The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My statement today refers to the NDP child care conversion package, a plan that falls far short of the recommendations of the all-party committee which studied this subject.

The business case approach which is advocated by this NDP government provides no compensation for intangible assets such as name recognition and reputation. It is in sharp contrast to what is generally accepted as the good business practice of paying fair market value when the owner of a business is bought out.

This compensation package is not fair and indeed it will not be seen to be fair by the independent operators or the public. We are now presented with a very complex and nebulous set of criteria that will determine eligibility for conversion: the social planning aspects of the local community; the length and stability of its waiting list; the size and stability of its revenue stream.

This so-called conversion plan presents a bureaucratic nightmare to independent day care operators. This government's child care conversion package lacks clarity, fairness and vision, not only for the operators but for the many children and families they have served, will serve and are serving.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): As many members of the assembly will be aware, the Minister of Municipal Affairs appointed Mr Graeme Kirby to consult with the people of Ottawa-Carleton about the future of their municipal government in May of this year. One of the possible changes Mr Kirby was to consult and advise on was moving to a single municipal government or one-tier government for the entire Ottawa-Carleton area.

Before that consultation is completed and before Mr Kirby has reported his recommendations, the ministry has now released a discussion paper that indicates there would not be any financial savings realized by a move to one-tier government, nor would such a move result in better efficiency.

With this in mind, I believe it makes sense to immediately call off Mr Kirby's $175,000 study. If it is apparent that money cannot be saved, then further study of a one-tier government becomes an exercise in futility and we should at the very least save any dollars yet to be spent on the study.

If this government is determined to study the streamlining of the functions of municipal government, then perhaps it might instead consider looking at the amalgamation of the five school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area. There are five boards -- some say six when you consider that the French board has both a public and a Catholic component. It would be no surprise at all if such a study would reveal that the majority of the Ottawa-Carleton citizens would like to see less overlapping and duplication in their education system rather than in their municipal system.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise in the aftermath of the assassination of a top magistrate, Paolo Borsellino, to voice my outrage at this abhorrent act of violence. This brutal assassination which took place yesterday, a few short weeks on the heels of the Falcone assassination, claimed the lives of five other people and injured 20 innocent bystanders.

In the wake of this tragedy, I rise before this House today to express my deepest regrets that devastating acts of crime and violence such as these are becoming more prevalent in our societies and, as many newspaper reports indicate, are on the rise.

Whether it is organized crime which takes the lives of government officials and innocent bystanders or whether a violent act or violent crime takes place on the streets of Toronto, communities must pull together to resist these elements in our societies. These acts of brutality must be denounced.

In this regard, a meeting has been planned for this evening with members of the community for the purpose of organizing a rally in support of our brothers and sisters who have been victimized by such brutal displays of violence. I believe we need to assure our communities that such brutal acts will not be tolerated, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Over the past year and a half we've been bombarded by NDP rhetoric boasting that the NDP is the sole guardian of women's interests in this province. But recent events have shown that the NDP cabinet ministers are either too incompetent, too negligent or too uncaring to translate this rhetoric into action.

First we had the incredible case of the Minister of Correctional Services, who for the past year has remained unaware or perhaps uninterested in the sexual harassment taking place within his ministry. As incredible as it seems, even when it reached the stage of a gang rape in a ministry facility, this minister was still in the dark.

It now appears that there is an epidemic. We have learned that two more cabinet ministers, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Energy, were unaware of sexual harassment and assault occurring within their ministries. In response to two separate sexual assaults at Ontario Place and Old Fort William, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Peter North, said: "I wasn't aware. I am now. I hadn't heard of this, honest to God."

Later the minister admitted that he did have some information, but only the fact that there were some investigations and a problem involving sexual assaults. Isn't it absurd that the minister at first didn't know what he knew, and then when he finally figured out what he knew, it was obvious he hadn't cared enough to ask any questions about these serious charges?

The NDP has to cut its rhetoric, cut its incompetent cabinet ministers and get down to the job of protecting the women of this province.

RESIDENTS' PRIVACY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I rise today to once again plead the case of a group of Etobicoke West residents who live on Wareside Road. For 15 years these residents have been plagued by disturbances coming from a Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority building that backs on to their properties. For 15 years they have been pleading with municipal and provincial politicians and the MTHA itself for help. Promises have been made, and again promises have been broken. Their quality of life is still severely disrupted.

The most recent broken promise concerns the MTHA pledge that it would respond promptly to any call of complaint from the Wareside residents. Last weekend a group of MTHA residents were playing basketball while loud music was blaring until 4 o'clock in the morning. They were playing in the parking lot at the back of the building. Calls were made to both the MTHA security and to the Metropolitan Toronto Police. MTHA did not even respond, and the police said they were too busy to send a car over.

On April 30 of this year, I wrote to the Minister of Housing to formally request a meeting to discuss these matters. This request hasn't even been acknowledged. The minister seems to be under the impression that everything is in fact under control, but the problems are still occurring.

