Hansard Transcripts 1982-Dec-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 179 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the debate on the motion for time allocation of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.

The Deputy Speaker: We are resuming the debate on the motion. If memory serves me correctly, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) had concluded his remarks. I now recognize the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, you no doubt notice the thunderous applause from my colleagues in the caucus. I rise to speak against the government motion. I trust the members who are in the assembly at the commencement of my remarks will be in attendance not only throughout but at the end of my remarks, because I intend to dwell at some length --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: It is the Christmas season, I take it.

Mr. Renwick: I intend to dwell at some length on the question of why I am in opposition to the government motion for a number of very good reasons which are of immense concern to me.

I suppose my starting point is the easy and simple statement that the parliamentary process makes people uneasy because it is people in confrontation over basic, fundamental principles about the system they are involved in because of basic differences on the issues before us. There is always a tremendous pressure around to say that it should be much more polite, that it should be a sort of Oxford debating society or some kind of organization where everybody has his say, there is some kind of consensus and everybody goes home quite happy about it.

The government knows differently, because when it wants to play tough it puts up what I refer to as the Brothers Grimm, the House leader of the government party and the government whip. I did not understand it for a long time because, in my practice of law, for a long time I was engaged in the corporate world of law, the commercial world of law and only latterly was I engaged in the world of criminal law.

It is quite common that they always team up the detectives. There is one tough guy and one nice guy. The government House leader is the nice guy, the government whip is the tough guy and the Brothers Grimm are the movers of the motion. And whom did the government House leader call on to second the motion yesterday? The government whip.

Will the government whip participate in the debate? Not likely. I would be quite surprised if he were to stand up and deal with the substance of the issue. He is there to enforce the unenforceable. He is there to insist that what the government House leader has to say about this process is the correct way of saying it.

Let me again refer to what I referred to when the government moved the first closure motion in the standing committee on administration of justice, when it reached back into the Dark Ages of the 19th century to find a disembodied principle in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice to say that what they were doing in the standing committee on administration of justice was within the framework of parliamentary practice.

We objected at that time. We challenged that matter when it came before the assembly at some length, and I never repeat an argument a second time. All I want to say about it is that the government does not understand some very simple matters related to the practice of the assembly. The government believes that because it has a majority of the members that is the end of the matter. It does not happen to be the end of the matter, because the parliamentary process is superior to whichever party in the assembly either has the majority or is in the minority.

I want to try to illustrate what that means in the context of the motion that is before us this evening. The government House leader participated for a long time in the debates with respect to the new Constitution of the country. Unfortunately, a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, and he learned what was dangerous. He learned that strange Latin phrase "non obstante," meaning "notwithstanding," and he grasped on to it because he knew he would some day be able to stand up in this assembly and move a motion that said, "Notwithstanding the standing orders of the assembly," this was the way it was going to be.

He justified it on the basis that this was a single instance in which he was going to use it, and in Latin that is known as "ad hoc." Just on this one occasion it is going to be done this way. Just on one occasion he is going to move a motion on behalf of the government that begins, "Notwithstanding the standing orders of the House," which have evolved over a period of time to govern the relationships of difficulty in confrontation between different parties with different political principles and views. He was going to do it only once.

If Sir Winston Churchill were alive today, I believe he would say in a way we would all understand that this kind of nonobstantive ad hockery is something "up with which I will not put." I think that is what Winston Churchill would have said today. He would have said you cannot do two things. You cannot say, "Notwithstanding the standing orders of the House," we are going to do something and then justify it on the basis that we are going to do it only at this particular time.

8:10 p.m.

The second matter on which I want to address my colleagues in the assembly in all parts of the House is what Beauchesne and May have said, and they say it in identical terms. We do not say it in our rules. We do not happen to have any book of rules except the yellow book. We do not have any sense of background or reasons for the rules which we have in the assembly.

They both said very clearly -- Beauchesne for the House of Commons in Ottawa, and May for the House of Commons at Westminster -- "That committee work on a bill on clause by clause is to consider a bill clause by clause, and word by word if necessary, in the public interest to consider the implications of that bill."

I quoted, on the other occasion, those two particular paragraphs which were of immense concern to me about what we were doing when we moved the bill out of the standing committee on administration of justice on a motion which said, and used as a justification, that it had to be moved out because this House would not have time otherwise to consider it. The government, as usual, mistook the identity of its objective with the objective of this House.

This House had plenty of time. There is nothing which says when this House must finish this session. Everybody well understands that it does not match the convenience of the assembly if somebody does not want to be here in January, or that we all want to be home at Christmas time, or that there is a custom in this assembly that the session prorogues at Christmas time and we start a new session in January or February.

But that was the identification which it made and the justification which was put before us, supported by the government members, opposed by the opposition members --

Mr. Wrye: There is a custom that we get off clause 1(a).

Mr. Eakins: Do you want to stay here for Christmas?

Mr. Wrye: I'll stay here for Christmas.

Mr. Renwick: I am delighted to hear that the member for Windsor-Sandwich is prepared to stay here for Christmas.

Mr. Wrye: He is not.

Mr. Renwick: The member is not making a virtue out of it, is he? I am saying very clearly to the members of the government -- the members of the Liberal caucus voted with us on this issue; I do not know why they are nitpicking about it at this time. They voted with us that there was no obligation on this House to be finished its business at a particular time,

Mr. Wrye: That's right, absolutely.

Mr. Renwick: That is right. Let me perhaps indicate to the great Liberal Party on my right a couple --

[Applause]

Mr. Renwick: It is very difficult, because Hansard never quite records the sarcasm which is carried with it when I refer to that party, and I will be referring to a great Liberal Party later on in my remarks this evening. It does not exist any longer in Canada, and it certainly does not exist to any extent in that they are clinging for life in the United Kingdom by associating themselves with the Social Democratic Party.

