METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS ACT
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON MEMBERS' SERVICES
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
VISITORS
The Deputy Chairman: Before we get to business, there are some Boy Scouts in the gallery from my riding. We welcome them, along with all others in the House.
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS ACT
Consideration of Bill 140, An Act to revise the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act, 1981.
The Deputy Chairman: Are there any amendments up to section 5? Can we begin with section 5? That is the first amendment I have, unless anyone has anything before that. Of course, I do not want to go too quickly.
Mr. Worton: Go right ahead.
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to. Does the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) have anything before section 5?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 5:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by deleting subsection 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"(1) The commissioner shall establish and maintain, for the purpose of this act, an investigation branch to be known as the Public Complaints Investigation Bureau."
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the basic problem that we in this party have had with this bill --
Mr. Nixon: What do you mean, "we"?
Mr. Haggerty: Where is everybody else?
Mr. Philip: A number of them are out celebrating tonight, which is more than the Liberals can say.
The major problem the various new Canadian groups, the various ethnic groups and the various civil libertarian groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have had with the bill -- and we share their concern -- is that the initial investigation is done by the police themselves.
Quite rightly, the Attorney General has stated this matter has been debated at some length and that gentlemen who disagree may disagree in a parliamentary system. We have made all the arguments before. The Attorney General knows the arguments; we know his arguments. Therefore, I do not see any reason we should prolong the debate. It is fairly clear to us that to gain the confidence of those who are objecting, among those who have concerns about the police, the investigation should be directly under the powers of the commissioner.
The Attorney General disagrees. We understand his reasons for disagreeing, but we do not accept them. I move this amendment, and I am sure the Liberals will support it.
The Deputy Chairman: The way to tell is to watch how they vote.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated when we had a very interesting discussion in the standing committee on administration of justice yesterday, and as the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) has pointed out, this is an issue about which reasonable people can and undoubtedly do disagree.
At this juncture, as we consider the bill clause by clause, I appreciate very much the member's deep interest in this important legislation. While we may have some disagreements, I have no question the member for Etobicoke is deeply committed to wanting this legislation to work well in the interests of all the citizens of this community, and although we have some disagreement we share the same goals.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip's amendment to section 5 will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived. Section 5 agreed to. Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7:
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(4) For the purposes of this section a person who observes an incident shall be deemed to be a person directly affected by the incident."
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This was another matter that came up yesterday, and I hope this amendment has unanimous support. The concern was expressed that a witness who observed an incident might not be regarded as qualifying as a complainant within the legislation, and we want to clarify this to avoid any misunderstanding or dispute in the future.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, since this recognizes in legislative form what is currently a practice, we have no objection and will certainly support this amendment.
Mr. Philip: I appreciate that the minister has responded to one of the concerns I raised on second reading of the bill and that a number of groups raised in appearing before the justice committee. Our party will support it because we think it is a move in the right direction. At the same time, I will reserve the right to move an amendment to section 18 that I think will cover certain other instances that are not covered by the minister's amendment.
Basically, his amendment recognizes the cases I brought to his attention on second reading; namely, the problem of the reporter or the trade unionist who observes an action by the police that is not appropriate but who feels or has it demonstrated that the person who has had that action done to him or her is too afraid or for whatever reason is not prepared to follow through on the complaint.
8:10 p.m.
At the same time, I have grave concerns that certain organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are not covered by this. In the justice committee yesterday, we had a fairly good example of a case where an alderman had brought to the commissioner's attention a problem which the commissioner, because he had a sensitivity to it, investigated. The fact is he had no statutory ability to investigate that.
We had no problem with that in the Metropolitan Toronto case because in that instance he was able to proceed with the co-operation of the then chief of police.
My fear is that at some future date or in some other municipality -- we have seen some of the problems in the Niagara area, for example -- a chief of police may not be as co-operative or the commissioner may not have as much courage as Mr. Linden has.
For that reason, I am very concerned that someone such as a member of the Legislature, an alderman or some reputable group such as a ratepayers association or the civil liberties association, may wish to have a matter -- a systemic problem, if one likes -- investigated and this amendment will not cover it.
We will support the amendment as a step in the direction in which we wish to go. We hope the Attorney General will also consider an amendment which will allow the association or other community groups to have an investigation looked into.
Motion agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 10:
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 10(7) of the bill be amended by striking out the words, "or after" in the third line.
Motion agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 13:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
"13(2)(b) The chief of police shall notify the complainant of his right to request a review by the commissioner of any decision made under subsection 13(1)."
Mr. Philip: Subsection 13(1) gives the chief of police the power to declare a complaint frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith. He can dismiss that complaint.
I have no objection to that, nor do organizations that appeared before the committee. However, we feel the complainant's right under the bill to go to the commissioner to have his complaint reviewed is not necessarily explained to him.
The basic intent of my amendment -- the Attorney General may wish to have his legislative draftsmen work on it and change the words -- is that the complainant be told he has the right to go to the commissioner and have his complaint reviewed. I hope the Attorney General will see the merits of this and accept the amendment.
Mr. Elston: As I had understood when I was with the public complaints commissioner, that is done almost as a matter of course in the last paragraph of the written police report that is provided to the individual who made the complaint.
In fairness, since it is a clarification, the amendment of my colleague the member for Etobicoke is well worth considering as part of the bill and I will support it.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am advised there is no problem at all in relation to the practice or procedure that is followed. I am further advised that if the chief ever were to decide not to notify a complainant of the right to review, the chairman could and would do so.
I have not had a chance to assess totally the impact of this amendment on other sections of the legislation, but I am advised by my colleagues in this matter that it would cause some difficulty and would require a number of other amendments. On the advice I have received, I am unable to accept the amendment, but I want to assure the members opposite that we are satisfied the complainant is protected under the legislation as it stands at present.
Mr. Philip: I appreciate that the minister is giving us his assurance. Perhaps this is the case in Metropolitan Toronto, with the fairly good relationship between the present commissioner and the previous chief, which I hope will be carried over to the new chief.
I am concerned because this is a model bill that I hope will be exported to other jurisdictions across the province. I am not convinced the relationship between the police and the public, or between the police and whoever may be appointed commissioner, is necessarily as friendly and as cordial in other municipalities. I recognize the minister may well have to make additional drafting changes in the bill. I hope the minister will accept the intent of this as a safeguard, not only for other municipalities but also for future regimes of commissioners in Metropolitan Toronto and other regimes of other police chiefs.
Since the Attorney General accepts the intent and thinks it is worth while that this be done, it might be worth while to go through the additional draftsmanship to ensure it is in the bill and that this protection is granted, particularly if, as he has indicated, it will act as a model bill for other jurisdictions where we may have less talented or less prestigious commissioners and less cooperative chiefs of police.
I see Mr. Linden is blushing and I apologize if I have made him do that.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(5) Notwithstanding subsection 4, where the commissioner is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting an extension, the commissioner may extend the time for requesting a review."
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is another amendment the members opposite advocated and we agree their proposal represents an improvement to the legislation. We are, therefore, proposing this amendment.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Philip: I recall asking the minister whether he wanted to move this amendment or wanted me to move it, and he said he would. I would be very foolish if I did not support it.
Motion agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 18:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that subsection 18(1) be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
"(d) Where he has reasonable grounds to believe an investigation will serve the public interest."
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment is fairly simple. I and many community groups are concerned that certain responsible groups, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, may notice patterns that require action and investigation, but there may be no specific complainant, or the complainants may be so intimidated or so fearful, for whatever reason, cultural or otherwise, that they do not want to come forward. This amendment extends the jurisdiction of the commissioner to investigate those kinds of complaints.
I recognize that Mr. Linden has been able, with the co-operation of the chief of police, to go forward and investigate this type of complaint, but there is no guarantee that this will continue in the future. I suggest that this is a safeguard on that. It is also a safeguard --
Interjections.
Mr. Philip: May I continue, Mr. Chairman?
The Deputy Chairman: You have my full attention.
Mr. Philip: Do I have your attention? I obviously do not have some other people's attention. A number of my colleagues are gloating. I do not mind as long as they gloat silently when I am speaking.
The Deputy Chairman: Did you say "bloating" or "gloating"?
Mr. McClellan: He said "gloating."
The Deputy Chairman: Do not allow yourself to be distracted by these mild interruptions.
Mr. Philip: It is fairly clear that this amendment will extend the powers of the commissioner so that when patterns are identified or when groups come forward that have specific concerns, he may investigate those concerns.
I would ask for the support of the Liberal Party and the Conservatives in order to have this amendment carried.
