CONSIDERATION OF BILL 127 (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
CONSIDERATION OF BILL 127 (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for time allocation of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Without being provocative in any way, I would just like to remind our visitors that they are not to participate in any of the debate or demonstrate in any way tonight, or I will have no alternative but to clear the gallery.
For the benefit of the members, we are debating the point of order raised by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). When, in my opinion, the remarks become repetitious, I will cut them off at that point.
We have heard two members from each of the opposition parties. The government House leader indicated that he wanted to speak and I will now recognize him.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to be speaking this soon, but I do have my remarks here. I want to speak on this point of order.
As I was listening to the speeches this afternoon -- and we are debating a very important matter in this House -- I noticed the government of one of our sister provinces, a government I suppose most closely aligned philosophically with the members of the New Democratic Party, at least that is what they claim, a rather socialistic government that has brought in a bill to put the teachers back to work and has indicated that --
Mr. Martel: Don't tell us about Quebec.
An hon. member: We have not heard the red-baiting yet.
Hon. Mr. Wells: I am just saying it is very interesting because the emergency legislation provides that for every day they do not go back to work they lose three years' seniority, and anyone who stops anyone from going to work will be dismissed and fired on the spot with no hearing and no recourse. It is an interesting piece of legislation.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If the government House leader is asking for unanimous consent of the Legislature to pass a resolution condemning the action of the Quebec government, I would be glad to join him.
Mr. Speaker: I might remind the government House leader, that has nothing to do with the point of order.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I just added that as a little extraneous matter before getting into my major contribution to the debate. I will not take long. I am merely going to talk on the point of order, which is whether or not this motion is in order.
I submit the motion that stands in the name of my colleague the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is indeed in order. It is a motion that is being brought in because a piece of legislation introduced on May 28, 1982, is still being discussed in this House after 96 hours of debate.
I have listened to a lot of discussion about why it has not been debated in the last couple of weeks and why this motion is at present before the House. We have discussed Bill 127 privately. I have always asked the question, "Would you like to arrange some kind of time schedule for it?" I have always received the predictable answer, "No." That is one of the criteria in May and in the federal time allocation motions that has to precede some kind of time allocation.
I have always heard two replies: "If you want to do anything, withdraw the bill," or, "If you bring in the bill, we will be debating it next June." I merely relate these events to indicate the position we find ourselves in.
We are very appreciative of the support that has come from all sides of this House to get the business of the province done, and to pass some important legislation. In this House, we recognize that kind of co-operation is readily obtained when we all see fairly eye to eye on the pieces of legislation.
We may differ on some of the aspects, on some of the details and on some of the wording. We have a give and take on amendments, such as we had last night. My colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) accepted an amendment from the Health critic of the official opposition which improved the title of the bill. It was a worthwhile amendment and the kind of co-operative give and take we carry on with most pieces of legislation.
Mr. Mackenzie: You can't improve the title of a bad bill.
Mr. Martel: You are all heart.
An hon. member: It was only the short title.
8:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it was on the short and the long title. We recognize that at certain times there will be pieces of legislation before this House that apparently so philosophically divide us that there is no way after, in this case 96 hours of debate, anyone can see an ending to that particular piece of legislation. I submit it is proper for a government to proceed to bring and place at the wish of the House a particular type of remedy to that situation.
My friend read quite extensively from Erskine May. I do not want to read a lot more and take up the time, but I would like to indicate that in May perhaps we will go back a little further. As my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) indicated, the present standing orders provide that in all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders, they shall be decided by you, Mr. Speaker. You shall base your decisions on the usage and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition.
For many years the words "parliamentary tradition" have meant not so much the House of Commons but the House in Westminster. We have relied heavily on Erskine May and the precedents and practices of the House in Westminster.
As my friend the member for Riverdale said, in chapter 20 there are three methods of curtailing debate, the first titled "Closure of Debate." We have all agreed there is provision in our rules for a closure of debate procedure. There is no discussion as to whether that is there, and remains one of the methods. There is a second method in May called the selection of amendments, which as far as I can see is not applicable in this House. The third method suggested by May is the allocation by orders of limits of time for discussion.
I would submit these are three methods that can be used. The first one is covered in our standing orders and, therefore, we do not have to discuss that. The third, which is distinct from closure or putting the previous question, is the matter of time allocation.
The matter of time allocation is not covered or provided for in our standing orders. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it rests with you to go back and see the parliamentary traditions where this procedure has been used and see whether our motion fits in with the traditions of Westminster. If our motion fits in with those traditions, I submit the motion we have placed here is proper and in order.
On page 454 of May, the allocation of time orders under that chapter says: "As stated earlier the allocation of limited amounts of time to the stages of bills, and occasionally other kinds of business, forms no part of the general procedure of the House, but is applied in each case to a particular bill or other specified business by a special order."
Then he says further: "A motion for the allocation of time to a bill sets out in detail some or all of the provisions which are to be made for furthering proceedings of the bill." He goes on to indicate that formerly in Westminster they had standing order 34, which set out some procedures very much like those the federal House of Commons now has, where, if voluntary timetables could not be arrived at, that motion could be put for time allocation. But back in 1971 that standing order was amended. Now in Westminster there is merely a provision for a motion of time allocation. It states that the discussion of that motion shall be disposed of in not more than three hours.
What this says to me -- Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that it says it to you also -- is that in Westminster there is a general provision for time allocation, recognizing historically that time allocation is something open to a government from time to time on particular stages of the passage of a bill. There is a provision that it shall be done on an ad hoc basis in Westminster. There is not the same kind of formal mechanism as is found in the standing orders of the House of Commons in Ottawa.
That being the case, and May saying that there are three different kinds of closure, two of which I have talked about, one having been provided for already in our standing orders, I submit that it is quite within your ability as Speaker of this House to rule this motion in order because we are now going beyond our standing orders for a recognized parliamentary procedure, time allocation, which is used in the House of Commons in Ottawa, used in Westminster -- not provided for in our standing orders but the kind of device that governments from time to time must have at their disposal.
Let me further say, that being my first point, that I think it is perfectly consistent with the standing orders of this House and with the practices in other parliaments to pass this kind of motion.
I note with interest that the honourable members who have referred to my remarks during the debate on December 8 have not in any way that I can see refuted them. I just want to repeat them, because I think they are further evidence of the rightness of the procedure. The rightness of the procedure does not mean one has to agree with the procedure. All I am arguing is that there is nothing wrong or in violation of the general rules or procedures of this House that from time to time should be put.
