BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Before the recess, the member for Waterloo North had the floor. He might even have been wrapping up his comments.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I was just about finished when you cut me off in mid-sentence.

There is this beautiful mall in Vespra township known as the Georgian Mall on Bayfield Street. The owner, Cadillac Fairview, wanted to put on quite an addition, costing in the neighbourhood of $20 million. The project had to have the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. Barrie opposed the expansion of that mall. The day the government agreed to go ahead with Bill 142, I understand that objection was withdrawn and permission was given to Cadillac Fairview to proceed with the expansion of the mall. It was a coincidence, I am sure, but nevertheless it is noteworthy.

Mr. Chairman: I thank the member for his remarks. I remind the member for Oshawa that we are in committee to deal with clause-by-clause, but we are having a few brief opening remarks.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be as brief as the previous speaker and perhaps a little fuller than the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg). I call to your attention, sir, that I do not believe you will find in the standing orders a closure rule or a time limit rule on clause-by-clause debate. I do not think you will find that, but you have established it by the two previous speakers.

Mr. McClellan: You could apply the Rotenberg rule.

Mr. Rotenberg: You could have.

Mr. McClellan: Ring the bells for 47 weeks.

Mr. Breaugh: You could have had a chance to apply the Rotenberg rule, that is true, but we have not had a chance to debate that report yet and have the member for Wilson Heights have his rule on the books.

Mr. Rotenberg: I cannot understand why you do not add your name to it. It was your idea.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, one tries to help members out around here and they are consistently ungrateful. I do not understand it.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would like to help you out.

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling) should just stay secretive over there. Do not start things.

Mr. Martel: I do not think you should say anything, Norm.

Mr. Stokes: He might divulge something.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Have you read it?

Mr. Martel: I am afraid to.

Mr. Breaugh: There is a lot of heavy cross-fire here, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to get caught in it.

I think it is suitable that we have some opening remarks from all sides on this bill because it has been some time since we had the bill in committee. We did go through what I found was the most remarkable set of public hearings I have been a participant in since I became a member here.

I have never seen a bill, one of this nature in particular, be discussed at such length and with such vigour by a community. It is one of the few bills we have taken to committee with which, quite frankly, if one were an observer and not attached to a political party or a participant in the process, one would be left at the end of the hearing stage with the impression that there was no sane reason to proceed.

There was no one -- not a government member, not one proponent from the council of the city of Barrie, not one of the numerous citizens or citizens' groups that appeared -- who really appeared to support this bill aggressively. At the very best, one would have to say in all fairness, the Barrie council was there and paid considerable attention to the bill; but when its turn came to speak to the bill, it certainly did not mount an aggressive argument that the bill was absolutely essential to the life and development of Barrie.

Perhaps it is because those who were very closely attached to this piece of legislation assumed that everyone understood all the fine points of the bill. If so, that is a bit of a tragedy, because it seems to me the case for this bill has not yet been made. That is a tragedy because we have gone through a rather lengthy debate on second reading in which we searched for the principle of the bill. We have taken it through committee and through a series of public hearings, and in all of that time there were certainly lots of opportunities for members of the Legislature or representatives of a citizens' group or of a council to make the argument that this bill would do something positive in the area.

There are other oddities about the bill that cannot go unnoticed. This is one of the few pieces of legislation I have seen come through this House that was introduced by a minister and then promptly abandoned by the minister. It is true that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) did introduce the legislation and he did provide an opening statement to the Legislature.

Since that time he has had nothing to do with the bill and, in my view, that simply shows good judgement on his part. He left the unfortunate task of steering this through a committee to his parliamentary assistant, who, as usual, gets all the dirty jobs around here and perhaps enjoys going through the muck and mire of politics in Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: He is a masochist.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not think even he pretends to be an expert on either Barrie or Vespra, but he somehow is stuck carrying the pail, so to speak.

Mr. McClellan: George Taylor should be carrying this bill.

Mr. Breaugh: The other oddity is that in a public way the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) appears to be the minister in charge for some reason. On the rare occasions when the government of Ontario is represented by a minister of the crown concerning this bill, it turns out to be not the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing but rather the Solicitor General.

It is true that one could muster an argument that he is, in part, the local member and I have certainly read his statements that he is attempting to back this annexation for the good of the entire area or to resolve a long-standing problem, but I find some small measure of confusion in the presentation made by the minister.

For example, I find it passing odd that the Solicitor General of Ontario would mount an argument that the delay in the judicial system or the expense that is involved in hearing these arguments out at the Ontario Municipal Board or at the Supreme Court is the basis for moving through legislation.

8:10 p.m.

You will recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this is a rather odd position for someone associated with the Attorney General's office or the Solicitor General's office or for anyone who has to do with the enforcement of the law. For the most part, ministers of the crown associated with the law and its enforcement would say that you cannot put a price tag on justice; that the judicial system may be a costly, slow and awkward process but that it is the best process we have to give this all a full hearing; that however awkward it might be from time to time, the basic right of an individual or a group of people or a municipality to have its day in court is the price we have to pay in a democracy.

Oddly enough, the gist of what I read as being his argument is simply that this has gone on too long, that the legal expenses attached to this particular problem are mounting and are getting too high and that, therefore, we ought to discontinue this process and move to a legislative process.

I find that an odd position, one that certainly is not taken by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), for example, towards the Grange commission, which in a shorter period of time has been much more expensive and which is a judicial process we happen to defend on this side of the House because we think it is important. Awkward though it might be and as ill tempered as many of us get with people in the legal profession, we recognize that it is the system we have and that it is a legitimate system. It might be awkward, it might be long, it might be expensive; it might not be the smoothest, neatest, cleanest way to process, but it is a fair way.

So I have some difficulty with the remarks the Solicitor General has made on several occasions now, including those in a letter to the editor of the Barrie Examiner in which he speaks of "the resolution of the most costly annexation in the history of Ontario." I am not very sure it is, but he certainly is not sparing the language there. I think we should note that the emphasis is on the most costly; not right or wrong, proper or improper, simply the most costly.

I was impressed in the same issue of the Barrie Examiner to read comments put forward by Ben Straughan, the city administrator for Barrie. I will just quote very briefly from this article, in which he says, "They are not going to be getting city services on July 1, because they will still be paying for rural services."

He goes on at some length to say: "We are not providing in our budget anything in the way of providing services. The city will probably be able to provide fire protection with existing manpower at the fire department, but the police commission has stated that extra personnel will be needed to provide police protection, so the answer would be to let the province continue to police it." He goes on to describe how servicing capacity will be done by septic tank, although the argument was made in committee that at some point things such as big shopping centres will want to have city services.

It raises in my mind the question of why the government is proceeding with an annexation. It is saying specifically that an area adjacent to an urban centre needs to be brought into that urban centre because we need it for planning purposes, because we need it to smooth out the provision of big city services to a rural area; yet when the annexation appears imminent, the other shoe seems to fall, and the city administrator says: "It is going to stay a rural area. We are not going to provide those services." If that is the case, if the intention is to retain the portion of Vespra township that is being annexed by this bill as a rural area, why bother to annex it?

I think it brings out some of the classics of Ontario politics. If you look at all the players in this little bargain, the first winner off the mark is a big development company, Cadillac Fairview, which happens to be represented by a gentleman by the name of Fast Eddie Goodman. It gets exactly what it wanted, and it has had it since the day before this bill was introduced.

It had permission to expand that mall. The objection by the city of Barrie was withdrawn so, with respect to priority, the development company, represented by Fast Eddie Goodman -- a very prominent member of the legal profession -- got exactly what it wanted without a word of legislation before this House. That is an interesting priority to have a government display for us to see.

Second, it would appear that the city of Barrie, having a larger population than the township of Vespra, is generally headed in the direction it wants, though, for the life of me, I cannot understand that process. If I were on the Barrie council right now, I would want answers to some hard-core questions. I would want to know, for example -- I think I would know if I lived in the area -- that most of the land that is proposed to be annexed to Barrie is already in the hands of developers; if it is not owned outright, then it is at least optioned by developers. That would tell me that this group of people is going to be hammering at my council door saying, "Give me planning approvals, provide me with services; and when that population hits, I want schools, I want libraries, I want recreation facilities." All those expensive items are here in the foreseeable future.

I would want to know all the financial implications for the city of Barrie. Right now, as we are moving into the final stages of this particular piece of legislation, I would like to know who is going to pay what to whom. It seems to me if the financial side of this arrangement were put together, we would be able to say, "I know what my financial responsibilities are." The province, the county of Simcoe, Vespra and Barrie would be able to say that. Private developers would know where they are going.

The truth is there has been no resolution of that at this time. To my knowledge, there has been one meeting called in a rather bizarre way by the Solicitor General at Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology where it was mentioned that some financial obligations would be picked up. However, as of this time, none of the players knows what his financial obligations will be.

This can be costly. The township of Vespra has already put on record that it would think a fair settlement to be in the neighbourhood of $10 million. This sounds like a lot of money and it is a lot of money. However, in the world of municipal finance, there are a lot of financial obligations trading back and forth here.

One thing which is important to get on the record is that one would think, listening to the parliamentary assistant and perhaps to the Solicitor General, that everyone in the area thinks this is the fair way to proceed; that this bill, which has gone through second reading and some committee work and which is now here before us tonight for clause-by-clause debate, represents some kind of consensus; that the parties bargained their way through a series of public hearings and that this bill is kind of fair, reasonable and seen to be so by all sides.

I want to take a minute to read a motion received in my office yesterday. It is from the county council in Simcoe county. It moves:

"We notify the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Claude Bennett, that we do not accept the government's interpretation of events and that justification for Bill 142 as set out in the minister's letter of March 12, 1984.

"Further, we again call upon the provincial government to withdraw Bill 142 on the grounds that such legislation is dictatorial, undemocratic, contrary to the wishes of the people, contrary to the greatest common good, unjustified and recognized as being a dangerous and unprecedented threat to rural municipalities and to the county system."

This is a remarkable motion to have been passed by the county of Simcoe on May 15, 1984. I want to remind the House that Simcoe County is not a hotbed of socialism. It is not exactly the rebels forming up around Kempenfelt Bay. It is Tory Ontario; it is mid-Ontario. It is the guts of this government. It is an area which is solidly represented, unfortunately, by the Big Blue Machine.

The members of this county council are hardly revolutionary. Yet their language here is pretty strong. These are people who have gone through this process. They have said: "All right. We are open to argument on this. We are prepared to listen to what you have to say." However, at the end of the process, these are strong words. "Dictatorial," does not sound to me like a piece of legislation which represents a consensus on any matter. It is "undemocratic, contrary to the wishes of the people, contrary to the greatest common good, unjustified and recognized as being a dangerous and unprecedented threat to rural municipalities and to the county system."

These are pretty harsh words from a council I have had the opportunity to meet. In all fairness, I would have to say decent folk of Ontario sit on that county council. They are not radicals; there is not a long hair in the crowd. They are all upstanding citizens, the kind of people one would be proud to associate with. By and large, I would say that mostly one could associate with them at a riding meeting of the Progressive Conservative association.

