Hansard Transcripts 1982-Nov-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I submit that my privileges and the privileges of all members of this House have been abused by the statements and actions of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) in relation to the Ombudsman's report on Re-Mor.

I submit that this is a fairly serious matter, and I hope you will pay attention to my comments. I have here yesterday's Toronto Star article, and I quote from that article:

"The Ontario Ombudsman says the provincial government should compensate 320 investors who lost millions of dollars when Re-Mor Investment Management Corp. and Astra Trust Co., both of Niagara Falls, collapsed in 1980.

"Consumer Minister Robert Elgie said yesterday that Ombudsman Donald Morand made the recommendation in a report submitted to Elgie's ministry in July."

All the news media carried basically the same statement by the minister and, therefore, it appears to be accurate. I want to tell members that yesterday afternoon in the standing committee on general government the minister not only refused to give any further details but also refused to confirm or deny that the Ombudsman's report made such a recommendation. His comment was, "I guess if there are tapes of me saying that, I said it."

Mr. Speaker: I will call the honourable member to order, because in fact he does not have a point of privilege.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, will you hear this out a little further?

Mr. Speaker: No. I think you have established your point, and it is not a point of privilege. Your privileges have not been abused in any way, and I ask you to resume your seat.

Mr. Swart: Are my privileges not abused when the minister fails to answer a question on a point of information to the press and to this House?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot enter into a debate.

Will you please resume your seat?

SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief point of privilege, which you as one of the members of this House will be very interested in. It concerns the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and the fact that she will be making an announcement next Monday to directors and superintendents, I think, of education. Do you, as the Speaker, not think that very important announcement in the field of education should be made here in the House, in particular as it relates to the secondary education review project, before it goes to the directors?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege. I have no way of knowing --

Mr. Roy: I was sure it was.

Mr. Speaker: No. I would have to rule against that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment relating to a press conference which we held this morning. At that time we outlined our concerns over the potential contamination of Fighting Island, an island on the Ontario side of the Detroit River which until recently had been used by a US company, BASF Wyandotte, as a chemical dump since the late 1930s.

Since this island was to be used only for the residues from BASF's soda ash operations, which were conveyed in a slurry form through transnational pipelines, can the minister explain the presence of dioxin in herring gull eggs taken from the island at concentrations comparable to the dioxin concentrations found in herring gull eggs from the shores of Lake Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first, I point out to the honourable member that it is important to understand the distinction between herring gulls and penguins. Herring gulls do fly. To the best of my knowledge there has been no dioxin detected in the area of Fighting Island. That fact certainly is borne out by the fish testing that we have done there, with perch, for example. We have found no detectable levels of dioxin in the fish in the immediate area or in the sediments around the island.

I point out that in Saginaw Bay, for example, which is somewhat to the north, on the American side on Lake Huron, herring gull eggs have shown as much as 160 parts per trillion of dioxin. Movement of the herring gulls into that area and to the areas where those herring gulls are gaining access to dioxin is not at all unlikely.

I am not an expert on herring gulls, but it is my understanding that at some point on the radio this morning there was a fairly extensive discussion about the habits of herring gulls. If the member had been listening, he would have learned that at this time of year there is a major congregation of them in the area of the Niagara River. In fact, those herring gulls disperse around the Great Lakes.

I cannot tell the member where they might have had access to dioxin. It might very well have been at one of the Hooker sites on the American side of the Niagara River, during their annual convention, following which they returned to their habitat and elsewhere around the lake, with any dioxin they might have picked up then manifesting itself in their eggs. But to the best of my knowledge of any data that we have or that I have seen, there is no indication of dioxin having been found on Fighting Island.

Mr. Elston: I remind the minister that one of the reasons herring gulls are important to the scientific development and research in this province is that they are considered to be about the most sedentary of all birds and they spend a lot of time in their native colonies, if you will.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: In late 1979, the ministry's officials were informed by Michigan officials of their concerns regarding the contamination of the island by toxic organic pollutants. The island has been cited by the International Joint Commission as having the most contaminated herring gull colony in the Great Lakes basin, contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls and other organochlorine chemicals. Yet the ministry's officials did not think the levels of the contamination were significant.

Why is it that, in spite of evidence presented to his officials over the past two years, his ministry has not adequately investigated the contaminated nature of that island, and when will a thorough, scientific, in-depth investigation commence?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not think the member is giving full credit, where credit is due, to the efforts of my ministry. He would make it sound as if the only concern about potential problems with respect to Fighting Island rested either on that side of the House or in the United States.

We have been involved with Fighting Island for some time. We have done some core testing on the site. We have done some analysis of the sludge that was deposited there. In response to some findings by Mr. Hallett of the Canadian Wildlife Service with respect to contamination in herring gull eggs, we followed up on that to do some core samples on the site.

Although he had found some PCBs and HCBs in the herring gull eggs, we were unable to establish any correlation between his findings and what we found in the sampling of the deposits on Fighting Island. That information is available, and it is fair to say that we shared much, if not all, of the information we have with the member's researchers several months ago. I do not understand why the data we provided to him were not taken into consideration in the documents he seems to have presented at his press conference.

I trust the member is not trying in any way to distort the complete scientific picture that exists with respect to Fighting Island. I hope that is not his motive, although he has adopted an interesting style of doing it at press conferences rather than raising issues in the House. On this side of the House, we try to respect the rights of the members and raise the issues and give responses in this House.

With respect to the latter part of the member's question, he may be aware that there is a proposal for the rehabilitation of Fighting Island. This came prior to any knowledge of his press conference, I can assure him. As of this week, the cabinet on my recommendation approved an order in council that makes the proposal with respect to Fighting Island subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. That means there will be a full and complete environmental assessment of that island and of the proposal, at which time I hope there will be full public involvement in the examination of all the scientific data that are available.

Mr. Elston: We want you to do the scientific testing that hasn't been done.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We have done it.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the minister's attention that on December 5, 1968, approximately 14 years ago, and periodically since then, I have brought to the attention of his government in this legislative chamber the activities of Wyandotte, now BASF, concerning the use of Fighting Island as a waste disposal site, thereby polluting both the island and the Detroit River.

The International Joint Commission has found the presence of dioxin, PCBs and a host of other compounds in the herring gull eggs taken from the island, which was mentioned by my colleague. Given the presence of 82 US Environmental Protection Agency priority pollutants in the spoil material on the island, will the minister assure this House that he will have his ministry conduct a thorough scientific investigation of the island and do it in depth in view of the fact that there are plans for rehabilitation without knowing what is actually there?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I trust the honourable member is familiar with the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act in this province. I hope he understands that in the course of the preparation of an environmental assessment, in the course of the review of that document and the inevitable result, there will be public hearings at which the information will be subject to scrutiny and examination. All that information will be brought out, and any necessary further scientific work obviously will be conducted in preparation for that.

Mr. Peterson: The only time you use the act is when you don't need it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Is the member saying he does not think we need it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition --

Mr. Speaker: No. Please resume your seat. He was interjecting; he did not have a question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like to see that interjection on the record.

CHRYSLER NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade.

I am sure the minister is aware of the comments made in Detroit on Tuesday by Thomas Miner, chief negotiator for the Chrysler Corp., and he has noted with interest Mr. Miner's statement that Chrysler is planning to retool US plants to produce parts usually made by striking Canadian workers and that if the US workers will not co-operate, that work will be farmed out to outside suppliers.

My question is, what is the minister's reaction to this kind of threat or this kind of rhetorical blackmail made in the midst of a collective bargaining dispute between Chrysler and the United Auto Workers?

Has the minister contacted M. J. Closs, the president of Chrysler Canada, and called him to his office to find out whether this is his position as well? What is he prepared to do to ensure the jobs of more than 10,000 Chrysler workers are not stolen from them?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we recognize the kind of rhetoric that goes on in negotiations. I remember in the General Motors negotiations just a few weeks ago some rather strong statements were made by all sides.

It is rather important in these particular processes that we allow them to unfold properly and not overreact, not that the honourable member is overreacting. I am worried that the Chrysler Corp. and the United Auto Workers might overreact in these kinds of situations, and I think it is probably well warranted to be fairly rational and calm about the negotiating process.

Yes, I have had a chance to talk with officials involved. I have seen some of the statements involved. I have talked to Mr. Closs about the matter as recently as yesterday, and I have seen the published statements of the chief Canadian national negotiator, and he indicated they may be able to get the parts from some other place, perhaps in the United States, and those parts might then be brought into the assembly plants in the United States. However, the United Auto Workers there are not going to assemble them; so it does not seem to me that it accomplishes very much. I thought he was probably taking a reasonable view of the situation and no doubt that is what will prevail.

The most important thing in this case is to allow the parties to continue their negotiating, not to try to do it in a public way, and to recognize that the UAW is very well represented in its negotiating team and that Chrysler is well represented in its team. I understand they are talking a great deal. I know that our Ministry of Labour is very heavily involved in trying to keep the sides together. I think we must all have a significant degree of optimism that they will conclude with a settlement in the not too distant future.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I realize this question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Trade because the Minister of Labour is not here. Another official of Chrysler Corp. made a statement that the negotiations were really a sham because they had to settle their agreement in the United States before doing so in Canada. Does the minister not think there is a possibility that Chrysler could be charged with bad-faith bargaining when they hold negotiations for three weeks and then make the statement, after they break off the negotiations, that they do not intend to settle it because they had not yet settled their agreements in the United States? Does the minister not agree with me that in a way this is really bad-faith bargaining and that he should tell Chrysler and the union that he wants a settlement reached in Canada and that they should not worry about the United States?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty strong statement to be making, to make an accusation of bad-faith bargaining in this situation. Even the union has not made that kind of statement. I think we have to be cautious on this and let the settlement process continue. It is working and working well at the moment, I understand. I do not think there is reason for alarm on anyone's part.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister is not keeping his ear to the ground if he has not heard the comments the union has made about Chrysler's bad-faith bargaining by saying that they will not settle with the Canadian workers before settling with the American workers. If I were the minister, I would be somewhat offended as a Canadian --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Cooke: -- when a multinational company says to a Canadian union, "We won't negotiate with you until we settle with the American workers." That is bad-faith bargaining and an affront to all people in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Cooke: Will the minister clearly indicate to the corporation that it is not going to get away with transferring jobs to nonunionized companies in the United States to source parts and that the auto pact is supposed to provide some protection? If the company thinks it is going to get away with it, will he recommend to the federal government that every possible aspect of the auto pact will be brought to bear on that company; in other words, all the tariffs that can be charged if the auto pact is violated will be levied against the company if it attempts to transfer one job out of this country?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the honourable member has to worry too much about what our position will be relative to the auto pact or to the law.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's earlier answer he said he would allow the processes to unfold properly. I suppose we could agree, if indeed that was what had been happening. But, given the comments that were made earlier this week following upon the earlier comments by Mr. Fisher, I think he can understand the concern the local members have.

First of all, since he talked with Mr. Closs yesterday, did the minister indicate very clearly to Mr. Closs that the comments made by Mr. Miner on Tuesday about pulling jobs out of Windsor and putting them in the United States are totally unacceptable to this government?

Given that the welfare of more than 10,000 workers, mainly in Windsor but also here in the Metro area, is at stake, and given that the welfare of an entire community is on the line, and I suppose I could argue that the welfare of a very large portion of the provincial economy is on the line, will the minister, along with the Premier (Mr. Davis), confer immediately with their federal counterparts with a view to issuing a joint statement letting Messrs. lacocca, Closs, Miner and Fisher know that the federal and provincial governments will not allow Chrysler to strip this country even for a short time -- one day, one month, one year or at all -- of the jobs of its workers?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we have communicated our position well, and we intend to continue to let it be known that we would consider it unthinkable in any case to have the jobs pulled out of this province.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. It relates to the job statement he made this week. Since the governments own figures show that for every temporary job created since May, four permanent jobs in the private sector have been lost, can the Treasurer explain how a simple reliance on the private sector is going to solve our unemployment problems?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are responsibilities in both the private and government sectors. I am sure the honourable member, as a student of economics, understands that the private sector depends upon supply and demand for its products.

At this point in our history, for complex reasons, demand is low even though savings rates are very high. With a low demand for many consumer items, we are therefore running into very real unemployment problems. I would argue that it is our duty as a government to provide some of the jobs that have been lost in the private sector until such time as the overall climate of confidence returns, and I believe it is returning.

Mr. Rae: The minister's faith would be touching were it not so out of keeping with what is obviously the reality. Many jobs in the private sector have been lost permanently and are simply not being replaced.

In view of the Conference Board of Canada report published yesterday, and reported on this morning, in which they have projected dramatic increases in unemployment in this province for 1983, can the Treasurer tell us what his forecasts are for unemployment in 1983, since that is the only basis on which we can judge the adequacy of his own program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I assume that if I had given the member any predictions for 1983, he would have told me I was no good at predicting; therefore, I have none.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is aware that the Conference Board of Canada says we are going to lose 76,000 jobs in addition to the 93,000 jobs we have already lost and that we will return to the employment levels of 1979. We are going backwards very rapidly.

Does the Treasurer accept those figures or does he not, recognizing that his own forecasts of less than a year ago, projecting an increase of some 125,000 jobs in this province, are 266,000 jobs wrong?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member can understand why I answered the leader of the New Democratic Party that way, because he phrased the answer for himself. In other words, he does not really want to listen to any numbers I give him.

I have learned to have great respect for the conference board. I have also learned that the conference board is just as likely to be wrong as it is to be right; we have that problem too. I can only tell the member that the economy is changing pace at a faster rate than many economists have seen it do; it is more unpredictable than usual. I am delighted, however, to see some positive signs.

Yesterday I responded by saying I expect unemployment to get worse before it gets better; so if the member asks me whether I follow the general trend of that, yes, right now we believe the general trend in employment will be downward before it is upward.

Mr. Peterson: What's good about that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is not good. I am just trying to be honest and realistic in answering the member's question.

One of the big problems, I suggest, is that all of us in any of our offices have a responsibility not to paint the picture too brightly or too poorly. There happen to be signs in the American market right now which I think are very encouraging. Bear in mind that sales of used houses in the United States have gone up by 25 per cent to an annual rate of 2.5 million. Bear in mind that new housing starts in the United States have increased dramatically to a level of about 1.25 million a year. Bear in mind that our basic markets for lumber are in the United States, not in Canada. Bear in mind also that almost all recoveries are led by the housing sector.

There are also signs in Canada -- I met with the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada this morning -- that the housing market is recovering, thanks in large measure to lower interest rates, our $5,000 and the federal government's $3,000. Rates of sale are very high right now. Those are encouraging signs, because traditionally that is the sector that has led us back to healthy times.

