Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee of the whole on Bill 98, An Act to revise the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with an amendment placed by Mr. Epp.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just upon adjournment at 6 o’clock, in order to accommodate my colleague from Waterloo North, we had been in the situation of having his wind-up comments for this particular amendment. I am quite pleased to yield the floor to him at this time.

Mr. Epp: I thank the hon. member for Kitchener for yielding the floor to me. It’s good to see the House full tonight, and the gallery is full. Obviously, the weather hasn’t detained anyone, and hasn’t prevented anyone from coming here with snowshoes.

Mr. Handleman: I wouldn’t have missed it for the world.

Mr. McClellan: It’s a great amendment.

Mr. Epp: Obviously, they are here to hear this speech of mine, which is going to take a brief few minutes.

Mr. Roy: I think the whip is going to have to get up and make a few speeches about cabinet ministers.

Mr. Breithaupt: They are batting 100 per cent.

Mr. Maeck: It is obviously a very important debate.

Mr. Epp: The other day, when I proposed the amendment, I neglected to mention that I should be referring to section 10, which also refers to the two-year term. That section should be amended. I note with interest that the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) the other day used a very particular kind of logic I wasn’t used to in my municipal politics. He indicated that if we are going to have a three-year term, then the civil servants in the municipalities would have a strange power over the elected people, they would be able to influence them unduly; but if they were elected every two years --

Mr. McClellan: My alderman is George Ben.

Mr. Epp: -- and elected on a continuous basis, this power would somehow disappear. It would be there for a three-year term but not for a two-year term. As I indicated, that is a strange kind of logic; nevertheless, it was made available to this House. There was a point made that the more money spent for elections, the more accountability there would be. With five elections in 10 years one spends more money, therefore there is more accountability because it is going to cost more money.

What we are really talking about is some kind of balance for people electing representatives to municipal councils. Whereas we thought four years would be too long and five years is obviously much too long, though it is common to both the federal and provincial Houses; we felt that three years was a reasonable balance. That’s one reason we brought in that amendment.

The hon. members wouldn’t let me forget this unless I read into the record some comments that were made on November 15, 1977, in this House by some of the hon. members to my left, I sometimes wonder whether they were the same members who were in the House the other day --

Mr. Breithaupt: I think they were.

Mr. Epp: -- and of the same party, when we were discussing this only two days ago. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) said on page 1905 in Hansard: “I know the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) is aware of the feelings of the municipal politicians of Metro Toronto on the matter of voting in October. That brings me to a very serious matter as it relates to Metro Toronto, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant can give us some words about it. You have decided in the bill, contrary to what the majority of politicians of Metro Toronto want, that you are not going to have a three-year term. There may be some logical arguments that you can string together as they apply to the entire province of Ontario, and we may be willing to accept them, but I would like to know on what rationale you base not having a three-year term as it would apply to the large urban centres such as Ottawa, Hamilton, Metro Toronto and others, because, as you are well aware, the complexities of municipal affairs in these urban centres require some long-range planning.”

Mr. Roy: Did the member for Welland-Thorold hear that?

Mr. Swart: Sure, that’s why we said to look at the regional bill.

Mr. Epp: “They are of a magnitude which demands a prolonged period of time, and two years simply isn’t good enough.”

Mr. Roy: Is that a member of the NDP caucus?

Mr. Breithaupt: I think so.

Mr. Epp: That’s what the good book tells me. He said: “If the government is determined it’s going to stick with the two years, no matter what anybody in Ottawa, Toronto or Hamilton says, no matter what Mr. Robarts says, or anyone else for that matter, then I would like some indication tonight as to whether you are going to change your mind when it comes to” -- speaking about changing minds, eh? --

Mr. Conway: Sucking and blowing at the same time.

Mr. Epp: “ -- the legislation pertaining to Metro Toronto,” et cetera.

Mr. Roy: He must have been talking to his critic.

Mr. Epp: Obviously, he’s had a great deal of influence on him.

Mr. Conway: It sounds like the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) on EMO.

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

Mr. Epp: I want to draw the hon. members’ attention to the speech which is registered on page 1907 in Hansard. It was given the same evening by a member of the same party.

Mr. Roy: Who is he?

Mr. Epp: This is the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall). He said: “What we need very much in this legislation” -- that’s the same legislation -- “which should be amended to accommodate it, is a clause enabling the municipalities, whatever their size, to choose what length of term they are going to have.”

Mr. Swart: Do you believe that?

Mr. Roy: That’s what Hansard says.

Mr. Epp: “It will be no surprise as the large municipalities choose the three-year terms and no surprise,” et cetera about the two-year terms. “That is what should occur very much in this bill. This would satisfy all the municipalities across Ontario to the detriment of no one that I can see in the province.”

Mr. Roy: What was the date of that?

Mr. Epp: November 15.

Mr. Roy: Of this year?

Mr. Epp: Not 1877, but 1977.

Mr. Swart: It was the same night as the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) spoke.

Mr. Conway: You are caught with your pants down.

Mr. Breithaupt: It was a long time ago.

Mr. Epp: He goes on to say: “I am sure this is a correct reading of what the elected officials of municipalities would very much like to see, namely, for financial and planning reasons, the large municipalities going to the three-year term,” et cetera. There you go.

Mr. Breithaupt: Reason enough.

Mr. Epp: Among some of the correspondence I have received recently, there is one letter from the regional municipality of Niagara.

Mr. Conway: There is one thing about the socialists: Both sides of their mouths are well worn.

Mr. Epp: It says: “I understand that the Municipal Elections Act, 1977, will be before the Legislature in the near future and I wanted to be sure that you were aware that the regional council supports a three-year term of office for municipal councils.” That was by John Campbell, chairman of the regional municipality of Niagara.

Mr. Swart: Read the part about the October election.

Mr. Epp: Then there was another. If you read the paper, you will notice that Peel also wanted it.

Mr. Roy: You know, the funny part is that he is not even embarrassed.

Mr. Swart: Not a bit.

Mr. Conway: No shame.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Epp: Everybody in this Legislature votes according to conscience and not according to what the critic in that area suggests, and I would recommend then that everyone vote for the three-year term.

Mr. Conway: Mel would have it for four years.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other members who wish to speak to this amendment?

Mr. Roy: The member for Welland-Thorold should get up and apologize now.

Mr. Conway: He’s trying to suck and blow at the same time.

Mr. Roy: Oh, he’s going to apologize.

Mr. Swart: Never.

Mr. Conway: Let’s have an apology.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Swart: For one minute, I just want to say that the member for Waterloo North read very selective parts. We have made it clear in this House, I and my colleagues, that if we are going to talk about a three-year term, that should be considered in the bills for the regional municipalities or the Metro municipalities, and that we should not in a general bill force down the throats of the rural municipalities a three-year term on a general basis when they don’t want it.

Mr. Roy: We will give them a two-year term. A lot of hogwash.

Mr. Swart: And that is the reason we are opposed to this.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree with him.

Mr. Roy: Grovel, grovel.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Am I agreeing with him?

Mr. Foulds: I think you are.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why didn’t you tell me before I came in?

Mr. Swart: You are moving up, Larry, you are moving up.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Are there any other members wishing to speak to this amendment?

Mr. Conway: Where is Mr. Warner? He might have another amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Mr. Epp moved that the bill be amended as follows: “Notwithstanding any other general or special Act and except where otherwise specifically provided in this Act, the term of office of all offices, the election to which is governed by this Act, shall be three years, commencing on December 1 in an election year.”

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

It is stacked.

On section 10:

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Epp has the same amendment and I would hope we don’t need the same debate all over again. We can just stack that one the same.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, as I recall there were certain amendments to be placed by the member for Welland-Thorold with respect to section 9. Are these matters now all attended to with respect to the details of dates and the other changes that the member for Welland-Thorold had suggested or are we to deal with those matters? I am just inquiring.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I would point out if he would consult with the member for Waterloo North, he would find that I gave a list there of amendments that we are withdrawing and the amendments that are still left.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you.

Mr. Swan: Too bad you don’t have consultation in the party.

Mr. Roy: Yes, you are really on the ball, Mel.

Mr. Conway: Good to have you here for the debate anyway.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, may I just point out that we found in committee this afternoon that the Liberal critics sometimes don’t communicate with their House leader and/or their party leader.

Mr. McClellan: Especially their House leader.

Mr. Roy: They show up in the House anyway.

Mr. Breithaupt: I appreciate the comment from the parliamentary assistant and I will certainly deal with it as best I can.

Mr. Chairman: Order. We are discussing Bill 98. Are there any comments or amendments to section 10?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier that the amendment I was putting forth would apply to both sections 9 and 10.

Mr. Chairman: We dealt with the matter affecting section 9 and now we are going to section 10. Do you want to place an amendment to section 10?

Mr. Epp: It is the same amendment.

[8:15]

Mr. Foulds: Read it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 10(1) be amended to read as follows: “An election shall be held in accordance with this Act in each municipality in the year 1978 and in every third year thereafter for the purpose of electing persons to offices.”

Mr. Handleman: I think we should debate.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order? Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Stack that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

On section 11:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection 2: “Where polling day as specified in subsection 1 falls on a holiday, polling day shall be the next succeeding day that is not a holiday, but the day for the undertaking of any other proceeding pertaining to the election shall not be affected thereby.”

Mr. Breithaupt: I was only going to refer to the fact that the day involved is November 11, Remembrance Day. The parliamentary assistant might be able to advise us as to when in the next years November 11 in an election year might fall on that day. Is it going to be fairly common or will it be a rarity that we will have to involve the use of this subsection?

An hon. member: Oh, my goodness, a spirited speech.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, under the present legislation, at a two-year term, it will happen once in the next decade and a half, namely in 1985.

Mr. Roy: Yes. But you said you would change it, before then to three years.

Mr. Ashe: Yes, I was going to get to that. If there is a subsequent change, that schedule can change. In any event it does not happen on any regular basis. It would appear about once every decade under either situation.

Mr. Swart: We had looked it up in our caucus. We knew this to be the case and have decided that we have no objection to this amendment to the bill.

