32nd Parliament, 3rd Session



House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.


Consideration of Bill 86, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional and Metropolitan Municipalities.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 1 of Bill 86 be amended to read as follows:

"Subsection 74(1) of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, being chapter 434 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the Durham Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by resolution of the regional council; and

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious what we are trying to do with this bill. The reason I am introducing the amendment instead of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who would normally have this responsibility, is that he has been ill for the past couple of days.

I want to say on my colleague's behalf and on behalf of our caucus that we consider this amendment and the change we propose to be of real significance. It is important to our party. The principle we are embodying in this resolution is clear. It is the principle that the majority of the members of a police commission shall be elected members of council selected by the other elected members of that council.

I, the member for Riverdale and others talked about this principle at some length on second reading of the bill. I do not intend to repeat everything I said at that time relative to the wisdom of making this change which we propose. At that time I drew a number of illustrations relating to the Niagara Regional Police Force and the commission that governs it to point out the insensitivity and lack of accountability of that commission. As I say, I am not going into that in any great detail this evening, but I do want to mention what we consider are some pretty overriding reasons this amendment should pass.

The Liberal Party has indicated previously that it will be supporting this proposal, and we are hoping that the government and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) also may be willing to support this amendment so that it can become the law of this province.

The real issue is whether control of the police commission in any municipality, the authority that governs the police, shall rest with the elected council of that municipality, whether it is a regional or local municipality -- Bill 86 deals with regional municipalities, while Bill 87 deals with local municipalities -- or whether it shall rest with appointed people from the province.

I think it is not unfair to say that police forces in many respects now are too far removed from the public, and that is due to two or three reasons. One is that police forces generally are much larger now than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Most of the police forces are quite large, either city police forces or regional police forces. When one gets a large force, it becomes a very real power unto itself and is much less likely to have the degree of accountability that a smaller force has.

Police forces are also less than fully accountable -- in fact, that is putting it very kindly -- because they have commissions that in the majority are not composed of elected people, who I suggest have the kind of sensitivity that appointed people do not have. Elected people are much more concerned with the attitude of the public towards the police. First of all, they recognize it to a much greater degree and then they are concerned that the police force is seen by the public as being sensitive, accountable, civil and serving them in a way that they like to see themselves and their neighbours being served. This is simply just not possible when one has the majority of the people appointed to that commission.

It is also recognized, and I think its importance should be recognized, that it is the municipal taxpayers who supply the bulk of the funds for policing. As I pointed out when we were discussing this on second reading, in the Niagara region something like 75 to 80 per cent of the funds for the operation of the police comes from the local taxpayers. There are few other services provided by a municipality where such a large percentage of the operating costs comes directly from the municipal taxpayers.

8:10 p.m.

If we look at the construction and maintenance of roads and streets, 33 to 50 per cent of the funds -- in some municipalities it is as high as 80 per cent -- rightly come from the provincial government, and yet the municipality basically has control over the roads within that municipality. When we look at the issue of welfare, another service provided by the municipality, we find that 80 per cent of its costs are paid by the higher levels of government. Yet here we have a service that is provided by the municipal taxpayers, who put up 75 to 80 per cent of the money -- the province puts in only 20 to 25 per cent of the funds -- and yet the province has control of that police force because it has a majority of the members on the police commission.

It should be pointed out too that while the members on that commission from the region or from the local municipality are there by virtue of having been elected by the voters of that municipality, most of the other members of the commission, apart from the judge who sits there, are there by virtue of the fact they have been loyal supporters of the Conservative Party. There is no question that this is the reason the majority of them are there -- not all of them -- and their first loyalty is not to the ratepayers of the municipality but to the Tory party. Therefore, we will have a much higher degree of accountability if this motion is passed and we have three people appointed by the local municipality and two people appointed by the government.

The minister must be very conscious of the fact, and I believe he admitted this in debate on second reading, that the municipalities have asked over and over again for this change to be made. Every major municipal association in this province has passed resolutions, whether we are talking about the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or whether we go back before that time to the Association of Ontario Mayors and Reeves or to the Ontario Municipal Association. I have been present at many of those conventions where these resolutions have been passed, and they are passed almost unanimously, asking the government of this province over and over again to amend the act we have before us here tonight to provide that the majority of the members of the commission come from the council.

Quite frankly, I cannot understand what it is on the part of the Conservative government of this province that they do not trust the elected municipal politicians to the point where they should have a majority of the members on the police commission. I sat on municipal council for 21 years and I have come to have great respect for those municipal people. They are people of integrity.

Why, when they have to raise 75 or 80 per cent of the money for the policing, should they not have the right to have the majority and to have the final say in the decision-making of the police authority'? They do not even have the final power to determine the budget of the police commission. If there is any objection to the budget, the municipality can appeal that budget; but for the final decision -- and the Solicitor General can correct me if I am wrong -- the appeal goes to the Ontario Police Commission. The decision is made by the police body, not by the elected people.

I know that on the other side of the chamber and to my right there are many people who have sat on municipal councils, and surely they realize the validity of the argument that I am putting forward and that municipal councils have put forward year after year after year.

I hope the government will accept the amendment we are putting, but if it does not accept it I suggest that shows the real contrast between us in this party and the Conservatives over there. We have enough faith in the municipal people that we think they should be given the right to make the major determinations as to who sits on a police commission.

I see the former mayor of Sudbury is here. I am sure his municipality voted over and over in favour of having the majority of its police commission from elected members of council -- or perhaps it is a region in his area now -- whatever, I am sure he carries the logic of that into this chamber.

In this motion we have before us we have for the first time in many years the opportunity to make the changes the municipalities have requested and that most people in this province agree with.

Mr. Boudria: Agree with what? With regional municipalities?

Mr. Swart: Not with regional municipalities but with the majority of members of police commissions being elected people.

Even if the government has the best intentions in the world of bringing in legislation to make this change at some future date, there is the likelihood, with the docket always being clogged with bills, that it will be years and years before we have the opportunity to make this change.

I think it is safe to say this is a change that is supported in principle by the majority of people in every walk of life and at every level of government, with the possible exception of this government, although I suggest, even by the back-benchers of the government party. We have the opportunity to make this change that everybody wants. I suggest to the members that we should grasp the opportunity we have before us now and improve the democratic system in our society by having those people who raise the money, who are elected, make the vital decision in the overall operation of the municipal police forces in this province.

On behalf of my party, certainly on behalf of myself for the years I have spent in municipal life and on behalf of the municipalities and the municipal organizations in this province, I am happy to move this amendment in the hope that it will get the unanimous support of this House.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the amendment put forward by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) for many of the reasons we have heard from municipal councillors over the years. One need only look at the various political jurisdictions at the municipal level across this province to recognize that one of the areas where the greatest complaints lie is that area where the local municipal politicians feel they do not have the kind of control they would like to have, and I mean control in the very best sense, over a police commission.

At present, with provincial appointees making up the majority of a police commission, we have a circumstance where, as the member for Welland-Thorold has appropriately pointed out, many of these people across the province are simply friends of the government. They are appointments certainly based in part upon the person's ability, but a major component is the political affiliation of the individual. It gives the Tories in this province, the government in this province, yet another opportunity to practise the politics of patronage and privilege, for which it has been so well known over the years.

Mr. Shymko: You're talking about the federal government.

Mr. Bradley: I am elected to the provincial Legislature by the electors in St. Catharines to represent provincial issues.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Bradley: I will leave to my federal counterpart in St. Catharines the opportunity to make the necessary criticism to the federal government if he feels that is appropriate.

8:20 p.m.

To go back to the amendment proposed by the member for Welland-Thorold, I guess even those who felt it was somehow dangerous to have the democratically elected people in the majority on police commissions in our part of the province started to think twice when, I think it was two years ago, we had a bill presented to the regional council to the tune of a 22 per cent increase.

The regional council, which at that time was certainly prepared to spend money in a variety of areas and had come under some considerable criticism, was making an effort to rein in some of the free spenders. Indeed, the administration of the regional municipality of Niagara was looking at various areas where it could keep its expenditures in line. Guidelines were, therefore, given to each of the departments of the region and the department heads were asked to live within those guidelines.

It is mighty difficult to ask the head of the engineering department, the planning department or one of the other departments to hold his or her expenditures within, let us say, five, six or seven per cent when the police commission presents a bill for an increase of 21 or 22 per cent in the allotment of funds.