To have this kind of county council say to this government, in the way of a formal motion of the council, that it thinks this is dead wrong, undemocratic, I think reflects something which should make this government stop and think for a minute. This is what we are here for this evening. We are here to begin the clause-by-clause debate. We are here to see if there is any sober second thought, to see if the government of Ontario will listen to its people.

8:20 p.m.

Late though it might seem to some, I think the opportunity is here this evening for this Legislature to respond to that county council by saying: "Hold it. We were not told this was going to be any of those things. We thought this was just a little annexation bill."

Normally, that is a bill that strives to get some kind of consensus. These are people who, for the most part, are not directly affected by the bill and are looking at it in an objective way. In normal times they are friends of the government, if I may be so bold as to classify them that way. They are saying very strong things about this legislation and its intent, about how it wound up and the process at work here.

I think this government has a responsibility to its own supporters, not to me certainly, to say: "We will put on the brakes then. This is an idea that has clearly gone bad. This is a process that is not going to work. This is something that is going to get the government of Ontario into hot water with its friends. It is something that should be stopped dead in its tracks."

I am waiting for some response on the part of the government. My experience in committee was that there was no response on the part of the government. The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) chaired the committee, and it seemed to me during the process that he bent over backwards to see that people in the area at least got a chance to be heard. He was somewhat limited in his ability to do that because there were restrictions put on the number of hearing days.

Mr. Martel: We are going to hear him tonight.

Mr. Breaugh: I anticipate we will hear his comments in the clause-by-clause debate. I anticipate that will happen a little later this evening. The Solicitor General will take his turn at bat tonight and will do here in the Legislature what, I am told, he has done in his own riding. The members in that area for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and Simcoe East will have the opportunity to explain to the Legislature what the local consensus is on this annexation.

Mr. Stokes: The member is assuming they are here representing the people who sent them here rather than the government of which they are a part.

The Deputy Chairman: I am assuming the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has the floor. He is making his debate.

Mr. Stokes: I am well aware of that. I was afraid you were going to fall asleep.

Mr. Breaugh: The basic problem here, if the truth were to be let out, is that one minister of the crown decided to take the bull by the horns and designed a solution that is not palatable to most of the rural municipalities in this province.

The local members, Tories all, who sat on the committee or who are aware of the proposal would now say, if they were allowed to: "This is a wrong move, fellows. Let us pack up our little tents and back off on this thing and get out of the way. It is not going to work. It is not working now. It does not seem to be fair. It does not seem to be a consensus document. It is seen to be a ramrod move that will have ramifications in a number of ways for a lengthy period of time."

I anticipate some of the members will have the integrity to participate in this debate as we go through clause-by-clause discussion. I do not anticipate all of them will. I have been around long enough to know that does not happen too often.

The other aspect I wanted to talk about is the larger ramifications of this approach. Members may be aware that the administrator for the township of Vespra has written a piece in Municipal World which, from the township's point of view, is dead on. He points out that the annexation process is being used by the government of Ontario as a tool to resolve problems. He goes on, with some insight, to point out the dangers present in doing that.

Dangers are present in trying to resolve an argument that is in some ways legal and in some ways a planning argument and that certainly has bad ramifications for a rural township. Most members who have had even a casual drive through the area will understand very quickly that what is happening is that the guts of the assessment base for the township of Vespra are being removed. That is a cruel thing to do to any municipality, but it can be a deadly blow to a rural municipality.

There is no financial commitment in place to see that something else picks up the slack. We now know that will not happen at all. The city of Barrie may initially have won a theoretical planning argument and may appear on the surface to be quite happy about it. They may be able to take, in the short term, a stand that says, "There is not going to be any difference in that area. We are not going to be rushing in providing services."

Most of those people have been involved in the political process long enough to know this is not going to last. Developers who have options on lands or own land are anxious to make money from that land. They will be there looking for services as the first wave of a financial onslaught hits the city of Barrie. The second wave of that onslaught will be when the houses are built and the people are living there. Then the municipal council cannot say part of the city of Barrie is rural and therefore it does not get schools, arenas, libraries, water service, roads ploughed and fire and police protection.

When people move into an area and pay property taxes, a natural evolutionary flow comes from that. Once they start paying their taxes, logically they want the services. The municipality cannot tell one group of citizens in a community it is made up of top-flight citizens and will get the rinks, the ball parks and all that, and tell another group in the same city it will not be provided with the services because it is considered rural. That will not wash.

People on the Barrie council and their staff will now begin the process of looking at cost projections and capital budget forecasts that are quite different from what they have now. I was a bit taken aback during the course of the committee hearings when we asked those questions to find no studies of that kind had been done. We asked the ministry to give us some projections on what would happen to little things such as assessment. It turns out no studies have been done in that regard either.

It turns out the only studies that have been done in this area date back to the early 1970s when there was a task force on the Georgian Bay area. Some planning studies went on then. The logical evolutionary process from that is that once big planning areas are defined, work has to be done to get some grasp of the financial implications of it all. Where can the people be placed? What is to be done with them? How are essential services to be provided? How are big capital projects to be put on stream?

Most of us who have served on municipal councils know it does not happen overnight. It is not a casual thing. The Ontario Municipal Board wants to know what the capital five-year forecast is. I would have to say for this portion of what would become the city of Barrie, nobody knows, because no study has ever been done. It is a tragedy in this day and age with municipal economics being so tightly squeezed that this major financial difficulty would be infused on a city such as Barrie. It could cause severe financial problems.

As we go through this, I think we get to the point where we understand this is an ill-thought-out piece of business from the local point of view. It does not represent a consensus at all, not by a long shot. I notice the parliamentary assistant quoted the reeve of Innisfil township in his opening remarks today. There is a slightly different set of circumstances there. The township was in a rather advantageous position, to put it politely, and did get a financial settlement that was quite in its favour. Some restraints were put on that were quite in its favour.

The reeve's comments stood out. He was the only one who said anything of a very positive nature about the government's approach to this kind of annexation. I noted as I listened to him that he did not say those things specifically about this bill. He talked in general terms about his experiences with the annexation process, not about this piece of legislation. From a local perspective, I think there are severe problems with it. The ramifications in political, economic and sociological terms are going to be immense for some period of time.

I have never seen a rural community as tightly organized as Vespra township. I was impressed. There cannot be two people living in the township who do not have some kind of an association with one another that allows them to be part of the political process in a formal way. What they had to say was impressive.

If one were born and raised in rural Ontario, as I was, one would understand those people and know they do not very often take on their government. They have a lot of respect for the whole process, but they certainly did take it on in this case. They turned out day after day down here at Queen's Park and up in the county council chambers in the local municipality. They put their arguments well from a local perspective and from a provincial perspective. They identified the fact that the nature of this bill is wrong.

8:30 p.m.

There is one other area that has to be put on the record this evening. I want to do it because it is frightfully important. In my experience at the municipal and regional levels or here at Queen's Park, I have never seen an issue which went around Ontario quite like this one. I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen an issue where municipalities which the members would have a hard time placing, unless they happened to be near where they lived or were born and raised, wanted to put their voice on the record as opposing a bill.

For example, the township of Edwardsburgh is not a noted source of revolution, but it points out that Bill 142 is opposed and its passing would deny the normal rights of natural justice. That is an unusual resolution from that township. It is one this Legislature would be well served to pay some attention to.

The corporation of the township of Osprey also passed a resolution, stating: "The corporation of the township of Osprey deems this method of solution to the annexation problem faced by the township of Vespra as a dangerous and undemocratic precedent; further, that the full formal hearing process should be resumed and followed to completion in order that all parties may present their full arguments as is the normal right of all people in a democratic society."

I bet there are not many motions such as that passed by rural councils these days. They have a lot of very legitimate concerns about farm communities and the provision of services, but one does not often hear them passing resolutions about the democratic process.

The township of Kerns said, "If this annexation is put through for the city of Barrie, are all rural municipalities such as ours subject to the same treatment if a neighbouring town wants what we own?" That is pretty tough stuff.

From the municipality of the township of Hudson: "Are all rural municipalities to expect this treatment? Why does a town or a city want part of a rural municipality? Is it for the tax dollars they can get? In most cases they do not and cannot provide any better services, and the taxes only increase, as we have seen happen in the past. I trust you will be reconsidering passing such a bill as 142."

A representative of the township of Chisholm wrote directly to the Premier as follows:

"Dear Mr. Davis:

"My council has studied the problem of the Barrie-township of Vespra annexation dispute with considerable interest. Albeit this dispute does not directly involve the township of Chisholm, there appear to be some principles involved. It could adversely affect various annexation procedures throughout the province and could conceivably affect my township should an annexation attempt present itself in the future.

"It would appear that the third reading of Bill 142 allows the province to unilaterally arbitrate an annexation dispute without the input of the wishes of the residents involved. It is my feeling and the feeling of my council that this is a dangerous practice and is contrary to the individual's rights of natural justice." That is pretty tough stuff from Chisholm.

This is from South Monaghan. I will not read all this as it is a long one. I will read a portion of it.

It is on the passing of a resolution "expressing opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic or unjustified and/or ignores the will of the people and/or ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need and/or is a method of resolving disputes which denies the party the normal rights of natural justice." They supported that. They said that should not happen, that it is the wrong thing to occur. I do not recall another resolution of that kind from South Monaghan.

From the township of Plummer Additional: "This letter is to let you know that our council is not supportive of Bill 142. On April 5, 1984, resolution 84-50 was passed. The council expressed opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is unjustified. It ignores the will of people. It ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal right of natural justice."

From the township of Stephen, there is a letter on the passing of a resolution "expressing opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic." I will not go on with the rest of it. It supports that resolution. It feels that is a wrong way to proceed. I do not ever remember receiving correspondence from the township of Stephen opposing any bill in the Legislature of Ontario, but it did oppose that one.

From the township of Anderdon: "That we oppose Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic, unjustified and ignores the will of the people, and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and as a method of resolving a dispute which denies the party the normal rights of natural justice."

From the corporation of the township of Ops, there is a letter simply acknowledging it passed a resolution to support the township of Vespra in its opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds it is undemocratic in that it ignores the normal prerequisites for an annexing municipality to establish need.

From the township of Greenock in the county of Bruce: "The council supports the resolution of the township of Vespra regarding annexation of lands and specifically opposes Bill 142 on the grounds that the bill is undemocratic."

From the township of Malden: "It was moved by V. Coyle and seconded by J. Walden that the council of the township of Malden objects to Bill 142 as it represents an example of dangerous precedent-setting and undemocratic legislation, and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need and as a method of resolving a dispute which denies the party the normal rights of natural justice."

From the township of Yarmouth: "That the council of the corporation of the township of Yarmouth opposes Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic, ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and as a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

Mr. Rotenberg: They are all the same.

