Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. Yesterday, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) made a statement in the House concerning the member for St. David, a statement which I believe to be incorrect. She said that the member for St. David was giving out cheques from the Ministry of Community and Social Services to organizations in the riding of St. George.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member for St. George to substantiate her statement by introducing the information for the record, listing the names of the organizations, the places, and the dates of the events.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. member that she does not have a point of order. The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House, 36 students from Heatherbrae Middle School in Rexdale, who are sitting in the east gallery. They are with their teacher, Mr. Diana. I am sure the House will join me in welcoming them.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I know that the members of this House will want to welcome another 36 students who have come some 1,250 miles to visit the Ontario Legislature. They hail from the Evergreen School in Kenora, and they are ably assisted and accompanied by their teacher Miss Jane Stemerowicz.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to this House, and trust that you and the House will welcome, 36 students from Franklin Horner Middle School from the great and emblazoned riding of Lakeshore.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would like to bring to your attention that my colleagues, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) and the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), are today celebrating the 15th anniversary of their election; and my colleagues, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and the member for Kent (Mr. Spence), the 19th anniversary of their election, just a day or two ago. I knew you would be concerned with that. And may they long serve; may they long serve.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Why would one applaud?

Mr. Speaker: That certainly qualifies as a point of privilege!

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): I would like to make a personal statement, Mr. Speaker, and one which I have previously discussed with you.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the minister wake up screaming?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Surely the remarks made to the House last Friday by the Leader of the Opposition, if uncorrected, might leave the impression that I had refused to meet with the provincial Anti-Poverty Coalition when they came to Queen’s Park.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s right, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I received a letter from the coalition on April 16 asking me to meet with constituents from my riding and others on Friday, June 7. I replied to that letter on May 13 advising their provincial co-ordinator that I would be happy and willing to meet with their representatives and my constituents at 1 p.m. on Friday, June 7. My office advised them that I would meet a delegation in my office to discuss the housing situation and any concerns they might have in that regard, and the reason for that was I had moved my office from the time of writing to the Whitney Block.

Subsequent to that, we received a telephone request that I join with other members of the cabinet to meet in the office of the Minister for Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) for this meeting but, because of other commitments which I and members of my staff faced, I informed them that we should discuss the housing concerns that they had in my office, which is a short 30-second walk from this building.

I was in my office along with members of my staff at 1 p.m. on Friday, June 7, waiting for the delegation which did not appear. I was ready and willing to meet with members of the Anti-Poverty Coalition. They knew I was waiting to meet with them but for reasons which they have never divulged to me they apparently decided not to keep the appointment.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

DAYCARE SERVICES

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of a correction that needs to be made to the statement I gave in the House last week concerning daycare services for children.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Has the Minister of Housing invited them back? Has the minister written and re-invited them? Let him show a little courtesy. Write them again and ask them to come.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would afford this minister a little courtesy.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As the statement outlined, the government has decided to modify maximum staff ratios on a percentage basis. The numbers quoted in the statement reflected the percentage changes applied to the staffing ratios listed in section 12 of regulation 160 under the Day Nurseries Act, as published in the revised regulations of Ontario, 1970. The percentage changes should instead have been applied to the ratios published in regulation 547 of 1971.

Two ratios are affected thereby. For children under 18 months, the correct ratio is not more than four children per staff member and for children between 18 months and two years of age, the correct ratio is not more than six children per staff member. The other ratios quoted in the statement last week were correct.

Mr. Lewis: The other ones are the important ones.

DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Kitchener made certain allegations that files within my ministry were destroyed or burned.

Mr. Roy: They were just lost, eh?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I did a very intensive investigation and I am pleased to advise, Mr. Speaker, that no files relating to the Ste. Marie-among-the-Hurons project have been destroyed by anyone in my ministry. If the hon. member has any information to the contrary, I should be pleased to receive it.

My own inquiries, however, have determined that the only matter remotely connected with the files of the Ste. Marie-among-the-Hurons project relates to the transfer of files from Midland to Toronto when the director of the historical sites branch was relocated in Toronto some time ago. Therefore, it seems only reasonable that he should have ready access to his own files.

Mr. Lewis: That’s part of the decentralization of the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate but when an hon. member of this House raises a question of possible impropriety without first checking his facts, it brings no credit to him and it certainly is misleading to the public.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Do we check up by asking the ministry?

Mr. Renwick: We don’t need the editorializing.

Mr. Lawlor: We do the best we can with the information we have available.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): The opposition members have a big research budget now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I hope that he would see fit to apologize to my staff for the false allegations which he has raised and the inference of wrong-doing on their part.

Mr. Roy: The minister is trying to muzzle the opposition.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): If the minister wishes further information, I will be glad to provide him with anything I have.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right. I will be waiting.

Interjections by hon. members.

MINIMUM WAGE RATES

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement which I think will be of interest to the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Labour.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I wish to announce changes in the province’s minimum wage structure. The last change in the minimum wage was made on Jan. 1, 1974. Since that time, economic pressures have continued to build, requiring a complete review of the minimum level. Effective Oct. 1, the minimum wage will be set at $2.25 for those workers in general industry, at $2.50 for construction workers and at $1.90 per hour for students under 18 years of age. An information sheet setting out the changes in great detail is being distributed to the members.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Legislature that the minimum wage will be continually under review and, if circumstances warrant, I may be recommending further increases in the minimum wage.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Why not on July 1?

Mr. Roy: They will be getting a nickel more.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.

Interjections by hon. members.

AIR POLLUTION AT NIAGARA FALLS

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the plant of Cyanimid of Canada Ltd. in Niagara Falls has been a major source of air pollution in that area for some time. Because of economic conditions in the industry, my ministry has had difficulty in bringing the company under a pollution abatement programme. Over the past several years, the company has chosen to shut down pollution centres in the plant rather than install abatement equipment. The company was given several extensions to its control order in the hope that the economic situation for the company would improve and it would be able to carry out the abatement programme on the remaining pollution centres.

As a result of these difficulties, the company was scheduled to cease operations as of June 30, 1974. A few weeks ago the company approached my ministry asking for a further two-year extension to the control order. This request was made because of increased demand for the company’s products, resulting in an improved economic condition for the company. The executives of the company were advised that any consideration of their request would be contingent on getting the pollution abatement programme under way immediately, and that because of our past experience, a guarantee would have to be provided that the company would carry out the pollution abatement programme as set forth by my ministry.

As a result of that meeting, negotiations with the company were undertaken and resulted in the following agreement, which I feel will bring about the desired result in pollution abatement. This agreement is the first of its kind that I am aware of. Through it we are able to get the pollution abatement programme under way to the benefit of the citizens in the Niagara Falls area and, at the same time, to protect the more than 250 jobs in the Cyanimid of Canada plant. Under the agreement, Mr. Speaker, the company is to place the sum of $1.5 million in escrow under the control of my ministry. This money will be released in stages as the pollution control equipment is purchased and made operational as set forth in the control order. In this way, the $1.5 million will be worked down to a minimum of $100,000, which will remain until the complete pollution abatement programme is operational. At that time, the final $100,000 will be released to the company. If at any time the company decides to halt the abatement programme, the remaining money will be forfeited to the province.

The company has also agreed to pay for the installation of an air pollution index station complete with backup instrumentation and telemetering to be located in the city of Niagara Falls at a site to be selected by my ministry. The installation is to be completed by the ministry by the end of August of this year and maintained and operated by ministry personnel. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with these arrangements, for they represent a reasoned approach to the problem and achieve our desire for improved air quality in the community while preserving the jobs of the people employed at the plant.

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

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Is he aware of the opinion provided to the public accounts committee by the law officers of the Crown that Mr. J. A. Kennedy, a commissioner of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, is in conflict of interest with respect to certain expenditures arrived at by the commission; and is he prepared to remove Mr. Kennedy from his responsibilities in that commission because of the opinion expressed?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): That is a sneaky one.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from two members of the public accounts committee, which was just handed to me as I came into the Legislature, with some reference to this. I will be looking into it and discussing it with the minister and the chairman of the commission. I have no comment beyond that at this moment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Do the Premier’s guidelines with regard to conflict of interest apply to commissioners of the various commissions in government? Is there any reason to suspect or believe that it would not apply in its general terms?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition was actually quoting a portion of the legislation which probably should cover it. The question of the guidelines, as it relates to ministers and parliamentary assistants, of course, is not covered by a statute. I would assume, just from the question that was asked and, I assume, from the quotation from the Deputy Attorney General, that this is covered by the legislation; but, as I said, Mr. Speaker, I will be looking into it later today or tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Would it also be possible for the Premier to look into recapturing the funds that were paid by the commission to an individual in direct conflict under these circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sufficiently aware of the actual information. As I say, I will be discussing it with the minister and the chairman of the commission and will make some observation some time tomorrow or Thursday.

LEAD SURVEYS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Since he tabled information yesterday indicating that not only Canada Metal but 25 other companies have lead emission readings that are as much as 50 times above the safe levels prescribed by his own ministry, can he explain why he has not announced today specific actions to close down at least the major polluters, since their levels of emissions are so far above the levels standardized by the ministry itself?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition looked at the statement and the examples I released yesterday, he would realize we were talking about soil testing and vegetation testing. If we look at the total picture of all the companies we have surveyed, most of them have abatement control programmes and most of them have co-operated --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like Cyanimid?

Hon. W. Newman: Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition asking me about lead right now?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I am.

Hon. W. Newman: All right. We have done soil testing and vegetation testing on a continuing basis; this, as he knows, is an accumulative situation in the soil. We have abatement control orders on most of these companies, and many of these companies have installed abatement equipment. If the hon. member will read the material that goes with the statement I released yesterday, he will see that many of these companies now have reduced their lead emissions a great deal.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, a supplementary: Since the minister’s predecessor closed down Canada Metal and was stopped by the courts because of insufficiency of evidence, and since the minister now has the evidence that he tabled before the Legislature yesterday, how can he now indicate that the policy of the government is to allow these major polluters to continue without the abatement proceedings having been brought into effect, rather than simply under the day-to-day good graces of the minister allowing them to continue?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have abatement programmes in all these industries. You will notice that one of them with readings over the acceptable level doesn’t even handle lead. As the hon. member knows, we have an inter-ministerial committee working now; they will be reporting to me, probably within the next week to 10 days, and will be making certain recommendations in their report. The Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), of course, also has another subcommittee of medical people working on this matter too.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I have read this carefully and I can’t believe some of it. In the case of Tonolli Co. of Canada Ltd., the minister says in his statement that a phytotoxicology survey made in 1973 indicated an improvement of lead levels in soil and vegetation and that further abatement strategy will be developed, and his figures show that the parts per million for Tonolli in August, 1973, was 11,250 when 600 is considered excessive, would the minister explain to me how he can sit now and do nothing about such a company in the face of that evidence?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I said about that company and the other companies, the lead levels now are coming down as a result of their abatement programmes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, by way of supplementary, can the minister describe to the House the dangers that affect the people living in the area? Is it dangerous or not? Surely, if it is dangerous, he cannot permit these lead levels to continue without shutting down the polluters? I can’t see an alternative.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, as I have said, many of these companies now come within our limitations on their stack emissions. And let me make it very clear to the hon. member that as far as the medical profession is concerned, I wish they would actually come to some sort of a general agreement on it themselves.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What do the minister’s own people say?

Hon. W. Newman: My own people? Our problem is to decipher where the problems are, how much lead is there --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, the minister’s predecessor closed them down.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, and the hon. member knows what happened in the courts.

Mr. Lewis: When we had a level of 30,000 parts per million in July, 1973, in the case of Toronto Refiners and Smelters, and 600 is considered excessive, does the minister not recognize that it is impossible that the levels are now acceptable in those major plants? How then does he allow them to keep operating at full capacity? How then does he accept the material that has been given to him all this time by the air management branch?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, as I say, at least our ministry has been looking at these for some time and all of these companies have abatement programmes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): If the minister would talk less and do more --

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister not recognize that he is engaged in a persistent public health hazard, sponsored by his ministry, agreed to by his ministry despite its own documentation, and that the figures he has tabled are the greatest single indictment of his ministry? When is the minister going to do something about lead in the metropolitan areas of Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said before, we are very concerned about the people living in those areas.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but he has done nothing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: We have an inter-ministerial force looking at it now. One thing the member forgets is that this is an accumulated lead situation, accumulated on the foliage and on the ground --

Mr. Lewis: Accumulative for those who ingest it as well.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and the member is just taking the readings as he wants to interpret them himself.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s exactly how he’s interpreting them -- the way he wants to. That’s an accumulation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Either the minister should set new standards or he should close it down. It is irresponsible, totally irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

An hon. member: The minister doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There have been five supplementaries. In the circumstances I think one more would be reasonable.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Surely, the minister would realize that we are not simply interpreting those figures to suit ourselves. We are interpreting them on the basis of the standards that his department has set.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely he is aware of that?

Is he prepared to do two things? Is he prepared to spend public moneys to bring about a reduction in the level of pollution, and to replace the soil that is contaminated? Or is he prepared to step aside and let the member for Leeds (Mr. Auld) take over in that job again, where at least he was prepared to close them down?

Mr. Lewis: Shame! No, no. Never! Not on your life!

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we are now waiting for the interministerial task force which should be reporting to me --

Mr. Lewis: That’s nonsense, he is forever preparing reports.

Hon. W. Newman: It is not a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Renwick: The whole ministry is rotten.

Mr. Lewis: The whole ministry should be scrapped. The whole ministry is rotten.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: Does the member want to listen or doesn’t he want to listen? If he doesn’t want an answer, that’s fine.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Interjections by hon members.

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

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Get the lead out of your plants.

DAYCARE SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development if she is prepared to make a further correction, or let’s say an interpretive statement on her previous statement on daycare. Would she meet the substantial objections expressed by the community, most particularly by the Association for Early Childhood Education, which has contacted, I believe, all members of the Legislature, expressing its concern that the policies in the minister’s statement will in fact substantially reduce the quality of daycare, even though there is an additional infusion of dollars, by increasing the ratios along with the removal of training requirements for staff, to the extent that according to that association daycare is “on the brink of becoming institutional care only, providing a policing role”?

If I may ask a second question associated with it, Mr. Speaker: Can she make a statement which would clarify the confusion that seems to be involved with the policy minister and the minister who sits directly to her left, in charge of the specifics of the programme, indicating that the staff in the ministry is not prepared to implement the policy -- and as a matter of fact the former director. Miss Elsie Stapleford, says that policy has not even been decided yet?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, policy has been established. It was enunciated here in the House. If the member requires any further clarification, I’d be very happy to see that he receives it.

We realized that it would be arbitrary, that there were changes, but this was a very careful policy that is the result of a two-year study. And we believe that it’s almost impossible to satisfy everyone, because there are so many different philosophies in the care and education of young children -- and it was only after a great deal of deliberation, a great deal of consultation with many people involved in the provision of daycare services across this province --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, nuts. Did the provincial secretary consult with Barbara Chisholm? Did she consult with Elsie Stapleford?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We have been in consultation with a great many people.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on. The minister consulted with the private operators of Mini-Skools.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: And it was a policy --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Let her tell us about Mini-Skools.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I wish the minister could, let’s say, be a little more forceful in her answer and maybe even overcome the interjections.

Could she explain why the two-year study that she referred to in her very brief answer has, as far as I know, not been made public? Would she undertake to table that, at least so that we can compare those recommendations with the specifics of her very lengthy policy statement?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did give a brief answer but it is a little difficult to make oneself heard when there are so many interjections.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): They have no manners.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The member referred to the concern expressed by someone in Community and Social Services. I cannot speak for their feelings. This was a policy statement. The committee that was formed was initiated by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. It was a cabinet committee and it is a confidential cabinet report.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, that won’t wash.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It was a confidential cabinet report which was the basis for establishing policy for daycare services.

Mr. Lewis: Confidential? Not with daycare.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not with daycare.

Supplementary: I would ask the minister to reconsider.