Mr. Roy: Love him! Mel will be running still in 1999!

Mr. Foulds: Long after you are gone.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He could be dead by then, but will they know?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

An hon. member: That must be one of your AMO speeches.

Mr. Roy: One of my old ones?

On section 12:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 12 be amended by striking out “and ending on the second Tuesday in October in an election year” and inserting in lieu thereof, “in an election year and ending on the Friday in October that precedes election day by 17 days.”

Mr. Swart: The intent of this amendment is rather clear, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope it would be acceptable to all members of the House. It simply provides that instead of the cut off date for residents able to participate in an election being 30 days prior to election day, it would be 17 days prior to an election day.

And 17 days is made deliberate because the 17th day before election day is the last day for the court of revision. Therefore, it gives greater opportunity for people who move into a municipality to be able to vote in the municipal elections.

I would point out in support of this that in the provincial elections a person may vote in a constituency if he or she is 18 years of age or a Canadian citizen or a resident of that constituency by election day. There isn’t even the 17-day cutoff time ahead of election day.

When our provincial elections give that kind of opportunity, it seems somewhat unfair that anyone who moves in, for instance, 29 or 28 or 27 days before the municipal election should be deprived of a vote. The only reason I make it 17 days, instead of right up to election day, is the hope that the House will go along with it. It is the last day of the court of revision so they could have their name legitimately on the voters’ list and vote in the municipal election.

I say it is a reasonable proposal and I’d hope perhaps even the parliamentary assistant might be willing to accept it. If not, I would hope the members on the right of us would be willing to support this.

Mr. Deans: They probably can’t see the value of it.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments on this amendment?

Mr. Ashe: We’ll agree to the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deans: You should have waited. I think they were going to oppose it.

Mr. Conway: Jim, do you realize they are selling out the store over there?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 12(b) of the bill be amended by deleting at the end thereof “or other British subject.”

Mr. Deans: Here they go. They want to disenfranchise all these people.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is quite self-explanatory. However, it should be pointed out that whereas for many years we’ve had the condition that Canadian citizens and British subjects could vote, it’s time some change was made. We recognize the fact only Canadian citizens should be able to vote in municipal elections.

I notice my colleague from Kitchener has an amendment to the Ontario Election Act for the province of Ontario that being a British subject should not be a condition of voting.

Mr. Conway: An excellent bill.

Mr. Epp: Only Canadian citizens should be able to vote.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Get it on record. It’s going to hurt you.

Mr. Epp: I note that all the hon. members of this House are aware that in the federal election, --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It will help the Metro Toronto strategy.

Mr. Epp: -- which is going to follow sometime next year, I expect --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That will look really good to those groups in Metro Toronto.

Mr. Epp: -- only Canadian citizens will be able to vote.

Mr. Deans: Do you realize the numbers of people who will be disenfranchised?

Mr. Epp: This amendment would then conform with the Canada Elections Act --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wouldn’t disenfranchise all those people in Metro, but you guys go ahead.

Mr. Epp: -- and would obviously conform with what my hon. colleague from Kitchener has to say --

Mr. Foulds: Yes, the Liberals want to disenfranchise all those people in Metro and throughout the province.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Epp: The amendment we’ll propose is with respect to the --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wait until Stanbury finds out. If Stanbury knew, there’d be hell to pay.

Mr. Epp: -- Ontario Election Act.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mr. Deans: I agree. This is completely out of order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How does the member for St. George feel about it? Where’s Margaret?

Mr. Epp: I know the members here will be interested in the debate --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where’s your Metro caucus?

Mr. Epp: -- that went on in this House --

Mr. Breithaupt: I’ve got enough things to worry about.

Mr. Epp: -- only four short years ago.

Mr. Roy: Yes. Read what the Tory minister had to say then.

Mr. Epp: I was going to read another one first, but the member for Ottawa East has indicated maybe we should read what the hon. parliamentary secretary at that time, the Hon. Mr. Irvine, had to say.

Mr. Conway: He’s now a museum piece.

Mr. Epp: -- in Hansard, on May 24, 1974. You’ll recall he was in the galleries today, it’s too bad he’s not here now. But what he indicated --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Stanbury would have a fit if he heard this.

Mr. Epp: -- on page 2448 was, and I want to quote, “Before we go into each member’s concerns,” --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s the new Toronto strategy.

Mr. Epp: -- “what we are doing here is an amendment” -- and this is concerning the Municipal Act --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is how they are going to sweep Metro.

Mr. McClellan: They’re right on the track.

Mr. Epp: -- “which has been agreed upon by a great many people, not just the government itself.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Roy: The government did not support him. That’s why he quit.

Mr. Epp: That was in 1974. I was giving the government a chance to bring in an amendment on it at this time. Unfortunately they didn’t.

My predecessor as the member for Waterloo North, Mr. Ed Good, stated in that same debate --

Mr. Roy: He was a good member.

Mr. Breithaupt: Excellent.

Mr. Epp: A great member, by the way, as members of the House know. He stated -- and this is on page 2443 of Hansard, May 24, 1974:

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

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

“We have been unable to get this idea across in any other legislation. ‘When we proposed that the chairman of our regional government should be required to be a Canadian citizen, that idea was not accepted by the government. But it applies to members of the boards of governors for universities. We have had that idea accepted by this present government at three of the universities across the province; first at the University of Toronto, then at the University of Waterloo and recently at Western. So we find that it is a very gradual process.

“But I feel, as does the leader of my party, that we should be proud to be Canadian citizens. Anyone living in Ontario and wanting to participate in our democratic process should be proud enough of his country -- after they have been here some time -- that he or she should want to become a Canadian citizen. I see nothing that reflects anything on any British subject by saying that if they do not choose to be a Canadian citizen they should not be given the right to vote.”

That was what the member for Waterloo North said in 1974.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t apologize.

Mr. Epp: The reasons and the logic supporting this amendment are obvious to the members of this House. It’s also obvious that by including the British subject aspect in legislation, which is currently the case, that it’s not a reciprocal agreement. In other words, there are many people who come to this country from other British colonies or from elsewhere in the British Commonwealth and who have the right to vote here, whereas the countries from which they come don’t reciprocate and permit us to vote there.

Mr. Conway: Even Idi Amin. Can you imagine? He’d be on a Tory list somewhere.

Mr. Epp: He’d be here and in very short time he’d be able to vote.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He’d probably vote for the member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Conway: Maybe he’d be in St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He wouldn’t vote for a great democrat like me.

Mr. Epp: I think we should take into consideration the removal of this from the legislation to make it very obvious that we permit only Canadian citizens to vote.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He disenfranchises people too. He is like you; you’re birds of a feather.

Mr. Roy: As a young minister who is supposed to be with it, do you figure that is logical?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You’re going to declare them non-people, just like Idi-non-persons.

Mr. Epp: I know that members of this House are mindful of the fact that there are many British subjects who have been here for 20 or 30 years and still have not taken the trouble to get their Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s damn near time they did.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But not disenfranchise them.

Mr. Epp: I think this amendment would give some greater importance to becoming a Canadian citizen if the other aspect were removed from the bill.

[8:30]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are fine people. You are going to take the vote away from fine people. They should be entitled to vote.

Mr. Samis: Tell us about your riding.

Mr. Epp: As I indicated the other day when I spoke on the three-year term, a number of provinces, five in number, were in favour of the three-year term. I haven’t surveyed all of them but I know that Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan all have the condition that people voting for municipal councils must be Canadian citizens.

Mr. Roy: Is that right? Does the NDP know that?

Mr. Epp: I would ask that this House endorse this obviously logical amendment to this bill to revise the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Mr. Swart: At this time, I would like to put an amendment to the motion which you have before you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that the motion by Mr. Epp to amend section 12(b) be amended by adding the following words and substituting therefor, “or being a person lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence has been resident in Canada for a period of not less than two years,” so that the subsection will read: “(b) is a Canadian citizen or being a person lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence has been resident in Canada for a period of not less than two years.”

Mr. Swart: It was the decision of our caucus that we could not --

Mr. Conway: All those draft dodgers down there in Welland.

Mr. Swart: -- support the Liberal amendment as they had submitted it, first of all, because we did not agree with the amendment and, secondly, because it seemed to be part of the overall Liberal policy in their amendments to this Municipal Elections Act to restrict the opportunity to vote and to restrict the opportunity to participate.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why don’t you stand up for Canada?

Mr. Swart: We are standing up for Canada.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Swart: Because of that, we can’t go along with the totally negative attitude of the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Conway: Unadulterated garbage.

Mr. Reed: That’s hogwash.

Mr. Swart: We feel that if anything, the opportunity to vote should be expanded.

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you open it up to all the rest of the world? Stop talking nonsense.

Mr. Wildman: They have to be residents.

Mr. Swart: We don’t know and they don’t know how many people they are going to disenfranchise in the next municipal election. There’s no doubt in this province that it is in the tens of thousands and could well be in excess of 100,000 people who would be disenfranchised by the amendment which they have moved here.

Mr. Reid: Shouldn’t they have a stake in the community?

Mr. Swap: Yes, they should, and that’s exactly why we have moved this amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s not good enough.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. McClellan: They are human beings. That is their stake in the community.

An hon. member: Baloney.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, maybe you could bring your unruly colleagues to order so that we could continue?

Mr. Conway: Swart for draft dodgers.

Mr. Roy: He should stop talking nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is all in the record.

Mr. Reid: I am glad it is.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I must remind the members that it may be possible to have a period of rest if the members don’t keep within order.

Mr. Swart: We have extended this. Our amendment, of course, would continue to provide British subjects with the right to vote; it also would extend it to landed immigrants and that would be the limit of what this motion would do. If we look at this amendment carefully, that’s exactly what it does.

I have to say quite frankly that I have some rather strong reservations about what the federal government has done. I am as much a Canadian and have as much concern about Canada as any other person in this House. We all have this concern. To say that retroactively we are going to deprive people of their right to vote is something I cannot support.