Mr. Elston: Since the House leader of the third party entered the room, the whole process is practically coming to a halt. It is obvious he has lost control of his caucus, such as it is. We beg to provide him with some degree of sympathy, but he will have to put up with what he has.
This is one of the amendments we will support. I see no reason why the legislation should not reflect something the commissioner has already been able to do, that is, where the public interest would be well served take the step of making an investigation.
One of our problems is always going to be to preserve the gains made by the commissioner in implementing this particular piece of legislation. I would be very pleased to see what have become procedural matters established by the current commissioner enshrined in the legislation so that we leave a very strong message with anyone who happens to succeed the current commissioner.
I will be pleased to provide our support to the amendment proposed by the member for Etobicoke.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. This has been the subject of a good deal of discussion in the justice committee.
Mr. Martel: We are trying to help you.
Mr. Stokes: We are on your side.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Let us have some order, please.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wish I had had as much fun at dinnertime as some members had.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Will the Attorney General please speak to the bill?
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I think the Attorney General is being unjustly maligned. I wonder if he can perhaps tell us whether or not he is opposing this amendment because he spent so much time in the Belleville-Kingston area in the last couple of days.
The Deputy Chairman: That does not pertain to the bill.
Attorney General, will you please speak to section 18 and the amendment?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the whole issue as to when the commissioner can intervene has been worked out in a very satisfactory manner. The legislation as currently drafted, as I indicated in committee yesterday, is the result of a consensus achieved largely through the skilful efforts of Mr. Linden. I am afraid it would be contrary to an understanding and consensus that have been arrived at for us to accept this amendment. Therefore, I am afraid I am unable to accept it.
Mr. Laughren: Your colours are showing.
The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke has the floor.
Mr. Philip: I know if Mr. Linden had his druthers, he would certainly want this extended authority, as would the new NDP member for Ottawa Centre and the new NDP member for Hamilton Centre.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip's amendment will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
The Deputy Chairman: There is further amendment to section 18.
Mr. Philip: I am at your discretion. I can either move for deletion of subsection (3), or I can simply allow you to divide that section and we will vote against subsection (3).
The Deputy Chairman: Would the honourable member like to make his motion?
Mr. Philip: I move that subsection 18(3) of the bill be deleted.
The Deputy Chairman: You will have to vote against it; that is your move.
Mr. Philip: May I speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman?
I believe the motion is self-evident. It was a concern of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and of other groups that appeared before the committee that in any kind of investigation one does not advise the person being investigated that he is under investigation. The most serious case would be where the chief of police himself was the centre of investigation and where the wrongdoing might have been directly related to his office or to his person.
This amendment sets out a normal investigative procedure, which is that one does not advise the person being investigated until after the investigation is started. It seems to me to be reasonable to do that. To do otherwise will involve us in serious problems, particularly when the investigation involves either the chief of police or those closely related to him.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, my only concern is that the Attorney General listen to the comments of my colleague the member for Etobicoke.
The Deputy Chairman: I am sure he has them all under control.
Any further discussion on section 18? Is it the pleasure of the House that section 18 carry?
Mr. Philip: May we have some comment from the Attorney General on this?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No. The reasons are the same as I already expressed a few moments ago.
Mr. Martel: What were they? I was not here. Would the minister give them to me again?
The Deputy Chairman: There is no amendment before the House. The amendment was not allowed by the chair. We are going to vote on section 18. Shall section 18 carry?
Mr. Philip: If I may, the minister has not explained or addressed himself to the problem of what happens if the chief of police is the person under investigation. Why should the person who is being investigated be advised before the investigation takes place? Surely it is in the interest of the investigation not to do that.
We have had a case where Mr. Linden, luckily with the co-operation of the chief of police, was able to descend and seal off a station and preserve the evidence. What if the evidence was in the office of the chief of police himself? What if he was a co-conspirator in the anti-social behaviour that took place in a such a case?
Surely it makes sense where there is a problem that the chief of police may be part of -- that has not been the case in Metropolitan Toronto, but if this is going to be used as a model elsewhere, it may well be the case -- we would want to preserve the right of the commissioner, as a way of preserving the evidence, to be able to descend and conduct his investigation and to advise the chief of police after that investigation has commenced.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in the committee yesterday, the success of this project is dependent to a great extent on the relationship between the commissioner's office and the Metropolitan Toronto Police in the interests of all the citizens.
We are not trying to create a complaints process that automatically treats the chief of police as an adversary. It has worked out very well. We want this section to remain because it does help to strengthen the fundamental relationship of goodwill that must exist between the chief's office and the commissioner's office if this is going to function in the interests of the individual citizens of Metropolitan Toronto.
That is why we cannot accept the amendment to delete this notification, which has never been a problem and which does represent the spirit of co-operation that must exist.
Mr. Laughren: As a member who served for a while on the committee that looked into this whole question, I am concerned by the Attorney General's comments. Mind you, I have been concerned by a lot of the comments the Attorney General has made in recent days. We are not quarrelling with the sentiments the Attorney General expresses in his statements, but I, and other members too, see this legislation being used as a model for other parts of Ontario some day. To me, that is terribly important.
I am not a member from the Metropolitan Toronto area, but I would like to think, as l have said before, this legislation could be a model for other municipalities across the province. I think of the municipalities of Niagara and of Waterloo. I think, "Wait a minute, what the minister is proposing is wrong." My colleague the member for Etobicoke is trying to make this a very independent aspect of the legislation. I think the Attorney General is being too parochial in his response to my colleague.
If the Attorney General, as someone who is in a race that would put him in the forefront of Ontario, would understand we are not just dealing with a piece of legislation that deals with Toronto, we are at least potentially dealing with a model for the rest of the province, he might understand there are many of us who are very nervous about the way the legislation now reads, for the very reasons my colleague has put forth.
Without getting into the specifics of Waterloo or Niagara, I ask the Attorney General to think about the ramifications of that, because many of us look upon this legislation as something we would like to see applied to the rest of the province.
The minister can say, "When the time comes, we can make certain amendments." Why not make the amendments now, so that when that day comes, if it ever comes, at least the model is there and the rest of us can say, "These are reasons we can support this legislation"?
I simply close by asking the Attorney General to reconsider what he said and to think about the province-wide implications of what he is doing.
Mr. Philip: I hope this is not the Attorney General's concession to the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). I know that anybody in his right mind, any reasonable and moderate person, would want the Attorney General to become the Premier of Ontario. We certainly would be fearful if anybody having the influence of the Solicitor General were to come anywhere close to the centre of power.
I would not want to think that this moderate, progressive man, who should be Premier and who is by far the best candidate of the four, had made this concession to the Solicitor General, that reactionary dinosaur on the minister's right. In the light of that, knowing the statesmanship he has shown on so many issues such as this, I would hope the Attorney General would in turn concede and allow this one amendment, which speaks to the general thrust of his bill and to the progressive nature of his spirit in the election race to become Premier.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, at Christmas time, the member for Etobicoke really knows how to hurt a guy. That was a low blow.
I want to say to the member and the distinguished colleagues in his caucus, and to our distinguished colleagues in the official opposition, that we have an important principle over here that we pay attention to, and it is very relevant to what is happening here with respect to the commissioner's office. It is functioning very well; it is working. With respect, the advice I would like to give to the members is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Mr. Philip: The fact is that Waterloo and Niagara are broke, and that is what we are trying to fix. We are not trying to fix Metropolitan Toronto.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of section 18 standing as part of the bill will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Section 18 agreed to.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, for someone who is interested in high technology and who is competent in that field, you are a faulty hearer.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, this motion was defeated.
The Deputy Chairman: No. We were voting on the whole section 18, which was carried without amendments.
I thank the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) for his comment.
Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
8:40 p.m.
On section 23:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that subsection 23(16) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
"(d) levy a fine not exceeding $2,000."
Mr. Philip: This is in response to a deep concern that was brought by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and by some other groups that appeared before the committee. Basically, we have two choices under this bill with respect to punishment for an offence under the act. One is the very small penalty where there is a minor offence, namely, a five-day suspension. The other is the very major punishment of the officer losing his job.
I suggest to the minister, and indeed no less than Mr. Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has suggested, that is too great a gap between penalties. I suggest that under the minor offences subsection there be a penalty of a fine of $2,000. If the minister feels $2,000 is an inappropriate figure to put in, I am certainly open to hearing what he feels.
