SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS (CONCLUDED)
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
REVISED STATUTES CONFIRMATION ACT
REVISED STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT
REVISED STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS ACT
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The House resumed at 8:01 p.m.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the first report of the select committee on pensions.
Mr. Riddell: On a point of order: Prior to the supper adjournment it was indicated to us by the government House leader that we would be proceeding with Bill 178. Has a change been made since then?
Mr. Nixon: If I might assist the member, I believe the debate was completed last Thursday but the vote was not taken. Although we are not worrying about it too much, I understand the House leader of the New Democratic Party, in his meticulous way, wants to carry this vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I cannot hear you, honourable member.
Mr. Nixon: I just want to stimulate a little discussion here.
Mr. McClellan: If the Liberals want to have a caucus meeting inside the chamber, that is their problem.
Mr. Martel: That is a good point my colleague has made.
If the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has not advised his caucus that we were going to vote and agreed to vote on the recommendations of the report carried last week, that is not our fault.
Mr. Gordon: Do not forget, millions of brain cells die every day.
Mr. Martel: If you have even one to die, you're lucky.
Mr. Gordon: You would know about that.
Mr. Martel: You're right. I have watched you perform.
The Acting Speaker: What is your point of order, please?
Mr. Martel: I am speaking to the point of order, but the interjections are drowning me out. I was just waiting for a pause that refreshes from the member for Sudbury.
An agreement was announced --
Mr. Gordon: We will send you over a northern ale.
Mr. Martel: Do you want the floor?
The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury East has the floor, speaking to a point of order.
Mr. Martel: It was agreed and announced by the government House leader that there would be a vote immediately at eight o'clock on the report of the committee that was looking into pensions. I hope Mr. Speaker will call that vote now as was agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: As was arranged by the House leaders and as all three House leaders seem to be aware, although some of them have not informed their membership, the agreement was that we would vote on item 35 and then proceed directly to the bill the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) was going to speak on. So perhaps if you could call a vote on item 35 we will be all set.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the debate has concluded. If the members of this House are ready for the motion to be put in accordance with my motion to adopt the report could we not call for the motion to be adopted?
The Acting Speaker: That is what I am going to do now. Shall the report be received and adopted?
Motion agreed to.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I believe I adjourned the debate this morning. I am sorry to have caused so much confusion this evening but the way this House is normally run by those people across the way it requires some kind of watchdog to see business is conducted in a somewhat orderly fashion.
This morning I had indicated to the minister that as a member of the select committee on highway safety I certainly acknowledge that the combination of alcohol and driving constitutes the most serious problem in road safety. I indicated that the committee on highway safety recommended a three-pronged attack on the problem of drinking and driving -- that is, prevention, management and rehabilitation.
I also indicated that to reduce the size of the problem the committee advocated two kinds of preventive approaches. One was to provide more information to the public, which I think is very important and which is not being done. We still see too much lifestyle advertising. The second was to introduce new deterrents to teen-age drinking and driving, with teen-age underlined.
This bill, in my estimation, is punishing --
Interjection.
Mr. Riddell: Do we have to put up with the likes of this across the way, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor and he is speaking to Bill 178.
Mr. Gordon: That's about all he has.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Riddell: I think we had better bring the ALERT machine into this place.
In my estimation, this bill is punishing all drivers in an attempt to resolve a problem that is predominantly caused, according to the select committee, by a certain age group of drinking drivers. The latest statistics available to the committee at the time of their study indicated that by 1975 -- and that was some years after the age limit was lowered from 21 to 18 -- teen-age drinking drivers were involved in 37.2 per cent of alcohol-related collisions, and that figure was rapidly rising. If we were to know the statistic today, and maybe the minister does, it would probably be closer to 50 per cent.
Mr. Gordon: You are just like a bull in a china shop.
Mr. Riddell: What relevance has that got to what I just said?
The Acting Speaker: Order. Discontinue the interjections. The honourable member has the floor.
Mr. Riddell: A study by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada showed that the risk of collision with drinking teenagers is 165 times that of the average unimpaired Ontario driver. Steps had to be taken, according to the committee, to reduce access to alcohol for the youngest, most vulnerable group of drivers. The government responded by raising the legal drinking age to 19.
8:10 p.m.
I believe the police would be making far better use of their time if they made a concerted effort to check drinking establishments for under-age drinkers rather than stopping cars to check the breath of drivers of all ages. I know within my own riding some of these drinking establishments are so filled with people on weekends one can hardly find a spot to sit if one goes into these beverage rooms.
If one goes in to check he will see that a lot of the people in there are under the age of 19. Yet when one checks with a lot of the drinkers or with a lot of the owners of these establishments, they will say they rarely see a policeman walk in. In other words, they seem to have a clear licence to serve whoever wanders in. If a greater check was put on these drinking establishments by the police we would be accomplishing far more than pulling all these cars over to the curb.
Mr. Gordon: Whatever you say, daddy.
Mr. Mackenzie: The member for Sudbury should behave himself.
Mr. Riddell: How in the world did the member for Sudbury ever get elected?
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member should disregard the comments.
Mr. Riddell: I then brought to the minister's attention the fact that the testing equipment is not all that accurate. As a result, the level at which charges are laid under the Criminal Code for impaired driving is 100 milligrams. It is not the 0.08 but 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. In other words, they allow a leeway of 20 per cent.
Therefore, leeway should be given for the spot-checked drivers under this legislation. Unless a driver blew around 0.08 I question whether his licence should be suspended. If a driver is going to have his licence removed because he happens to blow 0.05, and assuming leeway was given because of the inaccuracy of the machine, the chances are that driver had an alcohol content of 0.03. What does that mean? That means when I go to a warden's banquet and drink a toast to the warden, a toast to the wives of the councillors and reeves at that banquet and a toast to the Queen, according to this government and this legislation I will likely be considered impaired.
Therefore, when I drive away from that meeting I stand to have my licence suspended. That may sound ridiculous but that is the way I see it. What does that mean? We are likely going to have to serve grape juice at these banquets. That is not going to make the farmers who are producing the various fine wines we have in this province happy and it is not going to make the wineries very happy either.
Mr. Gordon: Why don't you drink milk and help the milk producers?
Mr. Riddell: That is exactly what I do.
The problem with setting a standard is there really is no safe limit. Even one drink will cause some impairment. A study done concluded that a blood alcohol content as low as 40 milligrams constituted impairment in terms of inability to control a car effectively. So the standard established by the Solicitor General is arbitrary at its best.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Lower than 40; is that your amendment?
Mr. Riddell: No, I am simply saying there is no such thing as a safe limit so the minister has set a standard that is completely arbitrary. Now we have partial guilt of impairment at 0.05 but more guilt at 0.08. It does not seem to make sense.
I do not think there is any doubt that a driver is a definite hazard at levels below the legal limit of 80 milligrams. If the Solicitor General is really concerned about the driver with 0.05 impairment, why does he not contact his counterpart in Ottawa and ask him to amend the Criminal Code? Laws are complicated enough now without introducing two standards. The problem the minister is creating is that for the driver on the borderline of legal impairment, the 12-hour suspension may weaken the deterrent effect of Criminal Code sanctions.
In any event, as many as 50 per cent of persons on 12-hour suspension will continue to drive. Let us not kid ourselves. They will simply go home and probably, if they want to go out that night, pick up the second car parked in the laneway and drive it. I am not just saying this. It is an established fact, according to the information we have been given, that 50 per cent of those drivers are going to drive anyway, even though their licence has been suspended. That may even be a conservative estimate.
The system permits the driver to incur any number of 12-hour suspensions without additional penalty. Wherein lies the deterrent? A driver stopped at six o'clock in the evening returning home from the beverage room after a hard day's work will be able to retrieve his licence the following morning in plenty of time to return to work. That is when they will be pulled over, when they get out of work. It is Christmas time, and they will go into the beverage room to have a few drinks. Then they will be pulled over. So maybe some time between six and seven o'clock their licences will be suspended for 12 hours. Then they go home using the subway or whatever means they have, and come back in time to pick up their licences and drive to work. What kind of --
An hon. member: Is this in Huron-Middlesex?
Mr. Riddell: Most of the licence suspensions will take place in the urban centres, because we in the rural areas can handle our drinks.
The only deterrent I can see is the inconvenience of getting the licence back, and chances are the driver will drive his car to the designated place where the licence is being held. The minister may say the driver is taking the chance of driving while his licence is suspended, but that driver may argue that his licence suspension terminated at six o'clock in the morning. So what have we accomplished? Probably very little more than another test case for the courts.