I urge the minister at least to respond to my letter and take some action now to end this 15-year dispute. I don't think it's asking very much to ask the Minister of Housing to at least respond to a letter and potentially arrange a meeting. They're not asking for much, and it's a reasonable request.

1340

RIDING OF PRINCE EDWARD-LENNOX-SOUTH HASTINGS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): The summer is about one third over, but I'm sure in the province of Ontario there are many families that haven't yet decided exactly where they would like to take their vacations. As a representative for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I would like to suggest to them that they might come to that riding in eastern Ontario.

If you're heading to parts of eastern Ontario beyond my riding, I might suggest that you take a little detour off the 401 and travel the Loyalist Parkway. The Loyalist Parkway will take you through a very scenic part of my constituency. It has some very incredible museums. It has Sandbanks Provincial Park, which represents one of the finest representations of baymouth sand dunes in Ontario, if not North America, and it certainly would be a place that many people would enjoy visiting.

There are many opportunities in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings to visit museums and to visit many of the small towns. If you should happen to come, I would suggest that you might even want to bring a bicycle, because in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, in that particular part of Ontario, life goes considerably more slowly. You might want to take a bike and just bike around some of the bike tours that have been arranged in that area and visit some of the very fine and outstanding historical sites.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): In yet another example of this NDP government's stifling debate and democracy, we're seeing a continuance of the unholy alliance between New Democrats and Conservatives. The New Democrats, with the support of the Conservatives, rammed through rule changes in this House to stifle the opposition to the Labour Relations Act. Now the government continues to orchestrate and stage-manage the committee that will conduct the public hearings.

Last week the Conservatives, with the support of New Democrats, restricted public access to the hearings in the province at large to only two weeks. This means that the committee will only travel to six cities. The NDP majority decided not to go to Barrie, Peterborough, Sault Ste Marie, Timmins, Sarnia, Hamilton or Kitchener. Unless people are willing to travel to Toronto or one of the six blessed cities, they will not have their say on changes to the Labour Relations Act. These hearings will be the most restricted on labour legislation in recent history. The NDP member for Guelph voted not to hold hearings in Guelph; the NDP member for Cochrane North voted not to have hearings in Kapuskasing; the NDP member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay voted not to go to Gravenhurst. Perhaps most sadly, the Conservative member for Waterloo North and that party's Labour critic decided not to hold hearings in Kitchener.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise today to bring the agency liquor store program to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. At present this program does not extend south of Highway 17, with the exception of a single pilot project in eastern Ontario.

As the minister is aware, I have had several inquiries from constituents who are interested in obtaining agency liquor stores in their communities. I have in turn discussed the matter with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. It is my understanding that the review of the agency liquor store program is still under way.

Minister, the review has been going on for one year now. I have yet to receive a concrete response from your ministry as to whether the expansion will ever take place. In fact, I have not received a response from your ministry to my letter dated February 5, 1992.

In keeping with this government's commitment to northern Ontario status for the entire district of Parry Sound and Nipissing, and, more important, as the public and the tourism industry in these more remote, smaller communities in Parry Sound could be more practically served by extending the agency store program, I would urge the minister to do so.

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It's with pleasure I rise today to remind the members of this House and members of the public that back in 1792, Niagara-on-the-Lake, then called Newark, was the first capital of the province. To mark the first Parliament, the province, along with the town, will be hosting a special session of the Legislature in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Just to remind everyone, September 17 is the date and I invite all members and the public to attend. The Speaker and the Clerk, for the benefit of the members here, will be arranging our celebrations and I hope all members will be able to attend this historic event.

On behalf of the riding of St Catharines-Brock and the municipality of Niagara-on-the-Lake, I would like to take this time to invite the families of members to also participate because, as members probably realize, Niagara-on-the-Lake is the gem of the province of Ontario and has such wonderful amenities -- beautiful architecture, a wonderful park, beautiful landscape all around -- and obviously would love to host your families as well.

I do hope all members will take the time to celebrate our bit of history, our 200th anniversary, September 17 in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would ask the House to please recognize in the west gallery the former member for Kitchener, Mr David Cooke.

APOLOGY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: In his first throne speech the Premier remarked, "We will make mistakes, and when we make mistakes, we'll acknowledge them." Mr Speaker, I've made a mistake and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge it and to issue an apology to the security guards of this building.

Back on June 29, the first day we were sitting after the regular session, I stood up and in a jocular way pointed out that I thought the Parliament could get along without security guards, members, the Sergeant at Arms, the table officers and indeed the Speaker himself, but we couldn't get along without pages. Unfortunately those remarks, although they were intended to be jocular, were I think taken seriously by the security guards who protect us in this place.

Subsequent to that, a brief, rather jocular column was written in the Toronto Sun by Anne Dawson, pointing out that there were no pages sitting in the extended version of this session, and that Sorbara had said that we could get along without security guards but we couldn't get along without pages, and I think that just compounded the problem.

I want to say in seriousness that the security guards in this building do an incredibly magnificent job in providing for the members. They, along with all of the other people who make this building work, work very, very hard, and what's interesting is that they provide a degree of security in a business that now and again has its own insecurities in a way that makes the public and the members feel perfectly comfortable in this building.