Surely the penalty of three days is very low and the penalty of losing one's job in disgrace is very high. There is a need for discretion somewhere in between. If the minister has some other suggestion, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment and to consider whatever suggestion he may have to meet that concern of having something in between the very minor penalty and the very major penalty.
That kind of thing would be of assistance both to the police and to those people who I pointed out on second reading feel the penalties are very insignificant for what are fairly serious offences but may not be considered major offences. It would give some discretion to the commissioner and the chief of police in imposing what amounts to real justice in a situation where a somewhat serious but not an overwhelmingly serious offence has been committed.
If this is not acceptable to the Attorney General, I hope he will introduce his own amendment for something more acceptable somewhere between what is given in subsections 23(16) and 23(17) of the bill.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated yesterday in the standing committee on administration of justice, it was our intention, and still is our intention, to make this legislation consistent with the provisions of the Police Act. When it comes to the penalty provisions, this is particularly important.
I remind the member for Etobicoke with great respect that this was part of an important consensus that was achieved with police management and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. They believe very strongly in the wisdom of having these penalty provisions coincide with those provided under the Police Act.
When the Police Act is amended, the member for Etobicoke and others will have an opportunity to address this issue again. However, I think this would defeat the spirit of consensus that is very important to the effective functioning of this project.
Mr. Philip: The argument that Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association made, which I thought was rather persuasive, was, "Why make this the mirror of the Police Act when we are dealing with new legislation and can make the Police Act a mirror of this?"
Surely, if there is a problem in the Police Act it should not be our position to correct it in this act, but rather to make this the correct and appropriate act. Then we could change the Police Act where necessary. All we are making is a minor change; it would be very simple to amend the Police Act to mirror this act.
It is fairly evident there is a grave injustice both to the police and to the claimant in having a very small penalty and a very large penalty, between which a choice must be made. All I am asking is that we have some discretion somewhere in between. A small amendment to the Police Act could be forthcoming if this act were changed; it would be a matter that would pass in five minutes as a housekeeping amendment in this House. It would not take any great work on the part of the Attorney General to get it through this House. I am suggesting that now is the time to change this.
The groups that appeared before us clearly indicated there was concern in the public that some people got very little in terms of penalty for fairly major offences. The reason for it is that there is a choice between dismissing the fellow in disgrace and giving him this minor slap on the hand. There must be something in between. As the minister responsible for justice, the Attorney General will understand that. I am asking him to consider this amendment.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip's amendment to subsection 23(16) will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 23 agreed to.
Sections 24 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 35:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 35 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This act comes into force on December 21, 1984."
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the only comment I have is that this would make it exactly 33 days before the Attorney General becomes Premier, and I would congratulate him when that happened.
Motion agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Miss Stephenson, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.
8:50 p.m.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY
Resolution for supply for the following office was concurred in by the House:
Office of the Provincial Auditor.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) obviously does not understand the issue of automatic inquests into industrial deaths. I am very concerned that this minister would get up in the House, as he did earlier in this session, and make a ridiculous comment to the effect that by requesting automatic inquests into worker deaths we would be requiring inquests into every automobile accident that resulted in the death of someone who might be defined as a worker.
This minister obviously does not understand the issue, as does his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), who is in favour of automatic inquests into all work place deaths. The fact is that we now require automatic inquests into all deaths that occur in mining and in construction. It does not make any sense at all that we require automatic inquests into deaths in those sectors and not into deaths in the industrial sector.
This minister has never given us a reason why it is appropriate for us to require automatic inquests into deaths that occur in the mining and construction sectors but not in the industrial sector. He has argued that it will require more expenditure of public funds, he has argued that it might be repetitious and he has argued that this government does not believe it would be beneficial to hold inquests into all these deaths; but he has never been able to show why it would not be useful to hold inquests into industrial deaths, which his colleague the Minister of Labour believes should be held.
This minister has never been able to demonstrate that it would in any way be repetitious or a waste of public funds. This minister has indicated -- I suppose on the advice of the provincial officials who are responsible in this area -- that it would not be beneficial, but the provincial coroner has never been able to demonstrate why it would not be useful to have a uniform approach to all work place deaths.
Why is it useful to have automatic inquests into mining deaths, which we support, but not into industrial deaths? This minister has suggested that in some way this would be a waste of public funds. I suspect this minister does not realize it would be a useful function to have a jury of ordinary citizens consider the reasons for a fatality in an industrial accident and make recommendations to ensure that kind of fatality does not occur again, and to have the occupational health and safety division of the Ministry of Labour respond to the recommendations and indicate whether changes should be made in the particular work place and all similar work places to ensure similar accidents do not occur again.
The Minister of Labour has indicated he is four-square in favour of automatic inquests into all work place deaths. He has not been able to explain why the Solicitor General continues in his obstreperous, unreasonable opposition. In his estimates, as recently as last week, the Minister of Labour indicated it might take an eternity to persuade the Solicitor General to change his mind. He indicated to me that he has expressed his position to the Solicitor General that he believes it would be useful to have automatic inquests into all work place deaths, but that he does not have any notion how long it will take the Solicitor General to reconsider and come to a position that it will be government policy to have automatic inquests into all work place deaths.
It is not enough for us to have a Minister of Labour's policy; it must be a government policy that we will have automatic inquests into all work place deaths.
When I raised this in the House recently, the Solicitor General gave us a most ridiculous argument. He indicated that in asking for inquests into all workers' deaths I might be requiring us to have automatic inquests into every automobile accident that involved someone who might be defined as a worker. If he is serious and if he is dealing with this issue in a way that indicates he is concerned about the epidemic of industrial accidents, he will say he did not understand that we were talking about work place deaths rather than workers' deaths.
Before we pass automatic approval of the estimates for his ministry, I would like the Solicitor General to explain why it is that it is appropriate for us to have automatic inquests into mining deaths and construction deaths but not into fatalities that occur in other work places in this province. I would like the Solicitor General to explain what logic there is in having one area, the industrial sector, omitted from what is required in other work places in the event of fatalities.
We cannot vote concurrence in these estimates unless we have a clear statement of government policy from this minister as to why on earth he is stonewalling what is required to ensure we do not have a repetition of serious accidents in the work place throughout this province and that we respond in a way we know is going to ensure every possible approach is taken to avoid industrial fatalities in the future.
This minister does not understand the issue and he does not want to respond to the issue. Without his response to and without his concurrence in this area, we cannot vote in favour of the estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
9 p.m.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Solicitor General we have had a series of correspondence back and forth dealing with untimely deaths of people on northern reserves. I have had correspondence with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), Mr. Burton, the crown attorney of Kenora, and Mr. Stan Jolly, who has specifically been assigned the responsibility of inquiring into the violent deaths that have occurred on many northern reserves. I have done so on behalf of all those residents, principally native people residing north of the 51st parallel.
There have been a number of unfortunate deaths for a variety of reasons. Some of them were air accidents. Some were a result of the misuse and abuse of alcohol or the sniffing of gasoline or glue; a variety of causes. On behalf of those law-abiding citizens north of the 51st parallel, I have asked that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the Solicitor General personally inquire into the nature, cause and reason for a lot of unfortunate deaths. I asked that inquests be held.
I am not blaming the Attorney General, the Solicitor General or their colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). They are trying to address the problems on reserves north of the 51st parallel. When an untimely and unfortunate death occurs, I am asking they take a good look at it. If in the process they feel it is appropriate to ask for an inquest or to inquire into the nature and cause of these kinds of deaths, they should do so, not because they have a kind of policy that may apply in Metropolitan Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Thunder Bay or Windsor.
We have a responsibility to our first citizens north of the 51st parallel. I have letters from the Solicitor General and from crown attorney Burton. They are trying to do their jobs, to carry out their mandates. I am asking the minister to look at the specific, different and unique circumstances that obtain in those northern communities, so the 90 per cent of the people living there who are honest, decent, law-abiding citizens can be assured the cause of death is being determined, so the minister can come up with a result that will indicate to them that he is on their side and trying to help them wherever possible.
All too often we get the excuse, "It is really too remote in geographical terms." One that comes to mind is Landsdowne House. They say, "If we were to hold an inquest in one of those remote communities there would not be sufficient accommodation. It would be inappropriate and impractical to hold an inquest in those far, remote Indian communities."
I wish the minister would read the correspondence I have shared with him and I hope he will take whatever action he can in the not too distant future, recognizing his responsibility as the Solicitor General to assist those people -- 90 per cent of them law-abiding citizens of Ontario living north of the 51st parallel -- in getting a hold on the social, economic and cultural problems they face so that they too can be part of the mainstream of life in Ontario.