I do not know whether the minister is looking after his lawyer friends or not, but I can imagine the lawyers would dearly love to get this type of thing into the courts, where a licence suspension had terminated at six o'clock in the morning and the fellow happened to drive his vehicle, say at eight o'clock in the morning, to pick up his licence. I would be interested in the minister's comments on that when he gets up to answer. In addition, the 12-hour suspension may encourage inefficient or lazy police simply to suspend a licence rather than to lay a charge under the Criminal Code when appropriate. This further weakens the deterrent effect of current sanctions.
Getting back to the committee, it noted an additional problem. This approach could make possible arbitrary and capricious suspension by police. Through this legislation we are making the police judge and jury, and it is difficult at the best of times for the police to create a good public image. We should be striving to narrow the gap rather than widen it. We do not want this province to be perceived as a police state.
Granted the select committee on highway safety recommended that the government of Ontario enact legislation to empower the police to suspend for 24 hours the licence of a driver with a blood alcohol level of 50 to 100 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood as measured on the ALERT machine, the alcohol level evaluation roadside tester. That is a completely arbitrary figure of 50 to 100 milligrams.
Members will note the lack of specifics in this recommendation. The police have to make an arbitrary decision as to whether they suspend the licence of a driver with a blood alcohol level of 50 or 60 or 70 or 80, or 90, or 100. Some police are likely to suspend it if it tests 80; other police will likely suspend it if it tests 50. One can see the very arbitrary decision that the police have to make.
8:20 p.m.
The job of the police is to enforce the law, and the law as it now exists, which is well known to the public, is that drivers can be charged for impairment at an alcohol level of 0.08. There is nothing arbitrary about that; 0.08 is the point at which charges for impairment can be laid and a licence automatically suspended. The Criminal Code does not say between 0.08 and 0.12, or something of that nature, as this recommendation states between 50 and 100. There is nothing arbitrary about the Criminal Code as it pertains to this matter, but there certainly is about this recommendation in the select committee report.
The level of 0.08 is clearly spelled out in legislation. There is nothing arbitrary about it from the standpoint of enforcing the law. Because the recommendation in the select committee report is very loosely worded, based on the differences of opinion presented to and documented by the committee, I have no hesitation in opposing Bill 178. We simply cannot pass laws that incorporate two different standards -- impairment at 0.05 and guilty according to provincial legislation, and impairment at 0.08 and guilty according to federal legislation. It has to be one or the other; it cannot be both. I hope the Solicitor General will take that into consideration.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the members for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) for their very thoughtful contributions to an important debate on what is, undoubtedly, a complex subject. I would also like to pay tribute to the former member for Yorkview, Mr. Fred Young, for his dedication to the very important, crucial area of highway traffic safety. I commend the work he has done and the leadership he gave in the important select committee report of 1977, which has been referred to by several speakers.
I might say I use the words "thoughtful contributions" because, obviously, some significant thinking has gone into their remarks. I hesitate to say that is unlike some of the contributions we hear from the official opposition who read one or two editorials and snoot from the hip. It is really sad they would treat such an important and crucial area of human behaviour in such a cavalier fashion. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this is --
Mr. Conway: You are a pompous, arrogant ass.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I ask that the remark be withdrawn.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Why?
Mr. Conway: I certainly have no alternative but to withdraw the remark that the Solicitor General is a pompous, arrogant ass, and I shall do so.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That is not acceptable parliamentary language.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I must admit that, watching the pathetic performance of these people week after week I do not expect anything better than that.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am very happy that the record just demonstrates the level of their contribution to the debates in this House. Let it speak for itself.
I do not intend to deal in great detail --
Mr. T. P. Reid: Your attitude is beyond belief for somebody in your position.
Mr. Ruston: In the position of Solicitor General, you should be ashamed of yourself.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think there are a number of people from the riding of St. George here tonight who are probably once again congratulating themselves on their wisdom in replacing a Liberal member with a Progressive Conservative member on March 19 --
Mr. T. P. Reid: Remember who they voted for before too. They were smart enough the first time, weren't they? Remember they voted for Margaret Campbell the first time. That showed you.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Samis: Forget March 19.
The Acting Speaker: The Solicitor General has the floor.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is the idiotic behaviour we have come to expect from the members of the official opposition party.
The Acting Speaker: The Solicitor General will speak to Bill 178.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, point of order: Do you call that parliamentary procedure?
The Acting Speaker: I would ask the Solicitor General to deal with the bill that is at hand. We are talking to Bill 178.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss in great detail what must be an obvious fact to all members of the Legislature, that is, the very tragic statistics we are aware of on a day-to-day basis in relation to the carnage on our highways. I think the member for Hamilton East described this situation very eloquently. Very little has to be added to what he has said.
Without doubt many of these tragedies are, as we all know, related to alcohol abuse on the highway. There is no question but that this problem has commanded and should command the attention of every responsible citizen. I would think any future civilization, looking back on ours and seeing the number of lives that were either lost or destroyed, the mutilation that occurs every day on the highway, will reflect with some degree of wonderment on why we demonstrated the relative degree of tolerance we do demonstrate to such a critical problem.
We are, of course, talking about the more than 1,500 lives --
The Acting Speaker: Point of order, the member for Waterloo North.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Solicitor General that this is very important, but why in the devil has it taken all these years to get this legislation on the books when he speaks so self-righteously --
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Solicitor General has the floor.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The degree of tolerance we demonstrate towards this tragic issue is rather distressing. I suppose it is related to the fact that automobiles are so much a part of our everyday lives and obviously the consumption of alcohol is very much a part of our culture. The combination of the two activities, while lawful by themselves, has created a tragedy of immense proportions. To cite but one of many figures available, there are more lives lost on the highways of the United States every year, for example, than there were during the whole of the Vietnam war. But I think the member for Hamilton East has placed this very important debate in its proper context.
At the same time, we recognize this is an area of some controversy, whenever we are dealing with police powers. Again, we approach this issue on the basis that driving is a privilege and not a right. All responsible members of the community do have a right to expect that those using the highways will use them wisely and prudently. Of course the fundamental responsibility to regulate highway safety and to maintain and, I hope, increase the level of safety on the highways is the responsibility of the provincial government. Much of the Highway Traffic Act is dedicated to regulating vehicles on the highway, whether it relates to rules of the road, requirements in relation to mechanical fitness and the fitness and ability of individuals to operate a motor vehicle.
8:30 p.m.
This is why these important amendments are sought to the Highway Traffic Act. They are fundamental to the regulation of traffic on the highways and maintaining a proper level of safety.
It is true that we have been cautious in introducing this legislation. It is true that, back in 1976, an interministerial committee recommended 24-hour suspensions. At that time the ALERT device had not been perfected to the present degree. The government did not proceed because it was concerned that even 24-hour suspensions might be based simply on the judgement of a police officer as opposed to some objective test, which is what the ALERT machine is all about.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the Alberta and British Columbia governments introduced 24-hour licence suspensions some time ago with a similar approach. This reason and the success these programs enjoyed, along with the public acceptance that had been demonstrated toward these safety programs, led our interministerial committee to recommend such a course of action.
As has already been pointed out, the select committee on highway traffic safety made a similar recommendation in 1977 in a report that was signed by all members of the committee. But the signatures of two members of the official opposition are now, in effect, being withdrawn, at least from that part of the report. I must admit, I listened very hard and I paid as much attention as was possible, but I certainly did not really hear any explanation as to why they would support such a recommendation in 1977 and not in 1981.
Mr. Nixon: Why do you think it is such a good idea now?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The reason this has been looked at very closely is because we wanted to be satisfied that the ALERT machine had been perfected and was reliable. I can assure the House that we have been assured that it is a reliable device. The members of the New Democratic Party caucus who met with people from the forensic sciences laboratories satisfied themselves as to the accuracy of the device. Obviously it is necessary to have an objective test as well as the subjective test of even a trained police officer.
Mr. Nixon: You are admitting to impairment at 0.05. Is not that criminal conduct?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member for Huron-Middlesex suggested it was an arbitrary figure. It is no more arbitrary than the figure of 80 milligrams under the Criminal Code. Why the difference between 80 milligrams and 50 milligrams? First of all, we naturally conceded there is a double standard.