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

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister what could possibly be a matter of state security about a study relating to the provision of daycare services which would allow the minister to deny us its contents? In answering that, could the minister table in the House the submissions she received from Barbara Chisholm, the acknowledged expert in this area, from the Association for Early Childhood Education, from Elsie Stapleford, who won’t support it because the minister is violating her standards and she has run it? Could the minister, finally, tell us how much would be benefited in financial terms by the private day school operators, thus telling us something about a group called Mini-Skools Ltd. in the process, by the watering down of the staff-child ratio?

Mr. Speaker: I believe those were three supplementaries, which makes five altogether.

Mr. Lewis: I think so.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am sure my hon. colleague realizes that when policy is to be established within a policy field a great deal of information has to be presented to the ministers involved in coming to a decision on such policies. A great deal of information has to be put in front of them.

Mr. Cassidy: And to this Legislature.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: And this is confidential information.

Mr. Lewis: Confidential? That’s rubbish. Forgive me for interjecting but it is rubbish.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to table the report.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It won’t wash.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It is an embarrassment to the minister.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier, who must have been following this exchange, Mr. Speaker, if he will give personal consideration to the decision taken by the policy secretary that the paper in support of policy on daycare be made public and tabled in this House. Surely it is a matter that the whole community is concerned with, and not only the members of the Legislature and the taxpayers. Will he undertake to give it some further consideration?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to consider anything that is reasonable. I would only point out to the Leader of the Opposition that this government functions as other governments in a democratic society on the basis of our cabinet system. There are representations made to us, reports and information are prepared, and decisions are made on matters of policy. If the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is suggesting that all material considered by cabinet --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am asking about just this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- be made public, I can tell him categorically now that that is not a possibility.

Mr. Renwick: That wasn’t what the minister was asked to do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to consider any reasonable request.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Well, there is nothing more reasonable than that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that the chances of having confidential cabinet material tabled in this House are very limited indeed.

Mr. Renwick: We are not asking for confidential government material.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister has already revealed that it exists.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may: Surely the material for an announcement about daycare services in Ontario cannot be considered confidential, unless the material indicated the benefit to the private sector that this announcement would have as opposed to the benefit to those who require subsidy in the public sector. Otherwise, why would the government sit on this information which is clearly in the public interest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know the leader of the New Democratic Party has a hang-up on organizations within the private sector, some of which he was familiar with in a more direct sense at one point in time.

Mr. Lewis: And tried to make it public; tried to get it into the public sector.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to him that no policy developed by this government relates to people or organizations or institutions being in or out of the private sector. Policy is developed on what is best for the general public of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is a red herring.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And that includes people in the daycare centre programme.

Mr. Renwick: Then table it.

Mr. Lewis: Table the report and prove us wrong.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition? The hon. member for Scarborough West.

HYDRO OIL PURCHASES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. On what basis does Ontario Hydro establish a cost of oil per barrel at the wellhead of $11.49 over the next few years, with such projection to inflate the cost to the consumers of Ontario by $50 million a year and result partly, therefore, in the increase of 15 per cent a year over the next five years? How does Hydro arrive at those figures?

Mr. Havrot: The hon. member is well oiled on that one, isn’t he?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): I think we’re confusing two different subjects, Mr. Speaker; perhaps I can deal with them separately.

First of all, the decision on Lennox was taken as long ago, I think, as 1968; and at that point in time, six years ago, the decision was taken to use oil vs coal. At that point in time, there were studies done which indicated that oil would be cheaper than coal; that was the reason to proceed with an oil-fired plant at Lennox, the first unit of which is to come into production next year.

The decision was taken on Wesleyville on much the same basis and reviewed during the course of the last 12 months. Mainly on the basis of environmental costs, it was determined to proceed with oil as well.

How does Hydro arrive at a figure of $11.80 or whatever it is by the year 1979? That is Hydro’s best estimate of today’s costs projected forward. Give or take price control arrangements by the government of Canada, and in terms of inflationary trends, in terms of the action of the OPEC states, in terms of Canadian and worldwide shortages of petroleum by the early 1980s, particularly here in Canada, I would suspect that $11.80, other than control by the government of Canada, may be a conservative figure.

Mr. Lewis: Well, by way of supplementary, if the minister is therefore positing that any government in this country from now on, will enter into an agreement within the next 11 or 12 months, that amounts to $11.80 per barrel in 1979, is the minister now finally prepared to step in to take back some of the increase from the oil companies to provide subsidies to the consumers of Ontario to offset the $50 million per year which Ontario Hydro is now calculating into our hydro rates? Surely there has to be some offset here, or the consumers are choked at both ends.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I or the hon. member has any idea what the pricing arrangements, what the royalties, what the taxation levels may be in 1980. It is pure guesswork.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Well, then, how does Hydro?

Mr. Lewis: They guess.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say at this moment, as the member well knows, that the increase in Saskatchewan, for example, was not taken by the companies; it was taken 100 per cent by a Socialist government --

Mr. Lewis: More than 100 per cent. More than 100 per cent!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that is ripping off the consumers of this province. And the hon. member doesn’t like to be reminded of it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The federal budget would have taken another $800 million off the companies.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since Ontario Hydro is asking for a 15 per cent a year or so, for five years, which the minister himself has admitted is unacceptable, and part of that component is an additional $50 million a year paid to the oil companies, why doesn’t the minister take a royalty from the oil companies and turn it back to protecting the consumers from increased hydro rates?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if we thought that that money was all going to be paid to the oil companies, it would be one cup of tea. The fact is that an awful lot of it is being paid --

Mr. Cassidy: To Peter Lougheed.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- in the form of royalties and taxes to the producing provinces, of which the hon. member’s Socialist friends in Saskatchewan are the biggest rip-off artists of all.

Mr. Lewis: The money is being paid to the companies selling it here.

Mr. Cassidy: What about Lougheed? Has the minister ever heard of Peter Lougheed?

Mr. Breithaupt: I hope the government of Alberta reads that statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of the Environment, if I may: Am I right in thinking that the minister has received several score briefs on the green paper on environmental impact legislation, and would he make those briefs public so that they could become part of the public discussion before he tables that legislation?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there is only one problem. Many of those submissions were made by individuals throughout this province and they made submissions on the basis that it was going to the ministry only. I would feel that it would be very inappropriate to release those.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are state secrets too.

Mr. Renwick: To extract information from this government is impossible.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: When is it the minister’s intention to table --

Mr. Renwick: What right has the ministry to do that on a private and confidential basis?

Mr. Lewis: -- the legislation on this matter? And were those briefs sent to him -- I think close to 200 of them -- as private and confidential documents?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there were 179 briefs. We have done an evaluation of them and at the time when legislation is introduced I will be quite glad to discuss this --

Mr. Lewis: When will that be?

Hon. W. Newman: As soon as possible.

Mr. Lewis: Within the next 10 days or so, or will it be in the fall?

Mr. Foulds: Neither.

Hon. W. Newman: As soon as possible. Before the end of June -- hopefully.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sometime in July, I understand.

Mr. Good: A supplementary: Prior to the introduction of his legislation, would the minister be prepared to publicize the salient concerns that were discussed in all the 179 briefs that the minister received, so that there could be some public discussion on the major policies or the major concerns that were common to most of the briefs? Has he done any graphic charts on the things that were discussed mainly in the briefs?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that when I make a statement to introduce the legislation I will cover that particular point.

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

RENT CONTROL

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question of the Minister of Housing. When does he intend to introduce the rent control legislation, of which he spoke so eloquently and feelingly in the last 24 hours?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The one that wakes him up in the middle of the night.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the --

Mr. Lewis: The one that gives him nightmares.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- hon. member to both newspapers rather than just one. If he reads the two of them together --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Misquoted again.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- I think he would get a balanced version of my presentation yesterday in which I pointed out the problems of rent control and some of the pressures which might justify it. There is no legislation being planned to be presented to the House now.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, was the minister aware that in a matter of the last few weeks in various representative areas of Metropolitan Toronto, Hillhurst Investments jumped its rent 21 per cent on a two-bedroom apartment; Greenwin 25 per cent; Meridian 22 per cent; Delzotto 27 per cent; Cadillac 26 per cent; Lanedorff, a management company, 35 per cent? Does he not consider these increases, parallel to his own statement, to be entirely unacceptable and worthy, therefore, of some form of rent control legislation?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would rather look at a pattern of rent increases over two, three or four years rather than a single rent. It is quite possible that one of those at 25 per cent is the first increase over a period of four years. I would like to look at them.

Mr. Breithaupt: They will be doubled by then.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes.

Mr. Renwick: Here comes the apologist. This minister is just like the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement).

Mr. Deans: I can understand why the minister wakes up screaming.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t want to play the numbers game with the hon. member. He is very good at the numbers game.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He makes numbers meet his own conclusions and I would rather study them carefully to ascertain whether or not there is, in fact, any blame on the person who is raising the rents.

Mr. Renwick: The minister can always apologize off the top of his head for the industry every time.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There is no question whatsoever that the statement was made at the conference yesterday that investment in rental properties today is not a good investment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question: Is the minister not of the opinion that the recent increases in rent are something that is, let’s say, associated with an increase in cost over a number of years? Surely it will direct itself to the minister’s attention that the vacancy rate is going to be practically zero by autumn of this year and that the pressure for increased rent is going to be irresistible and that the 25 per cent increases are going to be nothing compared with what the people are going to have to deal with in the fall? How can he justify to the House his feeling that recent increases are simply in the general trend of inflation?

Mr. Renwick: Supply and demand.

Mr. Lewis: Talk about the private sector; are those people captives!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say that the recent rent increases were simply a reflection of inflation. It’s quite obvious they are the reflection of a number of factors and one of them is the vacancy rate, or what appears to be the vacancy rate.

Mr. Cassidy: Including exploitation.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: And, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no sense in further exacerbating the vacancy rate by putting in controls which would make it even worse. In our view, there has to be an accompanying supply incentive in order to bring any kind of stabilization measure in rents.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: May I ask the minister whether he, since the government obviously is not about to introduce general legislation, would support a move to allow major municipalities to have the independent power to establish rent review and control mechanisms within and for their own municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the government has received only one such request. It’s very well known the city of Toronto has, in fact, requested such legislation and it’s being studied in my ministry at the present time.

Mr. Deans: No, no --

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

Mr. Deans: -- they received the request from Ottawa a number of years ago --

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

Mr. Deans: -- and it was turned down.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise this House just what factors he is going to take into consideration and how long will it be before he takes some step, either by way of a rent review board or by way of controls? What are the factors he is going to consider?

An hon. member: I thought the Liberals opposed.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’ve just spent the last five minutes explaining those factors. They include such things as supply, return on investment, the size and the nature of the increase --

Mr. Singer: Ask Arthur Wishart.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- the length of time over which the increases have taken place, and a variety of other factors.

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

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: There have been quite a number of supplementaries which I believe is a reasonable number. Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answers to previous questions.

BREACH OF TRUST BY HIGHWAYS EMPLOYEES

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition inquired as to the comments made by Judge Kenneth Fogarty concerning the sentencing of two provincial government highways employees; and, in supplementaries, the question was asked what action is being taken by the ministry with regard to the firm involved, namely Dibblee Construction.

Mr. Speaker, Dibblee Construction was taken over by Ashton Oil Canada Ltd. On Sept. 30, 1973. The management of the company has been changed. The president who was mentioned in the court proceedings is no longer with the firm and there has been virtually a complete change in the executive.

No contracts have been awarded to Dibblee since the conviction date of May 16, 1974, because they have not been the low bidders. We have five carry-over contracts still outstanding with the firm which we do not intend to cancel, and no further action against the company is contemplated at this time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Has the minister discussed the matter with the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) in order that they might at least consider following the suggestion made by the judge that further prosecutions should be considered?

Mr. Renwick: Obviously.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General and I are discussing that now -- at this very moment.

Mrs. Campbell: Good.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I didn’t see the Attorney General in his place and of course I was surprised. So there he is --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: He is so quiet today.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we wondered who the minister was talking with.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sort of an elderly page!

Mr. Breithaupt: Could the minister advise us if he has reviewed the contents of these five carry-over contracts to make sure there was no impropriety in their awarding in the first place and no problem in that area?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that is being done at the present time by the ministry officials. We had a lengthy discussion on the subject this morning.

Mr. Roy: May I have one supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on this? In view of the fact that this matter --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can’t hear the member.

Mr. Roy: -- is being investigated by the Attorney General’s office -- the Crown attorney’s office in Ottawa -- can we expect a statement either from this ministry or from the Ministry of the Attorney General as to why charges were not laid against the company in relation to this transaction?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe there will be a statement coming from me on this matter. The history of this is, I believe, well known. It goes back to 1967 at which time the matter of the irregularities was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. All of the information was turned over to the Attorney General’s department at that time to carry out a complete investigation and as a result of that investigation the charges against the two government employees were made. Now, whether there are charges laid elsewhere or why they were not laid would be a matter to be discussed with the Attorney General.

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

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. In the light of the recommendations of the redistribution commission and the great concern expressed by the Franco-Ontarian community in the Ottawa area to me personally -- and I am sure to the Premier shortly -- and in the light of the fact that my leader and, I suppose, the leader of the NDP are opposing fragmentation of the Franco-Ontarian community, can I tell these people that we have the Premier’s support in opposing the fragmentation of the Franco-Ontarian community in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to be very careful --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in relationship to comments on what part and what position the Premier or perhaps even the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the New Democratic Party take, with respect to the independent commission dealing with redistribution. The commission was established by resolution of this House and supported by all parties in the House, if memory serves me correctly. The commission is totally independent. It received no encouragement, advice, etc., from this side of the House. Whether it did from the other side, I haven’t the foggiest idea but I would like to think not. When I say one would like to think not, that doesn’t mean they didn’t try. I’m quite prepared to acknowledge that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not sure, Mr. Speaker, without consideration, that for me to say I would be prepared to prevail on the commission as it relates to any particular situation would be appropriate. I think it is fair to state that there are other members -- on both sides of the House, incidentally -- who feel there should be some changes made in the commission’s recommendations.

I recognize the report has been unanimously approved by the members of the Liberal Party, with total acceptance of it, with the possible exception of the member for Ottawa East --

Mr. Breithaupt: And the member for Kitchener, too.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am assuming that, but I do have to say this, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier is wrong there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in discussing this important matter with members of our own caucus, I am sure there will be submissions made to the commission which the members feel would be more practical and would improve the representation.

Mr. Speaker, I have, I think, traditionally over the years shown great sensitivity in terms of programmes, public statements, etc., with respect to the Franco-Ontarian community. In fact, if the hon. member for Ottawa East would like to review some of the correspondence from the Franco-Ontarians as it relates to my own involvement, I would be delighted to share it with him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: However --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps I would be delighted to share it with him. I can only say that I am reluctant -- it has nothing to do with the question raised by the hon. member in a particular sense -- to say at this moment without careful consideration --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We ought to set this to music.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that I am prepared to take a particular part in the functioning of what is an independent commission related to redistribution.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Does the member want us to send him over a towel?

Mr. Roy: I appreciate it’s an independent commission and the political future of any particular candidate should not be a factor in this matter, but, it seems to me that --

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Mr. Jessiman: Cry, cry some more.

Mr. Roy: My question to the Premier is simply this: Is he not concerned that the Ottawa area, where there has traditionally been a riding which has represented that grouping of the Franco-Ontarian community, is being fragmented into four different ridings? That’s what I would like the Premier to do -- to express his concern.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to restate what I said.

Mr. Roy: No, just --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would observe to the member for Ottawa East that while this government has demonstrated, I think, very conclusively its interest in the Franco-Ontarian community as part of the total community of the Province of Ontario -- and many other groups -- I think it would be doubtful if, as Premier of the province --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I were to go on record here in this House as saying that a particular riding should be treated in a particular sense -- because I could multiply that by 117.