Mr. Rae: On that very point, the preliminary figures show that in urban Ontario new dwelling starts in September are down by 52 per cent from last year, and, as the Treasurer knows, last year was not a very good year.

Since the Treasurer himself has noted the importance of the housing sector for stimulating other sectors of the economy, can he tell us why his government has not taken the initiative of launching a major construction project of its own in the housing field to produce 15,000 units in Ontario funded by the province, which would have a dramatic effect in producing employment in the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend will recognize that as of today there are slightly more than 9,000 applications for new homes under the Ontario program. He will understand that roughly half of those have been from people who have moved out of apartment buildings. So we have achieved two objectives -- more than that, actually -- we have had apartments freed up; we have had jobs created.

Mr. Foulds: That is why the vacancy rate is so high in Toronto and Thunder Bay.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If my friend will just calm down for a minute, I will get back to the statistics the member started off with, the number of starts. It happens that nearly all home builders let their inventory of finished homes run down while they appraised the permanency and the strength of these sales. In talking to HUDAC today, I was told they were waiting for serviced lots to be ready at this point because the demand for serviced lots has increased, and that there would probably be more start activity reflecting the sales they are now closing, the sales they are now getting the offers on.

2:30 p.m.

That is why the program we have carries on until August, I believe, for moving in, to allow people to qualify for the Ontario money. That is why the minister extended it. We believe, according to what HUDAC said this morning, that there will be starts across the winter. That is a very encouraging sign because that is the time we need them.

ILLEGAL RENT INCREASES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns illegal rents. I have received copies of rent review decisions dealing with two apartment buildings in Welland and Thorold. In one of these decisions, the officer found that 66 of the 104 tenants had been paying illegal rents. In the other, the officer found that 25 out of 66 were paying illegal rents.

Given the extent to which this practice is clearly widespread -- estimates range as high as 75,000 apartment dwellers affected by illegal rents -- why has the government not amended the Residential Tenancies Act in order to allow the Residential Tenancy Commission to impose a penalty on landlords who impose illegal rents?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let us join together in one common, agreed commitment; that is, I do not approve of illegal rents any more than the member for York South does. It is true that at the present time, when the commission has an application before it and learns of an illegal rent, it is able to require a reduction of that rent. Part of the Residential Tenancies Act dealt with the establishment of a rent registry, but the part of the act that dealt with enforcement was struck down by the Supreme Court. Members will recall that I indicated in my statement that the commissioner, Mr. Thom, was going to be asked specifically how we might accommodate and change our legislation in order to achieve the purposes we intended.

I have already told the housing critic that I have a great deal of sympathy with and agree that a rent registry program should be commenced. We are now looking at ways in which that might be achieved in the absence of enforcement provisions.

Mr. Rae: Without getting into an argument about what the Supreme Court said and whether or not it affects the rent registry, many of us have real doubts as to whether there is any legal impediment at all to the government's moving on the rent registry question. I would like to ask the minister why tenants have to go through this very cumbersome two-point procedure. They hear from the Residential Tenancy Commission that the rents should be at a certain level -- it is buried somewhere well within the decision -- and it is up to the tenants themselves to make an additional application to go back to the commission in order to capture any illegal rents which may have been charged.

Why can the minister not see to it that the commission simplify the procedure and give the commission the investigative powers it needs simply to go in and find out whether or not illegal rents are being charged, and not place all the burden on the individual tenant?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With the additional funding we were able to obtain for the commission in October, and with the endeavours to build up the staff, particular attention is being given to that area and I hope we will be able to improve that aspect of the system.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree with the figures given by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations that there are now about 70,000 illegal rent increases each year? Why has it taken him a year and a half, since that section of the act was declared unconstitutional, to bring into force a rent registry as is being requested by various tenant groups?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I know that only as an estimate. It is very difficult, because of the way the act and the record of rents is currently constituted, to obtain adequate information. I have already indicated my views on a rent registry system.

ASTRA/RE-MOR

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding the Re-Mor matter. It concerns his reported comments that the government intends to compensate the Re-Mor victims. Why has this announcement taken so long, given the fact that Re-Mor collapsed 30 months ago and the Re-Mor lawsuits have been outstanding for 22 months?

Can the minister appreciate the tremendous grief and anxiety these people, many of whom are elderly, felt and continue to feel as a result of this delay in making some kind of announcement? Was this announcement forthcoming merely because of the lucky disclosure of the Ombudsman's interim report recommending compensation, something that has been in the hands of the minister for four months? I remind the minister I am talking strictly about Re-Mor now, not about Astra Trust.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand why the member does not want to talk about Astra Trust. He must be ashamed of the party he belongs to and of the behaviour of the federal party with respect to Astra Trust.

Mr. Bradley: It has nothing to do with that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have created some furore over there. Perhaps they are troubled in some way I do not understand. Or perhaps I do understand; that may be the problem.

Let us understand the process here. Those members who are familiar with the Ombudsman Act will appreciate that the section 19 stage is a preliminary stage. In late July, the Ombudsman wrote to us in phrases such as, "It would be open to me to conclude that," "It would be open to me to find that," "It would be open to me to recommend that," and from that point on the matter is continuing in what is called a discussion and investigation stage. That is the process my deputy, on most occasions, has been involved in.

In addition to that, we have had discussions with the office of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), because there are a number of investors who chose to proceed by the court route with the government financing the costs of a test case, unlike the federal government. I know I should not mention Astra Trust. I am not going to mention it because I do not want to embarrass the member. I know it is embarrassing.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I do not want to trouble the member with it. I know he does not want me to raise it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That sure gets people going, does it not, Mr. Speaker? There must be an awful guilt complex deep in there. In any event, I know we can have the member's help as we endeavour to speak to the federal government. I am not sure it will achieve anything, but I am sure we will have it. Let me assure the member that we are proceeding expeditiously on that. Whether information had been leaked or not, it would have proceeded at the same expeditious rate.

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister would like to correct the record and not leave any misconceptions for members of the assembly and the press. It was his predecessor in that ministry, the Honourable John Clement, who also served as Attorney General, who walked the application up to 555 Yonge Street to make his application for Astra Trust pursuant to the Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of privilege, please?

Mr. Cunningham: The misconception, quite clearly, that this was a federal matter, which is not consistent with the facts.

Mr. Speaker: That is no point of privilege.

Mr. Bradley: Dealing with Re-Mor, which is strictly within the purview of the provincial government and not a federal matter, let me say I am pleased the minister has made an announcement that he is intending to compensate. I commend him for that. It has made our fight worth while.

Is the minister going to compensate the Re-Mor victims for their full loss at the time of the collapse of the company, or are they going to have to wrangle with the provincial government for several more months before they can come to some kind of reasonable conclusion to this matter? Will the minister give full compensation?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I indicated yesterday in committee, we are still at what is called the subsection 19(3) stage. The recommendations of the Ombudsman are in the discussion stage. When a conclusion has been reached and the government has agreed on a response, the House will be informed.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, although the minister refused to answer questions in committee yesterday pertaining to the Ombudsman's recommendation for compensating the investors, I wonder if he would confirm here in the House what he said to the press, that the Ombudsman did recommend compensation to the investors? Can he confirm the comment he made to reporters outside the committee yesterday when it adjourned, according to this morning's Toronto Sun, that he hoped to make compensation offers within a few months to investors who lost money in the 1980 collapse of Re-Mor Investment Management Corp?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have matters related to the Ombudsman's report and his recommendations dealt with within the next few months, and I hope as quickly as possible.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the privilege of introducing to the House the Honourable Claude Richmond, who is British Columbia Minister of Tourism and is in your gallery today. He is visiting Toronto and encouraging all of us to come to the next Grey Cup in Vancouver next year, when the Ottawa Rough Riders will be playing the British Columbia Lions.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure he is here to discover Ontario.

RENT GEARED TO INCOME CALCULATION

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General and it refers to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the case of Ontario Housing Corp. versus Valeda Timmins, in which the Court of Appeal held that payments for permanent disability under section 43 of the Workmen's Compensation Act were payments and receipts of a capital nature, not of an income nature, thereby defeating the claim of the Ontario Housing Corp. for arrears of rent.

Will the Attorney General, as his colleague had advised the House, tell us on what basis he advised the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that this case was limited to its own specific facts and was not available to benefit other persons in substantially similar positions to Mrs. Timmins?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the decision myself. From the honourable member's question, I assume some advice had been given by lawyers in the ministry to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). I will read the case, review the advice and respond accordingly.

Mr. Renwick: Will the Attorney General, when he is reviewing that case, provide the assembly with a copy of whatever opinion was furnished by his ministry to his colleague the housing minister, and will he take into consideration the case, at present under consideration in the same court, of Mr. Wilfred Quesnel which is for practical purposes identical and is putting an 81-year-old man to substantial inconvenience?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will certainly review the present cases before the court. As far as tabling a legal opinion is concerned, it is not customary for legal opinions to be tabled in this Legislature but it occasionally happens. I have tabled legal opinions in the past. There is a degree of confidentiality attached but I will certainly consider the possibility of tabling the legal opinion.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Attorney General's poor record in front of our appeal courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, would he advise his friend the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) that before he gives an opinion about interpreting decisions he should perhaps check with the Attorney General and get an opinion from the crown law officers before he starts saying what decisions stand for in this province?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not appeared in the Court of Appeal. I have argued two cases on behalf of the province of Ontario in the Supreme Court of Canada and in both cases our argument prevailed. My batting average is now 1,000 per cent. Even though the honourable member is from Ottawa, I doubt that he even knows where the Supreme Court of Canada is. I would be delighted to give him a personal guided tour the next time I am there.

Mr. Renwick: Does the Attorney General recall that in one of his appearances in the Supreme Court of Canada he lost a substantial portion of a case, nine to nothing?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I did not argue that particular issue before the Supreme Court of Canada. I realize that the revisionist approach of my friends opposite would have me having argued the case. I did not argue that particular aspect of the case. The gentleman who argued it is one of the most distinguished constitutional law scholars of this country, so I am not suggesting that the result would necessarily be different, but I think it is important just to clarify the record a little bit.

Mr. Roy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: May I state for the record to the Attorney General that he has what some judges refer to as a selective memory.

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. I trust that in her role she has consulted with her colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) about his ill-advised decision to close six centres for the developmentally handicapped.

Assuming that she has looked into the matter thoroughly, how can she, in all conscience, reconcile the following facts: One year ago, the minister in touring the Bluewater Centre commented on the excellent facilities, assured the parents of the residents in that centre of continuing care and congratulated the staff of the Bluewater Centre on the wonderful work they were doing for the people in their care, and yet today, one year later, the minister is prepared to close down that facility?

Second, on November 8, responding to a question from my colleague the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) the minister said she was aware of a great deal of consultation with the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and other groups, whereas the truth is that no consultation has taken place and, in fact, the association found out about the closures only after the initial leak to the press and the people at Bluewater had never been consulted until after the fact. How does the minister reconcile this?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the honourable member by suggesting to him that was not the information I have been given. The member will also be aware that this is a program that will take place over the next five years. He has also been assured that no one will leave an institution until there are other community alternatives for those patients.

Is the member suggesting that those people within institutions do not have the right to live in communities of their own choosing? Do they not have the right to live as you and I? Are they to live the rest of their lives in institutions when alternative means can be provided so that they can live with us in our own communities?

Mr. Riddell: Would the provincial secretary accompany me to a meeting at the Bluewater Centre and listen to the local citizens who are concerned for the residents living in that centre? As to the alternative, as I am sure the minister knows full well, it is a very small percentage of those residents who can ever cope with community living. What is she going to do with those who cannot cope?

2:50 p.m.

Second, will she impress upon the Minister of Community and Social Services that it is his responsibility to meet with the lower level of government, municipal councils, who have requested a meeting with him? The town council of Goderich, the Colborne township council, the citizens concerned for the residents living in that community and I myself have been trying for weeks to arrange a meeting with the minister, and he is simply acting like Pontius Pilate. He is washing his hands, and he is leaving the responsibility to his senior staff.

Will the provincial secretary impress upon the minister that it is his responsibility to meet with these people to try to convince them that they can take all those people out of the institutions, put them in a community setting and expect that they are going to cope?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As I indicated, this is not an immediate move. At no time was it indicated that it was going to happen tomorrow. But there is something else the member should remember. The idea of announcing a program that is going to take five years to develop was to provide an opportunity for those who are working in those institutions to make plans as well. The minister has every intention of meeting with all of those groups of people within the next period of time before any changes are --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I do not know, but I am sure the Minister of Community and Social Services will carry out his responsibilities as carefully and as compassionately as he has done in the past.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely our concern, that he will carry out his responsibilities in exactly the same fashion as he has in the past, and that has not been particularly compassionately at all.

I would like to ask the minister -- and in so doing I would like to say that I do believe most of these people can be deinstitutionalized -- does she not believe that her ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services are giving deinstitutionalization a bad name in the way they are dealing with this whole issue? Many of us on this side have been getting letters from parents who are very concerned and very worried about what services are going to be put into the community, especially knowing the past record of this government underspending its budgets over the last five years in community projects.

Is it not the least she can do to ensure that the minister, who is, generally speaking, so hostile to all the groups he tries to serve and is supposed to serve, will reassure these people and meet with them to make it very clear that before anything is done, proper community programs will be put into place and we are not going to continue dumping people in the community?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that was a grand speech, but I have already indicated that there is no intention of putting people in the community until the resources to support them are there. We have repeated that over and over again.

Mr. Martel: I wish that would happen in Toronto for those people who are living on the streets.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. He has arrived just in time. Concerning the visit of Dr. Bergsagel and Dr. Blackstein to Houston, can the minister explain to the House how these two doctors, in a two-hour visit to the clinic in Houston, fraught, I am told, with hostility, determined that there was nothing of value to be found at the clinic?

Further, can the minister possibly explain why Dr. Bergsagel made the statement that Stephanie Kusan's condition has not improved since she left Princess Margaret Hospital, in view of the fact that they were prepared to do radical surgery to the right side of her face at the time she left Princess Margaret and in view of the fact that her own family physician, Dr. Doug Prince, says the new X-rays show a definite diminution in the size of the tumour in her maxillary sinus on the right side and the tumour now appears to have been confined to the medial wall of the right maxillary sinus?

Finally, does it not appear as though these two good doctors had really made up their minds what their decision would be before they left Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I really am not prepared to comment on any of those things, since I have not yet received the formal report that we requested the doctors to file upon their return.