Mr. Wrye: Did you read the Gallup poll yesterday?

The Deputy Speaker: Continuing with the argument on the motion.

Mr. Renwick: Is Gallup a Liberal? I would not be surprised.

In any event, I know Mr. Speaker is aware of a man to whom I am now going to refer, George Santayana. He was born in Spain. He lectured in philosophy at Harvard University for many years. He retired to Rome and is now dead. Perhaps at some point the members of the assembly, if they can find a copy of it, would read the one novel which he wrote called, The Last Puritan. It would be interesting for them to be interested in what he said.

What he said is that those who do not understand or remember history are doomed to repeat it. That is exactly what the Tory government is doing in circumstances which are totally irrelevant to the considerations we have before us tonight.

Very precisely, the government reached back to a motion made in the House of Commons at Westminster in 1887. I will read it in a minute or two. This motion is modelled, whether they like it or not, on that motion. That motion was moved by Mr. W. H. Smith, who happened to be the Tory government leader at that time. He was not the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Some of the members will recall the name because there is a W. H. Smith book company here in Canada. Those members who have had occasion to be in England and have stopped at any railway station will have seen the W. H. Smith and Son book company. That is the same W. H. Smith.

In 1887, as I will recount in a few minutes, he stood as the government House leader of the Conservative government in the House of Commons in England under circumstances which bear no resemblance to the situation we are in today. He moved the substantial equivalent of this motion. That was in 1887. It was moved by the government House leader. Under the English system, the Prime Minister could not move it, because at that time it was the Earl of Salisbury and he was sitting in the House of Lords.

Our Premier (Mr. Davis) might as well be in the House of Lords for the few times we see him in the assembly. He deems to come in here and answer a few questions. I have seen him only on rare occasions in the --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You were here this afternoon when he was.

Mr. Jones: He was here this afternoon.

Mr. Lane: He was here before dinner.

Mr. Renwick: He was here this afternoon. Of course, he was here this afternoon. Is that not grand? I am simply delighted.

Mr. Lane: He is here regularly.

Mr. Renwick: If the member wants to understand it, he is not here regularly. He is here during question period. He wraps himself regularly in the Lord's Prayer, as an important part of the constitution of Ontario; he is seldom in the assembly for prayers. The member knows that as well as I do.

During second reading of this bill -- and I happen to have some information about second reading of this bill. This bill was engaged in second reading for 13 days, for approximately 45 hours. Those of us who are members of this assembly can ask ourselves how many of those hours we were in attendance in this assembly to listen to the debate.

I am sure some members will say debate is occasionally at less than the great level it should be, that sometimes the arguments made in this assembly are trivial, or that sometimes they do not relate clearly to the matters under discussion, but some fundamental questions were raised by this party in the course of that second reading debate.

I did not intend to get diverted, but I do not believe the Premier of this province is a paragon with respect to his attendance in this assembly. I want the members to understand that. He is not in regular attendance at the debates of this assembly, not in the way in which I use the term "regular attendance" at the debates.

Let us be clear about this. This is going to be a tough night. It is going to be tough because the time is short. Undoubtedly the government, having said "Notwithstanding the standing orders of the House," is at some point going to use those standing orders of the House to move closure on this debate. It is not an easy occasion to be here.

8:20 p.m.

I want to come back to what I was saying earlier. George Santayana said, "If you do not listen to history, if you do not understand history, if you do not reflect upon history, you are doomed to repeat it."

In 1887, the government House leader of the Tory government in England, in the circumstances which I will describe in a few minutes, moved the equivalent of this resolution. He used each and every one of the justifications which came from this government House leader; and the members of the official opposition -- at that time under the leadership of Gladstone -- used the same arguments that we have attempted to use in opposition in response to the government motion of closure. It is not time allocation, that is a euphemism. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that it is not time allocation; it is a question of imposing closure on the assembly.

There was a smaller party at that time in the British House of Commons, under the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell, with 86 members, which number is, I suppose, relative to the percentage vote participation in this assembly of the New Democratic Party.

In the circumstances under which that motion was put before the House of Commons in Great Britain, they had to go back a bit to 1881-82, when the first precedent in the House of Commons in England had been entertained for a motion similar to the one put by the government House leader here.

What was the first vote? I am going to refer to it so that the record will show the direct parallel between the motion which we are debating and opposing and what took place at that time.

In 1881 -- and I am sure that many in this House recall the history of those particular times -- there is no question that, regardless of the external foreign affairs interests of the government of Great Britain at that time, which was the period from 1880-90, the total preoccupation of the government was the Irish question. That is what it was about. That is what politics in England was about.

I know that my friend the Speaker will understand very clearly and recall very clearly that the Gladstone government -- I think it was the second Gladstone government -- was in power in England from 1880 to 1885. I think the members of the assembly will recall very clearly that from 1885 to something like 1892, the Conservative government, under the leadership of the Earl of Salisbury, was the government of Great Britain; except for a short period of time -- if my memory is correct, from February to July in 1886 -- when Gladstone was back in power.

Members will also recall that Disraeli was no longer on the scene. He went into the House of Lords some time around 1876 or 1877. He led the Tory government until such time as Gladstone defeated him in 1880.

It is interesting to recall. I cannot conjure up all the drama, the confrontations or the political atmosphere in Great Britain during the period from 1880 to 1887 and then to 1890, when Charles Stewart Parnell was destroyed over a period of time, when the Times of London almost went bankrupt because of the forged letters it published related to Charles Stewart Parnell, but I want to create for you some of the sensation of the exigencies of the time that might possibly have been used to justify a Tory government moving the identical motion in 1887 that the government House leader here has moved in the assembly.