Mr. Stokes: The member is getting the message.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Wilson Heights has just expressed a rather sad little wisecrack about the rights of townships in Ontario to say whatever it is they want to say. I suppose he is inferring that in some strange, perverted way these townships are not allowed to use the same words to express the same feelings. I dare say if he had the intestinal fortitude, not to mention the stupidity, to go to each one of these township councils, look them in the eye and ask them what they had to say about Bill 142, he might not be quite so bold in his criticism of the councils' actions.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, if I was invited to those townships, I am sure if they received logical explanations, which they did not get, at least 90 per cent of them would withdraw their resolutions. The member knows they could withdraw the resolutions. They were not given the proper facts and everybody knows it.

Mr. Chairman: The member's time may come. The member for Oshawa will continue with his remarks.

Mr. Stokes: Nobody pulls your chain.

Mr. Breaugh: I cannot let it pass. A parliamentary assistant is in some vague way accusing somebody of lying to all these townships, providing them with misleading information and implying that if his eminent wise self were to appear at the council chambers and explain all this away, there would be a greatly changed attitude on the part of the councils. I do not think there would be.

Mr. Martel: Why do we not move a motion to that effect?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Oshawa is making remarks. He does not need the assistance of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and others.

Mr. Martel: Why does the member not make a motion to delay passage of the bill until he has that opportunity?

Mr. Breaugh: That is an interesting concept.

Mr. Nixon: Get back on track. Start reading more letters.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: It would be an interesting concept to say the parliamentary assistant has to do a little more than walk down the hall and call on the majority of his friends. Maybe it would be a good exercise for him to go and knock heads out in the townships of Ontario. Maybe he would care to go out there and tell them that they are wrong, that they do not know the facts, that they do not have any right to pass resolutions like this. Maybe he would like to do that. I would be happy to stand this bill down to give him the opportunity to go out there and find out what it is all about. It might be an interesting exercise on his part.

Mr. Martel: Move a motion.

Mr. Rotenberg: Why do you not find out what it is all about?

Mr. Martel: No. You are the one who said it.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Can we skip the politics and come back to the discussion about the bill, please, with all due respect?

Mr. Breaugh: From the township of St. Vincent: "That the township of St. Vincent endorses the action being taken by the township of Vespra in their opposition to Bill 42."

That seems pretty straightforward. There is a group of people that has its facts straight and has formed an opinion on the actions of the government of the day.

8:40 p.m.

The corporation of the township of Romney also passed resolution of council number 84521: "The council of the township of Romney expresses grave concern and disapproval towards the unreasonable actions of the Ontario provincial government, which actions are contrary to natural justice and fairness, to impose the arbitrary boundary restructuring on the township of Vespra under Bill 142."

I think I will read the rest of it, because the honourable member seemed so amused that some of the previous wording was so similar. This one is quite unique on its own. Obviously in the township of Romney they like to write things on their own.

"First, with complete disregard for the expressly stated wishes of the majority of the people in the lands to be disrupted and transferred;

"Second, to slap disrespectfully the face of public participation by setting up straw hearings with the apparent preconceived intention of ignoring this fundamental democratic avenue of input;

"Third, to compel unilaterally the compliance with such transfer without a basis in fact which may have displayed a case for a need to transfer people and land; and

"Fourth, to show partiality to one municipality over another without the benefit of substantiating evidence on the issues."

It seems to me that any member of the council of the corporation of the township of Romney could rip apart the opinions that were voiced this evening by the parliamentary assistant. They do not need anybody's help in writing their resolutions. They did one hell of a job in writing their own.

Here is a resolution from the township of Tudor and Cashel, near Gilmour: "The township of Tudor and Cashel moves to support the appeal of the township of Vespra and resolves that Bill 142 not be passed while it denies the normal rights of justice to the parties concerned." It seems to me that is a pretty straightforward resolution as well.

From the township of Hallowell: "Our council, at its meeting of March 12, 1984, unanimously passed the following resolution: 'That this council unanimously endorse the opposition by the township of Vespra to the annexation proposed by the city of Barrie, specifically when the province proposes, by Bill 142, to legislate the annexation into effect without the consent of the county, the township and the populace.'"

It seems to me they got the gist of the argument there, and they understand what they are doing.

From the corporation of the township of Prince: "The council of the township of Prince has reviewed an article in the Municipal World regarding the proposed annexation of the township of Vespra through Bill 142, which is scheduled to receive third reading in the House in the very near future. I have been requested to advise you that at the regular meeting held on March 13, 1984, the following resolution was passed:

'"That the council of the township of Prince express its opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified, ignores the will of the people, ignores the normal prerequisites for an annexing municipality to establish need as a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice.'"

These are words the parliamentary assistant does not like to hear, I know, but they are words which that council wanted to put on the record.

From the township of Faraday: "That the council of the township of Faraday expresses opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and it denies the taxpayers their rights of natural justice."

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: Does that member have a problem with the wording of the motion?

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the chair may just inquire of the member how many of these he has to read into the record.

Mr. Martel: It does not really matter, does it?

Mr. Chairman: May I kindly draw the attention of the member to rule 19(d)(4) --

Mr. Martel: What are you here for?

Mr. Chairman: I am here to help all honourable members. If these are all of the same kind, could the member simply assist us as to whether these are all the same kind of comment?

Mr. McClellan: Where does heckling from the table come under the standing orders?

Mr. Breaugh: I do not feel heckled or harassed by the Chairman at all. I think he is just seeking a little help here.

They are all resolutions having to do with the same bill; that is true. They are all resolutions of individual councils, and I want to put them on the record because they took the time at their council meetings to debate this matter. They went out of their way to put resolutions in front of the council. They wrote to me, and I am sure they wrote to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp). They may even have wasted their time writing to the mysterious member for Wilson Heights, who has disappeared.

When a municipality passes a resolution, I think the Legislature of Ontario has an obligation to hear what it is it has to say. I will try to go through them without a great deal of editorial comment. I simply want to get them on the record.

Mr. Chairman: I remind all honourable members that we went off track very early on when we started back into a debate not unlike that of second reading and the principle of the bill. We have not yet come to what we are here to do in this committee, namely, deal with clause-by-clause.

Mr. Breaugh: I admit you may have been misled by the member for Wilson Heights, who began this process.

Mr. Chairman: No. I recall how many minutes he gave to the debate.

Mr. Martel: Just because you are bothering my colleague, I might even call a quorum. There are not enough members. Will you call in the members?

Mr. Chairman: We will play on the rules in a moment.

Mr. Martel: We will play now. There are not 20 members.

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: A quorum is present. The member for Oshawa had the floor.

Mr. Breaugh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stokes: Before you were rudely interrupted, what were you saying?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, from the township of Mara, near Brechin: "The council of the township of Mara supports the council of the township of Vespra in opposing the Ontario government's legislation, Bill 142, with respect to lands being transferred from one municipality to another. This authoritative transfer represents a precedent which is seen to be damaging to all municipalities in the province of Ontario."

From the township of Sandwich South comes the following resolution that was passed. It was moved by Murray Oliver, seconded by Harold Maenpaa, "That the council expresses opposition to Bill 142, and the township of Vespra be so advised, as well as appropriate authorities."

From the corporation of the townships of Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie and McKay, near Deep River: "Dear Mr. Breaugh: We wish to advise you that the council of the townships of Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie and McKay have supported the resolution from the Vespra township regarding annexation."

From the township of Foley: "We object to the passing of Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic, unjustified and ignores the will of the people, and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the party the normal rights of natural justice."

From the township of Bagot and Blythfield: "That the township of Bagot and Blythfield support the township of Vespra in their opposition to Bill 142."

From the corporation of the township of Murray: "That the council for the corporation of the township of Murray support the principles expressed by the township of Vespra, and that this municipality indicate its opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it ignores the basic principle in boundary negotiations for establishing a need by an annexing municipality and is an undemocratic and dangerous precedent-setting approach to such problems."

From the township of Zorra: "The council views with alarm the implications of the imposition of a forced annexation in this manner. Council concurs the measures proposed under Bill 142 set a dangerous precedent with far-ranging ramifications. Council believes your concerns with respect to the loss of the normal rights of natural justice are well founded and should be a concern of every resident within the province of Ontario."

There is one little bit on the end: "Council will be viewing the outcome of this issue with a high degree of interest and wishes you well in your efforts to have Bill 142 negated or thwarted."

From the township of Artemesia: "That this council go on record as being in opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified and ignores the will of the people."

From the corporation of the township of Ellice: "Please be advised that the council of the township of Ellice passed a resolution on March 15, 1984, opposing Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified and ignores the will of the people, and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

From the corporation of the township of Downie: "That the council of the township of Downie endorse the concerns of Vespra township regarding Bill 142."

From the township of Amabel: "This is to certify that the attached is a true copy of resolution R 43-84, which was passed by the council of the corporation of the township of Amabel on March 13, 1984." This is a bit of a lengthy one: " ...oppose the passing of a resolution expressing opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified, ignores the will of the people and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the party the normal rights of natural justice." That is endorsed by the township of Amabel.

This is from the township of Raleigh, which is to go on record as being opposed to Bill 142, on the grounds that "the bill is undemocratic, unjustified, ignores the normal prerequisite for annexing a municipality to establish need, and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

The township of Norwich: "Regarding the correspondence from Harry B. Adams, the reeve of Vespra township, re Bill 42, be advised that the municipality of the township of Norwich supports this motion as presented and all the steps stated by Mr. Adams be carried out by the office staff."

It is quite remarkable to have one rural municipality agree to that extent with another rural municipality. As you know, Mr. Chairman, they are often very independent in nature and like to do things their own way.

This is from the township of North Himsworth: "The council of the corporation of North Himsworth supports the resolution passed by the township of Vespra and also opposes Bill 142."

From the township of London: "Please be advised that the township of London council, by a resolution, at its meeting of March 19, 1984, has expressed opposition to Bill 142 as this procedure will ignore the will of the people and also the normal prerequisite for annexing a municipality due to established needs. The council therefore requests the province to reconsider this procedure in dealing with annexation between local municipalities."

Mr. Martel: Besides Eddie Goodman, does anybody support this?

Mr. Breaugh: It is difficult to find people other than Fast Eddie.

It is interesting to note the interjection. Fast Eddie Goodman does not care one way or the other. Fast Eddie got for his friends at Cadillac Fairview exactly what they wanted the day before this legislation was introduced to the House. I suspect he does not have any concerns about the financial future of the city of Barrie, the township of Vespra or any of the cities. He got for his corporate clients exactly what they wanted, and that is the way the game is played.

Mr. Nixon: Who is Eddie Goodman's client?

Mr. Breaugh: Cadillac Fairview. The member might have heard of it. It owns a few little pieces of property.

Mr. Nixon: Oh yes.

Mr. Breaugh: This is from the corporation of the township of the Spanish River: "We support the township of Vespra's concern regarding government interference in the annexation process."