A double standard, of course, is the difference between what is considered to be criminal conduct. That is, sanctions prescribed by the Criminal Code that one is engaging in criminal conduct with a breathalyzer reading of 80 milligrams or more. The difference between the two standards is what the federal Parliament has determined to be an appropriate sanction for criminal conduct as compared with what Ontario regards as an acceptable regulation, not to describe the conduct as criminal but as acceptable regulation with respect to the crucial issue of highway traffic safety. I do not know why the member would have so much difficulty understanding that.
Mr. Riddell: You are admitting impairment at 0.05; isn't that criminal conduct?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I did not interrupt the member. Anyone who has made a study of this issue, as I am sure many people on both sides of the House have, will be aware of the many studies demonstrating that readings in excess of 50 milligrams represent a significant risk, not only to the individual who is driving in that situation but to others using the highway.
I think I heard the member for Huron-Middlesex refer to another opinion that said 40 milligrams represented a significant risk. I would like to refer the members of the Legislature to the study done under the auspices of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of the Attorney General with respect to the 1979 Ontario roadside blood alcohol-content survey.
The conclusion of the experts who participated in that survey during the time it was conducted indicated that of the many thousands of drivers tested, one in eight demonstrated serious signs of impairment. Although they were signs that would not necessarily lead to a criminal charge or conviction, they were still significant signs of impairment. At that time we referred to the public being exposed to a shooting gallery of one in eight drivers coming towards them showing significant signs of impairment.
It is to address this serious situation that this legislation has been developed. It was considered carefully by our own Ontario Highway Traffic Safety Council, chaired by Deputy Commissioner J. S. Erskine of the Ontario Provincial Police and made up of a number of police officers as well as senior officials of several ministries.
There are a number of other studies that have indicated, as I have already stated, that about 50 milligrams is a significant area of risk. Why do we ask the public to accept that degree of risk? We have come to the conclusion the public does not want to assume that that is an acceptable risk.
We recognize this is not going to solve the problem of drinking and driving on the highways but we hope it will alleviate it to some extent. In doing that, we hope we can demonstrate that lives will be saved. Obviously, if one life is saved it makes it worth while. Our expectation is somewhat greater than that.
All the studies that have been done in this difficult and complex area demonstrate that to reduce alcohol abuse on the highway, it is critically essential to raise the level of apprehension of detection. The use of roadside screening devices and the RIDE program -- to reduce impaired driving everywhere, of course -- is essential in increasing the level of apprehension of detection. Only in that area are we going to create any degree of deterrent.
My good friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk asked why we hear so much about this at Christmas time. What is happening the rest of the year? It is true that police forces throughout the province and other government initiatives have recognized these campaigns would be better spaced throughout the year. If they were in force week in and week out, the public would probably become somewhat desensitized to them.
8:40 p.m.
Certainly everyone agrees that the holiday time of the year, when alcohol consumption is that much greater, is obviously a good time for these public education programs, RIDE programs and the like. They have demonstrated that they reduce the numbers of accidents and save lives. I know all of us in this House are crucially concerned with the saving of lives on the highways.
What we have here is the fact that a number of people have recommended that when we have a reading above 50 milligrams, it really would be a significant public safety measure simply to remove those drivers from the highway for 12 hours. The penalty, of course, is largely related to the fact of the inconvenience of being unable to drive for 12 hours. In most cases, there will be no problem with having to pay a fee at the pound because the legislation makes it very clear that every other alternative should be explored.
It is only in cases, quite frankly, of protecting the automobile, which otherwise would be abandoned, that vehicles are impounded. Even now, with the very large number of impaired driving charges laid under the Criminal Code every year, there is a remarkably small percentage of vehicles impounded, because the police in this province recognize that whatever powers they have must be utilized wisely in order to maintain a high level of public confidence in law enforcement.
Some of our colleagues have talked about an opportunity for police harassment. If the police want to harass people on the highway they have the authority now without any of this legislation. The Highway Traffic Act makes it very clear that a police officer can stop any of us at any time simply to check whether or not we have an operator's permit. The police officer can stop us at any time simply to check to see whether the vehicle is mechanically fit. Obviously, police officers have demonstrated the ability to use these powers wisely, because if they wanted to harass people, they have the authority now.
In relation to this new initiative, I think it is fair to assume that the same degree of wisdom will be demonstrated. The member for Huron-Middlesex mentioned in his submission something that had concerned me in relation to whether or not people would end up with a 12-hour or 24-hour suspension as opposed to a criminal charge. I have to tell you that was one issue that was debated internally here for a long period of time because I worried about that possible situation; again, I was worrying about creating the perception that police are going to be prosecutor, judge and jury at the roadside.
All these issues were debated very extensively, so I do not criticize anybody for raising these issues because they certainly have been raised on a number of other occasions. But the decision was made, and I am confident it has widespread public support, that the demands of public safety require additional initiatives in relation to alcohol abuse on the highway.
We do have the alcohol level evaluation roadside tester, the ALERT machine, which is a reliable machine, but a person does not have to accept that. He can insist on a full breathalyser test at the station; he has that right. So this legislation has been very carefully balanced to recognize the crucial interest of public safety on the one hand, while recognizing the legitimate concerns in relation to individual rights on the other hand.
Some people will argue, undoubtedly, that even a 12-hour suspension without the right of going to court and having a trial is an interference with what they consider to be their individual rights. But in all laws, whether they are under the Criminal Code, the Highway Traffic Act or other provincial legislation, one is forever engaged in this very difficult balancing act between individual rights and the collective good. This is particularly the case when it relates to interference by the state with individual rights so that we can be protected from alcohol abuse on the highway.
Every legislature is traditionally faced on many occasions throughout any year with balancing these rights. I believe the public will accept the fact that highway traffic safety does demand additional initiatives, particularly when it relates to alcohol abuse. This is so whether one is considering individual rights in the individual or collective sense. The police are crucially concerned with maintaining public confidence in law enforcement in this province and, as they have demonstrated in the past with arbitrary powers, these powers have to be exercised wisely.
I would hope there is not too much concern in relation to the three-year minimum sentence with respect to those who deliberately engage the police in high-speed chases. It is a very difficult situation for police. It is a catch-22 situation: if they decide not to chase, people who are driving recklessly may be involved in serious and often fatal accidents down the road; if they do chase and an accident ensues, they are blamed in both areas. But this will serve as at least some degree of deterrent for people who want to engage in this highly dangerous conduct.
I know the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) is not here. He was concerned about a situation where a person on a clear mission of mercy is rushing to the hospital, for example, and neglects to obey a police officer's request to stop. What will happen in those circumstances?
I have taken another careful look at the wording. It is quite true the legislation does not make any exceptions for missions of mercy. But the police in this area, as they have in so many other areas in relation to the criminal law -- quite apart from highway traffic law enforcement -- have a very wide degree of discretion as to whether or not they are going to prosecute somebody who may have broken the law. Police officers every day are called upon to exercise this discretion and not to prosecute where it is clearly not in the public interest to do so.
All I can say to the member for Riverdale is that I appreciate his thoughtful concern in this respect, but I do not think there is much likelihood of a police officer prosecuting or, if that happens, a court convicting somebody who is clearly on a mission of mercy. I think it is totally unlikely. I appreciate his concern but I do not think any change in the legislation is going to address that issue as well as a wise exercise of police discretion and, in the ultimate instance, the wisdom of the court.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members to support and to ease the passage of the legislation before we adjourn. I believe this legislation will result in the saving of lives. I think, frankly, that any delay will simply lead us into a situation where the opportunity to save lives is lost.
8:50 p.m.
I once again want to thank the New Democratic Party caucus for their support in what is undoubtedly a controversial area of legislation, but legislation that I think is of fundamental importance as far as safety on the highways is concerned.
On motion by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, the debate was adjourned.
REVISED STATUTES CONFIRMATION ACT
Mr. G. W. Taylor, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 184, An Act to confirm the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980.
Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this is an act that will confirm the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980. These are the voluminous volumes we all receive as members. It is customary after the decennial revision of the statutes of Ontario to confirm the revision by a piece of legislation in this House. That is what Bill 184 does.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly supporting Bill 184. It is sort of like fourth reading of the bills. We have already discussed and debated them three times and deliberated on them in committee. They have had royal assent over the last decade, presumably, or longer. Now we have printed them and we are confirming them. We think maybe some of them were entered into in error, but it is a little late for us to worry about that at this time. It may be a little early -- perhaps I should put it that way.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, we, too, are supporting this bill. We would like to have been supporting a set of revised statutes in both official languages of Canada, but we do not seem to have got to that stage yet in this Legislature.