The point I particularly want to make is that we have in fact, by substantive motion duly moved, seconded and placed before this House, from time to time done things that were not provided for in the standing orders. So we have now moved from--
Mr. T. P. Reid: With unanimous consent or three-party consent, usually.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Not with unanimous consent.
Let me read: "By order as a substantive motion of this House completely in order, notice duly given and duly seconded," is what we are now proceeding to do. We are not doing anything by unanimous consent; we are doing something that I have just indicated is within the parliamentary practices outlined in May, a device open to a government, which we are now asking the members of this House individually and freely to vote on. If a majority of them carry the day, we then establish a procedure exclusively for this particular bill.
Mr. Renwick: You misunderstand the point, though.
Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I do not misunderstand the point. I just do not follow my learned friend the member for Riverdale. I understand his point also, but he and I differ.
At some time also, I think -- and I think most members of this House would agree -- legislatures have to be relevant to their times. Some of that relevance to their times involves moving ahead with business not in a way that is stifling, as I suggest putting the previous question might be, but in a way we would normally do for most bills but have now become unable to do for Bill 127. For most bills we can work out a timetable; for Bill 127 we cannot, so we are giving an opportunity to have that timetable worked out.
I would just like to point out some examples of recent precedents for the use of substantive motions with notice to waive rules or authorize a practice not specifically allowed for in the standing orders. First I refer to March 31, 1978, and April 4, 1978. At that time there was no provision in our rules for a nonstatutory report or a report other than an annual report to be referred to a committee.
The government first proposed to send its paper on policy options for tenant protection by way of party agreement, unanimous agreement, and thus by way of a routine motion. The New Democratic Party opposed this at that time. They disagreed with us. They told us it would have to be done, if we wanted it done, in the face of their disagreement -- that is, by a substantive motion with debate in this House and a division.
We did make such a motion at that time for that one particular paper only. I point out that we did it for that particular time only. We did not change the rules of the House, and that motion was carried. At that time, we did it by a substantive motion and on division. What this House did was to change something that we had not provided for in the rules. At the same time, we did not create a new standing order.
That, of course, is what we are doing now, and we have the precedent of December 8, 1982. I might just indicate that at that time my friend read my remarks, which were perfectly accurate. I said on Metro Morning, "Oh, no, no. We, of course, are being very careful to say that this is for this bill only."
8:20 p.m.
Mr. T. P. Reid: And this is for this bill only.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Wells: That is absolutely right.
Mr. T. P. Reid: And tomorrow it will be for just another bill.
Hon. Mr. Wells: The motion we put at that time was for that bill only. Let me add --
Mr. Rae: What is for tomorrow? What is the government going to stifle tomorrow'?
Hon. Mr. Wells: I regret that no one has mentioned this and it probably is not proper that it be mentioned, but since it was my paper, I will mention it. My friends know I have already tabled, as one of the kinds of changes I would like to see in the rules, a time allocation rule for this House. That was tabled for discussion with all of us, in an informal sense, before this motion was considered or put.
Mr. Martel: The government does not have the rule change. That is for discussion.
Hon. Mr. Wells: I know we do not have the rule change. I am just indicating to members --
Mr. Martel: That is for discussion.
Mr. T. P. Reid: How about a rule to abolish the government over there?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that I have already tabled this as one of a number of rules we would like to see changed.
Mr. Martel: We are going to discuss it on March 7.
Mr. Rae: That is proof the government does not have it now.
Mr. Speaker: I just want to point out for the benefit of all honourable members that we are discussing the point of order and nothing else.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, because I think it is relevant to the point of order, since I have already given one instance where, by substantive motion on division, we changed the standing orders of this House, let me also indicate that on June 17, 1976, a substantive motion was moved to set out a procedure and authority for the Board of Internal Economy which, as we know, is the House equivalent to the Management Board of Cabinet, to set the Ombudsman's estimates after his submission there and to have them submitted to this House. There was no clear provision to do this in the Ombudsman Act and it was silent on the mechanism that could be used.
At that time, in that instance, the Liberal opposition opposed doing that by routine motion, and thus we could not do it by unanimous consent, and they opposed the substantive motion as being invalid, claiming the motion that was being put was invalid and not within the standing orders. As I indicated the last time, if the House wishes, I could search out Vern Singer's very lengthy speech on this matter and read it back, but I decided not to do that tonight. The point is that the House, on majority, with at that time the full support of the New Democratic Party, carried that motion. The minority made its case, but it let the House decide.
The problem in the standing order was that there was no provision for treating a government ministry's estimates differently from nonministry estimates, such as those of the Office of the Ombudsman. The House motion, when passed, then became that particular authority. The motion was passed on division and, in that case, the authority was put on a permanent basis without a new or permanent standing order being required or adopted.
The point here, with both these examples, is that they use the self-contained and free-standing motion to authorize an action not specifically provided for in the standing orders. They were carried on division in the House; opposed, in one instance, by the New Democratic Party and, in the other, by the Liberal Party. These things were done. They showed that this House does have and must have a procedure short of permanent new standing orders whereby the will of the majority of the members of this House can be authorized to prevail from time to time by way of procedural matters on what becomes a political stalemate. That is precisely where we are.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I have indicated to you why I believe this motion is in order. I think it falls within the prerogatives given to you under standing order 1(b). We have shown there are precedents for this kind of motion which adjusts things not provided for in the standing orders, and I hope you will so find.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, after the comments of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), I do not know whether anyone on this side has to put up an argument in terms of this point of order. I think he has proved our case. On the two occasions he referred to in the precedents, he said in one situation my friends on my left opposed it and, on the other, this party opposed it. He did not have unanimous consent to change the rules. In any case, he said these were not precedents.
I cannot understand how he can now stand up and say these are the examples on which he is basing his argument when those are the arguments we should use and will use to say this whole motion is out of order.
We have gone back and forth and around the mulberry bush this afternoon. The minister mentioned the time allocation and the time we have dealt with this bill. We have been in session since January 17, yet we have not dealt with this bill in committee or in the House since that time.
On almost every occasion in my 15 or 16 years in this House, the government has brought in any legislation that is at all controversial in the dying moments of the session, in the hope it can hurry or ram it through and everybody will be happy to escape from this place.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not accurate.
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is accurate.
Why did the government wait almost a month and two days before dealing with this bill in the Legislature or in committee? The minister has referred to the 96 hours.
Hon. Mr. Davis: When did we deal with Bill 179?
Mr. T. P. Reid: I say to the Premier (Mr. Davis) most of the time was taken up by the people in these galleries and others in the community who were concerned about the provisions in the bill, about local autonomy and how it is going to affect the education of their children. It was not all taken up, as in Bill 179 for instance, by what some may consider extraneous debate. A good part of it was public hearings.