I want to say to them that we do acknowledge the hard work they provide and the degree of security they provide. With respect to my comments made several days ago, I simply want to issue an apology to them and say that all the members of this House appreciate their work and have a high degree of respect for the work they do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I fail to recognize this as a point of privilege, but I will certainly pass on your remarks to the security guards.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I have a statement. I'm announcing today that I have appointed Madam Justice Inger Hansen to conduct an independent review of my ministry's Bell Cairn Staff Development Centre in Hamilton. This review will focus on allegations of sexual harassment and assault occurring at the centre and the ministry's response to these allegations. I have also asked Justice Hansen to make recommendations about working conditions within the ministry based on her review of Bell Cairn.

I want to reassure this House that this review will in no way interfere with the criminal investigation already under way into the sexual assault allegations.

Subject to the constraints imposed by the ongoing criminal investigation and freedom of information and privacy considerations, I will shortly be tabling all ministry communication materials relating to Bell Cairn.

These events are deeply troubling and I profoundly regret that the women in this ministry may be subjected to sexual harassment, abuse or assault. This minister and this government will not allow this situation to continue.

1350

RESPONSES

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Everybody in the House who knows her has confidence in the Honourable Madam Justice Inger Hansen, who we are sure will conduct a significant investigation.

The important matters to be investigated are of course not the matters that are the subject of the criminal process, which is ongoing, but have to do with the conduct of the minister and his relationship with his ministerial staff and with his bureaucratic staff, because without complete ignorance on the part of the minister, culpable or not, the events with which we are concerned -- which, according to one reporter, amount to acts of gang rape against public servants -- simply would not have happened.

The minister is naïve to say today that he's releasing the correspondence. The correspondence was all released by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on Friday. To say that he's releasing the correspondence as if something new were happening is just to play loose with the press and the public. He's trying to close the door long after the horse has escaped.

One columnist highly touted by the Premier only last week had this to say about this minister and these incredible events:

"Yet still, we are told by Pilkey that neither he nor his aides knew anything. He claims he was in the dark until last Tuesday, when Tory MPP Bob Runciman first raised the matter in the Legislature.

"Assuming the fantastic to be true, that every top official in the corrections ministry knew of trouble at Bell Cairn" -- which has been documented for almost a year -- "except the minister, (and given this government the fantastic probably is true) a rational observer is left with only one conclusion -- the minister was grossly incompetent.

"Ministers have to know what is going on in their ministries. They have to know to be able to manage their portfolios....

"A minister who cannot keep on top of his department has no business being in cabinet."

What needs to be investigated and probably cannot be investigated properly under the new rules that have now been passed, because the matter may not get to a committee, is whether the minister is incompetent or whether he has achieved for himself what President Reagan and Colonel North called absolute deniability. Absolute deniability is achieved in the United States, under a practice that may have been adopted by this government, when a minister says to his staff, "Don't tell me the bad news so when it comes up in the Congress or the House I can deny that I know anything about it."

The minister -- his colleagues laugh; they may have perfected the same system -- if he is not incompetent, is advancing the American theory of deniability. The fact is, the minister has to go. No responsible government in Canada can tolerate a minister who is unable, after a year of scuttlebutt and conversation in his department, to manage it effectively.

We've had a number of cases in this House, all of which have been serious, but few of which have been as serious of this. The fact of the matter is the Premier probably isn't going to fire the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services for the same reason he didn't fire the Minister of Northern Development, who passed a lie detector test. The reason he's not going to fire them is the political downside is too great: He knows both their dads.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I too want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Correctional Services today. I want to comment at the outset with respect to his comments at the end of his statement about profoundly regretting that women in the ministry may be subjected to sexual harassment, abuse or assault. I suggested last week that in some respects those words are empty, hollow words, as indicated pretty strongly by the fact that memos were circulating within the ministry for, I guess it was, up to nine months with respect to concerns at the Bell Cairn training institute.

This minister has indicated that neither he nor any member of his staff was aware that those memos were circulating among senior members of ministry staff. Up to this point, I have not joined in the chorus calling for the minister's head but, based on the revelations that have been made public and another matter that I'm going to be raising in question period later today, I think there's no question that the incompetence shown by the minister -- I regret to say this -- cannot be described as other than staggering.

I think that's unfortunate because I know the member for Oshawa knows that I like him personally. I've been very reluctant to take a stand with respect to seeing him resign from this position, wanting to give him an opportunity for a full explanation, but we have not been receiving that, certainly not an explanation that stands up under scrutiny.

There are a couple of tragedies in this. One is with respect to the women who were assaulted and the way they were so concerned about not revealing it because of peer pressure and because of lack of confidence with respect to the superiors in their ministry and the way it would be handled. That is indeed a tragedy.

There's another tragedy and that is with respect to the deputy minister, Ms Palozzi, who is a 20-year career civil servant. I was advised today by someone who worked with her in the Ministry of Education, where she was an assistant deputy minister and was responsible for dealing with sexual harassment cases, that this was an individual who got very actively involved in these kinds of issues, who was very concerned. It raises the whole spectre of whether or not we can believe what the government is telling us about this woman and whether indeed she did refuse to take this to her superiors.