If the federal government had determined when they passed their legislation that anyone who came into Canada after that time would all be on the same basis, would not have the right to vote regardless of what country they came from until they became a Canadian citizen, I would be fully in support of that. I know people who have lived in this country, came quite eagerly to this country, lawfully entered it, lawfully were residents who could vote, some who took part in two world wars --

Mr. Roy: Then why didn’t they become Canadian citizens?

Mr. Swart: -- fought in Canadian regiments in two world wars --

Mr. Breithaupt: Good for them.

Mr. Swart: -- and now you say to them they cannot vote under their present status.

Mr. Breithaupt: Then let them change the status.

Mr. Swart: This is the kind of action of which we in this party would not want to be guilty. Therefore, we do not think these people should be deprived of their votes at the next election.

Mr. Roy: They’ve got eight months to get their citizenship.

Mr. Reed: Lots of time.

Mr. Swart: We feel by any yardstick, if there is going to be a change, it should be done at the provincial level before it is done at the municipal level because there is a substantial difference in the voting.

Mr. Breithaupt: Vote for my bill next week.

Mr. Swart: This could mean, Mr. Chairman, let’s make no mistake about it, that a municipal election could be the first election at which British subjects will be deprived of their vote. We know municipal elections are going to come in less than a year from now.

Mr. Roy: They’ve got 10 months to get their citizenship. Don’t you understand that?

Mr. Swart: The federal election may come next year, it may not come next year. I am not at all sure but what this may be a deliberate attempt upon the part of our colleagues to the right to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for their Liberal colleagues at Ottawa.

Mr. Breithaupt: What sheer stupidity. I knew you weren’t that smart.

Mr. Swart: Because there is going to be a real furor in the next federal election when those people go to the polls and find out they are not able to vote. There was a news clipping in the Globe and Mail about this just recently, some of you may have read about it, talking about the number of people who are going to be disenfranchised and don’t realize it.

Mr. Reed: You are more reactionary than the Tories.

Mr. Swart: But I suppose there is some desire that this be done at the municipal level first, so it can be blamed on the municipal politicians, rather than on the actual politicians who have made the laws to disenfranchise them.

Mr. Roy: We’ve got a bill. Are you going to support our bill?

Mr. Swart: I suggest that may be part of the reason they are bringing this in at this time.

Surely the significance of Canadian citizenship relates first to federal elections; the level of government which makes decisions whether or not we are involved in wars, decisions on our relationships with other countries around the world, the major economic decisions. That is where Canadian citizenship first relates.

Mr. Roy: Aw, you are stupid.

Mr. Swart: Secondly, it relates to the province, and thirdly, in a lesser way, it relates to municipal elections.

It has some significance at the local level too. But it is perhaps outweighed by other factors. That’s why I am suggesting it is perfectly legitimate for the British subjects, those who have been here prior to this time, as well as landed immigrants, to vote in municipal elections.

They both have a very immense community involvement, and therefore should participate at the local level. Even if perhaps it’s something of a learning process for them, we think that they should be able to participate at the local level.

Secondly, there are local tangible services provided, about which the owner of the home and the family that sends the children to the school are really greatly concerned, even if they are only landed immigrants; and of course it is sort of a training ground for democratic participation. We believe, therefore, that people coming to Canada to make it their home, or who have made it home for years, after a decent minimum period of time -- we say two years -- should be permitted to vote.

Mr. Warner: If you pay taxes, you vote.

Mr. Swart: Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that already the municipal elections are somewhat different to provincial or federal. Provincially and federally a person only has one vote; but it’s possible in a municipal election that if you own property in a number of municipalities, you can have two, three, four, five, eight or 10 votes.

I say it’s of some significance that the party to the right is prepared to prevent British subjects from having a vote, but is still prepared to permit some people who are major property owners to have six or eight or ten votes in this province in municipal elections.

Mr. Roy: If you keep talking such foolishness you will lose your false teeth.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s got nothing to do with it. The member for Welland-Thorold is not dumb enough to believe that surely.

Mr. Swart: It shows clearly whose side they are on. We believe that our amendment expands the right to vote --

Mr. Roy: It’s foolish.

Mr. Swart: -- to people who are in this country, or who have come to this country and been here for two years --

Mr. Wildman: Positive rather than negative.

Mr. Swart: -- who intend to make it their home and have so demonstrated by taking out landed immigrant status, or by having lived here for 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years as a British subject, as most of them have. We believe they should have the right to vote in municipal elections and that’s the purpose of our amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, without question I will oppose the amendment to what has been an amendment proposed by the member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Reed: Good.

Mr. Breithaupt: In the 10 years that I’ve been a member of this Legislature, I believe that in this amendment, and in the ones which I have proposed in Bill 116 with respect to the provincial Election Act, it is time to stand up for Canada.

Mr. Reed: Right.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is no middle ground, so far as I am concerned, and I feel exceptionally strongly, as I speak to this amendment, that in the federal, in the provincial and in the municipal elections, for the future of whatever it is we call Canada, it is time to define the franchise as based, without question, without any other alternative, on the sole criterion of Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Reed: Right.

Mr. Breithaupt: I believe very strongly that there is absolutely no middle ground. It is not good enough to be a British subject or a landed immigrant at this time in our nation’s development. I think it is reasonable to expect, as do, so far as I am aware, most other nations in the world, a requirement that citizenship in the nation be the criterion for voting.

Mr. Roy: Sure; any self-respecting nation.

Mr. Breithaupt: The federal government in their decision have now made Canadian citizenship the criterion for voting. The comment that the member for Welland-Thorold has made, that in some mysterious way perhaps, I in my amendments am trying to avoid a decision -- well that comment is not worthy of that hon. member.

Mr. Conway: I suspect it is.

Mr. McClellan: You don’t understand.

Mr. Roy: We don’t posture around here, you shouldn’t posture on things like that.

Mr. Breithaupt: The time has come for, as the Sault Daily Star in their editorial on November 2 said, “The Vote for Canadians.” A simple phrase, one that may even attract the attention of the members on the left. I would like to quote from that in part.

[8:45]

“This is a change in the Elections Act which should be seriously considered. The legislation covering federal elections restricts the right to vote to Canadian citizens and there seems no reason why the provincial and municipal elections should not be confined to Canadian citizens. The right to vote is an important one but it should be conferred only on those who are committed to this country to the point where they have embraced Canadian citizenship. Most Canadians would accept this qualification for voting. Equally important, it is probable that most people living in this country who are not Canadian citizens would accept the stipulation that they have not the right to vote in elections in this country unless they become citizens.”

That quotation from the Sault Daily Star almost entirely sums up my views on this subject. In my 10 years in this House there is perhaps nothing I have felt more strongly than this opportunity to define the franchise both for municipal elections and -- if members are so minded in dealing with another item of legislation next week -- for the provincial elections. That would tie the whole thing together. It is time to have the vote as an obligation and a responsibility for Canadian citizens.

Landed immigrants -- and the parents, grandparents or great-grandparents of all in this House, were landed immigrants at some time or other -- decided by staying in Canada they were going to commit themselves to this country. We have the responsibility as elected members in this House not to talk to the empty galleries, not to talk to the empty press galleries or indeed the empty seats that might have been filled by many of our colleagues tonight, but to take the matter somewhat further, to the point where we are saying that if this nation is in difficulty, if we are having problems as we consider our future, then here in Ontario we can stand up and put Canadian citizenship first. If we do that, and if we encourage others to join with us and become Canadian citizens, that surely is the happiest balance.

Obviously the member for Welland-Thorold is as well aware as I that it is not my intention in supporting this amendment to deprive anyone of a franchise. My interest is to encourage persons to become Canadian citizens. If that is not their wish, if that is not their decision, then I suggest to them that in my country --

Mr. Deans: Whoops.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- in our country --

Mr. Deans: That’s better.

An hon. member: Thank you very much.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- that on that comparison --

Mr. Roy: There is nothing wrong. What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Warner: He is condescending.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- they have made a decision. If they prefer the citizenship of some other country --

Mr. Wildman: Don’t you know negative reinforcement is the worst type of discipline?

Mr. Breithaupt: -- that is fine, let them enjoy whatever those benefits are. But in our circumstance, to vote in our elections, to stand for office, to be involved on boards of governors of universities, to be involved as a member of this House, to be involved in other particulars, then the responsibility comes forward to be a Canadian citizen. There is no other criterion. Nothing else that is acceptable in this day and age I believe --

Mr. Swart: You wrap yourself in a Canadian flag, and the party to which you belong has sold out the Canadian economy to the United States.

Mr. Breithaupt: I suggest to the member for Welland-Thorold that there is no other flag in which I would wish to be wrapped.

Mr. Swart: Don’t sell out the Canadian economy.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is what I put first.

Mr. Deans: I hope when they tie it they tie it tight.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’d be delighted. I’d be delighted.

I feel very strongly about this, as I think I perhaps have shown to my colleagues and to those who are here in the House tonight. As I have mentioned twice, and I will make it a third time, I feel this is a most important personal thing to me. I wish members of the House could acknowledge the fact that to be a Canadian and, as a result, to vote in our provincial and municipal elections as well as the federal elections would be something we could all share as a positive thing.

Of course, there are going to be persons who have not got around to it or preferred to take out Canadian citizenship, persons who may have been here for 20 or 30 or 50 years, who have lived in Canada and who have become part of Canada because of the Citizenship Act in 1947, as I recall it was. The end result is that they now are put to a test. Those persons are not likely to be as inquired about with respect to their backgrounds as might some others. I think it is time we come to one common conclusion with respect to citizenship.

I believe in the amendments placed here in section 12 and the ones to come, as I recall, in section 13 in two parts and also in section 15, I believe the members of this House will finally acknowledge an idea whose time has come, that they will agree the positive future based upon the amendments which we now have an opportunity to make will define the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship and will acknowledge those responsibilities in elections in both provincial and municipal situations.

I would call upon the members of the House to make a serious decision about this particular point. I would hope they would support these and the later amendments which would define the electoral process in the province to be on the basis of Canadian citizenship and on nothing else.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Durham West.

Mr. McClellan: Don’t we rotate?

Mr. Chairman: We don’t have to in committee, I might say.

Mr. Deans: Are you responding now to the total thing?

Mr. Ashe: I am going to respond, in effect, to both speakers as I see it.

