Hansard Transcripts 1983-Feb-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to invite your comment. I am concerned about government notice of motion 11, and I wanted your direction as to when I could raise my concern. I take it that it more properly comes when government notice of motion 11 is introduced by the Minister of Education (Hon. Miss Stephenson). Is that a proper understanding?

Mr. Speaker: I expect so, yes.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Wrye: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My point concerns the work of the standing committee on resources development. During the summer adjournment that committee was set to deal with the review of proposals to reform the Workers' Compensation Act in Ontario and specifically to look at the white paper on workers' compensation reform and the draft legislation, which the government provided about a year and a half ago. With the early recall of the House, the committee was unable to conclude its work.

There was general agreement at that time by representatives in the committee from all parties that the work would resume after the session prorogued. That information was given to injured workers and their organizations all over the province.

It is now apparent that the government does not wish to follow this earlier informal agreement and to complete the work of this important committee after the session prorogues, and I am wondering if, through your good offices, the government House leader could indicate to us what is going on and just how much longer injured workers in the province are going to have to wait before they get the reform they so desperately want.

Mr. Speaker: I would have to suggest to the honourable member that this is a matter before the committee and is a matter the committee itself is going to have to deal with.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, my ministry is undertaking a number of new initiatives in the areas of economy, improved services and increased efficiency which I would like to share with the members of this Legislature.

Starting April 1, all building maintenance, repairs, alterations and minor capital construction decisions will begin to be phased out of Queen's Park and passed on to our 11 district offices across Ontario. This new approach will allow the Ministry of Government Services to provide faster, more direct service to all of our clients.

Minor changes are being made in the boundaries of our offices for a more streamlined distribution of the work load. A new district office will be opened in North Bay to provide improved service to our clients in the north and we will amalgamate four of our smaller offices in southern Ontario into two, resulting in further economies through concentrated effort.

These changes will provide better local contract inspections, will permit a greater emphasis to be placed on job creation in the private sector and show a 10 per cent staff saving through attrition and economies over the next two years.

I believe these changes to be one more positive step by my ministry in providing the best possible service to the people and to our client ministries at the lowest possible cost.

KICKBOXING AND FULL CONTACT KARATE

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the medical profession has expressed great concern that athletes risk brain damage and death while participating in the sport of boxing. A recent American Medical Association Newsletter quotes George D. Lundberg, MD, editor of The Journal of the AMA, as saying:

"No caring person could have observed the events in professional prizefighting in the past few months and not have been revolted. No prudent physician could have watched the most recent debacle-mismatch on November 26 between Larry Holmes and Randall "Tex" Cobb and believe that the current boxing control system is functioning."

In Canada in 1980 --

Mr. Conway: I think Lennie Rosenberg scored a knockout.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Well, the member for Renfrew North keeps trying.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He will not succeed.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am being interrupted here by the Premier (Mr. Davis).

In Canada, in 1980, this concern resulted in the appointment of a Task Force to Review Boxing in Canada. It is a matter of record that Ontario has been a forerunner in implementing the recommendations of the federal task force. It may be impossible to eliminate death or serious injury in the ring, but I am convinced that my ministry is doing everything in its power to ensure that the risks to boxers who fight in this province are minimized.

However, a relatively new innovation has now appeared on the fight scene, the sport of kickboxing. Again the medical profession has expressed concern. Kickboxing has been referred to as a "more potentially lethal, brutal and dangerous sport than boxing." An article in the Medical Post of January 25, 1983, states:

"You don't have to be a skilled anatomist or physiologist to figure out that a swift kick in the ear or the chin is much more dangerous than a hit with a padded glove. The foot will travel further and faster because it is propelled by heavier and stronger muscles."

At the present time, kickboxing is increasing in popularity in this province and may, in fact, be more active than professional boxing.

On the amateur side, my cabinet colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) also has some concerns. Recently, amateur exhibitions have taken place in this province which have been designated as full contact karate. It must be stressed that the martial arts number among the safest and most disciplined of all sporting activities and the traditional karate competition stresses that no physical contact with the contestant partner is allowed.

In full contact karate, however, contestants are required to wear chest protectors. They do not use safety chops, which are hand pads; or safety kicks, foot pads, and they are required to fight with bare knuckles and bare feet. The reason for not using safety pads on the hand is because no contact is supposed to be allowed by the hand to the face but full contact is allowed by the foot. Knockouts can thus be scored by kicks. In practice, I am advised that during the heat of competition it is not uncommon to see hand techniques applied to the head.

2:10 p.m.

At the present time, neither kickboxing nor full contact karate falls under the jurisdiction of the Athletics Control Act. A legal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorney General concludes that a professional kickboxing match is a prize fight within section 81 of the Criminal Code and, therefore, subject to prosecution. The ruling would also extend to amateur full-contact karate exhibitions which, although carried out by amateur sportsmen, would still be considered prize fights as the participants do not wear boxing gloves of five ounces or more in weight.

In the light of this opinion, I am announcing on behalf of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) and myself that no exhibitions of kickboxing or full contact karate will be sanctioned by our ministries at this time, and any such exhibitions that are carried out could be subject to criminal prosecution by the proper authorities. Simultaneously, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and I are announcing the appointment of a review committee to study and make recommendations on these sports.

The review committee will consist of two eminent physicians. Dr. Alan Hudson, professor and chairman, division of neurosurgery, University of Toronto, and Dr. Michael Schwartz, a neurosurgeon on the staff of Sunnybrook Hospital who has just completed a study on head injuries, and Mr. Kenneth Hayashi, a karate master versed in several styles of the martial arts who holds the rank of sixth degree black belt. If I may, I take the liberty of introducing -- I ask them to rise -- Dr. Alan Hudson, Dr. Michael Schwartz, and Mr. Kenneth Hayashi, who have agreed to undertake this study.

They will examine all aspects of professional and amateur kickboxing and full contact karate in Ontario: First, to look at injuries and the potential for injuries and to determine whether these sports should be sanctioned at all; second, if it is determined they should be sanctioned, an important component of the committee's efforts will be to look at safety standards and safety measures, training facilities, medical standards, equipment, financing, rules, regulations and record-keeping. As part of their overall review, that committee will also examine the effectiveness of the control measures my ministry has imposed upon professional boxing.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members in not carrying on private conversations, please.

COMMUNITY FISHERIES PROJECTS

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring the House up to date on my ministry's fisheries management programs, especially those involving public consultation and community participation. This is something that is special to me, because I feel it is important to involve Ontario's resource users in resource management. Sports fishermen who spend much of their leisure time fishing should be encouraged to participate in fisheries management. For this reason, I am most pleased with the response to our community fisheries involvement program.

The program was conceived a little more than a year ago when the Bluewater Anglers of Sarnia urged my ministry to increase fish-stocking in their area. In conjunction with the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) I suggested they build the hatchery themselves and they agreed. As a result, my ministry has offered $30,000 in seed money and the Bluewater Anglers are now raising 10,000 rainbow trout annually as part of a pilot project. Ultimately, the club members themselves will build a trout-rearing station near the village of Point Edward, operate it and stock the fish in Lake Huron in the Sarnia area.

I realized then that we could harness some very valuable help if we invited sports clubs throughout Ontario to take part in fisheries management. We in the ministry agreed to offer our expertise and financial help if groups volunteered time and money to undertake projects of local importance. The result has been most promising. Club members are cleaning up streams, stabilizing stream banks and installing and caring for stream-side incubation boxes. I am sure members can appreciate how important this volunteer work is to my ministry in the current atmosphere of constraint.

I would like to outline a few of the projects under way as part of this program. On Oxenden Creek near Wiarton, the Bruce Peninsula Sportsmen's Association put 80,000 rainbow trout eggs into an upwelling box of their own construction last spring and 80 per cent survived the release.

On the Coldwater River, the Barrie District Hunters and Anglers Club created a fast-water channel for trout spawning beds. On Bearhead Lake in the Terrace Bay district, the Manitouwadge Fish and Game Club is establishing spawning beds to help yellow pickerel populations. On the Sydenham River near Owen Sound, the Sydenham Sportsmen's Association fenced an area to prevent erosion of the riverbank and established a spawning bed for brown trout.

Other projects are about to begin. For example, the North Shore Steelhead Association plans to build and maintain an upwelling box for rainbow trout on the McIntyre River near Thunder Bay. The Bayfield Anglers' Association plans to stock rainbow trout eggs in Elliott's Spring Creek near Wingham.

In addition, community volunteers are helping with the ministry's fisheries initiatives. Residents of Port Hope have worked with my ministry staff over the last eight years to help to turn the Ganaraska River into one of the finest rainbow trout fisheries in the province. The rainbow trout run increased from 500 to 10,000 in that time. It was a true team effort. We installed a fishway in 1974, making prime upstream spawning areas accessible and the residents sandbag the river each spring to assist the trout in moving upstream.

Last spring I realized that we could add another dimension to our community involvement by encouraging clubs to donate equipment or materials to assist existing ministry programs. Within six months, our Ringwood fish culture station near Stouffville had already received more than $30,000 worth of equipment and materials from private groups. The St. Catharines Fish and Game Association donated $30,000 worth of equipment and the Toronto Star gave $80,000 earned through its Great Salmon Hunt to help pay for an expansion of the Ringwood station. I am proud of that kind of participation in assisting the sports fishery in Ontario.

We have also included fisheries as one of five special job creation programs initiated by my ministry in conjunction with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. This program has two objectives; one, to provide short-term employment for laid-off workers, allowing them to remain in their communities and two, to participate in valuable resource management rehabilitation projects that we could not otherwise undertake at this time.

The fisheries projects, sponsored by conservation authorities, municipalities, clubs and other organizations have created almost 15,000 weeks of work for a total of 1,200 unemployed Ontario workers. So far, the ministry, through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, has invested more than $3.5 million towards these initiatives. The impact of these projects has been impressive.

I would like to briefly describe to this House the kinds of improvements we have been making to Ontario's fishery, thanks to this special employment program. Project sponsors are supervising workers at stabilizing the stream bank and removing silt from rainbow trout spawning areas on the Maitland River near Wingham; improving access to fishing in several areas near Blind River, Iroquois Falls and Temagami; improving spawning beds and re-introducing yellow pickerel in Remi and Proulx Lakes near Kapuskasing; assessing and removing silt from the lake trout spawning beds at Larder Lake near Kirkland Lake to improve the lake trout fishery; removing sawdust piles from the banks of the Mattagami River in Timmins to improve fish habitat; and improving fish habitat through a number of projects on coldwater streams north of Metropolitan Toronto. These include stabilizing banks, maintaining streambank buffers to protect against encroaching development and fencing to keep livestock away from streams.

Right now, many unemployed workers are involved in creel census recording throughout the province, collecting important data on fish populations, age, sex and distribution, data we need to determine our fisheries management practices for future improvement of our tremendous fishery resource.

I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this special employment program. I urge the honourable members to encourage constituents to become involved in these programs.

My ministry has also created fisheries jobs for 230 workers through the accelerated capital program, announced in the provincial budget last year. My ministry, again through BILD, committed a total of $2 million toward the creation of these jobs. Among other projects, the workers improved fisheries facilities, renovated hatchery buildings, conducted surveys and cleaned up streams.

I am proud of these co-operative ventures with sportsmen throughout the province. I look forward to more joint projects since they underscore the guiding principle of my ministry -- conservation and preservation of our natural resources, conservation of resources so that future generations of Ontarians can benefit from them and preservation of the quality of these truly remarkable resources.

2:20 p.m.

But these co-operative efforts are not the only things we are doing to enhance Ontario's fishery. I am also pleased to say that my ministry has been able to maintain its fisheries budget this year at about $24 million even though we are working in an atmosphere of tight constraints.

So with our co-operative ventures we are not only maintaining but expanding our fisheries work, and to do this we are consulting with the province's sports fishermen. In the past, for example, many sports fishermen have urged us to stock brown trout. As a result, ministry staff stocked a total of 71,000 fingerlings in a number of southern Ontario areas last fall. This spring we will stock another 139,000 yearlings.

The trout will be planted in Lake Ontario at the west end and near Kingston, in Summit Lake near Tweed and in the Ganaraska and Sydenham River systems.

We are about to begin collecting wild rainbow trout eggs in Bothwells Creek and the Ganaraska River. The demand for this project has been created by the anticipated completion of isolation facilities at the Normandale fish culture station near Lake Erie that allow us to monitor the health of eggs. This is but one of the many renovations and improvements we will make to the Normandale station. We are adding more wells to improve the water quality and supply, and we are modifying the advanced and early rearing units.

I think what I have said today illustrates two important points: that my ministry is committed to the maintenance and improvement of Ontario's fisheries and that we are listening to those who use the resource.

ORAL QUESTIONS

KILDERKIN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I am tempted to ask him whether the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) will come under his new kickboxing review. She has obviously kicked a number of her colleagues on the shins, and some in the head, I suspect, on Bill 127. However, because it is the first important new initiative from his ministry since he became the minister, I will not ask a question on that subject today.

My question to the minister pertains to Kilderkin and the withdrawal of banking privileges. I am sure the minister is now very much aware that this situation is very acute today. There are 240 regular employees, some of whom are represented in the gallery today, who face the possibility of losing their jobs, or at least of not being paid in the next regular payday after this Thursday. There are hundreds of casual employees whose jobs are at stake, there are over 800 suppliers to Kilderkin and there are approximately 14,000 or so tenants whose status at the moment is very unclear.