I think when we look at her 20-year career and the job she did in the Ministry of Education, it raises real concerns about the credibility of what we're hearing from the other side of this House with respect to Ms Palozzi. I want to say it appears that the minister and the government have hung this lady out to dry. Her professional credibility is now in tatters.

To compound this even further, they've circled the wagons. They've moved her into the secretary of cabinet's office where they can keep a close eye on her, make sure she talks to no one and we do not hear her side of this story. They've also placed a gag order on all ministry staff, telling them they cannot talk about this issue to anyone in the media or anyone in the public. What are they hiding?

I expressed concerns -- I don't know if this is a response to the question I asked the Premier last week -- about the appropriateness of the cabinet secretary carrying out an investigation. We need some further expansion on the terms of reference of this investigation. But I thought it was totally inappropriate for the cabinet secretary to be carrying out this kind of investigation into what happened within the bureaucracy. This is a man who's in charge of a system that failed and the Premier is asking him to investigate why it failed. I said it was putting a fox in the hen-house, and that's exactly what it is.

We need some further explanations about Ms Palozzi's role in this: if indeed she communicated with the cabinet secretary or anyone in his office, and if indeed they communicated with anyone in the Premier's office. I think these are very important issues. We need to get to the bottom of it. We won't when the Premier is hiding the deputy in his cabinet secretary's office and he's put a gag order on all members of the ministerial staff. There's much more to this.

We need a full and open hearing in this matter. We're not getting it from this government yet. We need a further explanation with respect to the terms of reference. There's an awful lot of this that has to come to light. I want to assure the Premier and his government that we're going to continue to press him on this issue.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It's quite clear that today's announcement of the appointment of an independent investigator at the Bell Cairn facility is not in any way a response to the issue of ministerial responsibility. Last week, my colleagues revealed a series of Ministry of Correctional Services memos detailing the disciplinary problems at Bell Cairn. Those memos date back to September 1991. I ask the minister, given the blizzard of memos throughout his ministry, which we now know extended over a period of almost a year, how is it possible that he had no knowledge whatsoever of these concerns?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The simple answer to that question is that I was not advised, nor was my staff, of this matter as it was being handled within the ministry. I've indicated today in the statement that there will be additional materials released as soon as possible, which I expect may well be tomorrow, that in part will bear rather directly on the question from the Leader of the Opposition, and from that she will clearly understand the answer to her own question.

Mrs McLeod: That was indeed much too simple an answer. I find it extraordinary that this minister can rise in this House and attempt to convince the people of Ontario that he knew absolutely nothing about the problems at Bell Cairn. The Bell Cairn opening a year ago was obviously a major undertaking for his ministry. The minister's own press release at the time highlights the fact that the additions cost $5 million and added 42 permanent jobs to his ministry's payroll.

Is this minister really trying to tell us that after the grand opening of this facility, the words "Bell Cairn" were never uttered again in his presence? Is he really trying to tell us that he didn't bother to ask for an update on what was happening at this facility, the facility that costs his ministry literally millions of dollars each year to support? Are the concerns about harassment and assault on the part of his own ministry staff considered not serious enough to bring to this minister's attention? If these issues aren't serious enough to make the minister aware of them, what issues are?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The matters are indeed quite serious and of absolute interest to this minister. I want to say, however, that I cannot act if I am not made aware of the problem or am denied the information. I would like to share with you, Mr Speaker, the leader of the official opposition and all members of the House this information. Once I was made aware of this situation, I took immediate and direct action. Let's just review quickly what they were.

First, I called a police investigation into this matter for the express purpose of having any perpetrators brought to justice if any criminal acts have been created.

Second, I shut down the Bell Cairn centre and I have suggested to everyone that it will not reopen until I am personally satisfied that it has been returned to the kind of safe, harassment-free workplace it was intended to be and that none of our employees, female or male, will be subjected to any kind of circumstances alleged there previously.

Third, I announced the appointment of -- and I've identified that person today -- an independent investigator to review all these matters with respect to Bell Cairn, who will generate for us additional information, additional findings and, perhaps most important, recommendations to ensure that this kind of matter does not happen in the future.

Mrs McLeod: I simply cannot believe that any minister would be kept in the dark about something as significant as ongoing disorder in his training facility or systematic sexual harassment and assault in his ministry itself. There are only two possible explanations I find credible. Either this minister is so peripheral to the work of his ministry that no one bothers to inform him, or it is a conscious direction of the ministry to protect this minister from controversy by trying to sweep problems under the rug in the hopes no one will notice and in this way the minister is protected by his ability to deny any knowledge when the problem does suddenly erupt in the public light.

Either way, this gross mismanagement reflects either negligence or sheer incompetence on the part of the minister. Will this minister not acknowledge that his behaviour has indeed been negligent and that his management of his ministry is tragically incompetent, and will he not give the Premier his resignation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can answer that question quite simply. I have no intention of resigning this portfolio or any other. I have, on an immediate and action-oriented basis, on a problem-solving basis, acted on the basis I've outlined. I think that's totally credible, totally appropriate. I can't act on information that's been denied me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): New question.