At this time, even many of those who were, first, very good friends of the government politically and, second, people who thought there was perhaps some merit to having independently appointed, nonaccountable people -- that is, not directly accountable to the local municipal electorate -- in positions where they could exercise independent judgement fell by the wayside -- I am talking now about the supporters of that system -- when they saw the kind of expenditure that was made.

What was the opportunity they had? The only opportunity they had, as I recall, was to appeal it to the Ontario Police Commission. The minister can correct me if this is not the case. I think this is the appeal which goes to the Ontario Police Commission or a provincial board on the budget. Naturally, the people sitting on the review committee or review board or review commission are people who recognize and feel strongly about the value of expenditures for policing purposes. In other words, they are not people who, in my view, can exercise a totally objective judgement because of their bias towards providing maximum and top-flight police service to a particular area. This is understandable because of their experience in the area and because of their recognition of its importance.

Therefore, the regional municipality of Niagara simply had to pass the cost along to the taxpayers. There are those of us in the opposition who have been, and I think justifiably so, critical over the years of regional government and of the expenditures of regional municipalities. However, in one specific area, even though the region took the flak for it, it would perhaps be unfair for us to point the finger at the region when a commission, the majority of whose members are appointed, made a decision which cost the region a substantial amount of money.

If one examines the regional budget, he would find that police services and the provision of police services make up a very large part of that budget. From the viewpoint of financial responsibility and accountability, I think this amendment makes good sense.

It also makes good sense because of the increased pressure we see in our society today for the accountability of police forces across the province. In Metropolitan Toronto the government has set up a mechanism whereby there can be a review of complaints against police procedures. I think all of us in this House recognize it is a tough job to be a police officer in Ontario. I certainly would not point the finger at the police to say they are doing a terrible job. By and large, we know they are doing a very good job.

However, there are occasions where citizens have legitimate complaints against the procedures followed by specific police officers. I would venture to say that many who are on the force themselves have a vested interest in and want to see the best possible mechanism in place for reviewing complaints against their department so they are not tarred with the same brush as those who might violate the proper procedures.

What I am saying is that when you have a majority of elected people on a commission, the chances for political accountability are greater than if you have a majority who are appointed and accountable to really no one but themselves when it comes down to the short strokes. So from the point of view not only of financial accountability but also of political accountability, I think it is wise and a reasonable safeguard to have a majority of elected people.

We in this House proclaim our interest and our faith in the democratic system and yet from time to time, when we do not follow those procedures that would favour the democratic system, we indicate a lack of faith in that system.

No one has said it is perfect. No one would suggest in this House this evening that simply because a person had been elected by a municipal council and then chosen by that council to serve on a police commission we are necessarily going to get the very best people. But the chances are that we are going to get people who are accountable to the electorate, to the people who are paying the bill, and that is a key to it. The people who are paying the bill have a right to have a majority of people there to protect their interests, not only financially but also in respect to the procedures followed by a police force to make it the best possible police force within a specific area of the province.

So it seems to me that it makes good sense for all members of this House to support an amendment that has been placed by the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party on perhaps different occasions over the years and advocated even by some on the government side from time to time as being sensible. I think 1983 is the year when we should start doing that. I think we now recognize that more people see the virtue of having a majority of elected members on that commission.

When you look around the province, the experience is that the elected people on the police commission have not caused great damage to the commission. Sure, there may be some isolated cases, but for the most part they are people who are sensitive to the special problems confronted by a police force and by individual police officers. They are not inclined to make some radical and embarrassing decisions against the police force, but they may be more inclined to investigate a little further than those who are in an appointed position where they are not necessarily accountable to anyone out there in the hinterlands who goes to the ballot box to indicate a choice.

So I hope I will hear some members opposite express a viewpoint in favour of this amendment, an amendment that makes, as they say in certain quarters, eminent good sense.

Mr. Chariton: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, but I just want to add my support to this amendment moved by my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold.

Those of us across the province who live in the areas of regional government that this provincial government set up some decade ago have seen substantial changes in the need for policing and in the way that different communities within the region need different approaches and different levels of policing.

Because of the very much larger nature of regional governments, because of an inability on the part of any one individual to reflect accurately the view of the region as a whole and because there is a real need in all aspects of regional government, including specifically the police commission, to have a high level of sensitivity to the needs, the concerns and the problems that exist in the community with respect to the need for policing and the approach to policing, it becomes and is now as a result of regional government ever more important that at least the majority on the police commission in a regional area be an elected group and a group which, by their elected nature, is more sensitive to the public demands and concerns than those who are appointed and, in effect, are not directly responsible to anyone.

8:30 p.m.

The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) made the point that just because they are elected officials does not mean they are going to be perfect, and that is all very true. No one can effectively argue that elected officials are going to have to be sensitive to the concerns of the public who elected them or they will not be there very long.

In some areas where regional governments were set up the police commissions were almost instantly expanded -- not quite instantly but over a very short period of time. In some cases certain areas did not have their own policing services prior to regional government. They were serviced by the Ontario Provincial Police or some combination of the OPP and one policeman in a local village or township, something like that.

We found we had problems of growing pains in the initial stages, even to some degree today. I think the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) can speak to this because he was on the regional council through much of this period. This was so in areas he represents and other areas in our region, and it is no different in the Durham region or any other region. As the regions grew and evolved, we found the nature of the policing required would change and sometimes change quite quickly.

It therefore becomes imperative that those who are in the majority and ultimately control the policing decisions the police commission makes will be very sensitive to the electorate in those areas. I refer to decisions about the numbers of officers who ultimately will be deployed, the approach to policing and dealing with complaints and so on. They must be sensitive to the changing nature of the policing required in areas that are changing from rural to semi-rural to urban in rather abrupt steps.

It is imperative that the people on the commission must be very sensitive to the public and its concerns and the needs, fears and problems that will evolve as the nature of the community changes. The member for Wentworth is well aware of some of the more serious problems we have in some of the north-end areas of Hamilton, for example, the Parkdale area and the Sherman north area. Those problems do not exist to a large extent yet in many other areas of the region, but as they change new problems will evolve and we have to be in a position to be very sensitive to the need for a very quick response to the changes in the community.

For all of those reasons, and as stated so well by the member for Welland-Thorold and the member for St. Catharines, these changes make eminent good sense at this stage. The regional approach to government has been severely criticized by any number of people over the last decade. These changes will make the regional approach more workable, more sensitive and more useful to its citizens in all of its aspects of operation, and specifically in terms of the police commission.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Chairman, I too, as critic of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, would like to take the time of this committee of the whole House to discuss briefly the amendment that was originally discussed and proposed by my friend the member for Riverdale. I suppose tonight he was juniored by the member for Welland-Thorold, and admirably so I might add.

The Solicitor General would like to have us believe, as he indicated to the police association in Chatham, and I quote: "The general policies of the government have been well documented in recent years and I can tell you that I have yet to see a reason for altering the government's position. We will continue to appoint the majority of the members to these boards."

What is interesting is what I would call the bogus reason he gives. He says, "The administration of justice is, after all, a constitutional responsibility of the province and, therefore, I for one would have very grave doubts about relinquishing provincial control over police governing authorities."

Let us examine the theorem this statement seems to postulate. The Solicitor General seems to say that because the administration of justice is a constitutional responsibility of the province there is some innate, God-given, unrelinquishable right to appoint and therefore to have a direct hand over the composition of these boards.

I am not, as my friend the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is, a constitutional expert, but it seems to me with the municipalities and the regional municipalities being, after all, creatures of the province, it does not really make logical or constitutional sense that a province must retain the reins, that otherwise it would somehow be abdicating some constitutional duty.

I draw attention to the constitutional aspect only because I can only echo those other practical considerations other members of this assembly have indicated in so far as they relate to their particular regional municipalities and ridings. Of course, being a Metropolitan Toronto member, I have limited experience with commissions in regional municipalities and therefore I can only echo those sentiments.

I can appreciate the practical reasons why members on this side of the House wish to support this amendment and I want tonight to debunk the theory that the Solicitor General is somehow bound up by constitutional requirements and his position is so etched in stone that he cannot give up this long-standing tradition of patronage and supremacy in the area of appointments.

There is, of course, no such paper tiger, no such man of straw. I think the Solicitor General set it up simply as a smokescreen to let us know he is not going to change his position, because it is government policy that he not change his position. I think it is uncharacteristic and unbecoming of him to hide behind the constitutional argument.

Let us turn to the question of how the Solicitor General can present and allow this amendment to slip by the members of his party. The member for Riverdale had a very, as he called it, seductive approach. He said: "Well, Mr. Solicitor General, we can just say there was a typo and someone slipped the two where the three should have been and the three where the two should have been. If that is one of the little mind games that has to be engaged in, we can get the concurrence of every member of this House to say that was the case and, now that the typographical error has been removed, there is no more impediment to the passage of this amendment."