The problem with the rules of this assembly are that they are totally disembodied. There is no flesh on them. There is no spirit. There is no sense of history.

That is what has happened, and I, in my own very polite way, criticize the Clerk of this assembly, who has been the Clerk for a long time, that we do not have, when we look at the rulings of this assembly with respect to its procedures, any of the sense of the history involved in relation to those rulings.

Some people may say our history in this assembly, when we respond to the needs of the province, is not of any great importance. I do not happen to believe that. I do not believe any member of this assembly, now or in the past, thought he was wasting his time by being a member of the assembly, or did not think that in a sense he was participating in something called the history of Ontario.

I will never have the government House leader's interest, he will wander around all evening and not listen to the parallels involved. At the end I am going to ask the government House leader to do something in accordance with the rules of the House. He will not listen, he very seldom listens to the debates that go on in the assembly.

Let me try to bring the attention of members to the drama of the political circumstances in England that may have been a justification for the Tory party, may have been a justification for the precedent in 1881 and 1882 of the Gladstone government. They moved towards this kind of situation where ultimately there were accepted rules in the British House and in the House of Commons in Ottawa with respect to advance agreement between the parties on the periods of time devoted to debate. That did not happen in Great Britain until some time later.

Let me explain to my friend the Speaker sitting in the assembly, my friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), my friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), my friend the former Solicitor General, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who is in the assembly, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), who is in the assembly, that in 1881 Charles Stewart Parnell was imprisoned.

He was put in prison by the chief secretary for Ireland in the Gladstone government. In 1882, he was released. A new chief secretary for Ireland was appointed -- Lord Frederick Cavendish. The undersecretary was a Mr. Burt. Some changes took place until one day in May, 1882, a double murder was committed in Phoenix Park in Dublin. Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burt were killed.

The chief secretary for Ireland and the undersecretary, the representatives of the cabinet of Great Britain in Ireland, charged with the government of Ireland, were murdered in the park. Those were the circumstances under which, in 1881 and 1882, Gladstone, as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, because of the situation that existed at that time, said there were matters of urgent importance which required amendment to the Criminal Law (Ireland) Act -- to change the criminal law at that time. It was under the pressure of those dramatic events that the motion was put in the House of Commons in 1881.

But the first motion was not to close off the debate. The first motion was to get an agreement of the House that it was a matter of urgent public importance, and the vote was overwhelmingly so in those dramatic circumstances.

8:30 p.m.

[Interruption].

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Would the member for Riverdale just wait a moment while those who are disturbing the House are asked to leave?

Would you please clear the section of the gallery, that section over there.

[Interruption].

The Acting Speaker: Sergeant at Arms.

[Interruption].

The Acting Speaker: I have asked that that section of the gallery be cleared.

[Interruption].

The Acting Speaker: The people in that part of the gallery will please leave this House.

I remind all remaining visitors in the galleries that you are our visitors and this House is open, but there is no permission for people within the galleries to applaud or make any form of outburst. I trust you will respect the rules of our House.

I now call upon the member for Riverdale.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: While I have to agree with your actions, it is a little disturbing to know there were people interspersed in that gallery who were not causing any disturbance at all. I find it unfortunate that they were thrown out. Many of them were young people who came to view the proceedings and they were automatically thrown out because of the actions of a few.

I do not know what the answer is to this, Mr. Speaker, but I think some attention is going to have to be paid to this point. It is unfortunate when the citizens of this province cannot take advantage of the proceedings in this House without being tarred with the same brush as some of the loudmouths who happen to get in here.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the government whip. The reason was because there was only one section where the disturbance was coming from and there were several people there. It would have been very difficult for the attendants to determine who was or was not guilty and to take the time to identify them.

I appreciate the point that has been raised. I have not closed the galleries so there will be an allowance for people to filter back in. I just warn that if there is a further outburst it will be necessary to clear all the galleries.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure I can vouch for the east gallery, which is filled with people from the Victoria-Haliburton Liberal Association, and they are great people.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, and I appreciate the assistance of honourable members in knowing the difficulty the Speaker has in recognizing who is who and where is where, but I acknowledge that the gallery to my right has been behaving itself so far.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I was trying in my own way to recall the historic circumstances in which in the 1880s in the House of Commons the precedent this government is now using was invoked for the first time by the Conservative government in 1887. I was trying to recall some of the drama of the time. I was citing that in 1881 Charles Stewart Parnell was then in prison. In 1882 he was released. In May of that year Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke were murdered in Phoenix Park in Dublin.

By way of an aside, and because my friends who are members of the legal profession will remember, they were alleged to have been killed by a man by the name of McNaughton. It was in McNaughton's trial that ultimately the House of Lords in England laid the foundation of the law with respect to whether or not insanity was a defence against a charge of murder. That is part of the law of Canada and is a basic part of that law.

But that is simply an aside. By the time 1887 had come along Charles Stewart Parnell was the leader of a third party in the House of Commons in England. It consisted of 86 members. What was under way at that time? In 1886 a man by the name of Houston approached the then editor of the Times of London in England and indicated to him he had evidence by way of letters written by Charles Stewart Parnell that Charles Stewart Parnell was an accomplice in the murders that had taken place in 1882.

Along about January 1887 the Times of London started to publish a series of articles with respect to insurrection, crime and otherwise about the Land League in Ireland. This was the league that had been formed by Charles Stewart Parnell and a number of others to raise funds to protect tenants in Ireland against the encroachments of the landlords on their holdings at that time.