That is not too much to ask. As I say, I am not pointing a finger at the Solicitor General, at the Minister of Community and Social Services or at the Attorney General. If the Solicitor General is doing his job, if he knows what the situation is north of the 51st parallel, he will listen to what I am saying on behalf of all those communities in that part of Ontario and he will do whatever he can to assist in relieving the problems I have brought to his attention this evening, and almost ad nauseam in letters l have written to his colleagues or directly to him and shared with them.
The Solicitor General has a responsibility in that regard and I would like to hear him accept it in the tone in which I have tried to express it very briefly this evening.
Resolution concurred in.
Mr. Wildman: Is the minister not going to respond?
Hon. G. W. Taylor: I have not had an opportunity yet.
Mr. Wildman: So much for the workers of this province. So much for the native people.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I assume we are now on the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Laughren: I start out with the assumption that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) will respond, unlike his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor).
Mr. Stokes: I am disappointed in him.
Hon. G. W. Taylor: I did not even get a chance to respond.
Mr. Wildman: The Speaker gave him a chance to respond and he did not respond.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Laughren: I must say that for the Solicitor General to say he did not have an opportunity to respond is totally dishonest. He was given an opportunity by the Speaker after the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) finished.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us not get off on this tack. Would the honourable member please withdraw that remark?
Mr. Laughren: All right. I will get on with the Ministry of Natural Resources.
The Deputy Speaker: Would you withdraw the remark, please?
Mr. Laughren: Yes, of course.
Mr. Stokes: The Solicitor General's reaction tonight is the beginning of the downfall of the Conservative Party in Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stokes: I thought I was being very helpful in my comments.
Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member was. I was listening. I heard him.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has the floor. We are waiting with bated breath.
Mr. Laughren: I had not intended to get involved in the concurrences for the Ministry of Natural Resources because we did have --
Mr. Stokes: He does not have to do anything. He does not have to breathe if he does not want to. That is not the nature of this exercise. I think he knows that.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Laughren: Is this the former Speaker interjecting?
Mr. Stokes: It is indeed.
The Deputy Speaker: It is so unlike him.
Mr. Laughren: I welcome his interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Please ignore the interjections.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Laughren: I did not intend to speak on these concurrences until yesterday. Yesterday I asked what I thought was a straightforward, nonprovocative, serious question on reforestation in Ontario. The minister's response so incensed me that I was provoked to speak on these concurrences.
Not only was I provoked to speak on these concurrences, but I was even provoked to send out a press release to the Timmins Daily Press, always knowing, of course, that I was toying with the possibility of an editorial that might suggest my interests were less than those of the province of Ontario and that I might have ulterior motives. Nevertheless, I felt I should involve myself in the debate.
A while ago I read in Hansard a response to a question put to the minister by my colleague in the Liberal Party, the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed). He asked a question about the reforestation of our forest lands in Ontario.
The question was, "Will the Minister of Natural Resources provide a table for 1982-83 and 1983-84 showing," among other things, "the area not available for regeneration treatment?" It was a very simple question asking the minister to tell us the area not available for regeneration. The minister replied to my colleague's legitimate question, "All cutover land is available for regeneration except that which is used for forest access."
In other words, the minister was saying: "It does not matter what is cut over. It is all there for regeneration except that which is taken out for the building of roads." The minister should know what is taken out for the building of roads because he is funding the building of those roads. There is enough ammunition for a separate debate about the minister's preoccupation with the building of roads in our forests, aside from reforestation.
The minister said, "It is all available for regeneration." If the average citizen were to read Hansard -- and the mind boggles at the thought of the average citizen reading Hansard -- he would think: "I should relax because it is all okay out in the forest. It is all available for reforestation."
Mr. Stokes: The raspberries are alive and well.
Mr. Laughren: The minister says, "Do not worry about the killer raspberries; they will not do in the coniferous trees. Do not worry about them and let us get on with the business of pouring money into reforestation."
That is public money, something the minister never quite makes clear. When he is talking about reforestation, he says: "My government is committed to reforestation. We are putting $150 million into reforestation over the next five years." What he conveniently forgets to say is, "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your money that l am putting into reforestation in Ontario." He makes it sound as though it is coming out of his pocket.
I do not want to get off the main point of my intervention tonight. "Not to worry," the minister said to the member for Halton-Burlington, "All forest land that is cut over is available for regeneration." All sorts of people read that, I am sure, and said, "Okay, I guess things are in better shape than we were being led to believe by either the critic for the Liberal Party or the one from the New Democratic Party." That, by the way, was on October 19, 1984.
About a month later, on November 14, 1984, the minister tripped up to Thunder Bay -- undoubtedly on a ministry plane -- and had a press conference with the federal Minister of State for Forestry. At that press conference, they announced they had signed -- I assumed they had already signed by the time the press conference was called -- a federal-provincial agreement called the Canada-Ontario forest resource development agreement.
In that agreement, the Minister of Natural Resources and the federal government agreed to each put $75 million in to reforestation in Ontario over the next five years. Fine. I do not hear any complaints so far. However, when one reads the fine print in that agreement, it states, and I shall quote because I do not want to be accused of misquoting by the minister:
"Some of the constraints affecting the economically available wood supply include the following: an ever-increasing accumulation of productive but unstocked forest lands which have the potential to add significantly to the forest resource but remain idle after disturbance by harvesting or fire."
I do not think one has to be a professional forester and I do not think one has to know a lot about forestry to see the kinds of games that are being played by the Minister of Natural Resources. Is there a pea under the shell or is there not a pea under the shell? Let members just watch the sleight of hand by the Minister of Natural Resources and see if they can figure it out.
In one instance, there is no problem: all forest lands are available for regeneration. The next minute, under the other shell, there is an ever-increasing amount of forest land that is not being regenerated the way the public thinks it should be, or that most people think it should be.
I say to myself: "Wait a minute now. What kind of game is being played by the Minister of Natural Resources?" He can say technically -- and I think this is the crux of my argument -- that in his original statement to the member of Halton-Burlington on October 19, "All I said was that all lands are available for regeneration." It sounds great. On November 14, he said, "There is an ever-increasing amount that is not being regenerated in the way we would like to see it regenerated," in other words, in a way that would give us a productive second forest.
The minister can hang his hat on that if he likes, but I want to tell members that is deceit. If the minister thinks on one hand he can say, "It is available for regeneration," and the next minute say, "However, an increasing amount is not being regenerated productively," then he is really playing fast and loose with the truth about forest regeneration in Ontario. In a very technical and legalistic kind of argument -- and I know he is very fond of the legal processes in Ontario; at least I have heard from my colleagues he is -- he can hang his hat on that if he likes.
9:20 p.m.
I suppose if he wanted to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada he might even win, but is it appropriate in the interests of the future of the forests of Ontario that a minister of the crown would mislead the province by saying in one breath that all cutover lands are available for regeneration, and the next minute say there is an increasing amount which is not being made available for productive regeneration? Is that appropriate? Is that a way for a minister of the crown to manipulate the people of Ontario? Is that the way we want the crown to behave in statements about the public forests?
I do not think I need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are more aware of who owns the forests of Ontario than most people are, that the forests are a crown asset. They do not belong to the private sector; they are a public resource. We give cutting rights to the private sector, but it is still a public resource.
I guess that is what really rankles. Every time I come up against the Minister of Natural Resources, he treats our forests either as a resource of the pulp and paper companies or, maybe worse still, as his own private playground or domain. That really bothers me because he has no more right to those forests than I do, and yet he treats them as though they are his private domain.
I do not want to be unfair to the Minister of Natural Resources, but in the recent conjecture about who the leadership candidates in Ontario should be, the Minister of Natural Resources was considered at the outset of that whole debate to be a natural, the only member from northern Ontario to be a candidate. I hope the minister will think about this because it will not be too late 10 years down the road for him to be a candidate for Leader of the Opposition in Ontario.
Mr. Stokes: Next time.
Mr. Laughren: That is what I mean -- next time.
Mr. Breaugh: Maybe now.
Mr. Laughren: Or the second-next time.
Unless the minister stops behaving as though the forests were his, as though the forests belonged to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the people in northern Ontario will continue to regard the control of the forests as being in the hands of people in southern Ontario -- and that means the Ministry of Natural Resources and, through it, the minister himself. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. I do not want to personalize this debate because it is much more important than the Minister of Natural Resources.
It really bothered me when I raised this in the Legislature just this week. On Wednesday, December 12, I put a very straightforward question to the minister. I want to repeat it to you, Mr. Speaker, so you do not think I am being unfair. Your views on whether I am being fair or unfair are important to me, and I want to lay it all out to you. I said:
"Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact there will not be time for a supplementary, I will try to be brief." We were running out of time in question period.