Mr. Roy: There is a particular problem.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, one can’t have redistribution of this magnitude without many considerations, without many members having very --

Mr. Lewis: The Premier can exempt mine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, this is the only place, Mr. Speaker, where I might question the wisdom of the redistribution commission.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That and Brampton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t say that seriously.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I understand Brampton is a pocket borough.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Brant suggests that Brampton is a pocket borough; I would only say this --

Mr. Deans: Whose pocket is it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- if it is, with 100,000 and some population, it is a very large pocket.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That may be 10,000 votes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, while not being unsympathetic at all to the situation, as I said and I say it again, I am reluctant as head of government to go on record as saying I will approach the commission or express a point or view as it relates to a particular problem.

I think the commission has the sensitivity, the knowledge and the insight which will be based on the submissions provided by the many members of this House, to take a look at some of the questions which have been raised. This is the function of the commission and, as I say, it is independent. I can attest to this; it has functioned very independently. I would be reluctant to appear to erode that particular situation.

Mr. Roy: May I ask one question?

Mr. Speaker: I think any further supplementaries would only constitute a debate. We have had a reasonable discussion on this.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask one --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should be entitled to --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He never gets a chance.

Mr. Roy: All I want to know is if the commission hearing will be public? Will they be held in Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! The hon. member for Wentworth.

OPERATION OF TRAVEL AGENCIES

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. At what stage are the discussions and inquiry the minister indicated was being carried out into the operations of travel agencies at this point? When can we expect legislation governing travel agencies and when can we expect there will be a bonding arrangement or some form of arrangement to guarantee that those people, particularly students, who have entered into agreements with travel agencies for trips out of the country will be protected from future financial loss?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, those discussions are continuing within my ministry right now, with various associations within the industry and with various individuals within the industry.

It is my hope this summer to develop the financial alternatives that would give the protection to the consumer that we all hope to achieve either through bonding or something else, although bonding doesn’t seem to be the answer. I would hope to be able to introduce legislation early in the session this fall so that we don’t have a repetition of this type of situation next spring.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Is it the intention of the minister to make any representation on behalf of the many students who lost their money as a result of bankruptcies which occurred prior to the spring break this year and who have not yet been able to recover any of the $300 they all deposited on their trip to Europe, from the Hamilton area directly related to the Cardinal travel agency?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I don’t understand the question in its terms. Is it whether I will make representations on behalf of those students?

Mr. Deans: To get the money back.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Representations to whom?

Mr. Deans: There has been a long delay in receiving even a portion of the money that was paid by those young people on a trip which never took place because of the problems that developed. Is the minister prepared to make representations to expedite it before the bankruptcy court, I believe, in order to ensure that there will be payment made to them?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m still not clear on the member’s question. I’m not trying to beg it. Does he mean make representation to the trustee in the bankruptcy? My ministry would have no status in that particular matter by making a representation on behalf of all the students.

It would be my hope that they would make the representations in the filing of the proofs of claim which are required under the Act, and that they would do that individually. If any of the member’s students have not obtained a proof of claim from the trustee in that particular bankruptcy, if the hon. member will speak to me afterwards I will enter into a discussion as to how we can assist them in obtaining those and getting them filed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Following the earlier questions which I had raised on this subject as well, is the minister of the opinion now that it is possible to legislate against what he had called “ineptness or embezzlement?” Secondly, is the minister of the opinion that some priority for claim as a secured creditor could be one means of dealing with this situation where there are assets otherwise available?

Mr. Speaker: Those were two supplementaries.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the question in reverse, I suppose that we could eventually create provincial legislation that says that these people -- the individuals who make the deposits -- are preferred creditors. That, of course, would have absolutely no effect insofar as the federal bankruptcy law is concerned. We can declare them what we want; it doesn’t mean a thing.

It would seem to me the only way that the travelling public, particularly the younger groups, the students, can be protected is to have some compulsory plan and also immediately being able to follow it up with a type of plan whereby the deposits are put into a locked trust account and cannot be used by the travel agent until certain requirements have been met, i.e., confirmation of the flight, wherein the moneys are paid and the balance remaining goes out to the agent for his efforts.

We are looking into it in other jurisdictions. They have a variety of plans, but it would seem to me that that is the only way it can be done. If we could work with the federal air transport people under their legislation and ever get legislation, for example, at the federal level that says every collector of such fare is deemed to be an agent of the carrier, we might have the problem licked very, very quickly. I can see the hon. member agreeing with me, because he appreciates why we would be doing that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

CLOSING OF PELHAM SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Can he indicate to the Legislature any progress that has developed since receiving a petition in the Legislature from the concerned citizens on the closing of the Pelham Secondary School? As the final school term ends in June of this year, has the minister taken any active part in having the issue resolved so that the Pelham Secondary School will continue to meet the educational needs of that community?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I think as my friend may recall, we discussed this matter in the House a week ago. It certainly was after that petition had been presented. The Lincoln county board of education asked the Niagara South board if they would be willing to consider some arrangement that might make it possible for some of their students to go to the Pelham school. I think that was the situation. One of the constituent townships in the Lincoln board made presentations to that board, and as a result the Lincoln board decided to meet the Niagara South board.

As I understand it, there is another meeting to take place between the Niagara South board and the Lincoln board. Our regional director of education will represent us at that meeting.

Mr. Haggerty: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that in previous years the students in that particular part of Lincoln county attended that school in Pelham?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of that. As I have said many times, if the two boards wish to get together and work out some arrangement, be it a boundary change or a situation where the Niagara South board would take students from a part of the Lincoln board area and the Lincoln board would pay for those students, that kind of arrangement might make a difference in the attendance patterns in the area; and therefore a difference in what happens in the schools.

I must point out to you, however, that there is a school very close to Pelham called the E.L. Crossley Secondary School, which has a capacity of about 1,500 and has less than 1,000 pupils in it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur. There are about 60 seconds remaining.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; a question of the Minister of Labour: Has the Minister of Labour been able to get an answer to the question I raised on Friday with regard to the complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission by former deputy police chief Herman Scarnati and the subsequent effects on the investigating human rights officer, Mr. Bruce Lenton, the regional supervisor in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I believe the member for Port Arthur asked me to look into this toward the end of last week. I did so. I had some information yesterday, but I was not completely satisfied that I had the entire story. I received a telegram today from the member, as he knows, asking that the matter be --

Mr. Foulds: I sent it yesterday.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It was sent yesterday -- well, I received it today. I had a further 10-minute briefing on the matter just before I came into the House and I decided the matter was too important -- there are the lives of two people involved here, the police chief and one of our staff -- to come to a conclusion on the information I had. So I am continuing the investigation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think there is a few seconds left. The hon. member for Downsview.

FEDERAL AID FOR MAINTENANCE OF PROVINCIAL POLICE FORCES

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of thee Solicitor General.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He was waiting for it.

Mr. Speaker: It should be a short one.

An hon. member: It’s his anniversary.

Mr. Singer: The Secretary for Justice a few days ago, or a few weeks ago, said the Solicitor General was familiar --

Mr. Speaker: But there should be a question.

Mr. Singer: Yes, there is --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Get to it.

Mr. Singer: -- with the position of the province insofar as the claim from Ottawa about provincial police costs along the line of a similar demand made by Quebec. Is the minister able to tell us the position of the province of Ontario in this regard? Is it taking the same position as is the Province of Quebec?

Mr. Speaker: Yes or no!

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the most definite answer we have had today.

Mr. Lewis: You know that says something for backing questions up. We should do that more often.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

PROVINCIAL PARKS MUNICIPAL TAX ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, the Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, this bill broadens the definition of provincial parks to include wilderness areas, historical parks, and parks operated under the Niagara Parks Act, the St. Clair Parkway Commissions Act and the St. Lawrence Parks Commissions Act. At the same time the authority to make similar grant payments under the Niagara Escarpment Planning; and Development Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act has been transferred from those Acts to the Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act.

Under this bill municipalities receive a payment of $5 per acre for the first 100 acres and $2 an acre beyond this to a maximum of 10,000 acres. The payments for the commission’s parks will come from their funds and the other payments will come from funds specifically appropriated by the Legislature. I will be taking this bill through the legislative process.

CORPORATIONS TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring into force the changes to the Corporations Tax Act, 1972, announced in the budget on April 9, 1974, namely, a flat $50 paid-up capital tax for family farm corporations and for mortgage investment corporations; the disallowance of the deduction from income of mining royalties and mining taxes; a uniform 33½ per cent depletion allowance in respect of oil or gas wells and mining resources; the repeal of the three-year exemption for mining companies; a small business incentive deduction for companies eligible for the small business deduction under section 125 of the Income Tax Act of Canada; special flow-through tax treatment for mortgage investment corporations; and the repeal of the mine and mill allowance in the calculation of paid up capital tax of mining companies.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 78, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex South.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed this particular bill as much of the application of this particular Act has taken place in my particular riding. I think individuals and the communities are quite happy with the Act, and certainly with these new provisions in the amendment. I think we can certainly support this particular bill.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly support the bill. But I do want to make some comments with regard to some problems that are being encountered by people who supposedly will benefit under this Act as it is presently enforced, and who to this date have not yet received any money.

I had representation made to me as late as last week by a particular resident in what was formerly Saltfleet township. Saltfleet township, as the minister will recall, suffered considerable damage during the flooding for which this particular bill was supposed to bring about some restitution. This person came to see me because from the day the flooding occurred, which caused total undermining of his home and almost complete destruction of his property on the lake side, he has been fighting to try and get the money paid to the contractor who undertook the work; and it hasn’t yet been paid.

He has had a number of communications with the town involved, Stoney Creek. He has had communication with the ministry. I have had communication with the town. We have communicated jointly with the ministry and we still haven’t had the builder paid. There is no point in bringing forth legislation intended to resolve some major financial difficulty for people if they are not able to get their hands on the money to pay their bills.

What has happened to this individual is that the gentleman undertook to rebuild or to build the breakwater and did the work as he was asked to do. He did it well. It withstood this year’s problems but the township -- it’s now a town; the former township -- for reasons which I cannot understand has been unable to send the cheque,

I would appreciate it if the minister would, in the normal course of his duties, discuss this with whosoever is in charge of payment under the Act and see whether this is an isolated incident, something which has been occurring perhaps in this one isolated community. Maybe the difficulty lies right there rather than here at Queen’s Park for all I know.

All I can tell you is that over a month ago we were told, when we asked the clerk-treasurer of the municipality, that the payment would be made within two weeks. As late as Sunday afternoon it still hadn’t been made, so there’s something wrong. It just isn’t working the way it was intended to work and I ask seriously that the minister consider making some major change to the administration of it, if that’s required, in order to ensure that people who should be benefiting are benefiting.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Essex South said this is a housekeeping bill to help the municipalities and the people involved as far as administration is concerned. It certainly should speed up the matter of the municipalities, which in the past had to discharge forthwith the moneys provided to them by the shoreline owner affected. In this case, we now say at any time.

I am not familiar with the matter brought forth by the member for Wentworth but I will give my commitment to the hon. member that certainly we will look into this matter and we will endeavour to resolve this. Whether it’s the municipality’s or the province’s fault, I am not sure, but I will undertake to find out and get back to the member in due course.

The bill itself, as I said before is strictly to ensure that the property owner with a problem is facilitated and that the municipality also has similar attention paid to its needs.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 78, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, before we get into the committee of the whole House, I would like to introduce to the House 34 grade 8 students from the Howick Central School plus six of their parents; I believe this is their first visit to the Legislature and on behalf of all the members, I extend to them a warm welcome.

Clerk of the House: The second order,

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT, 1972

House in committee on Bill 65, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 65, An Act to amend The Municipal Elections Act, 1972. When we rose last we were considering an amendment by the member for Downsview to item 12(b) of section 5, I believe. Any further discussion on it?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Carried!

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the amendment that has been made by the hon. member for Downsview, we are of the opinion that passage of this amendment would be a satisfactory way of dealing with the particular problems that have been discussed in the House, earlier in committee, and certainly in the media.

Now we are of a view that the amendment which my colleague has suggested would disenfranchise no one; and would I of course encourage what we believe is the --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That’s a switch from the first stand of the Liberal Party on this bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- particular thing that should happen, which is to make Canadian citizenship the criterion. We are prepared to accept the idea of what could be called a grandfather clause, because that will at least self-correct the situation over a number of years. We would prefer that the matter of Canadian citizenship be the only criterion.

But we think in order to accommodate a segment of our population that has had the tradition of voting, and also to spur on the government to eventually have Canadian citizenship as the sole criterion, that this amendment, as proposed by the hon. member for Downsview, is an eminently reasonable one. I hope the minister will be able to accept it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you. I think that the acceptance of this amendment would add a great deal of confusion to the electoral system. I think it would be wrong to have people allowed to vote provincially and not allowed to vote municipally; and that’s what this amendment would effectively do.

Mr. Breithaupt: But you wanted the landed immigrants to vote in that situation.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute, wait a minute. I’m saying it would be the opposite; that they would be permitted to vote provincially, for provincial governments, but not permitted to vote municipally, for municipal governments.

Mr. Singer: The one statute at a time.

Mr. Deans: That’s right; but it requires a clear indication of government policy. You don’t do it piecemeal.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): You can only do one bill at a time.

Mr. Deans: Now if the government’s of a mind to make a major change to the electoral policies of the Province of Ontario, then let it be done in a rational way.

Mr. Renwick: That is depending a lot on the Tory government.

Mr. Deans: But let’s not confuse everyone by permitting them to vote in one election and not in another. That’s what’s wrong with the federal government Act too, by the way; people don’t know from day to day whether they are permitted or not permitted to vote.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Therefore we have nothing but confusion at election time. This election we’re currently in, in fact, is one of the most confusing elections we’ve come through.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Is the member for Wentworth a Canadian citizen?

Mr. Deans: Of course I am.

Mr. Good: Is he? Well I just wondered.

Mr. Deans: Why? Would it have made any difference to the member if I weren’t?

Mr. Singer: We might have had an Act to disenfranchise Ian Deans.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is just a landed immigrant.

Mr. Deans: It’s a strange thing about landed immigrants, you know. I think we’ve all been landed immigrants at some point, either individually or by our forebearers coming here.

Now let’s go on for a moment. One of the major areas of confusion in this particular election is that people don’t really understand who’s entitled to vote and who isn’t.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: If you change it, as is being suggested by the hon. member for Downsview, we’re going to have yet another factor of confusion in more elections --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh what a lot of rot that is.

Mr. Deans: I suggest that if the government --

Mr. Good: No one will be affected.

Mr. Deans: If no one will be affected, then why make the change?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why oppose it?

Mr. Deans: Obviously it is intended to affect someone. And for the Liberals to sit and say that no one is going to be affected by their change makes their change ridiculous. If they don’t see any affect on anyone, then why make the change at all?

Obviously it is their intention to disenfranchise as many people as they possibly can, and that is evident by their attitude.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, yes!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: That’s evident by your attitude.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: The member for Wentworth was better on the fire force.

Mr. Deans: The Liberals now realize that in the position they first took, when they were about to disenfranchise every British subject, and this is about a week and a half later, they made a drastic error. Now they’re trying to recoup their losses.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That’s right.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Well, it’s too late for --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The hon. member could vote against it.

Mr. Deans: I am going to vote against it,

Mr. Cassidy: The minister as well.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. Deans: What I say, Mr. Chairman, is this --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There is a split in your caucus.

Mr. Deans: -- that if the government wants to bring forward a policy statement and some general legislation --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is this general?

Mr. Deans: -- dealing with all elections in the Province of Ontario, provincial and municipal, then we will at that point consider whether it is appropriate to establish Canadian citizenship as the only criterion. But I want to point out that the kind of proposal the Liberals are bringing in at this point will add nothing but confusion to an already confused electoral process. And at this stage in time, the last thing we need is to make further difficulty in the current elections in the Province of Ontario.

Beyond that, there is something that bothers me about it: I don’t quite understand how we suddenly became so anti-British --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I’ll never understand that.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t either.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh maybe we should explain that to you.