Mr. Deans: We are going to have another two or three speakers and perhaps you could respond at the end, if that is satisfactory. I am not trying to cut you off, but that would be appropriate.

Mr. Ashe: All right.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Durham West does not wish to speak? The member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: I am pleased to participate in this debate. I think it is an important discussion we are having here. I hope we can stay away from ad hominem arguments. I believe there are important principles at stake and perhaps valid distinctions and differences. I intend, at least, to deal with it in a serious kind of way. I think the Liberal amendment is a serious mistake at this particular point in time.

Mr. Chairman: I would remind the member for Bellwoods we are discussing the subamendment.

Mr. McClellan: I am leading up to that. I want to place it in the context of the Liberal amendment.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, to facilitate matters, in view of the nature of the Liberal amendment and the subamendment, could we not get unanimous consent of the House to discuss both at the same time?

Mr. Chairman: If it is the committee’s wish, then certainly.

Mr. McClellan: I wanted to point out something that I am convinced the mover of the amendment does not realize. The vast majority of those who are disenfranchised under this amendment are not immigrants from the British Isles. They are immigrants from a number of Commonwealth countries. In Metropolitan Toronto the vast majority of these folks are West Indians and southern Asians.

Mr. Reed: They are just as entitled to get their citizenship as anybody.

Mr. Warner: They have to be here three years.

Mr. McClellan: I feel that it is historically a bad thing to be doing at this point in time in view of the political context of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Breithaupt: That they become citizens?

Mr. Reed: They have equal opportunity.

Mr. McClellan: No, let me continue.

Mr. Warner: You have no understanding.

Mr. McClellan: The principle of the amendment that my colleague from Welland-Thorold has moved is this, that political rights do not attach to people by virtue of their citizenship, they attach to people by virtue of their humanity.

Mr. Roy: Oh, come on.

Mr. McClellan: You may not agree with it, you are free to dispute it --

Mr. Roy: You go against international law.

Mr. McClellan: -- but we are pleased to be able to introduce that amendment and the principle that underlies it in this debate here this evening.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, as the representative from the riding which has been the traditional reception area for immigrants to Metropolitan Toronto for the last 70 or 80 years, that the instruments, the mechanism of exploitation of immigrant workers to this country has been the disenfranchisement of immigrants in Canada. It is not restricted or exclusive to Canada, it is a phenomenon that has obtained in every country where there has been immigration and where the immigrants have been disenfranchised. It has happened in the United States, and it is happening to this day in the western European countries --

Mr. Warner: Cheap labour.

Mr. McClellan: -- which are relying on guest workers for their work force.

Mr. Roy: What’s that got to do with citizenship?

Mr. McClellan: It has to do with citizenship because in Canada and in the United States and in western Europe, the franchise has been identified with citizenship and that has permitted the exploitation of immigrant workers,

Mr. Roy: That’s the rule all over the world.

Mr. McClellan: I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that that practice has been denounced by civil libertarians for many years. I point out to you that the exploitation of the guest work force in Europe is the subject of intense political debate and discussion by civil libertarians; the practice of disenfranchising guest workers in the western European countries has been denounced by church and religious leaders; the Vatican has made a series of pronouncements on the exploitation of immigrant workers in western Europe. The principle is exactly the same.

The principle is that by attaching the franchise to citizenship you permit a kind of exploitation that to us is unacceptable. Many of us have had just too much experience with that phenomenon to want it to continue. When we see the opportunity of perhaps taking a first step, not much of a step but a beginning step, we are anxious to take it.

We understand it is a difficult thing for many people to accept. I believe that, I understand that. I understand feelings that are being expressed by the member for Kitchener. I hope he will understand the feelings that I am trying to express, because I have felt deeply on this subject for many years, and I want to share those feelings here tonight.

I think back to the most tragic events of this century, in Germany, and I remind you Mr. Chairman, that the destruction of the Jews in Germany was accomplished by depriving them of their citizenship; that was the means.

Mr. Roy: We’re not doing that.

Mr. McClellan: Please don’t misunderstand me, but it is part of the same difficulty that when you attach political rights to citizenship rather than to humanity, you open yourself up for all kinds of abuses. The abuses can range from the simple exploitation of newcomers to a country, to the destruction of an entire people, but they are part of a flawed understanding of political rights and of human rights.

I repeat again, human rights and political rights attach themselves to people by virtue of their humanity, not by virtue of their nationality or their citizenship. I ask for the support of the subamendment.

[9:00]

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment by my colleague from Waterloo North, and the subamendment as proposed by the member for Welland-Thorold could make for a very interesting discussion as to citizenship, humanity, and what is traditionally recognized in international law as giving rights to an individual within the boundaries of a country.

I have a deep sympathy with what the member for Bellwoods said. I think he said it with sincerity. Certainly we have evidence to support what he has been talking about. I don’t agree with the final conclusion, that the purpose of our amendment is to deprive someone of citizenship. That is not the case. We’re saying citizenship should be the criterion which allows one to exercise the most important right of a citizen, which is to vote -- basically it is to vote, to be on a jury, to fight for his country and so forth. We’re not taking that right away; that’s a right he doesn’t have.

I don’t know about the subamendment based on a two-year requirement. But if I was facing a situation where I had no choice but to say yes to a British subject or open it to all other immigrants, I much prefer the subamendment to leaving it the way it is -- based on the fact he’s a British subject. Because there’s a tendency in this great country of ours to come to the conclusion that if people come from all over the world into this country, there are different classes of immigrants under our statutes. This is why it is absolutely intolerable that we just leave it the way it is.

Basically, I have more sympathy with a part of the amendment. I’m not sure that the two-year requirement is -- A citizenship requirement is now, what, three years? If it was a three year requirement it may make more sense; I would be more sympathetic to that.

The purpose of the amendment is not to disenfranchise anybody. It’s not anti anything. As my colleague from Kitchener said, it’s pro something. It’s pro Canadian. Certainly there is no apology to he made for saying something like this in Canada in 1977.

Mr. Foulds: It is pro destruction.

Mr. Roy: It’s not the first time I have sat in on discussions about this legislation. I recall that in 1974 the former member for Carleton-Grenville, Don Irvine, to my great surprise, expressed sympathy with this type of amendment. Obviously he was not able to convince his colleagues. There were times when we were extremely critical of that member, but at least he showed a certain amount of guts and common sense, coming from a difficult riding.

Carleton-Grenville, if you took a straw vote, would not be the first riding that would go along with this amendment, but at least the member came to the conclusion on his own that this was something worth recommending to his colleagues in the government. I’m sad to see that in 1974 he was not able to do so, and it appears that in 1977 the members on that side still do not see the compelling common sense of this type of argument.

I’m really saddened by that, just as I’m proud of the members of my caucus, the member for Kitchener and the member for Waterloo North who proposed this amendment, and my caucus colleagues who unanimously were prepared to support this type of amendment. I’m deeply saddened that the amendment will possibly be defeated because the members from the Conservative Party -- I don’t know if my colleagues to the left will vote for it --

Mr. Breithaupt: Both of them.

Mr. Roy: Yes, both of them. It’s sad that on such an important debate we only have two of them across the way. But in any event I would hope my colleagues to the left, if their subamendment is not accepted, will support our amendment. I suspect from the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold that they will not. I suppose coming from that member I can expect that.

Mr. Deans: There is no need to be personal.

Mr. Roy: His premise was that we are trying to disenfranchise someone. That’s not it at all. I would have thought he would understand that in 1977. It is not as though we are trying to take away somebody’s rights. We are trying to say that in this country, to exercise the most basic and fundamental right, you should be a Canadian. What’s wrong with that? I can’t see how people can come to the conclusion that we are trying to do something else.

Unfortunately, through history we have been faced with an anomaly that said basically that people who could vote in our elections had to be Canadians or British subjects; it has gone on over the years in that fashion. As my colleague said, at the very time when the integrity of the country as such is being challenged, one can only wonder that there should be some question in this House about the status that is required for one to vote in an election, be it a federal, provincial or municipal election. Some people will sit back and wonder.

Canada has got to be a funny country, Mr. Chairman. I suppose it will take historians 1,000 years before they really see how ridiculous the process was --

Mr. Foulds: Especially if they read your speeches.

Mr. Roy: I think my speech has got much more sense than what I have been hearing from my left. I can say that.

Mr. Conway: Particularly his points of order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s your right hand. You’ve got to keep them straight.

Mr. S. Smith: I have never heard about two more idiotic speeches than the ones I heard on the box from the members for Welland-Thorold and Bellwoods. I have seldom heard anything at that level of --

Mr. Foulds: You don’t listen to yourself very much, do you?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Except when he plays back his own tapes.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the history of this country and at the dispute or the friction that is taking place now, the logic of it escapes me. Two people can’t seem to get along because there happens to be, some people say, a language difference. We have got the two major languages in the world in this country and we can’t seem to get along on that basis. If you talk to one group and then to the other group, you find there’s that gap -- the two solitudes. They can’t seem to communicate. How foolish it’s going to be, should this country ever separate, when our children say to us, “What the hell happened?” and we say, “There was a problem of communication.” They’ll say, “A problem of communication?”

In Russia they have got about 15 different dialects, to China they have got about 30 and in India they have about 65, and they seem to be able to get along. In this country we can’t even seem to get along when we only have these two languages.

When we come to an important thing like citizenship, how do other immigrants in this country feel? In some ways it was an insult to immigrants coming from other areas of the world that they have come in under a particular status. We told them, “Canada is a multicultural country, You are welcome here. We don’t have the melting pot approach like the Americans.” Yet if an immigrant came from another part of the world and didn’t happen to be a British subject, he had a status that was different from the status of other immigrants. In a certain sense that was an insult to him.

The purpose of this amendment is to get away from this type of anomaly and, as my colleague from Kitchener said, to establish one criterion across the country for all elections so that if you are going to exercise the most important franchise --

Mr. Foulds: A restrictive criterion.

Mr. Roy: You know, Mr. Chairman. I keep hearing comments from that -- I don’t know what I should call him; he’s supposed to be a school teacher, but I think he’s more of an idiot than a school teacher -- that member for Port Arthur who keeps making these idiotic comments.