This is from the township of Cockburn Island: "We support the township of Vespra re their concern for Bill 142." I will anxiously await the contribution by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane). I know he is generally supportive of the work done by the township of Cockburn Island and all those municipalities within his jurisdiction.

This is the resolution from the corporation of the township of Val Rita-Harty: "That we support the request of the township of Vespra concerning the amalgamation and that the authorities concerned be notified."

This is from the township of Cornwall: "The council opposes Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic, unjustified, ignores the will of the people, does not the require the annexing of the municipality to show need and denies natural justice to the municipality being annexed."

The township of Essa: "Be it resolved that letter No. 8 from Vespra be received and further that the council of the township of Essa opposes Bill 142 on the following grounds: that it is undemocratic and unjustified, that it ignores the will of the people and the normal prerequisite for the annexing of a municipality in that it failed to establish a need and that it is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

The municipality of Tarbutt and Tarbutt Additional passed the following resolution, 42-84: "That council is strongly opposed to Bill 142, the annexation of the township of Vespra, on the grounds that it is unjustified, ignores the will of the people and the normal prerequisite for annexing a municipality to establish need and denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

This is from the township of Colchester North: "Please be advised that council supports the township of Vespra in opposing Bill 142, legislating a provincial solution to the Barrie-Vespra annexation, since we have a Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act outlining the procedure to handle municipal boundary disputes."

This one is a little closer to home. If the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) were here tonight, he would know very well the position taken by the township of North Fredericksburgh: "The council for the township of North Fredericksburgh expresses their opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified. It ignores the will of the people and it also ignores the prerequisite for annexing a municipality to establish need and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

9 p.m.

In this supposedly bicentennial year, when we are told constantly, every day, to listen to the traditions of the United Empire Loyalists, there we are. From North Fredericksburgh, their ancestors are talking to this Legislature tonight and the question is, "Is the Legislature listening?"

From the township of South Dumfries: "This council supports the stand -- "

Mr. Martel: South Dumfries.

Mr. Breaugh: At least we get some of the members to wake up when we mention something a little close to home.

"This council supports the stand of the township of Vespra pertaining to Bill 142 pertaining to annexation."

Mr. Stokes: I wonder where their member stands.

Mr. Breaugh: I am putting on the record now exactly where these townships stand. The next thing to get on the record is where the local member stands. I am just giving an opportunity so the members will know --

Mr. Nixon: We have been waiting to speak on clause 1(a).

Mr. Breaugh: From the corporation of the township of Thurlow: "The council concurs with the stand of the township of Vespra because they feel that Bill 142 is undemocratic and unjustified, ignores the will of the people and ignores the normal prerequisites for an annexing municipality to establish need and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

From the municipality of the township of Leeds and Lansdowne, resolution 113, 1983-84: "We support a request of the township of Vespra and express our opposition to Bill 142 on the basis that its passage does not comply with the prerequisite that the annexing municipality establish need for the land to be annexed, and that the review of Bill 142 by the standing committee on general government does not provide a fair opportunity for those opposing the annexation to be heard."

I know the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) will be very interested.

From the united townships of Bangor, Wicklow and McClure: "The council of the corporation of the united townships of Bangor, Wicklow and McClure concur with the township of Vespra and the problems they are incurring with annexation, especially the proposed passing of Bill 142 which seems to be very undemocratic and is totally ignoring the will of the local ratepayers, and is denying the parties involved the normal rights of natural justice. Council feel the passing of Bill 142 represents an example of dangerous precedent-setting legislation and that it should proceed no further."

From the municipality of the township of Armour: "That we send a letter to the township of Vespra indicating our support in their objections to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified."

As one goes through these resolutions and has the opportunity to read them, it is interesting to see that each of the townships in its own way functions a little differently. However, in a very real sense, all the townships are saying the same thing.

From the township of Pittsburgh, Ontario: "Council of the township of Pittsburgh opposes Bill 142 on the grounds that it ignores the normal prerequisites for an annexing municipality to establish need. Furthermore, council feels that the bill is unjust."

From the municipal corporation of the township of Dungannon: "We support the letter as circulated by the township of Vespra stating their opposition to Bill 142 as we feel this bill is undemocratic and it ignores the will of the people in the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need."

From the township of Seymour: "Whereas upon reviewing Bill 142, council feels that Bill 142 represents an example of dangerous precedent-setting and undemocratic legislation: Therefore, be it resolved that council hereby endorse the letter from the municipality of Vespra and join with them in expressing opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic, unjustified, ignores the will of the people, ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and is a method for resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

From the township of Tilbury East: "After reading the article in the February 1984 Municipal World concerning Bill 142, Barrie-Vespra Annexation Act, the municipal council of the township of Tilbury East passed the following resolution at their regular meeting held on March 26. 1984: 'Be it resolved that the municipal council of the township of Tilbury East hereby expresses its opposition to Bill 142 in its present form as it appears to be undemocratic legislation, giving the province the power to overrule the wishes of the people and denying them the normal right to natural justice.'"

From the municipality of the township of North Algona: "That the council of the township of North Algona oppose Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified and ignores the will of the people. It ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the party the normal rights of natural justice."

From the township of Enniskillen: "This is to advise that the council of the township of Enniskillen received Vespra township reeve Harry Adams's letter enlisting support for his township's opposition to Bill 142, a bill that Vespra township considers undemocratic because it ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need. Enniskillen council, at its meeting of March 20, 1984, passed a resolution to lend its moral support to the township of Vespra by expressing its opposition to Bill 142 based on the fact that such legislation appears to be undemocratic by ignoring the will of the people and the normal prerequisite of an annexing municipality to establish need."

From the township of Mornington: "The implications of Bill 142 have been drawn to the attention of the council of the township of Mornington by the reeve of the township of Vespra and the matter was considered at a recent meeting of council. Council has asked me to write to you and advise that they support the position of the township of Vespra in opposing Bill 142."

From the township of Perry: "The council for the township of Perry has recently been made aware of the series of events over the past several years leading up to the above-mentioned bill, Bill 142, which has had second reading in the House. As you are aware, the passage of this bill will lead to the annexation of certain lands from the township of Vespra to the city of Barrie.

"The council for our township has directed me to write to you to express our opposition to this proposed annexation and the methods under which the captioned bill ended up before the House. Our council feels that this bill is, in fact, undemocratic and indeed ignores the will of the people. It is our hope that this bill will be reconsidered before it is too late and that the voices of the people will be heard and listened to." The voices of the people are not always heard, comrade, but in this Legislature we hope they will be heard.

From the township of Oakland: "That the council of the township of Oakland opposes Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified and ignores the will of the people. It ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the party the normal rights of natural justice."

From the corporation of the township of the North Shore: "Resolve that the council of the township of the North Shore express opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified and ignores the will of the people and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

From the township of McNab: "At their meeting of March 20, 1984, a resolution was passed by the McNab township council to support the council of the township of Vespra in their opposition to the passage of Bill 142 concerning the annexation of part of Vespra by the city of Barrie. McNab township council is very aware of the threat that annexation poses to a rural municipality and trusts that the province will ensure that the rights of natural justice are given to any municipality involved in a boundary dispute issue."

The corporation of the township of Sarnia: "The correspondence from the township of Vespra re: annexation Bill 142 be noted and that the local MPP" -- in case members are in doubt, I believe the local MPP is the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) who happened to sit on part of the committee proceedings -- "should be informed that the province should follow the procedure laid down by the legal system and that it is inappropriate to use legislative power in the Vespra case and that opposition parties be informed of the support of the Sarnia township for the Vespra position as outlined in the Municipal World article by Julian Tofts, clerk-administrator of Vespra township."

From the township of Turnberry, near Bluevale: "We express opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified and ignores the will of the people, and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the party the normal rights of natural justice."

From the municipality of the township of Chapleau: "That the council of the corporation of the township of Chapleau expresses its opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unjustified and ignores the will of the people, and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need, and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

Here is one from the township of Usborne: "That the council of the township of Usborne do want to go on record as opposing Bill 142, because of its lack of adherence to the true democratic system on which this country was based.

"We of the township of Usborne do think you and yours should listen to the people. After all, it was the people who elected you. Please do not let your true sense of justice become clouded by some report from a panel or singular civil servant who wishes to force their or his or her opinion on to the governing body of this province which neglects to observe the right of the people involved."

Mr. Stokes: Who is that addressed to?

Mr. Breaugh: It is addressed to the Premier himself. It would be interesting to see the response from the Premier.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I think we should have some more Conservative members in here since it is their bill. Would you call a quorum?

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

9:16 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Would the member for Oshawa summarize and then proceed with the rest of his presentation.

Mr. Stokes: That is what he is doing. Honourable members are lucky he is not reading it all.

Mr. Breaugh: I had some requests from some members opposite who were out of the chamber when I began. Some members want to make sure the resolutions of their townships get on the record tonight, and some of them want me to read them again.

Mr. Havrot: He is not supposed to read them, though.

The Deputy Chairman: The other aspect to this whole marvellous discussion on Bill 142 is that we can go through it section by section, and we seem to be still dealing with the generalities of second reading debate.

Mr. Stokes: The parliamentary assistant started it.

Mr. Martel: You had better take a look now. Do not get yourself into trouble.

The Deputy Chairman: I am willing to do anything I can to help.

Mr. Breaugh: Some of them are awake now.

Interjections.

Mr. Stokes: If the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) wants to interject, he should go back to his own seat.

Mr. Bradley: All you do is move your lips over there.

Mr. Breaugh: Some of these members have not been awake after nine o'clock at night for a long time. All hell could break loose here tonight.

I think we have settled down. Maybe not.

Mr. Stokes: I think they are just euphoric because the Blue Jays are beating the Tigers.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, if you would not interject, we would not have these outbursts.

The Deputy Chairman: I know. It is probably all the readings you have been giving.

Mr. Stokes: Maybe you could busy yourself making sure the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) could have his seat.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. A member should not be locked out of his seat by some interloper.

The Deputy Chairman: If the member for Oshawa would proceed.

Mr. Breaugh: I am trying to. There is such great disruption and disarray on the government side this evening.

From the township of South Crosby:

"Whereas Bill 142 deals with the annexation issues by specific legislation;

"Whereas Bill 142 is scheduled for third reading by the House in the very near future;

"And whereas the council of the corporation of the township of South Crosby feels that Bill 142 represents an example of dangerous precedent-setting and undemocratic legislation;

"Therefore the council of the corporation of the township of South Crosby opposes Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic, unjustified, ignores the will of the people and ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish needs, and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

Mr. Boudria: What is the score so far? Over 100 against and zero for?

Mr. Breaugh: Those members who are keeping count here will have an easy count if they are counting those townships in Ontario supporting this bill and perhaps a little more difficult one if they are counting the number of townships opposed to it.

From the township of Horton: "At the April meeting of the Horton council a resolution was passed expressing opposition to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic, ignores the will of the people, ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need and is a method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

From the corporation of the township of Oliver a resolution was recorded whereby: "The Oliver municipal council opposes Bill 142 on the grounds that it is method of resolving a dispute which denies the parties the normal rights of natural justice."