Mrs McLeod: My second question is also for the Minister of Correctional Services. I want in this question to address the very serious consequences of the mismanagement that we're attempting to ask this minister to address.

The memos we released last week indicated that there have been escalating incidents of violence and abusive behaviour at Bell Cairn since last September, yet nothing was done. There was then a report that two women had been sexually assaulted, and still nothing was done. In fact, nothing was done until this situation was made public. That the incidents at Bell Cairn were allowed to escalate into sexual assault is completely and solely the responsibility of the Minister of Correctional Services.

Do you not recognize that this behaviour is not just inappropriate and unacceptable but that this behaviour lies at the root of pervasive, devastating problems of sexual harassment and abuse, and that refusal to take immediate action is a major part of the problem? How can you possibly excuse your behaviour, and how can you expect the Premier to excuse it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Absolutely, the conduct that was contained in those memorandums is inappropriate and unacceptable. There isn't a question about it. There's not a question in the Leader of the Opposition's mind about that; there's not a question in my mind about that, and I'm sure there's not a question in anybody's mind about that.

The fact of the matter is that when advised, all of the appropriate and direct actions have been taken to stamp out this kind of circumstance so that it will not be present in our ministry or any ministry within the entire Ontario public service. That's what's been done and that's what going to be accomplished before this is all over.

Mrs McLeod: My question is in fact whether or not this minister understands how far beyond simply inappropriate and unacceptable this behaviour is.

I have here a letter dated September 26, 1991, from a Ministry of Correctional Services area manager who's complaining about an incident involving one of her staff. The letter reads in part, "I am very disturbed that Miss X was subjected to this kind of inconsiderate behaviour and harassment by correctional officers." The letter goes on to say: "What alarms me most about this incident is the fact that Miss X did not feel safe in a ministry facility where the individuals responsible for this behaviour were ministry personnel being trained in the areas of safety and security."

This minister is responsible for a ministry of 8,600 employees. This minister is responsible for their safety and security. I would ask the minister, does he not yet realize that he has completely failed in this most fundamental of undertakings?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I do not accept that I have failed. I do accept that the system to some extent, in this particular area, has failed. That's why I have commissioned this independent individual, this investigator, who will bring to light all of this information, and that's why I have said that once seized of the information, I have acted immediately and promptly and I think very decisively.

Mrs McLeod: Let me try once more to describe how serious I feel the consequences of this lack of acceptable behaviour on the part of the ministry are. The minister's failure to deal with the issues at Bell Cairn have ramifications that to me seem truly frightening. The people who were involved in this behaviour at Bell Cairn left Bell Cairn to work in facilities across this province. They are in positions of authority.

If there is sexual harassment and assault among the staff, what are we likely to expect is occurring in settings where these people are in a position of power? This minister's refusal to accept responsibility for what has occurred is the reason no one in his ministry has accepted responsibility for what was occurring and why no action was taken. This minister must understand how serious this issue is. He must understand how serious the consequences are of his ministry officials' refusal to act when they became aware of the situation.

Will you not understand that your ministry's refusal to act is your failure, and will you not now accept that responsibility and offer your resignation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The only responsibility I will respect in terms of the questioning is to fix and eradicate this problem, and that in fact I will do and have put in motion the variety of mechanisms that will achieve that. I wish to reiterate to the Leader of the Opposition that you can't act on information that has not been provided to you, but that once seized of it, you do have a responsibility. I have met that responsibility and I will solve this particular problem.

1410

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I want to suggest, with a question to the Minister of Correctional Services, that the minister has not met his responsibilities. Earlier this year, the minister made a decision and personally attended a meeting announcing his decision to disband the Minister's Advisory Committee on Corrections, the committee that was responsible for investigating concerns of ministry officials and providing reports directly to the minister's office. The 10 members of this committee had access to all provincial correctional facilities and institutions. The committee was charged with a mandate of providing advice and feedback on issues of concern in the ministry. The committee was a third-party body which had input to the minister. In the spring of this year, Mr Pilkey, the Minister of Correctional Services, met personally with the committee and told it, "Thank you, but no thanks, your services are no longer required." Will the minister indicate to the House today why he made that decision?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member is right in his factual account, but I can't speak to the spin he places on the matter. In order to completely fill out the information he's brought forward, it's not to say that the minister's committee will not be reconstituted, for in fact I may, and I will make the appointments deemed appropriate to that committee if it is.

Second, what is not pointed out is that what we have added is a very broad-based, community-representative, ministry-stakeholder group, including the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, OPSEU and a wide variety of people who either work with or are in and around the corrections ministry. This large group will finally be given an opportunity to have input on future Ministry of Correctional Services policy. It will not only be policy that is generated out of head office, but has a broad community base. These people finally have that grass-roots opportunity for input. That is a group I've also constituted and met with and that is very familiar with matters with respect to the ministry.