Interjections.

Mr. Samis: Is that parliamentary?

Mr. Deans: That is really quite unparliamentary and much too personal -- much too personal.

Mr. Roy: It is not unparliamentary. It suits him fine when we get involved in that sort of debate and he keeps saying we are going to disenfranchise somebody; it’s not that at all.

Mr. Foulds: That is what it is. Call a spade a spade. Have the guts to say what you say loud and clear. Never mind this two-bit lawyer’s equivocation.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order. Could I ask the member for Port Arthur to please leave the speaker alone?

Mr. Foulds: Don’t let that SOB call me an idiot in this House and get away with it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: And could I ask the member for Ottawa East to please stick to the bill and to refrain from language which may not be technically unparliamentary but certainly is not within the spirit of this House? Would he please continue?

Mr. Roy: When you are talking about unparliamentary language, Mr. Chairman, his last comment --

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is unparliamentary.

An hon. member: What’s wrong with you? SOB is “Son of Bette.”

Mr. Conway: Good enough for Bette Stephenson.

Mr. Roy: But coming from that member it is to be expected.

Mr. Deans: Come on, don’t be so sanctimonious.

Mr. Swart: How about your member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini)?

Mr. Roy: He doesn’t understand an amendment that’s as simple as saying, “In Canada when you are going to vote, you have got to be a Canadian citizen.” And when he, a so-called school teacher, representative of the public, can’t even understand that --

Mr. Deans: Too bad you missed your plane.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will the member for Ottawa East please address the bill, and not address the other members of the House?

Mr. Roy: I am. I should, because obviously I am not getting through to him, so I much prefer to address the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: And stick to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Martel: It is easy to tell when you have nothing to say, Albert, you take half an hour to say it.

Mr. Roy: What we are trying to do is not to disenfranchise anyone, but to make citizenship mean something in this country. This amendment is not anti anything. As my colleague has said, it is pro something, and it is pro Canada.

Mr. Swart: It’s going to disenfranchise 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 in the next election,

Mr. Roy: And when I hear these members saying once people have been in this country --

Mr. Martel: Your halo is getting tight.

Mr. Roy: Sanctimonious? After we have suffered the sanctimonious comments of these guys to my left --

Mr. Mattel: If you are not careful your brain will be squeezed to a peanut.

Mr. Roy: And obviously we are getting to the because they are embarrassed, you are embarrassed by opposing this type of amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: May I again ask the member to please address the Chair? Do not address the other members.

Mr. Roy: Sometimes it is difficult, Mr. Chairman, with the comments coming from the left.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I think the member is quite capable of ignoring the interjections and speaking to the bill.

Mr. Roy: Well, it is tough, especially when it comes from a boomer like the member from Sudbury.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when they say some people have voted here for a number of years and they will be disenfranchised, they are going to have 10 months to get their citizenship.

Mr. Swart: At least the federal Liberals give them three years.

Mr. Martel: When you have got nothing to say you spend half an hour.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: I am saddened to see that my colleagues to my left don’t understand that.

Mr. Foulds: We can do without the sanctimonious hypocrisy.

Mr. Swart: Why don’t you sit down and cry?

Mr. Roy: The so-called do-gooders who talk about nationalism, the member from Sudbury who is talking about being pro-Canadian, anti-American et cetera; he can’t even stand up for an amendment that says you are going to be a Canadian if you are going to vote.

Mr. Deans: I won’t be very long speaking to the bill, Mr. Chairman, and I want to try as best I can not to get drawn into any name-calling with the member for Ottawa East.

I wanted at first to make it clear to you that it is entirely possible that at some point in the not too distant future this Legislature should address itself to who should be given the franchise in the province of Ontario, but I don’t think this is an appropriate vehicle for having that particular debate. I don’t think we should arrive at a disenfranchising -- and you will have to forgive the use of the word -- in such a piecemeal way. If we are going to limit the right to vote in an election, any election, to persons who are Canadian citizens, then I think we should do that openly with legislation that is intended to meet all of the various problems, including the provincial elections, the municipal elections --

Mr. Roy: We are doing that.

Mr. Deans: No, we’re not.

Mr. Roy: We have the private bill for provincial elections, and now we are doing it for municipal elections.

Mr. Deans: What we have to do is recognize who is going to be disenfranchised. When you speak of British subjects, everyone thinks only of people who come from the British Isles. But in the case of municipal elections, in the case of elections in Canada in fact, we’re talking about a great number of people who come here from many other countries. At this point in time they have always enjoyed the privilege -- and it is a privilege -- of being able to vote in municipal elections.

They are not discouraged from buying property; they are not discouraged from investing funds or time in the development of this country; they are not discouraged from being a part of the cultural growth of the country; and they are now to be disenfranchised after having lived in a good and constructive way in this country by an amendment of the Liberals which in many ways is attempting to remove the right; I am prepared to concede that maybe the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) is correct, and I don’t quarrel with his statement that he would prefer that it were seen as an attempt to encourage people to become Canadian citizens.

[9:15]

The truth of it is that you will never encourage someone to take out Canadian citizenship in this heavy-handed way. If we want to encourage people to be Canadian citizens, then we should embark on a program of making it possible, easier, and more appealing for them to do so.

Look at what has happened: In this country we allow people to go out and buy property. They can be non-Canadians and non-residents, own property and enjoy the use of it. They can sell it, they can make substantial gain from it and they can take it away. People are encouraged to take over and own our resources in this province, to take the profits from the sale of those resources out of the country and to use those resources for whatever purpose they please. We do nothing about that. Through any number of government agencies, we fund enterprises for people who take the taxpayers’ money from this province, take it out of this country and use it for their own ends in other parts of the world.

We don’t know how many people would be affected by the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. I think an amendment of this magnitude deserves considerable public debate. I don’t think it should happen as a result of simply from the opposition benches moving a perhaps seemingly insignificant amendment one evening to a bill that was not intended to do what this amendment will now make it do.

If the government is interested in bringing forward proposals to limit the franchise to Canadians, then I suggest the government should do that. I suggest that all the people who would be detrimentally affected and all of those who feel very strongly about the necessity for the change should be given some opportunity for public debate on the matter and some opportunity for input into the matter and should be encouraged to recognize the magnitude of the change. There should be considerable time allowed for the transition to take place. There should be a program developed for reaching out to those many people who would lose the privilege which they previously had as a result of this particular amendment or by any other amendment.

If you look at it, the following are the countries from which the people would lose their vote: Anyone who came from Australia to Canada to settle would not be permitted to vote or from Bangladesh, from the Bahamas, from Barbados, from Bermuda, from Botswana, from Ceylon, from Cyprus, from the Republic of Ireland, from Fiji, from Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Hong Kong and so on. It affects a great number of people, many of whom reside right in Metropolitan Toronto and who, when they came here in good faith, understood they were permitted to vote in municipal elections.

If you are going to take that right away from those and all the others that make up a list of approximately 40, the honourable thing to do would be to begin the process by making it clear that the intention of the Ontario Legislature is to change the franchise. At some point in the foreseeable future -- perhaps at the election after the next one, which is the way the federal government did it -- those who enjoyed that privilege but who were not Canadian citizens would no longer have that privilege.

I really don’t think the eight months the member for Ottawa East speaks about is an adequate amount of time to bring to the public’s attention the change that would take place. Let’s look at the electoral process for a moment. If there was a place where it might be appropriate to allow other than Canadian citizens to vote, it surely would be at the municipal election level.

If we came to the decision that it was appropriate that in an election people should be permitted to vote who fall into other than simply the Canadian citizenship category, then the municipal level would be the appropriate place to begin. The purpose of municipal council is primarily related directly to property ownership and to the provision of services to property. If a person is entitled to buy a piece of property, to pay the taxes on it, to share in all of the costs of the municipality and to reside in the municipality, then it would perhaps make sense that he has at least some say in how the money ought to be spent that he gives to the municipal council for the provision of those services. Perhaps we should look at that as a Legislature to see whether it might be a place that non-citizens be permitted to vote. I understand that in the broader context of federal and provincial elections that it probably makes good sense.

In fact, I think it does make good sense to begin a process of enlightening the public of Ontario to the fact that we in the province of Ontario intend to move to restricting voting to citizens, but I don’t think you do it by way of the back door. I think you do it quite openly. I think you make clear the intention of the Legislature. I think you allow adequate time for discussion and debate. I think you allow and encourage the various groups and their representatives to take part in that debate. I think you try to make clear to the people of Ontario that the change is going to take place.

I don’t think we should stand up here one evening and in discussion of a bill which was never intended for the purpose, wrap ourselves in the flag and attempt to sell the idea of nationalism. I don’t think that is an appropriate way to do it.

Mr. Martel: By yelling at everybody.

Mr. Deans: I have been a Canadian citizen from the moment it was available for me to be one, because I believe that it is important. I would want to encourage others to do likewise, and I think we should attempt to encourage people to do likewise.

But I suggest to my friends in the Liberal caucus, in all fairness -- I recognize the intent, and I am going to acknowledge that it is an honest intent; I am not going to fight with them about it -- that rather than do it this way, we should attempt the process by having my colleague from Kitchener bring his private bill forward, by changing all of the legislation at one time. In that way we would provide the opportunity for people around the province to see the change take place; we would provide the opportunity for input from all of the groups who would be affected; we would pay heed to their concerns, the concerns which they no doubt will feel very strongly; we would allow sufficient time for them to make the transition, to recognize the benefits as we set them out in the discussion that we would have; and we would give the opportunity to those people to hear from us, in the Legislature, something they haven’t heard for some time -- what the benefits of Canadian citizenship are. Not simply the benefit of voting, but the benefit of participating as a full member in the entire process here in Canada.

If we were to do that -- and we could use the vehicle of the member for Kitchener’s bill, I suppose; I don’t know, but we could use that vehicle or one brought forward by the government -- we could then try to involve as many of the people who would ultimately be affected as possible; that would be the way to make a change of this magnitude.

It is no trifling thing; it should not be held lightly. It should not be done by way of an amendment to legislation that was never intended to deal with this in the first place. It is much too important for that.