Mr. Martel: The minister will recall that when I wrote him on November 9, I suggested that when he sent these two doctors he should also send several others, including a Dr. Walde from Sault Ste. Marie, who in his report on four days spent in Houston made a statement which included the following comments:

"I had no idea what to expect on my arrival there and would not have been surprised to have found a backdoor operation directed to the exploitation of patients for financial gain without the benefits of any therapeutic activity of the program. I also thought that documentation of the clinical cases would be poor and incomplete, making evaluation difficult, if not impossible. I could not have been more wrong. What was encountered was beyond my wildest expectations."

In my opinion, what has transpired over the past week has really been distasteful. Could I ask the minister if he is now prepared to make a decision on this matter? If not, is he prepared to send a neutral group of doctors to look at this operation to see if it has some benefit for the people of Ontario in their ongoing battle?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us put it in perspective. It is not really a decision for the Minister of Health to make as to whether or not he happens to believe this particular treatment is therapeutic or effective. The member will understand that. The Minister of Health must, of course, rely upon those who have the expertise in the field.

I think the member will agree with me that, with regard to this particular treatment and treatments in a variety of areas in health, one can hardly in a sense pick and choose a different panel every time one hears of a remedy or treatment that might be effective.

It is reasonable for the Ministry of Health in all jurisdictions to rely upon people such as the cancer institutes in their respective jurisdictions. The other experts in the field, in this case the National Cancer Institute of the United States, the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the Ontario Cancer Institute, comprising among them probably all or almost all of the recognized international experts in the field in North America, have to date not accepted this treatment as therapeutically effective.

Mr. Martel: But Blue Cross and Green Shield have paid and are paying for it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In addition to that, we picked two of the leading specialists in the field in Toronto and asked them to go down and review the circumstance. I am not prepared to comment on how much time they spent there or what happened there until I have received their report and analysis of what went on.

Let us further put it into perspective in that if we feel that the review they conducted there was not sufficiently thorough, the alternative, of course, would be to look to yet another group of medical experts to review the situation. But to date, all of the comprehensive review done in Canada and the United States has not held out this particular treatment as therapeutically effective.

Just to emphasize that point, as the member well knows, I believe shipment of the drugs across the state lines in the United States is not legal. Shipment of the drugs into Canada, as I understand it, is not legal either because --

Mr. Martel: British Columbia is now sending for them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, the member is mistaken.

Mr. Martel: They are paying for the transportation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will deal with the BC situation. The Canadian government has not yet approved that particular drug for entry into this country. To clarify further, should the federal government approve that drug for use in Ontario, then the Ontario health insurance plan would pay the doctors for administering that drug.

Mr. Martel: That is not what I asked you today.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be disappointed if the member was not looking for a full explanation of the situation surrounding this tragic case.

Mr. Martel: You are ducking the question.

Might I also point out that the BC medical plan is not paying for anyone to be treated in Texas. The BC situation is that they have a separate fund of $50,000 which they use in hardship cases, from which they have decided, in the case of one patient, on a one-time-only basis, to make a payment.

That is dramatically different, I would remind the member, from saying that the BC medical plan approves this as a therapeutically effective situation. They simply assess the financial situation of a person who has a medical hardship situation and decide to pay it. It should not in any way be taken to indicate approval of that particular treatment and, in fact, it is not.

Interjection.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member does not have time for that particular case I might say at least I do.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health about a similar group of patients that has to go to West Germany to get treatment for the skin disease we have been talking about. Is the minister now prepared to make a statement that the Ontario health insurance plan will be paying at least a part of the fees to those people who have to go there?

Mr. Speaker: I think that really is not a supplementary to the question or to the minister's answer.

DEATH OF MARILYN GARTON WHELAN

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General concerning a case with which he is very familiar. I am speaking of the tragic case of Marilyn Garton Whelan, who died under very mysterious circumstances in 1976, and of the exhaustive but vain efforts of her parents in Peterborough to bring to trial the person whom they believe to have been responsible for the death of their only child. Does the Attorney General recall all the particular unsettling facts of this case? With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall put only a few of them on the record of this House.

On September 25, 1976, Marilyn was reported by her husband to have fallen into the Trent River, and presumably to have drowned. She had been married for three months. Shortly before the marriage her fiancé purchased an insurance policy on her life for almost $500,000. On the night on which she died she and her husband had gone for a moonlit stroll atop the lift lock and dam structures near Glen Miller, just north of Trenton. Marilyn did not know how to swim. The Ontario Provincial Police found her body downstream, one week later.

Throughout the week of searching her husband was not available to assist the police force. Her husband attempted to have the body cremated. At the urging of the parents the authorities blocked the cremation. The autopsy disclosed that Marilyn had ingested a large amount of Valium. Marilyn was an avowed non-user of drugs. Her husband had purchased the drug one week prior to her death.

The Attorney General knows these facts to be true because they emerged at the preliminary inquiry.

On November 24, Dr. Mervyn Whelan was charged with the murder of his wife and on March 23, 1977, at the end of the preliminary inquiry, to the disbelief of all involved, His Honour Judge Clendinning decided there was insufficient evidence to warrant a trial on the charge. Dr. Whelan is now reported to be in Saudi Arabia.

Since 1977, Marilyn's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Clare Garton, have struggled relentlessly to try to bring this man before a court of law to stand trial. Since the Ministry of the Attorney General has refused to prefer an indictment directly against Dr. Whelan on a charge of murder on the grounds that it would be contrary to public policy, what advice, if any, can the minister offer to Mr. and Mrs. Garton to assist them in their efforts?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite quite properly points out, this matter of the tragic death of this lady has been the subject of a considerable degree of controversy going back to 1976. I have met with Mr. Garton, her father. I believe the current Deputy Attorney General has met with him, as have other members of the Ministry of the Attorney General. I also believe that this case has been brought up in the Attorney General's estimates in recent years because there are, of course, many dimensions to this very tragic case.

Of course, as the member opposite can appreciate, when any accused person, regardless of what the circumstances are, is discharged at a preliminary hearing, having gone through that process, it is relatively rare, although it does happen on occasion, for the Attorney General to prefer an indictment directly, in other words, to nullify in a practical sense the discharge of the accused person at the preliminary inquiry. This is obviously a prerogative which must be exercised very cautiously by an Attorney General and, in the normal course of events, it is a prerogative that is exercised relatively rarely.

This is a matter that was canvassed by a number of our lawyers, including myself, before a decision was made not to prefer an indictment. I do not recall all of the details now in view of the fact there is a considerable amount of history. I think the member opposite also knows that this is a matter that his colleague the former member for St. George raised with me on more than one occasion. I believe the late Walter Williston, QC, was also retained to act on behalf of the family in this matter.

It does have a rather long and somewhat complicated history. Again, in view of the fact that I am told by my House leader that the Attorney General's estimates are likely to commence within the next week, I continue once again to discuss the issues. I think it is obviously a matter that could require a great deal of time in so far as question period is concerned. I frankly do not recall all the details, although I recall a good many of them. I would be very happy to pursue the matter further with the member in estimates if he deems that appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, Mr. J. D. Takach, the director of crown attorneys, has said, "It is my respectful opinion that his Honour Judge Clendinning did in fact err in discharging the accused at the preliminary" --

Mr. Speaker: I think I must disallow that question. The time has expired. You may pursue it further tomorrow or in the Attorney General's estimates.

Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would respectfully ask that the House give unanimous consent so that my colleague the member for Kitchener can ask the remaining part of his question. In view of the fact that this is a very important matter, I am sure the Attorney General would not refuse to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: It is beyond my authority to do that. I will put the question to the House. Do we have unanimous consent to extend question period? Obviously, we do not.

Mr. Roy: The record should show that it is the House leader --

Mr. Speaker: Do you want me to call a vote on that?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

Some hon. members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: There is no vote.

Mr. Bradley: There is nobody opposed.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, there was, with all respect.

Mr. Bradley: I did not hear anybody.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I did.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Eves from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Chatham;

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr40, An Act to revive Ceephil Investments Ltd;

Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the Township of Tiny;

Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Burlington;

Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the Toronto Baptist Seminary;

Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the City of Orillia.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary.

Your committee further recommends that the fees plus the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the Toronto Baptist Seminary, and Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Eves, on behalf of Mr. Treleaven, from the standing committee on the administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report that it has decided not to proceed with the consideration of Bill 179, An Act respecting Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province, but to report it to the House at this time.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to debate the report on a motion for adoption?

Mr. Nixon: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, as a matter of fact it is.

Mr. McClellan: Let the debate begin.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Let the debate commence.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, we will oppose adoption of this report because we feel very strongly that the action taken in committee by the majority of Tory members against the opposition was unprecedented in the history of this House. We feel strongly that lack of precedence means the motion before us is in question. Not only that, the bill itself was not fully debated in the committee in any way, shape or form.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You would not let it get started or we would not be here.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: You would not let it get started.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: It would appear we are going to have a lengthy debate on the adoption of this report as many of the back-bench Tories want to speak on the motion before the House. Many of the back-bench Tories will be released from their shackledom and will be able to speak fully and frankly as to whether they feel that legislation should be rammed through this House, and whether the government should bring the full force of its majority on 500,000 public servants and not create one job in this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Rammed? Eight weeks. Is that ramming?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: What about September and October?

Mr. Ruprecht: Let them throw away the handcuffs.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: One of the reasons the debate on clause-by-clause in committee took a little while and there was some prolonged debate on the bill was that the bill the committee of this House is reporting fundamentally affected collective bargaining rights in this province. It fundamentally affected the legislation under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). Yet the government did not have the decency, did not have the courage, and did not have the foresight to allow the Minister of Labour to be brought before the committee and to testify before the committee about his role.

There was considerable concern by members of the committee about the definition section of the bill in which the minister named in the bill was simply the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), when we know full well that the legislation does nothing to cut prices to a mere five per cent. It allows all kinds of pass-throughs, all kinds of depreciation costs and then, on top of that, allows an increase of five per cent. Yet that minister is named as the minister responsible for the bill.

In the definition section, we have a reference to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), but we have absolutely no reference to the Minister of Labour.

Excuse me one moment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Brandt: Do you want to share that with us?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, I would be glad to share the private conversation with my colleague. I just asked my colleague to go to the lobby and speak to the person I was talking to on the phone when I rushed into the House, to let that person know I will have to continue the conversation tomorrow some time rather than later today or this evening.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to caution the member the debate must be strictly relevant to the reasons for which he is against the adoption of the report.

Mr. Havrot: No more than five minutes.

Mr. Martel: We have plenty.

Mr. Kerr: Five minutes.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I was attempting to illustrate before I was so rudely interrupted by the hecklers on the other side.

As is well known, only two subclauses of the first clause of Bill 179 have been considered by the committee, and I want to outline in some detail and some sincerity the reason for that. There have been a lot of allegations thrown around the back room of the Tory party that we were unduly delaying the bill with procedural motions. The only reason we in the New Democratic Party felt it necessary to move those procedural motions was that the bill was fundamentally flawed in its structure and the ministers mainly responsible for labour were not mentioned in the bill and were not willing to come before the committee to testify or to be present during the clause-by-clause debate of the sections relating to their responsibilities.

When the Minister of Labour was questioned in this House about whether or not he thought it was just that the bill before us -- the bill that is now being, so-called, reported by the committee -- would, for example, rob a person like Marie Mitchell working in the Pine Grove Nursing Home near Guelph of between $400 and $700, I frankly found it very startling that he said no, he did not feel it was just that the bill did that. He said he did not think a person, working for the kind of salary Marie Mitchell earns, which is about $11,000 a year, could even live on that kind of salary.

Yet we had a bill before the committee that every member of this government voted for on first and second readings, and we could not get justification from the Minister of Labour, who is supposed to be protecting the rights of people like Marie Mitchell, or from the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague), who is supposed to be protecting the rights of the civil servants who come under his jurisdiction. We could not get them before the committee.

So it was necessary for my party to put forward a number of procedural motions to get the appropriate officials before us. Those procedural motions failed, so we got into the clause-by-clause discussion, and we were in the process of debating the bill clause by clause in an orderly manner. We had not spent an undue amount of time on the definition section of the bill before the government members made a motion that the bill be reported.

Mr. Speaker, how can a bill be reported to this House when the committee through its Tory majority has abdicated the responsibility assigned to it by this House? The responsibility assigned to that committee by this House was for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and it has not even completed the first clause of that debate. What kind of abdication of responsibility is this? How can that committee in conscience report this bill? The bill cannot be reported, because it has not been dealt with. The committee did --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Foulds: Oh, it looks as if finally we are going to be able to get some participation from some cabinet ministers in this debate.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You wouldn't come to the committee, but you will talk here. That's great.

Mr. Foulds: As I said, it looks as if we will have a lengthy debate on the adoption of this committee report, because it seems to us that unless the definition section of a bill is clear and unequivocal and unless the definition section of a bill has the integrity of the legislation it purports to deal with, the bill itself is fundamentally flawed.

I want to point out that the justice committee is reporting a bill of which it considered only one out of 37 clauses. And if I may just deal with that first clause, which was partially dealt with by the committee, as I recall, that first clause has four subclauses. One of those subclauses states that the minister responsible is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The committee had a commitment from the government that during the clause-by-clause debate of part III of the bill -- that is the part that was not considered by the committee in committee -- the minister responsible would be present.

3:20 p.m.

It seems to us that we could adequately deal with part III of the bill in clause-by-clause debate with the minister responsible present. But, for the part of the bill that came immediately after the definition section, the one that dealt with the Inflation Restraint Board, the government refused to bring before the committee the nominee for chairman of that board, Mr. Jack Biddell.

How could we deal with the arbitrary power assigned to that board? How could we have an understanding of how that board would deal with those powers assigned in this bill, unless we had the chairman of the board before us? How could the committee understand the implications of the legislation unless we had the chairman of the so-called inflation Restraint Board before us? We genuinely felt we could not. Yet the government members blocked and defeated one of the procedural motions that was put in committee by our members to have the chairman of the Inflation Restraint Board brought before us.

How could we deal with the part of the bill that has to do with compensation for workers in the public sector, unless we had before us the Minister of Labour? We could not. In all honesty, we could not know the implications of the clauses that were before us unless we had before us the minister responsible for the administration of those clauses. More than that, one of the duties of a committee is to find out how a piece of legislation such as Bill 179 impinges on other legislation that has already been passed by this Legislature. There are grave implications. This Legislature has passed many other statutes because of the arbitrary nature and the arbitrary powers assigned in this bill.