8:40 p.m.

We all know that what is at stake here is not mere cosmetics, not mere typographical accuracy. What is at stake is a very fundamental concept which has always been a cornerstone of this party, namely, the degree of representation which can be obtained and which must prevail at the local level.

I canvassed my caucus colleagues on this amendment. As I said, I have also spoken about it at length with the member for Riverdale. It is very much in our party tradition. It is a cornerstone of our tradition as a party to support this kind of preponderance of balance of power by the regional and municipal levels, the level that is closest to the people. In short, as critic to the Ministry of the Solicitor General, I will indicate that our party stands four-square behind this amendment and will support it.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I will respond very briefly. I have heard the arguments put forward by members in regard to this amendment by the member for Welland-Thorold of the New Democratic Party. They do not differ from those put forward during the debate on second reading on the principle of this legislation a few evenings ago in this Legislature.

I said at that time, and I repeat, the arguments put forward at this time are no different from those put forward when police forces and the manner and method of their control were originally created. There was a time when police forces were under the direct control of the municipality and municipally elected individuals. Historically, that did create problems. Then the present manner and method was put forward and was created, allowing a greater independence of policing from the political atmosphere of elected individuals at the local level.

Historically, there had been some difficulties with that. Even to the present time I find many municipal councillors offer the point of view that they prefer the manner and method at present in place, notwithstanding the many resolutions put forward by municipal organizations in support of a different majority of individuals, provincial appointments versus municipal ones as it now stands and as the amendment to the act puts forward, not as the member for Welland-Thorold puts forward. So there is a body of individuals that would prefer to see the arm's-length transaction, but a little shorter arm's length, where they are not totally responsible for the management, functioning and carrying out of policing functions in the municipalities.

As to the point on the constitutional part, I know the member has quoted from my position that the responsibility for the functioning of policing in Ontario is a provincial responsibility not a federal one. There, again, I take that responsibility with a great deal of quality in looking at it, as it should be, in the constitutional feature of the province. We do need control over the individual boards by the arm's-length situation of not having them all elected. Thus, when they get into difficulties, as some do from time to time -- I can think of certain instances which I will not repeat, but there are many examples -- the Solicitor General may have to intervene with a board and say: "This is the way it has to be. These are the laws of the province and this is the way you will carry out your policing functions. Board, please respect my wishes on that."

There are situations where, if there was a majority of elected officials, one could have a confrontation thus destroying that link between the independence of policing and elected individuals. There is a responsibility on the Solicitor General, albeit he is an elected official, an appointed one, of the government of this province. As in the case of the Attorney General, at times there are situations that preclude partisan activity and one has to look at the law as it is.

The police officer is sworn to do a particular duty. When that duty has to be carried out by a police officer, it does not warrant a political situation in which he would he operated by a board that is punctuated by people who need to go to the voters to be elected every so often. That may cause complications. We would prefer the hands-off approach, and many municipal councillors would also prefer that.

The amendment put forward in the legislation will provide greater representation for the municipalities. I think that is a step in the direction they have been asking for. I have heard the argument about financing, "If we put in more funds at the municipal level, it will give us more control." If that were the case, there would be many situations where municipal and elected people would not be performing very many functions. The province could say, "By the way, we contribute the greatest amount of dollars, so let us have the greatest amount of say in who should be operating that." I am sure the federal government could make a similar argument, "By the way, we provide the greatest amount of money."

I used the example the other evening, and I repeat it to my colleagues, that Ontario spends some $7 billion on health care through hospitals. There are a very limited number of people on hospital hoards, yet they operate for the province huge operations in which all the dollars are coming from the province. There are many other examples. The argument that whoever pays the most has the most control does not stand the test of other examples. It is not an argument that weighs heavily, as does the argument that police commissions should be independent of elected individuals, so that not only is there an appearance of that separation but there really is that separation.

When we talk about the manner and method of control of budgets, there is a procedure available for them to control it, although some may criticize that procedure. There is a procedure for complaints in practice. There is a more elaborate one in Metropolitan Toronto that is a pilot project. Maybe when that pilot project is completed and the experiment has moved along it can be applied throughout Ontario.

As I said earlier, the arguments are not original. Each time these types of amendments come forward in their original situation the arguments are repeated on both sides. I think the test of time has shown that we have had very little difficulty with the present setup. We are increasing the representation by the province and by the municipal people. I think, by and large, the public will be served well by policing with the amendment that has been put forward by the government at this time. That is all I have to say.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the debate and the amendment proposed by the honourable member, basically what would happen is there would be a switch around and the majority of members on a board of police commissioners would be appointed locally and the minority would be appointed by the province. Frankly, the compelling aspect of that argument seems so logical and so sensible that I would have thought the minister would have jumped at it and not hidden behind the so-called constitutional argument about the responsibility of the province to take care of the board of police commissioners.

I have some difficulty accepting that argument. It seems to me this government cannot have it both ways. It cannot profess on a variety of issues to believe in local autonomy and, on the other hand, still continue the persistent practice of naming the majority from the province on a board as important as a board of police commissioners. Often the local people are in a much better position to determine who their representative might be on the board.

I just wanted to get those comments on the record. I feel the amendment is proper and logical. After all, policing involves individual police forces from local areas. I would have thought the government would jump at the chance to give the local people a full opportunity to have as much representation as possible in the administration of their police forces. I just wanted to get my name on the record as one who is fully supporting that proposition.

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment because obviously my amendment, which comes a little later, is in a way similar and yet just a little more specific. I certainly cannot talk about my amendment in too much detail at this juncture when we are on section 1 of Bill 86 except to say that it would make some variance from what is being proposed here by the government.

I think not only that the elected members should play a more significant and important role in policing, but more specifically, in regions such as Niagara we should have representation from each municipality, given particular numbers. We were sold on regional government as being more efficient because we could co-ordinate centrally our fire departments, our police departments and all of the other administrative things this government talked about, and we could cut back on expenses and costs to regional municipalities. Such has not been the case. Having been put through the extra costs for regional government, from which there is no turning back in our region since we have built a big central headquarters, we are now asking for at least proper representation from the communities within a regional government.

I hope I am not digressing too far from the bill in talking about the amendment of the member for Welland-Thorold, but what he is proposing is very close to my concern. Individual municipalities have individual problems that have to be dealt with, and unless they have representation, and particularly elected representation, we will fall short of what we consider the very fundamental basis of democratic government, and that is representation from each particular area.

It is very difficult for me to accept in this modern age a city the size of Niagara Falls, which has 15 million people moving through it in a given season, not having representation on the police commission. We have certain particular problems, as there might be in Welland, Port Colborne, Fort Erie or wherever. I think it is about time we came into this age of representation by population, whether it be for regional governments or provincial governments or whatever. We are failing miserably.

I think the minister should really reconsider his position as it relates to representation from the major population centres within a regional municipality. I hope he will reconsider it. I think it is the very least the people should have as they consider the wonderful things about living in a democratic country. I hope he might think of giving representation to those areas which really need it badly. We have specific problems to deal with. We would like people to sit there who have been elected by the citizens in an area to represent them.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Before we continue, Mr. Chairman, the member for Welland-Thorold said he was going to make some other amendments. The amendment on the floor at present speaks only to Bill 86 in regard to subsection 74(1), really specifying the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, but he had indicated to me earlier he was going to add in all the other numbers. I did not know whether he was going to do that or whether he was going to add them one at a time so that we would debate each amendment to each municipality as it proceeds along.

I now know the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has an amendment later on. I did not know whether we were going to do these one at a time and I asked the Chairman to consult with the members as to the process, whether we are doing them slowly or in bulk. The arguments, I am sure, would not differ on all of them.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to address myself to Bill 86 and the proposed amendment of the member for Welland-Thorold that the majority of representation on the police commission should be elected rather than appointed.

It is a good amendment. It has been proposed on different occasions in the House that elected members should have more say in the administration of the operations of the regional police, particularly as they relate to costs. Police costs make up a large share of the regional budget. I believe the Niagara regional police force accounts for about 30 per cent, or maybe a little more, of the whole regional budget.

In past times there have been comments in local regional councils, particularly at budget time, indicating members are not too happy with the large increase over the years in the cost of administering the policing of the Niagara region. I suggest to the minister that settling a matter of police cost in that region has had many times to go to an arbitrator. The cost of settlement there puts the regional budget way out of proportion. It is difficult for elected persons to go back and tell their municipalities they are going to have another increase in the cost of policing throughout the region.