It carries a lot of implications. I ask the Liberals, having had the discussion, if they wouldn’t consider the possibility of not proceeding with this at this time in this way, and suggesting to the government that it pay heed to the discussion that has taken place tonight, and to use the vehicles that are now available to us for the promotion of the idea of Canadian citizenship --

Mr. Roy: That is the only vehicle we have.

Mr. Deans: It’s unfortunate the member for Ottawa East has come back, because it was a very nice discussion.

Mr. Roy: I have listened to the member for Wentworth on the box, and I think he is talking a lot of foolishness.

Mr. Deans: That’s fine.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying that we should attempt to encourage people to take part rather than bludgeoning them into submission.

Mr. Roy: Bludgeoning them, my God.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, it’s one of these rare evenings --

Hon. Mr. Norton: When the member for Ottawa East is present.

Mr. Conway: -- when I think we have developed a rather interesting debate -- one of some substance, for a change.

Mr. Wildman: Don’t change it.

Mr. Conway: I have listened with particular interest to the comments made by all the participants in the debate. I have been very impressed with what has been said by all members of all parties. The most cogent presentation of a position which I cannot finally accept, insofar as the subamendment is concerned, was put by my friend from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who very eloquently stated the concern which a member such as himself would bring to this kind of a debate.

It seems to me that the subamendment deals directly with the conflicting principles of citizenship versus humanity as the basis for a franchise. The hon. member for Bellwoods puts with some considerable justice that humanity should be the basis for any franchise. That is truly an eloquent testament to an honourable idealism. Extended to a full-blown conclusion, there are real difficulties with that as a fundamental principle.

For example, I wonder -- and I profess to be no expert in this regard -- how we deal with something like insanity as a complicating factor with a franchise based on humanity. One of the things that has always characterized the franchise and franchise discussion has been how we treat people who are deemed to be mentally incompetent and therefore somehow deficient insofar as exercising proper judgment on the matters that may involve a given election.

Mr. Wildman: Good point.

Mr. Conway: Their humanity is clear and unquestionable, but that does not in any way alleviate the difficulty that such an impediment creates for the electoral process.

Mr. Wildman: Not a big problem.

Mr. Conway: The member for Algoma says it’s not a big problem -- and perhaps not --

Mr. Wildman: But you have a good point.

Mr. Conway: -- but it seems to me it is clearly a possible ground for restriction. It may not be a major restriction qualitatively, but thinking that over tonight -- because I have really been impressed with what the member for Bellwoods has said -- I find it difficult in 10, 15 or 20 minutes to sort out how we could use humanity as the criterion for enfranchisement and keep that as a non-restrictive basis or criterion. The implication of much of what has been said tonight about the franchise has been that it should certainly not be restrictive. In philosophical and ideological terms that is quite commendable.

During the brief interval earlier this evening I went down to the library to pick up a very interesting book that bears directly on this topic. It is by Terry Qualter, who used to be at the University of Waterloo, and it is called The Election Process in Canada. In that political science text there is a very fascinating first chapter about the franchise. I share the member for Bellwoods’ feeling about what our past has provided us with insofar as the franchise is concerned, quite apart from a global discussion. We like to think Canada and Ontario have had a great liberal democratic past --

Mr. Foulds: Small “l”.

Mr. Conway: Small “l” or whatever. I am sure there were some people here who thought my colleague from Kitchener might have been a little exuberant, perhaps overly so, in his comments. But anyone who comes from Berlin -- now Kitchener -- or Waterloo county, who grew up there, who has a family that has deep and historic roots there, just might remember the wartime Elections Act and what that did to disenfranchise certain Canadians who were here, not two weeks or two years, but who had been here for 75 years and who had fashioned the fabric of a very magnificent community. Interestingly enough, that was the dedicated and purposeful product of one of our acknowledged national statesmen, a Prime Minister of Canada. I won’t go into it in any great degree --

Mr. Wildman: What about the Japanese out west?

[9:30]

Mr. Conway: I think the member for Algoma leads me perhaps to one small quotation from page 10 of Qualter’s book. It’s not something that’s particular distant in our past. It’s hard to believe that no longer ago than 1945 a provincial statute in this country, namely in British Columbia, said insofar as the franchise was concerned: “Until 1945, the right to vote in British Columbia provincial elections was still denied ‘to every Chinese, Japanese, Hindu or Indian.’” That’s really an incredible comment on our liberal democratic past. When you talk about the Eskimos and the Indians, people who have suffered much, much more lately, from that same kind of discrimination, it is a useful footnote to our past insofar as the franchise is concerned.

I don’t see anyone here, other than the member for York Mills (Hon. B. Stephenson), who represents the opposite sex. I think she surely understands what it is women went through in this country. I think of the Cleverdons, the McClungs and the Agnes MacPhails who really gave eloquent testament to the right that women justifiably had to participate in the franchise and the suffrage. Not until post-World War I did that right accrue to women in this country. Again, I think that is an interesting comment on the franchise.

I go through those points generally and briefly just to point out that, like it or not, we have had an unfortunately restrictive franchise history in Ontario and in Canada. I think it deserves no more comment than that. It’s certainly no reason to continue restriction per se. I thought it would be useful to elucidate some of that, because I must come quite squarely to the subamendment, which I cannot accept for reasons which I will go into very briefly in a few moments. I’m probably going to be cynical in my one comment because --

Mr. Wildman: Surely not.

Mr. Conway: -- before this debate really got elevated -- and I thought it did with the hon. member for Bellwoods -- I was very interested to hear some of the exchange, involving particularly the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick and certain members in the New Democratic Party, about the political context of this particular discussion and how it might devolve upon the hopes and political aspirations of my party.

With all respect and in truth, I must say I was conjuring in my mind, particularly as I watched the machiavellian glance of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), that this discussion tonight surely might be a comment, insofar as Metropolitan Toronto is concerned, on who the new masters of Tammany Hall are going to be. I hope and pray that does not really enter into the discussion, but I must say some of the undercurrents earlier this evening with respect to the political connotation and the political context made my perhaps all-too-cynical mind float back to an earlier day again.

Mr Wildman: At least he recognizes a quality speech, unlike his leader.

Mr. Conway: At that time, the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) was saying certain things, like other members of the cabinet, I think, because I noticed one other cabinet minister shaking his head rather mightily, about this terrible discrimination being afforded to the British subjects.

Mr. Breithaupt: You could hear it over here.

Mr. Conway: I concur entirely with the comments from my friend and colleague from Kitchener. Again, I will be historical because all I could think of was the famous cry of the former federal member for Kingston, the great Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. John Alexander Macdonald, who campaigned quite vigorously in 1891 with that famous, “A British subject I was born. A British subject I will die.”

It made me think, particularly as I looked at the member for Carleton, of an old story told of a good hide-bound Tory friend of mine who, when not so very long ago approached with the terrible revelation that John A. Macdonald was dead, replied, “And I didn’t even know he was sick.” It sort of made me mindful of that kind of consideration. I have no difficulty whatsoever in saying that the British subject qualification and consideration should be properly removed for basically, as I see it, three reasons:

First, it is simply and obviously not relevant; second, it is simply and obviously not reciprocal; and third, as has been pointed out, not only by other speakers in this debate here this evening but by all those speakers who have participated from time to time in discussions that in one way or another have related to this general area in the past three or five years -- and I’ve heard a number of references tonight from earlier debates -- most of these people have had the opportunity, the choice to act upon that situation and to become Canadian citizens, and for many of them the choice and the priority simply has not been there.

The member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) says that perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of our position might be that this is too important, too sweeping a discussion, procedure and ultimate decision to take so precipitately on this snowy evening on December 8, 1977, leaving the distinct impression that out of the blue it has descended, with no notice and with no recent history. That, Mr. Chairman, I submit to you, does not pay due attention to the facts as they present themselves over the past five years.

My colleague from Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), and again my colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), made reference to an eloquent speech by the former Minister of Housing and former member for Carleton-Grenville, Mr. Irvine. Only my friend from Ottawa East and those of us who hail from that fair region of the far east can appreciate what it is that the former member of Carleton-Grenville took into his grasp when he said, not only to this House but to the electors -- maybe more particularly those of Grenville county -- that certain British subject criteria should not obtain. That is a heroism which I hope will surely recommend itself to his successor, who I see seated here tonight and who I think would be very properly advised to subscribe to such heroism as evinced in this particular regard by his predecessor.

Mr. Roy: It took guts.

Mr. Conway: This is not something that has descended precipitately, unannounced or whatever. There has been an ongoing debate of one kind or another in this regard.

I think the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) makes a good point when he says we must attempt, as best we can, to rationalize the municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions in this regard. I concur entirely. It is for that reason that I invite my hon. colleagues to the left to rise, to unite and to march with us and pass, within the next few days, the very excellent private member’s bill forwarded by my hon. colleague, the member for Kitchener.

Finally, I want to say that for me, as for members of my party, there can be only one fundamental criterion for the franchise; and that is the principle, the criterion, of citizenship. In philosophical or conceptual terms, to me citizenship necessarily involves a commitment to place, to state and to nation; upon that concept and upon that commitment there must, and I think should be, placed a sense of premium, a sense of attainment, a sense of achievement. It must have, and I think it does have, for all of us who subscribe to it in this great land of ours, who inherit that without any great effort, and for all of those who seek to become Canadian citizens, an inherent worth that I think really and truly does not necessarily devolve to those with a landed immigrant status.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think of the historic phrase, “civis Romanus sum”; surely there are implications in that which bear very noticeably upon the notion that the concept of citizenship and the concept of franchise do bear a direct relationship to each other, and on no other basic criterion or principle than citizenship can the principle of franchise be understood, implemented and exercised.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to totally withdraw the heated interjection I made with regard to the member for Ottawa East about half an hour ago.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It’s accepted.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to try to conclude the business on Bill 98 this evening, I will be exceedingly brief. I won’t attempt, for obvious reasons, to get into the same eloquence that has been illustrated and portrayed by many of the members previously.