The committee was not allowed, by the Tory majority, by the bullying tactics of the Tories, to have the minister before it. Now, we get to the substance of the debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) interjects to say that the debate has gone on for two months. That is not long enough. When we have before us a piece of legislation like this, which strikes down other statutes, and the implications of which we are not allowed to examine in committee; when we have a bill like this that infringes on hard-won bargaining rights; when the bargaining rights of workers, that have been fought for over 30 years, are struck down; when this committee says to the Legislature that it has adequately dealt with the bill and that it should now be reported, then I say the bill should not be reported, the debate has not been long enough, and the debate in committee has not been substantial enough. That is the major point I want to make. The substance of the debate --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We have an unusual number of different conversations being carried on in the House. I know everyone is most interested in listening to the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) has kindly asked the page to bring me two glasses of water. I do have a bit of a sore throat, nothing serious, so I will occasionally have to pause and clear my throat. I am sure the Speaker and honourable members will understand when that happens.

I would like to get to the substance of the debate between our party and the other two parties on why this bill should not be reported. It is a disgrace that a bill of this nature should be brought before this House in the first place. It is a disgrace that a bill such as this, which abrogates the right of many workers and which abrogates the legislation this Legislature in saner and more civilized days has passed, should be rushed through the process. It is a shame that the number of affected interest groups were not able to be heard fully before the committee.

The Premier (Mr. Davis), who now wants this bill reported to the House, waited more than a year to decide what he should do to treat the serious economic malaise facing Ontario. We had signs 18 months ago that the interest rate, the inflation rate and unemployment were leading us to the brink of a depression. Yet the Premier waited, instead of bringing in action with his speech from the throne last spring, instead of having the Treasurer bring in job creation action in his budget in the spring.

We were told time and again that we were waiting for the federal government's economic policy recovery plan and that we in Ontario would then tie into that. However, what we had from the federal government was not an economic recovery plan, but a bill, and an action not unlike the action taken in the bill the committee now wants to report. It was simply a restraint program that put a freeze, a five per cent limit, on wages in the public sector.

After the Premier held his wet finger in the air, waiting to see which way the winds of public opinion were blowing, he decided it would be marginally favourable to the government to bring in this bill, which the committee now wants to report for third reading and which we object to.

The Premier thought this would give two impressions. He thought it would give the impression of leadership, which has always been dear to the Premier's heart even though he has never provided it. He also thought it would give the impression that the government was doing something about the economy.

I know that the polls that have been done publicly and, I suspect, the ones that have been done in more detail privately by market research for the Tory party, show the same thing: that the majority of people, if asked the question, "Do you support the government restraint program?" will answer, "Yes."

One of the rules of democracy is that the rule and the rights of the majority prevail. That is true. But another rule of democracy is that the rights of the minority will not be infringed upon or cast away for the benefit of the majority.

What has happened in this case is that the rights of a sizeable working minority in this province have been cast away. Some 500,000 people in this province have had their collective bargaining rights, compensation packages and arbitration rights totally and arbitrarily cast away by this legislation.

3:30 p.m.

In September, the Premier arrogantly said that we -- that is, the government -- will bring in, in an emergency session of the Legislature for a few days, a so-called inflation restraint bill.

I want to read the title of the bill that this committee is reporting, because it is an interesting title. The bill's title is, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.

Actually, the title describes pretty accurately what the bill does, because, contrary to what the government would like us to believe and contrary to what the government has tried to persuade the public to believe, the bill does nothing to deal with inflation or the economy; all it does is deal with putting a cap on the remuneration and compensation of people who are working in the public sector.

The committee now is submitting this report, and the chairman, the vice-chairman and the member who moved the adoption of the report are not even here to engage in the debate. This committee reported after a mere four or five weeks of hearings, and two of those weeks were public hearings.

I admit that we agreed to that two-week period for public hearings, but we did not know at the time that the outcry would be so great from the people who wished to be heard before this committee. My colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) can confirm for me my belief that there were some 80 groups --

Mr. Mackenzie: Forty.

Mr. Foulds: -- 40 groups that wished to be heard before the committee and could not be heard.

I submit that it is an abdication of the responsibilities of the committee to come into this Legislature asking to report the bill before some of those groups could be accommodated. I suggest that the committee failed in its responsibility to make some accommodation for those groups, which are fundamentally affected by this bill. That being the case, the committee decided --

Mr. Jones: Which party's member saw the clock one night and cut off the debate?

Mr. Foulds: I will be glad to yield the floor to my friend if he wants to go ahead.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, it is just a point of clarification. I thought it important that we should know it was a member of the New Democratic Party who saw the clock one night, rather conveniently or inconveniently, and cut off the opportunity for us to hear some of the people who had come to make presentations. So, lest the member forget that and conveniently twist the facts to suit his debate, here he is, repeating all over again things we have already dealt with in committee.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Is it on the point?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes; exactly. I want to bring to all members' attention that it is the chairman of the committee who sees the clock, not members of the committee.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I thought today was private members' day, and it seems to me that in this session, every second Thursday has been taken away from the private members. I feel that my rights as a private member are being abused by the opposition. I suggest that if we are going to carry on this way, then let us dispense with the farce and cancel private members' hour, because it is just not working. Those people do not care any longer.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on that particular point of order or privilege or whatever --

The Deputy Speaker: Are you now speaking to the point of order and then continuing with the report?

Mr. Foulds: Yes. I think that would be an appropriate sequence, Mr. Speaker.

The government knows full well the controversy surrounding this bill. The government knows full well the controversy surrounding its action yesterday in the committee when it moved in a unique fashion the kind of closure it did. It therefore knows full well that when the chairman of the committee brings in a report from that committee to be adopted by this Legislature, it could well give rise to a little difference of opinion and to debate.

If the government were so concerned about private members' hour -- and let me say that there are no members more concerned about private members' hour than the members of the opposition -- it perhaps should have given second thought (a) to making the motion it did yesterday in committee to have this bill reported and (b) to having a member of that committee, in the absence of the chairman, report the committee's report for adoption by this Legislature before private members' hour.

If the government wants to keep private members' hour sacrosanct, then I suggest that controversial reports like this, which require and cry out for debate when the committee makes its report to the Legislature, be withheld for a few days so that sober second thought could prevail.

Besides that, it is my understanding, although I could be corrected and there could always be a reconsideration and a more civilized behaviour and pattern of procedure adopted, it is the government's intention to cancel private members' hours on Thursdays for the rest of this session.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Foulds: No. I withdraw that. I misunderstood the situation, Mr. Speaker. In any event --

Mr. Riddell: Would you like me to go and sit in the press gallery?

Mr. Foulds: No, no. I need to stretch a little. I have this requirement to move slightly. I tend to look at the Speaker. I tend to treat the Speaker with enormous respect, because I believe it is important when we are talking in this House, except for the asides and interjections, when one addresses one's adversaries directly, to try to talk to the Speaker. Some people inadvertently think I am looking at the press gallery. If the Speaker were down at that end, I would be looking at that end and then talking to the Sergeant at Arms.

Now, back to the debate on the report of this committee that is before us for consideration and for adoption.

I think a dangerous precedent has been set by the committee. Frankly, I think it is one of those sad precedents that will come back to haunt us in future days of this Legislature. I also believe it illustrates probably more acutely than anything in the House in recent years the breakdown that has occurred between all parties, the opposition and the government primarily, in the orderly and due process of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I know how much you appreciate and understand the rules of the Legislature and the importance of parliamentary democracy. Let me just say to you that one of the reasons we in this party feel the bill should not be reported, and therefore the report should not be adopted at this time, is that it is a piece of legislation that strikes at the heart of freedom, democracy and the very fundamentals of what parliamentary democracy is all about.

3:40 p.m.

It is no secret that the people in the New Democratic Party have a profoundly different view of the social and economic world than the other two parties in this Legislature. It is no secret that our party would not only admire but also work hard for fundamental change in our society.

We believe the only reason an economy is created, the only reason workers such as are affected by the bill before us put their labour into the creation of wealth, is so that wealth is used, not merely for profit, not merely for government use, but for the benefit of all the people of the province. We call that the redistribution of wealth.

We feel strongly about that but, as well as being socialists, we are also profoundly democratic. Therefore, we feel that our aims, our objectives and our view of society should be done through the rule of law, through the rule of the Legislature and by due process. We will use the rules as we can in the House, we will use the laws of this province as we can, to bring about a fundamental change in society.

What we have is a government party, and after all this party has been the government for lo these 40 years, that has brought in a number of statutes. One of the statutes which this government brought in and which was reported to the Legislature, as we are now considering a report from a committee, was the law embodied in the Labour Relations Act and so on. Without making any reference to the Labour Relations Act, this government brought in this bill.

I had the honour and privilege and, if I may say so, the enjoyment of putting the case of the New Democratic Party as the leadoff speaker of our party on second reading of this bill. We did not play any games about our opposition to this bill. I said clearly in my opening statement that we would use every legislative means at our disposal to oppose the bill. We put the government on notice that we felt this bill was so fundamentally flawed, so fundamentally bad, that we could never vote for it.

Not only that, but we determined in caucus that we would fight the bill. We were not merely going to oppose it. We were not merely going to do the ritual performance in the old boys' club of Queen's Park. We were going to use the rules of this Legislature to oppose this bill with every parliamentary technique we had. I think it is fair to say we have lived up to that promise.

But there was no government spokesman who said, "You should not do that." There was no government spokesman who said, "You should not use the due process of this Legislature." There was no government spokesman who even conceded that there might be some amendments to the bill, that there might be a withdrawal of the bill.

When one has a government as determined as this government is to bull through a bill to which there is such fundamental opposition, then the legislative process by its very nature grinds down. That is, if I may say, one of the glories of parliamentary democracy. We do not fight with bullets. We do not fight with tanks. We do fight and will fight as fiercely as we can with every weapon that we can in this parliamentary forum.

This parliamentary forum may be a ragged and imperfect one; it may be one that does not always see the best legislation pass, and it may be that we do not always see the worst legislation killed. But that is our objective. Purely and simply, our objective is to kill this bill, to have the government withdraw it, because it is so fundamentally flawed on the compensation side that it is not worth reporting to the House as this committee has done. That is why I am speaking against the adoption of the committee's report.

One of the heavy responsibilities laid upon all members of the Legislature is to vote, speak, debate and to see what they can do with their imperfect talents to make the province a better place in which to live. I suggest that this legislation, which the committee wishes to report, does not do that. The fundamental problems facing Ontario today are problems of economic malaise, of a gutting of our economic system, of huge and high unemployment and of more people having to apply for and receive social and family benefits than ever before in our history since the 1930s.

The committee did not deal with those, because the government bill and the government action did not deal with those. We were told in the ministerial statement -- not in the actual debate of the bill -- that this was the first step of the government's economic recovery program. But we have not seen the second and third steps of that program, and we are getting close to the normal end of this legislative session.

What we have in this bill is not, as its title says, an act respecting the restraint of compensation in the public sector of Ontario and the monitoring of inflationary conditions in the economy of the province, but a simple attempt by the government to limit the bleeding of its finances.

For five or six years the Treasurer talked about bringing in a balanced budget, and he has been unable to do that. In fact, the deficit arising because of the mismanagement of the economy by the government escalated. The only way the Treasurer saw that he could try to put some limit on this deficit was to save himself about $600 million to $800 million by restraining the wages of those people in the public sector who either are paid directly by the government or who get their pay from transfer payments by the government.

The committee, after hearing about half of the groups that wished to be heard -- 40 out of 80 or something like that -- thought it had heard adequately from those affected by the bill. When we attempted to get more hearing time for those people, it was denied.

3:50 p.m.

Second, there is no way that this bill, which the committee wishes to report, has been adequately dealt with by the committee. There may be all kinds of reasons for that, and I will not surprise you, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting to you that perhaps some of the responsibility for that lies with my own party; but then, it lies with all members of the Legislature and of that committee.

The bald fact of the matter is that the committee simply has not dealt with the bill; so it is now making a report to the Legislature. What puzzles me is what it is reporting. Is it reporting the bill that we have before us? If it is doing that, on what basis is it making that report? It is making a report on the 37 sections of this bill, having dealt with only part of section 1.

Any committee that moves the adoption of a report suggesting it has dealt in committee stage with a bill when only the first half of the first section has been dealt with, I submit is not making a true, full, accurate report to the House.

The difficulty we have is that the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), when he got up and moved the adoption of the report, did not speak to the report, did not indicate to the members of the House what was in the report, did not even indicate in any way, shape or form the reasons for the committee's moving of the report that is before us.

I suggest that the reason he failed to do that is very simple: There was nothing to report. So what do we have here? We have an attempt by the government to get this bill straight to third reading. We hear in the corridors here at Queen's Park that the manoeuvre the government wished to undertake was actually to slip this through -- and that is one of the reasons it was not the chairman who was making the report this afternoon, as well as the fact that he was absent; but his absence could be a convenient one -- and that the bill, as it is now and as it was first drafted, would go to third reading, the government would bring in closure on third reading and it would be passed.

The problem was that the government itself wanted amendments to the bill. If that is so -- and I suspect it is so, and I think some of my colleagues have even seen some of the government's proposed amendments to the bill -- how was it going to deal with that? We hear, but we have no explanation or statement from the government, that they were going to bring in a second bill, an act to amend Bill 179.

That seems to me to be a very unusual procedure. We have a piece of legislation that is not even passed. The government wants to rush it through. The government wants closure. The government wants it passed, imperfect though it knows it is, even on its terms. Then it will bring in an act that amends this act. Then it will do the same thing to that bill that it is doing to this one.

I suggest that is why we must oppose the bill at the present time with every legislative means at our disposal, because once one acquiesces in this kind of bill and in the kind of procedure the government is engaged in, then it will do it time and time again. It becomes easy to enforce closure, which is what has happened with this bill.

The government and many of the members on that side do not seem to understand the realities of majority government. Like me, the Treasurer understands the realities of majority government, because he was a member of the last majority government enjoyed by the Conservative Party, between 1971 and 1975.

I think it is true of the analysis of many political scientists who are interested in things like the reporting of a bill from committee that many political scientists have time and time again suggested --

Hon. F. S. Miller: You are looking for your reserves, James.

Mr. Foulds: We have them; do not worry.

Mr. Speaker, I make no pretence to you that this is a difficult and strenuous undertaking, that the spontaneity of it all was --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Surprising, was it?

Mr. Foulds: No, not surprising; I had given it thought at least since this morning. I make no apologies for that. I thought there might be an attempt by a committee to make the report we have before us --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Address yourself to the motion at hand, please. Do not allow yourself to be distracted by honourable members.

Mr. Foulds: Excuse me. Will you repeat that, please, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: I asked you to address your subject and your points to the motion.

Mr. Foulds: Will you remind me what that motion is, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Breaugh: To adopt the report.