Mr. Deans: I don’t understand how, overnight --

Mr. Renwick: I don’t understand how the Tory party could become anti-British.

Mr. Cassidy: Particularly the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine).

Mr. Deans: Mark you, I’ve got to say the minister is equally responsible. I don’t understand how this can be.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are pro-Canadian. Maybe you should be.

Mr. Renwick: There is value in the British connection.

Mr. Cassidy: And the French connection.

Mr. Deans: What we have suggested makes much more sense. If we are going to deal with elections --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That has already been defeated.

Mr. Singer: You can’t talk about that until the next session.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That has been dealt with, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deans: If we are going to deal with any amendment dealing with the eligibility to vote, then let’s broaden the eligibility.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Let’s not further restrict it. Let’s give an opportunity to participate to people who have established themselves and who have established their stake in the future of the community. Let’s encourage them to participate, rather than discourage them from participating. That’s exactly what will occur as a result of the amendment offered by the Liberal Party; people will get to the point where they will be so frustrated and unable to understand what it is we are all about they will simply opt out from voting altogether.

We have a very low voting percentage in municipal elections. There are very few municipal elections in which more than 35 or 40 per cent of the total eligible voters turn out. Let’s not further restrict it and make it an even smaller, more elitist group that chooses the representatives. If a person pays taxes, has established his landed immigrant status and is obviously committed to remaining in the country; if he is eligible to purchase property --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: One of the elitists known as citizens.

Mr. Deans: -- and is eligible to pay for every single service provided to property; and if he is not only eligible, but is required to pay his or her share of the cost of operating any municipality, then that person should be entitled to vote to choose who it is that will make the decisions with regard to the disposition of the taxes that he pays.

That’s the argument I make. There is ample opportunity for change. Municipal electors should be allowed to vote because they are taxpayers and because the taxes they pay are directly related to the property they live in, whether they own it or rent it.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: I suggest that should be one of the criteria in an enlightened society, rather than establishing some game that forces people to become Canadian citizens in order to cast a ballot when in fact they are going to be asked to pay their share of the costs regardless.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I missed the debate on this last week. I apologize to the minister for not having been here. I understand that he heeded the cautions of the NDP, and therefore he managed to save his place in the cabinet, by preserving the British connection, so to speak, and by deciding that he would withdraw his own amendment --

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Don’t you worry about my place in the cabinet. I wouldn’t want you to get unduly upset.

Mr. Cassidy: What’s that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Don’t get unduly upset.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I wasn’t sure whether to wish that the minister would go ahead with his amendment and lose his seat, or whether, as a colleague in the Legislature, to hope that he would see the wisdom that was coming from this side. We were simply telling you what your own cabinet would tell you; and I know that the minister got the advice from --

Mr. Lawlor: You should be very grateful to us.

Mr. Cassidy: Seldom is it that the wisdom comes from this side that tells a minister how he can hang on to his seat.

Mr. Breithaupt: Very seldom.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, no, a little more often than that --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is more since you have begun agreeing with the mossbacks.

Mr. Lawlor: We are rescuing ministers every day of the week from their own ineptitudes.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Do you want to speak on Mr. Singer’s amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the amendment a bit.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not just a bit?

Mr. Cassidy: Not just a bit, yes. I must say that while I regret the government’s vote on the amendment put forward by myself and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young). I regret perhaps even more the vote of the Liberal Party in also refusing to go along with it. The member for Kitchener has suggested I make a few comments about that. I think it is in order to put in an alternative to what we have here in the amendment that is currently before the Legislature.

It is very curious to me that the opposition party, the Liberal Party, a party which traditionally has been the party of people newly coming to Canada -- Italians in my area, the Portuguese and other groups like that -- should so deliberately turn its back on these new Canadians and should deliberately have decided to vote against our amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We did deal with that matter.

Mr. Cassidy: I realize that; yes, I know.

Mr. Chairman: It was voted on by the House and discharged; so we are dealing with Mr. Singer’s amendment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was debated and voted on while you were away.

Mr. Cassidy: I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman, but the point I am making --

Mr. Chairman: It may not be brought up again.

Mr. Cassidy: -- is that not only did the Liberal opposition turn its back on those new Canadians --

Mr. Singer: He is still out of order. It is defiance.

Mr. Cassidy: -- out of reward for those years of support they have had from them, but now they intend to go even further. They intend to go even further, Mr. Chairman, at a time when at the federal level we have State Secretary Hugh Faulkner telling the country he thinks the number of years to qualify for citizenship should be reduced.

Mr. Singer: That is an illogical statement.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: This Liberal Party -- which is not to be confused with the other one -- this Liberal Party would restrict its colleagues in Ottawa who would expand --

Mr. Breithaupt: Who do you think asked him to do it?

Mr. Cassidy: Well not your group, as far as I know.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): You would have known if you had been here.

Mr. Cassidy: It is curious that we didn’t hear a word from the Liberal opposition during the course of the debate while I was here, about seeking to bring the franchise at the municipal level into line with the provincial level.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We spoke on precisely that point. It is too bad you missed it.

Mr. Cassidy: They didn’t talk about the anomalies that were outlined by the member for Wentworth, not at all. They didn’t even see it.

Mr. Singer: The member for Yorkview doesn’t agree with you. He voted for that.

Mr. Cassidy: It was some kind of blind wish on their part to disenfranchise British subjects and not to do anything else about it. Now they have sought to rescue themselves with the grandfather clause which has been recommended by the member for Downsview.

I happen to think as well, Mr. Chairman, that we can afford to and that we ought to be generous with the municipal franchise. We ought to recognize the fact that under the system --

Mr. Singer: He is back on the defeated motion again. He continues to defy you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: -- proposed by the government, it will take most newcomers to Canada anywhere from five and a half to eight years before they are entitled to vote for any level of government. They might possibly be accepted in the local community association, but that’s all. Over a very lengthy period of time they would have no say and no participation in community life. That could be the entire time that a child of a newly arrived family, be he British or something else, would be in primary school. He would see his parents disenfranchised over that entire period of time, not just at the federal level and the provincial level but also at the local level.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That would be five Christmases.

Mr. Cassidy: I find the flip-flop that the Liberals have once again performed in saying: “No, you can’t”; and now: “Yes, you can; provided you were here before a certain date,” is simply unjustifiable. I can’t support their amendment, but I do plead with the government --

Mr. Singer: We were counting on you too.

Mr. Cassidy: -- that the Minister without Portfolio talk further with the Treasurer (Mr. White). The Treasurer did seem rather generously inclined to some of the proposals that were being made from this party. I would hope that this time a year hence we would see an acceptance by the government of the proposals put forward by this party to give landed immigrants the right to vote at the municipal level after they have been in the country for over a year or so.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The big guns are coming to present the justification.

Mr. Renwick: This is not particularly a big gun. I just want to indicate a point to the minister when he is giving consideration in the future to the question of whether or not we can establish a test for voting purposes that will be consistent at the provincial level and at the municipal level -- and I have indicated that consistency itself is not a virtue if you exclude large numbers of persons by being consistent.

I’m going to recommend to him that he give consideration to a definition which appeared in a bill which we passed here quite recently -- strangely enough, dealing with business corporations -- which had in it a definition which seems to me to be eminently reasonable for covering the problem of making certain that the largest possible numbers of persons in the Province of Ontario be entitled to exercise their franchise at the municipal level, and indeed at the provincial level. I refer to a section which we added to the first section of the Business Corporations Act a week or so ago when we debated the amending Act, Bill 56. Section 23(a) was added to that Act to define resident Canadian.

The term resident Canadian was defined to mean: “An individual who is a Canadian citizen or who has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and who is ordinarily resident in Canada.”

It seems to me that makes a very meaningful definition if, for electoral purposes, we were to refer to a person being a resident Canadian, meaning an individual who is a Canadian citizen or who has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and who is ordinarily resident in Ontario.

That test would meet the requirements of the arguments which we have been putting forward. It would eliminate the question of whether or not you have to introduce this weird grandfather clause with respect to British subjects. It would enlarge the electorate to take into account those persons who have made a commitment to Canada and live in the Province of Ontario.

Surely that is the way in which we must look at the electoral qualifications. We must, of necessity, vote against the Liberal amendment because that is a restrictive amendment. The Liberal Party seems wedded to some form of restrictive legislation and its members seem to think that because the Secretary of State, Hugh Faulkner, has now come up with something called a suggestion that Canadian citizenship can be available after three years --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Hugh Faulkner said he was going to do it. He will, too.

Mr. Renwick: -- that is going to be the criteria. I’m simply saying to my Liberal colleagues, and to those with sanity and sense within the Liberal caucus -- of whom there are a minuscule number --

Mr. Singer: The member for Riverdale is not being parliamentary at all.

Mr. Renwick: -- as well as in the Tory party -- that the real test should be something along the lines of that definition of resident Canadian to which I have referred. We will therefore divide on this --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If the NDP will, we will. The member is supporting the government. What can the member’s party do? The member is supporting the government.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make it quite clear that should the Liberals --

Mr. Breithaupt: The member’s got five members.

Mr. Renwick: -- try to get through on a voice vote on this matter we would be dividing on it. It would be consistent with their inconsistency on this issue that they would not want to stand and be counted.

Mr. Chairman: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we believe that people coming to this country who make a meaningful commitment to Canada -- I think those were the words used by the hon. member who just sat down --

Mr. Singer: Does the member mean the fatuous one?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- should become citizens. Right.

We believe in the importance of making that meaningful commitment which is to become a citizen of our nation. It involves taking an oath of allegiance, as the member is aware. It means there is a commitment to permanent residence. It means there is a commitment to the traditions of our nation, and surely a commitment to share in its future.

Mr. Renwick: All right. I’m not disputing that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Anyone who argues against the value of accepting citizenship has got to be fatuous in the extreme.

Attempting to make a point, which is absolutely unacceptable, or to argue, in this House of all places, that a devotion to Canada is somehow made meaningless by not accepting citizenship, is simply arguing that black is white, or perhaps even that white is black.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment put forward is reasonable indeed. I don’t like the phrase grandfather clause. This usually comes from the representatives or the spokesmen of labour unions who are trying to protect some kind of vested interest. Perhaps, in fact, that is what we’re attempting to do here, because we believe that in all the elections in this province, and in fact in this country, the chief criteria ought to be citizenship. That is a commitment made to this nation in permanence and by means of an oath.

It is true we are dealing only with the municipal franchise Act but, as has been pointed out, you’ve got to start somewhere. This, of course, is the first opportunity we have had in this session to express these views, which we have expressed consistently every time this matter has been raised.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that those who speak of confusion must surely miss the point, basically, that to avoid confusion we should make it clear that Canadian citizenship is necessary to participate in the democratic process at any level in our province, in our municipalities or in our nation. The government of Canada, with support of all three parties -- or all five parties or however many there are -- has taken this step, using one procedure requiring Canadian citizenship for participation in the federal democratic process as of 1975. We feel that since there are a larger number in this province than any other area of those people who have come particularly from various areas of the Commonwealth -- England, Scotland and Northern Ireland particularly -- who have been here for many years, fought in two wars, have participated in the life of our nation and who have considered themselves citizens all these years they should not be disenfranchised.

Mr. Renwick: That’s a switch.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On the other hand, we should make it clear that those who come in the future will participate in our democratic process whether they come from France, or Italy, or Japan, or Germany, or England, only if they are prepared to become citizens. And there is no apology to be made; it simply means that we understand the meaning of citizenship and accept its responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: I would just like to add my comments. I feel I have listened to some pretty hairy arguments on my left before but none more so than today; I hope the minister will recognize the complete lack of logic in the arguments that have been put forward. One of the first that was mentioned by the member for Wentworth was that we have such a poor turnout of municipal voters now; well surely we shouldn’t cut out some who otherwise would be eligible.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what you were doing the other day.

Mr. Deacon: But it’s interesting that the very poor turnout of municipal voters is definitely related by surveys to the lack of authority that is given to municipalities --

Mr. Renwick: It is a wonder you do so well at the time of year that you insist on holding the election.

Mr. Deacon: -- since 90 cents out of every dollar comes in the form of conditional grants from the provincial government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Be careful, the member for Riverdale’s leader is going to come in and reverse him.

Mr. Deacon: And when people see their municipal governments having some real control, having some real direction, some real power over their local affairs and their local pocketbooks, then I can see that situation will change. But I don’t agree with keeping some people in a position to vote just because of that.

I do also want to bring up this matter of the commitment to Canada which has been raised by my leader. I know of many landed immigrants from other than the British Isles who nave been here for 15 or 20 years and they have very specifically not chosen to take out Canadian citizenship because they had in mind benefits they could derive in the future by going back to their own native lands. They have not made a commitment to this country. They, have not --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They make their fortune and go back home.

Mr. Renwick: There are Canadian citizens who have not made the commitment to this country-^who will leave to go to the United States and the Bahamas and you know it.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They should be disenfranchised.

Mr. Deacon: They have come to this country in order to benefit from --

Mr. Renwick: Just a fantastic argument.

An hon. member: Don’t you understand what you are doing?

Mr. Deacon: -- the opportunities that are prevalent here. Those who really have built this country are those who became citizens, who cut their ties with their home land and said: “This, Canada, is my country,” and who do not feel they have got to keep their feet in another land or some basis in another land.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Or their heart.

Mr. Deacon: Now we love all British people. We love people from all lands surely. Maybe we should be looking --

Mr. Lawlor: You don’t have to get sentimental.

Mr. Deacon: -- some day to having world citizenship instead of this specific Canadian citizenship, but why do we continue to discriminate?

Mr. Renwick: We love everybody, but we don’t want all of them here. That is what you are saying.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t be maudlin.

Mr. Deacon: Now the amendment brought in by my colleague from Downsview makes great sense, because in the past we have not encouraged people to become Canadian citizens if they already were British subjects. As has been mentioned, we have encouraged these people to participate, knowing they are considered to be Canadians in many ways. To suddenly change the rules for these people who have voted, who have participated in so many ways understanding they were just the same as Canadian citizens, would be wrong. Therefore I think the amendment made by my colleague makes real sense.

But as my leader said, we have no qualms about the matter in the future. The rule should be that when people are citizens they vote, but not before. We are particularly pleased that the minister in Ottawa has responded to our suggestion, made during the debate when this bill was originally introduced, that the term no longer be five years but be reduced to three. We are confident that after July 8, that will be put into effect.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is going to do it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of sweet reasonableness, I would like to try now to come to the gut fallacies in the Liberal Party position. When you analyse what the Liberal Party is saying, it is that they want to perpetuate in Canada, in the electoral system at the municipal level and therefore ultimately at the provincial level, a distinction between those citizens who were born in Canada and those citizens who were not born in Canada.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not true.

Mr. Renwick: All right. Listen. Apart from those who hold public office and apart from those who serve in the armed forces, I do not know of any requirement that requires a Canadian citizen to take an oath of allegiance. If that Canadian citizen is a citizen born in Canada there is nothing which requires him to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. It may well be that by virtue of being born in Canada, he is subject to the requirement of allegiance whether he swears the oath or not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s correct. By Act of Parliament.

Mr. Renwick: All right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And he can’t take out citizenship elsewhere, without swearing an oath.

Mr. Renwick: All I’m simply saying is that let us not --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You talk about revealing inconsistency, but you are talking absurdities.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the point I’m making is that the Liberal Party wishes to distinguish within the class of persons called Canadian citizens those who take the oath of allegiance and those who don’t. The ones they want to impose a special obligation on are those Canadian citizens who were not born in Canada but come to Canada and are given the grant of citizenship in the country.

All right. That would be fine if, in fact, the history of immigration in Canada -- which fortunately is for practical purposes a federal matter, although there is some constitutional responsibility provincially -- was an open-door kind of policy, the brotherly love view expressed by the member for York Centre; that we love everybody of all nations and all nationalities. The fact of the matter is that during the course of time, when the Conservative Party has been in power in Ottawa since Confederation, and when the Liberal Party has been in power in Ottawa since Confederation, there has not been in Canada an open-door policy. Let’s not confuse it with some form of brotherly love.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have people from Chile, from Hungary, from Africa, from Uganda, from all the European countries --

Mr. Renwick: The immigration policy of Canada has been dictated by severe self-interest within Canada, no question whatsoever.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s not fair and you know it.