As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, I do not intend to be long either, although I have been known on other occasions to be long. I want to take the members back in time to about 1968 when I was a freshman member and was appointed to the then select committee on the standing orders and procedures of the Legislature. Some members opposite will remember Mrs. Ada Pritchard, and my colleagues will remember Elmer Sopha, who were members of a distinguished group that was in place to amend the standing orders.
I believe the rules have been changed three or four times since that time. We have dealt with section 1 of the orders in regard to the precedents and those we would refer to in dealing with matters before the Ontario Legislature. In those day, the standing rules under section 1 made reference to the Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain, then Ottawa, and then the precedents and traditions of the Ontario Legislature.
Since 1968, over a period of some 15 or 16 years, the orders of the House have changed gradually. The first order now reads:
"1(a) The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in all committees of the assembly, shall be conducted according to the following standing orders.
"(b) In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, and in making his ruling the Speaker or Chairman shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature."
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Legislature is paramount in the decision you are called upon to make on this point of order. It says secondly, "and parliamentary tradition." It does not necessarily refer to Erskine May. It does not refer to Ottawa. It does not refer to the British parliamentary system at all. The primary responsibility is on the usages and precedents here in this House.
8:30 p.m.
I will not go through the examples I was going to use, because I believe the House leader for the Conservative Party in this chamber has already proved our case in that respect. One thing that bothers me is that when I sat here in December 1982 and listened to the House leader on that side and the government whip, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), invoke closure for the first time in the history of the Ontario Legislature, they assured us -- as the government House leader has done tonight -- that this was not a precedent.
Mr. Martel: No, they moved a precedent on the budget.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I am sorry, they did move a precedent. In any case, at that time this was not to be a precedent. That was less than three months ago.
I was raised a Roman Catholic. I will never forget those days when the priests and nuns, those very nice people, said to us little boys and girls --
Hon. Mr. Davis: When did the member stop practising?
Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I would say to the Premier that after sitting on this side I know there has to be a heaven somewhere on this earth, because as long as those people are in power it is pure hell.
Mr. Speaker: Now back to the point of order.
Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier asked when I quit practising. I quit practising the night I went to the cardinal's dinner and listened as he embraced the Premier and vice versa. That is when my faith was shaken.
Mr. Speaker: As interesting as this may be, I would ask the member to address himself to the point of order, please.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I was talking about precedents, and the precedent set in December 1982 when the government brought in that guillotine motion. I want to draw the analogy with what I was taught as a child, because those good people taught us that the first sin was the most difficult one. They said that if one ever committed that one with all conscience, that was a bad thing to do, but the second, third, fourth and fifth sins were not quite as serious as that first one.
Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not true. The member's church never taught him that.
Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier knows more about sin than I. I freely admit it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I may know more about it but I do not practise it as often as the member does.
Mr. Speaker: Back to the point of order.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I have no idea whether the Premier is father confessor to the rest of his caucus. Perhaps he has been hearing the sins of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), who says, "Mr. Premier, I cannot support Bill 127, and I am sorry for that." Anyway, we will go on.
Mr. Foulds: What was her penance?
Mr. T. P. Reid: To sit beside the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).
Mr. Foulds: That is purgatory.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. T. P. Reid: We have all referred to Erskine May in our various arguments and debates on these points of order. It was the first time I knew it was recognized as the Bible of the Ontario Legislature. I would be glad to hear the Speaker's ruling on that.
Pages 449 through 455 deal with the closure of debate, which my friend from Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has talked about. I will not go through all of that except to say that on page 449, "Closure of Debate," the second subtitle is "The Ordinary Closure." The ordinary closure refers, under our standing orders, to section 36. I will not bother reading that, sir, because I am sure you are well aware of it. That is the ordinary rule of this Legislature.
It is interesting that people on the opposite side, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Premier on occasion, I believe, have said the courts should not be making rulings dealing with legislation; they should make rulings based on the legislation before them. What it seems to me we are seeing --
Hon. Mr. Davis: The member should quote me accurately. That is not quite right.
Mr. T. P. Reid: It is always hard to tell what the Premier really means. It really is hard.
The first point is that the government is trying to make procedural rules and precedents out of something that is not in our rules at all. That is the first point.
The second point, Mr. Speaker, refers to your responsibility in this matter. I do not have to explain the history of the Speaker to you, except to say that your position is to guarantee the rights and privileges of all the members of the Legislative Assembly and the people we represent. Overtime, your role has evolved to protect the rights of the minority, to see that the minority is heard and, in the vernacular, gets a fair shake.
I put it to you simply, Mr. Speaker, that you have to make a ruling on this point of order put by my colleague the member for Renfrew North. You have to decide if there has been a precedent in this respect. I suggest to you there has not been. This is a new rule, despite the fact that we have had many reports from the procedural affairs committee, we have had discussions among the House leaders and we have had discussions among the chairmen of committees about new changes in the rules. That is the way this place ordinarily functions.
If you accept this new procedure. which does not at this time exist in our standing orders, you will be supporting a very dangerous precedent and an arrogant government.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I think you have a tough decision to make because your friends on that side of the House make it tough. But in fact there is no rule. I do not care how the government House leader tries to bring in an example, there is no rule in this Legislature and in our precedents.
One of the difficulties for us -- and I am one of those who for some time have been advocating we should have a book with the precedents that we use in Ontario -- is that we always have difficulty when we try to look at the precedents. They never seem easy to come by. But let us be perfectly clear, there is no rule in this Legislature which has time allocation built into it in any way, shape or form.
I could not help but be interested this afternoon when I asked the Premier if he was not trying to change legislation by motion, and he said, "No matter whether we use standing order 36" -- and he did not give the number -- "moving the previous question or this one, you would object to it." Certainly we would. Are we supposed to sit down, roll over and die when a motion comes in that is a closure motion? Certainly we would object, but the government would have been following the rules that this Legislature has followed for 100 years.
I remind the Premier, I sat on the select committee that recommended no change in the rule. On that committee from the government side were none other than the current whip and Minister without Portfolio; the former Minister of Revenue, the Honourable Lorne Maeck, and the former Speaker, the Honourable Donald Morrow. They all agreed there is nothing we go on with for so long in this House that it necessitates invoking of closure.
If one wants to look at dates, we came back to start the session on March 9, 1981. We left here at the end of June. We came back September 21. We left the third week in December, and we are back for a month now, which is about seven months. This fiscal year runs to the end of March. If we are talking about time, there is no real pressure.