"The minister will recall he signed a document about a month ago with the federal government to pump $150 million -- $75 million from each jurisdiction -- into the forestry industry. I wonder if he agrees with the following statement in the document he signed:
"`Constraints affecting the economically available wood supply include the following,'" -- and this is a direct quote from the document he signed -- "`the ever-increasing accumulation of forest land which naturally regenerates to currently unpreferred species such as aspen, following disturbances by harvesting, fire, diseases and insects; and an ever-increasing accumulation of productive but unstocked forest lands which have the potential to add significantly to the forest resource but remain idle after disturbance by harvesting or fire.'"
After putting that quote to the minister, I asked the question: "Does the minister agree concerning those two constraints contained in the document he signed? If he does, how does he square them with his response to the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) in an answer to a question on October 19 of this year?"
I thought it was a very straight question because in his response to the member for Halton-Burlington he said, "Cutover areas are available for reforestation." He signed a document that said there was an ever-increasing amount of land that is not being regenerated the way it should be because of all sorts of restraints. The minister replied, "Mr. Speaker, the arrangement with the federal government to obtain an additional $75 million of federal funding is a very important initiative in federal-provincial reforestation in this province." Who would disagree?
Then he said -- and this is the point that bothers me a great deal -- "To get that $75 million, I will sign any agreement."
Mr. Stokes: Talk about prostitution.
Mr. Laughren: I see the minister smiling, but --
Mr. Reed: It is not illegal in Canada; just soliciting is.
Mr. Laughren: It is illegal in Canada. The minister should be locked up. We will tell the Solicitor General about that.
My point -- and I am coming to the end of the point I am trying to make --
Mr. Reed: Keep working at it.
Mr. Laughren: On the other hand, I do have a number of points I want to make. The minister sits in his place, he is asked a direct question by the opposition and he simply ignores the question.
I think the fundamental problem is that the minister does not understand the expression "Her Majesty's loyal opposition." I believe the minister thinks the fact there is a majority over there means the opposition should lie down and play dead; that majority means they rule with impugnity, that is what they feel. Any objections from this side are an interference in the normal affairs of Tory Ontario.
That is outrageous. I happen to be very proud of the role I and my caucus colleagues play and, quite frankly, of the role the Liberal caucus plays as official opposition.
Mr. Stokes: They have that in Russia and Poland and it does not work very well.
Mr. Laughren: One of the fundamental underpinnings of our parliamentary democracy is the opposition. I do not think people in Ontario want to give that up.
I am offended and insulted when a member of the opposition -- in this case it happened to be his critic, not because it is I but because it is an important part of parliamentary democracy -- puts a question to him and the minister shows an unbelievable arrogance when he stands up and in a smirking kind of way says, "I will sign any agreement that gives us $75 million."
I think the minister has insulted this chamber. He can sit there and smirk all he likes. He can sit there and say: "That is fine. We have our majority and you have your minority; now let us get on with the business."
That is not an appropriate response from a minister of the crown. The minister must answer to the statements he makes. I am really offended by the way he deliberately refused to answer my question. In his response, he was smirking. When he sat down, he just waved his hand at us. He knew he did not answer the question I had put to him.
I do not think that is appropriate. I know he has his majority over there and I know what the public opinion polls are in Ontario; I do not need to be reminded by a high-flying Minister of Natural Resources, I understand that.
Mr. Stokes: But does the minister know what the state of the resource is?
Mr. Laughren: At the same time, I understand the problems in the forestry industry. For the minister to attempt to slough off those problems by refusing to answer my question is most inappropriate.
9:30 p.m.
I think the people of Ontario are a little tired of the very high-handed attitude of the Minister of Natural Resources. I do not think we should have to put up with that. I know the minister views himself as being above the chamber, above the opposition and above the interest groups in Ontario, but that does not mean it is right. Those of us on this side are a little tired of the way it has been happening.
I am not looking for any kind of support or acknowledgement from the minister, but in the last couple of years I have spent a lot of time on forestry matters trying to learn about this issue. Right from the beginning I admitted I knew very little about forestry when I assumed the responsibility of critic for the Ministry of Natural Resources, but I have worked very hard to learn about it. I have spent a lot of time with the member for Lake Nipigon learning what he knows about it as well.
I am probably most offended by the fact the minister treats me, as a critic, the same way he treated me four years ago. Only last year, less than a year ago, I left the estimates debate of the Ministry of Natural Resources because I could not stand being in the presence of the minister in those estimates any more.
Quite frankly, I told my leader I could not cope with the minister's attitude. I had to be treated in a parliamentary democracy as if I had a legitimate role in this place. I could no longer cope with being treated as if I were nothing, as if my role in this place were insignificant. I happen to think my role is significant, not only because I was elected but also because it is an important aspect of parliamentary democracy.
I have not been as angry in my 13 years as a member as I was last spring when I left the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources. I have never walked out of estimates before. I have never been ejected from this chamber because I do have a feeling for what is going on in this place. When the Minister of Natural Resources climbed on his high horse at the beginning of the estimates debate and never got off that high horse, I was grossly offended. I do not think now or ever after I should be subjected to that kind of treatment by any minister of the crown.
The day before yesterday, Tuesday, December 12, was a replay of the estimates debate. I do not remember being so frustrated and so angry since the estimates debate as I was on Tuesday. As a matter of fact, right after that question and the answer by the minister, the question period ended and we moved into a debate on the Workers' Compensation Board. I was taking part in that debate, as I always have on workers' compensation problems. I was so angry I wanted to keep the debate on workers' compensation going well into next week and into January. I know that was not a mature response to the problem.
Mr. Haggerty: The member almost succeeded.
Mr. Laughren: No, I did not.
That was not a mature response to my anger towards the minister.
Mr. Stokes: It was not really the member's intent either.
Mr. Laughren: Why should everybody be subjected to coming back next week, the week after or into January because I was angry with the Minister of Natural Resources? I had really had it up to here, as they say, with that minister. His attitude towards me and towards the opposition when legitimately questioning problems in reforestation --
Interjections.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Am I interrupting a consultation?
Mr. Nixon: No, this is just getting good.
Mr. Eakins: Run the clock.
Mr. Nixon: We dare the member.
Mr. Laughren: I am not attempting to run the clock. The Liberals can interject if they like.
Mr. Nixon: Can we really?
Mr. Laughren: Yes, they can. Mr. Nixon: Good. Thank you.
Mr. Laughren: It is fine if the former leader of the Liberal Party expresses some dismay at what I am doing, but he might be better to understand that I am making a plea on behalf of both opposition parties. He might check with the member for Halton-Burlington if he thinks I am being unreasonable. It was the answer to his question that prompted me to --
Mr. Reed: If the member for Halton-Burlington has a chance, he will speak for himself.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member will speak to the resolution.
Mr. Laughren: I hope he will. As I recall, he had the first opportunity to speak in this debate and he chose not to.
Mr. Eakins: Merry Christmas to you.
Mr. Laughren: I can understand why the Liberals are in a bad mood tonight.
Mr. Nixon: The New Democratic Party did not even get 15 per cent in three ridings.
Mr. Laughren: What did we do in the other two ridings?
Mr. Nixon: You will find out starting next week. Lots of luck.
Mr. Laughren: I see.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it is time in this chamber to start taking the measure of ministers of the crown by the way they respond to the opposition. I do not think that being in a majority and being ministers means they can treat opposition members as though they were insignificant, and that is very clearly the message I get from the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Nixon: What is this fixation about insignificance that the member has?
Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the member for Brantford should have been there during the estimates debates to see the way the Minister of Natural Resources treated the opposition, including his own colleage the member for Halton-Burlington. Perhaps the member for Brantford, before he continues to take the side of the Minister of Natural Resources, should --
Mr. Nixon: The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is not even here. He did not even go to that party they had on the taxpayers tonight.
Mr. Laughren: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) should talk to his colleague the member for Halton-Burlington before he takes the side of the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Nixon: I do frequently. At least he makes sense.
Mr. Laughren: I do not expect the member to agree with my concern about parliamentary democracy in Ontario.
Mr. Nixon: We have not heard what your concern is yet, and you have been up there for 20 minutes.
Mr. Laughren: I can understand why the former leader of the Liberal Party is in a bad mood tonight.
Mr. Nixon: Right back to square one. Are we going around on that one again?
Mr. Laughren: We could. As a matter of fact, the member is provoking me to make comments I would not otherwise make.