Mr. Renwick: That self-interest may at times express itself in some form of international altruism but those occasions are few and far between and those are dictates of a very constrained self-interest.

All right, now the logic of what I say is very clear. Let’s not kid ourselves. The self-interest which has dictated the immigration policy of Canada, whether it reflects itself in altruistic ways or not in altruistic ways, or whether it is because of the pressure of foreign events on Canada, the Canadian people have allowed certain persons who fall within the category of political refugees to come into the country, but the long-term policy is economically determined.

All I’m saying is that if Canada, in its restrictive immigration policy, invites people to come to Canada by making application to come to Canada, we may be in one very selfish sense saying we are granting them some kind of privilege because they can’t come here as or right. There is also no question that when they come, they come because we want them to come; because that very self-interest which dictates that policy has created the atmosphere in which the applications are processed, and the persons arrive in Canada and stay here.

All right; I am not prepared to suggest for one single moment that the person who makes the kind of commitment to Canada by becoming a landed immigrant under the immigration policies of the Canadian government with the potential at some later point of becoming a Canadian citizen, is in any different category from the member for Victoria-Halliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) who was born here and whose roots go back a long time. He may be very proud of the fact that his roots go back a very long time. The persons who come here for permanent residence from other countries are very proud of their background and very proud to come to Canada and make that commitment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And they will proudly become citizens.

Mr. Renwick: Basically, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is the Liberal Party cannot get off the hook because the Secretary of State of Canada, in the course of a federal election campaign, says that he thinks it would be a good idea to reduce the requirement from five years to three years. You can’t run the government that way. There has been no meeting of the cabinet in Ottawa, there is no assurance --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It meets every week.

Mr. Renwick: -- that the Liberal Party is going to be in power and when the event occurred” --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: I am not saying who is going to win.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: David Lewis says he is not. The member is not suggesting that Stanfield is going to win?

Mr. Renwick: Along about 10 o’clock on July 8 we’ll know the answer to that particular conundrum. All I am saying is that the Liberal Party can’t get off the hook in this House for the position which they have taken on this debate because Hugh Faulkner, the federal member from Peterborough, makes the ridiculous statement, which he’s got no authority to make, that he thinks it would be a good idea that the --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Of all of the arrogance one can conceive that is ultimately inherent in the Liberal Party, the ultimate arrogance is a suggestion that because, prompted by this Liberal party, Hugh Faulkner makes the statement, that that somehow becomes law and that we should be governed by it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: All right. Let us understand what we are talking about. We are talking about the Liberal Party which came in and introduced an amendment which would have eliminated the franchise for a substantial number of people in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh no, the amendment came from the government. We were prepared to support the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Wait a minute. We are going to take all afternoon, but the record is going to be so clear on this issue that nobody can be confused by it except the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party wish to restrict the electoral franchise on the municipal level; my friend, the member for Grenville-Dundas, the minister who is responsible for this, almost fell into the trap. He did fall in, but he had the grace to withdraw his amendment. He had the grace to understand that you can never ever support a suggestion from the Liberal Party without being involved in an ultimate policy.

The fact of the matter is that when we had the vote on our subamendment, my friends on the right tried a procedural game to avoid the vote on the subamendment of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member was out of order. We just pointed that out.

Mr. Renwick: We went through that. We’ve had the vote, the minister withdrew his amendment, the minister promised that he would review this whole question of electoral franchise at the municipal and provincial level --

Mr. Breithaupt: You believe him but you don’t believe Hugh Faulkner.

Mr. Renwick: -- which is a point made by my colleague, the member for Wentworth, that you have to think about these problems. And now the Liberal Party, disguising it as a motion from my friend -- although the friendship gets strained on occasion -- the member for Downsview, has now introduced a grandfather clause; has put an arbitrary date on those British subjects who happen to be able and entitled to vote in municipal elections.

That is the arrogance of the Liberal Party. No one with any sense could possibly support the amendment proposed by the member for Downsview. The fact of the matter is that we know -- and my friends in the Tory Party know -- that the Liberal caucus is divided on this issue. They are putting up some kind of a brave front to rescue the aftermath of a serious mistake which they made when this bill first came in. And they were tipped onto this by the member -- I remember the Friday morning when the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith) raised it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has not been back since.

Mr. Renwick: I thought, why does he have to introduce this question. I must say to the member for Hamilton Mountain, even though he has never been in his seat since that time, that we are delighted that --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Wherever he is.

Mr. Renwick: -- he raised it, because it has clarified a fundamental difference in philosophy and outlook toward the persons who have come to Canada on the part of the New Democratic Party, as distinct from the attitude which is adopted in their own supreme arrogance by the Liberal Party, whether it’s at the provincial level or at the federal level.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have gone on so long, but it was absolutely essential to --

Mr. Singer: So are we.

An hon. member: We are not sorry.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: -- clarify the basic realities of the debate which is taking place in this assembly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What a fatuous interjection.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chairman, may I take this opportunity to intervene and to introduce to the members of the Legislature a group of 25 grade 8 students from St. Hilary’s Separate School in Red Rock under the leadership of Mr. Robert Bahlieda and Serina Covello. Will you welcome them?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I understand the member is taking all those kids out to dinner tonight,

Mr. Stokes: Not yet.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make my remarks as brief as possible because we have had pretty extensive discussions I believe. But there are some points I feel --

Mr. Deans: You certainly messed this up right at the beginning. Don’t get involved any more.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- should at this time be brought forward again for the benefit of those who weren’t here when we discussed this matter the second time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like the member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Like the member for Ottawa Centre and possibly the member for Wentworth, I am not sure.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to all, it is not the intent of this government nor do I believe is it the intent of the Liberal Party, to disenfranchise any person. As I mentioned, and it’s in Hansard in writing, although we were making an amendment, there was no doubt that there would be further amendments necessary. I believe if you check Hansard you will find that that is a correct statement.

I have listened to both the Liberal Party and the NDP at all times. I think really the member for Hamilton Mountain did us all a favour in getting this matter out in the open and making sure that everyone knew that we do have a very confused system of elections, as far as I am concerned, at this time. To make it worse, I believe, would be to take up the Liberal amendment at this time.

Mr. Deans: I agree with that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I undertook in the last discussions we had concerning this Act that I would partake in a study to try to obtain uniformity. I still say that, that this government will do so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps the municipal committee has studied it and made recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I do not see any reasons to proceed now with an amendment which would create more confusion in the minds of the electors. I think it was very obvious, as far as I am concerned, that a lot of people did not know that after 1975, if they were British subjects, they could not vote in a federal election in Canada unless they were Canadian citizens. That’s been brought quite clearly home to me, and I think to other members of this House. But I do believe one of the main criteria also is to be a Canadian citizen.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is just a cop-out.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t think anyone would take exception to that. I say again to the hon. members, that we must review this --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Wentworth certainly takes exception. The member for Wentworth said he was an elitist.

Mr. Deans: Did I?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- system of elections at all levels, and we will do so. Therefore, I have to say that the government will not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the member for Riverdale has spoken nauseously and endlessly, let me say a word.

Mr. Lawlor: I think he spoke rather well.

Mr. Singer: I think the time has come whereby, by the present phrasing of the amendment, we could start the reform that is necessary. I fail to understand the mock anger engendered by the hon. member for Riverdale and his sudden discovery about the evil things that the Liberals are supposed to have done. I would call to his mind, and particularly the mind of the member for Yorkview --

Mr. Lawlor: You are wracked by a guilt complex.

Mr. Singer: -- that when we sat on the select committee on election law --

Mr. Lawlor: Give in gently.

Mr. Singer: -- a motion was proposed along the same lines as is presently before the House. It was supported by the Liberal members of that committee; it was supported by the NDP members of that committee, one of whom was the hon. member for Yorkview, and it was supported by the now Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think the leader ought to reverse the policy.

Mr. Singer: The Tory majority of the day on that committee did not support it. So that idea found favour in the minds of several members of the NDP at that time, and it is a consistent approach that we have taken. I think the idea makes good sense, Mr. Chair --

Mr. Deans: We thank you for that.

Mr. Singer: It’s obvious that the inclusion of the qualification at the end of the amendment, as it’s now written, does not disqualify or disenfranchise anyone. I fail to follow the convoluted remarks of the member for Riverdale when he says that the test should be landed status. Whether they are here temporarily or in transit to another jurisdiction, if they haven’t got the faith in Canada to apply for and became Canadian citizens, why should they have a right to vote in Canadian elections?

Mr. Renwick: Why disenfranchise them for from three years to five years?

Mr. Singer: It is as simple as that. They make this argument about the importance of municipal voting. They haven’t made it with equal force about the importance of provincial voting or federal voting --

Mr. Renwick: That isn’t the point.

Mr. Singer: They pay sales tax. They pay income tax. They pay all sorts of other taxes. But I would think that the least that should be required --

Mr. Lawlor: That is not what we are talking about.

Mr. Singer: -- is a commitment to Canada in the form of applying, at the earliest opportunity, for Canadian citizenship. That’s logical; it’s sensible. It’s in keeping with the mood of this country. I would urge all members of the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And the minister believes in it too.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on an occasion like this I love to have the last word.

Mr. Singer: You have had the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh.

Mr. Renwick: It may be eminently reasonable and eminently sensible, but it is eminently and pre-eminently insensitive to persons’ feelings. The importance of the franchise to people is so important that you cannot take it away. I had the honour to be canvassing --

Mr. Breithaupt: We are not taking it away.

Mr. Singer: Who are we taking it away from?

Mr. Renwick: You are taking it away.

Mr. Singer: From whom?

Mr. Breithaupt: From people who are not here.

Mr. Renwick: You are taking it away, on the date that you put in here, from persons who would be British subjects when they came here, without adequately dealing with the present problem.

Mr. Singer: People who are not here yet.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Breithaupt: Make it next week.

Mr. Singer: Not yet here now. What are you talking about?

Mr. Breithaupt: Or Aug. 1.

Mr. Renwick: I want to talk about what the major wing of the Liberal Party in Ottawa has done.

Mr. Singer: Who are we taking anything away from?

Mr. Renwick: I had the privilege to be canvassing last week for my colleague, the sitting member and the continuing sitting member for Broadview in the federal House --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: All right, all right. I knocked on a door, and a woman came to the door. She said: “I am a British subject and I have been a British subject all my life. I have been in this country since the Second World War.” She said: “I am not going to vote in this election because they are going to take away my franchise in the next election.”

Mr. Singer: Oh!

Mr. Renwick: All right. All I’m saying --

Mr. Singer: She’s not going to vote because she doesn’t want to become a Canadian citizen.

Mr. Renwick: -- is that the one thing which usually brings Liberal governments to their knees is insensitivity, and we’ll have no part of this kind of insensitivity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You mean people matter more?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, you know I think the phrase, “people matter more,” is an important one to toss into this debate at this time. I would say to that lady who has lived here for almost 30 years, that she apparently does not seem to feel that Canadian citizenship is as important as my colleagues do. It is certainly her privilege not to take out Canadian citizenship, if that is a decision she may wish to make. But it is also our privilege, as citizens of Canada, if the federal government so decides --

Mr. Lawlor: You wouldn’t say that to her, standing on her doorstep.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- or as residents of Ontario, to set certain rules for the conduct of our own elections within the province. We think that citizenship is the criterion for the right to vote. The fact of paying taxes on one’s income surely is not as important as the enjoyment of the ability to earn that income within our society. I believe that commitment can work both ways. There is nothing magical about having to pay taxes; one might almost say that persons who have that ability should be pleased to be involved in our community and our society. I don’t think anything flows from the argument of the simple payment of taxes.

Mr. Lawlor: You have seen them dancing in the street about that one too.

Mr. Breithaupt: I feel that citizenship is an important decision --

Mr. Lawlor: They’re full of jubilation, all the way to the tax office.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- upon which voting should be based. I think that the individuals who have chosen to reside within our province and who decide to become citizens of Canada are the persons who should vote.

The member for Riverdale has suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we are disenfranchising persons; persons who, presumably, have not yet arrived in Canada. I don’t see how that is possible. Surely, if he wished to follow that argument to a conclusion, which would therefore disenfranchise no one, we could cause this Act to be brought into force at some date in the future; possibly on the same date as the federal amendments which will require citizenship to vote in a federal election. I believe that is a sound amendment; I believe it is a positive one. It is pro-Canadian; it is not anti anything else. I think that persons have the opportunity and time --

Mr. Singer: The NDP in Ottawa voted for it, too.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, of course, that was the next point I was going to raise, because it seemed to me that --

Mr. Chairman: It seems to me that we are straying a bit from this amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- consistency is something which we have not seen in the party to our left.

Mr. Singer: The member for Riverdale is the one to the left.

Mr. Renwick: The member for Downsview is the distraction; that’s the trouble.

Mr. Singer: I told you he was out of order.

Mr. Breithaupt: I hope the member for Ottawa Centre will take the opportunity of following the debate in Hansard so that if we carry on at some greater time he will, I think, be able to add, I would judge from his comments on the educational point of view, some things which I think are of value.

I must say I have enjoyed the comments of the member for Ottawa Centre, as he suggests there is some educational value in the franchise at the municipal level. However, on balance, I feel the citizenship matter is the more important. As a result, I would hope we will see the House support the amendment that has been made.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour --

Mr. Deans: No, no; we are not at that point yet.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Riverdale has to speak again.

Mr. Singer: He has to have the last word.

Mr. Deans: When people talk of a commitment, I think you have got to stop and understand what kind of a commitment we are talking about. It is a tremendous commitment, a great burden, for people to pack up, sell off all of their belongings, and travel from one country to another. When a person chooses to become an immigrant and receives landed immigrant status, I want to tell you that he has, or she has, taken on a tremendous commitment; and made a tremendous commitment in moving from one country to another.

Mr. Deacon: That’s right; they have.

Mr. Deans: I don’t want anybody to try and make out that by getting Canadian citizenship you have suddenly made an even greater commitment than the one you originally made. You haven’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Lots of them go back.

Mr. Deans: That’s right, lots go back; but lots go back after having attained Canadian citizenship too. Oh yes. In fact, there are any number of people who, upon retirement, leave this country and go to the United States to live; or go to other countries to live. They are Canadian citizens but they go there, nevertheless. Okay?

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): E. P. Taylor goes down to the Bahamas.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Down where it is warm.

Mr. Deans: Their sense of commitment, I suppose by Liberal interpretation is somewhat less, and maybe it is.

Mr. Breithaupt: But they are not going to vote, are they?

Mr. Deans: But what is bothering me is this.

Mr. Lawlor: E. P. Taylor flies up for every municipal election.

Mr. Deans: I think we can fool around with this. It is nice to have a little bit of an argument in the Legislature from time to time. But I do believe that while people should become Canadian citizens -- and I have continuously urged people coming to the country that they should do that -- they should do it because they want to be Canadian citizens; not simply so that they can vote.

I want to tell you that being able to vote is important. But they should be Canadian citizens, because it is desirable to be a Canadian citizen, because they want to give up whatever their citizenship previously was and attach themselves permanently to Canada. Now by saying that they must do it at the end of the fifth year in order that they can vote, really makes the vote more important than the citizenship.

I’m suggesting to you that when people come here and live in the country and work in the country and own property in the country and pay taxes in the country, we should give serious consideration as to whether or not they should be entitled to cast a ballot in an election for a government that is obviously going to have considerable jurisdiction over what they are able to do. Being a Canadian citizen or not being a Canadian citizen doesn’t stop them from doing any other thing in this country. They can own property. They can travel back and forth from coast to coast; from north to south. They can get on and off every railroad. Nobody asks them whether or not they have Canadian citizenship.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: East to west.