8:40 p.m.
I am amazed at the government's position. In the last week and a half, we on this side and my friend the Liberal House leader (Mr. Nixon) have gone along with many requests by the government to make the place work. We are amazed at the course of action they chose to follow today. In fact, my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and I have repeatedly asked the government House leader about the government's intention. We could never get anything from him except that the bill was going to be called, no matter how much we tried or how much we worked.
As late as Friday, we allowed new bills to be brought in which the government said were not on its list. I remind my friend of three municipal bills, among them Bill 177. These were not on his priority list, but they now have third reading. Yet we could never get a response from the government House leader as to what they intended to do.
Lo and behold, we do not even bring the bill back into the House before there is a closure motion introduced, one which is not only rewriting the rules but also violating the existing rules. Paragraph 3 of the motion says that we will vote at 2 p.m. on Friday, but the standing rule in this House says we will adjourn at 1 p.m. on Friday. If that is not rewriting the rules and violating the existing rules, I do not know what is.
The Premier shakes his head. I direct him to standing order 2(d), which says, "When the House adjourns on Friday at 1 o'clock p.m." We are building a violation of that particular rule into the amendment without unanimous consent. Maybe the Premier wants to rewrite the rule on when this House adjourns, or maybe he wants to change standing order 2(d). He might tell us which. That is in the motion, and this Legislature, according to the rules we have followed, says we are out at 1 p.m. on Fridays. Is that not a violation of the existing rule? They are simply hammering away at it with their majority. Look at the rule, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member want to go back to 1 p.m.?
Mr. Martel: No. It is the government's motion.
Let us look at another section, the directions to the Speaker. I direct the Premier to that. Since when do motions direct the Speaker as to how he will conduct the business in this House? It is not the government's prerogative to run the affairs of this House and make sure the rules are not violated; it is the Speaker's. Can the government direct the Speaker as to what he is to do? Where do they get off? They say this does not violate the rules. it directs the Speaker, which in my opinion is a slur on him. It is an anticipation of things to come.
I remind the Speaker and the Premier that it was this minister who was so gung ho a year ago to get a bill in covering the Leeds strike. We spent some time debating it. I asked the government House leader not to allow it to come forward. In the event the strike was not resolved down the road somewhere, the government had a piece of legislation in place that would give it the power to do whatever the hell it wanted to do.
It does not operate that way nor should it in a democratic system, because that is intimidation at its worst. But he allowed it because, with a majority, it seems they can ignore everything else. I told the government House leader I considered that a very dangerous piece of legislation.
Carried to its ultimate conclusion, it could be done with every situation. A piece of legislation could be built in to avert something. Here we have a motion which in effect says, "Because we think there will be some extensive debate and we do not want that debate, we are now prepared to invoke closure."
The government is playing around. Both the government House leader and the Premier played around this afternoon on the number of hours we have had on the bill. I recognize the number of hours in committee, but there have been only 10 hours of clause by clause in the House, where members who were not on the committee want to become involved; and 10 hours really is not a long time in the parliamentary system. Ten hours on clause by clause is certainly not a lengthy time in which to pass legislation which the Premier should be worried about because there is so much controversy around it. It is not a bill that has a lot of approval out there.
Mr. Rotenberg: Sure it has.
Mr. Martel: In certain sectors, maybe. I was not a fly on the wall at some of those cabinet meetings but I know there is no unanimity in cabinet on that bill. One minister said to me, "If we knew where the real pressure was coming from we might find it acceptable, but there is not enough pressure to make it worth while."
There is a lot of opposition to the bill. That is why the government should allow debate on clause by clause. Ten hours is not a long time, just three sittings; that is what it boils down to. What if it runs a week? As long as it is moving ahead and clauses are being presented, then I suspect that is the way it should proceed.
I find the situation pretty untenable. We over here have tried to accommodate. We have assisted the government to bring in its legislative programs. We have accepted legislation which was not going to be considered. We allowed the government to operate on a day to day basis, rather than giving full indication of the next week's business, in order to be accommodating. Then out of the blue, without this bill even coming back, the type of accommodation we get is that after three days of debate the government decides it will rewrite the legislation. That just is not good enough.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot allow the government to rewrite the rules of the House in this fashion. A few moments ago, the government House leader said it was one of his proposals in the package we are going to look at. That is right. We have a date to start to look at the process. That indicates the government should not have that right at the present time.
In early March, we are going to meet to consider that proposal along with others, but then there will be trading off. You just do not write one rule to satisfy the government. Having been involved in it, I know that in rewriting the rules there is horse-trading. Everybody tries to get a little. But that is not what the government is doing in this instance. It is rewriting the legislation, now, for the rules. Essentially, that is what it is doing, because it does not have that rule anywhere.
There is a procedure which would allow the government to use standing order 36 any time it wants to. That is the rule under which this Legislature has operated for 115 years. If the government feels somewhere down the line it is too lengthy or repetitive, then maybe it could get the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) to get up and move the previous question. He is good at it; he had some experience with regard to Bill 179. He could get up and move the appropriate question at the appropriate time.
Until we reach the point where there is no progress being made, I cannot see why the government is attempting to do this. It is not just today; it is when we come back in April. The Premier cannot play around and expect people to co-operate when the government wants out. If he wants the House to go back to Eric Winkler times, then he will allow this sort of manoeuvre to go on.
8:50 p.m.
If the government House leader had said to us a week ago, "Yes, we know what we are doing and we are bringing in closure the first day you get back," then things might have changed and people might have said, "You announce the whole week's business or we will debate this bill at greater length." But we made an effort to co-operate, and then they slid this in on the very first day. They did not even bring it back into the House. In fact, before they get it back in the House, they are introducing a closure motion on a bill that is half done now and has had three sittings for debate in clause by clause in committee of the whole.
How in God's name they expect anyone to try to co-operate to make the place work, I do not know. The most difficult thing for the Speaker, of course, is that they have put him in a position where he has to allow the government to rewrite the rules by some motion. I think it is unfair of them to do that to him. If he rules against them, they can challenge him, and being a man of honour, he probably will say, "You can have your job."
Mr. Nixon: Not necessarily.
Mr. Martel: Not necessarily, but certainly that has happened before. To put the Speaker in that position is untenable. He really has, as I say, no alternative, because there is no rule and the present motion violates the present rules of the House.
Hon. Mr. Davis: It does not violate the rules.
Mr. Martel: What does the Premier mean? It says 1 p.m. in the standing orders and the motion has two o'clock built into it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member wants it to state that we will go at 1 p.m., I have no problem with that.
