the rest of the time?

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: And that’s without food.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have some order? Perhaps the member for Nickel Belt would address his remarks either to the Chair or through the Chair.

Mr. Warner: Could we also have a cabinet minister?

Mr. Laughren: I’ll try and do both, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: That’s asking too much.

Mr. Laughren: The final point I would make is the one that was made so well by my colleague from Cornwall (Mr. Samis), and in support of my colleague from Welland, that “any notices” --

Mr. Bradley: Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Laughren: Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Bradley: Don’t forget the Thorold.

Mr. Laughren: -- “that any notices required to be posted, published or mailed under this Act may be printed in both the English and the French languages.” I happen to represent a bilingual-bicultural community myself and I would endorse wholeheartedly what my colleague has said, and as well, my colleague from Cornwall, because there has been an acceptance, just an acceptance, that whatever the majority is in that community -- which of course is English -- that’s the way the decisions are made and everything else beyond that is permissive. I think that the amendment that will be put makes an excellent point and I think it’s one that should be supported, not just by us but by the government and by the Liberal Party as well.

Mr. Roy: Many comments have been made about this bill and I don’t intend to be repetitious on certain positive aspects of it. Certainly I for one am in favour of certain changes, as has been mentioned by the previous speaker, especially in the area of having bilingual notices and things of this nature. I don’t see why it never existed before and frankly, it’s a matter of paying a bit of attention to certain situations and certain matters of fact existing in a number of areas of this province.

I’m sorry that certain aspects of the suggestions we and the members to my left have made in the past as to election expenses and even extending in certain areas the term of council were not looked at in this legislation. But basically my only concern about the bill is something that I would have thought that the government across the way -- and I’m pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, that we do have one cabinet member now in the House.

Mr. Lewis: She is asking herself why.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Right.

Mr. Roy: Yes, she is asking herself why. The participation on behalf of the government in the debate on this legislation certainly has not been something to be proud of. The front benches have been extremely weak.

Mr. Pope: You missed it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The member for Oshawa East hasn’t been there for long.

Mr. Roy: The thing that I can’t quite understand with the legislation is the -- what do you call that? -- anachronism.

Mr. Havrot: Anachronism?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Anachronistic.

Mr. Roy: Anachronism, yes, I keep putting the accent on the wrong syllables. In section 12 and 13, I think it was mentioned by my colleague from Waterloo, that the government insists, when it talks about qualification of electors, about equating a Canadian citizen and a British subject. I would have thought that this was something that in 1977, in the context of Canadian politics, would be something we wouldn’t have in this legislation. I’d really thought the government had gone past that, that its perception and its sensibility in that area had progressed to a stage where such things would have been changed.

Mr. Ashe: We don’t understand what you are saying.

Mr. Roy: The reason I mention this is that -- what’s this?

Mr. Ashe: We don’t understand what you’re saying.

Mr. Roy: I don’t understand what you’re saying. Possibly you can educate me.

Mr. Havrot: You need one.

Mr. Roy: If the member for Durham West is the one who is trying to push this legislation through the House, I’m telling him right now he may have a problem and he may be facing an amendment. As I understand it, it says, “Qualifications of the elector:” I think I can read English as well as the member can, states: “ ... is a Canadian citizen or other British subject; …” That’s in English. I’m sorry if I don’t understand what that means.

I can recall debating the provincial Election Act back in 1974. At that time the minister piloting the legislation through the House was Mr. Irvine. He surprised us at that time when he said that in the provincial Act he intended to change it to make it strictly a Canadian citizen. He surprised us. I can recall it, and my colleague from Waterloo has the Hansard notes on this. I thought if they evolve that far when you can get that kind of thinking from a person like Don Irvine, in the area of the province he’s from, I think we’re getting on, we’re starting to understand the aspect of Canadianism in this country. Unfortunately, what happened was, he promised us an amendment but never brought it in. Obviously he was not able to convince his colleagues in cabinet or his colleagues in caucus. This country has opened its arms to people from all over the world.

Mr. Speaker: You’re straying from the principle of the bill. You’re talking about what didn’t happen in a provincial Act.

Mr. Pope: It’s all academic. That is academic and you know it now.

Mr. Roy: It’s all academic they say. I don’t consider this to be an academic exercise. You, across the way, may consider this to be one.

Mr. Pope: What about the changes in the Citizenship Act?