Mr. Singer: Go to the movies and buy books.

Mr. Deans: They can do anything -- and they are expected to live up to the same laws as everyone else. They are expected to be responsive to the laws that we make.

If you want to say that a person need be in the country for a period of time before being eligible to vote --

Mr. Singer: Does the member know any country in the world that gives you the right to vote unless you are a citizen? Any country in the world?

Mr. Deacon: They are not a Canadian.

Mr. Deans: Fine.

Mr. Singer: None.

Mr. Deans: Of course I think you’ve got to understand that not many countries in the world are made up the same way as Canada. Not many countries in the world have encouraged immigration to the same extent as Canada.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the member’s colleague said we have a restrictive policy.

Mr. Deans: I’m talking about in the past. There are not many countries which have encouraged immigration to the extent that Canada has.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what the member’s colleague was talking about.

Mr. Deacon: They are all over the world.

Mr. Lawlor: The Liberals have a guilt complex about this.

Mr. Deans: Anyhow, what I’m saying to you is this, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: The Liberals are chattering away defending themselves.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This air of sorrowful sensitivity is unbelievable.

Mr. Lawlor: Did you ever see them so sensitive about anything? They made a boo-boo; shut up and take it.

Mr. Deans: What I’m saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if it were to be --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Which way is the leader of the NDP going to tell the member to vote after all those speeches?

Mr. Deans: I think the member knows as well as I do that my leader doesn’t do that. He’s not like the Liberal leader.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member’s leader didn’t tell him that he reversed it last week.

Mr. Deans: He did not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He reversed it.

Mr. Deans: No, he didn’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a matter of fact he went out and gave the message to reverse the member’s colleague’s decision.

Mr. Deans: We make the decisions collectively not individually, not the leader.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Except that only one person attends the NDP caucus.

Mr. Deans: Not the leader. Anyway, aside from that, even if my leader came in and said that he would prefer to see it the way the Liberal Party wanted it, I would still differ from it.

Some hon. members: Oh!

Mr. Deans: Okay? I think what we’re looking at is whether or not it’s desirable in Ontario to change the rules that have existed. If it’s desirable, then it’s desirable to change all of the rules. It should be a matter of government policy that the rules related to elections and voting should be changed in their entirety. It’s not desirable to pick on one particular segment and say we’re going to change that rule, but we’re not changing any other. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Liberal amendment, as I said earlier, is only going to add further confusion. It will, in fact, reduce the numbers of people eligible to vote in municipalities.

Mr. Singer: No way.

Mr. Deans: And the amount of participation by Canadian citizens now, in voting in municipal elections, is deplorably small.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Those in favour of Mr. Singer’s motion will please say “aye.” Those opposed will please say “nay.” In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we stack this to any possible future vote?

Mr. Singer: No; no way.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Stack it? This is a matter of principle!

Mr. Deans: No, we don’t want it stacked.

An hon. member: Stack it.

Mr. Deans: No, let’s have it now.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Mr. Singer has moved that in section 5 the words “or other British subject” be deleted where they appear in item 12(b) and item 13(b), and adding the words “provided that no person who was on June 6, 1974, entitled to vote by reason of being a British subject, shall lose such entitlement by virtue of provisions of these sections.”

The committee divided on Mr. Singer’s motion to amend section 5 of Bill 65, which was negatived on the following vote.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 19, the “nays” are 59.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost and the section carried.

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on a later section of this bill; and if so which section? The member for Waterloo North? Which section?

Mr. Good: Section 10.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 10?

Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North on section 10.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister carrying this bill, section 10 is one of several sections in the Act that perpetuate, and in fact intensify, the practice that has been established in the Election Act which is creating hardships at the municipal level with the municipal clerks. When the Election Act was first introduced the procedures imposed upon the clerk also had an interacting relationship with assessment data held by the regional assessment offices. At that particular time clerks in many of the municipalities began to realize that they would be doing a lot of the work involved in keeping enumeration lists, and then relating the information to the regional assessment offices that rightfully should have been done by the assessment officers.

In this particular section, Mr. Chairman, you’ll note that a procedure is followed, and the clerk corrects any gross or manifest errors. The clerk, or the secretary of the school board for separate school supporters as the case may be -- prior to the printing or reproduction of the list required under section 22, and after he has corrected the list or the part thereof -- shall forthwith notify the assessment commissioner of such corrections. But then he says here: “showing the appropriate assessment roll number against each such correction.”

Well really, the municipal clerks are not interested in keeping the assessment rolls up to date. That is the difficult part -- keeping the assessment rolls up to date for the regional assessment officers -- and another instance where the municipal clerks are going to have to do the day-to-day work of the regional assessment offices.

I think a lot has been said by the municipal clerks in the past on this particular subject. This is repeated in many sections in the bill, and I would like to hear the minister’s comment on this criticism of this particular section, especially the last phrase which the clerks would like to see deleted, where it says: “showing the appropriate assessment roll number against each such correction.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I think it*s obvious that it would be difficult to correct the roll unless you corrected the errors and related them to the assessment roll. It may make more work for the clerk. But if there are errors, I think the clerk has an obligation on behalf of the people, as well as the assessment commissioner, to make sure we have the people on the list, and that they are properly enumerated and numbered. I don’t think there is anything wrong in having the clerks add the roll numbers. I recognize this is extra work, but I really believe it facilitates the whole operation.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this section stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Renwick: I am curious as to what constitutes a gross or manifest error. In fact the explanatory note is a little bit misleading because it refers only to gross or manifest errors in the preliminary list, and in fact provides for this sort of correction not only in this instance but also when it is not in conformity with the requirements for the polling subdivision. I was just wondering what evil was brought to the attention of the ministry that led it to permit this kind of correction to be made in the voting list when it is so dependent upon the enumeration system?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, sometimes the enumerators make errors in the list. Many municipalities, to my knowledge, are aware of the fact that certain people have been left off the voters’ list. If they are aware, why don’t they notify the assessment office immediately, rather than let it go until a later date? What we are saying is that many times there may be several apartments or several houses in a street inadvertently left off the list. The fact that the people in those houses are not on the list is what we call a gross error.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is a point that I, too, was interested in, Mr. Chairman, because I can understand how a street might be left off, or there might be a printing error which would leave off a page, or something like this. I was following the views of the member for Riverdale in thinking that if we are referring to leaving off, say the names of persons in one household, is that to be considered sufficient to fit into this definition? Or is there something much larger which is presumed to be covered by this case?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Chairman, it can be one or two or more. It is a matter, in a small municipality or a large municipality, that if you are aware erf certain people left off, I think we should correct it as quickly as possible; that’s all.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a matter, really, of an obvious error rather than the size of the numbers of persons involved?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. An obvious error, that is right.

Mr. Good: Getting back to my point, I think the minister misunderstands. There is considerable difference between the formality and the permanence of an assessment roll for tax purposes and the keeping of a list for voting purposes, the enumeration for voting purposes.

The assessment roll is the starting point for the clerk and the municipal clerks want to keep this thing as simple as possible. They make a correction. They make several corrections and they enter them on the voters’ list. Their voters’ list is up to date. Why should it be their responsibility to coordinate that with an assessment roll? That’s the assessment function. Let the assessors do the job.

The province took the assessment away from the municipalities and now it wants to give the function of keeping it up to date back to the municipal clerks. This is what the clerks are complaining about. You took it away and now you are giving the sticky part of it and all the work part of it back to the municipality to do again.

Mr. Deacon: And after getting it into an awful mess in the meantime.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think that matter is entirely unrelated to what we are talking about here.

Mr. Good: No.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we could also refer to, I might say, is there could be a printing error which would be quite obviously wrong and therefore we would correct it. Whether or not it is the function of the clerk to correct it, or whether the assessment system is right or wrong, I say to you I think the clerk has an obligation to assist the assessment office if there is an error as obvious as we say.

Mr. Good: At the end of the whole thing he says, on the assessment; “Here is the corrected roll, fix it up, put your numbers on it.” He can’t do that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Fair enough.

Section 10 and 11 agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Chairman: I understand the member for Ottawa Centre has some comments on section 12.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I may want to put an amendment to section 12 but possibly I might ask the minister for some explanations first. Under section 12, paragraph 3, the last day for filing applications for revision of the primary lists is given as the second Friday preceding nomination day.

I haven’t got my notes with me now but I’ve checked with the minister’s staff here and nomination day, according to the Act we passed in 1972, is 21 days before the actual election day. The second Friday preceding nomination day will be therefore another 10 days prior to that. That means the revision of the electoral list will be completed or the possibility of getting your name revised on the electoral list will be over approximately 31 days before the actual election.

This creates some really severe problems, Mr. Chairman, as far as the way the municipal elections are carried on and particularly in view of the fact that so many people for various reasons don’t vote -- the turnout in municipal elections is so low -- and related to it is the pace of the campaign.

As the minister knows, we are now facing a federal election which is, I believe, 27 days away and yet in many parts of the province there is no evidence that the campaign is even on apart from what you see in the newspapers. The local candidates sometimes, apparently deliberately, are holding back on the campaign until the last three weeks because they recognize that a 60-day campaign is too long.

At the federal level, however, it is normal that by the time you’ve gone 15 or 20 days into that campaign, you at least have candidates who are selected at the municipal level. In the city of Ottawa, which is the second largest city in the province, it has been normal until recently that nobody begins campaigning pretty much until nomination day. The candidates may make announcements in the week or so prior to that day but their election meetings, their workers, their leaflets and so on are all concentrated in a period of two or three weeks. If you want to take Toronto and Hamilton, as two large cities in particular, there is usually some Grey Cup fever to be gotten over with in those two cities before anybody can concentrate seriously on the municipal election.

We suggested previously that the day of the municipal election should be changed from the first Monday in December because of weather conditions and other things. The minister, coming from Grenville-Dundas, will know the problems we have in eastern Ontario with weather, and the problems are even more severe in the north. But, nevertheless, this provision is going to be extraordinarily confusing. The provision bill is in this section 12.

What is going to happen is that somebody who is not on the original voters’ list will wake up to the fact, or will find out through the candidate or committee rooms of the candidate, after the date for revisions of the list has past.

In a federal or in a provincial election that would mean that they would lose their vote under the Municipal Elections Act. They have the right to vote by swearing in, by actually going to the polls. I can’t recall whether they have to go down to see the clerk or whether they can clear at the poll itself. Can the minister remind me? I can’t remember how the procedure works?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They have the swearing in at the clerk’s or with the returning officer, one or the other.

Mr. Cassidy: At the clerk’s or with the returning officer. Well now, our experience in 1972 in Ottawa with that particular procedure was that it was, in certain cases, almost a disaster. You had people, who because there is no three-hour rule, coming home from work at 4:30 or 5 and not having too much longer left to vote. They went home to have supper and maybe they didn’t leave themselves too much time, or they came in and found they weren’t on the list, so there was a backup of people trying to swear in.

We had people rushing down to city hall to get themselves sworn in there. We had poll clerks and other election officials who naturally were not too familiar with the procedure and who were swamped, as well. It is quite natural the backup of people who want to swear in, with the forms that need to be filled out and that kind of thing from the time when most people went to vote, is in the last hour that the polls are open. All of this happens with inexperienced people at a confusing time of year in elections that are rather confusing anyway.

For that matter, it is probably fair to argue that many of the people who come in wanting to be sworn in because they find that they are not on the list, are upset at being left off the list. They are rather mad at the whole system. They may be peripheral voters anyway. That is, they may be not the kind of electorate one would like to see in a democracy where everybody takes a sober and serious interest in public affairs and listens to CBC faithfully every day of the year. Most people aren’t like that, let’s face it.

So, some of these people may, in fact, be in a position where there is a danger of their being turned off voting in elections generally. They say, “Look, I went, I tried to swear in; then I found they left me off the list. What kind of system is this anyway? You can’t beat city hall; I’ve had it; they are all a bunch of bums.” Maybe we are all a bunch of bums, Mr. Chairman. I don’t like to think so, though, and I would even give that credit to the members of the government opposite. I think the people who practise politics in this country generally try to do so honourably, even if they may be misguided at times. I don’t think we can use this kind of procedure which threatens to bring this system into disrepute.

When the Municipal Elections Act was originally passed, it left to the discretion of the clerk the last day for revisions. It seems to me that the way to handle this would be possibly to have two deadlines -- one would be a deadline to be the last date for revisions that were to be printed on the revised lists; the other one would be the last date for revisions that would be given in typewritten form or some other easily used form to the poll clerks on election day. That would permit the workers for a candidate or other people as individuals to make sure that they are on the list beforehand and not to have the uncertainty about going through an unfamiliar procedure in swearing in.

But, if you leave it for an entire month -- and that is what’s being proposed here -- you are going to have a lot of confusion and a lot of people needlessly deprived of the vote. Before I propose any amendments, would the minister make some comments on the reasons for this proposed amendment? Whether he holds to it strongly or whether he hoped for some sort of alterations such as those I have suggested?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset when we introduced the bill, this bill was discussed very fully with the clerks, the treasurers, the assessment commissioners, the clerk-administrators, and the municipal liaison committee. Everyone had a full opportunity to have their views expressed in regard to the amendments necessary. These amendments reflect their views of the best ways to administer the elections and the enumerations.

I see no reason to change it. I don’t know what the amendment is that the member is about to bring before the House. In any event, it would seem to me if all those people have agreed and we, the government, feel it’s reasonable to have this particular amendment made, I don’t see why we want to put forth another date to confuse the issue, if there is any confusion. I don’t see it at all. I would like the member to elaborate on his amendment if he wants to.

Mr. Cassidy: What I would do right now, Mr. Chairman, would be to move that section 12, subsection 3, simply be deleted so that we will return to the situation that exists under the Municipal Elections Act as at present. At present, as the minister knows and as it says in the notes, “The clerk is empowered to fix the last filing date for revisions to the preliminary list of electors.” I’m not ready with the amendment yet, but that would give some flexibility. I felt, when the Act came through originally two years ago the preferable position would be that in legislation we spelled out that revisions could be made to the list up until a period of time very close to the actual election day -- say, three, four or five days so that as many people as possible would be covered by a revisions process rather than having to be covered by a swearing-in process.

I think it’s fair to say to the minister that, had he convened a group of people who had been candidates in the last election and asked them to consider the points in detail, they might have been able to come up with a different set of answers than a group who were predominantly the people who have to administer the Municipal Elections Act, just as he would agree with me, if he gave it into the hands of the administrators they might quite plausibly argue that the poll shouldn’t be opened past 5:30 in the evening because it’s easier to get poll clerks and deputy returning officers if you don’t make them sit into the evening.

We keep the polls open in the evenings because that’s necessary for the convenience of the electorate. I’m saying that it’s desirable to keep the revisions open as long as possible because that’s necessary for the convenience of the electorate and in order to ensure the maximum participation in the municipal elections process.

That’s particularly important because of the fact, of which the minister is aware, that a lot of people are for various reasons turned off by municipal elections. They don’t participate to a high extent. In my area, we had a municipal election two months after the federal election in 1972. While 70 per cent or 75 per cent of the electorate participated in the federal campaign by voting, when it came to the municipal campaign in the same area less than half that number of people bothered to get out and vote. That’s true. Those differences are true in many, many parts of the province. I don’t think there’s a single part of the province where the participation is nearly as high as it is in provincial or federal campaigns.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They have three times that they can apply for revision. This date that we are stating here doesn’t mean that’s the final time. They have the revisions to the preliminary lists when they can apply to have their name put on. They can apply also to the clerk to be added to the list. They can swear at the time of voting and be added to the list to be eligible for voting the day of the election. So we have three times -- plus this particular day here -- I don’t know why we would want another day.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister explain those amendments that would be covered under the review section 21(a) where the clerk is aware of gross errors in the list? Is that what he is referring to, or is he simply referring to the general power of the clerk to --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, general. I am talking about the general qualifications for revisions to the list.

Mr. Cassidy: The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that that isn’t spelled out and nailed down. People understand what a revision is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Sure.