From the township of Macdonald, Meredith and Aberdeen Additional: "The council objects on the grounds that it ignores the normal prerequisite for an annexing municipality to establish need and that it appears undemocratic, trusting our objection will cause the bill to be delayed until all those wishing to be heard in the township of Vespra have been heard and their rights taken into consideration."

From the township of Charlottenburgh: "That the council of the township of Charlottenburgh has reviewed the matter of the Barrie-Vespra annexation as printed in the February 1984, volume 94, issue of Municipal World. The council wishes to state their support of the council of the township of Vespra."

This is their resolution: "That the council of the township of Charlottenburgh supports the township of Vespra and objects to Bill 142 on the grounds that it is undemocratic and is unjustified and that it appears to ignore the will of the people."

From the township of Portland: "That the council of the corporation of the township of Portland has passed a resolution opposing Bill 142 because it is undemocratic and a gross injustice."

The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) appears to have heard the word.

From the township of West Nissouri:

"Please be advised that the council for the corporation of the township of West Nissouri at its regular meeting on March 20, 1984, have passed a resolution that supports the township of Vespra with regard to our opposition to the passage of Bill 142. As a township that adjoins a large urban municipality, our interest in the passage of this bill is, of course, of the highest concern to the township and its residents.

"We sincerely hope that you will adopt a more understanding approach to the solution of these problems and endeavour to have the parties negotiate a settlement pursuant to the negotiation and resolution of municipal and boundary-related issues in Bill 142."

The Deputy Chairman: If the honourable member could start speaking to the bill section by section, we might be able to proceed.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, I could do that; it is possible. But in this House it is rare that members take direction from the chair on how they speak, on how long they speak or on what they say.

Normally, we will take direction from the chair on the rules of the House, on decorum, on members gossiping while another member is speaking and on members of the cabinet over there gossiping among themselves even though there is only one junior member of the cabinet and one would-be member of the cabinet who never will be.

We will take direction from the chair on all those things, but we do not necessarily take direction from the chair on what we can and cannot say. Normally, odd though it may seem in a democracy, that is seen to be the prerogative of the member. The member may speak to a clause of the bill for as long as he or she chooses to speak to a clause of the bill, and that is what I am doing.

A number of the municipalities on the way through this list have made reference to an article that appeared in a magazine called Municipal World. It is called "Annexation–A New Provincial Solution." I think at the very beginning of the clause-by-clause debate this, frankly, is the concern that is being expressed in a number of ways.

I do not believe I had the opportunity to read into the record in this evening's debate all the resolutions from all the townships. I know there are more, and perhaps in future clause-by-clause debates other members will want to put on the record the position taken by their local townships. I am sure they have received correspondence from some townships that I have not. They will be anxious to put those views on the record of the Legislature during the course of the clause-by-clause debate.

I think that is important because members of the Legislature are here to reflect the concerns of a constituency. Many of us who are interested in municipal politics know that sometimes the issue goes a little deeper than it might appear at first blush. People on municipal councils know that sometimes they are at a disadvantage in dealing with provincial legislation. They will very often hear about it after the fact and that it is somehow related to a resolution passed by one of their organizations or by a council a couple of years ago and it takes a long time to bubble through the system.

In this instance, in large part they were able to speak at some length during the course of their council debates because of this article in Municipal World. It is a kind of chronicling of the events around Bill 142.

Mr. Boudria: Summarize it for us.

Mr. Breaugh: In Municipal World is an account of the background and the history of the dispute, the basic matter being a commercial shopping district and what will happen to it and to the assessment that goes along with it. In my view, it is a fair account of all that surrounds Bill 142 and the directions to resolve the dispute. It makes a reasoned and eloquent case for the use of the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, which has not been done in this case. It provides an accurate summary of the circumstances surrounding this bill, which in many respects are unfortunate.

It goes on to chronicle the creation of this bill, the impact of the bill on the local municipalities and on the boundaries. I will not quote it at length because I know we are not supposed to read unnecessarily. It goes to the heart of the problem when it spends a bit of its time investigating the need.

I think most of us during the committee kept waiting for someone to address himself or herself to the basic issue at hand, namely, is this good legislation? Is it necessary legislation? Does it do something positive for people? What is the need that was created that will be fulfilled by Bill 142? I will just quote one paragraph from this.

"The compensation may, however, be begging the main questions in relation to this issue. In the first instance, it has always been a prerequisite of annexation that the applying municipality establish a 'need' for the land to be annexed. Vespra representatives do not feel that such a need has ever been established and, indeed, the very introduction of legislation now contravenes that prerequisite because the majority government does not have to produce a reason or need, acceptable or otherwise."

I think that goes to the heart of the problem. Many municipalities understand that boundary disputes are awkward. Somewhere in the course of the debate or the argument around a boundary dispute, somebody has to put on the table why there is a reason for annexation. Someone has to build a clear, logical case that says this little piece of territory is associated with the wrong form of municipal government and ought to be moved into an urban area or into a suburban area.

Nowhere in the course of all our public hearings on this, in the course of the minister's opening statement or in the course of the debate this evening, where we began the clause-by-clause consideration, did anyone make the case for the need for Bill 142. No one ever bothered to attempt to make that case. The attitude was simply, as Vespra township has put it, a government wants to do something and because --

Mr. Boudria: Claude told them to do it.

Mr. Breaugh: This is difficult to say because it is not on the record anywhere else and I am dealing with impressions. I get the impression the government of Ontario does not particularly feel a need to annex any part of Vespra township into the city of Barrie.

9:30 p.m.

Members can reach back into history and pull out some planning studies which indicate that perhaps things would be more desirable if they were aligned in a somewhat different way. Members can find some rather old studies of a sociological nature indicating the province would like population patterns to be distributed in a slightly different way. Members can read some rather vague inclination on the part of various ministers that certain types of industry ought to be reach certain population projections. But nowhere in the presentation of this bill was any of that addressed succinctly or even directly. Nowhere did anybody even bother to establish a need for this bill. Nowhere did anyone put forward any studies, however brief, that said this bill will do good things for anybody.

All of that remains unstated and all of that remains unknown. The truth is that most of the government members opposite do not know why they are doing this to Vespra township. I think that is not an unfair thing to say. The majority of the members opposite even might say this is a particularly dumb thing to do. They might be saying, "Why are we doing this?"

I imagine there have been discussions about this in the Tory caucus. I can imagine the member for Leeds coming in and saying, "I have this resolution from my township council, and they are saying this bill establishes a very unfortunate precedent and is quite wrong." I know the member for Leeds and others over there are not hesitant to put their views on the record. They are prepared to go to their caucus and argue privately, and on occasion, rare though it is, to voice publicly concerns they have about government policy.

I have never seen it written that it is government policy in Ontario totally to ignore a rural township and in theory to propose an annexation of this kind supposedly because the city of Barrie wants it. If one was at the hearings, he would have to say he did not hear the case for need being put by Barrie. Barrie came before a legislative committee and said it supported the bill. That is a long way from making an argument about need or from saying, "Here are all the studies that show if we get this annexation we will provide these services to this portion of the community and these other services to another." We did not see any long-range plan.

In our discussions with members of the council and their staff, where I attempted to ascertain whether they had given much consideration to this, my impression was that they had not. I felt this was something that was proposed by the Solicitor General for reasons that escape me. I have read his letters to the editor where he attempts to explain. I understand he also did a mailout to his constituency people explaining why he was in support of Bill 142. However, nowhere in all of that mailing was there an explanation of why the Solicitor General was spearheading a drive to put forward a municipal bill.

Perhaps there is an explanation in there for the rather strange actions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Normal procedure would be that the minister would introduce legislation such as this and that he would in some way track the legislation. I understand ministers do not always spend their time in committees these days. Parliamentary assistants, when they are not travelling the world, spend some time marshalling bills through committee.

But somewhere one would have thought the minister would resurface. For example, when the bill was brought back into the House today, one would have thought it would be the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing who would say: "Here is my bill. I want to associate my name with the intentions behind this piece of legislation." He did not do that. I know he was here today. I saw him in his place during question period and I understand he attended a little reception for some visitors from France. However, he did not find the time to make his way back in here to see that his legislation was properly presented to the Legislature.

I find it strange that the minister responsible puts such a long distance between himself and this legislation. I find it more than strange that the visible minister is one who happens to live in the area but is not responsible for the bill. We invited him to participate on second reading of the debate and he did -- slightly. But I think one would be hard pressed to say that in the course of the second reading debate the Solicitor General did much more than defend his right as a member to say something. He certainly did not provide the Legislature with a rationale for proceeding with this annexation. He certainly did not answer any of the questions about financial obligations. He certainly did not answer any of the questions about the ramifications of all of this.

I am left with the conclusion that we have in front of us this evening a bill that is strange in nature. It is strange in nature because in the normal process in the case of an annexation one of the municipalities would have decided it needed a particular piece of turf and it would request the minister to put it over to the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act.

In previous days it might have requested the minister to put forward legislation providing for the annexation. Then the obligation would be on that party to come before a committee of the Legislature and explain the need, tell us all the reasons this legislation should be passed, tell us all the plans it had to provide services to those citizens, fill in all the blank spaces that would show us things are not going to go right unless this annexation proceeds.

Failing that, one would think, if the minister chose to present the bill, the obligation would then fall upon the minister to provide us with those answers. None of that has happened. It is an interesting exercise when a bill goes to committee here. In my experience, for the most part the members are very anxious to see that the public has a chance to present its point of view. I must say it was with great concern and considerable finagling that an attempt was made by me and others on the committee to travel to the area to have a public hearing there.

The member for Simcoe East chaired the committee. He went out of his way to point out that it would be a good idea, and it was, to take the members of the committee to the area. We travelled to the area and spent about a day and a half travelling the boundaries and looking at the different situations that were at odds there. We looked at the shopping centre and we looked at Little Lake. We looked at the kind of development in Vespra township and we looked at the lands that were owned by developers and that would be right for development.

Basically, we reconnoitred the area. We got a good briefing from some staff people and from the member for Simcoe East, who is very knowledgeable about the area, where he served on the township council and county council. He filled us in on the local background. It seemed to me it would be quite natural, and the committee would be anxious, to go somewhere off into Simcoe county and hold hearings. It might not have been a good idea to go into Vespra township or the city of Barrie and set up shop there, but we found what seemed to be an obvious place to hold the hearings in the county council chamber.

There was great reluctance on the part of the majority of members of the committee to do that. A rather facetious argument was put up that, although by motion of the House we were allowed to travel to the area, and we had already done that, we had established the precedent ourselves. There was a kind of facetious procedural argument, a smokescreen, put up for a few days which said: "You cannot go up there. The Legislature did not order you to go up there. It is not possible for a committee of the Legislature to visit and hold public hearings outside Queen's Park."