Mr. Roy: What’s this?

Mr. Pope: What about the changes in the Citizenship Act?

Mr. Roy: Yes, there have been changes to make it easier for one to become a Canadian citizen.

Mr. Pope: Right. You know it’s academic now.

Mr. Davidson: Two wrongs make a right.

Mr. Roy: I can see some of the members across the way feeling somewhat uneasy but my point, basically, is this. Surely, in any level of government, the people who should elect their representatives should be Canadian citizens and we should take every step possible that Canadian citizens, no matter what their origin or country they’re from, are treated equally. But we’re not, when we continue this type of clause in legislation.

Mr. Pope: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mr. Roy: And it should be the criterion for voting in any election, whether it be provincial, municipal or federal. It should be strictly Canadian. We’ve taken steps, and the government federally has taken steps to make it easier to be a Canadian citizen.

I find it somewhat offensive at times. I don’t want to be derogatory at all to people of British extraction. They have made a contribution to this country. But having made a contribution to this country, and wanting to stay in this country, there should be some positive encouragement to become Canadian citizens, and one of them should be to participate in the political process.

I say when we start looking at some of these things and when we start treating all citizens of this country, no matter what their place of origin, as Canadian citizens and encouraging them to become Canadian citizens through participation in the political process, then we will have evolved and progressed to what some of us at least anticipate or foresee this country should represent.

We should not allow this. I would hope my colleagues across the way, in spite of some of their comments, will support the amendment that will be brought forward, hopefully, changing this and limiting it to Canadian citizens, period. Certainly this is qualification enough to be a voter. I really can’t see, and I am anxious to hear from some of the members across the way, what is offensive in having in a piece of legislation, whether it be provincial or federal or municipal, that the criterion to become a voter is that one be a Canadian and nothing else and nothing more.

Mr. Lewis: In the two minutes that are left, I am feeling my normal pre-conclusion spasm in these evening sittings. I want, therefore, to say to the parliamentary assistant that as I have sat and listened to this debate for a number of hours today, both to the participation of the New Democratic members and the Liberal members, it appears to me that the job cut out for him is rather greater than he anticipated. That has emerged during the course of the discussion on this bill.

I draw to the parliamentary assistant’s attention: 1. that the consultative process was abjectly neglected by his ministry and by the province; 2. that the date the government has chosen is wrong; 3. that the tenure it has imposed is arbitrary; 4. that it has no provisions for disclosure or indeed for maximum spending in a bill of this kind; and 5. it has failed to take regard of the need for some emphasis on bilingual realities in the province of Ontario.

In other words, if we weren’t of such passivity in this caucus, we would have worked ourselves up to an appropriate froth at this point of the night and opposed this blessed bill in principle. But, being men and women of reason, we will give the parliamentary assistant the opportunity next Tuesday to rescue this fiasco from the ashes to which it has been reduced by the collective brilliance of the combined opposition throughout the day today.

Mr. Warner: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant should consider resigning.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further debate on second reading of Bill 98? Would someone care to move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Lewis: Have the parliamentary assistant do it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Is he the last speaker?

Mr. Lewis: I think so.

Mr. Speaker: If there are no further speakers, then the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Ashe: I would have to react to a lot of this rhetoric that was put forward. I am afraid I can’t do it in 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker: Would you care to move the adjournment of the debate?

On motion by Mr. Ashe, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have an announcement? We have a late show.

Mr. Lewis: Several late shows.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Downsview and the member for Oakwood have filed the required notice of their dissatisfaction with answers to questions posed to the Minister of Education on November 10 concerning the heritage language program. A motion for adjournment is deemed to have been made. I will listen to the hon. member for Downsview for up to five minutes.

HERITAGE LANGUAGE PROGRAM

Mr. di Santo: Last Thursday I asked the Minister of Education a specific question about the heritage language program in the borough of North York, which is one of the boroughs of the province which has not accepted the provincial heritage language program along with other boroughs in Metro Toronto, like Etobicoke, Scarborough and East York. I asked the minister to clarify why it was the borough of North York didn’t accept the program and whether the reasons they gave were not serious enough to have him reconsider the position of the government.

[10:30]

In fact, the North York board said on September 17 that they could not accept the program because it was not self-financing. They proposed that either the province would totally fund such programs or that the students would be charged $25 for the same programs. The minister said this is the way the continuing education programs work; it is based on sharing between provincial and local governments.