After a period of deep consideration the Times of London in 1887 published the letters, which then turned out to be forgeries. It was not long after that time that Charles Stewart Parnell stood in the House and asked for a select committee of the House of Commons to investigate the question of these letters, which he had denied and had said were forgeries. The government of the day appointed a commission of leading lawyers who were involved at that time: Lord Russell; A. L. Smith, later Lord Birkenhead. They were a commission to investigate all of the circumstances related to these letters; and of course they turned out, when the commission reported in 1888, to have been unadulterated forgeries.

Those were the circumstances -- which I cannot describe; others in this House of Irish descent could tell better than I what was happening in Ireland in the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s and 1870s that led to this issue being the paramount political issue in the 1880s in Great Britain.

8:40 p.m.

All of us know a little about Gladstone and home rule, and the position of the Tory government at that time in England. That part of history has something to do with the antecedents of many people in this part of the world.

Those times of tension in England in 1881 and 1882 -- as a result of the murders and the movement made by the Times of London, the Tory government and others in England to destroy Charles Stewart Parnell -- were the circumstances of the antecedents of the motion which the government House leader of this Tory government introduced into the assembly. That is the precedent. We have no other precedent in this assembly because we do not have closure rules, we do not have time allocation rules, similar to those at the federal level or to those in the British House of Commons.

We are being asked to move down that slippery road; that is what was used in England with the original ad hoc resolution in 1881, the second ad hoc resolution in 1882 and with the motion of 1887, which is parallel to the motion introduced yesterday by the government House leader.

The guileful, smooth government House leader says we must now look at the rules of the House because perhaps changes should be made in the rules of the House: to legitimize the illegitimate, to make acceptable the unacceptable, to curtail the tradition of debate in this assembly. He called in aid the Camp commission and said they recommended it. He also referred to the Morrow committee, the select committee of this assembly which examined the Camp commission report with respect to the question of this kind of agreement between the parties about a time allocation process. Of course, he said the recommendation was made because it seldom occurs. The Morrow committee did not say it never occurred; it said it seldom occurs.

The seldom occasion is this occasion. The seldom occasion is Bill 179. We were asked by this government to agree with them last week. We are asked to agree with them this time. Then down the road, while his friends sit in majority in the House, the government House leader will ask all the House leaders to get together and agree to let a procedural affairs committee revise the rules to legitimize what the House in my judgement did illegitimately last week and did illegitimately yesterday.

With the utmost respect, I want to say to the Speaker I could not understand the laconic, detached and uninformed way -- if I may so term it -- in which a decision was made that this motion was basically and fundamentally in order. If we treat the resolution before us in the simplistic way it was treated yesterday, and the ruling to go down in history is contained in the few words the Speaker had to say about that motion -- that yes, it was in order -- people then will understand that we do not know what we are about.

What a comedown, because the parallel is very clear. They cannot find a recent parallel in the House of Commons in England for such a drastic action. Their justification is the House of Commons in England is more mature than this assembly. They have agreed over the years to changes in the rules that permit the truncating of debate so that matters of principle never become matters of serious concern and head-on collision. They have agreed it is legitimate for a government to move closure if it sees fit. It is all very polite. It is the same with the House of Commons in Ottawa.

What do they do? As they did last week in the standing committee on the administration of justice by a six to five vote, they changed a fundamental rule of the assembly. The government House leader yesterday introduced a motion which was declared by the chair to be in order because we have no sense of what the tradition was, no sense of what the precedent was that was called in aid of that decision to make it so.

Let me read that 1887 motion and let us look at how closely it is in parallel to the motion introduced yesterday. This is the precedent we are asked to approve in this assembly. I am reading from the business of the British House of June 10, 1887. This was very shortly after the Times of London published the forged letters of Charles Stewart Parnell.

In the aftermath it cost the Times of London 200,000 pounds by 1890 when the costs had been assessed against them. It practically put the Times out of business. If Lord Northcliffe, a millionaire, had not come along and rescued it the Times of London would have disappeared. That is the kind of world it was when the Tory government and the Times of London, in 1887, introduced this amendment.

Let us jump forward 100 years. There is a Tory government in England. Do members think the decision of the Tory government in 1887 has assisted in solving the problem of the relationship between England and Ireland? Do members think the wisdom of that decision is borne out by history? Of course it is not borne out by history. The Tory government in England is faced with the consequences of the introduction in 1887 of the very kind of motion which is put before this assembly today, and which we are debating at this time.

Let me read the motion of 1887. "The First Lord of the Treasury, Mr. W. H. Smith" -- l mentioned before that one can buy books at the bookstore of his family in Toronto and at every railway station in England -- "representing the constituency of the Strand in Westminster" -- that is a working class area if ever there was one -- "in rising to move the following resolution: that at 10 o'clock p.m. on Friday," -- he moved this on June 10 -- "the 17th day of June, if the Criminal Law (Ireland) amendment bill be not previously reported from the committee of the whole House, the chairman shall put forthwith the question or questions on any amendment or motion already proposed from the chair.

"He shall next proceed and successively put before the questions that any clause then under consideration and each remaining clause in the bill stand as part of the bill unless progress be moved as hereinafter provided.

"After the clauses are disposed of, he shall forthwith report the bill as amended to the House. From and after the passing of this order, no motion that the chairman do leave the chair or do report progress shall be allowed unless moved by one of the members in charge of the bill, and the questions on such motion shall be put forthwith. If progress be reported on June 17 the chairman shall put this order in force in any subsequent sitting of the committee."

8:50 p.m.

I need not read the motion that is before us. There is the parallel. That is the identical precedent the government is drawing in support of the action it is taking ultimately to change for all time the rules of this assembly. The parallel is exact, the consequences are the same, and we are being asked to go down the same slippery road.

The same slippery road was pointed out. One can read what was said by Mr. Smith, the mover of the motion, the First Lord of the Treasury, the government House leader in England, and we can almost hear the government House leader of the Tory Party speaking. Every point the government House leader made yesterday is made in that speech. That does not mean the government House leader read this speech. It is the natural way in which every embattled government is going to express its views if it adheres to the Tory problem.