One problem with the RSO is that while we have the six volumes, I do not believe we have yet received the index volumes, and their utility, of course, is diminished until we do get them. However, it is necessary to pass this legislation to authorize the revision, and we are very glad that is being done, so we are supporting the bill.
Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have no further remarks, except to remind the members of the House in response to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that there is at present a translation service for some of the statutes of Ontario, and that is progressing with as great haste as is possible within the economic limits and the limits of the workers who are translating the statutes into French.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
REVISED STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. G. W. Taylor, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 185, An Act to amend the Revised Statues of Ontario, 1980.
Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as you are probably aware, the statutes we just confirmed in the previous bill now have to be amended because there are some typographical errors, some errors of printing, some omissions. Bill 185, which also will be amended shortly when it goes into the committee of the whole House, is to correct those errors, to allow for the typographical errors. Other than that, it corrects certain errors and omissions already in the publication that have been picked up by the legislative draftsmen and people who have used the revised statutes since they have been in existence from August 1.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as a farmer from South Dumfries township, I never fail to be impressed by the representatives of the government, particularly those learned in the law, when they start doing all these intricate and Byzantine operations to confirm what has already been done, and then change what we have just confirmed, particularly in this instance where we are providing an erratum for the work we have laboriously done all these weeks, months and years. In looking at the schedule of the bill, where the verbiage at present in the statute to be corrected is put forward in one column and the corrections are put forward in a parallel column, I am concerned.
Mr. Speaker, if you just look at the very first item, column two says we are changing in a routine way the legislation "by adding thereto the following section: '262a. An appeal lies to the divisional court from any order made by the court under this act.'" This is in the Business Corporations Act. Undoubtedly, everybody in this House feels there should be an appeal to an appropriate court, whether it is the divisional court or some other, but would you not think normally, if that were necessary and it had been left out of the original statute, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or whoever is responsible -- in the case of the Business Corporations Act it would be another minister -- would bring in an amendment setting out a procedure for an appeal and simply saying, "We made an error and we are adding this section"? This concerns me.
It also concerns me that the honourable member who has the carriage of this -- I suppose it is true to call it housekeeping legislation, if there ever was any, because we are straightening up a whole list, many volumes of statutes -- has given us notice of an amendment, which actually removes half the bill and replaces it by some other, almost incomprehensible verbiage. Is he sure they have it right this time? We have confirmed a whole shelf of statutes. Now we are having the errata, which seem to be fairly far-reaching in certain instances, and he has indicated the bill has to go to committee, because the bill itself has been completely fouled up.
I do not know what is going on. The Attorney General has platoons of high-priced help and public relations officers who attend him as he moves about the province -- and lots of cars and drivers; he does not have to worry about the ALERT or anything like that. Still we get this foulup. Maybe he needs a lot more staff.
Anyway, I am glad to see it is the member for Simcoe Centre who is taking the responsibility, because at least he is not a lawyer from downtown Toronto, and that is a step in the right direction.
9 p.m.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Bellwoods has the floor.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I hope the previous bill is passed tonight in time to be of benefit to the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and we can see how foolproof is the machine.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Sudbury let us get on with the comments and he can have his interjections later.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased --
Interjections.
Mr. Gordon: There is nothing wrong with my brain, I can tell you that.
The Deputy Speaker: Listen, if you keep it up, you are not going to be around here long enough for us to find out.
Mr. McClellan: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you and the member for Sudbury would like to go out of the chamber and have a conversation.
I am quite happy to support this statute, if I can get a word in edgewise, but I --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are going to have to crack the old whip, get the government whip out here and ask you to behave. Now that is it, over and done with. Everything was going fine. The member for Bellwoods has the floor.
Mr. McClellan: I basically said what I wanted to say although I note that one of the amendments changes the designation of Court of Appeal to divisional court.
Mr. Gordon: I knew you were in Bellwoods but you sounded like you were in the woods to me.
The Deputy Speaker: I have bad news for the member for Sudbury. I am going to ask you to leave the chamber for a while.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Bellwoods.
Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have concluded my remarks.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, when the economic climate outside this Legislature is rapidly deteriorating to the point it is, I find it incomprehensible we are dealing with such trivial, innocuous bills such as confirming and amending statutes. It is hard to explain what we are doing in the Legislature to those people out there who are having to walk away from their homes, their farms and their businesses.
Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on these two amendments, we have heard from the fine lover of all lawyers in the province, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, who always takes great delight in reminding lawyers of their lack of ability. I would remind him, considering the considerable thousands of pieces of legislation in those six volumes, the amendments here are of an insignificant number and amount. Indeed, with all the words that are put through, the amendments are some 20 in number, which I think leaves a great deal of credit to the lawyers who prepare those.
One has to hark back -- I do not want to spend too great a length of time on this -- upon the fact that when these pieces of legislation go through over periods of time, they have been worked over, looked at and reviewed by the legislators of this establishment. Indeed, some individuals speak on them regularly with a great amount of authority and confidence as if they are the only ones who can insert the correct words, contrary sometimes to those which the drafting people of this assembly have put forward. So I think it is quite admirable that so few amendments are in there.
The comment by the member for Huron- Middlesex was that these are insignificant bills, and indeed they may be in the whole context of the matter, but they may save some individual litigants considerable sums of money. This is protecting some litigants out there from the ravages of some lawyer's bill that the member for the riding with the great name of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would surely like to see saved. Those are my closing remarks on this particular bill.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole.
House in committee of the whole.
REVISED STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 185, An Act to amend the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. G. W. Taylor moves that sections 2 and 3 of Bill 185 be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "2(1) This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of August 1981.
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection 1, the Court of Appeal shall be deemed to have and to have had jurisdiction to hear, determine and dispose of any appeal under a provision amended by item 3, 9, 11, 18, or 19 of the schedule set down in or adjourned to the Court of Appeal on or after the second day of August 1981 and on or before the seventh day of December, 1981.
"Section 4 of the bill be renumbered as section 3."
Mr. Nixon: The honourable member ought to tell us what the devil he is doing.
Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member could not resist having that knowledge. To explain to the honourable member, as was done when I received the amendment, the amending statute, Bill 185, has inserted in there the name of a court, being the Court of Appeal. These statutes that we have confirmed this evening have been in the hands of lawyers, even people acting as lawyers for themselves, and they have been in the hands of legislators. They may have advised people that the place to go to resolve this problem would be the Court of Appeal.
However, in the intent of the original legislation and the correct court procedure, that is the wrong court. So basically we are changing the name of the Court of Appeal to the divisional court, which is the proper court to appeal any of the issues under the particular pieces of legislation we are amending.
9:10 p.m.
Chief Justice Howland has brought this to our attention and this a piece of retroactive legislation. One would not want a piece of retroactive legislation to go through these hallowed halls. However, there will be some people who would arrive in the wrong court if they read the bound black volumes on the desks of lawyers and shelves of libraries. Having got to the wrong court, they may not have received the remedy they intended. They may indeed have lost their remedy, they may be subject to large court costs and lawyers' fees, and I am sure the honourable member who brought this to our attention would not want those litigants to be harnessed with large legal fees.
Therefore, we are bringing this amendment retroactively to preserve what was originally intended and to correct our earlier omissions.
Mr. Chairman: That was certainly clear.
Mr. Nixon: I suppose it is clear. It is clear that the mighty government of Ontario, headed by the chief law officer of the crown in this instance, who has independent responsibilities and is resting himself before he comes back in for some triumphant vote in a few minutes, actually permitted the revision of a decade's worth of statutes to go forward with an incorrect reference.
Then the minister corrected it with the correcting statute, and the poor chief justice, who is a busy person himself, in perusing the bills of the government, said, "Here, what is all this?" and found that the whole correction was wrong. He brought it to the attention of all these law officers of the crown and their highly paid minions.
As a lawyer yourself, Mr. Chairman, does it not concern you that perhaps no one over there is minding the store? They are passing down the responsibility until the girl who answers the phone in the Attorney General's office probably has the responsibility for correcting the statutes, because it is passed down and down. It is a shame, it really is.
Naturally, we have to accept this. We hope it does not have to get corrected tomorrow or next Monday, but until such time as the Liberal Party takes over the responsibility of the government of Ontario, it will have to do.
Mr. G. W. Taylor: I think it is quite remarkable that we only need to make five incidental, minute, little corrections in the thousands of words, sections and acts that are dealt with in this House.