Mr. Foulds: To adopt the report that is exactly what I was speaking about. Just to refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: I have been listening. You do not have to refresh --

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you were sent in to relieve the previous Speaker because of your love for the rules of procedure in this House and because of your adamantine sense of rightness and firmness in applying the rules of the House. I too enjoy your sense of fairness and justice and, what has been more obvious in this House, your sense of firmness when applying the rules of the Legislature.

As I understand it, what we have before us is a motion to adopt the report. One of the difficulties we have in debating the adoption of the report is that the member who moved the adoption of the report did not explain what the report was. Therefore, we are having to recast slightly and we are having to recollect. Imperfect as my memory is, it is sometimes a little difficult. We have to recollect what the committee did.

I was not a permanent member of that committee. I sat in on many of the sittings. One of the reasons a committee when making a report should make a full explanation of the report, what it entailed and what its activities were is so that all the members who have an interest in the bill can fully understand what it is when they vote to accept the adoption of the committee's report.

I am trying to explain in my own imperfect way because at the time there appeared to be no other member of the House who was willing to speak and the Speaker was about to put the question. I had always thought that under the rules of this House, when a motion was put for adoption of a report, that was debatable. I am a firm believer in the rules, as you are, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I thought it my duty to help inform those members of the House who were not fully aware of the implications of the committee's report and the contents of the bill and to take what opportunity I could to debate that report.

4 p.m.

I am suggesting, and I am telling the other members of the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am opposed to the adoption of the report. It would appear to me that I therefore have a responsibility to explain to you and to the other members of the House the reasons for my opposition to the adoption of the report of the committee. So far, we seem to be on the same wavelength.

One of the major reasons I am opposed to the adoption of the report of the committee is that it would appear that the committee is reporting Bill 179. If it is reporting that bill, and it is reporting that bill on two counts -- one, the procedural count that it has dealt with the bill, and two, that the bill itself is worthy of adoption and carrying -- then it seems to me I have those two areas on which to argue and oppose.

The first area I have briefly dealt with so far is the first half of that equation, that is, the committee itself is making a report prematurely. It is making a report without having fully considered the contents and the clauses of the bill, without having fully understood the implications of the bill for people who are affected by it.

If I may say so, I am not at all sure that the committee had before it the case of Susan Vallance, a public sector worker facing a high rent increase whose wages are drastically affected by this bill. If the members would permit me, I would like to read into the record, so that the House can fully understand if the committee did not, the kind of effects the bill that the committee is reporting has on people affected by the bill.

Ms. Vallance works full time as a clerk 3, general, at Seneca College.

The Acting Speaker: I find the member's point is --

Mr. Foulds: Does the Speaker want to get to his feet to make his remark?

The Acting Speaker: No, I will give the member a chance to rest his feet. He is addressing only the adoption of the report and he is now getting into other subjects pertaining to the report. I am asking the member to address the motion on the floor, which is the adoption of the report.

Mr. Foulds: That is exactly what I am doing. Mr. Speaker, I may repeat myself just slightly so that not only you but the officers of this House and the government House leader understand the flow and nature of my argument. What I am saying is that I want to say, very seriously, and I would appreciate it if you would pay some attention, that it is very important when discussing a report to be able to explain your reasons for the opposition to that report by illustrating your opposition with actual case studies, statistics, research and so on.

In my 11 years in the House I have never seen it otherwise. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that the committee failed in its obligation when it moved the motion for adoption of this report, when it does not consider the case of Susan Vallance, when it does not consider the effect that the bill has on this worker, when it reports the bill without amendments but reports it without even considering the clauses in the clause-by-clause debate, and when it is the government's intention to bring in another bill that will amend the flaws in the bill that we have before us. I suggest it is an undue process that we are facing here.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for keeping his points to the subject as he is doing now.

Mr. Foulds: It is excellent, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

I think the committee did not consider the effects of all 37 clauses of this bill that is being reported; that it did not consider the effects of part II of the bill, sections 4 through 25; it did not consider those sections at all. It did not consider those sections as they affect a person like Susan Vallance, a public sector worker facing certain situations. Ms. Vallance works full time --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honourable member to stay with the substance of the point that the report be adopted or received, without getting into some of the extraneous things.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention that the matter now under discussion is a committee report which contains a bill. I would point out that almost every Thursday evening in this Legislature we debate similar types of motions and reports.

As chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs, I brought in a number of reports on agencies and commissions which had been the subject of debate, and I think if you were to do a little research on the precedents, it was pretty clearly held that the motion is put for the adoption of the report, which is technically what we are debating, and during the course of the debate, we debate anything which is contained within that report.

If you reflect upon this a little more, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that we have before the House a motion to adopt a committee's report. In that report is contained a piece of legislation. It strikes me that means that when members are addressing themselves to the questions before them this afternoon and maybe a little later on this evening, it is quite in order to address themselves to a report from the committee containing legislation.

Because it does contain that particular bill, it is quite in order for members to discuss the content of the report. During each and every Thursday evening that we have spent in here discussing motions worded in precisely the same way, it seems to me we have set our precedents pretty clearly. When you move the adoption of a report from a committee, the members are quite free, and always have been in the seven years I have been here, to discuss the contents of the report. We are not discussing a mere procedural motion.

We have a report from a committee before us. It contains a bill. It seems to me that in everything we have ever done in here in debating these reports from committees, and we do it regularly and consistently almost every Thursday evening and sometimes on other occasions as well, we have held that you debate the report.

This afternoon we are not debating a simple procedural matter. We are debating a report from a committee. I think, Mr. Speaker, on reflection you will have to give the members the rights they have had on all those other occasions, to debate at some length if they wish, the content of that report.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think you should consider some additional views in this matter, which I am glad you consider to be important, as do we all. After all, there is a motion before us for the adoption of a report. Basically, the report is that the committee has decided not to proceed further with consideration of a bill. It is obviously a very important bill but its importance in this consideration is irrelevant.

My own feeling is that the debate on the report stage, as it might be called, should not be unnecessarily constricted. After all, the whole content of the bill is within the report itself. I can assure you, sir, it is not my intent to facilitate matters for anybody in the House who might want to needlessly prolong a debate which in my view was needlessly prolonged in the committee.

4:10 p.m.

It is our aim in the official opposition to get the bill before either committee of the whole House or a standing committee so that the sections themselves can be debated and amended, because there are clearly some areas where even the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) must surely agree that amendment is needed.

The one thing I would hate to have happen is that, because of some sort of approach taken by one group in the House, in some particular way the House would ever consent to have this bill enacted into law without even an opportunity for amendment. I think this would be a serious catastrophe, and it would certainly vitiate and dilute any value that would remain in the democratic process as we know it in this House.

My own feeling is that if the House ever decides, in its lack of wisdom, that the bill should proceed without a clause-by-clause review, it would be a disaster. However, the rules do permit the government or any other group in the House to put an end to the debate, which I think would be a regrettable thing indeed. But this particular motion, in my view, does not lend itself to the Speaker and his colleagues in the chair restricting it beyond the ambit of the bill itself, and I hope you will not attempt to do so.

The Acting Speaker: The chair recognizes the importance of the House having full opportunity to debate everything that comes before it, and, as the motion now stands, it is that the report be received and adopted, at which time it would be approved for second reading and then go on for third reading.

An hon. member: Or committee.

The Acting Speaker: Or committee. My concern is to ensure that we allow full opportunity to all within the rules of the House and that when we are speaking to the motion we do not bring in extraneous data that are not germane to the bill itself; and when you are bringing out certain people or instances that go beyond the terms of the bill and beyond the terms of the motion before the House now --

lnterjections.

The Acting Speaker: I am suggesting that the honourable members try to stay with the motion that is before the House right now, because there is ample opportunity.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any confusion or disagreement in the interpretation of the rules or the procedures. As I understand them, there is a report stage, and this is the report stage of the bill. There is then, if the House decides, a clause-by-clause stage of the bill, probably in committee of the whole; I certainly hope that stage will take place. There is then third reading of the bill, and I certainly hope the bill will be withdrawn by the government before that stage is necessary. But it seems to me there is no great disagreement.

There are certain amendments to the bill that we see as valuable on the price side, but when it comes to restraining wages that have been negotiated and for which full and adequate legislation has been passed by this Legislature in the past, we frankly feel that we cannot make a piece of cheese out of what we in northern Ontario used to call a moose pancake. We simply cannot make a piece of cheese out of a moose pancake.

What we have here is a moosecake. Therefore, optimistic though the official opposition is about adequate and so-called fair amendments to the compensation side, we do not share that view and we have been very open and frank about that.

Clause 4 of the bill, which is being reported by the committee and is part of the report of this committee, has as subclause (c), and I will read it to remind members of the House:

"'Collective agreement' means a collective agreement as defined in the Labour Relations Act, an agreement referred to in subsection 5(1) of the Fire Departments Act or subsection 29(2) of the Police Act, a decision resulting from arbitration that, by operation of law or agreement, governs working conditions or terms of compensation, and any agreement between a unit of employees established for collective bargaining and an employer or person in the position of an employer for defining, determining or providing for working conditions or terms of compensation."

I suggest that section of the bill deals directly with people like Susan Vallance, whom I was trying to bring to the attention of the House previously. It is that section of the bill the committee did not discuss and that it is reporting as being okay. It did not take into consideration the effect it would have on people like Susan Vallance or Marie Mitchell or Saleen Yacouba. I would, therefore, like to bring those cases to the attention of the House.

That section, which limits their compensation to five per cent and in one case, because of certain provisions of the bill being reported, cuts back on the signed agreements between the bargaining units for these people and their employers, so that they are fundamentally affected by the report we have before us for debate, was not considered. I would like the members of the House to consider the cases of those people before they eagerly and quickly approve the committee's report. I would also point out that Ms. Vallance works full-time as a clerk 3, general, at Seneca College. Her gross salary is $15,200 and she nets $11,620.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honourable member to consider the very motion that is before the House. Since the bill itself is discussed in other phases within the House, the specifics of the bill can then be addressed regarding how people are affected or impacted upon. I am asking the member if he could try to keep his comments, as he did earlier, to the procedural motion that is before the House right now.

Mr. Foulds: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, it is not a procedural motion, it is a motion that asks the House to adopt a report. It asks the House to adopt not only the procedure of adopting the report but the substance of the report. Imperfect though my talents may be, I am trying to illustrate, by some examples, my opposition to the substance of the report, because what the committee is reporting is this bill.

It is not as if the committee brought in a report and the mover of the report said: "Mr. Chairman, like a hung jury, we find we cannot deal with this matter. Therefore, we request that some other forum or some other committee deal with the matter." What it has done is report the bill. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the substance of the bill is debatable at the reporting stage because that is the substance of the report. In effect, this is the report we have for adoption before us and if we adopt it, we are adopting this bill. There are other stages, as you rightfully point out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I raise this particular point of order divorced entirely from the content of Bill 179. I think there are two aspects to this matter. One is naturally the report itself. The content of Bill 179 and what happened to it in the committee is one substantive matter that is being debated. My colleague kindly yielded the floor to me so I could discuss the other important matter.

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: I cannot allow that if you are going to be making a speech. Make your point of order and I will indicate whether you can proceed.

Mr. Renwick: That is what I want to do, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to rule on my point of order after I have had an opportunity of placing the point clearly before you because of its importance. You happen to be in the chair when the House will be making a decision on a point of order which will affect the proceedings of this House from now on, far beyond the time when you and I are members of this assembly. It is that grave, that important and that unprecedented.

My point of order is that the motion to adopt the report which is before us is, I submit, out of order. I want to speak to that point of order. My submission, and I believe you heard me, sir, is that the motion which is now before you is out of order. I want to put before you the course of events which led to this report being in front of us today.

I want to do it in terms of procedural matters, not in terms of the body of the discussions which took place with respect to Bill 179 in the committee. The motion which is before us at the present time was moved by the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) in the absence of the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), who is the chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice.

It is in the following terms: "Your committee begs to report that it has decided not to proceed with the consideration of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province, but to report it to the House at this time."

It may be that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) can recall, and it may be some other members of the House can recall, but I can never recall this kind of motion coming before this assembly in this form, based upon the decision of a committee of the assembly with respect to a matter of a precedent which had never been followed under --

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Riverdale. The motion has been brought forward to the House in the proper form and we are in the process where the Speaker has permitted some debate to take place on the question, "Shall the report be received and adopted?" That is what is being debated by the House. The Speaker has already done this, so your opportunity to discuss this will be through the debate that is now before the House. I now recognize the member for --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I do not want you to be hasty. If you believe it would be advisable to have Mr. Speaker in the chair and to have the Clerk of the House in his place when we discuss this matter, I am quite certain that would be an appropriate procedure. But I will not be ruled out of order on a matter which has been brought before this assembly after a consideration in committee and which has never been considered in a committee of this assembly before.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to be clear about that. Perhaps if I could place my argument without interruption, we could have an opportunity for you to make a decision rather than have the submission truncated by intermittent conversations with the Clerk of the House. I would like your attention, Mr. Speaker. I will wait until you can give me your full and undivided attention.

The Acting Speaker: My concern is the honourable member is bringing up a procedural point prior to the present debate that is now in process within the House. Inasmuch as the speaker has already permitted the report to be tabled and it is now under consideration, I see there is nothing out of order. Therefore, I would like to have the member for Port Arthur continue his presentation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, please do not misunderstand what I am about. I want you to understand that if we pass this motion in this assembly we will have established a precedent that will haunt this assembly for a long time. I am saying this resolution will create a precedent. For this House to accept this resolution is an unprecedented action and by its very nature, if accepted as being in order, will create a precedent for the future. It is to that precedent I want to speak, because I believe every member of the assembly, regardless of the circumstances of this discussion, should be concerned about the kind of precedent this will create.

I want to speak as clearly and succinctly as I can about a procedural matter of the utmost importance. I am constantly not having the undivided attention of the Speaker. Perhaps even the rigidity of debates of the House would allow me to have your undivided attention on an important matter.

I want you to know that under the rules of the assembly we accepted the resolution that was passed and that is reported in the Votes and Proceedings of the assembly on October 19 on the motion of the House leader. I want you to know that was, in itself, accepted unanimously by the House and was a departure, such as the House is entitled to make, from the rules of the House. We accepted it, stating what the standing committee on administration of justice was required to do. I am not going to argue the minutiae of that statement. We were proceeding in accordance with the resolution and the order of this House that you have before you. I will read it into the record should anybody require it to be done, but we all know what it says.

I am not engaged in a semantic argument about the meaning of that resolution. People can differ about the meaning of resolutions, and the chairman of the committee yesterday adopted an interpretation of that order of the House to that committee which we could debate over a cup of coffee some time.