Mr. Smith says, in support of the analogous motion in 1887: "Sir, in submitting the motion that stands in my name, I wish it to be most distinctly understood that I desire to avoid any reference to any topic which can by any means create any irritation or annoyance to honourable gentlemen who have a perfect right to differ from me and from the government in the view which they take of their duty under the circumstances in which the House is placed" -- he is talking about a bill that was in front of them in very dramatic, difficult political circumstances -- "but I decided to place before the House the course which the government feels to be absolutely essential in the interests of the honour and dignity of Parliament and the duties which are imposed upon the members of the House of Commons."

Does that somewhat echo what the government House leader of this government had to say yesterday? "Sir, I have undertaken this task with the greatest possible reluctance." We heard that yesterday from the government House leader. "There is no one in this House more unwilling than I am to place any restraint whatever upon the exercise of the liberty of speech and of the right of debate and the full privilege of the members of the House of Commons." Did we hear that yesterday from the government House leader? I heard it. Did anybody else hear it?

"Since I have had the honour of being a member of this House, I have always deprecated any attempt whatever to restrain those liberties and rights of debate. It has only been when the necessity has been absolutely imperative and irresistible that I have concurred in or that I have proposed measures which have placed any restraint whatever upon members of the House of Commons. We had hoped that it would be possible to avoid the course which Her Majesty's government feels it is their duty to ask the House of Commons to adopt." Those are the identical thoughts, in somewhat different words, put before the House of Commons 100 years ago to justify the indefensible then.

I am going to skip a small part of it. I could read the whole of it, but it goes on: "The period of the session alone is sufficient to justify, in my humble judgment, the course the government is now about to take. We have arrived at the fourth month of the session." I do not think we have arrived at the fourth month; we have not even reached the end of the third month since the session came back to debate this bill.

"We have done practically nothing except to consider the measure now before the House. Some supply votes have been passed and some comparatively unimportant measures have received the consideration of the House in that period, but the whole course of legislation has been stopped, other than that which has been proposed in the measure before the House. Votes in supply have not received consideration, as is usually the case, and the privileges of members, the rights of private members have been entirely suspended during that period of the session.

"There are matters which it is impossible for the government to ignore, and it is impossible for the government to be otherwise than deeply concerned at the paralysis of parliamentary business which certainly does not reflect credit upon the House of Commons."

Mr. Martel: It sounds like yesterday all over again.

Mr. Renwick: That was yesterday. He spoke in terms a little different. "Deadlock" was one of the terms used, and "obstruction" was one of the terms used to indicate we were the ones who were obstructing the government, that we provided the justification for this to take place. Let me carry on. I do not want to read the whole thing because that might be unnecessary. Let me skip a little.

"We arrive, sir, at the 35th day of the consideration of this measure which is now before the House, 35 parliamentary days, some of them protracted beyond all former experience, have been passed in the consideration of this measure. I have no doubt that honourable gentlemen opposite will say that only too little time has been given to the consideration of a measure which they dislike, to which they are opposed on principle and which they regard as tyrannical and unnecessary.

"That may be the case from their point of view, but the majority of the House and the government of the day have also their duty to discharge. They thought it their duty to propose to Parliament a measure which they believe to be necessary for the preservation of law and order in Ireland.

"That is their belief and, as a government and as a majority, they are bound to press it forward to the utmost of their ability with due consideration for the rights of the minority, with due consideration for the authority of Parliament, with due consideration for the traditions of Parliament and, above all, with the greatest possible consideration for those glorious traditions of liberty and freedom which belong to an institution of which hitherto Englishmen have been proud.

"But, sir, if it is the duty from the point of view of Her Majesty's government to press forward this measure, if it is the duty of Her Majesty's government to care also for the transaction of the business of the country and this House, it is undoubtedly their duty, when they find they are faced by a condition of circumstances absolutely unparalleled in the history of Parliament, to place the case before Parliament itself and to demand from Parliament that relief, not for themselves, but for the House of Commons itself, and for the business of the country and those trusts which are confided to the House of Commons.

"I say, sir, it is their duty to demand from Parliament that relief which they believe to be essential and absolutely necessary."

It goes on in much the same vein. It is not quite as eloquent as the government member was yesterday in his defence of this indefensible resolution, but it goes on at considerable length. He even points out the disrepute into which the House of Commons has fallen in the eyes of the people of Great Britain.

Do the members remember yesterday that this place had fallen into disrepute? Do the members remember every intonation of his tone about the regret he had and all of the paraphernalia of the English language that was brought in aid of this matter?

I could go on at great length with respect to what Mr. Smith, the government House leader in 1887, had to say. It is interesting that when he accused the 86 members of the party led by Charles Stewart Parnell with obstruction, Mr. Parnell, the member for Cork, stood up and said: "Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. I wish to know whether the right honourable gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, is entitled to impute a parliamentary offence, which obstruction has been repeatedly declared to be, to a minority of the House and that without making any attempt whatsoever to substantiate the charge."

It is identical, sir. Nobody in the government here has substantiated the charge that we have in any sense obstructed the proceedings of this House.

My colleague the leader of this party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), explained carefully and in great detail each and every one of the motions we put in the committee, each and every one of the arguments we put on second reading in this assembly, to try to explain to the government that it has never responded. The debate goes on.

9 p.m.

I trust someone somewhere in this House will have a somewhat similar interest as I have in this kind of esoteric history of the British House of Commons. It is interesting that Gladstone, then the Leader of the Opposition, intervened in the debate to point out they could not call in aid the resolutions that were passed in 1881 and 1882, because the first motion that was put when Gladstone was the Prime Minister was the question of whether the business of the government was urgent. It was overwhelmingly supported by everyone in the House at that time before the question was put as to whether there should be some limitations placed upon debate.