I was a little amazed at the member for Welland-Thorold -- I do not know if I can quote him correctly -- when he indicated police administration in the regional municipality of Niagara seems to have got further away from the general public. He suggested the police were a group of untouchables, that they are not responding to the needs of the local communities.

The member for Niagara Falls will be moving an amendment to increase the numbers on the police commissions, in particular in the Niagara region. There are problems there that have to be accounted for. In Niagara they have a public works committee that includes a member from almost every municipality. The same thing is true of finance. The elected persons within the region are spread out pretty well throughout the region. However, at least those municipalities do have representation on these committees which are so important in the administration of the region.

The comments of the member for Niagara Falls were good. There are municipalities in some regions that have had very little representation on such important matters as policing. He mentioned the tourists in Fort Erie. We do have a large number of summer residents who have moved into the area from the Niagara River straight through to the township of Wainfleet. It has been suggested that Fort Erie has a population of about 25,000. It increases in summer by another 15,000, so it moves up to 40,000.

I think of Sherkston Beaches, one of the key resort areas in the province, with two and a half miles of excellent sand beaches. There are campers who come in to spend weeks and maybe a month in that resort area. There may be an increase of about 30,000 people in that 600-acre site.

Over the years, in the original police force in the former township of Bertie, the town of Fort Erie and Crystal Beach, I believe about 52 police officers served that community. We are lucky to have 19 or 20 today. The cost of regional police forces is getting beyond the control of the taxpayers to support year after year.

9 p.m.

There are problems within the administration of the regional police force in Niagara, which we talked about in debating the other bill, in regard to the allegations of police brutality. If we had more of an elected representation on the police board, we would have more of an independent review of police matters within the Niagara region.

In debating Bill 68, the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act that was debated in this House in 1981, one of the key things that was discussed, and it was suggested by members in the House and in views expressed outside the Legislature, was that a citizens' complaint review commission should he established that showed some independence in questions of police costs and police brutality. It was suggested that such a commission could cover a number of areas. I think this is one area the minister should be looking at.

At present we are talking about introducing the 911 emergency telephone number in the regional municipality. That may be a good service, but it is going to cost the taxpayers quite a sum of money to administer such a program within the region because of the 10, 15 or 20 different telephone exchanges in that area.

I draw to the minister's attention that if people who live in certain rural areas between Port Colborne and Fort Erie want to make an emergency call to the Port Colborne police station, it is a long distance call. The only way they would be able to get around that would be to call the exchange in Fort Erie. From there it would go to the regional base station in St. Catharines, and from there it would come back to the Port Colborne detachment.

People may not even be able to get hold of the local police force that way. They have to go through a communications system in St. Catharines. Sometimes that may confuse the general public and improper information may be received that could send out an emergency police force to some other area, for example, to a street with the same name in Welland, Fort Erie or Niagara Falls.

The 911 service may be all right for the people in Metropolitan Toronto, where they can call from downtown Toronto to Oakville on the same exchange, but when one gets into a region that has so many telephone exchanges, it perhaps causes some difficulties for the local regional police force.

I know it has been tried and considered for looking after fire matters within the region. The different fire departments have looked at the 911 number, for example, but thought it would confuse the issue more than when people call the local fire department that they know pretty well.

I wish the member for Welland-Thorold had put forward an amendment proposing that we go back to local police forces and let the municipalities administer them locally as used to be done a few years ago. I think people accepted that they were good police forces at that time. Perhaps the communications system would be a lot better now, and the public relations would be a lot better today. There also would be a better understanding of police matters within the region if they had some say in police matters or some measure of control over expenditures. As it is now, if the government goes regional, there is no bottom to the well, one might say. They can go as many times as they want and spend money.

I understand they are constructing an addition to the regional police building in the city of St. Catharines. They are building an empire in St. Catharines, yet other areas have been shortchanged on police matters and protection. In my own area along the lakeshore, in order to maintain a good system of patrolling, the people have gone now to a vigilante style to protect their property. They never had to do this before when they had local police forces. They could always count on the police cruiser going by at different times of the day. Where I live in Sherkston, we very seldom see police cruisers because they are looking after matters in some larger, urban area. Homes are being ransacked day by day out there.

I know one particular patrolman who has a motor scooter, and all he does is go out early in the morning before daybreak. There are a great many summer homes out there, which are valuable properties with valuable furniture and other things in them. He makes his calls to those places about twice a day. I talked to him recently, and I said: "Boy, you're taking an awful chance going out there. You don't know who you're going to meet in the homes out there." Apparently, one day he did meet two or three of them in a home they were ransacking. Fortunately, he knew where the alarm system was and he contacted the police in that way.

I suggest there are problems within the regional police force down there. Many municipalities do not get the representation they should have in police matters in that area. I hope my colleague the member for Niagara Falls will be moving an amendment that says the municipalities from each area should have representation by population. We could take the figure of 20,000, or something like that, and say that at least they would have one member on the police commission to see that their area is being looked after the same way as other areas are.

With these comments, I will wait to see what response I get from the minister. We are not asking for too much. I do not think it is going to cost the province anything for additional members on the police board. All we are asking for is fair and equal representation. I think that is the way it should be. If public money is being spent, they should have some concern as to how that money should be spent and who should do the spending.

The Deputy Chairman: You may be going a little bit from where --

Mr. Haggerty: I am speaking on the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: I just wanted to make sure.

Mr. Haggerty: I can understand your difficulty there, but that is what it is. I suggest to you that we should be considering both amendments, and I hope the minister will accept them.

The Deputy Chairman: We have before us an amendment to section 1 of Bill 86.

All those in favour will please say aye."

All those opposed will please say 'nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 2:

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I move that section 2 of Bill 86 be amended to read as follows:

"2. Subsection 69(1) of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, being chapter 435 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by the resolution of the regional council; and

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Because these are all the same --

The Deputy Chairman: No. I still need it. The member should send it over.

Mr. Swart: You want to have that written out?

The Deputy Chairman: Absolutely. I am afraid so.

9:10 p.m.

Mr. Swart: To expedite matters, perhaps you would let me speak very briefly on it; then I will write it out.

The Deputy Chairman: Okay. You move it, and then I will put it into the record with the slight changes. Have you finished moving it?

Mr. Swart: I have moved it.

The Deputy Chairman: Let me just put it into the record. Mr. Swart moves that subsection 74(2) --

Mr. Swart: That section 2 of Bill 86 be amended to read as follows, and it will be exactly the same as in the bill except that in (a) "two" will change to "three" and in (b) "three" will change to "two."

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that I have accepted that and dispensed with my reading it into the record?

Mr. Kerrio: Let's dispense with the debate as well.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Chairman, mutatis mutandis.

The Deputy Chairman: Mutatis mutandis; agreed. Dispense. But we will not dispense with the member for Welland-Thorold. He may speak to this.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the amendments we are putting until we get to section 10 are all identical; that is, they change the composition of the commissions from three members appointed by the government to two members appointed by the government and from two members appointed by the regional municipality to three members appointed by the regional municipality. I will be glad to write that out in each case if you would like to have it, but they are all identical.

I do not intend, of course, to speak on all of these, but on the second one I do want to take a moment to reply to some of the comments that the Solicitor General made and the reasons he gave for not accepting this amendment. In the first part of his comments he made reference to the fact that there were problems a number of years ago when the authority over the police was a local municipal council, and he did not want -- I am paraphrasing and I hope I am doing it correctly -- to revert to that sort of situation.

I point out that there is no possibility of reverting to that sort of situation, and the comment that we would revert to that kind of situation bears no relation to reality. First, there is no proposal that the small local councils have authority over the police. Second, there is no proposal that there should be no provincial appointees on those local commissions. We propose that there be commissions; it is just a simple change in where the majority lies, from two to three, and in addition to that, of course, there is a change in size.

I mentioned before that when I came on the council of the township of Thorold, they had three policemen. The issue at that time was the corruption of the police, and I use that word advisedly. A reform slate ran to get rid of the three-man police force as being directly under the jurisdiction of council, and three of the five candidates were elected to council. They immediately discharged the chief of police and the other two members of the police force and brought in the Ontario Provincial Police, and the bootleggers and the houses of prostitution that had proliferated in that municipality were cleaned up in a very few months.

We are not talking about those types of police authorities again. We are talking about a police authority for a regional municipality where they may have from 100 to 250 or 500 police officers and a very complex structure, and we are simply saying that three out of the five members of that commission should be elected people.