I want to tell the minister that the way this program has been implemented by the ministry is not only shameful but has been producing a negative impact in the community. The fact of the matter is that in the borough of North York alone the parents have been forced to set up third-language courses in 27 schools to date. Not only that, but the proposals of the board of education of North York are creating such a negative reaction that I can tell the House that there will be reactions, not only among the ethnic groups but also among the English-speaking groups. As a matter of fact, if one reads today’s newspapers one already can notice that there are reactions in that sense. In fact, a headline in the Globe and Mail reads: “Parents Worry Heritage Program Could Harm Basic Skills.”

If the government doesn’t become serious and implement this program in a way that will respond to a need which is there in the community, and the fact that thousands of children are organizing themselves and paying for their courses, it will create a serious division and a serious resentment in the community.

If the school boards ask the parents of the children to pay for the courses, I think that would be highly unfair. Either we think those courses are necessary and are a public service, and therefore they should be funded publicly, or we think they are not necessary and they should have been left out of the election promises that the Conservatives made in May.

If the school boards increase property taxes, then the government will be responsible, because that will produce reactions among the other parents whose children are not benefiting from these courses. In both cases, the way the government has promised these courses and the way it is implementing them, they are becoming a negative factor in our community. It will raise serious apprehensions among the ethnic groups and the other citizens of this province.

I ask the minister at this point that he assure this House and the people in the province, especially the ethnic minorities, that this government is serious about the business of the third language. If he does so, I hope the minister will give us an assurance that the whole program was not just an election promise but was something serious towards creating a multicultural society in which we truly believe --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. di Santo: -- and I hope that the government will seriously consider it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Is there not another question?

Mr. Speaker: They were separate motions that were introduced for different reasons: in fairness, I think you should respond to the remarks of the member for Downsview.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to the remarks of the member for Downsview, because I think that I can appreciate his enthusiasm for wanting to serve his constituents. That certainly is well placed. The borough of North York anticipate they will be starting classes in January. I think it’s incumbent upon him to work with the community groups and the North York Board of Education to see that these programs are set up in the way that the community wants.

We established this heritage language program, as we had announced many times in this House, as part of our total multiculturalism in education program. We laid out the ground rules. We felt it was better to support parent groups, working with school boards, to give a degree of continuity and to give a degree of supervision to these programs.

Mr. di Santo: But you have not paid.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have, however, left it up to the --

Mr. di Santo: You are not paying.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- boards of education and the community groups to establish the programs. The city of Toronto has about 402 classes with nearly 10,000 students who will be taking part in this program.

Mr. di Santo: What about North York?

Mr. Lupusella: Where is your leadership in those programs?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The borough of York has 34 -- I’ve just explained to the member that the borough of North York has said it is hoping to have something ready by January.

Mr. Foulds: Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

Mr. di Santo: Yes, one program --

Hon. Mr. Wells: We over here, and a lot of the members opposite, believe in the democratic principles and the rights of people working with their boards. It’s all the essence of the community school principle and so forth. All I say to the member is, work with the people and work with the elected trustees in North York to get this program going.

Ms. Gigantes: The rights of people who pay for school programs.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’ve laid out the ground rules --

Mr. di Santo: But you are depriving people of their rights.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’ve laid out the grants and I have used my influence --

Mr. Lupusella: Why don’t you organize them? You are the Minister of Education. You should provide guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ve used my influence to encourage and ask boards to take this program. We’re not going to force them to take the program and we’re not going to change the grant structure. So the member may as well get that clear.

Mr. di Santo: You have reduced the grants, exactly.

Hon. Mr. Wells: With those two principles established, the city of Toronto and 37 other boards in this province have seen fit to move ahead in this program.

Mr. Lupusella: That’s how the fiction has been created.

Hon. Mr. Wells: So let’s get off all this carping. How about the member working with the North York board to get the program established up there?

Ms. Gigantes: Seventy cents.

Mr. Lupusella: Why don’t you change the formula then?

Mr. di Santo: Twenty-five per cent.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let the member work with the North York board. We’ve already told the board; the member just needs to do a little work with them. Let’s talk for a minute about this grant situation. The member keeps talking about “all that we’re paying to the city of Toronto and the Metro boards”. At the rate of grant that we’re paying the Metro board to have a full heritage language program, it would only cost the taxpayers another two or three dollars on their taxes. That’s all. That’s all it would cost. And that’s certainly --

Mr. Grande: Seventy-five per cent of our money.