We have asked the minister in the past about his suggestions on how this company should continue to bank. As he knows, there is a regular flow of cheques into this company; it is not as if they are not financially viable. But the Bank of Montreal has served notice on them that they are not prepared to let them bank after today.

We have asked the minister about this question many times in this House, and he has had no answer. We have warned him that a crisis is developing for the tenants, the suppliers and the employees of Kilderkin. The minister has washed his hands of it. He has said it is a banking problem; it is not his problem.

Today it is the minister's problem. What is he going to do to keep Kilderkin functioning, to protect those jobs and to protect the tenants in those buildings?

Has the minister spoken to the banks? Has he asked them to let Kilderkin bank or has he used his good offices to speak to the people at the Province of Ontario Savings Office asking them to let them bank, at least on an emergency basis, to keep this company functioning and to keep those people in their jobs?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the first 20 minutes of my answer will be in response to the suggestion about today's initiative with respect to kickboxing --

Mr. Speaker: No.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh, you do not want me to do that, Mr. Speaker? So I cannot take 20 minutes to outline the initiatives, which are many and go back as recently as last week to reforms in the pension law with respect to women and the motor vehicles act. You do not want me to do that, though, so I will not spend 20 minutes going over the initiatives that have been introduced by this ministry in the past year, much as it tempts me to do so because of the way the honourable member tried to throw that shiv in.

Here I am worried about kickboxing, and he is worried about shivving people. I do not understand it. Are we here to do things right for people?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have never said this government did not have serious concerns about the plight of the employees at Kilderkin or about the tenants in those buildings. What I have said very clearly is that we did not initiate or make any recommendations with the banks with respect to their policy. I have also said we were reviewing, through counsel, options that could be utilized in order to enable us to be of some assistance to the Kilderkin enterprise as well as to their employees and tenants, knowing that one cannot act without some substantive reason for doing so.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has done so all along.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That is not what the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) said on the radio the other day. He said he agreed with the government's moving in on January 7. Does the Leader of the Opposition disagree with him now?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Is there a divided opinion?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is there some division of opinion? I heard there was no disagreement. I am not saying the Leader of the Opposition agrees with everything, but there was no disagreement on that.

Mr. Wrye: The only division is over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the minister please address himself to the question?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is with some degree of reticence that I refer to certain events today. At 9:30 this morning, a counsel appeared before Justice Parker with an ex parte application for the appointment of a receiver-manager under section 19 of the Judicature Act. Justice Parker requested that the other parties be served and said that he would hear the case at 4:30 this afternoon. The application is on behalf of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust.

Mr. Peterson: Just so I understand, is the minister saying he asked for an ex parte receivership order today for all of Kilderkin? Is he going to appoint an interim receiver for all of that company and not just that part which pertains to the Cadillac Fairview buildings? Is that what the minister is saying to me, that he is now going to take over all of that company as opposed to just half of it? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is that the Leader of the Opposition's question?

Mr. Peterson: If I understand the minister properly, why did he wait until today when events were conspiring against him, when it was so late in the day to do that kind of thing? Why would he not assure these people beforehand that their jobs would be protected?

Is the minister aware that a number of the utility companies have now asked for a security deposit from Kilderkin for its various buildings because they too are not sure of the financial viability of the company?

Will the minister now make a very clear statement in this House that those jobs will be protected, that all of the tenants in the non- Cadillac Fairview buildings will be protected and will be able to enforce their rights under the law, and that there will be no interruption of services? Will he make that statement in the House today?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, let me clarify an issue. The Leader of the Opposition seems to misunderstand what happened with respect to the Cadillac Fairview buildings.

The court appointed a receiver-manager to move into Maysfield Property Management with respect to the Cadillac Fairview properties. It did not appoint a receiver-manager with respect to any properties managed by Kilderkin.

Second, may I say very clearly, one of the problems that people have in this world is that it is necessary to obtain the information that is required to justify certain applications to the court. We are all aware of the fact, as I replied last week in the House, that a report from Touche Ross was received with respect to Seaway on Thursday.

That information is being reviewed for a number of purposes, one of them being to determine whether or not there was any way in which the instability that existed in Kilderkin -- and I stress it is not instability that this government or the registrar of this government created; we are not the author of any problems they have --

Mr. T. P. Reid: They just allowed it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Under section 19 of the Judicature Act, counsel are making an application to have a receiver-manager appointed in order to stabilize what is now an unstable situation because of things that are beyond our control. It will be up to the court to determine whether or not a receiver-manager will be appointed.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the minister's answer --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the question being placed. I would ask all honourable members to please stop their private conversations.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: I want to ask the minister what exactly is the extent and nature of the application which is being made to the court today. What is the extent of the business and undertaking which will come under a receiver and manager if he is appointed today on that application?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can respond in a very limited way, since it is not appropriate nor do I intend to discuss the case that will be argued this afternoon. It is my understanding that an application under section 19 of the Judicature Act involves the appointment of a receiver-manager to run the business as an ongoing business, and that is what the application is for, in all of its aspects.

I certainly do not intend to argue the case here nor to say with any certainty whether or not the application will be successful. I am simply reporting what is happening today and what the registrar has instituted on behalf of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has finally moved. He does not know whether it is going to be successful or not. In the event that it is not going to be successful, would he use his good offices to convince the Province of Ontario Savings Office to provide this company with banking services on an interim basis in order to pay the suppliers and employees and keep the company going? Would he make that statement?

Second, would the minister meet with the employees of Kilderkin after question period today? The Premier (Mr. Davis) has refused to meet them. Would the minister meet with them so they can explain to him the plight they personally face at present?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, clearly I cannot predict what the future course of events will be. I can only report what applications are before the court as of this afternoon. Nor do I feel it is my position to advise the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) what to do with respect to the Province of Ontario Savings Office. He is perfectly capable of answering that question himself.

As to whether or not I agree to meet with the employees of Kilderkin, I have no personal reason not to meet with them. The only reservation I have, and I will think about it, is whether or not the minister responsible in that area, whose registrar on behalf of two trust companies is appearing before the court this afternoon with respect to an application, should be meeting with persons over that same issue. That is a matter I will have to contemplate.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, when I was answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition, I answered to the best of the information available to me at that time. I am now advised that while I was answering, the court has appointed an interim receiver of Kilderkin.

MERGER OF HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that a number of my colleagues read with some concern the article in today's Globe and Mail by Geoffrey York with respect to his rationalization, the merger of facilities, in some 10 cities in this province. He will recall that my colleagues led the fight to keep those hospitals open in the past and he will recall also that he was involved. At that time, he stood up and protested the very sophisticated form of regression analysis the then minister, now Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), used in order to attempt to close down some of those hospitals.

He will recall that fight, and how he played hardball with the minister at that time. Ultimately he proved to be right, and ultimately my colleagues proved to be right. In fact the hospitals they are closing down, such as Willett Hospital in Paris, are now going through a major expansion program. The same is happening in Clinton Public Hospital, which my colleague fought for.

I am asking the minister, knowing as he does personally of the deep anguish this kind of newspaper announcement creates in people who are involved in these various communities, will he give us his assurance that before he does anything in this area there will be wide public consultation and he will involve all people affected by these decisions he is attempting to make to save $20 million, which is about three months' interest on his purchase of Suncor?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, first let me say I was sitting back in the third row in 1976. Of course, I am now up here, unlike a lot of the member's colleagues who are not here any more, including his former leader. In any case --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is a sign of crumbling government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is that? That is a crumbling nothing. That is a crumbling crumb.

I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for reminding me of the role his colleagues played during that period. I do not remember it clearly enough to remember that prominent role.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) remembers it as clearly as I do.

The member refers to the "announcement" in the morning paper. If he read that article carefully, he would see there is no announcement. There is an analysis by a reporter who did a lot of homework, most of it accurately, indicating that the merger of services between hospitals is what it is all about.

If the Leader of the Opposition believes hospitals that are spending $3.3 billion should not look at the merger of things such as laundry services, dietary services or laboratory services, in all fairness we could have an excellent dialogue on that, he should stand up and say the Liberal Party is opposed to hospitals looking at opportunities to free up money to provide more extended care beds, for example. If it is the member's position that all hospitals in the system are doing what they should and there is no duplication of services, I would be delighted to hear him say that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just relax. The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) will whisper some more to the Leader of the Opposition.

The other part of the question was whether I would undertake consultation. In the case of each city mentioned, there has been extensive consultation. If the member had spoken on the phone this morning with any of the communities mentioned, he would have found out, for example, that the Timmins --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Peterborough is a good example.

Mr. Nixon: Ask the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You ask the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections. Just address the question please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The consultation in Peterborough has gone on for so many years that there is not a resident of Peterborough and area who is not familiar with that whole exercise. In Peterborough, the medical staffs are supportive. From time to time, the boards are supportive. The community understands what it is all about. In Timmins, it is being done under the auspices of the district health council. My colleague has played a major role in trying to bring a new hospital to the Timmins area, and he will get it.

Mr. Foulds: Where is the food terminal?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is part of the business- oriented new development program.

Mr. Peterson: I believe the minister has an obligation to table in this House and share with everybody concerned all the facts about these rationalizations or mergers of services, as he calls them. We have yet to see that. We have to read the Globe and Mail to find out what he is doing in his ministry. Will the minister confirm or deny that part of the article that says he is going to close down certain active treatment hospitals and convert them into extended care institutions?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The article does not say I am going to close down any hospitals. If the member will check with his researchers, or indeed do something really unusual and read the article carefully himself, he will find we are pointing out that some communities have reached that conclusion after consultation with us and have voluntarily rationalized services. So as to prevent the member from going out and saying --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Indeed they should, same as at the Willett.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is that part of the minister's leadership campaign?

Mr. Nixon: He is not going to make the third ballot.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not running. Joe is our leader.

Just so the member cannot walk out of here and say we have a secret plan, let me be very clear about this. There is no plan; there is no secret merger strategy. We do not intend to force the closure or change the role of any hospital anywhere in the system from acute care to chronic care. Where hospitals agree on that, we will, of course, work with them to accomplish that goal.

The member said he had to read the Globe and Mail to find out what is happening in the ministry. He does not. He just has to do his homework. Every district health council, every hospital, every community mentioned in that article, without exception, knows about the discussions that have been going on.

2:40 p.m.

Before the member runs out and has his researcher call a hospital and ask, "Hey, did you know about this?" and get someone in the hospital to say, "I didn't know about this," let me make it clear there is not one of those where there has not been extensive discussion or is not more discussion pending.

If he wants to save himself the trauma of buying the bulldog edition of the Globe and Mail to find out what is happening in the ministry, he should go out and speak to the district health councils, which he wants to do away with, speak to the administrators in the hospitals and speak to the doctors, whom the members opposite like to bash in here from time to time. They all know about all these plans. To the extent that they support them, we proceed; to the extent that they do not want to go ahead, we do not go ahead.

It is common sense, it is consultative and it is open; it is rational, it is efficient, it is fair and it is right.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I think the record should show that the health councils would not speak to our task force. Now what is he talking about?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of privilege.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know how a government that is prepared to give $1 billion to doctors over the course of the next three years can somehow argue that there is wasteful expenditure in our hospital sector, despite the fact that we give it exactly the same share of our gross provincial product now as we did 10 years ago.

Perhaps the minister will be good enough to tell us precisely how many other emergency departments à la St. Joseph's General Hospital in Peterborough and how many other St. Joseph's hospitals across the province and their emergency departments are part of the minister's so-called rationalization study. Just how many small emergency departments is the minister planning to close?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I know the honourable member was listening a second ago. I said I was not planning to close any. There is no plan to close any.

There are discussions with hospitals with a view to seeing whether they agree there is an opportunity to save some money, to improve health care in their community, to have one large, effective, well-staffed, well-equipped emergency ward, and to use that money elsewhere in their community perhaps to provide more nursing home beds, for example -- all the kinds of things we have talked about here on other occasions.

To make it clear, we are looking to improve health care. We are looking to see if one emergency ward as opposed to two will be better equipped, better staffed and better able to serve the public. We are looking, too, to see if some of the money that is freed up during this exercise can he used in that same community to provide more and better health care services. If the member is opposed to any of those things, then I suppose he should say so.

With regard to his preamble, he expressed some concern over $1 billion going to the medical profession over three years. Just for the record, it is five years; just for the record, it may well not prove to be that much money, and just for the record, the member's leader thinks this arrangement should not be touched under any circumstances; his leader thinks a deal is a deal and the doctors' contract should not be altered.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, is the Globe and Mail correct in stating, "No hospitals will be closed, but the second hospital in some towns might be better used as an extended care institution. Health Minister Larry Grossman said in an interview"?

Did he or did he not say that? If he did say it and if it is part of his grand plan, then does he not think that in the last two months in estimates it might have been advisable to share with the Health critics of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party some of the schemes and plans he has going across the rest of the province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we shared a great deal of information during estimates. In fact, every item that was discussed in estimates was determined not by the government but by the opposition critics, who chose, for example, to spend three days on mental health, a decision I happen to think was the right one; who chose to discuss the paramedics issue at some length; who chose to discuss underserviced areas at some length. We were happy to discuss anything they wanted to discuss.

Let me make it clear. I said that in some communities the second hospital may well be more appropriately used and better organized in terms of secondary care. Whether that proves to be the case in every community or in any community, very much remains to be seen.