Mr. Nixon: So what? I am closer to home than you are if you want to stay next week.
Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, it is funny the member would say that. As I said earlier, and I obviously have to repeat it, after the minister's response the other day I made a very impassioned plea that we should come back next week and that we should come back in January. I am not prepared to take the arrogance from the majority government that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is prepared to live with. He has lived with it longer than I have, and I am not prepared to live with that kind of arrogance. He has obviously reached the point where he accepts it.
Mr. Stokes: He has been at it so long he thinks that is the way it should be.
Mr. Laughren: That is right. He thinks it is the natural state of affairs in Ontario. I do not think it is the way it should be.
I will try to stay on topic. If I am able to accomplish anything tonight, it will be to persuade the Minister of Natural Resources that the opposition has a legitimate role to play in this place and that he should at least feel guilty about responding to questions the way he did on Tuesday last. To avoid answering a question deliberately in a smirking kind of way is unacceptable. The minister deliberately did not answer the questions I put to him. When I asked him --
Mr. Nixon: The member sounds so absurd and ridiculous. He is so full of himself and a few other things.
Mr. Laughren: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is increasingly irrelevant. Why does he not accept that fact and fade into the background?
When I interjected to the minister that his response was a smart-aleck response, he replied in an interjection, "The question was smart aleck." What is smart aleck about saying this is what the minister said one day, this is what he said on another day, and would he reconcile those two statements? The only smart-aleck part of the whole exchange was the minister's response. He deliberately refused to deal with the question I put to him, and we are going to have long and rancorous debates in this chamber as long as the minister continues to behave that way.
9:40 p.m.
Looking down the list of concurrences, I see the concurrence of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development is still to come. The minister can stand up tonight and say: "I think you are out to lunch. I have made my statement. Let us get on with other business." He can say that if he likes, but all he is doing is passing off the responsibility to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. We will go after him when his debates come up. That is fine. I am quite happy to debate with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.
Mr. Stokes: That is even more futile.
Mr. Laughren: It may be futile, but in a majority government situation, what alternative does the opposition have but to debate? Voting is not the answer for the opposition; we are outvoted every single time. Our alternative is to engage in debate; that is why we are here.
Mr. Nixon: Is that what the member calls it?
Mr. Laughren: I do not expect the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to think that legitimate debate is legitimate debate. He has been too long in futile opposition. We do not think we are going to be in futile opposition much longer. He obviously thinks he is. If I were him, I would want to adjourn quickly too.
Mr. Nixon: The third party will be waiting a long time. It used to be the second party; now it is the third. One more move and the member will be right off the row.
Mr. Laughren: Coming from the Liberal Party of Ontario, that is most heroic.
Mr. Nixon: I am just trying to help the member to think of something to say.
Mr. Laughren: I was going to sit down 20 minutes ago until the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk intervened.
Mr. Nixon: I know. Keep punishing us.
Mr. Laughren: That is okay. I am happy to debate this until the middle of January.
Mr. Nixon: The member should assert his authority. He should stand up on the chair.
Mr. Laughren: I do not have any authority.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member has the floor to speak to the concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Natural Resources. Will he please stay on the subject and stop listening to the interruptions and stop making interruptions?
Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can always count on you as an ally.
What I started to say was that the opposition --
The Acting Speaker: Will the honourable member speak to the resolution?
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, one reason I am continuing to speak is that the Ministry of Correctional Services concurrence is next and that minister is not even in the House. I will keep speaking until he gets here at least.
Hon. Mr. Drea: I am going to move that.
Mr. Laughren: The minister is going to move Correctional Services concurrence? That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. I will keep speaking.
Mr. Nixon: Let us talk about that. It will at least make some sense.
Mr. Laughren: I will try to --
Mr. Nixon: Do not give in.
Mr. Laughren: I have absolutely no intention of giving in. I am quite happy to come back next week, the week after and the week after that. It will be a long time until we are back here again after the leadership convention; so why should we not earn our money by staying here now?
The Acting Speaker: Speak to the resolution while you are speaking.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Laughren: If there were television in here now I would not get away with some of these things.
Mr. Speaker, I know you understand that on this side the only ammunition we have is the ammunition of debate.
The Acting Speaker: Yes, but please speak to the resolution.
Mr. Laughren: The resolution is for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Natural Resources. If I have not made my point yet, it is obvious I am going to have to start all over again.
The Acting Speaker: Please do not repeat yourself. Speak to the resolution.
Mr. Laughren: I am determined to finish my speech so as to leave enough time for the member for Halton-Burlington. He decided earlier that he did not dare to speak on these concurrences, but I gather now he has decided he does want to speak.
Mr. Reed: I have been propelled into it.
Mr. Laughren: I am very pleased about that. If nothing else, I feel happy about that fact. Perhaps the minister will get the message. I am not sure he will, but perhaps he will get the message about the feeling of the opposition on matters of forestry. I had a conversation with the minister --
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member.
Mr. Laughren: No, I am not finished. I was just allowing the interjections to flow back and forth.
Mr. Nixon: Megalomania at its best.
Mr. Laughren: I am prepared to speak as long as the interjections continue.
Mr. Nixon: My friend had better get his portable urinal ready.
The Acting Speaker: I would ask those who are giving these little interjections to refrain from doing so.
Mr. Laughren: I have only one thing in common with the Premier (Mr. Davis), namely, that I respond well to interjections; so let us keep them flowing.
Perhaps the minister can at least understand that when he gives flip, glib answers to the opposition, the opposition has very few ways in which to handle those kinds of responses. For instance, the other day the minister disagreed and said, "Well, the question was" -- I think the phrase he used was "smart aleck." That is what he said.
Hon. Mr. Drea: That is not what I would say. I would say "stupid."
Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Community and Social Services can say "stupid." That is very good, because if anybody has cornered the market on stupidity, he has; so I bow to his judgement in that regard.
Mr. Nixon: Parliament at its finest.
Mr. Laughren: It was the minister who provoked me. I was not going to bring the minister into the debate, but if he wants to join in that is fine; I will not object.
I have said to the members that I love interjections and I ask them to keep them coming.
The Acting Speaker: No interjections. The honourable member will speak to the resolution.
Hon. Mr. Drea: The member needs another drink.
Mr. Laughren: I have just ordered another glass of water, and I hope it will be here shortly.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has the floor. I beg other members to allow him to continue his presentation.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I will make only one commitment to you tonight, and that is that as long as the interjections continue, I shall continue to speak.
Mr. Nixon: Threats.
Mr. Laughren: That is a promise and not a threat. If I were not invoking the interest of the members, they would obviously not be interjecting; so I will continue to speak.
What I am trying to say to the Minister of Natural Resources is that if he wants to have his statements and policies treated in a serious way by the opposition --
Mr. Nixon: So that is what the member is trying to say.
Mr. Laughren: I am sorry; I did not hear that.
Mr. Nixon: That is what the member is trying to say.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Laughren: Time is not important to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
What I am trying to say, and I am obviously not saying it often enough because the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk still does not understand it, is that if the Minister of Natural Resources wants the opposition to treat him and his portfolio in a serious way, not in a smart-aleck way, heaven forbid, then he has to treat the opposition in a like fashion. If he treats the opposition with disdain, then the opposition is going to treat him in like fashion.
9:50 p.m.
After the last estimates debates, I thought there was going to be a change in attitude because I had a conversation with the minister. It was a private conversation; so I will not quote every word. However, I did have a conversation in which the minister indicated he appreciated my concerns and the reasons I had walked out of his estimates in anger. When I walked out, I do not think I have ever been as angry in my 13 years here as I was on that day.
One of my main problems was that when we attempted to question the minister on various aspects of his ministry, he insisted on answering all the questions himself; he would not bring any of his regional or district managers to the estimates. He said, "Ask me the questions and I will answer them." Does anyone think the Minister of Natural Resources can answer every question on every part of Ontario? Only the Minister of Natural Resources believes that. I see him nodding his head. He obviously still believes it and has not learned his lesson.
In a majority government situation, this place will work better when ministers treat the opposition with some modicum of respect. When they start treating the opposition with disdain, they know they will have problems in this place. The one minister over there who seems to have understood that is the government House leader. I am sorry he is in the House now, because I do not want him to hear this; I do not want to cause him problems with his own caucus. Nevertheless, that is a fact.
When the government starts bulldozing its way with a majority, it is going to have problems in this place. Who has the most to gain from the smooth running of the chamber? Which party has the most to gain if this place runs smoothly and legislation goes through smoothly? I do not think it requires much imagination to conclude that it is the governing party. The government has the most to gain if things go smoothly in this place. It has the most to lose if the place becomes chaotic.