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3, as renumbered, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill 185, as amended, reported.
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS ACT
Consideration of Bill 147, An Act to facilitate the Negotiation and Resolution of Municipal Boundary and Boundary-related Issues.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, as is the custom in committee of the whole House, may I have the permission of the House to have several staff members sit at the table in front of me during this debate in committee of the whole House on this bill?
Mr. Chairman: Agreed. Will you call them forward and then we will begin the bill?
On section 1:
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a question about section 1(e), which to my mind is the beginning of the many sections in this bill that give rather wide powers to the minister. We have some concerns about the number of powers that are given to the minister and the breadth of them.
Section 1(e) defines "party municipality" as meaning "a municipality having a substantial interest in an issue raised by an application under section 2," which is an application to have a boundary change, "as determined by the minister or the chief negotiator." Could the parliamentary assistant tell us what is a substantial interest?
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, first of all, it would be any municipality which is actually engaged in the dispute. Let us take Barrie and Innisfil. Barrie and Innisfil both have an interest, so obviously they are there. If there were a third municipality that had an interest, even though it were not actually a party to the dispute, it could also be part of the procedure.
I guess substantial interest is really a matter of discretion. Certainly, the way the negotiations are set up in effect really gives the minister more discretion to bring in municipalities other than maybe just the two that are involved in a dispute.
Ms. Bryden: Is a substantial interest based on matters of size involved, or on matters of population, or on matters of economic interest? What are the criteria to decide a substantial interest?
Mr. Rotenberg: It starts as certainly any municipality that has a legal interest or a financial interest in the matters. Beyond that it is simply a matter of discretion whether a municipality is deemed to have an interest. I guess the reason the word "substantial" is in the act is that a municipality may be 50 miles away and thinks it has an interest when it does not, and in that case it does not have to be a party to the dispute.
Frankly, it really gets down to the philosophy of the bill, which is to be a negotiation and not a legal hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board. Therefore, there has to be some discretion in the mediator. In this case the chief mediator in effect is the minister, who appoints other people as fact-finders and so on, and there has to be in any mediation some discretion as to who comes in and at what time.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to
On section 3:
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, once again it is a matter of definition. Section 2, which is the basis of this act, under which municipalities apply for a boundary adjustment, does not apply to regions except when "in the opinion of the minister" the issue is "of a minor nature." Again I would like to know what is a minor nature that would bring an issue within a region under this act?
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, to relate it to an area that the honourable member would be quite familiar with, if the city of Toronto wanted to annex the entire area of East York, that would not be of a minor nature because that is something that amends the whole Metro act; but if they wanted to have some kind of negotiation to adjust their boundary along that area just north of the Danforth between York and East York, where it is kind of squiggly, that would be a minor-nature thing. Both municipalities, the city of Toronto and East York, could come in under this to have a minor boundary adjustment between the two municipalities.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask specifically about that as well. For example, in the exclusions of the regions, you have included the restructured county of Oxford. If the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) were here, I might go through the old argument that by including it, it is a tacit admission that you have applied a regionalizing statute to Oxford. They have been suffering under this now for a good long time, but when you exclude Oxford, are you at the same time excluding the particular boundary dispute between the restructured county of Oxford and the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk?
I am sure the parliamentary assistant is aware that even though he has taken that Draconian action of imposing restructuring and regionalization on those areas, resulting in the dislocation of local autonomy and the imposition of much higher rates of local taxation, there is still the same boundary dispute as if they were two minor municipalities. The development of Tillsonburg has gone on across the border, in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, with the building of a very large, attractive shopping centre in my constituency even though it is related to the business community of Tillsonburg.
There has been a good deal of development there. Tillsonburg is under the mistaken apprehension, I suppose, that the border ought to be moved out to include all that, so that it would become a part of the restructured county of Oxford. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), or the parliamentary assistant, should know that there is a serious dispute there. My own feeling is that it would be best settled by the application of Bill 147, if both sides would accept it and perhaps they would, rather than to go for a municipal board hearing. Or if that particular dispute is specifically restricted and left out, then what are you going to do about that situation?
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, these two municipalities have not as yet approached the ministry for settlement, but if they do it is our opinion that this well could be deemed to be minor in the nature of Bill 147 and could come under the terms of the bill. If we got a dispute of that nature that was considered a little larger and did not come under Bill 147, if both municipalities agreed, they could set up an informal process the way Brant and Brantford did, not within the bill. The particular dispute you have mentioned, we consider would probably come under the "minor" category and would be under this bill.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Nixon: I am glad it may very well come under the bill, because personally, from my experience with Brantford, I feel it would be the best mechanism. But I have a feeling you really are sort of attempting to save face on behalf of your predecessors.
At the time the restructuring and the regional municipality were both imposed on the area, it was pointed out by people locally, and by me and others as their spokesmen here, that there was a continuing problem and the fact we had gone to restructuring and regionalization would not bring about a solution. I can assure you the problem is an extensive one. If you deem it minor for the purpose of this statute I accept it, but I do not think you should be kidding the people locally into continuing the simply impossible position that your previous actions solved the problems of the area, because they did nothing but make them worse, unacceptably worse.
Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, we are not here to rehash what may or may not have been correct in the regionalization of those areas in the honourable member's riding.
Mr. Nixon: Section 3 is just face-saving.
Mr. Rotenberg: As I say, the point of section 3 is that we have such major things. As I indicated to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, this cannot be used for major restructuring within regions but can be used for minor ones, which the situation of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would come under.
Ms. Bryden: The parliamentary assistant touched a rather raw nerve when he talked about adjusting the boundaries just north of the Danforth, since that is my riding boundary between East York and myself. I do not consider that of a minor nature.
However, the question I would face is whether I would be better off in the hands of the region having the say on the adjustment, if any was contemplated, or whether I would be better off under this bill by having the negotiation and procedure with the minister's opportunities to intervene. I am not sure which is better.
It seems to me that if you are going to give the regions the power to adjust boundaries within their own area for most matters, I do not see why you do not give it to them completely and not have this sort of minor-nature thing where the minister can stick his foot in.
Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, we are not giving the regions any power. If it were deemed to be minor, it would go through this process; if it were anything more than minor, it would have to be done by legislation. The region would have no power in any way to adjust its boundaries. If it were anything more than minor within a region, such as, let us say, Toronto annexing all of East York, that would have to be done by this Legislature; it cannot be done by this procedure. The regions themselves have no power to adjust without either the procedure or legislation.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question. Is it not true that, irrespective of what is laid down in this legislation or what is laid down in previous legislation, this Legislature at any time can make any arrangements with any municipalities, come in here and, with the government's tremendous majority, restructure the whole province any way it wishes?
Mr. Rotenberg: Yes, technically the honour- able member is correct. This Legislature is supreme in municipal matters under the British North America Act. Technically, by new legislation, this Legislature could override this act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the regional act of Kitchener-Waterloo, the regional act of Metropolitan Toronto or any act. Technically, of course, they could do that. We all know that.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4:
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on section 4 which has been sent to the table and the other parties. If you do not have a copy, I have one here.
The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 4(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Where the minister has inquired into the issues raised by an application, the minister shall (a) obtain the opinion of any school board that he considers is affected by the application, and (b) obtain the views of the public by convening at least one public meeting in each party municipality."
Ms. Bryden: To explain why I am moving this amendment, in his remarks on second reading, the minister said the bill was increasing greatly opportunities for public participation in the process of adjusting boundaries. I will agree the bill has some very good provisions in it for public participation after the negotiated settlement has been reached.
There has to be a public meeting to explain it to the residents, and there has to be a public council meeting at which it will be adopted. But also at that public council meeting, the legislation specifically says any objector has the right to be heard. I think that is good legislation, but that sort of process should apply at several stages in the process.
This is the first stage where something is happening but the public is not involved. One or more municipalities make an application that they wish to have a boundary adjustment. The minister then appoints somebody to look into it. If a settlement is not reached immediately, he gets the negotiating process going. The public is not involved until the whole negotiation is over and there is something ready for adoption by council. All this amendment does is bring in the public at the application stage. The only change the amendment makes is to add subsection 2(b); 2(a) is simply a repeat of what is already in the act. It is just put there for the convenience of having the (a) and the (b) written down in the same section.