The point I want to make is that yesterday afternoon, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), having left his place at the left of the chairman's position at the table representing the Treasurer of the province, resumed his seat as a member of the committee. Then, stating that he was the member in charge of the bill, whatever that may mean -- it is a term that is totally new to me -- whether it meant the member of the committee in charge of the bill, or the member in charge of the bill who happened to be a member of the committee, I have never heard in my time in this House of a member of a committee being in charge of a bill it was considering. If he was saying he was the member of the assembly in charge of the bill, he was not, because the Treasurer was. If there is a member of the assembly in charge of the bill, the bill stands in his name.

Mr. Jones: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I referred -- since I was admitting there had not been precedents within our rules of order -- to Erskine May and the British House interpretation of "a member." I read from the Erskine May interpretation examples where members do carry bills on behalf of ministers. At that time, I was referring to "member" as it appears in that report under the heading, "The System of Committees," chapter 24, page 626 of Erskine May.

Mr. Speaker, as I see the member making a rehash of the same debate that we had yesterday afternoon and then attempting to say, somehow, what my role was in the morning or what it was as a legitimate member of the committee in the afternoon, I would just have to say that was ruled on by the chairman yesterday and was dealt with by the committee. In my view, it does not seem to be a proper subject of debate at this point, as you, sir, consider the motion before you.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was done in an attempt to clarify some of the points which the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) had raised.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your politeness to the member for Mississauga North.

I was not attacking the member for Mississauga North because he said that he was the member in charge of the bill. I was trying to point out, as a procedural matter, that it was a new term to me and I believe a new term to every member of the committee; because it was not understood.

I may say, as an aside, I have tremendous respect for the Clerk of this assembly. I hope that before he decides to retire entirely from the work of the assembly, or after his retirement, he will be good enough to produce for us a book which will set out some of the proceedings, so that we do not have the interminable hassles that we have. There is Beauchesne in the federal House of Commons, May in the House of Commons in England; why do we not have a book, instead of us having the interminable difficulties that we do have about these matters?

The member for Mississauga North, having said that he was member in charge of the bill, then circulated to us an excerpt from page 626 of Erskine May's 19th edition, in aid of this particular precedent. I do not want to read the whole of this; that would be neither appropriate nor necessary. But I want to read the first paragraph and then the next paragraph of the portion that he called in aid.

The heading is, "Reporting of Bills before Consideration has been Completed." That is the precedent that bothers me and that I think we have to speak about in terms of the orderly business of the House. It has nothing to do with Bill 179.

It states: "It is the duty of a standing committee, as of all committees, to give the matters referred to it due and sufficient consideration. The chairman of a standing committee will not therefore normally accept motions in pursuance of which the committee would conclude its deliberations before it had gone through the bill committed to it."

In May, at page 506 of the 19th edition, under the heading, "Functions of a Committee on a Bill," it is stated, "The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill clause by clause and, if necessary, word by word, with a view to making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable." That is repeated in Beauchesne. I would assume that if there were a book of rules of this House that paragraph would be repeated.

Within the context of what the committee was charged to do by order of the House, passed unanimously by the House, to engage in clause-by-clause consideration, the member for Mississauga North called in aid this particular part of May's statement:

"On the other hand, circumstances have arisen which, in the opinion of the member in charge of the bill, have rendered it inexpedient to proceed further with consideration of the bill, and on these occasions that member has been permitted to move, 'that the committee do not proceed (or proceed further) with the bill.'"

That was the motion which the member for Mississauga North moved in committee: "I move that the committee not proceed with consideration of this bill, but that it be reported to the House at this time."

The comment in Erskine May goes on to say: "The circumstances in which such motions have been moved have varied considerably but their general nature may be indicated by a few examples."

As I read it, there are four or five examples given by Erskine May. The first one is: "Such motions have been made when there seems no prospect of the bill being reported to the House in sufficient time to allow it to be considered by the House." The second is when the government has declined; the third one, when the government has indicated; and the fourth, when the government has disagreed or has amended.

I am not going to take the time of the House to read all five of the examples that were given in May because it was quite clear that only the first one was the applicable one for the action of the member for Mississauga North. I want to draw to the members' attention that on a six to five vote of the committee a precedent was set that this motion was in order. It was challenged and upheld by the committee. The committee decided, in my judgement quite wrongly and creating a precedent that we will have to live by, that the motion had been made because there seemed to be no prospect of the bill being reported to the House in sufficient time to allow it to be considered by the House.

Let me make a clear distinction. We have no illusions that the bill is important to the government. We have no illusions at all that it is important to the executive council of the province. They should have no illusions that we believe that it is a very important bill. The only division between us is that the government thinks it should be passed. We do not think it should be passed.

The exception in Erskine May that permits that motion to come forward is, "There seems no prospect of the bill being reported to the House in sufficient time to allow it to be considered by the House." I say that there was no argument of any kind adduced to that proposition. Nobody said what was the sufficient time to permit the House to consider it.

There was a statement that the government considers it important. We understand that. We were here on September 21. We have been here ever since; but the government is not the House. To my knowledge there was nothing which says that the bill, following the course which it was taking, in accordance with the order of the House, would not in due course have been reported to the House in whatever the period is that is called sufficient time. I do not know what the sufficient time is.

It is quite clear, and I want you, Mr. Speaker, to understand very clearly what I understand and what everybody understands, that the procedures of the House permit closure to allow the government to move its legislation if it chooses to do so. It takes the risk of moving closure. We take the risk of forcing closure. That is a political risk. That is the way in which government expedites its business through the House.

But that is not what this says. This says that somehow or other there was a date by which this session had to be prorogued. I never heard of any such date. All I know is the House leaders have been discussing when that date may be in the future in order to get our work completed. But there is no date set by law. There is no date set by the government to prorogue this session.

It happens over the years to have been convenient for the House to prorogue a session shortly before Christmas. But that is not at all in the purview of our discussion of this matter, and so far as I am concerned, there was nothing whatsoever to indicate that this House would not be able to receive that bill from that committee in sufficient time to consider it.

This distinction has to be made very clear, because when a member calls, in aid of a change in this House, a provision from the House of Commons procedures as stated by Erskine May, he has to justify that strictly before an unprecedented action is taken in this assembly; and nothing was done in that committee.

4:40 p.m.

I raised it as a point of order because I think it would be foolhardy for this assembly to allow a report of a committee based on a six to five vote in that committee to create a precedent for every single committee of this House. This would mean that the conditions under which closure of debate can take place are being sidetracked in the debate on another rule, which says something like: "The government wants the bill. Therefore, they have the right to do it this way, move it out of committee and let it find its way into this assembly." If they want to move closure, move closure; but do not try to create in this assembly, not only for the standing committee on administration of justice but for every committee of this assembly and the committee of the whole House, a procedure that would allow this to happen.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, what would happen if we were to depart from a time-honoured procedure of the assembly that one of the ultimate protections of the public is the scrutiny given by members of the assembly to the legislation that is before it, whether that is in committee of the whole House or whether it is in a standing committee?

That detailed scrutiny is not something we should abandon lightly because there was frustration in that committee. And I agree it was frustrating; it was frustrating for the government members, it was frustrating for us and I am sure it was frustrating for the members of the Liberal Party, and I know it boiled over on occasion. But I also know it would have been quite possible for that committee to have continued to review that bill, having regard to the number of people who came before the committee to raise serious concerns about the bill, a number of people both pro and con, and I am not getting into a balancing act; sufficient to warn the committee and to warn this assembly that this bill has to be scrutinized properly.

I am quite content to do one of two things: either with unanimous consent of the House, recommit the bill, or refuse to accept this motion and get it back into that committee and for this House to tell that committee not to waste any time. And I say that to both sides, because we do not believe we were wasting any time, but we would accept an admonishment of this House to get that bill back there so that we can deal with it in a proper way.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you would be most unwise to rule that this motion is in order, because the mere decision by the chair that this motion is in order means that the procedure in that committee by which this report comes to this House, in the language in which it is couched and which I believe to be unprecedented -- and it may be out of the murky mind of somebody who can produce one occasion; but certainly there has never been a motion to adopt a report in these terms, that was based on the quotations from Erskine May to which I referred, in the history of the assembly.

I stand to be corrected. I believe the Clerk of the House would be the only one who would be in a position to advise on that question and he must advise you. Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to take this under serious consideration and I am quite certain other members of the assembly will wish to speak on this point of order.

By the mere acceptance of this motion being in order, and there is nothing I know of in the rules which countenances it, we will have dredged up from Erskine May suddenly one afternoon in a committee, without any research of the background information covered in all the footnotes with respect to Erskine May, without any consultation with the Clerk of the House of Commons in London as to what their process is, without any consultation with the House of Commons in Ottawa, and calling in aid, as was called in aid, standing order 1(b) of our House.

It says, "In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, and in making his ruling the Speaker or Chairman shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature ..."

The member for Mississauga North knew that was not possible and he called in aid something called "parliamentary tradition." He produced a quotation from a book on the parliamentary tradition of the House of Commons, which I respect. He did not produce any reference with respect to the House of Commons of Canada, although a substantial part of Beauchesne is modelled on that.

What is most upsetting to me about the decision is that, for the government to end debate, it can move closure subject to two conditions: first, that it is not an abuse of the standing orders of the assembly and, second, that it is not an infringement of the rights of the minority.

This quotation from May says nothing about the rights of the minority nor does it say anything about the tyranny of the majority. It asks us to set aside one of the most important, if not the most important, functions of the assembly. That is the clause-by-clause scrutiny of legislation which will become the law of the province, binding upon the citizens of the province. Together with holding the government to account for the expenditure of money, those are the two principal functions of this assembly and that is what the parliamentary tradition is about.

The result is that, disguised as a claim that in some way we were causing difficulty in the committee about that kind of bill, and being unwilling to invoke closure, they called in aid what to me was a statement that the government wants the bill by a certain time. We have known that from the beginning, but that is not what Erskine May says. It says that, "Such motions have been made when there seemed no prospect of the bill being reported to the House in sufficient time to allow it to be considered by the House."

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your courtesy in listening to me speaking on the point of order at such length. I may well have omitted some element of the discussion about it. To create that precedent will change the course of this Legislature down through the years.

I think this assembly must not only have the discussion about whether the motion before it in is order, but, sir, we must have your very clear ruling with respect to it, and the reasons for it or against it, in a way that we all, as a deliberative body, can understand. The last thing we need is an improvident or intemperate decision of this House. I say that in terms of the time which people have had to consider its implications.

Sir, I would ask that the matter be taken under advisement by you. I appreciate your courtesy.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: The reference of the bill, taken from the Votes and Proceedings dated October 19, contains the following phrase, "... that after clause-by-clause consideration is finished the bill will be reported to the Legislature."

That particular motion put forward by the government House leader might not have been well drawn in retrospect but, on the other hand, I do not believe that the actions of the committee yesterday have, for all time -- if we allow them to remain unchanged -- altered the foundations of democracy either in this jurisdiction or in any other.

I think probably the foundation of democracy, much as we sometimes hate to accept it, is that eventually the majority rules in this House. It may have done so very awkwardly yesterday.

I agree with the member about the justification for renouncing, in that respect, the instructions given to the committee by the House that it must proceed with the clause-by-clause discussion and not report until that is finished -- to use the words of the reference -- and that any justification on the basis of a time limit should never have been brought forward and was a serious mistake.

I have heard members of all parties talk about hoping to finish the work by Christmas, but I have not heard any sensible person talk about that now for a number of weeks. It is apparent that the House will be in session after Christmas and before the resumption of an entirely new session. I cannot see any possibility of the work being completed. The fact that the government House leader or the Treasurer have indicated their desire to have the bill enacted by Christmas is irrelevant both under the rules and even in politics.

Obviously, the bill has certain retroactive provisions which means that its impact on the community is already being felt and the only thing that might change that would be far-reaching amendments that I do not see coming from the government side, or any other side, or the fact that the naivety of the New Democratic Party might, in fact, be not naive and that the government will withdraw the bill.

In this instance, however, it was apparent -- and I know we are not supposed to impute motives, and I certainly will not do so -- and with that in mind, I will not say that it was my impression that the NDP were needlessly prolonging the debate. I have heard its arguments indicating that is not an acceptable motive to impute. I do not impute it. I simply say that there are those who felt that the committee --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Are you speaking on a point of order?

Mr. Nixon: I am on a point of order. Does the member want to wait his turn?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, I want to know whether the member is speaking to a point of order.

Mr. Nixon: Sure it is. I am glad the Speaker agrees with me because I have been having a lot of trouble with the member who has just been interrupting me again.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thought a little tit-for-tat.

Mr. Nixon: That is all right. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, there is a remedy for the situation that the member for Riverdale has brought to our attention. If the House believes that the bill should be returned to committee for clause-by-clause consideration there, then, of course, an amendment to the motion before us would certainly be in order. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that the member did not make such an amendment so that the bill would return to committee for the clause-by-clause consideration so that his commitment to the concepts of the bill might be undertaken.

But that is not the case. We have a motion for the adoption of the report that is before us and, in that connection, I would say to the Speaker that the debate that was going on and will go on, presumably, after the end of this discussion on the point of order, that debate is in order and it may be terminated by a vote, or it may be terminated by an amendment sending the bill back to committee.

I will tell you, sir, our concern is to see that democracy is not frustrated to the extent that the members of the House do not have an opportunity to deal with the bill on a clause by clause basis. The thing I fear, and it has just been restated by the House leader of the NDP, is that they reject any concept of clause-by-clause consideration; that his party feels the bill is so deeply flawed that it should be turfed out and anything by way of alternative is unacceptable to them.

Mr. Speaker, if they are successful in having their way in that connection, I would feel that my rights as a member of this House had been deeply infringed, and if you want to hear some shouting and hollering, that is when you will hear the shouting and hollering. We have voted for the principle of the bill and we believe that it --

Mr. Martel: You what?

Mr. Nixon: Darned right and we are proud of it. In so doing, we represent a majority of the citizens of this province. We believe that the bill must come before the House on a clause-by-clause basis, whether or not the NDP wants to take part in that discussion. Believe it or not, they may even have the opportunity to sit silent under those circumstances. But the bill must be reviewed by this House on a clause-by-clause basis.

If the NDP would sooner have that done in the committee downstairs, that is quite all right with us. But in my own view, I feel that the remedies for anything the member for Riverdale might find offensive lie with this House at the present time. If he wants to move an amendment that the bill go back down to committee, so be it. I would support such an amendment, as a matter of fact, because we are committed to a clause-by-clause review of the bill, in spite of the fact that the NDP rejects that remedy as having any validity whatsoever.

Mr. Cooke: You don't know what you are talking about.

Mr. Nixon: Thanks very much.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the point of order. I will not even invoke a point of privilege on what my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) said. I certainly have stated that the bill should be abolished, thrown out, got rid of, whatever you want.