All of that, of course, is utter and total nonsense. A few days later it was pointed out to be utter and total nonsense when the chairman came in and said: "I guess we can go up there for a day. We will do it in an evening and we will hear what they have to say." We did get to that point. We got through the hearing stage rather nicely. It was a positive experience for most people here.

I would generalize a bit and say the presentations before the committee were often presented with a good deal of fervour, but they were respectable presentations. Nobody was there to rabble-rouse. Nobody was there to call people names. The citizens were there to present their case to what they thought was a legislative committee that would hear them in fairness.

9:40 p.m.

I think what shocked some of the people who made a presentation to the committee was that they had obviously been to county council and to township council before that, and when citizens' groups do that they are conditioned to the idea that if one goes before a committee of a council and presents a legitimate argument the council will not only listen, but also will actually hear what they have to say and respond to it in legislative terms. It will do what is a reasonable thing to do.

Some of them talked to me afterwards and said they were a bit confused, because they even heard members of the government party agreeing that the points they made were reasonable. They even heard members of the government party saying: "We want to give you folks a fair hearing. We want to see you get a fair shake here. We want to see that this boundary makes some sense. We want to see that the responsibilities delegated to each of the municipalities are logical."

In the end that did not happen. Although they nodded wisely at the appropriate moment, some members even saying on one occasion, "We believe in the right of the people to be heard," a few minutes later they voted not to provide an occasion when people could be heard. These citizens were confused, and I think with good reason.

We spent the majority of our time going through the public hearing process. I believe we spent the last two days -- if not two, perhaps three days -- actually going through clause by clause in committee. Some strange things happened. The government presented a bill in the last session, and we had an opportunity to debate it in committee. We held a set of public hearings on a bill.

Then after the public had gone, after the committee decided to go at it clause by clause, all of a sudden the bill changed shape; different things were yanked out. We were literally sitting in the committee room over here with maps pasted together and civil servants drawing little squiggly lines on maps and someone saying: "I do not want it there. I will just move it over here." So another little squiggle was drawn.

At the end of this whole process, nobody on the committee knew what the hell map we were looking at. The truth is that nobody knows it now. What we have added to this bill is what should have been put in at the committee stage. I pointed that out to the chairman of the committee. I said: "We are going to have a little problem here, because you cannot pass legislation by drawing little squiggly lines on a map. You have to have a more legal definition."

We finally got it to the point where at least there was a hope of some measure of understanding among the committee members as to exactly where the line would go. I found out subsequently that at a meeting in the area, the minister announced -- I have to correct myself here. Normally when I say "the minister," I mean the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is responsible for the bill. In this case when I say "the minister," I mean the Solicitor General, because he is the only minister we ever see sticking his snoot through the door with this bill in his hand.

The Solicitor General announced the boundary had been changed. We are faced with the unusual situation of a bill having been debated on second reading in one form and having gone through the whole committee for hearings and clause-by-clause in another form and the minister feeling quite free to change the very boundary that is the heart of argument. The minister felt free to take it out and almost on a whim, it seems, to change it.

I recall saying in the little windup in the course of our committee hearings on it: "You really cannot do this. You would be better off to state a general intention of putting in the exact legal definitions of the boundary at a later date and acknowledge that." The parliamentary assistant insisted that was the way they were going to do it. The bill was not even printed when they had a subsequent change in place and announced publicly.

I raise this little point with the Chairman because it is unusual. Usually the ministers around here at least do the courtesy of presenting this stuff to the members of the Legislature. It is a bit unusual to see the government changing its policy on a total whim, which is what it did.

I suppose when we get to that portion of the bill dealing with the boundary itself, we may get an explanation of what the hell is going on here. I have to say tonight I do not know. I am not sure whether this is the boundary they mean as opposed to the boundary they proposed in December 1983 or the boundary on which we held a set of hearings or, as a kind of juxtaposition up against the boundary, that final squiggly little line I saw in room 228.

It is a strange piece of business that the actual mechanics of this bill were put together in less than two days' time after a set of public hearings on the bill. If I were a member of the public in Vespra township, I might be a little upset about that. I might be saying to my local member: "What do you mean having a series of public hearings on a bill that changes shape and form after you have presented it? What do you mean by that? Does it not give some redress here? Should we not have another kick at the cat? Should there not be an opportunity for us to discuss the real bill, the one you really intended, instead of the one you presented to the Legislature last year?"

It seems to me they would have a legitimate argument about that. They will not have a chance if things stay as they are now. What galls me most is that there is an aura of arrogance through all this.

Mr. Hennessy: Ho, ho. Look who is talking.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Fort William gave one of his wisest speeches there. He just said, "Ho, ho." That is one of his best and more eloquent speeches.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): The member will ignore the interjection and continue with his remarks.

Mr. Breaugh: There seems to be more speeches going on in the back benches over there.

To get back to my point, there is a measure of unfortunate arrogance flowing through this bill. It is unfortunate because it may not even be intended. That is the worst kind of arrogance. It is one thing to be full of bravado when one knows what one wants. However, among the members of the government party who sat on the committee, I sensed a real and sincere kind of purpose for holding the hearings.

It seemed to me that several senior members spent a good deal of effort in the committee trying to see that people had a chance to be heard, including the great member for Lambton, who had a distinguished career in a certain sense around this House as Minister of Agriculture and Food and who is someone interested in rural Ontario.

The sad part is that although they were prepared to sit in front of people when they spoke, they seemed not to want to listen to them. That is unfortunate. I am not one to cast aspersions on other members, and I really do not want to say they did so with malice aforethought.

It struck me that most of the members of the committee did not know why they were there. They were put on the committee because members get put on a committee when a bill goes out around here. They made an effort as they went though the hearings to try to pick up on the reason for the bill, why it was being proposed and why it had that particular shape and form.

They could not do it, because nobody was making that argument. Failing that, they fell back on a position where they said, "We should right some of the obvious wrongs in this bill." I think they identified two or three major areas of concern. One was that nobody said anything about need; nobody bothered to make that case.

Second, the financial arrangements were getting a little on the awesome side. I think most of us would look at a bill and say: "The bill is not perfect, but no legislation really is. However, an agreement has been reached among the players, and in particular a financial agreement, so at least everybody knows what is happening here."

As it now stands, it is almost like buying a car without knowing the price of the car. One may be happy to have a big car, but the salesman has not yet bothered to say what the price of the vehicle is. That is tantamount to what is occurring here. None of the parties involved understands what the financial obligations will be should this bill pass.

That is not just an awkward way to proceed; it is a flat-out wrong way to proceed. This bill should not be proceeded with until such time as the players have arrived at a financial agreement of sorts. I am making the argument that it ought to be a financial agreement. If the government stays true to its course, it has an obligation to put on the table now what it thinks the financial obligations of the various players will be.

9:50 p.m.

I noticed the government addressed itself to most of the things one could think of in the bill and deliberately avoided putting on the table what it felt its obligations were. I notice the bill talks about the obligations of the city of Barrie and those of the township of Vespra, but it does not mention even what areas are the obligations of the province, the legislative body that initiated this bill. It is a bill of goods that should not be bought; it is a bill of goods without a price tag.

If you look at the track record of the government, you may ask, "Has it attempted to negotiate?"

Mr. Rotenberg: Yes.

Mr. Breaugh: I hear a little yapping from the member for Wilson Heights, who says, "Yes."

Mr. Rotenberg: It is not yapping; it is a statement of fact.

Mr. Breaugh: A statement of fact. Yes.

The Acting Chairman: Order, the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Bradley: That was a chihuahua that was running through the House.

The Acting Chairman: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: I did not think it was a chihuahua; I thought it was the member himself rising from the grave over there to say something.

To my knowledge, the extent to which the province went to conclude the financial obligations of all the parties involved was to convene one meeting at Georgian College. I am aware that Vespra and others have made an attempt to find out from ministry staff what the ground rules would be for deciding the financial obligations of everybody involved, and that has not come to fruition.

In the past I have been involved in forms of boundary disputes. They are not easy things to resolve. I have been involved in the restructuring of my own municipality, and I know that from our own staff's point of view they always said to us: "All this stuff is fine; whatever you people would like to do we will do in some way, shape or form. But the bottom line always has to be that somebody has to pay. Before you go off taking new responsibilities, before you go off asking for a change in boundaries, come back and talk to us a little bit. We will provide you with information about how much it will cost to do this, this and this; then we will propose to you some way it could be paid for by different levels of government."

That is inherent even in section 1 of this bill. The players in the game are identified, and it is assumed, perhaps wrongly, that all the players in this act have a financial obligation: the city, the minister and the township. There is one other player here; there is a county council up there that has influence on this. All four levels of government then will have some financial responsibilities. At this date we do not know what they will be. At this date we do not know who is going to pay which costs. At this date it would be quite wrong to say that those negotiations are under way; we do not know that.

The parliamentary assistant's total contribution to this part of the debate has been a little yap just now, when he said, "Yes."

In a public way what we know is that one meeting was held, and at that meeting no formula, not even a proposal, was presented; there was only a clarification that there are lots of players involved in here and everybody is going to have to pay some money. I think that is the wrong way to proceed with a bill of this nature.

It is a difficult bill; it would be difficult in the best of times. But it does seem to me that the province has not fulfilled its obligation. It has put some minor guarantees in here. It sought in the last little scrambling off in committee to clarify, for example, exactly who will carry out assessment for the pipeline for the last six months of this year.

It maintains the concept that this bill will go into effect on July 1, 1984, and the parties mentioned in section 1 will have a different set of circumstances to deal with. I do not think this bill should proceed past this stage until such time as we have clarified the financial obligations of all parties concerned. It seems to me that this almost automatically precludes such a starting date for the bill.

We talked on second reading about an implementation date that was much earlier than the one proposed in here. The government seemed adamant that it had to adhere to an earlier starting date. No real reasons were given; it just said, "This is very arbitrary, and we have to do it."

The starting date of July 1 for this legislation was seen by some members of the government party, I am sure, as a major concession. The truth is that the government may have this legislation in place by July 1, but there is no guarantee of that; none in the least.

We have been sitting around doing odds and sods of legislation in here. This is the first occasion since the House returned that Bill 142 has even been presented to the House for its consideration. It is difficult to say the government has given it a high priority.

In less than three weeks' time this Legislature is supposedly going to adjourn for a while for various reasons, some of which are self-evident and some of which are not. This bill may not get called again; we do not know. We know there is a short list of bills the government wants, and if memory serves me correctly, this bill is not one of those.

I do not have a good concept of whether it is intended that this bill proceed, whether we will set aside everything other ministries want to do in order to deal with the annexation of a portion of the township of Vespra by the city of Barrie.

I think there is a misnomer in here. This is not a proposal from the city of Barrie, not by a long shot. It did not carry the bill in committee. It did not provide the prerequisite of need. It did not champion the bill. I think that is a fair comment, because it was not Barrie's initiative that caused this bill to happen. I do not think it was the initiative of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing either. If it was, it sure was a short-lived initiative, because he read one little opening statement and has since been long gone.