Under 2(b), all we are asking is that after the application has been received by the minister and he starts to collect views from school boards and any other body he thinks should be consulted about the proposal, he also consult the public. He can consult the public by convening at least one public meeting and explain to them that municipality A and municipality B would like to be annexed to each other, would like to take a piece of each other's territory, or some other boundary adjustment. I think that is perfectly reasonable and fits in with the concept of involving the public at all stages.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I would not accept the amendment as proposed. First, under the present system of annexations, there is no requirement at any time for public hearings. A municipality can put in an application to annex all or part of another municipality to the OMB. Not only do they not have to tell their own public, they do not have to tell the other municipality.
9:30 p.m.
There is adequate procedure in this bill, I feel, for mandatory public hearings by this process. There are two: first, when a municipality decides it wants to enter into an agreement, that agreement must be placed before a public meeting of the council of which the public is informed; and second, if the minister is going to give an order then he must publish that order, and there are 28 days for objections.
I think there is a difference between mandatory public hearings and informing the public. Every municipality has the political responsibility if they are doing anything serious to call a public meeting and inform the public. But let us remember that this process can also be used for some very minor adjustments. I can think of one, which I will refer to later as well, where a municipality built an arena and a parking lot. They found the parking lot was in an adjacent municipality, and I think two acres were transferred from one municipality to the other. I do not think if that application goes forward that sort of thing needs a mandatory public hearing in the initial stage.
Under section 12 there is a requirement for a public hearing at the stage of the municipalities, and under section 17 at the stage when the municipality issues an order. There are two mandatory public hearing stages. There is no question in my mind that the fact-finder, the negotiator, if he is in any way doing his job, will ascertain whether or not there should be some nonmandatory notice to the public. I have confidence in the system that the public will be informed enough. I do not think it is necessary to have another mandatory public meeting.
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if, using the Brant-Brantford example, the parliamentary assistant could advise us whether the public meetings held in Brant-Brantford at the time were held at the instigation of one of the municipalities involved or at the instigation of the ministry, because there were public meetings at that time. My recollection is that the city of Brantford and the township of Brantford took the initiative.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that there were many public hearings. I think many of them were at the instigation of the municipalities; they were nonmandatory. There was a stage where the ministry made sure that public meetings were held. I cannot remember whose auspices they were under.
Ms. Bryden: My point is that it should be mandatory rather than left to the whim of the municipality so the public is informed when proposed changes are coming up.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I see no difficulty with having a public meeting at an early stage when the public would have an opportunity to have input. This would be beneficial both to the province and to the parties involved, and I hope the parliamentary assistant will not be so intransigent and that he will be more flexible in trying to adopt some reasonable amendments which have been suggested.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Bryden's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment negatived.
Sections 4 and 5, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 6:
The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 6(1)(d) be struck out.
Ms. Bryden: This clause in section 6 underlines our point that the minister is given too much power in this act and that the act is rather loosely written as to the powers of the minister. It appears there are several catch-all clauses that really say, "If there is anything we have forgotten, the minister can do it anyway." I think this is contrary to the role of the legislative process and of legislative democracy. Bills should spell out exactly the powers you are giving to people rather than have these catch-all clauses.
The clause simply says that following the sending of a report under section 4, which is the negotiated settlement, the minister may take such other action as the minister considers appropriate. This is a complete carte blanche to do what he likes. I might also point out that section 13(g), which we will be coming to in a few minutes, has exactly the same phrase and I will be moving that it also be struck out. I do not really think the minister needs that power. His powers are fairly carefully spelled out. If he has forgotten anything he can come back to the Legislature for additional power.
The Deputy Chairman: Just to clarify: When the amendment is presented to the House, it will be placed, "Shall section 6 stand as part of the bill?"
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, except that I would hate very much for the government to have to come back every time to this Legislature to get additional powers to do something. Being the critic over the last four years I find, for example, the Municipal Act comes back two or three times every year to have amendments placed in it. It is under constant review.
I think this act would be back here two or three times a year as we find changes. I think we have to give the minister the benefit of the doubt in this case. If we find he abuses his prerogatives then obviously those have to be taken away in the future. For now I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the minister on it, and hope he does not abuse those privileges this Legislature gives him. On that basis we will oppose the amendment.
Mr. Rotenberg: We have to understand that we are setting up a political, not a judicial, process. This is a political process between the minister and the various municipalities. It is still on somewhat of a trial basis. There are going to be a lot of new ideas and new problems come up which we have not anticipated when we wrote this bill, even though we have the experience of Brant-Brantford and Barrie-Innisfil. Things are going to come up -- and I thank the member for Waterloo North for pointing this out -- where the minister is going to have to do something slightly different than is foreseen in the bill.
But I would point out to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that there is the protection to the public. Although the minister in this case can take some other action if he deems it appropriate, if he wants to issue any kind of order under section 14 then there must be the mandatory public notices. If there is going to be an agreement there must be the mandatory public meeting. So there is some protection. The minister can do certain things in process but he cannot issue any orders without the protection of the other clauses of the bill.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 6 stand as part of the bill?
All those in favour say "aye."
All those opposed say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment for a moment on section 6(2). It says: "Where a party municipality fails to appoint members to the negotiating committee within the time stipulated by the minister in a direction under clause (1)(c), the minister may appoint from among the members of the council of the municipality the requisite number of persons to be members of the committee."
I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant what he is going to do if people refuse to sit. If the council does not agree with setting up this committee, the minister is going to appoint people and they may refuse to sit. So what is the minister going to do in that eventuality? This apparently has not been dealt with here. What are you going to do if people refuse to participate?
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, it could be that a council in its majority may not want to sit on the committee, but some minority members want to. Really, what it gets down to is that if, for some reason, the council does not appoint members, we would appoint them. In effect, if one municipality will not act, the whole process falls apart and the process will not continue.
If the government in its wisdom feels that despite the fact one municipality refuses to participate in the process, something should happen -- that municipality A has made an application in good faith but municipality B, as the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine would say, is bargaining in bad faith -- it would be the prerogative of the ministry to bring some form of legislation before the House to correct the problem if we deemed that would be necessary. We could not continue the process if one municipality refused to participate.
Section 6 agreed to.
9:40 p.m.
On section 7:
Ms. Bryden: On section 7, which provides for the appointment of the chief negotiator by the minister following the appointment of the other members by the party municipalities, I would like to ask whether the minister will automatically consult the appointees of the party municipalities or the party municipalities themselves on his proposal for the chief negotiator, in order to see that the person is acceptable to both sides. It seems to me this is often done in appointing tripartite committees, or it may be more than tripartite in this case.
To try to get some sort of agreement among the parties as to the person who will serve as the chief negotiator would, I think, be an assist in the negotiations. I would like to know where he will find the chief negotiator. Will he be a paid civil servant or will he be somebody from a panel of negotiators, perhaps containing persons who have been nominated by municipal organizations to some extent, or will it be left completely to the discretion of the minister? Will there be no consultation with the party municipalities?
Mr. Rotenberg: The chief negotiator will be a provincial civil servant attached to the boundary secretariat of the municipality. In the ministry there are now two people who are designated to be chief negotiators, if and when this legislation passes. That will be, in effect, their permanent job, to be the chief negotiators. They will be people who are knowledgeable and experienced in municipal affairs and they will be permanent in those jobs. In my opinion, especially in this kind of situation, you do not want an arbitrator, you want a mediator; therefore, it has to be someone totally knowledgeable in all aspects of municipal affairs and, as such, would be a provincial civil servant.
Ms. Bryden: Could I just ask you, if there is more than one, would it be possible to tell the party municipalities that Mr. A will be available, and if they have some particular objection or do not like his last decision they could then have Mr. B appointed?
Mr. Rotenberg: Again, this process only works if the party municipalities have some faith in the process. If negotiator A is for some reason unacceptable and B is more acceptable, of course we have to consider that in appointing them, because the process, as I say, will work much better if both parties are satisfied about whom we appoint. So we would take that into consideration.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9:
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on section 9 I would like some clarification on the issues review panels. The legislation does not tell us who they are or what their qualifications are, and really does not even tell us what happens to their recommendations when they do send them in, whether they end up in the wastepaper basket or whether they are circulated to the party municipalities. It would be useful to have some more information on them.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, unlike section 7, an issues review panel would be made up of noncivil servants, who would be either experts in a specific field, if we needed an issues review panel on a specific field, or more likely general municipal experts from outside the civil service and outside the municipality. They may be some well-recognized municipal civil servants from some other location. Although the process is not mandatory, the chances would be, if there were three designated on a panel, we would be interested in nominations from the party municipalities of people who are not attached to those municipalities, but whom the municipalities recognize as persons who are, in effect, guest experts on the issue or issues to be resolved.