Mr Runciman: What the minister conveniently forgot to mention was that a deputy minister chairs that committee that he appointed to replace a third-party committee. That's like the board of directors of a corporation appointing a president to handle a complaints committee -- simply ludicrous.

The minister conveniently omitted mentioning some advice he received at that meeting when he met this committee and told it, "Your services are no longer required." I've had a call on this from someone sitting in and attending that meeting. The committee members warned Mr Pilkey that he was setting himself up because ministry personnel would not be providing him with accurate information. He was warned in February of this year that if he disbanded this committee, he was setting himself up, yet he said, "Goodbye, get out of here." He gave them the royal kiss-off and now he's paying the price.

The minister has not provided an adequate justification for that. I want him to stand up and say why he ignored that advice and that very clear warning.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This is a political spin at best. I have met with the committee that is referenced by the honourable member opposite.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, the committee in question may be reconstituted at the minister's wish; it is a committee that is under the purview of the minister. The other committees that were established were broad-based, community-oriented stakeholders, and the basic purpose was to provide input into future policy directions of the ministry so that the grass-roots organizations had a very ample opportunity to have that kind of involvement and not be separated from the bureaucracy, which I think is a totally appropriate way for a consultative government to proceed.

Mr Runciman: When we talk about spins, this minister is really trying to put a spin on this. This committee has been part of this ministry for many years, going back to the Conservative government. It served well under the Conservatives and under the Liberals. The NDP government made a decision to disband this very helpful committee, and it simply didn't deal with policy issues. The ministry staff were very familiar with the existence of this committee, and it made them aware of many things going on within institutions and facilities under the responsibility of this minister.

The minister's response when the committee warned him was, "I have an excellent ministry, and there are all sorts of ways to get information." We now know that this minister has completely bungled his job. He did not know about serious problems in his ministry that he should have known about. He was warned not to abolish an independent complaint system, but he did it anyway. He had no effective system for dealing with the complaints he did hear about. He doesn't even have a clear idea of how these complaints were dealt with.

It's now clear that the fear of complainants that they will not be dealt with fairly by this system is totally justified. As I said earlier, I refrained from calling on the minister to resign because he deserved a full chance to tell his side of the story. He has now done so, and it's clear that he is the one responsible for the mess in his ministry. Will he avoid prolonging the inevitable, do the honourable thing and resign now?

Hon Mr Pilkey: First, I want to ensure that any reference to the committee mentioned by the member opposite was not negative in any particular way. They did serve, they did have a mandate, they completed a report, and I don't want any of my comments to be taken in a negative way with respect to that particular committee.

In terms of the final assertion by the member opposite, it appears to me that the responsible thing to do was to act to correct this problem when the matter was brought to my attention. It is regrettable that it was latterly that it was brought to my attention, but there you have it. That is the fact of the matter; it is the truth of the matter. I will now proceed with the knowledge to resolve the issue in respect to Bell Cairn in the ways I have alluded to, namely, the police investigation, the closure of the centre and the independent investigator who will bring forward recommendations to ensure that this kind of matter is not present in the future.

Mr Runciman: I have a question to the Premier, and later today I will ask him how he can justify keeping this minister in his responsibilities. What I want to talk to him about briefly today is the question I raised in the House last week about a third-party investigation of what I've described as a passive coverup within the ministry.

He initially indicated that they had taken a look at proceeding under the Public Inquiries Act but decided not to because of an ongoing police investigation. I raised concerns about where the police investigation was in respect to the apparent coverup that occurred within the ministry, who was involved and who knew what when. He obfuscated, as he is prone to do, and did not answer the specific question.

Again I ask him about the appropriateness. I'm not sure where this investigation by the cabinet secretary stands in light of the announcement today. Has he reviewed the appropriateness of having the head of a failed system investigate why it failed?

1420

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think it was appropriate for me to ask Mr Barnes to compile some information for me, which has been done. I also think it's appropriate, and the minister has announced today, that Judge Hansen will conduct an entirely independent review of these issues and of this problem. I think that requires an independent review, and if the member wants me to repeat the problem we have with respect to conducting a police investigation and a public inquiry at the same time, I'll go over that ground with him, but --

Mr Runciman: They're two different issues.

Hon Mr Rae: He says it's two different issues. I can tell him the advice we're getting from all the --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: All right. I've given my answer.

Mr Runciman: Without further elaboration from the Premier, we have to assume that advice is coming from John Piper.

I want to talk about another element of this with you, and that has to do with Ms Palozzi and the fact that this woman, as I indicated earlier, has her professional reputation now in tatters because of your actions, the comments you've made in this House, the comments you've made in scrums, without any explanation in respect to the role she played, no public explanation. You've circled the wagons around this woman, putting her into the cabinet secretary's office. You've effectively silenced her. You've also put a gag order on ministry staff in respect to talking to members of the opposition or talking to the media.

Will you direct Ms Palozzi to come forward, speak to the members of the media, speak to the public? Let's hear her side of the story. What difficulty do you have with that?