This government did not use that, and the government knows it did not. It is clear in that debate on that particular occasion in 1887. If anyone would read it, if anyone would look at the comments of Erskine May in connection with it, if anyone would look at the precedents in 1881 and 1882, if anyone would read the history of the Times of London for the period 1880 to 1890, if anyone would read about the tensions in the political community of Great Britain at that time, one could understand and perhaps say: "Fine, that is the way it will be."

But Parnell, when he stood in the House on that occasion, pointed out clearly exactly what was going to happen: 1881, special circumstances introduced by the Liberal government under Gladstone; 1882, a special ad hoc resolution introduced under particular circumstances; 1887, when Parnell is being pilloried in an attempt to bring into the Parliament of Great Britain laws with respect to Ireland which were going to continue to suppress the people in Ireland, when one of the key parts of that bill was to deny the right of combination, which is an ancient term meaning the right of association to people in Ireland, so they could not collectively assert their grievances. They were amending the criminal law to do so, and it was the Tory government doing so.

In 1887, they called in aid what had happened before, just as I know they will call in aid again in this assembly and surround with an aura of acceptability and respectability what is not respectable, what was not accepted in this assembly, either in the standing committee on administration of justice two weeks ago or in this motion.

I come back specifically and always to the point that was made by the leader of this party yesterday, that the rules of the House have evolved in such a way that the government in this province has ample protection under the rule relating to closure. It is a euphemism to say a version of closure was not introduced two weeks ago in the standing committee on administration of justice. It is closure that is being introduced here, and the honeyed tones of the government House leader talking about an allocation of time for a debate is no way to say this is not closure.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation for the assembly. Even if I were to accept --

[Interruption].

The Deputy Speaker: I would like the attention of all members of the gallery. Will the guards please remove that person.

[Interruption].

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Riverdale will continue.

Mr. Renwick: In the brief period available to me, and I hope, in the sense of having stimulated some members of the assembly, to make them understand the rules are not disembodied rules, they are flesh and blood with respect to the precedents on which we purport to act. On none of the occasions when these drastic changes are being made --

[Interruption].

The Deputy Speaker: I am going to have to clear this section of the gallery and have the guards remove that woman, please.

[Interruption].

Mr. T. P. Reid: Obviously carefully orchestrated.

The Deputy Speaker: I am hesitant to clear all --

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Don't be such a clown. You might fire civil servants but --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel); you will have your opportunity.

Mr. Martel: You're a bloody bully; you fired MacAlpine.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am hesitant at this time to clear all the galleries. I do hope those guests --

Mr. Martel: You think you can make allegations --

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sudbury East --

An hon. member: Sit down, Elie.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I suggest you make him withdraw that allegation --

The Deputy Speaker: I am standing; you know the rules. I have listened patiently all night to the debates on our standing orders, and I am sure you respect the chair. Will you please resume your seat? Thank you very much.

First, let me say again to the guests in the galleries, you are here on the invitation of the seated members. If we have outbursts of the nature that have taken place, it is difficult for the Speaker to remove specific individuals at different times. I do not want to clear all the galleries, but at a particular point, if I find it necessary, I may have to do that.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: From the other side of the House, and if you like I can name the two ministers, there was an allegation that we had orchestrated that. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) was in on it too. The rules of the House state quite clearly that you cannot make an allegation against another member. I ask you to ask the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) to withdraw, and the member for Niagara Falls, under the standing rules.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member reads Hansard maybe he will simmer down and understand what was said by the two ministers. He does not know what was said at all.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, I am left in a difficult position. Unfortunately, with the disturbance taking place, I did not hear that; I will look at Hansard.

Mr. Martel: I know. Forget it, Sam.

The Deputy Speaker: I will.

Mr. Renwick: Very briefly, and in summation, I am speaking against the motion that is before us because it has had a parallel before. The precedent I call in aid is one from the British House of Commons in 1887 and the circumstances, whatever they may have justified at that time, have no relationship to the kind of Mickey Mouse bill the government has in front of us, in view of the major problems of our society at this time. That bill was not a bill to select a small segment of the economy and say to them, "We will punish you because it will improve the lot of everyone else." It was dealing with the historic relation between the Irish people and the English people in circumstances that have not yet been solved.

9:10 p.m.

There is no parallel. There is no reason the government dips back into the last century with respect to the operation of this assembly, and each and every one of the arguments that were made then were made yesterday by the government House leader. The problem of England and Ireland has not been solved 100 years later, and I say to the Tory government that the problems of this economy will not be solved by this legislation. If anything, it will exacerbate the situation that the economy of this province is in.

The unfortunate part of it is that the role being played by the then great Liberal Party in England led to its ultimate demise just as the role being played on this bill by the Liberal Party in Ontario will lead to its demise in a very short period of time. Why? Because there comes a point in the life of any parliament when matters of principle are important, when matters that have to be said must be said, and when a party such as ours stands for every person who works in the public sector, whether he or she is protected by a collective agreement and a trade union, or whether he or she is isolated and alone under a contract of employment, privy only to the person and the employer. We stand for them. We stand on that kind of principle.

I know I have not reached the government House leader, because he has been like a cat on a hot tin roof. He has been wandering around the chamber. He does not listen to what has been said. He only mouths what has been done. If he had paid attention to the discussion in the debate, if he had listened a little bit to history, he would have been doomed not to repeat it. I would have called upon him in all reason, in all good sense, not to invoke rule 41 of the standing orders, which are being set aside by the motion that is in front of us -- rule 41 says, "Except as otherwise provided in these standing orders, government business will be taken up in the discretion of the government House leader or a minister acting in his place" -- but to consider the preceding rule, which he probably has not read, rule 40, which says, "A member who has given notice of or moved a motion may withdraw the same."