Mr. Martel: Does the Premier think he should be directing the Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Davis: No.
Mr. Martel: But the motion does. Does the Premier want to reconsider the motion? I suggest he would do us all a service and this Legislature a service if he withdrew the motion and allowed the debate to proceed. If it goes on too long, if he thinks it is not progressing after some meaningful debate, if he wants to bring in closure he can bring it in using the rule this House is governed by.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you with the greatest respect, I do not think you have any choice but to rule this motion out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I will hear the two members who have indicated by standing, and then we will come up with a ruling.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I guess even up until yesterday, although the government had indicated on every occasion possible it was going to proceed with Bill 127, we had some flicker of hope that perhaps after the Premier's conversations with the parents who met with him on Wednesday, after the minister's conversations with various people who are opposed to this bill, after various members of the government caucus had been discussing the matter of Bill 127 with their constituents and with others interested in the bill, the government might take the step of withdrawing the legislation and of discussing, once again, the educational issues that are confronting Metropolitan Toronto.
We have had instead, to my disappointment, and I must say quite frankly to my surprise, a time allocation motion introduced at the same time as the bill reappeared for the consideration of this House. This afternoon I directed a question to the Premier, who I understand is committed to the bill and the passage of the bill, about my own concern that rather than allowing the bill to come forward for consideration in what I call this special session -- I know if we want to get technical about it it is an extension of the fall session; I recognize that -- we have had this bill held to what the government members would consider to be the end of this special session, instead of its being introduced with the government watching how the debate would flow, whether it was going to take too long, whether in the government's judgement there was to be an obstruction of its right to proceed with the legislation, so that at that time a determination would have been made to invoke closure of the kind the House leader of the New Democratic Party has described, that which is already in our rules.
I recognize that is more embarrassing to the government because it would likely mean this form of closure would have to be invoked several times as we went through the various sections of the bill. That would be embarrassing. It would perhaps prolong proceedings for a greater period of time than would suit the members of the governing party. Nevertheless, if they were intent upon imposing closure, it would have been the preferable method of doing so.
My disappointment is that this motion came forward at this time, before the bill was allowed further consideration in the House. Members may recall that throughout consideration of this bill, from the day the Minister of Education first introduced it, which I think was May 28, 1982 -- I recall the day because I had asked the minister in the House that day if she would give an undertaking to the House that she would not introduce legislation of the kind she did, and she did not give that indication but stood later in the day to introduce this bill -- since the introduction of that bill the government members have used the majority they won in the last election, with 44 per cent of the less than 60 per cent of the people who went to the polls, but that is our electoral system and I accept that those are the rules we work by --
Interjection.
Mr. Bradley: When the Premier interjects I say that only because, given the way the Premier governs in this House on many occasions, one would think that his plurality gained, in terms of the votes accumulated by his party, was such that he had received some kind of endorsement, around 60 or 70 per cent of the electorate.
I think it is always wise to remind the governing side that they received 44 per cent of the vote and the opposition parties combined received the rest of the vote. It is a clear indication that there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the kind of government they have had over the past several years and what they would anticipate in the future. But I do not want to get into that specifically, because I know you want to keep me on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I recall that when this bill went to committee there was an effort to gain some public input. It was an unorthodox procedure, but before we went to a further stage the minister rejected that particular option. We indicated that we wanted the hearings to take place in September. The minister indicated it was her preference to have the hearings in July. She agreed with the opposition because the government was interested in getting out and was not interested in further debate at that time, so the government acquiesced in the viewpoint put forward by the opposition. We had the hearings in September.
The minister will recall that on October 6 I asked the committee to allow time for further consideration of the representations made by the public, whether they be the parents, the teachers or others interested in this bill. The government used its majority at that time to reject this option. Time and again --
Mr. Speaker: Could I remind the honourable member to speak to the point of order, please?
Mr. Bradley: Yes. I am outlining my opposition to this motion and indicating my support for the point of order that is being put forward.
Ms. Copps: It is on the procedure.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: The government House leader was talking about Quebec legislation.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bradley: I did not want to comment on the government House leader's comment on the Quebec legislation because I knew it had nothing to do with the motion, so I thought it would be wise to confine my remarks to this legislation.
9 p.m.
The bill came back to the House. I guess one of the reasons it came back to committee of the whole House is that the minister, having allowed a rather significant amendment in committee, reneged on that amendment at the end of the standing committee on general government stage. It came back into the House and that is where we left off in the debate. One can understand why members of the opposition were speaking at some length on that aspect of the bill, the minister having reversed herself on an amendment she had previously permitted.
We proceeded into December. At that time, the government chose on certain days to have this bill come forward. It decided to give up proceeding with it in December, and that we would come back in a new session --
Interjection.
Mr. Bradley: Okay, an extension of the session; the first minister wants to be technical and I agree we want to be precise.
We came back in an extension of the fall session fully expecting that the government would be bringing forward Bill 127, since it had indicated it was a priority. It did not do so.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks I still hoped the government had listened to the grass roots. I hoped those members of the cabinet who were opposed to the bill and those members of the caucus who had been listening to the grass roots in their ridings understood the opposition was valid. I still held the hope they understood there was merit in the suggestion the bill be allowed to die on the Order Paper so the process of consultation could begin anew.
Instead, it was announced last night that a time allocation motion would be imposed today. It is unfortunate the others in cabinet have not been able to persuade this minister not to proceed in this fashion. It is significant, for instance, that the Minister of Education is the person presenting this motion instead of the government House leader doing so. We might have suspected that would be the case. There is significance in that. In the fall session under Bill 179 the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) did not present the motion, so if there was a procedural motion one would have anticipated it would have come from the House leader.
I feel the government would have been much wiser to have adopted a different course of action. I think it is blocking the democratic process; that is a mild word to use. I am certain we have a bill which is not particularly significant to the future of the province as far as that government is concerned. If it were a bill that affected the entire province directly at this time, if it were a priority bill with the government, one might not accept that closure was to be imposed but at least would understand it.
It is a mystery to many of us in the opposition that the Minister of Education has in essence, in our view, dragged many members of the government unwillingly --
Mr. Nixon: Kicking and screaming.
Mr. Bradley: "Kicking and screaming," our House leader says. I will not use the other terminology because the minister -- Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit this slight diversion -- indicated that if I mentioned one more time that the cabinet ministers had bruises and bleeding ankles she would come over and kick my shins personally.
Mr. Speaker: Now back to the point of order.