Unlike the member, I believe those decisions are best worked out at the local level by district health councils. I bow to their judgement. I respect their judgement, their opinion and their advice. I think it is incumbent upon us to say to the DHCs, "Look at these options, discuss them with the hospitals, discuss them with the health care providers, discuss them with the citizens and let us know whether you can reach a consensus." I am not the omnipotent dictator from Queen's Park saying, "You shall do this and you shall not do that."

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The fans over there of Marc Lalonde and Allan MacEachen would not understand that. I understand it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the minister has answered the question fully.

TESTING OF CRUISE MISSILE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and it concerns the testing of the cruise missile in Canada. As the Premier will recall, on June 10, 1982, he said the following in this House in a major statement he made on nuclear disarmament: "The continued escalation of nuclear armaments, in my view and I am sure in the view of every single member of this House, constitutes a serious threat to the survival of mankind."

The Premier also said on that day, in answer to some of the catcalls from those opposite, "That is a matter beyond any jurisdictional analysis: it is a matter of personal conscience, personal responsibility and personal intelligence."

In the light of those remarks, would the Premier he prepared to add his voice on behalf of the people of this province to the voices of those thousands of Canadians who are opposed to the testing of the unarmed cruise missiles on Canadian soil?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recall the words I stated a few months ago and nothing has changed my perspective. It is obviously not a matter for provincial jurisdiction, although I do not raise that as any answer to the member's question.

I guess what I always find regrettable in these discussions is that while there is the presumption that all of us are anxious to see de-escalation or a lack of buildup in any arms race, there is a lack of that same concern expressed by people in other countries, in one in particular. It is a b it frustrating to stand here and endeavour to answer the question, knowing full well exactly what answer the member would get if he asked the same question of the head of the Soviet Union.

I understand the very sincere convictions held by the honourable member. My problem is we have to be very careful in a free western society, whether it be Canada, the United States or elsewhere, not to be lulled into a feeling of complacency, or not to feel that, because I feel we should be doing less by way of arms buildup, that necessarily has any influence on the people on the other side.

I have seen no demonstrated evidence from my standpoint, and I am no expert, that indicates the point of view the member has and the point of view I think every member of this House has is shared by others who are very interested in this discussion.

If he is going to try to get me in the position of saying we should not have any treaty with the United States, we should not be pulling our weight in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and we should not be concerned about the defence of the free world, he is not going to succeed, because I happen to think we must meet our commitments.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I am sure the Premier will appreciate that I was not attempting to get him to say anything he did not want to say. I was attempting to get him to deal with the consequences of what many people in the province, and in this country, view as a very dangerous escalation in the nuclear armaments race. That is what we were attempting to do.

In the same speech, the Premier said: "Similarly it is as courageous to fight for peace and conciliation as it is to respond militarily when other responses are possible. Those honestly working for peace and nuclear sanity have the support of all of us who care deeply about future generations and the responsibility that we as individuals have to them."

How can the Premier square that with the statements made by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in the last budget, that the increased defence spending in the United States was going to be a boon to the economy of this province because it would add to jobs and employment?

Would the Premier be prepared to start funding the kind of peaceful industrial research in this province that would use the high-technology industries not for the creation of weapons of war, but for peaceful purposes? Does the Premier not recognize that high-technology industries in this province are part of his responsibility and the responsibility of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker)?

Hon. Mr. Davis: For a leader of a provincial party which supports a national party committed to getting out of NATO, the member really has to test my reaction to his question. For a party that has been opposed to the safe use of nuclear power, once again he is really testing my patience.

How can the member stand up in the House and be critical of statements the Treasurer or I have made and urge the peaceful use of these things when his party is opposed to nuclear energy for the generation of electricity? How does he reconcile that with what he said in the last 10 minutes? The reality is he cannot; he knows it and I know it.

The member is not going to get me contradicting what I have said. He has no monopoly, as a party or as an individual, in wishing for a greater feeling of peace throughout the world community. I have to be a realist; I have to understand that the points of view the member expressed are not being expressed by the Soviet Union. The member may have some influence on them; I do not.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the statement of June 10 was more than empty rhetoric. The Premier has made it clear this afternoon that his speech consisted only of empty words and empty rhetoric. There is no cutting edge at all when it comes to the tough issues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we are going to respect the rights of others, we should start respecting each other's rights in this chamber.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier whether the words "it is as courageous to fight for peace and conciliation as it is to respond militarily when other responses are possible," have any meaning at all? If they have any meaning for him, can he please tell us what steps he is prepared to take as Premier -- in concrete, specific, human terms -- to see that the causes of peace and the peaceful uses of nuclear technology are advanced in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You guys won't even allow hydro.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How many more weapons do you want to test?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I --

Mr. Martel: Red bait some more. Bring back your jackboots.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Tell us about nuclear energy.

Mr. Speaker: Just one question at a time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will try not to add to what --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The New Democratic Party members opposite started it. Their leader is not going to stand up and portray himself as being any more interested in peace in the world than I am or anybody on this side of the House; no way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I sense they do not really want an answer.

METRO TORONTO BILL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is also to the Premier. It has to do with the decision by the government to move a guillotine motion with respect to Bill 127 in the name of the Minister of Education. When the Premier was moving a similar motion on December 8, the government House leader (Mr. Wells) said he felt the majority could bring in a guillotine when the government finds its legislation has been "completely hampered in the House."

Can the Premier explain to us how Bill 127 has been hampered in any way from being brought forward or being debated in this House by either of the opposition parties? How has its progress been hampered in any way by this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I realize the leader of the NDP is opposed to bringing this matter to a conclusion. I understand that and respect his right to take that position. But as I --

Mr. Laughren: You recognize some things --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not interrupt him when he was asking his question.

Mr. Mackenzie: Don't give us the respect bit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is part of your problem.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Tell us about September, October, November, December.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really think we are talking about a question of judgement and reason. I have been in this House a little longer than the member for York South and most members here. We have debated many hills over the years at some length. In fairness, in my memory there have been very few bills in this Legislature that have received the amount of consideration that Bill 127 has received.

We are not expecting the leader of the third party to change his mind. If he reads Hansard, if he reads the transcript of the committee hearings, he will not find any new arguments being presented. No new facts have come to light that we are not all aware of. We have agreed to disagree on this legislation. We think it is important in terms of our responsibilities as a government to see this brought to a conclusion. We have all today, this evening, tomorrow afternoon, Thursday and Friday, and we have already had some 87 hours of discussion related to this bill --

3 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Ninety-six.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ninety-six. The minister corrects me.

As a man of reason, I ask if that is not a sufficient length of time for this important issue. We can argue it for days, but, in essence, that is what it is all about. We are not anxious to limit discussion that would be new or different.

Let us face it, we have discussed this at great length. We are not being unreasonable. I am sure in the member's own heart of hearts he is aware of that. I know he has to take this position, but he should please not tell me that 90-odd hours, plus the balance of today, tomorrow, Thursday and Friday, will be insufficient.

Mr. Rae: It is clear that closure has become totally addictive for that government. I am sure the Premier does not want to mislead anyone in the House, unintentionally or otherwise, or anybody listening to these debates. The vast majority of the 96 hours to which he referred were spent in public hearings that were attended by people who were affected by the bill. There were 12 hours -- three days of debate -- at committee of the whole House stage.

I am sure the Premier, in his vast knowledge of the history of this place, can think back to occasions when we spent more than three days in this Legislature considering questions of this kind in committee of the whole or after second reading.

Can the Premier say if it is now the intention of the government to introduce closure whenever it feels it is not getting its way, or the debate is not going in the direction it wants, or it is under some pressure from its own back-benchers? In these situations does it plan unilaterally to suspend the standing orders of this Legislature and move in on special motions to introduce closure? Is that going to be the new style of this government? That is what it looks like to us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot give the exact number of bills we have passed in this session. We are dealing with Bill 127. Whether we started at Bill 1, I do not have the foggiest idea

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Maybe we did not do Bill 1; I do not know. How many bills have we had in that period of time?

The member will recall the discussions in the fall, and I will not go back to some of the observations made by some members opposite. It is totally untrue and totally unfair for the member to suggest that because we felt it was necessary to bring the discussion on this bill and the Inflation Restraint Act to a conclusion -- two out of the total session -- this is becoming a habit. If he is asking me whether this is an accepted practice, he knows full well it is not.

We know he is going to vote against this bill, that he will continue to vote against it, that he would love to have this debated for the next four to five weeks, adding nothing of substance to the deliberations. Is he really suggesting we are being unreasonable in wishing to bring it to a conclusion? That is our responsibility. It may come as a surprise to him but sometimes, even when it is difficult, the responsibility of government is to govern. That is what we are here to do.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Premier. Taking into consideration the fact that his government has waited until what it considers to be the end of this session to introduce this bill and has not seen it as --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was introduced on May 28 last year.

Mr. Bradley: That member should pay attention. I mean introduce the bill for consideration in this session --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: Taking into account that the bill has not been brought forward for consideration until what the government considers to be the end of this session, we must therefore conclude it did not consider it to be of very great importance in its legislative schedule.

Taking into consideration the fact that we have not seen this bill this session, why would the Premier feel it is necessary to impose closure before the bill was even brought forward for consideration in this specific session?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this question really means when the member talks about this specific session. This bill was debated last June. Am I correct in that? That is when it was introduced. There were 10 hours of debate on second reading. It went to committee for some 66 hours. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Rae) says, I guess, that this was just a friendly discussion but there were 66 hours of consideration of the contents of the bill with the public. How much more time is really required?

Then the member says the "tail-end of this special session." This is not a special session. We came back here after the Christmas recess. We are dealing with it. The member's leader has been here day after day for the total amount of the session and -- I have kept track -- has not asked a single question about Bill 127. The member knows where it is in terms of his priority.

Mr. Martel: I might ask the Premier a supplementary

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier has a standing order which he could invoke if he wanted to, is it the government's intention to attempt to rewrite the rules? That is what he is attempting to do today by motion; it is not a standing order. If he wants to revise the rules to bring in time allocation, does he not think he should change the rules rather than just ignore those that exist and simply use his majority to change them? That is what he is doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the House leader for the New Democratic Party, his question was not really a question. It was an observation which I think is rather specious. We are not here attempting to rewrite the rules.

Mr. Martel: That is what the Premier is doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not interrupt the member.

If he is asking me whether some reasonable consideration should be given to an alteration of the existing rules of this House he will get me to concur; I understand the House leaders are having some discussion.

He wants to go on record that he would ask this government to bring this matter to a conclusion -- say by Friday -- and that we would then use the other rules available to us. At that time he would get up before the cameras and everybody else and say the government is doing exactly the same thing as we are doing in this resolution. The member knows he cannot fool me any longer. I am not that gullible. If we had proceeded in the other way he would be saying exactly the same thing -- shouting it to the world. He knows it and I know it.

Mr. Martel: That just shows the Premier's concern with his majority --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

LEAMINGTON POLICE FORCE

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. May I have a little quiet, please?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruston: Is the minister aware that the Leamington police chief has used informants to compile a list of alleged drug users in the secondary schools? Is he aware these informants may have been charged and then have received favourable treatment from the Leamington police? The police chief compiled a list of 67 names of alleged drug users as given to him by informants and made this list available for viewing at a seminar with instruction that the list be returned. Approximately 125 teachers saw the names.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the facts the member for Essex North has expressed to this Legislature. I have also scanned a few of the articles on this subject in the newspapers. I have requested that the local commission provide me with a report on the matter as well as the Ontario Police Commission, who have followed up with the local police commission on the matter.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel, though, that this is a very improper action for a police department to take, since the names on the list are not verifiable? Does the minister not agree with me that the publication of such a list may harm innocent people? Will he report back to us as soon as possible?

I happen to have had five children go through the school system and seven grandchildren on the way, so I am very concerned about the problem in the schools. But I am concerned also about certain rights.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if the facts are as I have seen them reported in the media and as the honourable member mentions, I too would be concerned. However, there will be a report to me on the matter, and there could undoubtedly be proceedings under certain pieces of legislation. I think it would be wrong for me to comment on it if proceedings were to take place under the Police Act. Disciplinary proceedings could take place if the facts are as stated.

However, other than to say we are looking at it, I would prefer not to comment on the matter at this time.

HAWKER SIDDELEY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Does the minister feel any responsibility to investigate the circumstances in which the Hawker Siddeley Can-Car plant in Thunder Bay has lost the contract for 130 rapid transit cars for Houston's transit authority, even though Hawker Siddeley was the low bidder?

Would the minister be prepared to go to Houston on behalf of the workers and management of this Ontario bid, which would supply between five and seven years' work in Thunder Bay, in order to lobby for our contract and a re-evaluation of the bid?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to have our office in Texas immediately contact the Houston office and establish some discussion. There have been some discussions already between the offices of Hawker Siddeley and particularly the purchasing authorities, and I am prepared to attempt to open discussions.