I do agree with the hon. member for Wentworth when he indicates that this is probably not the appropriate time to get into the philosophies of citizenship and so on in this particular item. I concur with that. I don’t think it is either. But speaking to the amendment to the amendment, I must say I personally have more sympathy towards expanding the franchise rather than narrowing it. I think I am probably as strong a nationalist Canadian as any member opposite, but I don’t think you should ever be thinking of taking something away from somebody that they have already earned.

Mr. Roy: Earned? How have they earned it?

Mr. Ashe: I appreciate that one can challenge the word “earned.” When they use the argument that they want to be consistent, I can appreciate that the members opposite in the Liberal Party are being consistent; but I would suggest that just because they did something in Ottawa doesn’t mean it’s necessarily right for us to do something in Toronto. I don’t think that gives validity to the particular amendment.

On the other side of the coin -- although, as I say, philosophically I can see broadening the franchise at the municipal level, and in my mind there is a distinction between municipal versus federal and provincial qualifications in terms of the relationship of the elector to the services in his community -- I think the particular amendment to the amendment expands the franchise too drastically and too quickly, and hence I can’t support that concept either.

Mr. Roy: Be consistent. Open it up to the world.

Mr. Ashe: In summary, I think in the one instance we have gone a little too far a little too fast and in the other instance we are attempting to take away something that’s already there. In the spirit of compromise, I think the bill as written serves the purpose.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, we obviously have heard what is both progressive and conservative in the comments from the parliamentary assistant. I find that most regrettable. Before I make further comments, I felt the House would be pleased to see a former colleague. Mr Stan Farquhar, the former member for Algoma-Manitoulin, our Liberal whip for some years, and a delightful member of this House who I am sure members would wish to welcome.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I feel there are two separate issues before us. The one is the matter of whether British subjects and those from countries that once were under the British Crown should be regarded, once they come to live in this country, as somehow different or more privileged than those who come to Canada from other countries on this globe. That’s the first issue before us. The second issue is the matter of whether people should have to obtain citizenship prior to being permitted to vote in elections.

I should like to address the two issues separately. The first one is the matter of people who come to this great country from countries that have at one time in their history been under the British Crown and whether such people should enjoy greater privilege than those who come to this country from any other county of the world, be it France, or any other European country, be it the United States of America or any country of the globe.

[9:45]

I have to say that when I think about this issue, I recognize a certain difficulty among certain people who are British subjects and who have not obtained their Canadian citizenship, possibly for some good reason, and who may feel that this amendment somehow is aimed at them, when of course it is not.

But I look at the more important issue, and that is the coming of age of this country. I look at the issue of whether Canadian citizenship is to be a vital and important matter to all of us. I think particularly of the question, in light of my own grandparents, who you may recall, Mr. Chairman, have come to this country from four different countries of eastern Europe.

I well remember, as a young child, their great pride, their great delight, in showing some evidence of their acceptance in this country. Of course until 1947, and the Canadian Citizenship Act, it wasn’t possible even to speak of Canadian citizenship in the way we do right now. None the less, they had tremendous pride in their having been accepted in some official way into this country and in being a genuine part of this country and its makeup.

No man can stand and tell me that a person who came to this country from some country that was previously under the British Crown would automatically make a greater contribution to this country than my grandparents did; and no person can tell me that a person who comes to this country from a British colony or a former British colony, or Britain itself, should be given privileges that people who come from Italy, from Portugal, from France, from Greece, from any of the countries -- from Holland, from Germany, from any of the countries -- who have given their sons and daughters to our country to make this a great land, that any of them, in any instance, should see it regarded that the British subject somehow or other should have an automatic right, a right which these other people do not have.

The time, therefore, has come to recognize, granting that there may be a certain hardship to a certain number of people who at present seem able to vote and may find themselves having to decide whether or not to become citizens; but the time has come for us to stand and to say to the Portuguese Canadians, to the German Canadians and to the Dutch Canadians, that we draw no distinction between those who at one time happened to live in countries under the British Crown and those who have brought their talents and their families, their abilities, their aspirations and their hopes to this country from other lands of this globe.

That’s why we feel that, wherever it exists, reference that discriminates in favour of immigrants to this country from one country or from one area of the world, as opposed to others, must be eradicated. We have before us now, in the municipal elections bill, an opportunity to do so, we shall have the opportunity to do so on the provincial scene shortly, and therefore we say, when the opportunity is here; stand, be counted, and act.

Now there comes to me the second question. The question arises as to whether in municipal elections -- or in any election, for that matter -- it should be necessary to be a citizen of this country. The argument is made that municipal elections are somehow less important than federal elections inasmuch as foreign affairs are not discussed, inasmuch as some of the issues are more tangible, more local. But I would say to you that to regard the municipal scene as some kind of a minor league, some kind of a sand lot where one eventually learns to play in the bigger leagues, is an insult to municipal government.

For far too long, municipal government has been the poor stepsister of all governments, and I think it’s time that stopped.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is a sexist remark.

Ms. S. Smith: Or stepbrother; step-person.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Step-sibling; that will do.

Mr. S. Smith: It is just as important, surely, to have to cast your vote intelligently, and with a view to the future, municipally as it is provincially or federally.

I don’t draw these invidious distinctions between the three levels of vote casting. I furthermore feel it is sometimes argued that people pay property tax municipally and therefore citizenship is really not as important as the tax-paying status. But I need not remind you, Mr. Chairman, that we pay sales taxes to the province and we pay excise taxes and so on to both levels of government as well as the obvious income taxes. Therefore, I put it to you that the paying of taxes does not automatically confer the vote upon a person, lest we do so for any tourist who happens to be in this country at the time of an election. We know that is obviously a faulty bit of logic.

Mr. Wildman: It’s your faulty logic.

Mr. S. Smith: In point of fact, there must be some qualification to be an elector, to have that privilege. To vote in a democratic country, there must be some qualification.

If it were a difficult and arduous task to become a Canadian citizen, one might consider lesser gradations of such citizenship to be sufficient qualification for the casting of a ballot, lest we be in a position of exploiting visiting labour, as was suggested by the member for Bellwoods, and so on. But it’s a mere three years -- and even the members of the NDP are talking about a two-year qualification -- before one can become a citizen in this country. The qualifications are hardly arduous.

Consequently, it seems to me that if citizenship is to mean something and if we are to accept that this country has come of age and no longer exists as a colony of any country, be it France or Britain or the United States, but that we stand on our own feet, then we must regard all newcomers to this country as equal from the day they come here. We must remove this invidious distinction between British subjects and others who have come to this country to give us the benefit of the fruits of their labours, their visions, their hopes, their aspirations and their willingness to work.

Therefore, there is no alternative but to seize this opportunity to eradicate from the Municipal Elections Act the matter regarding British subjects and to accept, not the sub-amendment of the members to our left but the excellent amendment put by the members of my party. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to join with others from my party in speaking to this very important principle at this time.

Mr. Dukszta: I hadn’t intended to speak, Mr. Chairman, but I was listening to the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) with some interest and I decided to participate in the debate.

I will start my few remarks with some personal reminiscences. After all, I was born in a very nationalistic country and I carried the citizenship of that country. Incidentally, soon after the war my father was deprived of it by that government in Poland, so I don’t carry it any longer. He became a British subject, and because he lived in London, England, concurrently I became -- being then under age -- a British citizen myself and carried and travelled on a British passport for some time. I appreciated the privileges of what went with being a British subject.

When I came to this country, after a year of residence here I could participate fully in the life of this province and the country generally. I appreciated that, but I did realize that this was unjust in some sense because I was not even British. I extended this principle to all the British-born people in saying that if you come to a country like Canada you should in some sense participate on a different level other than that you are British.

In that sense I support the Liberal amendment. But when I was listening to the member for Renfrew North, I was struck by what he said about the citizenship of the Romans and, prior to that, of the Greeks. This was a concept much valued by the Romans. It conferred incredible status on the people who were Roman citizens. It was maybe one of the most elitist and class-oriented approaches that existed in that particular civilization. It was nothing particularly to be proud of, for in fact it underlined enormous class differences in that empire.

If we are looking at our own country, which is probably as unnationalistic as any country I have ever been in or lived in, this is maybe one of the main advantages and values of Canada, that the people come from all over the place, from very nationalistic backgrounds, come and are accepted, and accept the others of the same ilk, in a spirit of comity, in a spirit of humanity and develop quite a different, a new approach towards being a national of Canada.

This brings me to the point -- and I shall be quite brief -- of why I feel the NDP amendment to this is the only one, because it moves us away from elitism of citizenship and moves us towards a concept of participation in the country and on those grounds a concept of participation by all people who come, after two years, or even less, of living in this country, they surely have a right to participate in the public life as much as they participate in the productive life of the country, adding both to our culture and to our wealth.

On those grounds, of a broader concept of citizenship and the concept of participation, I believe we should abandon altogether the concept of citizenship and allow people to vote in the election on this much broader idea of participating in the community and this country.

Mr. Conway: Just a footnote, Mr. Chairman, to what has been said by my distinguished colleague from Parkdale: I listened with very keen interest to his remarks, because certainly he brings an intellectual power to these discussions which is not only his regular wont but his unique capacity.

I must say that I listened to hear the distinguishing feature that he sought to bring to the franchise base, criterion or whatever; he has widened it considerably, in my mind, from that of the hon. member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), inasmuch as he is saying that participation somehow should be the cornerstone of a franchise discussion in the future. I love the term, because knowing that hon. member’s political view and sociological affliction -- not affliction, that’s certainly not the right word -- but framework, I think that I -- and I must say that I never thought I would hear the hon. member for Parkdale evince such Trudeauesque phraseology like “participatory democracy.” I think that should not go unregistered tonight.

Mr. Samis: That is a low blow.

Mr. Conway: The hon. member for Cornwall says it’s a low blow, and perhaps it is.

Mr. Wildman: It is based on a class analysis, essentially.

Ms. Gigantes: Totally silly.

Mr. Dukszta: Point of privilege, I should say.

Mr. Conway: It seems to me that the claim the hon. member for Parkdale is making --

Ms. Gigantes: If you want to be a historian, go somewhere else.