Mr. Bradley: Knowing her power on that side, I decided I would not risk that. I implore the government to reconsider this motion. I ask the members of the government who are in disagreement with this bill to continue to indicate that disagreement to the minister.
I think the Premier is an astute politician. One would agree with that even if we disagree with his policies or perhaps his style from time to time. We at least concede -- grudgingly -- that he is an astute politician. I ask that he recognize the lack of wisdom of proceeding with a motion of this kind. It clearly stamps his government as one that is prepared to bulldoze legislation -- important and less important -- through this House. If one were to list the important bills that have come before this House according to whether the government would rise or fall because of them, in my view this would rank well down the list.
I ask the minister to start the process of consultation again. I ask her to withdraw this motion, and if the government does not see fit to withdraw it, I ask the Speaker to rule it out of order.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this has been a great day for democracy, with the Premier's statements and his attitude on the cruise missile earlier on and now Bill 127 --
Hon. Mr. Davis: I never mentioned missiles.
Mr. McClellan: Oh yes you did.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Come back in, and --
Hon. Mr. Davis: Quote me accurately.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am not going to quote the Premier accurately when he distorted us so much. He can look after that himself some time.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is sensitive. He is embarrassed by this afternoon's performance.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am embarrassed by the Premier's statements, just because he is after the leadership of the federal party.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Now to the point of order, please.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am just trying to keep myself calm.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why start now?
Mr. R. F. Johnston: True.
I would like to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, if I might, after the Clerk has finished --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do I have your attention, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: You surely do.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is yours I want. I am not really interested in theirs.
Mr. Speaker: All right. Speak to me.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to appeal to you today to look at whether this motion is in order in view of all the things that have been said. There have been many arguments made by Liberal members for this being out of order, by members of my own party, by the government House leader, and now perhaps by the Clerk.
I would like to appeal primarily to your responsibility to protect the minority in this Legislature. There is a certain irony involved in this. Tonight we have to call upon you, unnecessarily, to protect the minority's right in this House to debate, oppose and criticize government action on a bill which is also suppressing a minority in Toronto. It is a personal vendetta by the Minister of Education.
The importance of this bill to those of us who represent ridings in Metropolitan Toronto must be taken into consideration when one considers the question of our rights as a minority in this House. To those of us who represent ridings in Metropolitan Toronto, this is not just another bill. This is not just the Paul Godfrey bill to revise the Canadian National Exhibition board which we discussed last night. This is a bill which can threaten the very quality of education in Metropolitan Toronto. Therefore it is of concern to us as legislators who represent parents, teachers and children who deserve to have the highest quality of education in Ontario.
Given this bill's importance, we have not had the opportunity to debate it, to try to convince the government to amend it, to bring all the pressure to bear that a good and true opposition party should put on a government when it is in fundamental opposition to a bill. We have heard the government House leader and others speak about 96 hours of debate. Debate is a misnomer. Please listen very carefully to those of us who have said that most of that was in public hearing. Only about 10 to 12 hours were spent in actual debate in this House.
At those public hearings, it should be noted as a footnote, the vast majority of deputations were opposed to this bill. We have not had our chance to take information that has come from that committee and discuss it in the House, to express the strength of that opposition and the fervour of our opposition to this bill as individual members representing ridings in Metropolitan Toronto.
9:10 p.m.
I remind the Speaker that this bill has not been brought before this Legislature since November 23. We were out of this place for a week or two over Christmas -- maybe three, I cannot remember exactly -- but we have been back here since the beginning of January and there has been no attempt --
Mr. Robinson: January 17.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: It seems like longer than that, given the quality of the bills we have had to deal with.
Interjection.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I presume, if the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) wishes to heckle me, he will heckle me from his own seat. God knows we have been through this before, Mr. Speaker.
Since we have been back, the government has made no attempt to bring forward this legislation, and there have been many opportunities. Under the standing orders, we can sit on Wednesdays. If the government was serious about this being an important bill it wanted to put through, why did it not request of the opposition parties that we sit every Wednesday to discuss this bill? It is a regular sitting day. We were here. There would have been no opposition. We would have welcomed the chance to be able to raise our voices against this bill.
Mr. Foulds: They were busy debating in cabinet on Wednesdays.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I suppose that might have been the problem. I hope that interjection got through to the Speaker. That might be one thing I have overlooked, that they were busy debating in cabinet and the battles were so severe there the minister was not in shape to face the House afterwards.
Mr. Speaker: I would not know.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, do you know of any precedents at all, in any House, for a time allocation motion being brought before a legislature when the bill it refers to has not been brought before that legislature or that parliament for this length of time? Surely that is totally irregular. Surely there are no precedents for that.
We know very well, and the government knows very well, that in putting forward this kind of a motion, rather than going through the normal process of closure, it is effectively restricting our capacity to have any kind of debate on this bill during the next couple of days, because we are being limited essentially to a couple of days.
The government knows that when it brings in something we will consider offensive to the standing rules and regular operation of this place -- and it knows we will consider it thus -- we are going to debate its relevance or whether it is in order. Then we are going to fight the resolution itself, and we are going to be left with very little time to deal with the substance of the bill. The government will say, "Oh, that is your choice;" it is our choice just to kowtow to the government. The minority here has a right not to have to kowtow to the will of the majority, and I suggest it is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to make sure we are not put in that position.
I would like to go back to the kinds of closure that can be brought in, because there is a matter that has been overlooked. There are three kinds, as the Speaker has been made aware by a number of members. There is the ordinary closure, and I want to emphasize the word "ordinary." In other words, if one looks at the other two, the selection of amendments, it is considered by May to be "a power which has proved too drastic," a dangerous power, an extreme power.
On time allocation, he states that these kinds of motions "may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House." So it seems to me there has to be a dramatic rationalization of why this is necessary. I suggest that is even more important, given the fact that in our standing orders there is no provision anywhere for time allocation. The Speaker has to determine what is so extraordinary, so extreme, about the situation in which the government finds itself on this bill that we cannot go through the normal process or ordinary closure, if it wants to beat down a minority.
What is it that is so extreme? We have not had a chance to oppose. There may have been debate by House leaders about how long we keep this thing going, but we all know that House leaders' meetings are three quarters bluff and one quarter action; at least, that has been my impression. Certainly, the government cannot anticipate what our House leader will ever do, or what our caucus will approve of our House leader's doing: so much for any trips to Quebec that I might have been planning.
Even under ordinary closure, Mr. Speaker, you have a responsibility to protect the minority. I will read that part again: "The ordinary closure which ends a debate by securing the immediate putting of the question under discussion can be initiated by a single member but requires that not less than 100 must vote. The rights of the minority are protected by the discretionary power which is given to the chair (and is frequently exercised)."