I do not know how far they will go. I recognize a certain preference is occasionally given in some situations, and apparently here the preference has been allocated against Hawker Siddeley. But yes, I am prepared to make some contact. The member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) has spoken to me about this, and I will be in touch with the company as well.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be in touch with the company directly and personally? Has the office in Texas not already been in touch with the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority? A councillor in Houston is spearheading a drive to defeat the bond issue that is necessary to raise the money for the more expensive contract. Does the minister not think this is an ideal time for him to intervene directly and personally?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I will make direct contact. I am prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, if there are no more supplementaries, I do have the answer to a previously asked question, if that is helpful.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not concerned that what we think of as the free flow of trade in the North American market is being affected by decisions such as the one in this instance? What is he prepared to do in a North American context to assure contracts like this and others that may appear in the near future will not be affected by the considerations that have affected this deal? Is the minister prepared to speak not only to the people in Texas but also to the people in Washington on the basis of what I think he as the minister considers a free trade area in North America?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am gratified the member thinks I might have some influence in all of the states of the union. I frankly think I can make representations in case-specific situations. I doubt I can influence the entire policy of all the United States or, for that matter, the ministries of the United States.

We have to recognize they have policies as well and are free to make their own decisions; that states and individual cities, in this case, the Houston transit authority is free to make its decision. What I will try to do, wherever possible, is bring to bear some of the considerations that make our bid far more attractive under the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Industry and Trade has a brief response to a previously asked question.

SPARTON OF CANADA LTD.

Hon. Mr. Walker: This will be brief, Mr. Speaker. The member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) asked me last Friday, February 11, when we could expect some positive impact on the employment situation at Sparton of Canada Ltd.'s London operation resulting from Spartons expansion into an operation in Campbellford, Ontario.

At that time, I indicated I would obtain more details. I can now report that I have spoken with the president of Sparton of Canada Ltd., in London. He reported to me that on January 24, only 87 people were employed at the Sparton plant in London, with a further seven on temporary layoff, and a further 68 on indefinite layoff. The seven on temporary layoff have now been recalled.

The best news of all is that because of the Campbellford operation, the indefinite layoff will he, in part, resolved in mid-April. Fifty per cent of those on indefinite layoff -- 34 people -- will be recalled at the London plant. That is specifically because the Sparton operation at Campbellford is the replacement of a Florida operation, a previously imported operation.

A large part of the problem will be resolved in the very near future, if the Sparton information is correct, and I believe it to be. That will mean there will be only 34 people on indefinite layoff. The net effect of the Campbellford operation will result in Sparton of Canada employing 128 at London as compared with the 87 back in January, all of that presumably by the end of April. I think we should be grateful for that, Mr. Speaker.

ASTRA/RE-MOR

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations pertaining to the Re-Mor situation.

Almost two years ago now the Premier promised compensation to the depositors of Re-Mor if negligence was proven on the part of the ministry. The government received a report from the Ombudsman last July which, in part, recommended that the government compensate these people. Given that fact, and the fact that thousands of dollars are being spent on legal fees and many of these people are senior citizens and desperately need the money, is the minister now in a position to say he will pay these people?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can only say the Ombudsman has made certain recommendations. Flowing from that, I will be making certain recommendations to the cabinet, I hope very shortly. As soon as cabinet and caucus have considered the matter I will make an announcement with respect to decisions relating to the Ombudsman's report.

Mr. Cunningham: I know the minister can fully appreciate how constituents in my riding, particularly neighbours of mine who are in their 80s now, are very much in need of their life savings.

As a supplementary, I would ask the minister if he can report to us today in this Legislature how much money has been spent on legal fees by both parties? When is he going to make the Ombudsman's report on this matter public, as I believe he should?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have no idea of the amount of money that has been spent on legal actions. The Ombudsman's so-called report that the member refers to was only a preliminary report.

CENTRAL PRECISION LTD. DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is he involved in the strike between Central Precision and the United Steelworkers of America Local 6624 which started on February 7? Is he also aware that the workers, mostly new Canadians of Portuguese descent, were willing to accept the status quo but the company insisted on substantial concessions?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, yes I am aware of the circumstances the honourable member has described.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister aware that this company is the same company that hired the infamous Richard Grange and Canadian Driver Pool in a labour dispute in 1972? Is he also aware that on the very first day of the strike, it had Securicor personnel and cars on the scene photographing the Portuguese immigrant workers and so on? Is he willing to take a look at the circumstances of this intimidation?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have had a letter from the representative of the United Steelworkers about that problem, and I held a meeting earlier this morning with one of my senior officials in respect to it. We are looking into it.

LOGGING TRUCK FATALITIES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Bradley: A question on his new hair-do.

Mr. Van Horne: In deference to his advanced years. I will pass on the question about the hair-do. I would have a lot of nerve talking about that myself.

In the last few years, there have been many fatalities in northern Ontario as a result of logging trucks losing some or all of their loads. In the Kenora-Rainy River area alone, there have been six fatalities in the last six years. Some of these have led to recommendations of coroners' juries which it is to be hoped would reduce such fatalities.

It is my understanding that rather than acting on those recommendations, the ministry has established a committee to review pulpwood trucking practices. Can the minister tell us why neither he nor the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has acted upon the recommendations of a 1980 coroner's jury in the Dryden district? Implementation of the recommendations could possibly have prevented the double fatality in mid-January in the Dryden area?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is correct in saying we have established a committee made up of members of industry, labour, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Natural Resources to look at this problem. We are particularly concerned with the securing of loads on the large trucks that ply the highways in northern Ontario. That committee has had at least two meetings to date. We are looking at a number of alternatives that could provide the safety the public in northern Ontario demands in pulp and paper hauling.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, pursuant to standing order 34(a) that the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the rapid increase in the number of farm bankruptcies and foreclosures resulting from poor commodity prices, difficulties in refinancing, continued high interest rates and lower property values, the resulting low returns for most major commodities causing financial difficulties for many Ontario producers, producers who cannot show a positive cash flow for the next season who will therefore have difficulty obtaining credit for next year's planting, the lack of any immediate and long-term financial solutions to these problems on the part of the Ontario government, and the current prices in the Ontario farming community as many farmers are facing imminent financial ruin and the loss of their livelihood.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the notice of motion does comply with the standing orders. It was received in time and I would be pleased to listen for up to five minutes as to why the honourable member believes the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we chose today. We could have had this debate yesterday, tomorrow or sometime this week, but in our caucus we feel it is fundamental to have a thorough airing of some of the problems in the agricultural community in this province before the end of a session which is rapidly drawing to a close.

There are many issues that affect all of us. Some of us have academic interests. Some of us have economic interests. All of us have constituency interests. I represent a party which I am proud to say has the strongest agricultural representation in this House.

I have never seen an issue grip our caucus like the plight of the farmers now. That is going to be developing this spring due to a combination of factors. On an almost daily basis, my colleagues come to me and discuss among themselves, the serious personal problems that are resulting at the present time, and we foresee they will continue to develop.

it is a troubling enough situation from the personal point of view of the people now affected. But the long-term repercussions of not addressing the problems immediately will have a profound effect on the Ontario of the future. our economy and the quality of life of the residents of this great province. We believe the situation is of an emergency nature. I am having trouble proving it is more of an emergency today than it was yesterday or will be next week or the week after, but I hope I can persuade members that this problem deserves the attention of the House.

We have a minister who has brought some organizational reforms to his ministry in the last year or so. He used to pride himself that he was the only politician who did not know anything about his portfolio and was prepared to admit it. That always evoked great howls of laughter in his speeches. Now he is asking us not to discount his great agricultural roots because his family has been farming for some 200 years in Frontenac county or wherever. In spite of the promise, the reality is that there has been no change of substance in the last year or so. In fact there has been a deterioration in substance.

I recognize the minister is not responsible for commodity pricing or exclusively responsible for interest rates. I recognize there are a number of factors beyond the immediate control of the provincial government. But the remedy for all these factors is immediately within the capability of this government. I do not have to recite the very small percentage of our provincial budget that goes to agriculture. I do not have to recite that it has not changed in the past decade. I do not have to recite that farming is the second most important industry in this province in terms of jobs created. I do not have to recite the great hardship on the concession roads and the counties of this province.

Mr. Speaker, if you were able to come to my caucus and discuss these problems with my colleagues, I am sure you would be persuaded of the urgency and gravity of this problem. It is my responsibility, therefore, to try to persuade you that this deserves our time.

I can quote the bankruptcy figures that are increasing dramatically. They are sterile, and I do not want to go into all those details to prove the gravity of the situation. We read about the penny auctions and the farmers' response to some of these questions, which cries out to the desperation of these people.

These are law-abiding people. They are not normally politicized to this kind of action. It speaks to a serious malaise in the province among our agricultural community. I know the minister is aware of that. What I do not accept is his failure to respond. My colleagues and I want to put forward our ideas in this House, to discuss both short-term and long-term programs. That is very worthy of the time of this House and I would ask for a favourable ruling.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I rise to support the motion for an emergency debate and urge that it receive unanimous endorsement from the members of this House. There can be no doubt our food producers in this nation, and particularly in this province, are in a state of financial crisis. A state of emergency exists that needs debate and resolution.

The farmers are suffering from a quadruple whammy. First, there is the hangover from high interest rates and the tremendous debt payments farmers have to make at the present time. I think this is obvious, but I would point out in 1977 net farm income was $670 million.

In 1982 it was about the same. $ 672 million, but while they only had to pay $201 million in debt payments in 1977, in 1982 they had to pay $641 million, or an amount almost equal to their total net income.

3:30 p.m.

We know that prices are down dramatically for farmers. For soybeans, they are only two thirds of what they were two years ago. The price for corn is only 6t) per cent of what it was two years ago. We know farmers are also having difficulty in selling a lot of their produce and that there has been insufficient government action to deal with the problems facing the farmers.

The farmers' problems are due equally to faulty policies of both Conservatives and Liberals. Certainly, in the matter of interest rates, it was federal government policy that made those interest rates go up and stay high. That was defended by the agriculture critic for the Liberal Party here in this House.

There has been promoted by the farmers, a tri-party stabilization program to which this minister has paid lipservice, but when it comes to asking how much money the government is prepared to put into it, we find it is not really prepared to go along with the kind of money needed. But it is the Liberals in Ottawa, at least at first, who were primarily responsible for not having the tri-party stabilization program for farmers.

There is the inadequacy of the Ontario farm adjustment assistant program. Unlike every other province, Ontario has no long-term farm credit program whatsoever. It is a low share of the Ontario budget that goes to agriculture.

If anything demonstrates the crisis in Ontario, it is not just the number of bankruptcies but, as the minister well knows, the numbers of farmers who are going under for financial reasons. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture indicates these numbers are at least 10 times as high as direct bankruptcies. In 1982, at least 2,000 farmers went under and 43 per cent of all the bankruptcies and, therefore, all the financial failures of farmers in this nation, have taken place in Ontario, although farmers here represent only 25 per cent of the farm census.

There are many measures which this government could and ought to take, such as credit to young farmers, the broadening of OFAAP, advance payment on the income stabilization program, intervention with banks and perhaps moratorium legislation on foreclosures. Banks should carry their fair share of the burden. Bank profits have gone up dramatically in the last five years. Even in 1982 the banks did exceedingly well. They should be involved in carrying their fair share of the burden.

This minister should be seeing that they carry their fair share of the burden. All of these things should be discussed. They are measures which ought to be dealt with and incorporated into policy.

There is an emergency, Mr. Speaker. I implore you to permit this debate, because there will be thousands of farmers who will not have money to put their crops in unless some action is taken very quickly.

Government members should not prevent this debate because of Bill 127. Even those who support Bill 127 must realize that compared to the agricultural crisis, that bill is insignificant. This debate should proceed. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I waited until the member had finished his comments. Once again, I have to bring to your attention that in his reference to remarks that I made when I debated Bill 179 on high interest rates, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) tripped over the truth. I think you should demand that the member show you where in Hansard it shows that I have advocated high interest rates. I think you should demand that from him.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I will do exactly that, I will supply the member with a copy of Hansard.

Mr. Riddell: Let him do that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to interrupt this private war that has been going on for a number of months between the members for Huron-Middlesex and Welland-Thorold, but I must say I am more than pleased to see the interest of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) in this subject. I think it is long overdue. Not to be too unkind, but I pointed out to the member on Friday --

Mr. T. P. Reid: He doesn't have to run for the leadership; you do.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That remains to be seen with that crew around him.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He's already the leader,

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Of a sort. I pointed out that in over a year I have had only one question from the honourable gentleman on agricultural subjects.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Unlike the Tories, we have a good Agriculture minister over here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why are you so afraid to hear what I have got to say? You just have got to add more and more drivel.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River has been exceedingly noisy this afternoon, and I would ask him to try to contain himself if he will.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the new interest, and as the member says, it is a subject that should concern all members of this House, whether they represent an agricultural constituency or a constituency that contains a great many people who work in the agribusiness sector.

As he pointed out -- and it looks as if somebody has been getting some figures for him from some of my speeches -- one job in five in this province does relate to agriculture, which is in fact the second-largest sector in the provincial economy, second only to the automotive sector. I am glad to know that somebody is reading speeches over there.

I might also say that while the Leader of the Opposition has shown very little interest in agricultural matters in the last year -- he did not attend even one day of my estimates in the fall, and we had 22 or 23 hours of estimates; he did not attend any of the discussions about farm income, about commodity prices: not once did he attend --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me say, too, that as far as some of the personal comments are concerned, I do not intend to start to engage with the members opposite and the federal minister in the kind of diatribe that he and his party apparently like. It seems to me that the problems of agriculture are too great and too important to engage in that sort of thing.

But let me give credit where credit is due: to my official critic for the opposition. I have found the honourable gentleman to be just that: extremely honourable and reliable. I have confided in him on a number of occasions, I have consulted him on a number of occasions and I find that he is at least one individual on that side with whom I can deal on a confidential basis, because we both want to address the problems of farming.