The Minister of Natural Resources has provoked us more than any other minister on the government side -- I stand to be corrected by the other critics -- because of his attitude towards the opposition. He can continue to behave in that same way if he likes. I have seen no indication the minister is going to change his ways, I do not think it is possible for him to change his ways; that means we are going to continue to have problems.
The minister can sit there, smile contentedly and say, "I have just checked the Gallup poll or the Decima poll and we do not need to worry about you people." Fine; let him say that. However, he should not expect us to lie down and let him have his way.
Mr. Nixon: Like cockroaches in one's apartment.
Mr. Laughren: That is right. Does one fight back or does one not fight back? We think we should fight back.
I know what the Minister of Natural Resources wants. He wants to be able to make his statements and he assumes nobody will challenge him. It does not matter what they say at one time or in one place. It does not matter if they contradict one another. When we challenge him on his statements, he says, "You are being smart alecks."
What does the minister think the role of the opposition is in this place? I cannot remember the exact words of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, but he said it was treating them like cockroaches. We believe that is wrong.
On matters of forestry, the minister has refused to deal with us in an honest, straightforward way. Let me give an example. A year ago, I asked the minister for some reforestation figures. The minister said: "We are not going to give them to you. We think those figures are misleading. We have been giving them to you for all these years. We are not going to give them to you any more." That is the minister's prerogative. I agree with him most fundamentally.
Then what did he do? He appointed a task force within his ministry to look into how it could best prepare figures to present to us and to anybody else who might ask for them. That is what he did. I think the task force was within his ministry; he may even have had membership on that task force from outside his ministry. I am not sure, because the minister did it all very quietly.
I believe that task force reported to the minister in March concerning how he could best give us numbers on regeneration, because we think the regeneration figures are bad. Despite the fact the minister has been sitting on that report since last March, the figures have not been made available to those of us who raised the questions in the first place. I would like to know from the minister why we in opposition are not allowed to have information on the public forests of Ontario.
I do not think anybody will disagree that those forests are public forests. We give cutting rights to the private sector, but those are public forests. Yet the minister has the audacity to say we do not have the right of access to how well those forests are being regenerated once they have been cut over by the private sector.
Fine; the minister may object to the way the numbers are put out, but what does he do? He appoints a task force, has the task force report back to him and then will not reveal the recommendations of that task force.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the member for Nickel Belt was getting ready to conclude his remarks. Let us give him a chance here.
Mr. Laughren: The last thing I wanted to do tonight was dominate the debate. As a matter of fact, there are three reasons why I have spoken as long as I have. First, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) wants to speak, and I do not want to give him more time than he needs. Second, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk wants to get into the debate, obviously because of his interest. Third, I want to know whether the member for Halton-Burlington agrees with his former leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, on how the minister treats the opposition.
The Deputy Speaker: May we go back to the debate on the concurrences of the Ministry of Natural Resources and leave the procedure for another place?
Mr. Reed: Give us the three points again.
Mr. Laughren: The first point was the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, the second point was the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and the third point was the member for Halton-Burlington. Did the members get the three?
Interjections.
Mr. Martel: The House leader will support his colleague as long as he wants to speak.
Mr. Laughren: In that case I will wind up very shortly. I know a veiled threat when I hear one, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Martel: It is that dumb minister over there that we cannot deal with.
10 p.m.
Mr. Laughren: I do detect a consensus in this chamber that it is time we moved on to other concurrences. I will conclude, as I tried to do half an hour ago until the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk intervened, by saying that the Minister of Natural Resources simply must change his attitude towards the opposition.
Mr. Martel: Did you lose some seats tonight?
Mr. Reed: Did you lose some deposits?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, honourable members. The member for Nickel Belt was just having his last couple of words. We owe him that.
Mr. Laughren: I am reconsidering.
The Deputy Speaker: That is the commitment he made to us.
Mr. Laughren: I am reconsidering my decision to wind up. I am prepared to start over.
Mr. Nixon: We missed the middle part.
Mr. Laughren: Shut up, then. I really am prepared to start in the middle.
Interjections.
Mr. Laughren: I really am prepared to wind up the debate; however, there is the question of the Kam-Kotia Mines Ltd. in Timmins which the Minister of Natural Resources has totally ignored. However, we will debate that at another time. In conclusion, if I am allowed to conclude --
Mr. Nixon: Who says you are the last speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Maybe the New Democratic Party House leader would give the member for Nickel Belt a chance --
Mr. Martel: Would you guys shut up and leave him alone?
Mr. Laughren: I am in no hurry. I think others are in more of a hurry than I am.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt has the floor.
Mr. Laughren: I have determined that there are people around here who are in much more of a hurry than I am. I have all evening. I am not prepared to argue with the members who want to interject; I am prepared to listen to them.
The Deputy Speaker: If the member would just proceed, we will keep a keen eye here and keep the interjections to a minimum.
Mr. Laughren: The minister cannot hear me and I am not going to speak while he cannot hear me.
I shall attempt to conclude, but not without saying that --
Mr. Martel: The minister is a donkey.
Mr. Laughren: I will start over again.
Mr. Martel: I was trying to help you.
Mr. Laughren: I am trying to conclude --
Mr. Nixon: It is very hard to do. You may not be able to do it.
Mr. Laughren: I am trying to conclude --
Hon. Mr. Norton: What is the conclusion?
Mr. Laughren: -- but I do not intend to do so without trying to summarize --
Mr. Nixon: Oh, you better start again. You have lost your train of thought.
Mr. Laughren: I am trying to conclude --
Hon. Mr. Brandt: I heard that.
Mr. Laughren: I am trying to conclude --
Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is three times.
Mr. Laughren: I shall conclude --
Mr. Nixon: Why do we have all of these guards if not to put these guys away?
Hon. Mr. Brandt: Their coats are the wrong colour.
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member that we have all kinds of rules we could explore: redundancy is one.
Mr. Martel: We have all kinds of time too. Do not interject.
Mr. Nixon: The rules are off tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has always been able to wade through a few interjections.
Mr. Laughren: Not like this.
Mr. Nixon: Gee, I wish this were on television. It would be so good.
Mr. Laughren: So do I. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would have been much quieter tonight if this had been on television.
The Minister of Natural Resources provokes these kinds of debates either in concurrences --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: He was probably quiet, we have to admit. A great opportunity.
Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Natural Resources provokes these kinds of debates either in his ministry's estimates or in concurrences and, I suspect, in the concurrences of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development, because of the way he treats the opposition.
When the minister is confronted with two conflicting statements he has made and responds, "I will sign any agreement that gives me $75 million," he treats the opposition with complete disdain. Does he really think it is the role of the opposition to lie down, play dead and assume the minister is God or king of the north? I am not the only one who would dispute the minister's contention that he is king of the north. I could name at least one other person who thinks he is king of the north. I prefer not to name names.
The opposition and the public of Ontario have every right to know what is happening in the public forests. As long as the minister continues to stonewall and not provide us with figures on our public forests, to which we have every right, the opposition is going to continue to harangue him. When I sit down, if the Minister of Natural Resources chooses not to deal with the questions I have raised, that is entirely up to the minister.
Mr. Nixon: Then look out for the next one.
Mr. Laughren: It is good to see the Liberal Party is supporting the Minister of Natural Resources. It is really good to see that. Finally, we have the Liberals and the Conservatives on one side on the whole question of natural resources.
I was talking to some editors of northern Ontario newspapers today and they asked me, "Why is it that the Liberals never have anything to say about mining or forestry in northern Ontario?" I said: "You will have to ask the leader of the Liberal Party about that. Do not ask me that question." They asked, "Why is it that you keep raising these problems, and the Liberals never raise these questions?" I said, "You are going to have to ask yourself that question." Are our questions legitimate?
Interjection.
Mr. Laughren: That is a good point. The member has me on a new topic now. Are the questions we are raising legitimate or illegitimate? If they are illegitimate, does that mean only the Liberals know which questions are legitimate? The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has done me a favour.
Why is it the Liberals do not raise these questions across the north about reforestation? Is there a reason? Am I wrong? Do the Conservatives have all the answers? Is that what it is? Does the Minister of Natural Resources want me to wave a white flag? Is that what he wants? What is the answer? I do not know. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) does not know. I can tell by the look on his face.
When I sit down, the minister may stand up and say: "You represent the third party. The Liberal Party is not raising these questions. Therefore, you represent an insignificant minority in Ontario." That is fine. Let him say that, but let him be honest about it anyway. To date, he has not been.