Mr. Cassidy: They have it at the federal level; they have it at the provincial level.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They certainly do understand it.

Mr. Cassidy: They understand what a revision is, but there is no procedure that is spelled out here and that is spelled out in the Act; if I recall it correctly.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Oh yes, it is right there.

Mr. Cassidy: They can go and they can get a certificate that entitles them to vote. But on the other hand, we have to ensure that the clerk is going to be prepared for that; that the availability of the certificate process is made available and accessible. We have to ensure that people have to appear in person -- or can they do it by telephone?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, no; they have to do that in person.

Mr. Cassidy: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They have to be there in person. This is a matter which is dealt with very clearly by the local municipal people; and I wouldn’t want to have anyone suggest that the local municipalities are not capable of handling the revisions or adding anyone to the election list.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am not worried about the local people being able to handle the revisions either; but you have an example here where --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You seemed to indicate they couldn’t.

Mr. Cassidy: What is that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You seemed to indicate that you weren’t prepared to accept that they could.

Mr. Cassidy: I am saying, though, that the present provisions state that the clerk is empowered to set the last filing date for revisions. If the minister is concerned that some dates were set too early -- that they were being set, let’s take Oct. 15, rather than Nov. 3 or 4 -- then he could have set a minimum time and said the revision list has got to be open at least until a month before election day; and that would be acceptable.

But it is curious that a government that speaks of autonomy and discretion on the part of municipalities, would take away from municipalities the discretion to do this; and tell them: “Okay, close the list on a certain day, and after that day you cannot in any way revise the list. No matter if you have a computer that can spew the whole thing out in 24 hours; it doesn’t matter. You do it our way, because that is what we are putting into the law.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You missed the whole point. Mr. Chairman, how cam the municipalities who want a cut-off date keep going on and on and on without having the list finalized at some particular date? It doesn’t make any sense.

I am surprised that the member for Ottawa Centre is talking the way he is. It is a matter of necessity. The list has to be finalized on one day; not on three or four other dates. But it is also a matter of necessity that those who are left off have the right to be qualified; and we have that right in there.

Mr. Cassidy: But the point is that one assumes that the preliminary lists are reasonably accurate; that they have 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the people on them. Therefore, for the purposes of deciding the size of polls, and whether you need an extra table in the hall, for the purposes of the people who are canvassing -- if anybody is canvassing in that particular campaign -- for all those purposes, the preliminary lists suffice. The final lists are certainly not needed three weeks or 3½ weeks before the election. They are not needed for nomination day, because at nomination day the candidates can be given copies of the preliminary lists -- and then the amendments can be given to them later, or the revised lists can be given to them at a later time; sometime during the course of the campaign.

As I recall, somewhere in here, it is permitted for an agent of the elector to go forward to the revision in order to have that elector’s name added to the list, or changed on the List. The minister nods his head.

Now, that is a great convenience for the elector. It means that more electors get on, because there are people in the business of ensuring those electors get on by canvassing; and that kind of thing.

I have headed campaigns where we went in with 50 or 100 names at a time. I said: “Look, you have missed these people; would you please put them on?” And the clerk or the returning officer knew that we weren’t playing games; we weren’t trying to pad the lists or anything. So he said: “Fine; I accept your list. I will see that they all get on.” And those people got their right to vote.

Now, nobody in their right mind is going to be canvassing seriously in a municipal campaign 31 days before the election is held. You just don’t do it -- in the same way as some of you people have been canvassing for federal candidates in this federal campaign, more than 30 days before July 8.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Just a minute. I understood that the member campaigns 365 days of the year.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe we do that too but not door to door. The minister has been reading my publicity in the Ottawa Journal.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s right, I have.

Mr. Cassidy: Anyway, no candidate or canvasser is going to be doing a serious canvass until after the day on which an agent can take these names in on behalf of the electorate. The elector, if he wants to avoid swearing in, is going to have to go down to city hall on his own. Maybe that is quite easy in the town of Prescott.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are thinking about Ottawa, Toronto. It’s all of Ontario’s we’re thinking about.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. If we are thinking about Ottawa, though, for somebody who doesn’t have transportation, it can be as much as a 50- or 60-minute journey from, say Caldwell Ave. or from the south end of the city to city hall to get themselves on the list. There is no other way to do it during that period of 30 days when the campaign is active. Or they’re told to go and swear in. They say, “What’s this swearing in? Do I have to have somebody with me? Will you go with me?” they say to the candidate. The candidate says, “Look, I’m sorry, I can’t go with you. I’ve too many other things to do.”

All this could be avoided if the minister would simply agree to take out subsection 3 and I to leave the discretion in the hands of the local municipality; or to amend subsection 3 to state that the last day for the filing of applications for revision of the preliminary list will be the second Friday preceding nomination day or such later day as may be fixed by the council of the municipality.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Cassidy: I am trying to be reasonable about this. I am not trying to polarize the House or anything like that. I just know from experience that this is an unhelpful amendment which is being made and with great respect I think the Municipal Liaison Committee was thinking more of the problems of administering the thing and getting the lists out, and off their hands than of the problems of greatest access for the electorate.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the Municipal Liaison Committee is composed of elected people and they have the advice of those who are working with them as appointed officials. There is absolutely no way I could agree to having the municipalities individually determine what date they might have as the last day because what we are trying to get is uniformity. We were talking about uniformity not long ago in the House today and if we left it up to each municipality to determine a certain day I think it would be the most confused issue we ever had before us. No, I can’t accept that; I’m sorry.

Mr. Cassidy: Hold on, Mr. Chairman, in the first place we have had the system for two years by which the municipality and the clerk fixed the day. Chaos does not seem to have ensued. In the second place, the election day is fixed and it’s universal throughout the province; no problem. One assumes the province does not intend to put ads across the province -- the minister shakes his head; okay -- the province is not going to be telling the people, “Make sure your name is on the voters’ list before the end of October.” Even if it did, people are not going to get tuned in or politicize the election until after that day. The last day for revision is going to come and go without particular notice.

Everybody is entitled to vote -- or almost everybody is entitled to vote -- in only one place and therefore, as far as revisions are concerned, there is no particular confusion from them. If Ottawa wants to leave it open until the Friday before election day, Prescott wants to have it on the second Friday before nomination day and Toronto wants to have it on Nov. 16, they will take what steps they need to take to inform their own electorates. It’s not going to be of any particular confusion to people in other areas of the province.

If the minister wishes, as I suggested, to make this the minimum, so that it shall be the second Friday preceding nomination day or such later day as may be fixed by the clerk, that will be fine and it might be a better way of doing it than what I suggested. I really reject the rigidity of the minister on this particular thing. I think since it doesn’t change what anybody has to do but since it permits municipalities which want to be more responsive to their electorate to be more responsive surely it is the kind of amendment which can easily be accepted by a minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabour the point but I think one thing has to be pointed out: We do have certain areas governed by regional government. Suppose one area municipality has a date which was entirely different from the municipality that’s a few miles away from it. I would think there would be nothing but absolute confusion, which I think destroys the argument in which you said there wouldn’t be confusion. I’m sure there would be confusion.

No, I won’t accept the amendment. I think we’ve had some pretty expert advice. I appreciate the views of the hon. member, but I don’t believe that he’s thinking this out as clearly as maybe some other people who’ve spent many hours on this particular bill.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ve spent many hours, Mr. Chairman, fighting elections at the local level. I’m working from that experience and from the kinds of frustrations that we have had in every municipal campaign that I’ve seen over the question of the revision of voters’ lists. If anything, the thing that gives the most anguish and provokes the most anger among electors is the fact they’re left off the voters’ list and when they try to get on that they run into bureaucracy and they run into people who won’t co-operate.

In future, with this amendment they’re going to run into people who cannot co-operate. I know what has happened here. The minister who was so bold as to strike British subjects off the voters’ list a few days ago has been given his orders by the Treasurer. He has been told very explicitly not to amend the bill by one jot or tittle, no matter what amendments are put forward, no matter how strong those amendments are or no matter how well founded. He has his orders and he’s sticking to them. It’s like the bad old days when the minister was a parliamentary secretary and when he and the hon. member for York East (Mr. Meen) used to carry through bills and couldn’t even change a comma. You’ve been demoted.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When you come up with an amendment that makes sense, I’ll accept it.

Mr. Cassidy: If somebody else could carry on the debate, I’ll just write out the amendment here.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Don’t make that one because I’m not going to accept it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: I just have one question, Mr. Chairman, and that is with respect to the setting up of the timings. I can accept the view with respect to some continuity and consistency so that there is a common provincial time across the province for doing this kind of thing that is set out in section 12. My question is what did the advisers to the minister consider would be a reasonable time? Is the time sequence set out with respect to this matter of the second Friday sufficient in the opinion of the minister and his advisers to get the job done? Are you cutting the time constraint too closely, or will there be a fairly acceptable way of completing this work within that time frame?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Kitchener, that is the date which is most acceptable to those people who work in the administering of the Municipal Elections Act. As I mentioned before, we’ve checked with a lot of people and I believe this is the date that gives the latest date possible. It doesn’t make it too short a time, but does give the latest date. So I’m sticking to that.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, this is a triumph of bureaucracy. It’s the classic kind of thing to say, “No, we can’t do it.” When 1,800 people come into a food store at 4:30 on a Saturday afternoon and they close the doors saying, “We’re sorry, we close at 4:30,” that’s the kind of mentality which is exemplified here. It’s just monumental bureaucratic stupidity. People have said, “It takes this long to get the lists out and we can’t do it in any other way.” They simply ignore any concept of service to the people that they’re meant to represent. That’s really what is happening here with this particular amendment. It is a stupid amendment.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, we all recognize the hon. member for Ottawa is an expert and I’m not taking that away from him. The only thing is I would just appreciate it if he would not waste the time of the House and other members by repeating himself so much. He has made his point. If he wants to bring in an amendment, let him bring it in.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 12(3)(2a) be amended by inserting after the word “day,” the words “or such later date as may be fixed by the council of the municipality.

Mr. Cassidy: A final comment, Mr. Chairman. I would just plead with the minister to consider that amendment seriously. I know he has rejected it about two or three times, but it is a sensible amendment. For municipalities that don’t want to be affected, it changes nothing from the intent of the original amendment to the bill proposed by the minister. For those that do have a concern, or in areas where the council wishes to try to ensure that as many people as possible are picked up on the election list, it gives them that opportunity which they don’t have now.

Also, during the month when the campaign is active, for anybody who wants to be sure, ahead of the actual polls, that they will be entitled to vote, it avoids the necessity for them of having to go to city hall in person during working hours, or whatever other arrangements are made, in order to get on the list.

It is a sensitive and sensible kind of amendment, and I would really ask the minister to accept it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, with respect to this amendment, I am thinking of my own communities and how this might be developed. I cannot really see how the citizens of Kitchener might have one certain date with respect to this process and the citizens of Waterloo, in my colleague’s riding, might have another date in a community that is served generally by one set of media. I think the confusion would be too great and, because of the greater confusion that would result, I cannot see us supporting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: We have the amendment of Mr. Cassidy to section 12.

Those in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Section 12 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other discussions or questions on any other part of the bill?

Mr. Breithaupt: On section 16, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 16?

Mr. Cassidy: Section 14, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Section 13 agreed to.

On section 14:

Mr. Cassidy: I am not exactly sure at what point to raise this. I don’t think it’s covered specifically under “revision”, except that all of these paragraphs that deal with revision, I would suggest, are pretty useless, given the fact that there will be virtually no revisions during the period prior to 31 days before the actual election.

What I want to say is that since the minister has insisted on making the revisions so early, then an amendment ought to be put forward at some point to permit a person to apply by agent, as well as personally, to have his entitlement to vote by certificate if he misses the revision. Maybe the minister’s people, who are more familiar with the Act than I am, could work out the necessary amendment. But I wonder whether the minister would accept that kind of an amendment, which would take care of people who want to ensure that they are entitled to vote, but who missed the revision because it comes too early and don’t want to go through the uncertainty of the swearing-in process.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether the hon. member is referring to the actual advance poll or what he is referring to. I think he’s got two issues here. In section 14, we are talking of having a person apply personally, or by his agent, to have his name on the preliminary list. He didn’t clarify, to my mind, whether he is referring to the name being entered on the preliminary list or whether he is talking about the actual voting.

If he is talking about the actual voting, certainly he can’t do it unless he is there in person. And that certainly seemed to me to be implied by the statement made by the member, that he wanted someone else to vote for the person. Would he like to clarify his statement a bit more?

Mr. Cassidy: Sure. Under section 14 somebody who wants to have a revision on the preliminary list may do so in person --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Or by agent.

Mr. Cassidy: Or by agent; that’s right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Okay?

Mr. Cassidy: But that preliminary list revision process closes down on approximately Nov. 3 or Nov. 4; that is, 31 days before election day.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Right.

Mr. Cassidy: I am talking about what is going to be the norm, which is that most people who are left off the preliminary list won’t discover that fact until after the date for revisions on the preliminary lists has passed. Do you follow that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: They then have two courses open to them. One is that they can go in person to the clerk in order to get a certificate that entitles them to vote, and the other is that they can swear in at the polling station. For various reasons many people, I suspect, will be reticent or reluctant to go through the swearing-in process.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why?

Mr. Cassidy: Why? They don’t understand it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why not?

Mr. Cassidy: It is not used at the federal or provincial level in municipalities and they are afraid that they might be knocked out and not permitted to vote because of some technicality. They may have experienced in the municipality from the previous election that swearing in, although permitted, didn’t work effectively and that some people lost their vote when they went in to vote, confident that they could get it through the swearing-in process.

Therefore, these people will want to have a certificate. They will be saying to candidates’ agents or other people like that, “Look, I will vote, provided I can be ensured that I have the right to vote.” We can introduce an amendment to the Act, since it is before the House now, which would permit the certificate to be granted when it is filled in by the voter, or when it is submitted by an agent, and not just by the voter himself or herself?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Cassidy: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: How would you verify it? Mr. Chairman, as I understood the member, he said that the application would be submitted by the agent of the person wishing to vote. Then by whom is the application sworn and by whom is it verified?

Mr. Cassidy: Under the revisions process, under subsection 2(2a) of this section, “An application made under this section and duly signed by the applicant may be filed by the applicant or by his agent on his behalf.” I think there is a penalty clause somewhere in the Act which has a fine or a penalty for providing false information. An application for a certificate would likewise have to be presumably signed by the applicant and then either filed by the applicant personally or by his agent on his behalf.

If the minister says that there are problems about verification, then those problems are presumably equally difficult in this section 14 which you suggested here. Yet I haven’t heard anybody suggest that there is a problem there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Chairman, the only difference in section 14, as we have it now to what it was, is the changing of the wording “filing complaints” to “filing applications.” That is the only difference in the section.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it goes beyond that, Mr. Chairman. That is section 13.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s exactly it.

Mr. Cassidy: Previously in section 14 a person could have his agent apply on his behalf to get his name changed on the revised list. This section 14 says that he must personally sign, although he can still submit it by an agent. We don’t object to that; that’s fine.

What I am saying is that during the 31 days, or most of the 31 days, when a person is entitled to get the right to vote through a certificate process at the clerk’s office, at the city hall, he should be able to do that by means of an agent as well rather than having to go down personally. I don’t see why that’s inconsistent. Since he can get on the revised list through an agent, why can’t he get on to a certificate process through an agent?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You are not talking to the bill if you are talking to section 14, which I believe you are. That is not dealing with voting whatsoever.

Mr. Cassidy: I am talking about how people get certificates.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You are talking about nothing really.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Hear, hear; as usual.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, I don’t think the minister understands. I think he is deliberately trying to misunderstand me.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I’m telling the member he is not talking about section 14.

Mr. Cassidy: We’re spending an awful lot of time on this bill and most of it is because the minister is being so obtuse.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member is not talking about section 14, that’s all.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I’ll put an amendment to section 14, Mr. Chairman, which will do what I would have. I would ask the House to bear with me or else I would ask that the section be stood until after the supper break so that I can put the section forward, whichever the minister prefers.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member can do whatever he likes.