I am not going to go into all the statistics about the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program except to point out to the member that when I met with the executive of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture last October and we reviewed most of the first year of the farm assistance program, they said, "Sure, there are things we would like to see changed about it, some things added to it; but we think it has been successful." I have heard that from farmers all over Ontario.

I was in Elgin county yesterday and came across a number of farmers who have benefited from the program. They recognize that the program is in fact a success. It is a program that zeros in on individual farmers' circumstances and tries to maximize all the services of the provincial Minister of Agriculture and Food to their benefit. It brings to the table the concerns of the lender and of the borrower and in most cases has resulted in our being able to assist individuals who have come to us.

I suggest that instead of trying to take the time of the House today, the member would spend his time better in going to room 116 in the southwest corner of the building, getting on the phone, calling Mr. Whelan, Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Trudeau, and telling them to get off the pot and work with the provinces on the proposals we have put to them for our stabilization program for all farmers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for debate has expired.

I think this is a very important matter and I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the honourable members. I must confess that when the motion was first submitted, I did have some serious doubts as to whether it did conform or whether it was out of order. We all know it is a matter that has had a lot of discussion and debate in this House since the first motion was put forward, I believe in April 1981, by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). It has been discussed many times since then, I may say, while recognizing the seriousness of the problem, it is not a problem that is exclusive to the agricultural community, but affects all sectors of the economy and certainly affects a great many people in the province.

3:40 p.m

Mr. McKessock: Right, in Peterborough.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, indeed. Having said that, I am persuaded that the motion is in order. While there maybe some question as to the emergency part of the motion or of the standing order, I am going to put the question to the House. The question will simply be: Shall the debate proceed?

4:15 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Peterson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

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

Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Peterson. Philip, Rae, Reed, .1. A., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, 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, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 47; nays 67.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 146, An Act to amend The City of Thunder Bay Act, 1968-69.

Bill 192, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.

Bill 195, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

4:20 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 127

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, government notice of motion 11:

That, notwithstanding any order of the House, the consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, by the committee of the whole House, be concluded at 5:45 p.m. on Thursday, February 17, at which time the Chairman will put all questions necessary to dispose of every section of the bill not yet passed, 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 concluded at 10:15 p.m. Thursday, February 17, 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 third reading of the bill be at 2 p.m., Friday, February 18, when 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.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is with real and considerable regret that I rise in response to the government notice of motion 11 just put by the member for York Mills.

It is not lost on some of us here that it is the line minister in this case and not the government House leader (Mr. Wells) who is putting the gag motion forward. That is at some considerable variance with the experience on December 8 when the time allocation of that particular day was not put by the line minister, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), but by the government House leader, and seconded not by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), but by the government whip (Mr. Gregory).

My point of order derives from a concern which I believe all honourable members ought to have. This time allocation business is a significant departure from the way we have done business in this Ontario Legislative Assembly.

I have carefully looked at the debate of December 8. I read and reread the speeches made by the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the government House leader, and you, Mr. Speaker, in your consideration of the point of order. In a succinct way, I want to say that there has to be an appreciation by members of this assembly who are not only concerned about the here and now, but of something about the past that we share as members of this assembly.

I know the Minister of Education is not as insensitive to the greatness of the British parliamentary tradition, which is the past of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, as government notice of motion 11 would have one believe.

This is a very significant departure. Not until December 8, 1982 was the Ontario Legislature forced to consider the time allocation procedure, which the government House leader says is not closure. The procedure has been indicated as being something other than that by a number of government members, particularly the chief government whip.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention, as has been drawn to your attention on earlier occasions, that we do not have in our past any kind of experience with the time allocation business, save and except that fateful day, December 8, 1982, when the government House leader brought it forward to deal with what was considered, I think by common consent, a particularly difficult time in the justice committee vis-à-vis Bill 179.

I recall to the attention of members the circumstances of that parliamentary impasse. I spoke on that day about the very difficult situation in which the government found itself and in which we as members of the Liberal opposition found ourselves, with respect to trying to put amendments on the floor of that committee dealing with that particular legislation. I said as well that I understood very keenly the depth of feeling among my friends in the New Democratic Party about their objection to that legislation. Surely they, as members of this assembly who felt very strongly about what was being done, had an obligation, and certainly a right, to take every measure and means possible to register that complaint.

The government House leader in his remarks of December 8 went to some considerable pains to draw to our attention the requirement for the time allocation motion as being primarily that of parliamentary impasse. I do not intend now to recite chapter and verse the speech made on that occasion by the government House leader on why we needed that precedent-setting motion, notice of motion 10, which introduced this parliamentary place to a time allocation procedure that was completely foreign to the way in which we had conducted ourselves since the beginning of parliamentary practice in Upper Canada and in Ontario.

There was a complete deadlock in a committee that had to be broken. The government House leader in consultation with his colleagues in the cabinet, and presumably within his caucus, decided the only way to break that log I am was by the time allocation procedure, which he advanced on that particular occasion. I want to point out in my remarks with respect to the orderliness of this particular notice of motion 11 that we do not have in this situation the kind of impasse that was at the heart of the government House leader's concern some two months ago.

My friend the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) whispers fateful noises across the way, but I think it is fair to say that yes, there has been a very extensive discussion in the general government committee with respect to the provisions of Bill 127. But my colleagues the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) and the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) assure me that by far and away the vast majority of that time dealt with the several presentations made by the countless people and groups in this great metropolitan community who feel deeply and passionately about what the government, through the Minister of Education, is endeavouring to do to their educational framework and system.

I do not think it is at all fair and reasonable for anyone opposite the opposition in this place to somehow suggest that when citizens respond to the invitation of this assembly to come forward and offer input about a bill that affects very deeply and immediately the quality of life in the educational community at least, we should consider that somehow untoward and some kind of parliamentary blockage. I want to say --

Mr. Rae: She was just breathing deeply or heavily.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I said, "Oh?"

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I simply want to say I cannot believe my friends in the Conservative Party, reasonable people such as the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn). the absent member for St. George (Ms. Fish) and the absent Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), are going to be forced to argue the case that because their constituents, their friends and neighbours in the city of Toronto and in the suburbs came forward to participate actively and at length in the committee stage of the deliberations on Bill 127, somehow that constitutes a blockage of the parliamentary process.

I would like to believe that my friend the absent member for St. George, my friend the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), my friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) --

Hon. Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to submit that my friend is straying into discussing the motion rather than a point of order, which I assumed he was putting, the point of order being that the motion is not in order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Comments about what is happening are not relevant.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the minister finished? Then the member for Renfrew North has the floor.

Mr. Conway: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.

I indicated my deep and genuine disappointment privately to the government House leader earlier this afternoon. If he would like, I would b e prepared to read the speech he made on the point of order on December 8, 1982, and let that stand as a guide to the rest of us as to what constitutes orderliness in these matters. I think he would want to read that speech and be guided by his own past performance before he becomes too anxious about some of the rest of us who are now faced with the iron heel of a majority government which is forcing a bill of great sensitivity and import through this House in what are, apparently, the dying days of this winter session.

I do not intend to be long but I want to say -- unless the government House leader ulcerates with that concern -- one cannot but come to the conclusion that government notice of motion 11, which I understand was not written until after adjournment last evening, is before us today because very late in the session the government House leader decided on a reasonable date of adjournment to facilitate the first minister's travels to France and other such considerations. Having decided on a date of adjournment, everything was worked back from that date of adjournment, which I understand is thought to be Friday.

Of course, we are all somewhat tired and a bit worn down. I want to simply say members have to be very concerned about what is happening to the rules of this House. I recommend to honourable members who have an interest in the parliamentary state of this place -- and I regret to say I do not think that really is too many, by virtue of some of the past performance here -- but I would recommend to members present that they review the debate of December 8 and 9.

There were some excellent interventions by my leader and by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I also recommend the intervention of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who I think drew to our attention what we are doing in this kind of change of procedures.

I reiterate, we have been able to do the business of this Legislative Assembly for a long time, through wartime, through great depression and much acrimony, without the time allocation procedure. I must say that nowhere in our parliamentary past, prior to December 8, 1982, nowhere in our standing orders can one find a reference and a cause or an excuse to justify the time allocation motions that have been brought forward in the last two months.

I was just reading the standing orders again. I was rereading Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario, by the present Clerk's father, Alex C. Lewis, to get a flavour of the earlier period, and there is not a trace, not a hint of the kind of time allocation motion or framework we have been introduced to in the past number of weeks.

The government House leader said in the first round back in December that there was no reference in our past, and he agreed there was nothing in our standing orders; but he said that in fact this kind of experience and precedent was to be found in Erskine May, in the British Parliamentary Practice and, of course, in the Parliament of Canada as well.

I was struck this morning by an item in this connection that appeared in one of the Toronto newspapers, the Globe and Mail. I was sharing this with my friend the member for York South (Mr. Rae) just a few moments ago. Members will note in today's Globe and Mail an article that indicates sadly that last week in the Mother of Parliaments the Undersecretary for Wales died, apparently at 9:44 p.m., while giving a speech.

It was interesting because Hansard did not record the death. Why? Apparently one cannot record a death in the palace of Westminster because one could not have an inquest without summoning as participants, members of the royal household. I was thinking when I read this one can imagine, taking the government House leader's comments of two months ago, that of course it is the British practice, so therefore we can transplant it here.

One can imagine in the most ridiculous extreme someone dying on the floor of this House, for whatever good or questionable cause, and the House or the community not being able to satisfy itself through an inquest because the British parliamentary precedent is such that we might somehow involve or implicate members of the royal household, whoever they might be in this case. I grant it is a very absurd proposition, but I just wanted to point to the government House leader's argument and where it could ultimately, potentially and ridiculously take us.

The minister knows from his long experience in this place the way we have done business, particularly on major issues and major pieces of legislation. I do not think there is a member on either side of this House who would dispute the fact that Bill 127 is a major piece of legislation in which there is great community interest, certainly in Metropolitan Toronto, and about which, yes, there is a deep division of opinion.

Our past practice gives us clear guidance as to what we ought to do in this case. After a long and involved committee hearing, if we have not had the opportunity to participate in that dialogue -- and we all have not had the opportunity; I have dropped in on rare occasions, but it is well known that the work is divided up here in such a way that Education critics and others with a particular interest carry the load of that particular reference -- what recourse do we have as honourable members interested in these kinds of issues?

Our past practice is very clear. It tells us that when this bill comes back to the committee of the whole House, there is what I might call provision for a moderate debate on the principal issues of the legislation and a review of the major amendments.

In fact, last evening I had the opportunity to sit and listen to such a procedure on a matter of great importance and considerable interest to all members of the House, that is, the new Health Protection and Promotion Act of the Minister of Health. We heard the very procedure I have just enunciated being carried out in orderly fashion.

4:40 p.m.

What is so wrong with that past practice, which I dare say every minister opposite has had relatively frequent and good experience with? What is it about that parliamentary practice which I would argue has served so long and relatively so well? Why cannot that be applied in this situation, particularly because there is no impasse in that committee?

The minister and the government whip may feel, "Oh, my God, all hell is going to break loose when that bill comes back into this assembly and we ought to anticipate the fracas the opposition within the government caucus and without will initiate at that time." In a largely anticipatory fashion the minister, in consort with those members of the executive council who agree with her on Bill 127, brings forward government notice of motion 11.

There is no impasse. There has not been an impasse in the committee either with the hearings or with the clause by clause debate. There has been a protracted discussion. There is no doubt about that, given the number of witnesses who wanted to come forward and offer their testimony and input. I cannot believe the Minister of Education honestly believes, and would want to leave the impression, that there has been some kind of tie-up with respect to this legislation thus far.

Given our past practice and the silence of our standing orders on the time allocation procedure, I find the government notice of motion in a way an affront and an insult to the assembly, certainly at this time.

I draw attention again to the point made by a number of speakers two months ago with the first round of this debate, and that is the rule in our books which has been there for a long time to control debate. The government whip knows of its existence, I think I have been in a room on occasion where he has moved standing order 36. On occasion, I have been in a room when I have not liked it and, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) I think alluded to it this afternoon. I have, like some opposition members, cried out in reaction to and in resistance of that order. But I respect that it is part of our standing orders and has long been part of our parliamentary practice. It is there.

The government does have a tool. It does have a mechanism by means of which it can stop debate at a certain time. I said it two months ago and I repeat it now: I think it does not acquit this assembly in any positive way for us to be writing such major new rules under these kinds of conditions.

Mr. Martel: The Speaker should protect us.

Mr. Conway: I have to agree with the member for Sudbury East, who invites you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the rights of this assembly as an assembly duly constituted with standing orders and with a provincial parliamentary practice that on balance we can be quite proud of. It is not perfect to be sure, but it has served the community for 115 years.

I cannot believe we are seized in the winter of 1982-83 with some parliamentary crisis that forces us into a new avenue, down a slippery slope of time allocation, without which we have been able to function for the previous 115 years. I really have to say that we must be protected from this kind of majority government stampede --

Mr. T. P. Reid: And arrogance.

Mr. Conway: -- and arrogance.

I noted the government House leader was circulating within the precincts not many minutes ago. He was agitated about a release this afternoon from the Workgroup of Metro Parents, which said: "The Workgroup of Metro Parents today expressed its outrage at the government's use of closure to limit debate on Bill 127. On December 9, 1982, the government House leader, Tom Wells, stated that following the use of closure on Bill 179, closure would not be used again."