Hon. Mr. Wells: With 75 per cent of the cost borne at the local level, with the high commercial base in Metropolitan Toronto it would only cost another two or three dollars a year.

Ms. Gigantes: You go out and get elected to a board on that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Don’t try to tell me that it’s unfair and that our rate of grant is unfair because it is not. It is an equitable situation. If the member believes in equality --

Mr. Lupusella: The formula is unfair.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- he’ll believe in the way we’ve handled our grants for this particular program.

Mr. Warner: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let him cut out all his talking in the House, and instead of carping at the program, go out and help in North York to get the program established -- help, like some of the other people have helped to get it established. Then, perhaps, we’ll be worthy of a little support from the community.

Mr. Lupusella: That’s what we are doing and there was no reaction coming from them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oakwood for up to five minutes.

Mr. Grande: The minister tonight is in a fighting mood, so let’s keep on with that kind of a mood. On May 19, 1977 -- and that was, by the way, during the election campaign -- the Premier (Mr. Davis) made his first election promise to a full house of ethnic press reporters, during which he unveiled the multicultural policy --

Hon. Mr. Wells: You are wrong -- March 29.

Mr. Grande: May 7.

Hon. Mr. Wells: March 29.

Mr. Grande: All right. There is a speech by the Premier and I can prove that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, on March 29, the program was announced.

Mr. Lupusella: Which was a political ploy.

Mr. Grande: Anyway, what happened was that on June 15, 1977, the Minister of Education sent a memorandum to the directors of education and principals in the schools. This memorandum was received by the principals and directors on June 27 and June 28, 1977.

The Minister of Education understands that at that particular time of the school year the schools are ready to close. So that meant no action was going to be taken during the summer and in September, when the principals arrived back in the school, what they found was that they had a memorandum on their desks which was, in essence, meaningless. It gave no details whatsoever in terms of the funding, it gave no details whatsoever in terms of how the school boards were going to set up these heritage language programs.

I talked to the minister before about demonstrating leadership in that ministry and he says that the leadership ought to be at the local level. Well, fine. Then let him react to what the local level said. Because, if nothing else, these heritage language programs represent what the local boards of education had been saying to the minister for the past five years. And, by the way, it was in 1975 that he first told me in this Legislature that the multicultural policy was going to be announced within two months. He came in May 1977, two full years later, to make that announcement.

Mr. Pope: March 29.

Hon. Mr. Wells: March.

An hon. member: Two years later, no matter how you read it.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, very quickly, because we just have five minutes here, on October 6, 1977, when the Minister of Education went to the Toronto Board of Education, at the meeting where 300 parents were present, the Minister of Education was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, “Bring me some cases and we will investigate. I want to know why they are not providing the program.” And “they” meant the school boards.

I wrote to the different boards of education in Metropolitan Toronto, in Ottawa, in Windsor, in London and in the major urban centres. The answers are:

North York: “We cannot start the program. The funding is limited. What we need is full funding for this program.”

The Scarborough Board of Education -- and that happens to be the board of education from where the minister comes -- says: “We feel that the grant is not sufficient as it pays for only 25 per cent of the costs in Metro. The Metro taxpayers should not be forced to pay the difference.” And it says, “A satisfactory solution would be for the Ministry of Education to pay 100 per cent of the cost of these programs.”

The East York Board of Education says exactly the same thing -- that the minister ought to be providing full funding for these programs.

The Etobicoke Board of Education -- exactly the same thing.

An editorial in the Toronto Star titled “Wells Gets Praise But City Gets the Bills” points out to the minister that the 25 per cent of the provincial funds that go to the public school boards is certainly not enough to encourage these boards of education to set up the programs. I was telling the minister the same things during the estimates but he would not believe it.

Mr. McClellan: Two-bit Wells.

Mr. Lupusella: The programs are in jeopardy.

Mr. Grande: Here is the reaction from the parents.