Even in regular closure, Mr. Speaker, you have the right, a right that is frequently exercised, to intercede on our behalf as a minority. Maybe the government can rationalize it at the point of bringing in ordinary closure, but I would argue against it. There is no way it can argue this is an extraordinary case and that somehow it has been spending all the time of this session fighting for this bill, because we have not had a chance to fight. It does not know what we are going to do and it should not be able to anticipate us.
Mr. Speaker, you should not allow it to put into your mouth -- essentially by this resolution, if you approve it as being an order -- what our motives are and what we intend to do. It surely is not your role to define how we are going to respond.
Mr. Rotenberg: The members over there have told us already.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: But they have told us many things as well, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Martel: They told us we were going to have an agreement on 179. They broke that promise.
Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: We know about agreements in this House. I do not think it behooves me to get into a discussion with the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) --
Mr. Laughren: It never does.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is too true.
Mr. Breaugh: My colleague should not sink that low.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: As to agreements which have been made and agreements which have been broken, such as that regarding Bill 179, which has been brought forward --
Mr. Sargent: Time.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I suggest to the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) that this bill is also important to him because it is the thin edge of the wedge.
Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like you also to consider the technical point -- I am not very good at these technical kinds of things -- about the approach made in this government motion. Although we approved the government House leader's speaking to the motion, I would remind you that this extraordinary time allocation motion is being brought forward by the Minister of Education. I would like to know, if I cannot find it in Erskine May, if there is anything that suggests this kind of closure motion.
Interjections.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: With this kind of cackling from my own ranks it is impossible to continue.
Mr. Stokes: It is that corporate mentality.
Mr. Speaker: Persevere.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is there a precedent for this from some member other than the government House leader on behalf of the government? If so, why is that member not speaking to it? Why is she being so quiet tonight?
Interjections.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you also to consider one point made by our House leader and by one other member, I believe, in terms of the admitted statements by the House leader of the government party that he has tried to bring time allocation on bills into the discussion of rule changes in this House.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, when you hear that admission by the House leader, you cannot avoid the recognition that that is not in our regular procedures, that it is not in our rules at the moment. Even if the government wishes it to be so, it is not the case now. For you, Mr. Speaker, to act in support of that at this time would be an error, in my view, in that you would be supporting something that is not being considered by the whole House, which is not being adopted unanimously by the whole House, and is a change to our orders.
9:20 p.m.
To conclude, this bill has a major emotional impact on many of us, especially those of us who represent ridings in Metropolitan Toronto. It has a major impact on the people who are in the galleries today, many people who cannot get into the galleries today because there is no room, and people around Metropolitan Toronto who understand what the ramifications of this bill could be.
People are less and less for it even in areas like that of the member for Wilson Heights and mine. There are fewer members on his board of education now who are in favour of this bill than there were before. There are fewer even on the Scarborough Board of Education, I would suggest, and the ones who are supporting it in Scarborough and who supported reopening of debate the other night are not New Democrats.
Mr. Rotenberg: You stuck a couple of NDPers in there, that is why.
Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections. The member will speak to me, please.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: We have not had an opportunity to speak on behalf of the thousands of people in Metro Toronto who are offended by this legislation. We deserve that right.
Mr. Rotenberg: You find me a thousand.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Wilson Heights obviously does not like teachers and does not like parents.
Mr. Rotenberg: I love teachers.
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the point of order, please.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we as a minority in this House who oppose this deserve the right to speak on their behalf -- not for two days as things wrap up, but for as long as we feel is necessary, or for as long as you feel we have to take, as long as it takes to express our point of view. We have not had that chance, we deserve that chance. You have to rule, I implore you, that this is out of order.
Mr. Speaker: This is probably going to take as long to read it as it has to listen to it.
An hon. member: Did you write it, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
The point of order was raised by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), and was joined in by the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the member for Renwick, sorry, Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Maybe I was right the first time. The government House leader (Mr. Wells), the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).
I might say, as a general observation, members went far beyond the point of order in expressing various points of view in speaking in terms of the legislation rather than the point of order. They referred, in many ways, to what they perceived as my responsibilities.
I think it is fair to say the only matter I can deal with, in fact am empowered to deal with, is whether the motion as presented is in order. That was the objection raised originally by the member for Renfrew North.
I have listened, quite obviously with a great deal of attention, to the arguments for and against the proposition that the motion was not in order. I think it is fair to say the arguments in support of the proposition that it is out of order amount to this: As our standing orders do not specifically make provision for such procedures it means that it cannot be properly entertained. I think that was the message that came across.
Mr. T.P. Reid: Plus the fact our standing orders do provide a procedure.
An hon. member: That's the only one you've attacked eh?
Mr. Speaker: No, that is just for openers.
I think the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) effectively refuted his argument in his reference to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. One of the citations he used is at the top of page 454 of the 19th edition, the most recent edition, of May's text. It states, "The allocation of limited amounts of time to the stages of bills, and occasionally other kinds of business, forms no part of the general procedure of the House, but is applied in each case to a particular bill, or several bills jointly, or other specified business by a special order."
It is such a special order that this motion seeks. I have carefully examined the citations in May during the dinner hour and I find that, as the honourable member has pointed out, there was no precedent in the British standing orders for this procedure at the time it was first used. Not only that, but the first standing order relevant to the procedure, to the best information I could find, was passed in 1967. It was the same as the present rule of the House of Commons of Canada. However, after it was used only three times, it was redrafted in 1971 to the present form as we know it today and referred to as standing order 44.
Even today, standing order 44 does not provide for this procedure. It simply curtails the debate on such a motion. Standing order 43 makes provision for the business committee to divide the allotted time and how it is to be allocated if this has not been done by the motion itself. In other words, the standing orders recognize the existence of the procedure and lay down the mechanics for its application.
Another point that was made was the contention that the government notice of motion 10 last December was the first time an allocation motion had been moved in this House. This point was made by various members -- I think it was first raised by the member for Renfrew North and then again by the member for York South and others.
It is true that was the first occasion on which such an allocation of time was moved for the procedures in the House. However there have been many occasions on which the House by its order has imposed time limits on consideration of bills and other business in standing and select committees. I see no difference in principle between the two.
Mr. Martel: That was by agreement. There is a big difference.
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of that, my friend.
I refer again to the submissions of the member for Riverdale. He set out three conditions from May's text -- this was referred to as well by other members -- to which he alleged I must direct my mind in deciding whether or not this is in order. I would suggest these three conditions are conditions the government must address its mind to in deciding whether or not to make use of this procedure -- not the Speaker.