It is difficult to determine exactly who took this initiative. Rumours have it the Solicitor General decided some night, somewhere, to take the bull by the horns, so to speak --

Mr. Nixon: He has a lot of political clout, that guy.

Mr. Breaugh: It is his bill and his initiative.

Mr. Nixon: It is going to be kind of slow around here without him.

The Acting Chairman: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: The members are pointing out that this may turn out to be a kind of election issue. One never knows around here. It would be a magnificent election issue.

Mr. Bradley: Are you ready for a point of privilege?

Mr. Breaugh: No, not for a little while. I have fought elections that were caused by less significant issues. The last one I caused was in 1977 when I moved to reduce the rent control bill by two per cent. That seemed to be a matter that caused the fall of the government. After we had the election and came back in here, the government proposed my amendment as its policy. We have certainly had elections around less significant issues.

This would be a magnificent election issue because it is an issue all about our democratic process. This is an aberration of the democratic process.

I would like to know whether this bill went through the Tory caucus. I would love to know how a bill of this nature went through a caucus that is composed in large measure of politicians who cut their teeth on rural politics in Ontario. I would like to know how a group of people living in rural Ontario, most of whom came out of county councils and township councils, could have the audacity to sit there and spit on their own traditions and support this kind of legislation.

Even the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen) would not have voted for this kind of manipulation. He cut his teeth on fighting the evil Tory government in Ontario. He was challenged by the evil Tory government in Ontario in the courts and on the streets in his riding. He never would have accepted this. He has since joined the evil Tories in Ontario, and I am not sure whether he has changed his mind on it, but it does bring sharply into focus that members seem to have set aside what they know of the political process.

10 p.m.

There are members opposite who know this is a rotten bill. They know in their hearts it is not going to work and is the wrong way to proceed. They know it would be politically suicidal if people really understood what the Tories in rural Ontario are proposing to do with this kind of legislation. They would use all the language I read into the record previously this evening. They would know and understand that this is undemocratic and the wrong way to proceed.

This bill does not fulfil any of the criteria for annexation that have ever been known to anybody. If they were great free enterprise Tories, they would understand that there is no need for this bill. Cadillac Fairview already has all it wants; it said so in the Barrie Examiner, which I read a little while ago.

Cadillac Fairview says: "We are going to proceed with the expansion of our shopping mall, with our own services. Maybe later on, if somebody pumps a sewer up the road, we will hook into it. But for now, we do not need municipal services. We will proceed as is and provide all the services that are necessary.

If the members of the government party are rabid free enterprisers, they do not need this piece of garbage to muck up history. If they are big fans of Cadillac Fairview or worshippers at the shrine of Fast Eddie Goodman, they can genuflect and go home. They have what they want. They do not need them any more.

There is no need to jack around with little Vespra township. The members of the government party should leave them alone and go home. I do not understand for the life of me why they do not simply do that. Are they all tied so firmly to the tail of the Solicitor General that when it wags they will bounce around the stall with him? It is not necessary. Cut it loose. Leave them alone. There is nobody in this province who wants this bill.

I know Barrie has endorsed the legislation in a formal, public way. I had a chance to talk to a few of the Barrie people during the course of the public hearing, and they were a little unnerved that we were asking some questions to which their staff did not have answers. I will be surprised if a year from now the members of the city council of Barrie think this was the right way to proceed. I will be shocked if two years from now there are not great demands for urban services in the annexed area.

We went over the maps in committee, and one of the questions I asked was: "Let us not play funny little games about saving farm land and doing all those features. Let us ask the hard questions. Who owns this property and who has options on it?" The answer was that a number of developers -- some were before the committee -- own most, if not all, of the annexed land.

Those of us who have sat on municipal councils know that developers do not buy land or put options on land to farm it. They are in the business of putting up houses, shopping centres and industrial plazas. To do that they want hard services. If they do not want them, the people who occupy those premises thereafter surely do. There is no question that if we make this part of Barrie, we reverse the argument.

If a developer buys some land in a rural township and bangs on council's door, saying, "We would like to put up a subdivision here," the first line of defence in rural Ontario is to say: "We do not have the services to provide that kind of stuff for you. You may have bought a nice farm, and we wish you good luck farming that land. But you did not buy part of a city; you bought part of rural Ontario."

There are all kinds of very valid reasons, from preserving farm land and the provision of services to official plans, why rural municipalities can look a developer straight in the eye and say: "It is a nice farm you bought. We hope you have a good time farming that land. But you cannot develop it."

Nowhere in Ontario is there an official plan in a city where there is a lot of agricultural land. We can point to the experimental farm in Ottawa, and in Oshawa I will show you Windfield Farms and tell you what a magnificent thing it is, but in the middle of a city, if there is a farm, that is potential development land.

I have half a dozen farms left in my riding of Oshawa, and I know that at some point the services will be there. I know that developers have bought the land or have options on it already. I know that they have rough plans for developing that property. I also know that because it is in a city, somebody at some time will want to develop that land; and a city council cannot look them in the eye and say, "You bought a farm in the middle of a city." That is a ludicrous argument.

Essentially, that is what this bill proposes to do: To take part of rural Ontario and attach it to a city. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the government of Ontario would want to do that. It flies in the face of what this government says in a public way about preserving farm land and about preserving the values of rural Ontario. It also flies in the face of what this government says about good planning. They say that good planning is based on studies that tell us what we ought to do and what we have to do in the foreseeable future. This bill does none of those things.

I am at a loss to explain why this government chooses to hang its fortunes on a bill like this which has been so soundly and thoroughly condemned from one end of the province to another. Every one of those municipal councils -- I did not read them all, but I hope I read a good share of them -- shares the concern of the township of Vespra's council.

They understand it is not just a piece of turf at risk, but that we may well be establishing a precedent, a model for annexation which is clearly and purely wrong. That was said in committee a number of times in a number of ways by prominent lawyers, ordinary citizens and members of different councils who appeared before the committee. I do not know why the government feels it has this single mind at work in there saying, "This bill has to go through," and refuses to divulge the reasons why the bill must proceed.

We have not heard that yet. We do not know why the government wants to proceed with this bill. We do not know the real purpose. It leaves one hanging there with the feeling there is a hidden agenda around all of this. For the life of me I cannot figure out what it is. Originally I thought it was the usual influence of large developers, such as Cadillac Fairview, on a government that is kind of pro-development, so to speak. Then on analysis, I found Cadillac Fairview does not need this. Originally I thought we would hear an eloquent plea put forward by the city of Barrie, but I did not hear that at all.

I did hear a rational argument put forward by the township of Vespra, but the government steadfastly ignores that argument. Quite frankly, it has ignored the arguments -- along the same lines I admit -- put by every one of those townships so far. The government does not want to talk to the council of the township of Vespra, and it does not want to address itself to the concerns raised by people at the public hearing or by opposition members here in the course of this debate this evening, but this government has an obligation to respond to those people on township councils from one end of Ontario to the other. It has an obligation to address itself to the concerns raised in all that correspondence.

The parliamentary assistant had his little chuckles for the evening, guffawing about the language used in the resolutions. I would put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that people in township councils across the province are not going to enjoy that kind of attitude toward the words they have put in. I suppose if he were reading the correspondence, he would have the odd guffaw that not all the resolutions from the councils are typewritten, that some are handwritten. He might even have the odd guffaw on the notion there is the occasional typographical error in a resolution.

He may not understand that many of our municipalities do not have flunkies to run out and type things up. If one is on a council and wants to propose a resolution, one writes it out. It is as simple as that. It is not like the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing where the parliamentary assistant, exercising what feeble powers he has, actually has the power to demand a civil servant to type out his ill-phrased words and to demand someone else, from the clerk's office probably, to go and run off those ill-framed words so all the members of committee can read them.

Maybe he does not understand that in many of our townships in Ontario the councils sit one or two nights a week and may or may not have somebody who works full-time for them. It is reasonably common for them to have someone who works part-time. They do not have all of the schemers and dreamers around. They do not have public relations people out there reacting to public opinion polls and devising new advertising campaigns, telling them how wonderful things are in South Dumfries or wherever that council is presiding. By and large, they do the work of that council on their own.

There is still an element in the province where people who are elected to public office not only have to discharge their responsibilities, but have to do other jobs as well. For example, they have to take the minutes of the committee meeting. They have to word the resolutions themselves. They do not have staff around to do that. They have to debate and discuss issues without a great deal of research or public opinion polls or anything.

10:10 p.m.

This is democracy in a slightly different form than is practised here at Queen's Park. These are people who have to face their constituents every day of their political lives. They are accountable in a slightly different way than are members of the Legislature. They do not commission polls; they do respond to people who stop them on the street and ask: "What are you doing about this? Why are you not resolving this problem?" So he may not understand what all of this is about.

I sensed in some of the little, not too funny, offhand remarks he made during the course of the debate this evening that he does not have much respect for this process at work in rural Ontario. I sensed that he lacks a basic understanding of what life is all about on a rural council. Perhaps coming from the riding of Wilson Heights in the city of Toronto --

Mr. McClellan: Wilson Heights is not in the city of Toronto.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, Metropolitan Toronto. I apologize to the city of Toronto for that.

In Metropolitan Toronto, politics is somewhat different. In some ways it is a little cruder and in other ways it is a little more sophisticated than life on a council in a township. But I think there is much to be said about those township councils. I was impressed by the correspondence I received from every one of them. It seemed to me they understood the plight of the township of Vespra and what the argument was all about. More important, it seemed they understood the importance of this argument to our political system because this bill is tantamount to a government gone crazy.

When we come right down to it, probably most of the members on the government side do not want anything to do with it. I have not heard the member for Leeds or the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) stand up and say:

"We should ignore totally what the people in Vespra township want. There is no need to provide a rationale here for this bill to proceed. We are the government; we want to do it. Somebody in our midst proposed it and we are all on side with it and we are all, like good little soldiers, going to stand up at the right time and vote for this bill."

I do not think there are very many members over there who really think that way. Yet it seems to me from the course of the debate and by the nature of the bill itself, a lot of government members are going to vote for something they know is fundamentally flawed and wrong -- and, more than that, stupid. They might vote for some wrong things from time to time, but there are not many members on that side who would pride themselves on voting for stupidity. It seems to me that is exactly what they are doing with this bill.

There is not a leg to stand on, in my opinion, for proceeding with this bill. It seems to me that the townships, one after another, have responded in their own way and this government has an obligation to listen to that response. It has an obligation to show a little bit of respect, for one thing.

Maybe the parliamentary assistant, when he resumes his participation in this debate this evening, will share with us the government's response to these letters from the various townships. I know a number of them have written directly to the Premier. I will not go into why townships feel comfortable about writing to the Premier in this province but there are many rural townships who feel they are part of the Big Blue Machine in some funny way. They feel they are quite at liberty to write to the Premier. I am sure anybody in Ontario is at liberty to write to the Premier.