I received a call a few weeks ago from the Mississauga Separate School Board. There is a petition with the names of about 35 parents and the school says to these parents, “No, we are not going to set up these programs.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, if I may have one final sentence, that is: Take a look at the funding; go towards full funding. If the minister cannot go toward full funding, at least begin to set up a grant specifically for the heritage language program, because otherwise this is going to be a failure. Something we have been working for for five years is going to be a total failure and the responsibility must rest only with the minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, since we are in the mood for reading letters, let me read a letter which says, in part, “Although most of these classes are still being organized, it is anticipated that we will be providing the program for somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 students. It is expected that the present grant scheme will be adequate, provided we are able to maintain the instructional costs at a reasonable level and the enrollments do not fall between 15 and 20 pupils per class and that the ministry does not impose a limitation on the grants as proposed.”

[10:45]

Mr. Grande: That’s from the separate school board.

Mr. Lupusella: Who’s that from?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board which will be operating one of the largest --

Mr. di Santo: That’s unfair. They had the program last year.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to hear the answer?

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, my friends, just calm down. The Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board is a school board in this province just like any other board, so remember that.

Mr. di Santo: But they had a program last year.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What I am going to do in the few minutes that I have -- and I understand that I have five minutes -- is I am going to read to the hon. members, and put on the record, the boards that are now operating classes under the heritage language program in Ontario: Wentworth County, Lincoln, Hamilton-Wentworth RCSS, Hamilton, Niagara South, Norfolk, Welland County, Lincoln County, Windsor, Lambton County, Wellington County, Lakehead District RCSS, Lakehead, Kenora, Brant, Oxford, Perth, Nipissing, Nipissing RCSS, Kirkland Lake, Hearst, Timmins, Ottawa, Ottawa RCSS, Renfrew, Frontenac, Leeds and Grenville, Northumberland and Newcastle, Peterborough County, Halton RCSS, Borough of York, Durham, York Region RCSS, Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board and the Toronto Board of Education.

Ms. Gigantes: How many are new?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are 27 different heritage languages being taught under the programs of those various boards -- of course not all of them in one board but at different boards -- and those languages are Arabic, Armenian, Chilean, Chinese, Cree, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Filipino, Greek, German, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Spanish, Slovak, Slovenian, Ukrainian and Welsh.

Mr. Foulds: I bet you don’t even know the difference between Slovakian and Armenian.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was our estimation, when we brought in this program, that we would have about 40,000 students enrolled across this province in the first year and for which we would pay grants. We will likely reach about 40,000 students and we will pay out about $2 million in grants. I don’t think the program is a failure. I think we are starting on a very good, solid base and we will move from there.

OHIP OFFICE CLOSURE

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I assume this is going to be the first of a series of evenings in which the minister will be appearing late before us over the OHIP situation in Windsor. We are simply not going to forget this very easily, I can tell you.

The Minister of Health on Thursday last guillotined the staff of the Windsor OHIP office from 51 to five, removing thereby all the claims processing from Windsor to London, a small sub-office being left to handle inquiries only. I asked the minister today how, in the name of saving dollars, he could shift the claims processing from Windsor to London when by the ministry’s own figures the Windsor employees are more efficient. The minister did admit that the efficiency in the Windsor office was higher.

I asked the minister, in addition, did he have any idea of the number of claims from Windsor area residents arising from treatment in Detroit because of the special treatment and facilities there? I referred to claims for payment that they personally take in to the Windsor office. The minister had no idea but thought they were small.

It shows again that the minister does not really take into account the special situation of Windsor as a border city that he did not have that sort of figure.

He completely ignores the very important psychological feeling of those persons who require to have medical treatment in Detroit and pay out of their own pocket for them first and then have to come back to the OHIP system for repayment. They have a very strongly felt psychological feeling of walking into an OHIP office and feeling confident, with the full range of services there, that their claim will be processed promptly.

My third question pertained to the space situation in London, to which 27 persons from the Windsor office are to be offered a transfer. I asked, was he aware that the space consolidation plan for the London OHIP office would make the situation very tight even for the staff there now, let alone 27 more coming in? Or words to that effect; I didn’t quite have enough time to say all of that. But certainly the situation would be tight with that planned space consolidation. The minister replied to the effect that the space situation was adequate in London, and this is where his answer was most inadequate. It can be fine only if that space consolidation plan is reversed and if the space on the fourth floor, which was to have been vacated in March is restored.

I gather that this was done yesterday. OHIP officials went down and said to the London office people, “You will not have to relocate the apace. You will not have to vacate the fourth floor.” This points out weaknesses in the minister’s figures. He’s counting as half of his half-a-million dollar saving savings resulting from rent and other cost figures in the Windsor building. If he does that, he must subtract from that all of the maintenance and rental of that fourth floor space in the London office which is now being returned to that London office. Like all figures, it seems, emanating from the Ministry of Health, when one gives them a close scrutiny, they do not stand up to what is released by the minister’s staff.