The minister repeats, in an interjection, that he never said that. He supplied members opposite with a transcript of his Metro Morning dialogue with Mr. David Schatzky on December 9, 1982.

I will read that, because I think it is very important in this connection. I was pleased to get this because I was saying to my friend and House leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), that I remembered coming through that December debate with the idea and almost a commitment from the government House leader that they had moved time allocation for an exceptional situation but they would not do so again until the standing committee on procedural affairs had the opportunity to look carefully at what, if anything, the assembly could do to entrench that principle in the standing orders.

Let me just quote from the transcript of the Metro Morning interview with David Shatsky and the government House leader on December 9, 1982, supplied to me by the government House leader.

"Hon. Mr. Wells: We put in a time allocation motion.

"Mr. Shatsky: This is something we are familiar with in Ottawa. They use it a lot -- the Liberal government there -- but this is the first time in Ontario. Are you concerned about that?

"Hon. Mr. Wells: I guess we are always concerned when it is the first time, but because of the precedent in Ottawa -- they have used it 12 times this year and used it a couple of times on their six and five restraint bill -- I think it is something we just have to look forward to using in our House now.

"Mr. Shatsky: But a precedent in another body does not make it a precedent here.

"Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, no, no. And we, of course, are being very careful to say this is for this bill only."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is why the member did not move this motion; he does not believe it either.

Mr. Conway: Let me just repeat that, because it is important.

"Mr. Wells: Oh, no, no. And we, of course, are being very careful to say this is for this bill only. And our suggestion is that all parties sit down and look at the rules. It was suggested that we might have this kind of time allocation procedure several years ago when the Camp commission reviewed our rules.

"Mr. Shatsky: How will it work?"

That is the end of the transcript, as provided. I read the transcript again and I get the very distinct impression that the message the government House leader wanted to convey was: "Yes, we moved it for the impasse on Bill 179. We did not like doing it, but we had no real choice." We in the opposition differed with that, but that was his position.

As I read the transcript and as I remember hearing it at the time, I had the distinct belief it would not be used again until the standing committee on procedural affairs had the opportunity to look at how time allocation might fit in with other changes in our standing orders. What really concerns me is that when we take government notices of motion 10 and 11 together, we have written a very major new rule into the precedents of this place.

We not only have time allocation for a log jam of the kind that was talked of with Bill 179, but now, thanks to a government notice of motion, we are going to have a time allocation precedent that is going to anticipate a problem. There has been no problem of the kind involved in the anti-inflation legislation in this matter, and I think that is extremely important.

4:50 p.m.

When I look at these two motions together, I am quite concerned about what we are doing to a very honourable tradition of parliamentary practice in this place. I do not say that out of any false sense of concern, because I will say to the Minister of Education that only yesterday morning I shared a panel with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and the former leader of the New Democratic Party, the former member for York South, and said to a group of senior Ontario public servants, "Yes, I am quite prepared to look at time allocation in terms of the way we do business in the Ontario Legislature."

I think we have to reform our practices in a way that takes into account new pressures, but I reiterate that we must do it in an orderly fashion and it must be done by consent and with consideration of a host of other attendant issues. I cannot accept, and I will not lightly let pass, time allocation of the kind spoken of in government notices of motion 10 and 11. As a member of this assembly, I cannot let that pass into our practice and precedents without the most strenuous objection.

Notwithstanding my belief about what we might do with time allocation, I vociferously argue that it must be done in an orderly fashion, as part of an entire reform package and as part of the tradeoff between government and opposition that is invariably involved when we try to work out an improvement to the way we conduct ourselves in this place.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is called the democratic process, or it used to be.

Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Rainy River highlights our interest. I think he says it all when he highlights our interest in the democratic way. We do not think there is much democracy about government notice of motion 11.

I submit that this motion is out of order. There is nothing in our standing orders, and even less in our practice, save and except that fateful day in December 1982 when the government House leader brought forward notice of motion 10, that legitimizes this tactic. As important as those items are, there is not and there has not been a difficulty with the progress of the debate with respect to Bill 127 in prior stages of its passage.

There has been no filibuster and there has been no untoward delay. There has been a vigorous response to the Legislature's invitation for people to come forward and pronounce yea or nay on the matter at hand, but there have not been hours and weeks of acrimony or a deadlock with respect to this legislation.

In conclusion, for the Speaker of this assembly, as the protector of the rights of all individual members, to be confronted the moment the bill comes back into the committee of the whole House at this particular juncture --

Mr. Sweeney: It has not even been in committee yet.

Mr. Conway: -- when it comes back to us now in this place, the moment it arrives, that it is attendant with this sort of ultimatum is an affront to the Speaker's judgement in terms of understanding past practice, in terms of his ability to rule this place in a fair-minded way, it is an affront to members of this assembly, not all of whom find themselves on this side of the aisle in their opposition to Bill 127.

It is an affront to members of this assembly who want to, in an orderly fashion, express themselves on a matter of great importance to the educational community in this province and in this great metropolitan community. I have to say the government is not without its time-honoured capacity and methodology if it wishes, in the final analysis, to control and regulate the debate.

I conclude by pointing again to the longstanding presence of standing order 36, which gives to the government House leader and the Minister of Education all they require to move the debate along from time to time as they see fit, in a way that squares itself with the parliamentary practice of this place and the standing orders under which I thought we all operated.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South. I know he will keep his remarks to the motion at hand.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I will keep them directly to the point. I will keep them directly to the orderliness of the motion which has been put by the Minister of Education. I am speaking directly to the point of order, sir, and asking you to rule on whether this motion is in order or whether it is in contravention of the rules, the customs and the traditions of this place and is out of order.

It has become clear that this government has drunk deep and long the heady wine of the guillotine and simply cannot get enough of it. Like an addict, the government assured us the first time it tried this it would never happen again. That was an exception that was really out of the ordinary and due entirely to the completely extraordinary circumstances surrounding the debate on Bill 179.

The House leader was extremely apologetic about having to move it. He indicated this was just a one-shot deal, it was not in the cards for it to happen again, it was not going to be a part of the traditions of this place, not part of the custom of this place, but rather it was going to be an exception.

How quickly we have learned. It is interesting to note, and we do have to note it, that it is not the House leader moving a procedural motion as one would anticipate and expect with respect to the business of this place. It is being moved by the minister and the minister alone because she is conducting her personal vendetta with respect to education, with respect to the Toronto Board of Education, and she wants to be the one to wield the knife.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The House leader would not touch it.

Mr. Rae: He would not touch the knife. He would not touch the guillotine a second time. He promised. He took the pledge with respect to the guillotine. It is the Minister of Education who has fallen off the wagon with such great high drama and is now moving the guillotine before we have even had a chance to bring the bill back.

We have not seen this bill since November. It was in November that this bill was discussed in this House. We have had discussions outside. The teachers and the parents have met with the Premier. The parents' groups have met with the Premier and the minister. Many things have happened. Many arguments have been made.

There have been discussions, we know, that have been loud and long, even within the Tory cabinet itself. We understand that even with respect to the cabinet office itself there have been some interesting and lively discussions. Now all those discussions in the cabinet, in the Premier's office and in this Legislature are being cut off by a second, brutal, ruthless use of the guillotine with respect to this legislation. It is not simply a shameful thing, it is also out of order.

5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to cast your mind back to December 8, 1982, and the decision you made which is quoted on page 5945 of Hansard for that day. I want you to reconsider that decision. With the greatest of respect I do not think you put your mind to some of the arguments we made at that time, although they were correct in a technical sense, a legal sense and a parliamentary sense. I think you have to do so today, because they have all the more force, given the fact the government has fallen off the wagon in a most decided way. It is now being utterly reckless with respect to the use of the guillotine motion.

It is clear now they will use it at any time. Every time something happens they do not like they are simply going to bring in these procedural motions whenever they want to get their way. They will say: "We are just doing it as a one-shot deal. We promise not to do it again," very much like those who are addicted to whatever they may be addicted to.

In the traditions of this place and the traditions of the House of Commons in Ottawa there is no such thing as a common-law right to allocate time or to limit debate. If one looks at the history of the two assemblies one sees it very clearly stated that time allocation -- it comes under the general heading of closure as that term is broadly defined -- is only permissible when it comes under the rules and standing orders of those assemblies.

The House of Commons introduced a closure rule in 1913. I will deal briefly with the history of that in a moment because it has to be understood if one is to grasp why this motion is out of order and is not acceptable as a technique. Prior to 1913, when the House of Commons rules were amended, the only technique for limiting debate was the limitation of having moved the previous question.

This is what we are told by the members' manuals and the texts of that time. The only other technique that existed for restricting the right of members to speak according to the rules of the House -- besides the limitation of speaking once on second reading and so forth -- was the limitation of moving the previous question. In 1904, we are told in the members' manual, this was the 35th rule of the House:

"Defining the previous question as precluding all amendments of the main question to be put in the words that this question be now put, if this motion prevail the original question is put forthwith without amendment or debate and although the question of adjournment may be proposed and voted upon after a motion for the previous question has been placed in the hands of the Speaker, it cannot be moved when the previous question has been carried before the main question has been disposed of."

It goes on to describe those circumstances in which this technique of moving the previous question was used. It describes the cases where it was applied and makes it very clear that apart from that rule with respect to putting the previous question, there was no provision anywhere for an allocation of time in the House of Commons.

The House of Commons had a very long discussion on the naval appropriations bill in the years following the election of the Conservative government of Mr. Borden in 1911. Since that discussion was so long, so lively, so protracted and so difficult, as many of these defence questions often are, it was decided that the Conservative government in its wisdom would bring in a new closure rule.

It is interesting to note this closure rule is associated with the name and memory of Arthur Meighen who went on to become the Solicitor General and, of course, Prime Minister of Canada, and an unsuccessful candidate in the York South by-election. It shows what can happen to those people who get closure hungry.

That closure technique passed by the rules in the House of Commons in Ottawa was used very infrequently. It was used once by the Bennett government in about 1932 in a discussion concerning the Bank Act. It was used again, and perhaps most notoriously, by the Liberal government in 1956 during the pipeline debate.

It is perhaps instructive for all of us to consider that technique and the fine traditions of the federal Conservative Party which were clearly established in that great battle in 1956. Then the Conservative Party stood for the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and protection of minority rights. It stood for the notion that artificial time limits set by Mr. Howe, Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. St. Laurent were less important than the basic principle that Parliament had to be respected and given the opportunity fully to scrutinize and debate the question of the pipeline. It was not something that could be subjected to arbitrary time limits set by those whose only criteria were power and convenience.

Subsequent to the trauma of 1956, the federal House moved slowly and gradually to the adoption of rule 75(a), (b) and (c) of the old standing orders of the House of Commons -- I do not know the numbers under the new standing orders -- to provide for something called time allocation. Those time allocation rules have replaced the old closure rules. There are now no closure rules in the House of Commons apart from those set out in rule 75(a), (b) and (c).

The point I am trying to make is this: At any time in the history of the House of Commons -- in 1905, 1910, 1915, 1920, 1925, 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945 or 1950 -- if a motion had been made for allocating time, it would have been ruled out of order. This was for the simple reason the House had put its mind to the specific question of allocating time in a particular standing order, and that standing order provided for certain ways, means, rules and regulations for the termination of debate.

This House has done exactly the same thing. It has put its mind to the question of closure and to the specific question of how it wants to limit debate in this Legislature. We have a lot of evidence for that. We have the specific evidence of the text of standing order 36 which you, Mr. Speaker, are bound to uphold under standing order 1.

Those standing orders are it. Outside of those standing orders it is not possible for the government to amend simply by means of a motion it decides to move on the spur of the moment, or to protect a minister's ego or his or her desire for a particular piece of legislation. This House transcends that kind of interest, whim or need on an individual basis for the political convenience of one minister or another. This House has put its mind to rules which I suggest are the only protection all the members of the Legislature have.

If we move down the road towards the position the government has been taking, that it can and will, at whatever time it chooses, suspend the standing orders and simply bring in whatever allocation of time it chooses on whatever bill, then I suggest there is little point in any of us being here to put forward a point of view and attempt to participate in the debates and discussions.

Mr. Speaker, we have rules according to certain processes which you are obliged to maintain and uphold. You cannot be a party to a gutting of the rules of this place without abandoning your function and responsibility as the protector of all members of this Legislature.

5:10 p.m.

There are particular aspects of the motion I want you to put your mind to for a moment, Mr. Speaker, in considering its acceptability and orderliness. You yourself in your particular role are being compromised in an unusual way. I suggest you are being asked at different points to interrupt the proceedings and put the question for the adoption of the report without amendment or further debate, and if a division is called, etc., the bells will be limited to 10 minutes.

This is not simply one closure motion -- and I know people object to the use of the word "closure." How many do we have? We have closure on committee of the whole, the report stage and third reading. It is three closure motions in one in allocating time.

At each of the stages you are being asked not by the whole House, in terms of consensual process, to interpret and enforce the rules, as you must do as a servant of this House. You are being told by the government what to do. You, in your office, are being used by the government in a particularly partisan way. That is something you should reflect upon as you consider the acceptability of this motion in light of the way it upsets the important balance existing between minorities and majorities in this Legislature.

This may seem like a minor point but I think it is worth raising. The bill also suspends the normal sitting times of the House. We are being asked to vote on something at 2 p.m. when, as you well know, the standing orders clearly provide the House will adjourn on Friday at one o'clock. That is standing order 2(d).