Ms. Bryden: Is an issues review panel appointed in every case when there is a negotiation going on, or just when some issue comes up you wish referred to the panel?
Mr. Rotenberg: Under section 1 the minister may appoint a panel if it is considered necessary in some situations. But under section 2 you will notice that where a negotiating committee has been constituted, there must be a panel appointed from whom that committee can seek profession advice. That would be mandatory where a negotiating committee has been set up.
Section 8 agreed to.
Sections 9 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 13:
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 13(e) of the bill be amended by striking out all the words after "board" and inserting in lieu thereof, "to hear any party, municipality or person and after a hearing to make a determination and issue an order implementing its decision."
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly important amendment in the view of the party on this side of the chamber. We feel the role of the Ontario Municipal Board under this legislation has been considerably circumscribed in a number of instances and this is one of them.
Under section 13, after objections have been received from people who attended the public meeting and the public council meeting on the proposed negotiated settlement, the minister may make orders; or he may refer issues back to the negotiating committee or to an issues review committee; or he may terminate the application; or under section 13(e), which is the subject of my amendment, he may refer the issue to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The difference between a normal hearing of the OMB under the Municipal Act and under this bill is that the OMB will not make a determination. It will simply make recommendations to the minister. It will be another issues review panel as far as I can see, but it will be a somewhat more formal one in that it will presumably follow the Ontario Municipal Board's procedure of quasi-judicial hearings, which is a good thing if there is a serious objection.
If this route is followed, referring the issue to the OMB, there will be an opportunity for a quasi-judicial public hearing, but once the hearing is over, there will be no determination by the board that has heard all the evidence. There are simply recommendations to the minister and he and the cabinet will then decide, so it immediately goes to the political rather than the judicial process for settlement of this particular objection. My amendment puts back the power of the OMB to make a determination rather than recommendations.
Under the present Municipal Act there is a power of appeal from OMB decisions to the cabinet. As long as that remains in the Municipal Act, that would still be there. As I am sure most members are aware, the proposed new Planning Act will eliminate that right of appeal to the cabinet from OMB decisions, but until that new Planning Act is in effect, there is still an appeal to the cabinet.
What we are asking by this amendment is that the OMB hear referrals on objections that appear to be suitable for going to the municipal board for hearing if they are of a substantial nature, and that it make the decision but that there be a final appeal to the cabinet.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, this amendment really gets down to the very heart of the bill, and the very point in which this bill is so well written, so strong, and has the agreement of the municipalities and the municipal associations. As a matter of fact, the working group of the interministerial association is very strong on this clause as it now is.
I can quote from the debate the other night. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), the colleague of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, said "Although most of the bill, from the comments you have heard to this time -- certainly the principle of the bill -- is not controversial, many of the proposals will, in effect, provide a more democratic method of arriving at planning decisions, in that those decisions will not now, at least not to the same degree, be made by a court or a quasi-judicial body but will be made by elected representatives."
The member for Welland-Thorold was right on. The whole philosophy of this bill is that the OMB is taken out of the decision-making process and it is given to the politicians, where the ultimate responsibility should lie. If we follow the route that the member for Beaches-Woodbine has indicated, in effect we are back to the Barrie-Innisfil situation, where there will be an OMB hearing, a full-blown hearing. I am sorry the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is not here to describe all those chauffeur-driven lawyers driving up to Barrie, and the millions of dollars spent in hearings.
If we adopt the amendment, we are right back to the multimillion-dollar lawyer and consultant fees before the board and the full-blown hearing. The purpose of this process, and this is the heart and the guts of the process, is that the OMB does not get into the decision-making process. The OMB does not hold a full-blown hearing, it is a political responsibility, and that is where the member for Welland-Thorold said, and I agree with him, that the responsibility should lie.
We do not want to put the OMB back into the position in which it was before. The whole purpose is to change the process, and that is what it does. If we adopt the amendment from the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and the second one following, in effect we are back to the old process and that is not what this whole bill is about.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity of speaking to a number of municipal politicians on this particular bill, particularly those who have participated in the discussions leading up to the bill. Their particular concern was that we should not rearrange the bill too much, because what this bill is trying to do is expedite some kind of decision making and if we put in too many ifs, buts and whens, and refer too many things to the OMB, we will be right back to the old game and repeat what happened in Barrie and Innisfil.
I find it somewhat difficult to support this amendment, and on that basis we will be opposing it.
Ms. Bryden: Responding to the parliamentary assistant, when there are serious objections to a particular negotiated settlement, it seems to me that is the stage where we do not want an entirely political process, controlled entirely by the minister. This is what this bill provides. We want some impartial body to rule on the objection and to see whether it has validity, letting all parties have an opportunity to present their cases.
The OMB has caused considerable delays in many annexation cases. I should not say the board has caused them, but there have been protracted hearings because of the many interests involved and the need for hearing all the various lawyers. We now have the consolidated hearings legislation that came in last June, which might speed up some of those hearings by allowing environmental assessment hearings that may be involved to go along together with the OMB hearings.
There has been a lot of argument in this province as to whether the OMB is a good purpose or whether it is a bad purpose, in that it causes a great amount of litigation and expense to people involved in OMB cases. On balance, I think the general public feels the OMB has been a safeguard for individuals and local organizations against arbitrary government power, or against decisions that appear not to take account of all interests.
Many of their decisions have been rather good compromises between conflicting interests, so we feel it is worth keeping the OMB in this legislation as a sort of safety net for when there are cases of significant objections and people do not feel they have been fairly treated by the negotiating process, and do not feel they wish to leave it entirely to the minister to sort out whether the objections are valid or not, and to give cognizance to them. Therefore, I think it is still worth keeping the OMB decision-making power in under this particular section.
Mr. Rotenberg: Very briefly, this hearing stage is not the final stage. This is where the OMB is asked to referee a dispute between the party municipalities. If the members of the public are not satisfied there are two processes. If we look at clause 13(b), one is that the minister may refer this back to the municipalities for further public hearing or negotiations. After this happens, this is not the final decision; it goes to the minister and if the minister issues an order then there is still a 28-day period for the public to object thereafter. So the public is certainly not cut out of the process.
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden has moved an amendment to section 13(e).
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 13(g) not stand as part of the bill.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the amendment on section 13(g) is identical to the one I moved on section 6, which was not passed. I guess I will move it again but it is exactly the same, striking out the same kind of section in this clause as I thought should be struck out of section 6.
I would like to read for the record what section 13(g) says. It simply says that "after the expiration of the time for informing the minister of the opinions of the councils" the minister may do a number of things, six all told, such as referring it to an issues review panel. Finally he "may take such other actions as the minister considers appropriate." That is the clause I would like to see struck out.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, my comments would be the same as pertained to section 6(d) and we will be opposing the amendment.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, my comments are the same as those of the member for Waterloo North.
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden has moved that section 13(g) shall not 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 nays have it.
Motion negatived.
10 p.m.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, since the amendment to section 13(e) was defeated, the further amendment to section 13 is not relevant because it was the one requiring the decisions of the OMB to be appealed to the cabinet. Since we did not succeed in getting the OMB to make decisions under this clause, I am withdrawing that one.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14:
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 14(b) shall not stand as part of the bill.
Ms. Bryden: To explain, this is a second instance, but in this case it is the Lieutenant Governor in Council rather than the minister who may refer one or more issues to the municipal board to give effect to or vary the recommendations of the municipal board.
Once again, if we have the municipal board making decisions, the Lieutenant Governor in Council does not need the power to refer the issues to the board because he would not have the power to vary the recommendations except when it was appealed to the cabinet. So this is another amendment that depends on the proposal that the municipal board should make decisions and that there should be an appeal to the cabinet. If that went into effect, then section 14(b) would not be necessary.
The other one was defeated, so we might as well withdraw this one.
Section 14 agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
On section 17:
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 17(1) of the bill be amended by striking out all the words after "notice" in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof, "by publication in a newspaper or newspapers having general circulation in the party municipalities of the intention to make the order."
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to save time by indicating I would support this amendment.