The minister in his cutback completely ignores the historical feeling around Windsor over the OHIP office, Windsor Medical Services having existed in those facilities and operated for years before the formation of the province-wide OHIP. It was a service to which Windsor people had become very attached under Windsor Medical Services. They were a little bit concerned when OHIP came in and it is now removed entirely from the community.

One other point which is of interest is that my colleague from Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) asked the minister if he had any plans to close anything else down in Windsor. The reply from the Minister of Labour to that was, “How about Windsor itself?” I think this minister may well talk to the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) about her attitude towards Windsor and the services that should be provided there.

Mr. Cooke: She should apologize in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Bounsall: I just say in conclusion, with most other ministries decentralizing and attempting to bring services closer to people, this ministry in its madness in a drive to save money, where those savings are very questionable, does the reverse.

Mr. Warner: Justify your actions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, may I have some indication from you? I think the next late show serial deals with the same subject. May I respond to both at once?

Mr. Speaker: This is the end. We can only have three.

Mr. Warner: We’re doing this in instalments.

Mr. Wildman: You’ll have to come back Thursday night.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I understand it, the hon. member made four or five points tonight. They are basically as indicated in his motion noting dissatisfaction.

First of all, let me deal with the question of the volume of claims. It is quite true that the efficiency, if you want to call it that, of the Windsor office in terms of numbers of claims for the number of staff is marginally, during last year at least, better than that for the London office.

Mr. Bounsall: Ten per cent.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I worked it out as a matter of fact. If you take the two million claims at Windsor and divide it by 51 staff, that gives 39,215.6. If you take 4,800,000 claims at London with 128 staff, it gives 37,500. That is a difference of 1,700 which is not 10 per cent. It is much less than 10 per cent.

The London office is a district office in an area serving a much broader area than that of the Windsor office presently and also serving a number of teaching hospitals. It has been the experience of OHIP over the years that the teaching hospitals do generate more difficult, more time-consuming and more involved cases than in the non-teaching hospitals.

Mr. Wildman: Which city has the largest RCMP detachment?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Given the marginal difference, I really don’t think that that is a valid argument. Of course, with the transfer of the bulk of the function of Windsor to the London office, there will be an overall reduction in staff of 19, which will give us 160 staff in London processing 6,800,000, we’ll take the same figures, which will give us an efficiency of 42,500, if we want to pursue that argument through to its logical conclusion.

The other thing I want to point out is that we do have a series around the province of district offices and sub-offices. For instance, the Hamilton office of OHIP is a district office, but there are sub-offices in Kitchener and St. Catharines which do receive some inquiries and claims. They relate to Hamilton as their district office. This is the relationship that will exist between Windsor and London. The other thing I want to clear up is that the member talks about the claims from Detroit. I’m sorry, I don’t know what the numbers are. I really don’t think that it would be a sizeable percentage of the total number of claims processed through the Windsor office.

Mr. Bounsall: It matters very much to the persons involved, though.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But the point is that any such claims will continue to be processed. They can continue to go to the Windsor office to get their assistance in filing claims. Our experience in looking at the operation of OHIP is that based on a survey of our OHIP offices, 97 per cent of the inquiries which we receive at the OHIP offices from the general public relate to enrolment, and not to claims. Certainly that will continue to be looked after by the five-person staff left in Windsor.

Let me get into the question of the amount of space. In London, it is quite true that before the decision was taken to reduce, it was their intention to give up 10,000 square feet of space. That will now be reduced to 5,000. We will be giving up 5,000 square feet of space, rather than the original 10,000 as planned. That will save us $45,000 a year in the London operation, as opposed to what would have been $90,000 a year, had that been given up and the other changes not made.

The moving of the two offices together for the processing purposes, aside from the fact that it is part of a process in which the ministry is going to be involved for a number of years with district offices and sub-offices, will mean that we will be able to reach the desired range for the offices of 600,000 to 700,000 claims.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, as a matter of fact, we’ll be into estimates again and there are many other aspects of this I will be glad to share with the members at that time.

Mr. Warner: Like centralized confusion.

Mr. Speaker: I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.