At the same time, I remind my friend that we have indicated that we intend to move some motions on that bill, some amendments to the bill.

Mr. Nixon: Is it going to be amended?

Mr. Martel: Only in certain parts.

Mr. Nixon: Who speaks for your party?

Mr. Martel: If the member would come to committee once in a while and stay for a little while, instead of just wandering in and out of the doors now and then, he might get the flavour.

Mr. Nixon: It's a free country.

Mr. Speaker: Let us get back to the point of order, please.

Mr. Martel: The member is taking such pride in supporting the bill. He might have been in St. Catharines the other night to listen to one of his colleagues argue that he had not voted on it on the first or the second occasion and that he might vote against it on the third.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the point of order.

Mr. Martel: The member talks about persistence. If he wants me to talk about the member for Windsor, I can do the same for him.

Mr. Riddell: Socialists don't know anything about democracy.

Mr. Martel: Wherever you are, you have a different position, don't you?

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member please address his remarks to the chair and not to the member?

Mr. Martel: You and General Jaruzelski.

Mr. Riddell: You don't understand there is a majority government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the point of order, please.

Mr. Ruston: General Martel.

Mr. Riddell: They are going to put the bill through. And you are prepared to let them do it without amendments.

Mr. Martel: My friend who just finished interjecting should be sitting with that majority government.

Mr. Nixon: Your Ontario Federation of Labour supporters think General Jaruzelski is all right.

Mr. Martel: Yes. I am sure they do.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: No, it was Trudeau. I remind the member, who took that position.

Let me get to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me speak to the point of order. The instructions by the House were to send this to committee for clause-by-clause debate so that ultimately it could be passed.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: I will come to the time factor in a moment.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: You will call the time shots.

Mr. Martel: No. I said I would come to the time factor in a moment, if I can.

Mr. Nixon: You are softening up in more ways than one.

Mr. McClellan: We have just realized that the government majority is a lot larger than we thought it was.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the point of order, please.

Mr. Martel: Having been referred to that committee --

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Do you want the floor?

Mr. Ruston: I am talking to the whip. I'm not interrupting you.

Mr. Martel: The bill having been sent there, it should have been disposed of there. It was not. I guess what really becomes a concern is the factor of time. My friend mentioned the time factor. The only time factor is that the government of Ontario has decided it wants the bill through before Christmas. It has nothing to do with the fact that this session runs until March 31, 1983. This Legislature operates on a year; it is not a calendar year.

5 p.m.

Mr. Kerr: We've been proroguing in December every year.

Mr. Martel: We have come back. I remind my friend who is barracking there that we sat for 13 months on one occasion. This House sat from December 1968 to December 1969, and it led to a rewriting of the rules. We have precedent, if he wants to talk about precedent for coming back.

The government has decided it wants this bill through by Christmas -- that is the bottom line -- by December 17. It has nothing to do with whether we have time to do it in January or February; someone over there has decided. And, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has pointed out, it is retroactive.

If it takes a little longer here than those fellows wanted, so be it; it will not alter the ultimate effects of the bill. That has already taken place. It is our procedure, if anyone wants to check. When we bring in a budget, some of the bills will not be passed until some months after the budget comes in. But, in fact, those bills take effect the day the budget comes in. The same applies here.

The argument that there is a time bind is nonsense. There are four months remaining until the end of this parliamentary year. Time has nothing to do with it, save that it is an inconvenience for the government. They do not like the hassle, the long debate, on this very important bill, which wipes out collective bargaining that took 50 or 60 years to develop.

That is what it does. One might say it holds the increase to five per cent. That may be right. But what it has successfully done, and will successfully do for a year, is negate collective bargaining, which took 50 or 60 years to build.

What is even more insidious is that it does not even allow a way of arbitration. It cannot be arbitrated. That is why I say the government is like General Jaruzelski. Collective bargaining has been wiped out for a year with no loopholes left to arbitrate it. It is the most dictatorial piece of legislation they have ever brought in. They rationalize it by saying it is only for a year. If it is done for one year, it is easier to do it for two years next time.

The time factor is only in their heads. If we did not have time, if we did not have three months and all of December, maybe that would be right. But to invoke that particular clause to try to rationalize what was done yesterday is ridiculous. If they want to bring in closure, let them bring it in in its proper form. If they want to cut off and stifle debate, let them do it properly. At least they should have the intestinal fortitude to do it that way. But they want to sneak in some silly new procedure through the back door that will affect us forever.

The members of the government party did their own House leader in, of course, by accepting that motion. There was an agreement that took 10 days to iron out -- those things require hard bargaining -- and by the stroke of a pen, they have said to us that the government does not keep its agreement. The one clause that held it up for 10 days was that there would be no time limit on clause-by-clause consideration in committee. That was what the agreement was. Then they said, "So much for the House leaders; we'll undercut them." That was what held it up for 10 days. As was widely reported in the press, it was that particular item.

That is why we agreed to forgo committee of the whole back in the House. We said that if we had one run at it in committee outside, we were prepared to bring it back to the House. Again, it argues to the time factor, because the government can say, "There is no time to consider it when it is brought back to the House." The agreement that had been reached was that when it came back to the House, it would not go to committee of the whole in the House. So all that was left when it came back into the House was third reading.

Let me remind my friends that downstairs they had six slots per week for clause-by-clause consideration; up here there are three time slots. Look at them.

Mr. Nixon: Now to the point of order.

Mr. Martel: I am speaking -- time was the thing that was invoked.

Mr. Nixon: You are not speaking to the point of order. Is the motion out of order or not? Get to the point of order.

Mr. Martel: I did not intervene when my friend was talking. I never said a word.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I am talking right on the point, because time was the thing that was invoked.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the member for Sudbury East will confine his remarks to the point of order that was raised by the member for Riverdale, I will be glad to deal with that as a separate item and then we can get back to the general debate on the motion before the House.

Mr. Martel: The member for Riverdale presented the idea that the members of the government party used the time argument, if I am correct -- what is sufficient time -- and that it had to be brought back into the House so there would be sufficient time to consider it.

I am trying to make the point that there had been an agreement that when it came back to this House -- and this destroys totally that argument -- it was not to be sent back to the committee of the whole in the Legislature itself. The only matter that would be before us once the clause-by-clause consideration was completed downstairs was third reading. I repeat, when it came back to the House, it would not have been sent to the committee of the whole; it was going to third reading.

My friends argue for more time, but what they have done is they have limited themselves to three time slots for legislation in the House, as we are currently following the order in the House; that is, Tuesday afternoon, Tuesday night and Thursday evening. Whereas in committee, we had Tuesday afternoon and night, Wednesday morning and afternoon, and Thursday afternoon and night.

If the government is trying to save time to expedite the matter, it must realize it cannot be done by bringing it into the House where we have half the time that we have in committee. As long as the argument might prevail, they still cannot say that with half the time in the House, they are better off than they were with double the time in committee, even allowing that everything else in the House was continuing.

As it stands, when they bring this bill to the House, Bill 127 is moved out. It does not matter whether it is speedy or not. Unfortunately, they have not learned that yet. Whether it is speedy or not is not the issue. The issue is that it was moving. We know how speedy Bill 127 is. It does not move at all.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: It's moving like a snail.

Mr. Martel: A snail's pace is better than putting it six weeks down the road before we get back to it. It will not move, it will not be debated until Bill 179 is done. They have slowed that one down with half the time they had outside the House. The bill was off in a committee, which allowed everything else in the Legislature to go on, and the government is bringing it back to the House in an unprecedented manner that will slow everything down and prevent some things from being debated.

All that was left in the justice committee, I remind members, was 15 hours of debate on the estimates of the Attorney General. So they will have that committee sitting three times in a week and the work in the House will fall, and they think that by using this manoeuvre they have gained. What have they gained? Absolutely nothing except more turmoil.

5:10 p.m.

I say to the Speaker that if time is the criterion and if we have four more months left, then they cannot invoke it. The agreement was that when clause-by-clause consideration was finished, it was coming back here for third reading. If time is what they base their reasoning on, all I can say is that someone has put the word out that he wants out by December 17, and that is the time factor, not whether we have time to do it. Somebody wants out on December 17, and that is really the issue. It just is not going to work that way.

I hope the Speaker is going to consider this carefully, and I am sure he is. He is astute enough to realize that there is a long time left in this parliamentary year. On the basis of the matters that have been resolved at House leaders' meetings, the only thing left when we came out of committee was third reading. Time is a nonsensical argument; they should not even try to use it.

Mr. Kerr: Time is money.

Mr. Martel: No. You are paid to be here.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the point of order raised by the member for Riverdale, that the motion before us is out of order. I agree with him that it is a most serious matter you are being asked to rule on. We are grateful that you are permitting us some latitude in presenting our case on this point of order.

As my colleague the member for Riverdale has pointed out, a precedent was set in the standing committee on administration of justice yesterday with respect to the proceedings of this assembly; it is unique in our history and, if it is confirmed again this afternoon, it will have very far-reaching consequences for the work of this Legislature.

My understanding is that Bill 179 was not referred to the justice committee in the normal way. The normal way of referring a bill to a standing committee for clause-by-clause consideration is under the standing orders; I believe it is standing orders 56 and 57. This bill was not referred to the committee by virtue of the normal reference to our standing orders; it was referred to the justice committee by virtue of a separate motion of this assembly. The motion was moved by the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), the government House leader, on October 19, 1982.

Mr. Jones: It told us to do certain things.

Mr. Foulds: That's right. And we didn't do them.

Mr. McClellan: The parliamentary assistant rightly points out that the motion told the committee to do certain things. The chairman of the justice committee, the member for Oxford, has referred consistently throughout the proceedings of the committee to the "mandatory instructions" of the House with respect to Bill 179. What he was referring to was the motion of referral, which the House passed on motion of the government House leader on October 19.

My point is that the referral of Bill 179 to the justice committee was not a referral under the standing orders; it was a referral under a separate motion that empowered the justice committee, through terms of reference set out in the October 19 motion, to undertake the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 179 and not to report the bill back to the House until the clause-by-clause consideration was finished. And the operative sentence is --

Mr. Jones: No. It said we were to start clause-by-clause consideration on November 2.

Mr. McClellan: Why does the parliamentary assistant not wait his turn and speak in the rotation during the debate? He will have his opportunity. I would like to put our point of order.

The operative section of the motion of October 19 reads, "... after clause-by-clause consideration is finished, the bill will be reported to the Legislature." The motion before us flies in the face of a motion of the House. It is totally contradictory to that motion of the House on October 19.

The motion of the House set out the terms of reference for the standing committee on administration of justice just as clearly as a motion setting out terms of reference for a select committee. It is beyond the jurisdiction of either a select committee or a standing committee operating on terms of reference set by this assembly to fail to carry out its terms of reference. That is a violation of a motion passed by this House.

It has never happened, but if the House were to set up a select committee on pensions under terms of reference to examine certain questions, and that committee refused to do so and came back with a report to the House that it was refusing to undertake its terms of reference, it would be regarded as a totally preposterous proposition. The committee would be refusing to carry out instructions given to it by the assembly.

This motion does precisely that with respect to Bill 179. The motion of October 19 ordered the justice committee to undertake clause-by-clause consideration and not to report the bill back until that clause-by-clause consideration was finished.

I point out that the committee has reached subsection 1(c) in its work. That means it has not finished clause-by-clause consideration, regardless of the timetable the members of the government party want to impose on the rest of the assembly. There is nothing in the motion of mandatory instruction of October 19 that places a time limit on clause-by-clause consideration.

The second thing I want to point out is that the motion of October 19 was the result of agreement between all three parties. There was a prolonged period of negotiation. An agreement was reached by all the House leaders, deputy House leaders and whips. Once that agreement was reached, the motion was moved by the government House leader.

The agreement was that there would be "normal clause-by-clause consideration." Since the word "normal" was my contribution to the agreement, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that what that meant was there would be no time limit on clause-by-clause consideration.

If anyone wants to know what "normal clause-by-clause consideration" means, it means there would be no time limit on clause-by-clause consideration. That was the agreement of the House leaders. This party was prepared to give up certain things to achieve an agreement, and we did that.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Name one.

Mr. McClellan: Name one? Number one, 40 people --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. McClellan: The chief government whip asked me to name one, Mr. Speaker. I was going to deal with this. One was that we offered to give up and did give up consideration by committee of the whole House. In exchange for public hearings and normal clause-by-clause consideration, we gave up our right to refer the bill back to committee of the whole House upon the conclusion of clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Cooke: Don't shake your head; that's true.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: That is part of the agreement. I have the agreement. The government House leader says that is not part of the agreement. Point 6 of the agreement --

Mr. Speaker: Please speak to the point of order and let us not get into a debate.

Mr. McClellan: The motion of October 19 was based on the House leaders' agreement, and I want to set out the things this party gave up to reach that agreement.

The first is point 6: "After clause-by-clause is finished, the bill will be reported to third reading with no committee of the whole House." All three parties agreed we would have normal clause-by-clause consideration and when that was finished the bill would be reported directly to third reading with no committee of the whole House.

5:20 p.m.

Second, we agreed to terminate the second reading debate. We terminated the second reading debate on October 18 at 5:45 p.m.

Third, and this goes to the argument of time, the government has said there is not enough time. They argued there was not enough time in the committee and therefore they had to invoke this guillotine of the work of the standing committee on administration of justice. I do not seem to have the Speaker's attention any more.

Mr. Speaker: You have my attention. I am just trying to expedite matters.

Mr. McClellan: We gave up one more important thing, by way of concession, in order to obtain the agreement that led to the motion of October 19. We agreed to double the amount of time of sittings on the justice committee. So the justice committee is sitting for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are getting into a debate of what was reached as an agreement between House leaders, which is beyond my purview. I do not have any knowledge of that. I would direct the member to get back to the original point of order.

Mr. McClellan: I am pleased to do that. Speaking to the motion of the mandatory instruction of the House to the justice committee dated October 19, 1982, it sets out the hours the standing committee on administration of justice would sit. Those hours are spelled out in the mandatory instruction motion of the House, and those hours are double the normal hours.

The argument the government members made in saying this motion before you is in order was that there was some kind of time pressure, a time stricture. This party and the other opposition party agreed to double the amount of time available for sittings of the standing committee on administration of justice in order to speed up the work of the committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I might just point out to all the honourable members that what goes on in committee is something I have no knowledge of, so I would ask them to direct their remarks to the point of order which was raised by the member for Riverdale.

Mr. McClellan: I will conclude my argument. I am grateful that I was able to have the latitude to put some of the background before the House.