My responsibility, as I said before, is simply to decide whether or not there is anything in our standing orders or precedents to preclude such a motion, and I can find no such provision. It is a recognized parliamentary procedure in the United Kingdom and our own House of Commons as well as most other parliamentary jurisdictions. It is a motion the minister has the right to move upon proper notice, and I am unable to find any basis on which it should be treated in a different way from any other substantive motion.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Martel: It violates the rules.
Mr. Speaker: In fact, it does not.
Mr. Martel: It does.
Mr. Speaker: I am not going to debate it. The point of order raised by the member for Renfrew North is out of order.
Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Because the issue is so important, the precedent so threatening, the procedure so wrong and the decision so airy, I have no choice but to appeal the ruling.
10:14 p.m.
The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;
MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella;
Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Van Horne, Wrye.
Ayes 67; nays 47.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the resolution that is now before the House, if I may. As you know, Bill 127 was introduced on May 28, 1982. It was introduced as a result of repeated requests from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and boards of education in York, in Scarborough, in North York, in Etobicoke and in East York.
[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will caution our visitors. They are not to participate in any way in any demonstration. Otherwise, I will have to ask them to leave.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It may just be that, besides being offended by the minister, they are offended by your ruling tonight and --
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member is totally out of order.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am right. Have you ever been wrong?
Mr. Speaker: Be careful.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I believe the principles that are contained in Bill 127, the principles of equal access to education, equal opportunity for education and the equitable distribution of financial resources for education throughout Metropolitan Toronto, are logical, rational and required in a community that has many more similarities than it has differences.
lnterjections.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on.
Mr. Mackenzie: What do you mean "come on"? We have seen it over there all day.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think if you had the opportunity to review some of the things that were said during the previous discussion, you would find it very difficult.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Bill 127 is legislation designed to re-establish those important central principles that appear to have been severely eroded in recent years, the principles of co-operation and sharing, upon which the metropolitan form of governance of the school system in this area is established.
In the past several months -- in fact, since last May -- as all members are aware, many words have been spoken, some might even say much has been spilled, in relation to Bill 127. Since last May we have had approximately 97 hours of House time consumed by examination of Bill 127 in the House and in the standing committee on general government.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: In fact, approximately 66 hours were expended in the general government committee. About 14 of those related to clause by clause examination of the bill. All points of view in that other period of time, for and against Bill 127, have been heard and, I might say, heard many times over.
I have listened very carefully to all of these points of view. It may interest members to know that 109 presentations were made to the committee, and they were made by boards of education, members of teachers' federations, trustee groups, parent groups, community organizations and individual ratepayers or simply interested citizens. In all, 143 briefs were submitted to the committee and each one of those briefs was read, analysed and deeply appreciated. There was a great deal of listening and consultation through all of that period, and this process has brought us to this point in the debate.
I should like members of the House to know I have met in public and in private with ratepayers, teachers individually and in groups, school trustees, school board representatives and their officials, representatives of teachers' federations and again individual ratepayers. I think members should know as well that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and members of our caucus have also met with many groups. The Premier has met and consulted with many people who have expressed concern and interest regarding Bill 127. This is also particularly true of those members who represent ridings in Metropolitan Toronto.
lnterjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has been a lengthy and a full consultation. We have had a great deal of opportunity to hear the concerns expressed, many of them in relatively repetitious form, about the principles of the bill. We are not debating those principles at this point. We are attempting to get into clause by clause debate in the committee of the whole in order that we may address the remainder of Bill 127.
I believe it would be most appropriate if in the early hours of tomorrow we could proceed with that debate. I would like the honourable members to know that, because of the circumstances which have militated against frequent experiences of debate of this bill in the House, experiences related to other bills which were essential in the government's view, we will now be debating this bill in the year 1983. Therefore, it would be --
Mr. Conway: A little bit of the truth for a change.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Don't be impudent.
Mr. Foulds: Don't be so condescending. You may be the Premier but you don't run this place.
Mr. Cassidy: Why don't you pull her back?
Mr. Foulds: Just a little fairness once in a while would not go astray.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because of the fact we are now debating this bill in 1983 rather than 1982, I propose we amend the portion related to the discretionary levy from the assessment level of 1982 to the assessment level of 1983. I hope the members opposite will agree we might debate that amendment without too much difficulty within the next two days. I would also like to assure the members that specific item will be reviewed on a biennial basis with a view to examining its adequacy and appropriateness.
On other occasions, I have said I believe Bill 127 will serve to bring the community closer together rather than permit it to continue to drift apart in terms of the governance of the school system, as it seems to have been doing in the past several years. Above all, I believe this bill really will serve the best interests of the children in Metropolitan Toronto. I hope the honourable members will see fit to pass the resolution with some speed so we might complete debate on this important bill.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Minister of Education. As has been noted opposite, I did get angry and perhaps might get angry again during the course of the next little while in so far as this debate is concerned.
I rose earlier because I am deeply concerned about what is happening to this place as a so-called parliament. Mr. Speaker, you know that for the past number of months some of us have been frustrated, and I have made no secret of my frustration in so far as what has been going on in this place is concerned.
This second time allocation debate in the past two and a half months has exacerbated the situation. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say your ruling does not inspire confidence in many on this side of the House. Quite frankly, it frustrates and angers me. I do not doubt there is a case for what the government is proposing in terms of its unilateral rewriting of the rules and traditions of this parliament of ours, but I did not hear it from the government House leader tonight and I was struck by the airiness of the Speaker's ruling.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), the government House leader, says I was not listening. I have to say that I have listened to him very carefully and I have believed him in the past.
Mr. Speaker: I would draw the member's attention to the clock.
Mr. Conway: As I conclude my remarks tonight, which will be continued tomorrow, it is with genuine disappointment that I say to the House leader I will not make the mistake again of believing him, because quite frankly he -- partly I suppose at the insistence of the Minister of Education, whose battling in so far as Bill 127 is well known -- has clearly misled me and I believe misled the community at large with his earlier undertakings with respect to time allocation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member knows he cannot use language like that, accusing another member. I would ask him to withdraw that remark please.
Mr. Conway: I will. I have no choice but to withdraw that and I do withdraw it, sir. I withdraw it because I do have respect for the rules of this place.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Conway: As I resume my place tonight, I want to tell you, we have not done this place, its past and its present any service with this motion 11 tonight. On that note, I would adjourn the debate to resume it tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 10:33 p.m.