I would be interested in hearing what kind of kerfuffle the Premier, his eminence himself, has put in writing in response to what I think are their very accurate insights into this bill. I would be interested in hearing the parliamentary assistant deliver to us in the Legislature an explanation as to just how this thing got so far off the track.

I would like to hear him explain at some point just how the Premier -- who is seen by many to have a good sense of grassroots politics in this province -- how that eminently wise and moderate person ever allowed such stupid legislation to get in place. I am not sure the parliamentary assistant is capable of doing that, but I would certainly appreciate it if he would make the attempt.

I heard his interjections throughout the course of the evening in which he made the allusion that someone had misled all these poor folks on rural councils. There are not many people around who are smart enough to mislead people on a rural council in Ontario. He may think so, but I was born and raised among them -- people from South Fredericksburgh, Pittsburg township, Richmond township. He may think he is a lot smarter than they are and he may dress in a more expensive suit or ride in a larger limousine, but I doubt he is smarter. I would be interested to hear on what basis the parliamentary assistant so grandly pronounced tonight they were misled, that they did not know what they were talking about. I would be interested in hearing that. Exactly who misled them?

I read the article in the Municipal World. If that is what he is referring to, I think Julian Tofts put together an excellent analysis, perhaps not from an objective point of view, but he is a competent person who attempted to put on the record what happened. It strikes me his version of what happened in the course of developing this bill is pretty accurate.

If I were attempting to do a historical piece on it, I would be far harder on the member than the writer was in that article. I would be a whole lot tougher on how this bill was put together, on exactly how it was proceeded with, on exactly why this government has not done very much to respond to legitimate questions that were raised. I would be interested in, and I want to hear somewhere in the course of this debate, exactly what the parliamentary assistant has to say about all this.

I would like to hear the reply of the Premier to all these townships and I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant put on the record in a slightly more formal way just exactly what he meant about how they were misled or how they were operating on inaccurate information. I sat through the committee hearings, every minute of every day, and I did not see anything inaccurate in any of those reports -- not a whit.

If he dares to, I would be interested in having the parliamentary assistant put on the record exactly where he thinks things were misrepresented or exactly how he feels all of these duly elected municipal councils, even though they may be from rather small population centres, have somehow been misled or led astray. I looked at them and I came to the directly opposite conclusion. It seemed to me they are perceptive to the extreme. They know exactly what the political process is all about, perhaps better than the member for Wilson Heights does, and they know exactly how this system works. They know the flaws in the system and they know the flaws that have been exploited to produce this legislation.

I would be interested in hearing the member for Wilson Heights give us one of his not too famous lectures on how the Tories have held control of this province for more than 40 years. It strikes me that a major part of the reason has been their strength in rural Ontario. The very people who sit on these municipal councils in rural Ontario are the people who have made the members opposite a government for more than 40 years. Now the government is about to spit in their faces; as much as telling them they do not know what they are talking about. It is as much as saying they are wrong. It is saying they are easily misled and they really do not understand what this process is all about.

I put it to the parliamentary assistant that the people on the councils know more about this process than he will ever learn. They know the truth when they see it and they also know who is telling something other than the truth. They are far more perceptive than he ever will be. I would be interested in hearing what feeble arguments he might put up to the contrary because I do not think he has any argument at all.

I want to talk just for a little while about the role of the Solicitor General in this. Somewhere in the course of this debate, it must happen, although it has not happened to date.

Mr. Boudria: A speech from the Solicitor General?

Mr. Breaugh: I am not looking for that kind of punishment. But somewhere here the Solicitor General of Ontario must give an accounting to the Legislature of Ontario as to exactly what role he played in this whole travesty of justice. The Solicitor General does not care to listen tonight. He is very busy talking to his chief whip, worrying about whether he will get enough members in case there is a vote or something like that.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The record has been going on too long.

Mr. Breaugh: I know the Solicitor General does not like people debating. That is a fact on his part. I know he does not like opposing points of view. That is also a fact on his part.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: It is not a debate. If the member searches his mind, he has been repeating everything he has said before.

Mr. Breaugh: Has the Solicitor General any more lecture notes for me tonight?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I could not help the member in his efforts.

Mr. Breaugh: I beg the minister's pardon. We are trying to get him on the record about something this evening. It is not possible.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member should keep talking. He is interesting.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate that I am interesting, but I do not take it as a compliment, coming from the Solicitor General.

I am trying, but I want to make the point that somewhere in this process --

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Trying is the exact word.

10:20 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: I am trying. I hope I am causing the Solicitor General great pain. I hope I am causing him as much pain as he is causing the people in Vespra township. That would seem to me to be only fair.

I want to say to the minister as sincerely and directly as I can that somewhere in this process, as we wind down to the final hours of debate on this bill, I want him to explain to us what role he played in this bill. Some minister of the crown initiated this bill. It appears not to have been the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not been here all night long. That is par for the course in many regards, but he is clearly putting a fair distance between himself and this legislation. The one who is here listening, but not speaking much, is the new silent Earl over there, silent George, the Solicitor General.

I remember the then Minister of Health, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), lecturing the member for Frontenac-Addington for being silent on several matters. I am going to read some of those old speeches of the Minister of Health to the member for Frontenac-Addington, when he nicknamed him silent Earl, about how members are supposed to speak out from time to time. I want to hear what silent George has to say about this bill.

I think it is only fair and not being unreasonable to say we have searched to find the minister responsible for this legislation. It is tough because one hears he is introducing the bill and then he disappears for the duration of the war, so to speak. Instead, another minister of the crown, namely, the Solicitor General, keeps popping up with this hot little bill in his hand, on some days claiming credit for having introduced this bill, when he did not.

I was interested to find when I went to the Barrie area that some residents were somewhat confused. They were talking about the Solicitor General's bill. I said: "We do not have a bill with his name on it. I have one here with the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on it, but not one with Solicitor General's name on it. They said, "Did he not introduce this bill to the Legislature?" I had to say: "No, he did not. It is fine for him to say he is a part of the government that introduced it, but it is not his bill."

They somehow seemed to get the notion the Solicitor General had introduced this legislation. Maybe he took it around to a few folks. Maybe he explained it in a letter to all his constituents. Maybe he wrote some letters to the Barrie Examiner. Maybe lots of other things happened, but he did not introduce this legislation. His relationship to this bill seems to be questionable.

All I want, somewhere in this process, is to have the Solicitor General explain to the rest of us members his connection as an ordinary member of the Legislature representing a constituency that had some controversy about the boundary and the resolving of that problem. Is he acting in his capacity as a minister of the cabinet? Is he acting in his capacity as Solicitor General? Has he decided the chief cop in Ontario is now going to resolve boundary disputes by legislation? Is that his approach? Is that part of his new role as an expanding Solicitor General who is now taking on boundary disputes?

Mr. Martel: Line fences next.

Mr. Breaugh: I would hate to turn him loose on things such as line fences disputes.

Mr. Martel: If he ever got hold of the Line Fences Act --

Mr. Breaugh: He would bring in tanks to resolve line fences disputes. Somewhere in this process the Solicitor General owes this Legislature an explanation of his relationship and his role in presenting this bill to his caucus, to this Legislature and to his constituency back home. He has not done that yet. He has put on the record in a variety of ways that he supports the bill, but he has not exactly explained what his relationship is with this bill.

Is this his bill? Is this a bill the government has taken at his initiative and presented through another minister and then had it fronted by the parliamentary assistant? I want to know the intricacies of that relationship. I want to know all the warm and wonderful details of how the Solicitor General proposes to resolve this longstanding dispute.

At this point, I would like to let the parliamentary assistant say a couple of words. It would be nice to have somebody in charge of this bill in the Legislature this evening. Maybe it begs the point I just raised. Normally, when a bill is proceeding through the Legislature somebody is in charge of the bill. Sometimes it is the minister, but I look for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and he is not here. Sometimes it is the parliamentary assistant, but I look over at the last little hair on the tail of the Tories and the parliamentary assistant is not there.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: He is right there.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, he is hiding at the other end of the chamber.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: He is resting. He is getting sick.

Mr. Breaugh: Who is getting sick?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Oshawa will not allow these disruptions to interrupt him.

Mr. Breaugh: This disruptive behaviour is just tearing me up. He has been sick for some time; you know that. You do not have to nod in agreement; that is not necessary.

Before I was so rudely interrupted, somewhere in the process of dealing with this bill in its final phases we need to have a little bit of accountability. It is tough to sort out.

I notice, for example, that many members on the government side at least who sat through the public hearings on the bill are not here tonight. I am disappointed at that. Let me see. Put your hands up, boys. There is one.

Mr. Sheppard: Come on, Al.

Mr. Martel: One.

Mr. Breaugh: I said some of the members were not here; I should have said almost all the members.

Mr. Sheppard: He was a good chairman.

Mr. Breaugh: Well, the chairman of the committee has a role similar to that of a county court circuit judge or something. He packs up his Cadillac, goes out and hears hearings.

But before I was so rudely interrupted, I had anticipated, quite frankly, that the member for Lambton, for example -- who is a rather imposing figure when he sits on a committee, and who made some contributions to the final deals that were struck behind closed doors on various clauses of this debate -- would be here tonight to participate in this debate; it is unfortunate that he is not here. Several other members of the Conservative Party who sat through all or portions of the hearings could have given us the benefit of their experience in municipal council work, especially in rural Ontario, and we have not had that.

Mr. Martel: I want to hear from the member who represents the riding. I want to know where he stands. He is not here now.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. The logical thing would be, of course, that at some point the member who does represent the riding would present himself before the committee or at least participate somewhere in the course of the debates on such an important local matter, and he has not really done that. He has written letters to the editor, letters to constituents and letters to the Premier probably, rationalizing what he is doing here; but he has not quite put the finishing touches on it, and he is going to have a chance in the course of this clause-by-clause debate to resolve that outstanding problem.

The purpose of the bill, as I understand it, was to change life in the part of Vespra township that is being annexed. I notice that the latest newspaper story out of the Barrie area, from the Barrie Examiner, had the headline "Rural Life Will Remain the Same." It seems to me that if everything is going to stay the same, if rural life in Vespra township will not change a whit because of the passage of this bill, if no new services will be provided to anybody anywhere at any time because of this bill and if Cadillac Fairview has all it needs, there is a need for someone to explain to this Legislature why we are proceeding with this bill. That remains a fundamental question to which there has been to date no answer.

I know we are winding down a little bit this evening, and I want to make sure the parliamentary assistant has an opportunity to finish up on this first section, because I think a number of questions have been raised by both the member for Waterloo North and me that deserve to have answers. I know that each and every one of those municipal councils that took the time to deliberate upon a request from Vespra township, took it on its own initiative from information they had --

The Deputy Chairman: Is there time for the minister to --

Mr. Breaugh: I would be happy to move adjournment of the debate and take it up again later.

The Deputy Chairman: There is no need to make that motion.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Eaton, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.