It is a minor point perhaps -- one many people might not think of the greatest importance. But again it indicates something -- in any other example I can think of the government would traditionally and normally move by unanimous consent to change this. I guess I would call it parliamentary politeness. It is a sense that one does not just say unilaterally. You are going to meet here when we tell you to meet. You are going to pass what we tell you to pass. This is the way we are going to run things here."

There is a sense of decorum and respect about this place for the views each member might have on a piece of legislation. There is a common-sense realization on the part of the government that it is possible to continue to use one's majority to throw out the standing orders in various ways, but when that happens there is something wrong.

There is a legal rule -- I will not use the Latin phrase; I will simply use the English equivalent -- and that is the expression of one thing means the exclusion of another thing. The expression of one thing means other alternatives have been excluded. As members know, that is a basic legal rule of statutory interpretation. It is a basic guide the courts have used in interpreting statutes and I think you, Mr. Speaker, should use it in interpreting the standing orders of this House. The expression of one thing under section 36 excludes other alternatives that governments may choose to find from time to time more convenient than what has been provided for in the standing orders. But nevertheless, it is something the House will not allow.

The House put its mind to section 36. One must look at the recommendations of the Camp commission and the response of the Morrow committee on the Camp commission -- which the government House leader proudly read into the record during the last debate in indicating this House strengthened his position. It does not strengthen the government's position. It strengthens our position. It says the Camp commission recommended there be some rules for time allocation. The Morrow committee rejected that advice and the House did not adopt it.

Therefore we have here a situation where the question of time allocation was specifically discussed and rejected by a committee of this Legislature. The committee was chaired by a Conservative member, and its report was concurred in by my colleague for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and members of the Liberal Party. A former Speaker chaired it, Mr. Speaker. This government is now telling us that does not matter and that whenever they want they can bring in a motion that will have the effect of suspending the standing orders adopted by this House.

That is wrong. It is not just morally wrong, Mr. Speaker, it is something that cannot be done and you have to put your mind to that fact. You said in your decision on December 8 that there were precedents. On page 5945 you said there were precedents in Westminster and Ottawa and you said: "It is something which is in order because the motion has been made properly. There has been proper notice and it has been properly printed. It was properly moved and put before this House."

But you have to consider the fact there really is no precedent in Ottawa -- in fact, quite the contrary. The precedent in Ottawa is clearly that when the Liberal government or Conservative government wanted to move to closure, or wanted to move from closure to time allocation, they had to do it through the standing orders of that House. That is exactly what they did. That is the precedent, sir, that is binding on you.

If this government wants to move to the allocation of time, they have to do it by means of standing orders. They cannot do it by means of ad hoc motions whenever it suits a particular minister whose job may or may not be on the line. That is the issue in this case.

Given the use the government wants to make of your job and your position, and given the way in which your role in this House is in my view being severely compromised by the wording of that motion, and given the fact it clearly suspends the standing orders with respect to sitting times of this Legislature, with greatest respect I would ask you, sir, to reconsider, perhaps at length, exactly what is being done here.

It is clear this is not a one-shot deal. This is a government that will move this kind of motion whenever it feels like it. I want to emphasize the point that has been made by my colleague and friend, the member for Renfrew North. When the government moved the motion with respect to Bill 179 they used the words: "Completely hampered in the House." They said there was a complete deadlock, a breakdown for three months. The bill was stuck. There was no other possibility, nothing to be done.

There is no such impasse in this Legislature with respect to this legislation. The only impasse is in the minister's head. There is no deadlock. The only deadlock is in the middle of the Tory cabinet. There is no deadlock in this Legislature. We have moved to clause 6 in committee of the whole and there are nine clauses in the bill. The bill has not been deadlocked. The bill has not been sandbagged. The bill is being discussed.

I can assure the minister I have read it -- I would suspect just about as carefully as she has. Judging from some of the comments she has made about the bill, I think I have read it probably a little more carefully than she has. I apologize -- there are 13 clauses. I forgot the short title of this act is the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, 1982. I forgot the fact it comes in when it receives royal assent, and other major items of that sort, which we all know will take up an extensive period of time in our debates here.

I simply want to say the justification the government made for that kind of motion does not hold any water today with respect to this legislation. It is a monstrosity to argue that somehow the minister is being held up and it is impossible for this bill to get through. That is absolutely a monstrous proposition. The reality, of course, is there is a great deal of opposition to this bill. That opposition is being expressed in this Legislature. It is not confined to the city of Toronto. It is not even confined to Metro Toronto. It is not confined to the New Democratic Party. It is not confined to the Liberal Party.

5:20 p.m.

It concerns and affects and involves the opposition of a great many members of the Conservative Party. This issue is about the fact that the minister is having political difficulties in her own party, with her own ideological extremism and with the kind of vendetta she is carrying on against the school board in the city of Toronto. Because the members of the Conservative Party know that, the minister has managed to convince the Premier (Mr. Davis) that the only way to get out of this thing is to get out of it as quickly as possible and as cleanly as possible. There is nothing clean about what the government is suggesting with respect to closure on this bill. It is dirty and it is wrong. It is something that does not add up, according to the rules of this House.

I am not going to refer to traditions and customs. I am talking about the rules. I am talking about the black-letter law of this place and about the fact that the Speaker is the only person who can maintain that black-letter law, not with respect to usages and customs but with respect to rules and the law of the House. I suggest, when one looks at what happened in Ottawa, when one looks at the history of the introduction of closure and time allocation, it is absolutely, fundamentally, perfectly clear that when the government of the day decided to move to time allocation, it did not do it through the back door, because it knew it could not do it through the back door. It had to do it through the front door, through changing the rules.

The only other way of closing off debate in this House, the only way of doing it according to the rules of the House, is through standing order 36. The expression of standing order 36, the explicit provisions of standing order 36, are exclusive. That is it. There is nothing else outside standing order 36 with respect to the limitation of time. The legislative history of the Morrow select committee on the Legislature and of the Camp commission on private member's role in the Legislature strengthens our case and weakens the government's case.

I beg the Speaker to think about the implications of letting this thing go through for a second time. It is out of order. It is not in order with the standing orders of this place. It is not in keeping with the law of this place. The Speaker has an obligation to consider those arguments and to deal with them very carefully indeed. I believe they are binding on him, are persuasive and are ones he must follow if he is not simply to protect minorities but also to follow the rules and the orders and the specific provisions of the standing orders of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), I would like to caution our visitors in the gallery. Please do not participate in any way in the proceedings of this chamber. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to ask you to leave.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to support the contention put forward by my colleague the member for Renfrew North that the motion, as it is presented before us at this time, is not in order. I am not prepared to go over the reasons put before you last December in support of the contention that motion was not then in order. I do support very strongly, and reiterate on my own behalf, the idea that any concept you might have, particularly by the government putting forward the motion, that somehow or other the passage of the bill has been intransigently opposed or delayed is incorrect.

I believe it is true that the minister herself, with her intransigence, almost her ferocity in support of her concept in this connection, may have browbeaten some of her colleagues into feeling that the bill can no longer be productively debated in the House without the restrictions of this resolution. You have already been informed of the statistics associated with the debate, and that we are at present in the committee stage in the House, and that it has moved forward, albeit in the minds of the minister and her supporters too slowly, but in fact steadily, as the various matters, section by section, have been discussed. It seems to me that, among your many responsibilities in this House, there is one that takes precedence over all others. That is obviously, and I know you will agree, to safeguard the rights of the minority.

Certainly we have had an opportunity to discuss this in standing committee outside the House, where primarily we heard the views of citizens, teachers, board members, parents and many others, expressing in some cases their support, but in most cases their direct opposition to the bill and its specific provisions.

As members may recall, the bill was brought to the House under rather strange and unusual circumstances. It was moving through the committee stage here in a deliberate way in which the matters were debated section by section and settled by vote in this House. It is not an unduly lengthy bill, in my view, it is not fair or proper for the Minister of Education to bring forward an allocation motion which will restrict the freedom of debate we are used to in this House.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I voted against your decision that the time allocation resolution was in order last December. I voted against it on the basis that it was not part of our rules and that we had procedures which had served us in good stead since the beginning of the work of this Legislature more than 100 years ago. I regretted very deeply then that the government saw fit or felt itself forced to take this position.

There are those -- and perhaps I am one of them -- who felt that the delay in the passage of that particular bill might have -- in the minds of reasonable people -- forced the government to at least move to some form of closure, abhorrent though I personally found that and continue to find that to be. You ruled that particular resolution in order. It was objected to in the House at length, with all the arguments that could be mustered, but your decision in that instance was maintained.

I submit to you, sir, that the objections today are entirely different. Perhaps it is relevant and I would support those who say it is relevant that the rule in Ottawa does not apply here; that we have no specific rule and so on. All of those objections are significant and you must take them into consideration. In my view, what is going to make this a difficult day for you is the fact that the bill has not been held up in the course of its progress through this House. It has been moving slowly but surely, section by section, with reasonable debate on all sides. Each section has ended with a vote, which has been recorded and has allowed the House to move on to the next section.

I believe that it is out of order in this House for the minister, simply because somehow or other in her frustration she wants to move the bill --

Interjection.

Mr. Nixon: In my opinion, her frustration on this bill has been evident today and in the past. I believe it is out of order to expect a resolution based on that.

As has already been said, we would all love to get out of here. We have other things to do, but this is an important, overwhelming responsibility for all of us. Probably the least of the aspects is that we are all paid to be here for as long as the business of the House requires our attendance. Most of us feel that this is an important bill. It affects everybody in the province, although the minister has clearly stated her views to the contrary. We disagree on that particular aspect.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very tough decision for you to make. We have not stopped dead in the House; far from it. The debate goes on slowly and it is frustrating for people who are not immersed in it themselves. They think: "According to the government and Conservative members, who is running this place anyway? Who won the election anyway?" That is the question that must make you perk up your ears. I know it does, because we have only one safeguard here under our rules of order: the requirement that you must safeguard the minority against an infringement of their rights.

When this point of order finally comes to the test, you may be convinced by that argument or the other argument -- although from my point of view, that is the argument that must give you concern. If you rule the resolution out of order, what will happen then? I suppose only one thing can happen: the government, with their commitment to this bill and to their course of action, would appeal your ruling and reverse you.

It has happened in the past. It is not a very nice thing to contemplate, but it is not a dishonourable thing for the Speaker of this House or any other democratic House. It would, in no way, demean you, sir. In many respects, it would set you apart from any of the Speakers I have known, excellent though they have all been.

5:30 p.m.

In your own mind, Mr. Speaker, you would say, "Well, my God, I have to rule this in order: it comes from a senior minister;" after what you and all of us have sensed: the altercations behind the curtains of cabinet solidarity and the secrecy of caucus, such as it is -- and it has been breached on many occasions in this bill. It is a difficult thing indeed.

I close simply by saying that the bill has not been held up in this House, and there is no one who can say it has been. As a matter of fact, it has been delayed by the decisions taken by the government House leader and supported by everybody on that side not even to consider it until all the other business was finished, all the money was voted and the supply bills were ready in your hands to hand humbly to his Honour the Lieutenant Governor whenever he comes to prorogue. Everything has been done, everything has been set aside except this last bill.

It seems to have hung on for a long time, mostly because the government has been afraid to touch it with a 10-foot pole. They have been afraid to allow the debate to take place in committee stage the way it must take place with all the deliberation our rules require. When it is apparent in some judgement that it is simply stopped dead, that the business of the province is stopped dead and that nothing the government can do, other than the application of closure, can get it to move again, then they could consider the bill.

I submit, Mr. Speaker -- and this is the only test for you to make -- that it is not stopped dead; and if you accept this motion, it really means that the rights of the minority have not been safeguarded, as is your responsibility.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I need not repeat anything that has been said by the member for Renfrew North, the leader of our party and the House leader of the Liberal Party, and I do not intend to repeat any of their comments. The points are effective. They have been well expressed. The depth of feeling that this side of the House exhibits about this kind of motion is obvious to you as Speaker of the assembly.

I want, if I may in the short time I intend to take on this point of order, to make a submission making one or two assumptions, which I could perhaps have argued at some length but which I am prepared to make in order to narrow and, in a sense, to try to be helpful to you in the very difficult decision you are going to have to make about government notice of motion 11.

Members may recall that in December I was concerned about the historical origin of government notice of motion 10, and at that time I dealt a little bit with the history of Great Britain during the period between 1880 and 1890 in order to illustrate why that first allocation of time motion was introduced in the House of Commons in England in 1887. It is not my intention to repeat any of that history.

I did, however, want members to understand that during the interval between that debate and now, I have had the privilege of reading Anthony Trollope's Phineas Finn, which relates to the parliamentary world as it existed in England during the time of the second reform bill. The second reform bill in 1866 was in committee of the whole House in the House of Commons from February until August, and that seemed to me to be a reasonable period of time to deal with what was in British parliamentary terms a very controversial and very difficult piece of legislation.

I want members to bear that in mind when they compare the amount of time we have spent on this particular bill. I need also say that I would recommend that particular novel to Mr. Speaker and to anyone else in the House. It is most entertaining and instructive with respect to the origins of some of the traditions of this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I also refer you to the quotation from Edmund Burke, and I will not quote it, which appears in the front of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice with respect to the fine problem in conceptual terms you are faced with in making your decision.