Does the minister think we are raising legitimate questions or does he not? I will sit down, but if the Minister of Natural Resources chooses to ignore the questions I have raised, then I hope he will have the courage to stand in his place and make that statement. If he chooses, on the other hand, to deal with the questions in substance, it seems to me we will get through certain other estimates much more expeditiously.
Mr. Reed: I am not sure I can follow an act such as that, considering the member spoke for an hour about something. It was so impressive I think the Sudbury Star should have the entire text, and perhaps the Ontario Forestry Association. I will make sure the member for Nickel Belt will not go unheard in northern Ontario.
10:10 p.m.
I would like to take this opportunity to address one very brief subject to the minister; it concerns something that happened this afternoon. Ontario Hydro has announced it is raising the price of buy-back power by more than 40 per cent; that is, power delivered by private generating plants will go from 2.3 cents to 3.3 cents. That means there will be new incentives for cogeneration in northern Ontario, there will be new incentives for the use of forest wastes and there will be new incentives to examine certain hydraulic power sites for redevelopment in the province.
In a press release this afternoon, I urged both the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Natural Resources to undertake very expeditiously the removal of the remaining obstacles to that development. The minister is quite aware of what they are. They are mainly bureaucratic obstacles, but they are obstacles that can be removed. Many of them exist in the district offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources; they do not exist with the minister or his policy. I grant that to the minister.
However, the minister knows the prejudices of the past still remain out on what we call the firing line, and he knows if there is ever going to be any positive move or any positive response to what has been quite a dramatic advance by Ontario Hydro, the message will have to be sent to the district offices that certain obstacles are going to have to be cleared away so this development can take place.
I leave that one message with the minister. I am not going to try to run out the clock talking about a myriad of things here tonight. However, it is a matter of urgent public importance, and I did want to get it on the record. I thank the House for the time.
Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, let me say very briefly to the member for Halton-Burlington that I do agree with the need, as a priority policy within the ministry and in the Ministry of Energy, to remove some of the obstacles to development of private hydraulic and thermal generation facilities on a spot-by-spot, industrial and personal basis throughout the province.
We hope the increase alluded to by the honourable member will help that. However, as the member has mentioned in estimates in two successive sessions, there have to be some changes in processes within the Ministry of Natural Resources and within the Ministry of Energy to make that happen. I agree with him on that.
The member for Nickel Belt raised a number of issues that have been discussed in estimates. We have had two sets of estimates in the past 12 months, and on every occasion I have attempted to answer the questions of every member of the committee. I have never heard the allegation that I have not answered the questions that have been put to me.
Regarding the discussion of the last day, in which the honourable member posed a question, the very way the question was posed in this House answered the problem raised by the member. That specifically relates to the phrase, "area not available for regeneration."
Back in 1982, the member and others in his party went around northern Ontario and said "area not available for regeneration" meant deserts, areas that were being permanently written off by this government and would never be available for regeneration again. He changed his tune afterwards and now calls them "silvicultural slums." They are no longer deserts.
That is the background to the use of this wording and the debate that has gone on throughout northern Ontario as the third party's task force on forestry has gone around and made these points.
Mr. Laughren: What a lot of nonsense.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Pope: The honourable member says that I, as the minister --
Mr. Laughren: Why did you not answer the question?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister of Natural Resources is having a hard time being heard.
Hon. Mr. Pope: The member has said, and his leader has said as well in Thunder Bay, the real problem in natural resources in this province is the personality of the minister. In the last hour he and his colleague the member for Sudbury East have used terms such as "misleading," "a dumb minister," "arrogant," "donkey," "dog," and "has not been honest."
I think that is indicative of their attitude towards this place and that attitude pre-existed my coming to the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Mr. Laughren: It did not.
Hon. Mr. Pope: It did so. I have seen it in Hansard before and I have seen it out on the hustings. That is his attitude towards the people of this place as well. Therefore, he should not say that I am the problem.
Mr. Martel: You are a donkey. You really are a class act.
Hon. Mr. Pope: I have read all the words. Just after I was appointed Minister of Natural Resources, I can remember the member for Lake Nipigon was quoted in northern Ontario as saying, "The minister does not know the difference between a trembling aspen and a raspberry bush." That was in early 1982.
Mr. Martel: I would have said it more succinctly than that. You are a jackass.
Hon. Mr. Pope: Let us talk about the leader of the third party, who was in Cornwall on October 2. He did not even know the white pine was Ontario's tree. He said it was the white birch that was Ontario's tree. The white birch is Ontario's tree, according to the third party. Of course, the members of the third party --
Mr. McClellan: What about the provincial bird?
Mr. Martel: We can probably find a provincial insect -- a mosquito or a black fly.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to acknowledge that the issues raised by the member for Nickel Belt and the members of his party are important.
Mr. Martel: You will not answer one question.
Mr. Laughren: You never acknowledge
Hon. Mr. Pope: All right then. Since the members of the third party do not want to have that kind of discussion, I will end by saying that we come from two different philosophies on resource management. Their philosophy was indicated by their leader in Maclean's magazine in 1982. They want to nationalize it all and take jobs away from the north. I am going to fight them every step of the way, so they can take that.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have listened to the clown antics of the minister responsible. I want to say this party has never suggested nationalization. I might nationalize Inco. However, to listen to his stupid comments over the past three months --
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: That minister is out to lunch.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member for Sudbury East please take his seat?
Hon. Mr. Pope: Point of privilege --
Mr. Martel: He has never answered the question in his bloody life. What a donkey he is.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in the closing time of the day. Let us have the decorum our rules call for.
Mr. Martel: Tell that jackass to listen.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East will kindly remove that remark.
Mr. Martel: I will not withdraw when I listen to comments like that clown just made, and I will defend my leader to the end.
The Deputy Speaker: If the member does not remove those two remarks --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: I have to name the member and he should leave. The Sergeant at Arms.
10:20 p.m.
Mr. Martel: What did you say?
The Deputy Speaker: I have to name you, sir.
Mr. Martel: Wait a minute. I know something about the rules of this place.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the member --
Mr. Martel: I am not going. I want to know why you have named me.
Interjections.
Mr. Martel: No, no. I am not going easily.
The Deputy Speaker: Abusive language is not acceptable.
Mr. Martel: What did he say?
The Deputy Speaker: Calling another member "jackass." I ignored "donkey" earlier.
Mr. Martel: You will have to take me out by force. You are not taking me out easily. I want to know why you named me.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the member --
Mr. Martel: I know you have been a Tory hack and I want to know why you are naming me.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to debate with you.
Mr. Martel: Do not bug me. I am not moving. I want to know why you named me.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I will say. Very quickly, using words such as "jackass" or "clown" is not acceptable, and abusive language.
Mr. Martel: You did not even ask me if I would withdraw them. You cannot play games such as this.
The Deputy Speaker: I asked you. Mr. McClellan: Please leave.
Mr. Martel: No. Bugger off. I am not going tonight. You will have to take me out physically.
The Deputy Speaker: You know what our option is. You can be removed for the balance of this session.
Mr. Martel: I know what the rules are around here. You tell me what I said that was wrong.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: You are an insult to your party, and you know it.
Mr. Martel: You will have to take me out physically. I want to know what kind of game this donkey is playing.
Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I draw your attention to the clock. It is a good time to adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker: We will recess for five minutes.
Mr. Martel: You do not have a leg to stand on with the game you are playing.
The Deputy Speaker: I have no recourse. You have had ample time to withdraw.
Mr. Martel: You never even asked me to withdraw my remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: It is not necessary --
Mr. Martel: No, no you do not. I want to know what the Speaker is saying.
Interjections.
Mr. Martel: No, I am not going. They are going to have to take me out of here physically. I want to know why the Speaker is naming me.
Mr. Gordon: Fall down on the floor again, Elie.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: We will adjourn the House for five minutes.
The House recessed at 10:23 p.m.
10:28 p.m.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Resolution concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could revert to reports so we can have a report from the standing committee on members' services.
Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to reports?
Agreed to.
REPORT
STANDING COMMITTEE ON MEMBERS' SERVICES
Mr. J. M. Johnson from the standing committee on members' services presented the following report and moved its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:
Bill 17, An Act to revise the Election Act.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will go down the list of concurrences standing on the Orders and Notices today, the conclusion of the budget debate, if time permits, and the supply bill.
The first order of business will be the third readings on the order paper, which are Bills 17, 82, 101 and 140.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.