The central point remains that the justice committee was not operating on the usual reference from the standing orders. It was operating on a separate motion of this House, passed on the motion of the government House leader October 19, and that committee had no business doing what it did yesterday, because what it did yesterday was to abrogate its instructions from the House. If the government wants to terminate the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 179, there is only one way to do it. They have to pass a motion in this House countermanding the motion of October 19.

They cannot have the committee, on its own initiative, violating the instructions of the House. That is preposterous. It would mean every select committee that is set up on motion of this House would have the latitude to decide whether to carry out its terms of reference or not, or whether it would have the latitude to carry out some other entirely different terms of reference from those given it by the House.

The terms of reference are crystal clear: clause-by-clause consideration. When that is finished the bill will be reported back. That work has not been finished. The motion is out of order because not only is it in conflict with, but it contradicts and flouts, a motion of this assembly.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, just one brief matter that follows from what the member for Bellwoods is saying. That is that I believe the matter is out of order as well. The time element was not defined properly.

If I might say so, I also do not believe that we should have even referred to Erskine May in this case. In this business we should primarily be dealing with the traditions of this House. The traditions of this House are quite clear in terms of instruction to committees and there was definite instruction to this committee, as has been said.

The only way that one could see this might possibly be in order would be if the terms of instruction to the committee had been abrogated in the process of the committee or if somehow the definition of "normal clause-by-clause," which I think some members would like to hang this on, had been rent asunder. My argument would be that, for a couple of reasons, that was not the case. I just want to be very clear about that.

That "normal clause-by-clause," as has been said by the member for Bellwoods, was to indicate the definition of "clause by clause" as was laid out by the member for Riverdale, That is to say there would be no time limit and a normal examination of even every word, if necessary, of a bill. Just as important is the fact that "normal" also has a very broad meaning in here. We have had many pieces and kinds of legislation that have lasted many months, indeed some more than a year, in terms of their clause-by-clause investigation. What is considered normal or average for any bill could not be determined by anybody in this House in terms of how we operate.

What, therefore, one must decide in terms of the definition of "normal" must be: Was it within the due ordering of that committee and was there anything done which was outside of the ordering of that committee? I would argue that all the points of order that were raised in terms of us trying to get certain ministers before that committee, which might have been seen by some government members to be slowing down the normal clause-by-clause consideration, were all ruled to be in order.

Therefore, I would suggest they were ruled to be within the normal mandate of clause-by-clause. If they were not, surely the chairman would have told us that we were not operating within the rules. He would have told us that we were abrogating our instructions, as he told us we might be doing on a number of other matters when he said things were mandatory from that agreement.

I would, therefore, say that you have to rule by the fact that this committee was given specific instructions. It was in the course of following those instructions and for some reason or other, government members, through their own frustration, legitimately perhaps, have decided they were bringing in this extraordinary method of trying to bring this back. I would agree with the member for Riverdale that it was out of order to do so and they could not have acted in that way.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to argue before you why I believe this motion is in order. I think it is eminently in order.

I would begin by saying that I would buy the part of my friend's argument that we should pay attention to what we are doing but I do not think this House should ever adopt the position that because it has never been done before it should not now be done. This House is continually establishing precedents and, in fact, breaking ground with new procedures. Some of the things we have done in our present standing orders are new procedures.

I cannot recall, as my friend has said, when this particular kind of motion has been used but I can recall when this House decided that a bill should be reported and that with that bill there should be some kind of text or report of some of the discussion that went on at the time of that bill.

I can recall various innovations that have been suggested at committees of this House as to the manner of reporting that should occur. Some of them were accepted and some not. Having read --

Mr. Renwick: That is after due consideration.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I must say to the member that there has been due consideration of this matter, The member from Thunder Bay said he was going to use every rule and every twist of the rules at his disposal to try to forestall and keep the passage of this bill from occurring.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: First of all, I am the member for Port Arthur, and second, to the best of my knowledge I said that we would use every legitimate parliamentary device to oppose the bill. That is what we are doing. I did not say anything about twisting the rules.

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, not twisting the rules, but every legitimate parliamentary device, and in my terminology the reading of Erskine May and some of the precedents that happened in the Mother of Parliaments are certainly justifiable use of every parliamentary device on our side to achieve an end, the end being the passage of Bill 179. I want to say that the reason I believe this motion is in order is because, as Erskine May said, there is precedent in the House of Westminster for this kind of a motion if it was believed at the time that there was no prospect of the bill being reported to the House in sufficient time to allow it to be considered by the House. I must say that in the minds of the executive council of this province at this particular time, that fear is in our minds.

I just want to assure my friends the fear that it will not be reported to the House and considered by the House in adequate time is not because we are worried about Christmas or about winter vacations or anything like that. It is because, and my friend the Treasurer will present this to members later on, in the context of this bill there are a number of contracts that expire on December 31, and the nonpassage of this bill leaves up in the air how those contracts should be handled. I submit that the nonpassage of this bill by December 31 could even be deemed to affect detrimentally a number of the workers of this province. I submit there is some time constraint, not a frivolous time constraint as my friends would believe, but a time constraint that suggests this bill should be handled.

A bill of some similar nature was handled in about three and a half weeks in the House of Commons. My friend mentioned something about the House leader and about my breaking some agreement. I want to state very clearly that I do not accept any responsibility for breaking any agreement. We decided we would have public hearings, we decided there would be about 33 hours of public hearings in committee, and we had about 35 hours of public hearings. This followed about 30 hours of debate on second reading in this House when, as my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said, the majority of this House, two of the parties, one being in opposition, approved the general principle of this bill.

We then sent the bill to committee on a particular motion which outlined a procedure, and that motion, as has already been indicated in the House -- it has been read and I am not going to read it again -- said there would be public hearings for a certain length of time and then normal clause-by-clause would begin. I submit normal clause-by-clause never did begin until a couple of days ago. Motions which, in the broadest sense, could be said to have been procedural motions but were really motions to encourage more people or to attempt to have more people appear as witnesses before the committee were continually put.

It was our belief at the time we made this particular arrangement that normal clause-by- clause -- I continued during our 10 days of discussions, as my friend said, to suggest that we should do as Ottawa does and as Westminster does: act like civilized people and let us set time lines. We understand the New Democratic Party opposes the bill and we are for the bill. So let us set time lines. Let us all have our good discussions but let us say, "All right, we will have three weeks of discussions in committee" --

Mr. Cooke: You think you would do that if you were here?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I would. If I were over there I would. Ask Ed Broadbent. He apparently felt it was properly correct and normal for members to put forward with all their might their opposition. But the members should respect this place and respect the fact that there is a majority over here. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those members do not have as much support as they may think, even from some of their client group. There are a few people out there who would like to --

Mr. Martel: We know what the polls say, too.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It does not matter what the polls say. I just want --

Mr. Speaker: Anyway, let us get back to the point of order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right. I just want to say that some members of their client group would feel much better if they, having put up their battle on principle and lost the battle, spent a little time trying to get some of the sections amended rather than taking the kind of dog-in-the-manger attitude that they are.

I am submitting that this motion is completely in order. It is a report of a committee that by a majority vote decided normal clause-by-clause discussion was not proceeding and that the best way to handle it was to report that bill to the House, knowing full well that it is going into committee of the whole and will be considered in the House because our rules provide that will happen. There is nothing out of order in the motion, and I hope the Speaker will rule accordingly.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that the government House leader raised, these are very grave matters because they arise out of the view of the parliamentary rules as they are practised in this House and --

Mr. Speaker: If I may, that point has been made quite well by various members and I think we are getting a little repetitious. What I would suggest, with the indulgence of all the honourable members, is that I take this point of order of the member for Riverdale under consideration during the dinner hour and in the meantime we proceed with the debate. I will have a ruling, hopefully, after the House resumes at 8 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a plausible suggestion, but it being almost six o'clock, perhaps you need the extra few minutes to consider this matter.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the Speaker has agreed to take it under consideration, why do we not just accept the report and the Speaker can offer his consideration?

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I realize the government House leader is all heart on this, but I am afraid we are not all heart. We would accept the suggestion by the Speaker that he be given some time to consider it. We are prepared to recognize the clock as being six o'clock and we might have concurrence of the House to do that and resume at eight o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: If it is the wish of the House, I see it being six of the clock and do now leave the chair and will resume at eight o'clock this evening.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We do not have agreement?

Mr. Martel: Why did he not object when it occurred?

Mr. Speaker: I asked for the indulgence of the House and obviously we do not have agreement.

Mr. Martel: Oh yes, after you left the chair --

Mr. Speaker: No, I have not left the chair, with all respect.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The debate shall resume then, and I will come in after the dinner period and make a ruling.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, you can correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe it is the tradition of this House that the chair is allowed to see it being six of the clock or any other hour that it wants. That is not a matter that is put to a vote.

I seem to recall seeing you look at the clock and saying that it was six of the clock and that you did now leave the chair. At that point, there is no possibility of an "aye" or a "nay." There is no vote. You saw the clock and you left the chair and it would be my understanding that at this time, odd though it may seem, this House stands adjourned.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I do not have to put it to a vote, and I did not put it to a vote, obviously. I did not in actual fact leave the chair. If the honourable members wish to carry on with the debate, I am perfectly in agreement with that.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have another suggestion that might be helpful. If you see it now as 5:40 p.m., it is possible that we might resume in order to hear your judgement in this matter at 7:40 p.m. We do not want to lose too much time in this important matter.

Mr. Foulds: If I could, Mr. Speaker: It does seem a bit odd and, even for this House, a bit out of order to proceed with a debate about which there is some genuine question as to whether it is or is not in order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We debated it for an hour and a half before.

Mr. Foulds: Hold on, hold on. The question, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not the debate is in order. The Speaker has not made a decision on that matter. It would seem to me foolish for the House to proceed with the debate until the decision has been made. The Speaker has -- and I appeal to all members of the House -- asked for indulgence to give the matter, and a very important matter it is too, consideration over the supper hour; and it would be, it seems to me, quite a reasonable thing to allow the Speaker to do that and quite a reasonable thing to allow the Speaker to recognize it as being six of the clock.

Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously, not everybody is in agreement.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I find it almost embarrassing that after the Speaker had recognized the clock and had started to leave his place, the government House leader at that point would intervene and say, "No." If the government House leader had wanted to prevent it, he should have said "No" before the Sergeant at Arms had walked to the front of the chamber and before Mr. Speaker had indicated he recognized it as being six of the clock. That the government House leader would put the Speaker in such an embarrassing position is really awful.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first of all I believe I had indicated "No" at times. If you were asking indeed for the unanimous consent of the House to recess early, I said, "No." It is your prerogative, I suppose, to recognize the clock and to do it without asking for unanimous consent. But I sensed that you were looking around for unanimous consent, and I wanted to make it clear that we were not agreeing.

I can understand the position being put forward, and technically, probably, a point of order to consider whether a motion is in order or not should preclude the debate; if my friend had not been debating for an hour before someone even brought up the point of order, I could perhaps be convinced of that. But it having occurred, I do not see why for the next 15 minutes we cannot indulge ourselves to sit here and listen to the rest of the speech that we will probably have to listen to if the Speaker rules tonight it is in order. If he does not, we will not; and, therefore, we will have deprived ourselves of hearing 15 minutes of a speech that we would not normally hear.

Mr. Martel: You were late on the draw, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, we were not late on the draw. All I am saying is that, having listened for an hour or so to the member for Port Arthur, we are happy to listen for another 15 minutes.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, if the farmers of this province were as productive as the members of this Legislature are, there would be no food for supper tonight, so I would suggest we just carry right on.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I think it is totally inappropriate to proceed with discussion of the bill when you have not decided whether or not it is in order, and the homilies about the time-space concepts of the House leader of the government party have no relation to anything. I think it is inappropriate. If we cannot get that kind of agreement, then maybe we should hear your ruling now and not take the time. But I think that either the offer by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk or the initial one would be very appropriate to follow at this point.

Mr. Conway: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I disagree with the member for Scarborough West. I think the government House leader has made a perfectly valid point on the question of the debate proceeding.

I listened to the very eloquent remarks by the member for Port Arthur, and, speaking only for myself, I think that if the debate proceeds over the course of many minutes -- and I think it was at least an hour -- we all give some tacit agreement to the orderliness of that debate.

The point of order that the member for Riverdale makes is one that troubles me today as much as it did yesterday. I really want some time to think about it. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, if you were to see the clock at near the normal adjournment hour or supper hour, or if you were to see it now, for example, at or near six o'clock, you would certainly not offend me by leaving.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure glad to hear that. Does the member for Port Arthur wish to say something?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that I have the floor. However, on a point of order before I proceed with my remarks: I would seriously put to you that you have the prerogative to leave the chair. You do not need the unanimous consent of the House to leave the chair. You recognized it as being six of the clock. You were on your feet and the pages were on their feet. You were about to descend the steps when the government side of the House interrupted the orderly recess of the House.

I would suggest that this is the second point of order to which I am now speaking, not the one that you are considering from my colleague the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, it is not really a point of order. I am quite aware of the latitude I have in seeing the clock.

Mr. Renwick: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Not another one, surely.

An hon. member: Not another one.

Mr. Martel: You have a limited vocabulary over there.

Mr. Renwick: We do not need the yahoo calls from over there. You have to understand that this place is conducted, I hope, according to some rules; not by shouting.

My point of order is, sir: is it in order when you are taking --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Riverdale has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: My point of order is, I think, perhaps elementary and simple. Is it in order for this debate to proceed on this motion when you, sir, are having under consideration the question of whether or not the motion is in order?

I understand what the government House leader was saying: "Let's all be nice about it. Let's carry on with the debate as though it is in order and waste our time, because at eight o'clock it will be ruled out of order." A kind of washing away of the rules.

I simply again place a point of order, which is quite simple: Is there a precedent -- perhaps you can consult my friend, the member for Mississauga North. Is there a precedent in Erskine May, in the Sir David Lidderdale edition, for a debate to continue while a point of order with respect to that motion being debated is under consideration by you, Mr. Speaker?

I would assume that it is not a question of six o'clock. I assume that you would simply say, "I am going to recess the House and will return at eight and give my decision on the matter." I think it is your prerogative.

I say to you, sir, that this lackadaisical way in which the business of this House is conducted; the lack of the introduction of any basic precedents; no support by the member for Mississauga North -- the consideration is very serious. To ask us to continue a debate on a motion which we consider to be out of order and which you have told the House that you are going to take under advisement, I think is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite clear, as I said before, what my prerogative is in this matter. When the government House leader raised an objection, I thought he was raising it on another matter.

As I said before, I do see it being six of the clock. I do now leave the chair.

The House recessed at 5:50 p.m.

November 25, 1982