Before I move to the clear submission I want to make in a narrow context, I want to point out the constraints under which you must operate in making the decision you want to make. You should not lose sight of the co-operation which was evident in the House as a whole up until 9:15 p.m. last evening when, I believe, my House leader first received notice of the intention to introduce this motion today.

I want to point out we acquiesced with the government House leader not abiding by the rules of the House, that is standing order 13, last Thursday evening. We acquiesced with his nonobservance of the rule which provides that, "Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader shall announce the business for the following week". We acquiesced and co-operated in recognition that as the work of the House was progressing we would go on a day by day step toward the resolution of the problem in front of us.

As well last Thursday, we acquiesced and co-operated when the government House leader, during routine motions, dispensed with private members' public business on Thursday afternoon of this week and when we agreed to sit tomorrow afternoon, Wednesday, to co-operate and facilitate the work of the assembly.

I have heard it said everyone knew the government was going to bring in closure on this debate. I want the House to know that until it happens I do not believe the course of history is so foreordained. I did not believe last night the government was going to bring in closure because of the co-operation which had developed and because of the way in which the House leaders of the parties were able to order the business of the House, even though there was a significant break with the traditions of the assembly.

It is quite unique that the session did not end with the vote on the budget at the end of the budget debate and the passage of the supply bill. The government had the co-operation of each of the parties to provide that all the business of the House, which the government had indicated it wanted passed, would be dealt with in an orderly way. I want to emphasize the extent and degree of the co-operation which was evident in the ordering of the business of the House, despite the frustrations and concerns it caused some of us when one does not know what the name of the game is because significant changes are being made in the traditional way in which the House business has been carried on.

We tried our best to deal with the question of supply for the government. We co-operated with respect to a number of important bills on the Order Paper. They were debated appropriately. Every effort was made to expedite the ordinary business of this House in the extraordinary circumstances in which we were placed.

We recognized and everybody recognized that Bill 127, and this is not a matter of pejorative comment about it, brought out a very significant difference of opinion. It has been well expressed by the leader of this party that it is not limited to the opposition, that each of the parties has differing views of a matter of concern and importance with respect to what I would call the quality of education.

I thought we were moving to a position where, in accordance with the rules of the House, with the co-operation of the government House leader and within the framework of the rules of the House, the bill, if it was called -- and the government obviously had difficulties about that -- would be dealt with within the ambit of the rules we have in our standing orders.

5:40 p.m.

Before I move on to the actual standing orders, and the limited submission I want to make in an effort to be of assistance to you in your decision Mr. Speaker, I ask you, since you have all the information at your disposal, what is the amount of time this assembly has spent on this particular bill?

The Speaker will agree it was only right and proper that this Legislative Assembly should have debated this bill on second reading last June in the way in which it was debated. It was a reasonable, proper and most appropriate debate. The bill, pursuant to the standing orders of the assembly, was referred to committee to hear public submissions. That is an appropriate way for a government and a Legislative Assembly to deal with a bill which obviously has significant controversial overtones to it in the way it is perceived by the public.

The bill then came back into the assembly and my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), who is the critic for the Ministry of Education in our caucus, advises me that last December there was the equivalent of three sitting days in the assembly when the bill was being dealt with on a clause-by-clause basis in committee of the whole House. We have, as I understand it, progressed to about halfway through the bill in the course of that debate.

I ask the Speaker, in the light of the time spent in committee of the whole House, to ask himself whether it is now appropriate, the opposition having co-operated on all other matters with the government, that the government's response to that co-operation should be to introduce government notice of motion 11. It is within that context I would like to come back specifically to the assumption on which I am prepared to go in this debate.

I can make all the arguments in the world that I do not like the sudden intrusion into our assembly of rules from another place when we do not have our own adequate rule book. I could express my concern about the independence of your position, sir. It has been well expressed in the debate this afternoon on this point of order.

I could express my concern again to the Clerk of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that while they may have a Beauchesne on the parliamentary process at the House of Commons and they may have Erskine May with respect to the parliamentary process at Westminster, we do not have any book which explains our rules and regulations or the circumstances and conditions under which they arose.

I could argue those points, but I do not want to be argumentative about that kind of thing. I want to come to very clear submissions to you, Mr. Speaker. I will accept for the purposes of this point of order that our rules provide in standing order I the following:

"(a) The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario shall be conducted according to the following standing orders,

"(b) In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker and in making his ruling the Speaker shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition."

We accept that. Further, we accept that the parliamentary tradition is reflected in Erskine May. For my purposes, it is reflected in the 17th edition of Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, by Sir Barnett Cocks. There may be a later edition, but I do not happen to have one.

Mr. T. P. Reid: There is a 19th. It has not changed a great deal.

Mr. Renwick: On this particular point, I do not think so. I wanted to make certain that the Speaker, when he is considering this matter over the dinner adjournment, is not confused as to what my page references might be, if I should draw them to his attention. I could, if I wish to do so, go into some of the history of the process of debate in the ordering of the business of the House, but I want to come to chapter XX. The heading of that chapter is Methods of Curtailing Debate.

I want to quote some of these portions, not in extenso, but to illustrate the submission I wish to make to you about this difficult decision. I quote from the opening paragraph: "The principal methods available for the curtailment of debate on particular items of business in the House of Commons are the following: 1. The closure of debate (of which there are two principal forms, (i) the ordinary closure, and (ii) closure on the words of a clause.)"

I am going to skip the second one because we do not have that rule in our assembly. The third reads, "3. The allocation by orders of limits of time for discussion." That, of course, is the form of curtailment of debate that is before us at this time. The question of closure of debate by ordinary closure is provided for in our standing orders, as has been referred to, that is, standing order number 36. I need not read to you, sir, the provisions of standing order 36 on the question of closure by motion of the previous question.

I want to make a distinction that is perhaps not always clear. There are rules that also provide for the difficult situation of the application of that rule when the House is in committee of the whole and it is dealing with a clause-by-clause provision in the bill. I want to quote under the subheading of the chapter to which I refer, Multiplication of Amendments. It may well be within this parameter that we are discussing the question you have to decide, Mr. Speaker.

Having discussed the ordinary closure during second reading debate or on some similar occasion, it goes on to say: "The ordinary closure is much less effective in the course of the committee and report stages of bills, and, occasionally, on motions, when the problem to be dealt with is caused by the multiplication of amendments. If all the amendments that are sometimes offered were moved and debated exhaustively, the process of disposing of them by closure might take an inordinate amount of time.

"To meet opposition of this kind, a special form of closure known as 'closure upon the words of a clause' is laid down. This paragraph" -- and that is referring to the British House of Commons standing order -- "gives power under the same conditions as the ordinary closure, to secure a decision on a clause, or a defined portion of a clause, to the exclusion of all amendments that have been, or may be, offered."

I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that closure on the words of a clause is a process that is included in our standing order 36 and has been used, as it was used in the standing committee that was considering Bill 179, and it is a distinction that is not always evident. In other words, it is not necessary for the government minister, or any member of the assembly who wishes to move closure, to move closure on each amendment.

The rule has been devised and expanded in such a way as to provide specifically for the application of closure in committee of the whole House in order to overcome what at some point may appear to be a multiplication of amendments and perhaps a use of the processes of the House for something called obstruction or unnecessary repetition of arguments.

5:50 p.m.

That distinction is extremely important when we understand this bill is in committee of the whole House. There is certainly no problem when it goes to the report stage or to third reading, because that requires the simple, well-known process of closure that can be moved at any time.

I do want to emphasize the specific adaptation of the rules in order to provide that rule 36 can be used at the appropriate time and occasion. Under your discretion, sir, limited as section 36 is, it must not be an abuse of the standing orders of the House or of the rights of the minority. We respect that process. We accept that process. We always have dealt with that process.

The government, having had co-operation in the ordering of the business up to this stage of this session so the work can be expedited, appears to have decided that it must not use the standing orders. It wishes to take the step to which we have registered our objection and in my submission the step to which you must, in my opinion, address your particular concern.

Let me go on to what Erskine May states about the equivalent of government notice of motion 11, the allocation of orders that limit time for discussion, and outline to you, in my humble submission, what are the limitations on your decision-making power on this particular item.

It refers to occasions "which arise under governments of whatever political complexion, when, in order to secure the passage of specially important and very complex or very controversial legislation, the leaders of the House are confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken" -- and I draw your attention to the three choices -- "of cutting down their normal program to an undesirable extent, or of unreasonably prolonging the sittings of parliament, or else of acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority." Those are the three and only three criteria in Erskine May and those are the three criteria that you, sir, must act upon. I want to come back to those in a moment or two.

It goes on: "In such circumstances resort is had sooner or later to the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure, namely the allocation of a specified number of days to the various stages of a bill, and (in the case of the committee and report stages) of limited amounts of time to particular portions of the bill, together with provision for securing the disposal of the stages or portions of the bill at the end of the time allotted for each. This method is not provided for by the standing orders but is applied when the need arises by special orders of the House known officially as 'allocation of time' orders and colloquially as 'guillotine' or 'closure by compartment' orders.

"They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate. But the harshness of this procedure is to some extent mitigated either by consultations between the leaders of both parties with a view to establishing agreement."

We must not misunderstand. This is not an alternative process in the sense that on the one hand we can do it this way and on the other hand we can do it that way. It is invoking in this chamber the most drastic curtailment of debate known to the parliamentary process.

Is this such an occasion when, as I have indicated without undue repetition, the parties in the House have all co-operated without knowing what the ultimate intention of the government was, believing, as we did -- and I am indebted to what my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) had to say about the bill -- that December was the only occasion when this procedure was going be used, and believing the discussions that have generally gone on among the House leaders and generally in the House of the need to look at all our rules again and to develop by way of consensus the necessary changes that should be in the rules?

My final submission, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to make it before six o'clock, is that you can make this important decision for the drastic curtailment of the rights of the opposition parties in this assembly only if you can come within one of the three stated cases that Erskine May provides. If we are going to call parliamentary tradition in aid and if we are going to call Erskine May in aid as the authoritative statement of that parliamentary tradition, then you are limited by these three choices:

"The leaders of the House are confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken, of cutting down their normal program to an undesirable extent." This is the last item in the program of this parliament as far as we know and we have co-operated to bring that event about. So in my submission there is no cutting down of the normal program to an undesirable extent.

The second choice you have to answer is, "or of unreasonably prolonging the sittings of parliament." I would submit there is no unreasonable prolonging of the sittings of parliament. In no way, in a Legislature with the population of this province and the problems this assembly is faced with, can it be said we would be unreasonably prolonging the sittings of parliament.

I want to emphasize, and I say it to the government and I say it to you in my submission, Mr. Speaker, that this is within the context of the government on appropriate and, in their view, correct conditions, using the power they have under standing order 36 to move closure whenever they want to on any particular clause in the bill or at any particular stage of the bill.

So in the course of a reasonable debate on the remaining part of the bill it is within your power, Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary processes of the parliamentary tradition to carry out the debate as you see it within the parliamentary process.

The third one, and I need not mention this, was that they would be acknowledging impotence. We may have some question about the impotence of individual members, but we do not have any question about acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority.

You yourself have told us, Mr. Speaker, that the reality of March 19, 1981, was very clear. Surely you do not have to engage in some machismo operation to prove your virility to us on these matters. Surely you will dismiss that as a choice you have to consider in any way.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying, very simply, Mr. Speaker, those are the three choices on which you have to determine whether the action of the government is in order and is justified. My submission is that it is not in order; that it would be unwise for you to so affect the rights of the minorities in this assembly when another course is available.

I do not believe, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) indicated, I do not believe for one single moment, knowing the government House leader, that if you ruled this out of order the government members would challenge your ruling on that question. I think on reflection they would say to themselves, "We will proceed in the ordinary course under the ordinary rules of the House as we understand them and we would invoke, as occasion may require, the power under standing order 36 to move closure of the debate."

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that put to you in those terms the answer to the question is obvious. You may wish to make a decision now to rule it out of order. Should you have any problem with that, you might wish to consider these remarks during the dinner recess.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I assume before you consider this matter I will have an opportunity to argue the very logical case for the motion being in order. I noted in reading through the rules that the last time we debated this particular matter you indicated you would hear remarks from each of the parties on the point of order and then make your ruling. I would --

Mr. Martel: Oh, here are more instructions.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker indicated at that time he would lay down some ground rules and would hear positions from each of the parties. I would merely ask Mr. Speaker if he is going to have a full-scale debate on the point of order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I presume that was a point of order, to put a nice tinge on it, from the House leader of the government side. I would say he is directing you --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not directing him.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- and trying his best to intimidate you. I intend to speak on this point of order later on and I presume there are others who wish to speak. It being one of the more important points of order we have had around here, I am sure you would not restrict debate on any side.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little presumptuous of the government House leader to give this little lecture to Mr. Speaker. Surely Mr. Speaker is running the --

Mr. Barlow: We have listened to this for two hours.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I did not give a lecture. I asked Mr. Speaker if he was going to do the same thing he did the last time.

Mr. Stokes: The Speaker is on his feet.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Then the member for Lake Nipigon should sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Martel: If I might continue for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I found it a bit presumptuous that he would try to direct you. You are capable of doing this.

I let my friend the member for Rainy River, as it is allowed, enter into this debate because of what is transpiring. I would ask Mr. Speaker to use his good judgement and not the direction from the government House leader.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

February 15, 1983