I would agree with the Solicitor General that police forces and police commissions have to be at some arm's length from the general public, but we do not want them out there so far that the public cannot see them. We want to shorten that arm's length a little bit so that we have some balance between accountability, sensitivity and independence.

The minister mentioned -- and again I think I am quoting him correctly -- that there are numbers of municipal aldermen, elected people in municipal life, who want to remain the same as they are. I believe he also implied that there are numbers of councils. I hope he will provide me with the names of the councils and the names of the municipal people who want things to remain as they are, because in my 21 years in municipal life and in my activities in the executives of the municipal associations of this province I found that not to be the case. When those resolutions came before those municipal bodies, they were passed unanimously, or nearly so, and I would like to know all of those people and all of those councils that want things to remain as they are.

The minister says that policing is a provincial responsibility; I grant him that. But he uses that as an argument to say the province should be able to appoint the majority of members to a police commission. I point out that education is also a provincial responsibility constitutionally, yet the province has delegated the authority there. In the government's view, it must he terribly dangerous to elect the local boards of education. I point out that social services are also a provincial responsibility, but the government has seen fit to delegate those services, even though the province may pay 80 per cent of the costs, to the municipal councils. That must be a very dangerous sort of thing to do.

In fact, all the services provided by municipal councils are provided only by delegation from the provincial government, and constitutionally all of those are the responsibilities of the province. To say somehow or other that the local police commissions should have a majority of provincial representatives because the Ontario government has a constitutional responsibility for policing, or whatever way one wants to say it, ignores the fact that it is not carried out in any other field and it seems to me to be working out all right. I kind of like municipal councils and boards of education, and I think the public kind of likes to have jurisdiction over the operation.

Of course, I am the first one to recognize that the standards are set by the provincial government with regard to all of these things, and the standards are all set up with regard to policing. Surely we can leave it with the local authorities where we have a majority of local people on those to supervise the policing in their own areas.

This is not a minor issue to the municipalities and to the taxpayers in those municipalities. The minister may find out to his sorrow that there is a very strong feeling among a broad cross-section of the population that they want police more accountable and they want the majority of the people on police commissions to be people they have elected to council, and I know I am expressing the feeling of the majority of the public.

The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) mentioned that perhaps there should be more persons on a police commission. I do not particularly disagree with that view, but I want to say that when we drafted these amendments we decided we would make as little change as possible. We were really intent on one principle, which is that the majority of the police commissioners should be accountable locally.

We did not want to throw in all of these other issues so that the minister or any other members could get up and say, "We cannot support this amendment because it provides for more people on the commission than we think is advisable to have on there." We tried to keep this as simple as possible to express a very sound principle, and we had hoped the government of this province would accept that principle, which the majority of the people want.

I conclude by saying that the minister's government is taking polls week after week. Why do they not take a poll on whether the majority of the public want the majority of the members of the police commission elected? Then if the government follows the pattern it has followed in almost every other way, whether it be the purchase of Suncor or whatever the case may be, maybe we will get these commissions the way the public of this province wants them.

The Deputy Chairman: I know the amendment is self-explanatory to the honourable member but I remind him that according to standing orders and according to parliamentary tradition it is a prerequisite that he submit his amendment to the table, to the minister and to the other parties. So while there is some similarity to them all, I would request it. I have allowed this, mutatis mutandis, but please proceed with getting those down to me. Does any other member wish to speak on this amendment?

9:20 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few things to my friend across the way. This afternoon he was in a very Christmassy spirit. I said to him at that time I hoped we could reach him before the Grinch reaches him. With his Christmas spirit, perhaps he is prepared to accept the amendment placed by my colleague.

If he believes in this government which often wants to say it believes in local autonomy and the right of local legislators to rule or to run affairs in their area, this is a prime area where the government could respond to what has been requested over and over again; that is, that the municipalities name the greater number of members to the police commission.

I have been involved in a number of disputes. The former mayor of the city of Sudbury will recall that a number of years ago we had a kind of unpleasant situation in Sudbury. Certainly the people on the police force, the rank and file, were suggesting very strongly that in the nomination of other people the majority should come from the municipality, which carries, as I understand it, the greatest burden of taxation for policing.

I do not think the minister will disagree that the municipality foots the largest proportion of the bill for policing in any municipality. I might be wrong. If I am, I will withdraw the rest of the remarks I am prepared to make, but I think the municipalities contribute the largest share of the cost of police enforcement in the various regional municipalities.

There is a principle, if my history is correct, that the Americans fought a revolution on no representation based on taxes. I think that is the way it goes, rep by pop, no taxation. In policing, it is a similar situation. It is the local people who pay the largest share, or even the lion's share, of the cost of policing.

With the police commission, why should the Ontario government have the right to name three out of the five people who will sit on that commission? I have never been able to understand that, save maybe that the government of Ontario really wants to control the police commission. If I am wrong, I hope the minister will get up in his place and say: "The Ontario government does not want three out of five members and does not want the final say on police commissions. The government does believe rep by pop or taxation by the majority has the right to determine what the course of that body will be."

Surely, you cannot have it both ways, George. I do not know why you would continue to insist --

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member will refer to the minister by something other than his first name.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, he and I go back a few years. I am sure the minister did not take offence at that.

Surely the minister knows we have certain principles in this House. I hear this government saying constantly, "You members of the opposition do not believe in local autonomy." I can show a thousand places over the years where one cabinet minister after another has said,

'You guys do not want the principle of local autonomy." They can use that whenever it is convenient. When it is not so convenient, they use something else.

Mr. Kerr: Never.

Mr. Martel: I say to my friend the member for Burlington South, who I think used to be a minister in this portfolio, that one cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Kerr: Always.

Mr. Martel: The former minister is correct. The government wants it both ways all the time.

Surely this House has a right to know why the government plays that game. It can only be that with three out of five it really runs the show, does it not? That is what it wants to continue to do. It does not believe in local autonomy except if it is convenient for the government to scream about local autonomy. When it is not so convenient, it retains that right for itself.

In the situation in Sudbury several years ago. everyone I spoke to had difficulty with some of the appointments being made. They wrote to me, phoned me and talked to me about trying to get some --

Mr. Harris: They will be happy now.

Mr. Martel: I say to my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), they are still attempting to retain control. They talk about local autonomy on the one hand and oppose it on the other hand. In that back row, I think one was a member of council and one was a mayor. They had different opinions when they were in those positions.

I hope the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) will get up and support me, because a number of years ago his municipality bitterly opposed the government appointing three out of the five members. I hope the former mayor of Sudbury will get up and express that position. He is the fellow who wants to nationalize everything in sight, which is contrary to Tory policy. A couple of weeks ago he wanted to nationalize the science centre. There is no end to what that fellow wants to nationalize. He outdoes the New Democrats in Sudbury in wanting to nationalize --


Mr. Martel: I say to my friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) that he wanted to nationalize the science centre, Inco and Falconbridge. There is no end to what that guy wants to nationalize.

Mr. Gillies: You guys would not know what to do with them.

Mr. Martel: I am not sure. Maybe the member is right. I give him credit for saying we should nationalize Inco and Falconbridge. I have a private member's bill to nationalize Inco. If I can get first on that ballot, he will have an opportunity to support me in voting for the legislation I have advanced.

They want it both ways. When it is convenient, they are for local autonomy. When it is not --

Mr. Shymko: You are the one who wants it both ways.

Mr. Martel: Does the member have something to say?

Mr. Shymko: We are following our principles.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member is not standing up to participate in this debate. He is interrupting the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: I have looked all over the Conservative policy on nationalizing corporations and I do not see it in the policy anywhere.

Mr. Shymko: It is called adaptability.

Mr. Martel: It is flexibility; he sounds like a Liberal tonight.

The Deputy Chairman: Tremendous deterioration is taking place in the debate.

Mr. Martel: I hope my friend across the way can tell me why it is that the government feels it is incumbent on it to retain that right to name the majority of members to a police commission. What it is saying is that the local people, who pay the majority of the taxes towards policing, do not have the competence to name people who are capable of sitting on police commissions and making sound decisions.

I do not suggest the province should be out of it totally, but I do not believe the province should be in a position where it can appoint more representatives than the local area which picks up the biggest share of the cost of policing. Surely if the government believes in local autonomy, and government members swear up and down they do, it will accept this proposed amendment of my colleague.

9:30 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: What about Walter Pitman?

Mr. Martel: What did Walter do now?