I would have asked the government House leader in all the interests of this assembly, not only with the specific occasion in front of us but also in relation to the future history of this assembly, that he would have the good grace, the sense of history, the knowledge of what this place is about, the purposes of this assembly, the concern for the people of the province, to have recognized in the course of this debate that it is possible for even a Conservative government House leader to change his mind and to stand in his place and say, "I, Mr. Speaker, having listened to the debate, will withdraw this motion."

That is what I ask the government House leader to do. I suggest to him that later on, when he has nothing to do, he read chapter 3 of the fourth volume of the history of the Times of London. Chapter 3, which contains 80 pages, deals with Parnellism in crime, the destruction of Charles Stewart Parnell, the inability of the Tory government in England to solve the Irish question and the inability 100 years later for them to solve it. Had they listened to those who voted in opposition to the parallel motion introduced at that time, it might well have been, despite the difficulties of the time, that the course of history would have been different.

In the minor world of our province, with a sense of the importance of the history of Ontario, I say to the government House leader that if he withdraws this, the history of this province will be different from the history of the province if he leaves this motion to stand and calls in aid only the members of the government majority to pass it. I ask the government House leader to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on government notice of motion 10, the motion of the government House leader, and really by invitation of the previous speaker, who suggested earlier in his remarks that it would be good to hear from the second Grimm brother.

For those who were not here, he compared the government House leader and me to the Brothers Grimm. He also compared us to detectives, the kind one and the tough one. I just wanted to point out to him that the government House leader is not so tough but I am very kind, as members all know, and very patient.

I do not have the ability to speak as well as the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), nor do I have the ability to repeat myself as often as he does. Therefore, my remarks will be somewhat shorter and not nearly so well spoken.

I have watched very closely the procedure of this bill -- and I am speaking to the motion -- through the House and through the committee, and I have seen the length of time that has been spent and the number of people who have spoken on this bill in the committee and in the House, both on second reading, when we had some 47 hours, which you have undoubtedly heard before this afternoon and this evening, Mr. Speaker, followed by 35 hours in public hearings and approximately 34 hours in committee, followed again by 12 hours in the House since we came back here, in which we really have not accomplished a great deal. We still have not completed section 1 of the bill.

The previous speaker was an excellent example of what this motion is all about, because we have seen that when better filibusters are done, that member will take part in them.

It goes without saying that the third party members do not like this bill. I do not think they have to tell us that very often. They do not have to heckle me to let me know that is the way they feel. It is pretty obvious that this is the way they feel.

The members of the party opposite are not so vehemently opposed to the bill. However, because of the tactics of the third party, they are not being given an opportunity to present the amendments that would make that bill to their liking. Their tactics are the obvious reason. That has been said many times today, tonight and before this; so I am not saying anything new.

Having had something to do with it in my function as chief government whip -- and I have had to be involved, not necessarily in the debate on it but in observing the debate and in making sure that our members had ample opportunity to take part in the debate -- certainly I became aware of what was happening.

I am satisfied in my mind that this bill has had adequate debate. I do not see any way in which we could possibly say anything about this bill that has not been said. Similarly, I do not think there is anything that could be said --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, with greatest respect, the members of the third party have been going on for about an hour and a quarter tonight, not to mention this afternoon, and they never heard any interruption from me whatsoever; and tonight they have not had interruptions from our members here. If they have nothing else, would they at least have the good manners to let me have my say?

The nature of this motion provides that there will be an opportunity for the members of the official opposition to present their amendments in the approximately five hours that are provided for debate in committee of the whole -- so there is an opportunity to do that -- followed by an additional five hours to deal with the report itself, the voting on the report.

Similarly, there will be approximately another five hours in which they can deal with it on third reading; so there is ample time to debate the bill. They have had ample time to debate the bill. In my opinion, and I trust that you will concur in this, Mr. Speaker, there is no way anything new can be brought forward with all the information that has been heard. Therefore, with this in mind, and in accordance with section 36 of the standing orders, I now move, "That this question be now put."

9:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) has brought to the chair's attention the putting of the question under section 36.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I did not have to hear what the member for Mississauga East said to know what he was about. He never participates in the debate; he only moves --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Speak to the point of order.

Mr. Renwick: My point of order is very simple and very clear. My point of order is on the motion for closure. If you will look at the rule, sir, it says the question shall be put if it is not in opposition to the standing orders and if it is not an oppression of the minority. I say to you, sir, that all the preparatory remarks made by the member for Mississauga East before he moved the motion he has just moved related to the bill. The bill is not under debate in this assembly at this time. It is the motion that was introduced yesterday by the government House leader. It has nothing to do with Bill 179 or what can or should be said about it.

My point of order is that if the government believes that for the third time in 12 days it can introduce a closure motion in this assembly -- first, in the standing committee on the administration of justice; second, yesterday by the government House leader, seconded by the chief government whip, with respect to the motion we were debating; and third, today on that motion -- then I say, sir, in a very real sense, this is an extremely sad day.

If you uphold that, sir, if you rule that motion in order, you are oppressing the minority members of this assembly. You are recognizing that the tyranny of the majority, silent and otherwise, rules this assembly, despite parliamentary history, despite the tradition, despite the parallel I attempted to bring to the attention of the House, which neither the government House leader nor the government whip listened to. Then we are playing it by rote; we are not playing it by reason. Let us play it by reason.

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker; I simply want to give you my assurance that there are more members of our caucus who are not only prepared but also very anxious to speak to the motion. You will understand that the provisions of rule 36 give the chair the discretion not to accept a closure motion when it is obvious there are other members who are prepared to speak and that it is the chair's responsibility to see that the rights of the minority are thus protected.