Hon Mr Rae: There are some decisions a Premier has to take with respect to dealing with issues, and I want to say to the honourable member as directly as I can that Ms Palozzi remains a member of the public service of the province of Ontario. That's where the matter stands, and she will serve the public in many different ways in years to come. That's certainly our intention.

Mr Runciman: It's another non-answer from the Premier. I want to give him quite a significant parallel, really -- and he will recall; I think he was a member then. I'm not sure; I think he was. Certainly some of his colleagues were when there were difficulties -- and this was in a Conservative majority government -- when there were questions raised about Alan Gordon, the Deputy Minister of Government Services, about the appropriateness of awarding government contracts and whether or not Mr Gordon, as deputy, had violated the Manual of Administration.

You may recall that Mr Gordon was called before the standing committee on public accounts of this House so that there was a full airing of Mr Gordon's viewpoint in this matter. I'm asking you, given the comparable situations in many respects, why you're not prepared to have the deputy come forward and perhaps appear before the standing committee on administration of justice and answer some very important questions about how this government operates at the highest reaches of its civil service.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the honourable member that there's no issue of fact with regard to whether or not the minister was informed by the deputy minister. That is a matter of --

Mr Runciman: Who else did she talk to? You're just furthering the coverup.

Hon Mr Rae: All the facts are coming out, as they should and as they must and as they will, in every way possible. The information is all there.

Let me also say to the honourable member that this is not the first time this kind of problem has taken place within the public service or the public sector. There have been other investigations. There have been other ministers involved at different times with respect to matters. Most of that information never came out until long after it took place. There was an incident even in the ministry of corrections when the member for Timiskaming was the minister of corrections, an investigation that took about a year from the initial complaint with respect to an issue involving sexual harassment.

The person who had information and has information in my view has a responsibility to share that information fully with the minister who is responsible, and I'm satisfied that that in fact did not take place and that this information needed to be shared and it was not.

The second problem, as I said in my answers on Thursday, to be fair, was an overall systemic problem that needed to be dealt with and certainly needed to be more widely shared with the political level. That's the action I've taken.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services. I hope the minister will appreciate that the issue right now is about competence in his capacity to be a minister.

I think everyone in the House realizes how difficult it is for people to come forward and raise these cases that have been raised here. Yet we find now that it went on for virtually a whole year in your ministry. I think it's fair to say that if it wasn't the number one issue within the Ministry of Correctional Services, it had to be among the one or two major issues. It was an issue that was widely circulated within your ministry. Virtually every senior civil servant in your ministry had copies of memos. It was one that people were just crying out needed to be tackled, and you went a whole year without tackling it. It was only when the opposition raised it that you took action. That's why people question your competence in being able to manage the ministry and, frankly, question your competence about being able to solve the problem.

But I'm trying to get at how it could possibly be, unless it's gross incompetence, that you never found out about it. I'll ask you a series of questions. First, did the deputy minister or any other senior staff on your ministry over that period from September 30 until before the member raised it ever raise with you or anyone on your political staff the fact that there was a problem at Bell Cairn?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Quite frankly, I'm offended by many of the comments that are emanating from across this House. I indicated in the House last week that I had not been made aware of that issue, and there were many members opposite who questioned that I was telling them the truth. In fact I was, and now many of them are acknowledging that.

Second, in terms of management of the particular ministry, the ministry has been administratively and legislatively well managed with respect even to attendance at special events or awards ceremonies. I have done all of that. There are weekly meetings, daily meetings. My availability and the availability of my staff is ever-present. All of these circumstances are in fact the case.

To reiterate, the response to the honourable member opposite to his first question is no.

Mr Phillips: The very point that you're out cutting ribbons when something this significant is going on explains everything. I think he answered my question about the --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the member for Oakville South to take his seat. Please repeat your question.

Mr Phillips: I'm not sure I heard the full answer to my first question, but the supplementary is still trying to get at how anyone could miss something that was literally crying out for help and people trying to get their political body to respond. My supplementary is this: Did your ministry hold a weekly management meeting that the deputy and senior people attended? Was this issue ever on that agenda? Were you made aware of the agenda for the weekly management meetings and did you receive minutes of those management meetings? Did you or anyone on your political staff receive those minutes?

1430

Hon Mr Pilkey: Again the member opposite asked me a very direct question. I gave him a detailed answer in terms of administrative-legislative, attending special events or awards presentations for individuals who merited special attention. I find it interesting, and perhaps it's telling, that of that explanation, the member opposite chooses to characterize all of that as "ribbon-cutting."

With respect to his second question, the availability of myself and that of my political staff who are onsite at the particular location, my policy assistant who attends management meetings etc, none of them were advised of this particular circumstance. As I indicated, once we were seized of it, direct and immediate action was taken in terms of the police investigation, the closure of the centre and the appointment today of Madam Justice Inger Hansen, who will bring forward an independent view and recommendation with respect to the matter.

Mr Runciman: I want to get back to the unfathomable decision of the Minister of Correctional Services to disband the Minister's Advisory Committee on Corrections, a committee that was designed to provide him with an independent assessment of complaints and concerns of ministry employees. The minister indicated during that meeting that they weren't serving a useful purpose. He gave the impression he was knowledgeable about the activities of the ministry and its past activities and contributions.