The Deputy Chairman: Do not allow yourself to be distracted by the intrusions on your fine presentation.

Mr. Martel: Could the member explain to me how Walter Pitman got into this? He left this Legislature in 1971.

The Deputy Chairman: You were speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: Quoting Walter Pitman in 1971 is really irrelevant.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As relevant as you are.

The Deputy Chairman: Speaking to the amendment on section 2 of Bill 86.

Mr. Martel: I am trying to. Those fellows over there are trying to justify being for local autonomy on one hand and against it on the other.

Mr. Shymko: We are being accused of patronage.

Mr. Martel: Of what?

The Deputy Chairman: You will be accused of something else if you keep interrupting.

Mr. Martel: Would you throw him out, Mr. Chairman?

The Deputy Chairman: Just hurry up and finish.

Mr. Martel: The Solicitor General surely has to have better reasons than he has advanced so far as to why he will not accept the amendment presented by my colleague. He has to tell us why he thinks it is necessary for the government of Ontario to retain control of police commissions when these commissions, while really the creation of the province, are funded primarily by the regions. They should have the final say, certainly not the government.

As I understand it, the government does not pay a quarter of the cost of policing. That is not sufficient reason for the government to retain total control of what is ultimately going to be decided in each of the regional municipalities.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 3:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 3 of Bill 86 be amended to read:

"Subsection 80(1) of the Regional Municipality of Halton Act, being chapter 436 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the Haldimand Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by resolution of the regional council; and

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Does any other member wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Martel: No one wants to speak to it.

The Deputy Chairman: Just let us make sure. I would like to follow some procedure here.

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 4 of Bill 86 be amended to read as follows:

"Subsection 91(1) of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, being chapter 437 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by resolution of the regional council; and

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Swart: I am not sure if there is anything further. We have not had any yet, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: I thought there might be.

Mr. Swart: I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, that it is obvious this section refers to the Hamilton-Wentworth area. Although within the regional municipalities we have dealt with so far a majority of the MPPs from those areas may be members of the government party, and perhaps even a majority of the municipal councils are members of the government party, here we are coming to the municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. I want to point out that there the majority of the MPPs represent this party, the New Democratic Party.

If the Tories' members want to have their areas where the police authority is one which is not accountable to the public, or the majority are not, that is fine, but at least we should be given the right where we have the majority of the MPPs within a regional municipality, such as we have in Hamilton-Wentworth, to be able to have the kind of democratic police authority we want. Although they may have voted against the others, I plead with them to support the amendment they have before them at the present time.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member want to participate in this debate?

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: The member was not in his right seat. He cannot vote.

Mr. Swart: Do not be so technical.

The Deputy Chairman: It is a very important job to be technical here. This House is --

On section 5:

The Deputy Chairman: We are now on section 5. The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, in the normal procedure I was wondering --

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Niagara Falls has the floor.

Mr. Kerrio: I have a motion on section 5, Mr. Chairman, and I think the normal procedure is that I should move my amendment.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman --

The Deputy Chairman: I have recognized the member for Niagara Falls. On what basis do I recognize the member for Welland-Thorold?

9:40 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I want to rise on a point of order.

The Deputy Chairman: On a point of order. I can hear you now.

Mr. Swart: I believe the amendment I propose to move comes ahead of the amendment which is being proposed by the member for Niagara Falls. The normal procedure is to deal with A, B, C in that order.

The Deputy Chairman: You have made your point. Can I ask the member for Niagara Falls to allow the member for Welland-Thorold to proceed first.

Mr. Kerrio: Certainly. I am here for proper, democratic parliamentary procedure.

The Deputy Chairman: Taking his point of order as valid, I recognize the member for Welland-Thorold. Do proceed.

Mr. Swart moves that section 5 of Bill 86 be amended to read:

"5. Subsection 117(1) of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act, being chapter 438 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by resolution of the regional council; and

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Is the honourable member giving copies of these amendments to all parties?

Mr. Kerrio: No, he is not.

The Deputy Chairman: I would suggest the honourable member would want to follow the due course of decorum in this House.

Mr. Swart: Once again we have here an amendment dealing with a regional municipality in which I have a very real interest, a region where I served on one of the local councils for some 18 years and on the regional council for some three years. I think I can say I know both the feeling of that council and the feeling of the citizens of that area. They very much want this amendment to pass.

I know the member for Niagara Falls has a further amendment to the amendment I am proposing. As a matter of principle, I intend to support that when it comes before us. For that to be effective, we have to have this change so that we have three members of the police commission who will be appointed by the regional council. If we can get this change, then the amendment the member for Niagara Falls has becomes much more meaningful.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Swart's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Kerrio moves that section 5 of Bill 86 be amended by adding thereto clause (c) as follows:

"(c) at least one member appointed by resolution of the regional council shall be an elected official of the city of Niagara Falls."

Mr. Kerrio: While to those other members in the Legislature tonight this may appear to be quite a parochial amendment, I would say at the outset I would accept from the minister any kind of an assessment of the situation whereby the major municipalities within a regional government would have a representative on the police commission.

While we put up with some of the inequities of regional government in many instances, this one is the most difficult to accept. That we could have a regional municipality such as the region of Niagara and not have a guarantee that Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Welland, Niagara Falls and St. Catharines -- the major municipalities -- are given the assurance of this government that they would have representation on their police commission, I find most unacceptable and I am not willing to live with that kind of assessment of the police commission and its function.

Let me address myself to the problems that might exist in a given municipality that would not necessarily exist in its neighbouring municipality. I put it to the minister that I am most willing to accept something in the alternative that would address itself to the problem I am going to describe to him.

The city of Niagara Falls has some 12 million to 15 million visitors coming through that municipality. The minister can see there are additional problems that might not exist in other municipalities within the region. We have a situation as a border community where the American state next to us, New York state, came down very heavily on those people who would pursue the things we are not too proud of in the areas of prostitution and other things that are abhorrent to us as a society. When New York state came down heavily on that situation as it developed in its cities, these people moved across the border and have become a great problem in the cities of Niagara Falls and Fort Erie in particular.

We have not been very successful with the federal government nor with the presentation by this government to be able to clean up that situation. We sit there with a council that is handcuffed because it not only lacks co-operation from the federal government, but it does not have representation on the police commission in this great and wonderful province of Ontario.

As has been described by members of this assembly, the minister has entrusted one of the major expenditures, that of education, to locally elected school boards, and he has taken many other areas of responsibility and passed them down to elected representatives in the municipalities. I find it very difficult to accept the fact that he is not willing to budge on allowing every major municipality within a regional government to have at least one representative.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: In this particular case there are too many cities and not enough members.

Mr. Kerrio: George, it would not matter to me if you needed eight members. It is the one time I would not mind an enlargement of a board or commission. I can certainly think of hundreds of boards and commissions across the province I would dispense with in order to have representation by the city of Niagara Falls on the police commission. That list could be quite long. The minister would have to concur with me that many of them are not needed and do not perform any kind of function that might be considered as meaningful as having representation on a police commission.

I would ask the assembly tonight, and the minister in particular, to really consider this. When his government enacted regional government we were told about the wonders of regional government and how it was going to improve on the efficiency of all these various involvements of the fire department, the police department and all the other things. So I ask him to consider giving every municipality within a regional government the opportunity to have representation on the police commission.

In some instances there might be a board member or two or a commissioner or two more than we are talking about as drafted in this legislation. I will accept that. I do not think my municipality would quarrel, considering the huge expenditure we have for the policing in our city, with having a representative from our fair city sit on that commission.

I ask the minister to reconsider. I hope his government and the people over there will realize that while I have made this amendment that might sound somewhat parochial, I am perfectly willing to accept his making every municipality within a regional government have an elected representative sit on the commission. I hope he will consider that in the light in which I have given it to him.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment on behalf of our party. I realize it is put forward to make a point as a matter of principle, that perhaps it was impossible, at least in a short time, to have arrived at the total composition of the police commission and that there can be problems in just saying that one municipality shall have it without covering others such as St. Catharines or the city of Welland. But I am also very much aware of the fact that in this particular situation Niagara Falls, because of its peculiar policing problems since it is on the border, does deserve to be assured that there should be an elected member from that municipality on that commission at all times.

9:50 p.m.

In fact, I am not at all sure that there should not be a look taken at the composition of commissions in all areas to be sure that the major municipalities in any regional government have representation. Sure, it is all right to say that the police shall be at arm's length, and that is true. It is also true to say that the commission itself should not be subject to every whim of every taxpayer in each municipality. But the ratepayers feel a lot more comfortable if they have one of their elected members sitting on the police commission and they feel they have access to that person.