Mr. Cassidy: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Put it forward. The member is not talking to the bill at all.

Mr. Renwick: I think we can wait while the member writes the amendment. Sure.

Mr. Chairman: We’re on section 14.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ll have to go and get a copy of the Act, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other comments on section 14?

Mr. Cassidy: I have comments on section 14, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member is going to put an amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I would like to put one. I have to get a copy of the Act.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything on section 15?

Section 15 agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: While the member for Ottawa Centre is reviewing section 14, perhaps we could turn to section 16, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to raise a point which concerns me, as it concerns my colleague from Waterloo North, with respect to section 10.

It would appear here that this amendment is going to require the clerk to show the appropriate assessment number for any of the deletions or additions or changes which are going to be made to the voters’ list. I can understand that there are some logistical difficulties in attempting to do this, but it also seems to me that it’s the clerk’s function to deal with the voters’ list as a voters’ list and not attempt to turn it into some kind of an assessment roll. I think that if we, in the Legislature, are attempting to make the election proceedings as simple and as straightforward as they should be then this should be the primary concern that we’re giving to the clerk. The problems of assessment do not directly concern us, as we are looking to the best way of developing a voting list for an election.

As a result, I don’t think that this matter of the assessment roll number should be the responsibility of the clerk when he is preparing a voters’ list. It may well be that the result of that voters’ list -- the completed list itself -- should be then given to the assessment functionaries within regional government or wherever they may reside and they may have some responsibilities which flow from the receipt of an amended, or a completed, or a changed voters’ list.

However, to make the assessment roll correction a function of the clerk, I somewhat question. I’m wondering if the minister can advise me why he feels it is worthwhile to put in those last several lines in what will be section 28 and have it under the responsibility of the clerk, rather than having it under the responsibility of the assessment portion of the municipal office.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. It’s not a matter of correction, it’s a matter of clarification, making sure that we have the right assessment roll number and the name opposite that number. It’s not a correction whatsoever. It’s a matter of assisting the assessment commissioners and all those involved to see that we’re talking about the same roll number and the same person, where there might, in other words, be an error.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is using this then as --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: A verification.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- a checking function, rather than the view I was suggesting, which was making it the responsibility of the clerk when it should more properly be the responsibility of the assessment officer to correct his or her documents as they may be.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s a verification procedure which we feel is necessary for the clerk to ensure that the proper name and roll number is given to the assessment commissioner.

Section 16 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for Ottawa Centre prepared?

Mr. Cassidy: I would be prepared to see section 14 passed, Mr. Chairman, and I will make my amendment on section 18.

Mr. Chairman: Right.

Section 14 agreed to.

Section 17 agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Cassidy: I’m still writing it out, Mr. Chairman, but I would move that section 18 of Bill 65 be amended by deleting the words “on oath” in line 4 of subsection 1(1), and by inserting a new section 1a as follows:

(1a) An application made under this section and duly signed by the applicant may be filed by the applicant or by his agent on his behalf.

For technical reasons in the amendment I have had to take out the question of an oath because you cannot swear an oath at a distance; you have to be there in person.

What I am trying to do here is to ensure that people can get the right to vote as simply and directly as possible. The usual means, as the minister knows, is with the aid of a representative of one of the candidates, who would come around, let the persons know that they are off the list, and help them to do it.

The procedure, according to this amendment, would then be that there would be a form, a few copies of which would be given to candidates and which would be available to be taken around to people who are sick and so on. The form would be filled in so that somebody would state, “I am a Canadian citizen or otherwise qualified to vote. I live at such and such an address. I am left off the list.” And they would sign it. Then, with that signature their agent could then take it in to the city hall and a certificate could be issued for that particular elector.

It’s still not as convenient a procedure as one would like to see, but it is still better than what is provided here, where the elector personally goes down to the town hall to see the clerk.

As for the protection -- I know the minister is liable to talk about this -- the protection against impersonation here is the same as the protection against impersonation for any other elector. If an agent of a candidate or if a returning officer suspects that somebody is impersonating at the poll, and they happen to have got their right to vote under this particular section, then somewhere in the Act there is the right to challenge an elector, and I presume that somewhere in the Act an elector who is challenged can be made to swear that he is who he says he is.

If that is the case, then there is that protection right at the polling station. If agents are suspicious, they would keep particular watch for people who were voting on the basis of certificates, rather than on the basis of the voters’ list. I will write that out, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the minister can make some comments.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t expect the hon, member to stop so quickly. In any event, the requirement of the oath from the elector wishing to get a clerk’s certificate states that the elector must personally apply for a certificate and take the oath. I think that is the key of the whole section. I think that is probably what the hon. member doesn’t agree with. But we do feel it is necessary to have that in there. I state again that we wish to see the section stand as is.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I will just finish writing this out, Mr. Chairman. But just to comment on that, though, you don’t insist on an oath being taken when somebody is applying for a revision. They can just sign their name and an agent can take it down to the people doing the revisions; that’s fine, there is no problem. But after 31 days before the election, at a time when people start to get interested in the election, you insist that they do it personally and with the oath.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The vote can always be challenged, as you mentioned before,

Mr. Cassidy: That is correct. But the point is, though, that somebody who gets on the list by means of revision, and who is fraudulent, can be challenged at the polling station itself. Somebody who gets on the list by this procedure, as I have proposed to amend it, can also be challenged at the polling station.

I happen to have a bit more faith in people than the minister. When you consider that we permit people to walk into a polling station and to swear the oath, it seems ludicrous to me that we don’t permit people simply to sign their name and say, “Yes, I am who I say I am,” and to send it down.

I don’t understand the point of principle on which the minister is acting, and I would suggest that he consult with his officials and ask whether there is any serious objections within the ministry to this, because I can see none.

Mr. Chairman: While the member is writing out his amendment, are there any comments or questions on section 19?

Section 19 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 20?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, can I put this in before we go on too far?

Mr. Chairman: Section 19 has been carried so we’ll wait.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): The member is not very well prepared.

Mr. Cassidy: Here’s the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 18 of Bill 65 be amended by deleting the words “on oath” in subsection 1(1) and by adding a new section 1a as follows:

(1a): An application made under this section and duly signed by the applicant may be filed by the applicant or by his agent on his behalf.

Mr. Cassidy: I do hope you can read it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of this amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay,”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Section 18 agreed to.

Mr. Deans: I don’t know how you could have come to that conclusion.

Mr. Chairman: We are now on section 20. Are there any comments, questions or amendments on any other section?

Mr. Breithaupt: Section 29.

Mr. Chairman: Twenty-nine. Is there anything before section 24 on which the minister has an amendment?

Section 20 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 24:

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to make to section 24 because of the date which we have in the bill at the present time being June 15. I have to change that by amending that particular section by deleting 15 in line 3 thereof and substituting therefor 28, in order to provide adequate time.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this amendment carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I should explain, I think, to the members what this is for. It is to enable the city of Ottawa in particular, to bring forth the necessary bylaw in time to go ahead with its request for voting machines and procedures. Therefore, at this late date, June 15 doesn’t seem to be adequate.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, has the minister consulted with the city of Ottawa, or Metro Ottawa, in order to find out whether the two-week period is sufficient?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: Are there other municipalities which expressed any interest?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Cassidy: Is there any reason why the minister couldn’t make it, say, July 30, just in case?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The only reason, I suppose, is my staff spoke to the city and they’re quite happy with June 28. I feel they will have a bylaw passed --

Mr. Cassidy: I agree. They’re very efficient up there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- by the end of next week but we wanted to make sure they had enough time. I’m quite confident they are satisfied so I think probably the members of the House should be, too.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 25 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 29:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I have one point to raise with respect to section 29 by which we are amending section 54 of the Act. My comments made earlier have dealt with the ascribing of the assessment number which I felt was more the responsibility of the assessment officer than of the clerk. The minister, in his comments on the earlier sections, has suggested that this is only done as a matter of verification. I can accept those views with the hope there will be some possibility, therefore, of ensuring that no further errors would occur and that those persons who are added or who are changed are verified at that point.

There is one matter, with respect, that I would refer to in section 29 and that is the matter of furnishing a copy of the declaration to the assessment office. I’m wondering if that has the possibility of making information available to a candidate which would only otherwise be made available as the result of a judge’s order?

It seems to me that this might contravene the right of an individual to conceal his or her decision as to whether or not to vote in the first place. I am just raising the point as something which the minister may consider. It may be that this amendment is satisfactory, but I think that is something the minister’s staff might consider because they may find that the possibility of some abuse, which could occur, is something which is worthy of some further thought.

If I might, Mr. Chairman, just make one point with respect to section 28, it seems to me in this matter the clerk at his discretion is able to provide a polling place in a nursing home or institution where 20 beds or more exist. I’m wondering if we really are doing this in the proper way. It seems to me it might well be more important to leave this as a mandatory matter and not a discretionary matter so that we can be assured that each of these locations is going to be properly serviced.

By making the amendment in section 28, is it the intention of the minister to have the clerk in the municipality include outside areas within the polling place so that that poll located in these premises would serve a larger area, or is there a possibility that a poll located, shall we say, next door, might, as a result, mean that a number of persons who should otherwise vote are not being able to vote? I think there is some merit in keeping a mandatory requirement to establish a poll there, which could serve not only the people in that building but others in the block or so around as a normal poll. It could, therefore, accomplish both points.

It is not the case that I would put the municipalities to the expense of having a poll only to serve that area, but rather that you could I use those premises as the polling subdivision, thereby accommodating the people who reside there and the persons in the general I area. I realize, of course, that I hadn’t suggested that I would be making a comment on section 28; but I would appreciate the minister giving that some thought so that we are certain that persons who are in a home such as this are not going to be denied the opportunity to vote perhaps through some honest oversight on the part of the clerk.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the hon. member that I do not believe anyone would be deprived of their vote. It’s permissive; that’s quite right. The idea of having those surrounding residents vote in a nursing home really doesn’t appeal to me. I feel that’s not the proper place to have a number of electors coming to. There would be undue confusion in my mind. I would think a poll should be established for those persons only in that particular nursing home, and that is what we have here now.

Mr. Breithaupt: The suggestion I had made was only for the point of showing we were trying to get the best of both worlds so that those persons would vote. But I can understand that there might be some inconvenience otherwise in effect to invite the public living in that poll to use that premise --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think so.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- so long as we were assured that every encouragement is given to have persons living in these various institutions to still feel part of the community by having the opportunity and being encouraged to vote.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can give the member that assurance.

Mr. Breithaupt: Then I presume your amendment is satisfactory.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can give the member that assurance.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman: Why does the minister make it mandatory that there be a polling booth established, say, in Westminster Hospital in London and not in Victoria Hospital, which is a general hospital? Why is it mandatory in an old people’s home and not in a nursing home? I don’t understand the reasoning why one is “shall” and the other is “may.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the difference is where there is a permanent residency in a hospital, we feel there has to be a poll. Where there is a general hospital and you have people of varying degrees of sickness, I do not think it is wise to have a poll. That was not the case in the past nor will it be now.

We say there should be a poll, though, in certain cases which are spelled out in the Act and I believe you have read that. But you have brought the question up before and I answered you that we did not believe that it was right or necessary to have a poll in nursing homes.

Mr. Good: Nursing homes? With great respect, a nursing home is as much a permanent residence as are many old people’s homes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, no.

Mr. Good: Quite often it is, and many are combined into a combination of the two.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is exactly the point, Mr. Chairman, that we should consider. I quite agree that the institutions that are covered by the word “shall” should so properly be included, there is no question about that. The matter, though, of referring to another location where chronically ill or infirm persons reside, perhaps should be given somewhat greater prominence.

It may well be that that should be a requirement -- in other words that that should be a “shall” rather than a “may.” Certainly persons who are resident there and have been there for some time, especially in a home for extended care, have every likelihood to be closer to the former group than they would have to the general hospital situation. So possibly some further thought could be given on that particular point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We will give further thought to it, I assure you.

Section 28 agreed to.

On section 29:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had the opportunity of looking at the various forms that are prescribed by the minister under the Election Act of 1972, and which presumably will basically carry forward under the new Act. I must say that they are quite curiously inconsistent. They simply bear out -- and I will put it on the record -- the points that I have been making.

In the first place a person who is left off the preliminary list but then gets into the revision, makes a statement and that’s it -- and it can be taken in by the agent.

In the second place a person who wants to get his certificate to vote has got to fill in that form in triplicate, has got to carry it out in a way with which he is not familiar --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What section are you talking to?

Mr. Cassidy: I am talking about section 29, which refers to the process of getting the right to vote at the poll. The minister erred in telling us --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Wait a minute. You are on the wrong Act or something.

Mr. Cassidy: No, no. Section 29 refers to section 54, and section 54 is the section that allows a person who represents himself to be an elector to apply to the deputy returning officer at the polling place in order to get the right to vote.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The amendment. I am afraid --

Mr. Cassidy: Section 29 amends section 54.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think we should talk to section 29 which says:

“The deputy returning officer shall furnish a copy of each such declaration to the clerk, who shall in turn, after endorsing thereon the appropriate assessment roll number, furnish it forthwith to the assessment commissioner.”

I don’t relate your comments.

Mr. Cassidy: The point I am making is the word “declaration”. That is what first drew my attention to go back into the Act. When somebody comes to the poll they don’t have to swear an oath -- they may make a declaration, and that is different. When somebody gets a name put on the revised list of electors they make a statement, but they are being forced to swear an oath in person at city hall, on a form in triplicate, and to take a copy of the original form down to the voting station if they want to get on the list in those 31 days between the closing of the revised list and the actual election date.

That’s just silly, Mr. Chairman. The minister’s argument that he had to have an oath from somebody who got their name through a certificate process at city hall doesn’t wash. He doesn’t require an oath from somebody who goes in person to the polling booth.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why don’t you stay on the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: I am on the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, you are not.

Mr. Cassidy: I am on the fact that you are requiring a declaration from people if they want to get --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That isn’t the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: It is mentioned in the amendment. You could have --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It isn’t mentioned at all.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure. “A copy of each such declaration to the clerk,” and it’s a declaration. The word is there in plain English, and the word is not “oath” because an oath is not required. That’s the point I wish to make before the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are talking about the deputy returning officer.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister can read English, it says that the deputy returning officer will send a copy of each such declaration, and those declarations are the declarations made by the electors who come into the polling station to get the right to vote because they have been left off the list beforehand.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are talking about the deputy returning officer, not about the actual person. That is the point.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, but does the minister understand that it’s the declaration which is made by the voter that is --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Oh, absolutely.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. You understand that. Okay. That is the point I wanted to make. I just think you are making a mistake with this whole procedure. We have passed it now, but it is in error. You are going to deny people the right to vote because they will be confused by the awkward procedures that have been created by the minister.

Section 29 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments or questions on any other section of this bill?

On section 34:

Mr. Breithaupt: Just one brief comment on section 34, Mr. Chairman. In this new change, the effect is to exempt copies of declarations from the provisions requiring items to be placed in the ballot box by the deputy returning officer. It would seem practical to me that those items should go into the ballot box.

The information is privy, and I think that following the comments which I made on section 29 -- information such as that dealing with the administration of the election by persons who are given certain responsibilities -- should all be properly included in the items which are locked in the ballot box. They will of course, be subsequently dealt with and eventually destroyed pursuant to the other provisions of the Act.

I would think that it would be worthwhile to have those items all locked up so that they are secured, so that there is no danger of them falling into hands of persons who are not and should not be authorized to see them.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 34 carry?

Section 34 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments or questions on any other section of this bill?

On section 38:

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister explain to us the timetable under section 38? And, when a new election is held, say, eight or 11 months after the previous election, how people who were not on the former preliminary list of electors will get themselves on to the new list? And up to how long before the holding of the new election they will be enabled to do that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we should now take it as being 6 o’clock.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.