Ms. Bryden: That is very good news because I think the legislation was too vague in the kind of notice that had to be given to the public of the minister's plans to issue an order under section 14. There were 28 days during which the order could not be issued after the notice had been given, but unless the people really knew the order was contemplated and were notified through ads in the local newspaper, which is the most common method of informing people of things of this sort, it could happen this protection would not be a protection to the citizens. I am glad the minister is accepting that one.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we had planned to support this amendment, and I am glad to see the government has accepted it. That is a worthwhile change.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Ms. Bryden's amendment to section 17(1) will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
On section 18:
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 18(5) be amended by adding, "but only after having pursued one or more of the actions allowed under clauses 1, 2, 3, or 4 of section 18."
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, section 18 says that "where objections are received" after the notification has gone out to the public about the intention to issue an order, the Lieutenant Governor in Council has one of five options to follow:
First, it can refer the matter back to the party municipalities, and perhaps they can work out an accommodation to the objector.
Second, it can seek the advice of an issues review panel. Perhaps it is a complicated particular issue.
Third, it can appoint one or more hearing officers to hear any objections which would be an introduction of public hearings, presumably where the objection is considered of a very significant nature.
Fourth, it can refer the objections to the municipal board for a hearing and for recommendations.
Fifth, the original act before us said the Lieutenant Governor in Council can also decide "that the objection or objections is or are outweighed by the public interest."
It seems to me that gives the cabinet full authority to just toss objections into the wastepaper basket -- to say they are not in the public interest. I do not think we should have that kind of a loose clause in the legislation. That is why my amendment suggests that the cabinet must first pursue at least one of those four other options before they reject the objection. This will mean there will be some sort of day in court for the objector, or some attempt to get the party municipalities to make an accommodation, which might take account of the objection. I think that is essential when it is an order that is going to be put into effect. There must be some sort of appeal or some opportunity for objections to be heard.
That is why I am moving this amendment, to require the Lieutenant Governor in Council to take one of the four sections before he is given the authority to decide that the objection is not in the public interest.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a worthwhile amendment. It is important that the public not only have an opportunity to have input, and there be different options for them, but also that the perception be there. The first four choices are well put as far as the legislation is concerned. I see no need to have the fifth one unless the first four are dealt with. So I would support the amendment.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, under the present Ontario Municipal Board rules, both for zoning bylaws and for annexation, the OMB has now the power, in effect, not to hold a hearing if it deems the objections to be "frivolous." When an official plan amendment is referred to the minister, if the minister feels an objection is frivolous, he does not have to proceed.
This section has to be there for the reason that though one has an agreement by the municipalities, one has had public hearings and has had everybody come in, in a major dispute, let us say in Brant-Brantford, one person may have had a frivolous objection. To have to go through the whole process over again for something that everyone knows is frivolous, is a waste of time and a waste of money. It could be an awful waste, say, in the Barrie situation. We have solved the whole problem. If one ratepayer came in with a frivolous objection, then the whole process could be thrown into a cocked hat.
If one wants to understand how this power will be used by the minister, I simply refer to the Barrie bill where we have one objection that has come in with a request for a hearing. We are holding the hearing next Wednesday morning. Even though, on the surface, it would appear that the request of this developer is totally contrary to the spirit of the agreement, we feel that is not frivolous and we are holding that hearing. A similar type of philosophy would be followed by the minister in the process. It is necessary for those odd times when something comes in which is totally frivolous and should not waste the time of the agreement.
10:10 p.m.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the present act uses the word "frivolous." It has a much more serious and broad reason that the minister can use as an excuse for not paying any attention to the objection, and that is to consider the objection is outweighed by the public interest.
The public interest is a very big thing. The minister is being given the power to decide what is in the public interest rather than what is frivolous. Therefore, I think that we still need the minister to have some other body besides himself look at the objection and decide whether it is frivolous, if that is the intent of the legislation. It would not take very much time or cost very much to refer it to the issues review panel which is already constituted and sitting there waiting for a referral. It could probably deal with anything that might be considered frivolous in a hearing of an hour.
The way this is worded, the minister has great powers to say he knows what the public interest is, and this objection is not in the public interest.
Mr. Chairman: The honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine moved an amendment to section 18 of Bill 147. All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 18 agreed to.
On section 19:
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, in effect section 19 does almost what the previous bill, introduced by my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor) a little while ago, does, which is that where some things in the final agreement are not in accordance with the intended agreement, it gives the minister the power to make changes in the agreement as may be required without referring back to public hearing. I can understand that section 19 as it is written might cause some concern because although it was not intended to be, it leaves it somewhat wide open.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 19 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"19. Where in the opinion of the minister an order made under section 14 does not fully carry out the intent or purpose that was intended the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, at any time, upon the recommendation of the minister, rescind, change, alter or vary any order made under section 14 and, unless the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines otherwise, section 17 does not apply to any such subsequent order."
Mr. Rotenberg: The purpose of the amendment is to indicate that the minister can use this power only where the agreement does not carry out the intent that was originally intended.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, our objection to this clause as originally drafted was that section 17 does not apply when there is an amendment variation, rescinding any variation of an order issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council regarding a negotiated settlement. The minister has attempted to allay some of our fears that those changes or rescissions or variations would be significant and would affect a lot of people concerned by suggesting that they would relate only to carrying out the intent of the order.
However, I feel these words are too difficult to define, and it is possible that there could be a substantial change involved such as it might say that the original negotiation was to cover 100 hectares of land being transferred from one municipality to another, but when we looked at the maps we decided that 120 hectares of land was involved. This would be a matter of significance to the people living in that area.
I do not feel the minister's amendment solves the situation because it still allows that section 17 does not apply. Section 17 is the clause which calls for public input on any order for notification of the public 28 days before an order is adopted. We feel this same notification and opportunity for the public to comment should be made for any rescission, change or variation of an order.
Mr. Chairman: It is now 10:15 p.m. Would the committee consider at least finishing off this section? We were in the middle of an amendment. I would ask the member for Beaches-Woodbine, after we deal with this amendment, are you going to propose your amendment? You are. Any further discussion on the parliamentary assistant's amendment?
All in favour of section 19, as amended, will please say "aye."
All opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment and progress on another bill.
10:30 p.m.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The House divided on Hon. Mr. McMurtry's motion for second reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Grande, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn;
Lane, Laughren, Leluk, MacDonald, MacQuarrie, Mackenzie, Martel, McCaffrey, McCague, McClellan, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Philip, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman;
Scrivener, Shymko, Snow, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W.,Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Conway, Copps, Cunningham, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Haggerty, Kerrio, Mancini, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Reid, T. P., Riddell, Ruston, Samis, Smith, Spensieri, Sweeney, Van Horne, Worton.
Ayes 73; nays 29.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for standing committee on the administration of justice.
RULE FOR NAMING OF MEMBER
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege: The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) was asked to leave the chamber by the Deputy Speaker earlier this evening. I am not disputing whether --
An hon. member: It was only a 12-hour suspension, 0.05 --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I did not hear your answer because of the chirping from across the way. Do I understand he could have come back into the House or not?
Mr. Speaker: It was my understanding he was asked to leave for a while. He was not named. The Deputy Speaker, I understand, requested this --
Mr. Martel: Is that a new rule?
Mr. Speaker: No, it is not a new rule. He uses his own discretion in order to preserve decorum in this House.
Mr. Martel: On a point of order, maybe Mr. Speaker could explain the difference to me. When a member is asked to exit stage left quickly -- and I have on several occasions made my way out that door -- I do not know what rule you are applying, nor do I know when you ask someone to leave the chamber what the difference is. I was asked to leave on two occasions. I was not given the opportunity to come back 20 minutes later. Whether you say you are asked to leave or somebody says, "I am naming you," there is not really any difference.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, there is.
Mr. Martel: You are just asking the fellow to make his way out and stay out for the rest of the sitting. I would ask Mr. Speaker to show me the rule he is applying.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not being here at the time nor having heard the exchange, the information relayed to me was that the member was asked to leave for a while. He was not named. I am not going to debate it. I would suggest there is quite a difference between naming and not naming.
Mr. Martel: I would hope you would be prepared to bring in the rule by which you are now establishing a new precedent. I would like to see that rule. I really would. I mean that sincerely. I do not think you can change in midstream, turf someone out and let him back in. As one of those who has experienced those little trips out, it just does not work that way.
Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If you want to have it from the horse's mouth, my attitude was, and I would take the same approach with any honourable member under the particular circumstances, if the honourable member wished to leave on a natural friendly basis, he would do so. Rest assured, if there had been any indication that he would not leave, I would have named him immediately. I merely asked him to consider leaving and he left.
The House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.