Mr. Piché: I agree totally.

Mr. Kerrio: Right on, René.

Mr. Swart: Therefore, perhaps we should be taking a further look. As I stated previously, we did not want to disturb the composition of the police commission too much in the hope that the government might accept a minor change, a minor change in the sense that we are adding only one person to it but we would have a majority of elected people on that police commission. The government decided not to accept even our amendments that make the change of only one person, so we are prepared to accept this as a matter of principle from the member for Niagara Falls and vote in favour of it.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I have one brief comment on the amendment of the member for Niagara Falls to Bill 86. I think I will give him the challenge that if his amendment does not succeed but the legislation does, he will have ample opportunity to lobby the regional council of Niagara Falls so that the person they appoint by resolution can be the one from the city of Niagara Falls.

I thank him, though, for the copies of his amendments. They make it much easier.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate?

All those in favour of Mr. Kerrio's amendment to section 5 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

An hon. member: Stack it.

The Deputy Chairman: There are not enough members standing to stack that.

Mr. Kerrio: Here we are. We have got enough.

The Deputy Chairman: Stack it? The honourable members have to be in their seats. There can be a certain casual nature that goes on, but I saw five finally stand.

Vote stacked.

On section 6:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 6 of Bill 86 be amended to read:

"Subsection 75(1) of the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, being chapter 440 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the Peel Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by resolution of the regional council; and

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Any discussion on this amendment? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked. On section 7:

Mr. Swart: I have an amendment to section 7. Oh, is it not regrettable that the member for Sudbury has left?

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 7 of Bill 86 be amended to read:

"Subsection 39(1) of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, being chapter 441 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(I) The board of commissioners of police known as the Sudbury Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by the resolution of the regional council; and

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak on this amendment, but with the absence of the member for Sudbury I think somebody should be speaking out on behalf of the citizens of that city. That city council in the past has voted repeatedly to have the majority of the members of the police commission elected. Surely they have the right to have those views expressed in this Legislature.

On behalf of the citizens of that city, I am happy to move this amendment and to tell the mayor that we in this party believe they should have that democratic right.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to participate?

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the member for Welland-Thorold. We on this side think the time has come when elected representatives are perfectly capable of providing the numbers to select from among their group representation on the various police commissions across this province. We feel this particularly when a city such as Sudbury says it supports the proposition that elected members are enough in numbers that the regional government could choose from among them enough people to give good representation for a given community.

I put that forward to reinforce my argument relating to the city of Niagara Falls. It seemed unconscionable to me the first time I was aware that we did not have anyone from the city of Niagara Falls sitting on the police commission. This was the situation, despite all our inherent problems in Niagara Falls such as I have described on section 5.

I will support the member's amendment. I also suggest to the members on the government benches that they ought to have the members here who represent those communities and the interests of the people who elected them.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but make a few comments since this amendment applies to the great area of Sudbury. The former mayor of Sudbury, prior to his recent elevation, was one of those who said quite categorically that the city and the region should appoint the greatest number of members to the police commission. He said it should not be the government of Ontario.

I checked with Canadian Press a few moments ago, and the CP reporter who used to be located in Sudbury well recalled that the member for Sudbury called for more representation from the city than from the province. I suppose once one becomes elevated one forgets the things he spoke out on when he was the mayor and attacked the government of Ontario for appointing three out of the five members.

10 p.m.

The member for Sudbury said over and over again, "What the hell is Queen's Park doing appointing three out of the five members?" I said this earlier tonight. He has since departed the premises and has not come in to defend his position. This is not the first time. It is easy to take a position when one is in Sudbury and to be a pussycat when one is in Toronto. He is obviously feeling the heat and therefore has decided not to come in and repeat here what he said to the citizens in Sudbury.

Mr. Shymko: This is the guy who proposed a 12 per cent increase for his accommodation allowance.

Mr. Martel: If the member for High Park- Swansea wants to get involved --

The Deputy Chairman: Disregard the innuendoes and slanders.

Mr. Martel: -- let me tell him I voted for that on the board.

The Deputy Chairman: Do not allow yourself to be deviated from the main purpose of --

Mr. Martel: I do not mind being deviated.

Mr. Shymko: The sanctimony of your side.

Mr. Martel: The hypocrisy from that side of the House is untenable, because we objected to that crazy bill the government brought in last year. We never accepted wage restraint.

The Deputy Chairman: The member is not speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: It was those beggars --


The Deputy Chairman: Order.


The Deputy Chairman: The member will speak to the amendment.


Mr. Martel: It was his motion. That member beats his gums and there were four members of the Tory party who in this House voted for wage restraint and then offered themselves a bigger cut of the pie downstairs.

The Deputy Chairman: Pay attention to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: I opposed wage restraint and supported the other willingly, although it did not affect one of my colleagues. I will not name who it affected, but he and I both know who.

Some hon. members: Who?

The Deputy Chairman: The member is now going to speak to the amendment. Never mind the interjections.

Mr. Martel: When the member for High Park-Swansea interjects, he should know what he is talking about.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Sudbury East is not usually distracted like this.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, you are right. I agree with you. I just thought I would throw that little remark in.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the member going to speak to the bill?

Mr. Martel: Yes, I am right on the bill except for the interjections. You might throw him out.

The Deputy Chairman: I would ask you first to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: He does not know what he talks about. Anyway, back to the bill.

I recall the incident well when the province appointed Mr. Raymond --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Here we go on another reminiscence.

Mr. Martel: No. It was the last couple of years. The government of Ontario appointed an insurance agent, a lovely fellow, to serve on the police commission in Sudbury. Who is he responsible to?

An hon. member: He is a francophone.

Mr. Martel: We had a lot of councillors who were francophones. Is Guy Raymond, the insurance agent, subjected to facing the public when an issue arises by going to the polls? Certainly not. That is one of the reasons I believe we should have three out of the five representatives accountable to the voters in the Sudbury area. If those people over there do not believe in that sort of system, let them say so. When an insurance agent is appointed by the government of Ontario to join two other people who never face the electorate, there is something wrong.

I say to my friends across the way, I know they are like trained seals and will vote the way they are told to vote, but surely --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Thank God for your intelligence.


The Deputy Chairman: The member is being provocative and is again --

Mr. Piché: Don't say "trained seal."


The Deputy Chairman: Order. The chair has had enough of these interjections. The member will speak to the issue and other members will stop interrupting or there will be some swift moves made by the chair.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your help, because to be able to rise above the seals over there is difficult. They are there to do nothing but put their hands up when they are told.

The Deputy Chairman: Speaking to the amendment.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What are you there for?

Mr. Martel: They do not believe in local autonomy. Does the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) believe in local autonomy?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Martel: Well then, if the local residents of Sudbury and the region pay most of the tax bill for police, surely they should have entitlement to most of the members on the police commission. Would the Minister of Education agree with that? She has become silent all of a sudden, has she not? That is uncharacteristic of her. She will not answer that question, because it might fly in the face of the bill the Solicitor General is presenting to the Legislature tonight.

In fact the minister is saying she agrees that although the citizens of Sudbury pay the highest share of police protection, the province should have entitlement to most of the members on the police commission. That is what all the Tories are saying. They do not have the courage to say, "No, the taxpayers who pay the share of the bill should have members on the board who have to face the electorate, like we do."

I can only assume the reason the government of Ontario does that is so it can retain its control on police commissions. That surely is -- I was going to say that is not cricket, but it is more than that. Surely it is not right that the Solicitor General can sit in his office, phone the police commission and say, "Now look boys, this is the way we in the province want it and this is the way you will do it," and he has three votes automatically out of five.

That is the reason he wants to retain it. He does not believe the local residents who foot the bill should have the final say. Surely there has to be some common sense. The people who are on the commission, the overwhelming majority, should be responsible for facing an electorate somewhere down the line. If they are members of a council, either the regional council or Sudbury city council, somewhere along the line they are going to be answerable for their actions. What they are answerable to now is only the government of Ontario and they do as they are instructed or they will not be reappointed.

Surely we are beyond that stage. Surely somewhere there are people who make decisions ultimately and who are accountable to more than the Tory party. Surely it goes beyond that. If it does not go beyond that, somebody over there should have the courage --

Mr. Piché: It is not the Tory party. It is the government of Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: You are doing it to them.

Mr. Martel: Am I doing it to them'?

The Deputy Chairman: Do not listen to them then.