You may recall hearing the Speaker say yesterday, when he was in the chair and there was some discussion about these matters before the House, that all honourable members would have an opportunity to speak on this motion. I can assure you that more members from our party, the official opposition, are ready and anxious, very anxious indeed, to express their views in this matter.

Mr. Martel: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to concur with what my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) said. The Speaker yesterday indicated when this matter was being debated that every member in this Legislature who wanted to speak to this item would have an opportunity to do so. He, of course, recognized the possibility of what the government was intending to do. It certainly was at the government's disposal, and I believe he wanted to assure us that members would have an opportunity.

If the Speaker wants to look at the number of members who participated in this short debate to date, he will find that there are probably only five or six members who have had the opportunity. The stage was set as one watched my friend the chief government whip move in. As my colleague said, he did not speak to the motion at all; he spoke to the bill. He was not ruled out of order, mind you, but the rulings have a funny way of being worked out here. My colleagues, when they were not speaking to the motion, were called to order and told to speak to the motion.

Mr. Wrye: Not very bloody often.

Mr. Martel: Does my friend want to help them?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, I have acknowledged --

Mr. Martel: He did not move any amendments, and in his little remarks leading up to yet another closure motion he spoke entirely to the bill. He did not speak to the motion; he did not even address it. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule it out, out of hand, because there have only been four or five members who have spoken to this item.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the government's impatience after a number of weeks and a couple of months in wanting to proceed with this. We recognize that fully, we understand that this is the reason we have this resolution before us and I recognize that there have even been a number of speakers on this resolution.

What concerns me is the fact that we have a resolution that has great ramifications for procedures in this House, and we have the chief government whip moving a motion this evening that any further debate on this very important procedural matter cease.

I recognize the government's impatience; they have stated it for weeks now and most certainly in the form of this resolution. But if they are going to impose now, in effect, closure on this motion, which has such great ramifications for the House and which is in essence a new rule applied to this House, a new precedent for this House, I have to implore you to use the judgement available to you, Mr. Speaker, under the section of the rules that the House leader of the official opposition has stated, to indicate that there has not been sufficient debate, that the government is imposing this kind of closure at a point too early in your judgement, I hope, and that as a result you rule it out of order, at least at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the comments from all honourable members. It is not --

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Some hon. members: Sit down.

Mr. Roy: I won't sit down.

The Deputy Speaker: I think really, in respect to the chair, I have had the opportunity to listen to full points of debate from the two opposition parties.

Mr. Roy: With respect, Mr. Speaker, if I may make this point: We are dealing with a motion that I have never seen before; in 11 years I have never seen this type of motion in this House. Now, while we are in the process of debating the motion, all at once the whip on the other side brings forward a motion under standing order 36 that the question be now put.

it seems to me that under the circumstances, as my colleagues have said earlier, one of the matters that must be given consideration is the whole aspect of the nature of this motion, and I am sure you will give serious consideration to the fact that it can be considered, as the rule says, an abuse of the standing orders, which allow free debate in this place.

Mr. Wildman: You spoke this afternoon against the opposition.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, fortunately I am speaking to the chair and not to the people who have abused the rules of this House.

What I am trying to say is that, given the conduct and responsibility of this party to act in a responsible fashion, you should give consideration to at least giving this party adequate time to give views on this motion.

Interjections.

9:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: This is indeed, it goes without saying, a very important question and a hard decision to make. Many members have put forward the point that not everyone has had the full opportunity of discussion. I would like to bring to the attention of all members that we have had five hours of debate on the motion and a total of 10 speakers.

The hard question is, where is the magic line to have the full number of speakers? In my estimation, we have to consider this motion in the context of the whole debate that has been taking place. In that regard, I recognize the motion put under section 36.

I will put the question, "That this question be now put.

10:25 p.m.

The House divided on the question, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella;

Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 66; nays 47.

Mr. Speaker: Under the provisions of standing order 36, I now put the original question forthwith:

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, government motion 10.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

Some hon. members: Aye.

Mr. Renwick: Will you please read the motion?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, that notwithstanding any order of the House, the consideration of Bill 179, the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, by the committee of the whole House be concluded not later than 10:15 p.m. on the first sessional day following the passage of this motion unless such a date be a Friday, in which case the conclusion of the consideration will be not later than 10:15 p.m. on the following Monday, at which time the Chairman will put all questions necessary to dispose of every section of the bill not yet passed, and the schedule, and to report the bill, such questions to be decided without amendment or debate; should a division be called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, that, any debate on the question for the adoption of the report be held on the next sessional day and be concluded not later than 10:15 p.m. on that day, unless it be a Friday when again it will be on the following Monday, at which time Mr. Speaker will interrupt the proceedings and put the question for the adoption of the report without amendment or further debate and if a division is called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, further, that, the bill be called for third reading debate on the third sessional day following the passage of this motion and be completed not later than 10:15 p.m. on that day unless it be a Friday when again it will be called on the following Monday at which time Mr. Speaker will interrupt the proceedings and put the question without further debate and if a division is called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, finally, that in the case of any division in any way relating to any proceeding on this bill prior to the bill being read the third time, the bell be limited to 10 minutes.

Shall we take the same vote?

Some hon. members: No.

10:33 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Wells's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Ayes 66; nays 47.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders, it is customary to make a statement of the business for tomorrow and the coming week. What I would like to do is to announce now the business for tomorrow, and make a statement regarding business for next week after the House leaders have had a chance to discuss some timing procedures tomorrow morning.

The business of the House tomorrow morning is as previously announced: in committee of supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The House adjourned at 10:38 p.m.

December 9, 1982