Mr. Conway: -- is that we somehow should have a participatory democracy, a franchise that reflects that.

Mr. Warner: The Prime Minister was joking.

Mr. Conway: I must say in concluding these footnoted remarks that what the member for Parkdale says about the principle, the notion of “civis Romanus sum,” is that it is very fundamentally an elitist concept; and I can’t deny that. I tend to think that with my sense, my concept, my notion of citizenship, which I have said earlier is the cornerstone and the basis for my franchise and my criterion for that, it is in fact elitist. I don’t in any way, shape or form wish to deny that. I think there is a treasure, a value, an inherent worth that is undoubtedly elitist about that concept. I think that should be said, I am happy to say that; and I am delighted that the member for Parkdale has participated as he has.

Ms. Gigantes: Isn’t that nice of you.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate many of the remarks that have been made tonight by members on all sides, and obviously they hold the views they hold with a great deal of sincerity. There are also a number of members who hold some of the views they hold with some sense of contradiction, but we won’t go into that except to say that the House leader for the NDP and one of the leadership aspirants, Mr. Chairman -- I am sure that probably you don’t know who I am talking about because it has received absolutely no press coverage or impact on the province of Ontario as to the fact --

[10:00]

Mr. Warner: What does this have to do with the bill? You are bumbling again.

Mr. Reid: -- as to the fact that I shouldn’t even be doing them this favour by saying that, in fact, there is an NDP leadership convention because nobody outside this chamber knows it.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you resign? What nonsense.

Mr. Reid: Almost nobody outside the NDP caucus knows it. You see them huddling in little groups in the men’s and in the women’s rooms to discuss these matters.

Ms. Gigantes: Have you heard of washrooms, Patrick Reid?

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I cannot accept the sub-subamendment.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, tell him to get his remarks out of the washroom.

Mr. Reid: I would draw to your attention that one of the leadership aspirants for the NDP --

Mr. Chairman: Order. I am afraid I cannot accept a sub-subamendment if that is what you are leading up to.

Mr. Wildman: Your remarks are subsub.

Mr. Reid: No, I am not, I wanted to indicate my preference for the leadership of the NDP. But if it was between having --

An hon. member: Tell us another time.

Mr. Reid: -- Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Deans and Mr. Breaugh, I was prepared to cast my vote in favour of anyone else. But that is probably not part of the debate. I did want to bring to your attention that one of the aspirants for the NDP leadership was a member of the select committee --

Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. member get back to the amendment?

Mr. Reid: I am, I am.

Mr. Wildman: Sooner or later.

Mr. Reid: I was a member of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, a select committee of this Legislature --

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you tell us about your summer vacation?

Mr. Reid: -- which signed a report which said that people we are talking about, who have been in this country long enough --

Mr. McClellan: What did you have for lunch?

Mr. Reid: -- should not be given the privilege of voting in this society.

Mr. Reed: Oh, who was that?

Mr. Warner: Just because we have a snowstorm you have no place to go.

Mr. Reid: His name, because I have been asked, Mr. Chairman, was Ian Deans, the member for Wentworth --

Mr. Cunningham: Wentworth period.

Mr. Roy: Your inconsistency is consistent, I will say that for you.

Mr. Reid: So it is very nice that the member for Welland-Thorold would put this resolution. Obviously he is not a supporter of the member for Wentworth. However, the last speaker for the NDP gave quite an impassioned speech about his historical background. When that unfortunate catastrophe happened, a lot of his countrymen and others came to the riding of Rainy River and settled there. They have been great and responsible citizens. But we have to look at the situation --

Mr. Conway: Have they voted for you?

Mr. Reid: -- in the world and see what other countries do in regard to granting citizenship and full rights of citizenship to the members of that society. I don’t think in today’s historical context that we, in this province, should he prepared to ask less of the people who come to our shores than anybody else does. In fact, given the problems we have in Canada and in the world, I think we have to ask for a commitment from people before they have that right to cast a vote in our Canadian democratic system, both federally and provincially.

Mr. Chairman, I have a riding made up of a lot of ethnic peoples who came to this country and decided they wanted to be Canadian and Ontario citizens. They made that choice and they should, having made that choice, having decided they would become full members of the community, be given the right to participate in our Canadian and Ontario democracy. In view of the things that have gone past in this Legislature, it is only right and just that this amendment carry.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly associate myself with the remarks of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith), who has made one of the more eloquent speeches I have heard in this house since coming to this House on June 9 --

Mr. Martel: You heard that, Pat. Did you? You heard what your colleague said?

Mr. Epp: It is unfortunate the House could not hear the remarks he made. It is unfortunate a number of members had made a commitment to oppose the amendment prior to coming to this House, prior to hearing those remarks.

I heard the remarks of the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe). He indicated he personally was not going to vote for this. I can only surmise from that that the rest of the party will vote for the amendment.

Mr. Warner: You don’t understand the Tories then.

Mr. Epp: The Treasurer made a statement to the press which I read in the Star of November 17, 1977, and I quote: “Treasurer Darcy McKeough, who introduced the legislation,” -- and this refers to the amendment we’re speaking to now -- “said yesterday that he had ‘no objection to that one way or another’.”

I can only assume from that that members opposite will then support this amendment and that the member for Durham West --

Mr. Roy: Or follow their conscience.

Mr. Epp: -- who has indicated he will be opposed to the amendment will be out of step with his party.

Mr. Roy: Is the Minister of Labour going to support it? She is free to vote as she likes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: As always.

Mr. Epp: I want to correct some misconceptions that have been expressed in this House earlier this evening, during what I think has generally been an excellent debate. Some people feel by removing this clause, British subjects who currently can vote will not be able to vote in the future and that this will deprive people of the vote. I can only assure the hon. members of the House that these people will be given every opportunity to become citizens. I’m sure the government of Canada would not in any way impede their efforts to become Canadian citizens, and they could then vote.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. They’ve got 10 months.

Mr. Epp: I might just point out to the hon. members of the House that historically the reason this was entertained some 110 years ago or so was that British subjects could vote here because they had the same kind of government in Britain. It was not expected at that time that people from Uganda, India, Pakistan and all over would be able to vote, Because the people who came here had the same form of government here as that under which they had lived in Britain, they felt they could understand it, and that when they came here they’d be able to fit into the lifestyle and into the kind of government structure we had.

Mr. Roy: We were considered a colony.

Mr. Epp: We were considered a colony for many years thereafter. It wasn’t until the Statute of Westminster that this status in great part was taken away from us and given a more responsible position. The member for Wentworth indicated that this particular amendment was brought in by the back door. I resent that, because the public has known about the amendment for at least a month.

Mr. Deans: I did not say the amendment was brought in by the back door. I said the concept.

Mr. Epp: Our party took this position four years ago when we discussed the Municipal Elections Act at that time. To suggest that it was brought in by the back door is an unfair comment. I’m sure it’s not worthy of the member to state those things. Nevertheless., he did state it.

The other point I want to make is that if this House, which I hope it does, passes this amendment this evening and passes the private member’s bill, which my hon. friend from Kitchener will be introducing, which will affect the provincial Election Act, then at all three levels of government the same franchise will accrue to the people of this country, this province and the municipalities.

I would urge all members to take this positive step this evening and make Canadian citizenship the only criterion by which people in this province can vote in municipal elections.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks and I will attempt to keep them brief.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There are a number of private conversations which make it difficult to hear.

Mr. Warner: They obviously didn’t know I was about to speak.

I wish, first, to compliment the member for Ottawa East who presented his thoughts in a very sensitive way, and I do want to appreciate his comments.

There’s a very basic problem that we’re faced with tonight when we take a look at the Liberal amendment. That is that, without wishing to be particularly, unduly provocative to the official opposition, it seems to me that in some measure it’s an attempt to play government. The whole business of dealing with the requirements for voting surely should be addressed first in terms of the provincial statutes, in terms of those who are eligible to vote in a provincial election.

The municipalities are, as we know, creatures of the province, they are not creatures of the federal government. Whatever kinds of rules and regulations prevail for federal elections do not necessarily have to carry for municipal elections. If it is the wish of this House to change the rules for municipal elections, surely the rules should first be changed for provincial elections and then bring the municipalities’ rules and regulations into line. I think that’s the proper procedure.

The Liberals, through their amendment, are trying to circumvent that, to play government, and to change the rules for municipal elections without any regard to the rules which apply to provincial elections.

I think, to some extent, what our sub- amendment does is to rescue that situation, to provide a certain amount of equity, especially for those people who have resided here for a full two years; who obviously, by their residence, fully intend to participate in our city; they pay taxes for schools, for municipal services; they have intentions, and as we know by our record, Mr. Chairman, in terms of those who take out citizenship, they become Canadian citizens.

They surely should have a voice in the local municipal councils. They should have the opportunity to express their opinions related to the taxes which they pay. The subamendment moved by the critic of this party affords them that opportunity, and therefore I wish to support the subamendment.

I regret, quite frankly, that the Liberal Party chooses to bring their amendment forward at this particular time. Surely they could have served notice to the government, as they have done in the past, and the government could have seen fit to have brought in the proper kind of provincial legislation first, then we could have dealt with the municipal situation afterwards.

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunities that have been afforded to us tonight by way of our subamendment and I would hope, as the member for Ottawa East indicated earlier, that not only he but his other colleagues will be supporting our subamendment. I appreciate that and look forward to its quick passage.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on the subamendment?

All those in favour of Mr. Swart’s amendment to the amendment on section 12 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Shall we stack this subamendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[10: 15]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we perhaps have a bell now to deal with the stacked votes that have accumulated until this time?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be more convenient to put the main motion as well so that the two stacked votes could be dealt with and then it may not, or it may be, otherwise, necessary to amend certain other sections with respect to these items.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed by the committee that I place Mr. Epp’s amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Epp’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 9(1), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 22; nays 60.

Section 9 agreed to.

[10:30]

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 10, which was negatived.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 12(b), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 19; nays 63.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the same vote.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is not the same vote.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why?

Mr. Gregory: One less.

An hon. member: He has changed his ways.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 10 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 12(b), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 25; nays 57.

Section 12 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.