Mr. Martel: I want to try to get to them, because surely someone over there has to answer why they believe that the province, which pays a very small percentage of the cost, has the right to rule the police commission and its actions in Sudbury. The province does not pay the bill; it pays a small percentage of it. Does that give it the right to dictate what in hell is going to go on in Sudbury or Niagara or anywhere else? Surely that is up to the local people and the people who will be accountable to the residents in a regional government. They have to answer for their actions.

No one is accountable now except the two councillors. But the commission, if three are appointed by Queen's Park, does not answer to anyone but the government of Ontario; it does not answer to the local residents. Does the government understand that? If that is the way they want it, if they want a dictatorship, let them tell me so I will understand it.

10:10 p.m.

If they are saying the government of Ontario can dictate what is going to go on in Sudbury or Thunder Bay or any other region, let them say so. They should at least have the courage to put it on the table and say, "We want the ultimate say -- not the region that pays the bill, but the province of Ontario -- in what is going to happen." That is what they continue to retain for themselves.

I do not say that to the seals on the back benches; they will just vote the way they are told. I remind the fellows on the back benches that they are not the government. Some of them like to believe they are, but they are just the trained seals. They might belong to the Tory party, they are supporters of the government, but they are not the government. It should never get to their heads that they are the government. They are just the puppets who put up their hands when they are told and put their hands down when they are told --

The Deputy Chairman: The member is proceeding to repeat himself a bit.

Mr. Martel: -- and that is what happens.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I object.

Mr. Martel: The minister can object all she wants. That is the reality.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Sudbury East will speak to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: A recent survey of the people of Canada, published in Ottawa, said that what parliamentarians do -- parliamentarians; that is what we are supposed to be -- is irrelevant. It is cabinet rule not only in Ottawa but also in every provincial government.


Mr. Martel: The Minister of Education should read some of it. She, who has never been on the back bench, does not have a clue.

An hon. member: Manitoba is included too.

Mr. Martel: That is right, including Manitoba. I do not disagree one bit with my friend. What we have moved away from is that backbenchers have a useful role.

Mr. Shymko: Is it any different in your party'?

Mr. Martel: Not a bit.

Mr. Piché: I saw your party undivided over there. If one gets up, everybody gets up. My God! If you think we are trained seals, what about you? You always vote in blocs.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) is not in control of the floor. The member for Sudbury East --

Mr. Shymko: He is accusing us of being trained seals.

Mr. Foulds: And so you are untrained seals.

The Deputy Chairman: If the member for Sudbury East has anything further to add; maybe the member is finished?

Mr. Martel: No. I want to pick up where I left off. I want to say to my friend the member for Cochrane North --

The Deputy Chairman: The clock is moving.

Mr. Martel: -- that the guy who led the attack against the Manitoba government was a New Democrat.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Sudbury East should be reminded that we are moving towards the hour of 10:15.

Mr. Martel: I know what the time is. I can tell time. Mr. Chairman, I learned how to tell time yesterday.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Really?

Mr. Martel: Right. I want to tell my friend the member for Cochrane North that the attack on behalf of French people and French rights in Manitoba --

The Deputy Chairman: The member will speak to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: -- was led by a member of my own party, a guy by the name of Doern.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Sudbury East has been asked for the last time --

Mr. Martel: Maybe my friend should get a little gumption once in a while.

The Deputy Chairman: -- to speak only to the amendment or to take his seat.

Mr. Martel: I try to, Mr. Chairman. You are the one who does not keep them under control.

The Deputy Chairman: I am telling you now that I have warned you for the last time.

Mr. Martel: You can warn me all you want. They are the people who are interjecting.

The Deputy Chairman: I am asking you now --

Mr. Martel: Why do you not control them?

The Deputy Chairman: Do not debate with the chair; speak to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: I am right on the amendment. They are the people who continue to interrupt, and you do not stop them.

The Deputy Chairman: Speak to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: That is not my fault; it is yours. If you want to let those seals interject so I cannot get in a word --

The Deputy Chairman: The member is not speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: Then I suggest that you quiet them, permanently. Throw a couple of them out of the House so I can continue my remarks, which are very brief, except that I cannot get a word in.

The Minister of Education should look at the last study out of Ottawa about the relevance --

The Deputy Chairman: We have reached the stated hour, and I would ask the honourable member to resume his seat.

Mr. Martel: On the subject of Sudbury --

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Sudbury East will take his seat. I do not recognize the honourable member. We are at the stated hour of 10:15. It is the time when there will be a stacked vote. We will have a 10-minute bell, at which time we will take the roll call.


Mr. Martel: It is 10:13.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: No. We can come back in committee at another time. We will resume on this clause when we go back in committee. I am saying the honourable member has reached the time when the bells may ring.

Mr. Martel: I am looking at the clock.

The Deputy Chairman: That clock is slow. I am going by the one at the side.

Are they calling in the members? I have ordered that they be called in. There is a 10-minute bell.

Mr. Martel: Could you tell me under what rule you are --

The Deputy Chairman: Section 95(b).

10:26 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: As per the agreement, unanimously given by the House, we stacked the votes until 10:15 and the bells were rung. We have a number of amendments before us.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart's amendment to section 1, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 30; nays 50.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 1 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: The second amendment is that section 2 of the bill be amended to read -- dispense? Agreed. Same vote?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, you have to call it first; then you can ask if it is the same recorded vote.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

You are either standing or sitting. Is it the same vote?

Some hon. members: Yes.


The Deputy Chairman: We have done the ayes and nays. Is it the same vote'? That is all I ask.

Some hon. members: Yes.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart's amendment to section 2, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 2 agreed to.


The Deputy Chairman: Order, please, honourable members.

10:30 p.m.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart's amendment to section 3, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 3 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart's amendment to section 4, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 4 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart's amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Kerrio's amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 5 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart's amendment to section 6, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 6 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: We have no further votes. We will continue debate on section 7 when the committee is back in session.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments and progress on one bill.


Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker:

I want to draw to your attention a new procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the committee of the whole House a while ago.

We had agreed we would stack the votes until approximately 10:15 and thereupon vote, which we have just done. At about 10:15 I was making a few comments with respect to an amendment to section 7 of a piece of legislation. Rather than allowing me to finalize those comments, the Chairman decided on his own that he would write a new rule into the legislation of Ontario governing the rules of the Legislature.

He quoted 95(b) as being the reason he could cut right into the middle of some comments by a member and order that the bells be rung. Let me quote it: "With unanimous consent, divisions in committees of the whole House may be deferred. The members may be called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession . . ."

We had indicated to the government we were prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker. I have no hesitation in saying it was an all-party agreement that would occur. What I resent though, and I feel it is a new rule developed by the Chairman, is that while I was in the process of making a few remarks and winding down those remarks, the Chairman decided he would start to ring the bells at precisely 10:15.

This is uncalled for. It is a new rule. I would ask that this not be allowed to continue to occur. Otherwise, there is simply no way that I, as House leader for this party, am prepared to reach any type of agreement which requires unanimous consent, if some Chairman determines on his own hook that within a minute he is going to cut it all off and not let some member finish his remarks, which might take a minute or a minute and a half.

Mr. Speaker, you are not going to get agreement of that sort if the Chairman thinks he can write a new rule for the Legislature of Ontario. I would ask you to look into this matter and advise this Chairman that he should have waited until I completed my remarks because I was party to the agreement. I was not going to spend a lot of time; however, I think I am entitled to finish my remarks without the interventions of a Chairman who then proceeds to ring the bells.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this point of order. I think there should be some clarification made on this particular issue which has been raised by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

I represent a party which has supported the amendments which were put by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). It is very unusual, in this particular circumstance, that we had about five or six sections of the bill where one was just a repetition of the other. All of the comments and arguments had been made when the member for Sudbury East decided to participate in the debate. At that point, it seemed that he was just participating in a way which would add some length to the debate. It was absolutely not necessary, added nothing to the whole process and really was kind of detrimental to the process.

Mr. Speaker, it is a House rule and he should know better.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East has raised a point of order. I am not prepared to make a ruling on it at this point because I do not know what agreements were made or not made. I will have to look into it and report back.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, while you are examining the precedents around this matter and researching the incident which took place, could I draw to your attention that in my memory of this House over the last 12 years it has been the usual practice for either the Speaker or the Chairman, when the termination of a debate appears likely, to request the member to find a convenient time in his remarks to either conclude or adjourn the debate.

A request for adjournment of the debate might have been appropriate, but in our view an arbitrary ringing of the bells was not appropriate.

The House adjourned at 10:39 p.m.