Can the minister tell us today what proportion of complaints dealt with by this committee were dealt with to the satisfaction of the complainants, what proportion were determined to be unfounded and what proportion remain unresolved?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There was a report generated by the ministry and there was a response by the committee. Many of the matters crossed over in terms of the involvement by both particular parties, and I think that is the circumstance. Matters of concern within the ministry are reviewed on an ongoing basis, and there are always opportunities which we seek for improvement or changes in policy direction within the field of corrections.

Mr Runciman: The sunset review of this committee was conducted by an official within the Ministry of Correctional Services and the minister apparently made the decision based on the recommendations of a bureaucrat within the ministry. He cut a crucial line of communications: third-party, independent observation of what was going on within his ministry. He made a decision and delivered that decision in person. He sat down and said: "You're no longer required. You're not performing a useful service. I'm going to talk to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and a few other folks and have the deputy minister chair the meeting. That'll be good enough for me." Obviously he made a very dumb decision and one which had tragic consequences for employees within his ministry. As I said earlier -- this is paraphrasing the minister -- he said, "I have an excellent ministry and I have all sorts of ways of getting information."

Now I don't suggest that the people at that meeting were misinforming me, Mr Minister. Can you explain why you made that response to those members when they warned you about what was going to happen? Where are these magic sources of information that you were supposed to have? Justify your response to them.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Certainly I don't have a verbatim account of the meeting, but it certainly does not sound like the choice of words or the comments that I made to that particular group. With respect to the group, it was an end of a situation. There was in fact a sunset review, and I wanted the input of that particular group on that issue and did meet with the group on certainly more than one occasion.

As I indicated, the more recent initiative was the external consultative committee, which is well attended, very large and comprised of those kinds of exterior contacts that have an absolute interest with respect to the issues of corrections and those around them. For the member opposite to suggest that those representatives from those organizations in some way are in league with the ministry -- let me tell him that is far from the case.

Those people have an interest in the future direction of corrections, they have an interest in resolving matters within the corrections ministry, and they certainly have an interest in and were overjoyed at the opportunity of finally somebody asking the grass roots for its view on policy decisions that will affect the future direction and operation of the entire Ministry of Correctional Services.

COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Attorney General, not the Solicitor General. Before I was elected to the Legislature, I practised criminal law in the city of Windsor. I recall that provincial court judges imposed a surcharge on persons who were convicted of Criminal Code offences and narcotics offences, on top of fines that they may have levied. Those surcharges were as high as 15%, or $35 where no fine had been imposed.

Recently I received a letter from Windsor Police Chief James Adkin on behalf of the victim services unit, asking about those surcharge funds. He said that about $850,000 has been collected so far. My question is quite simple: What has happened to this money? The chief tells me that it's not going to assist victims of crime.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I thank the member for the question, because it is an important one. Essentially he is correct in indicating that the province has received about $800,000 from the victim surcharge scheme. That money has gone into the general revenue fund of the province. That's essentially correct.

I would like to point out something, however. In fact, the province's funding to victim services far exceeds the $800,000 which has come from the victim surcharge scheme. In fact, if I may, the province contributes funding to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, to the victim/witness assistance program, through the sexual assault and wife assault initiatives and funding to crisis centres and sexual assault centres across the province. The province's contribution to victim services and increased funding to victim services by far exceeds the $800,000 that was mentioned by the Windsor chief of police.

So yes, the money has been collected, not as much as the federal government at first indicated to us has been collected, but far in excess of the amount that has been collected has indeed been expended on victim services.

Mr Lessard: I just wanted to tell you a little bit about the victim services unit at the Windsor Police Service. They deal with victims of break and enter and sexual assault and the families of murder victims. They provide psychological help and referral services as well. They operate from a cramped little space at Windsor police headquarters. They rely on a coordinator and a clerk and basically no budget.

They do a lot of this with volunteer help, but they know they can do more. They could do more with more volunteers, but they need some extra funding to expand. I wonder whether the Attorney General can provide some assurances that steps are being taken to ensure that the victim services unit at the Windsor police department will receive part of these surcharge funds that I referred to to provide services to the victims of crime and their families.

Hon Mr Hampton: I'm very much aware of the excellent work that is done by the Windsor Police Service in terms of providing support to victims. I should say to the member that there are organizations around the province, some community-based, some funded by municipalities, some funded by the province, that provide these services. There is a great competition for the funding that is available.

We recognize that more needs to be done in terms of the provision of financial support to victims of crime, and we have put together an advisory committee to determine how best to utilize the victim surcharge fund and also how best to organize funding for victims generally. I should say, however, that the work of that committee has been made more difficult, first of all, because there is such a competition for funding. All governments face that, but it's been made specifically more difficult by the decision of the federal government to withdraw $3 million of funding from the support of victims generally.

1440

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I have a question for the Premier. The Premier has made plain many times in this House his adherence to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility which, as he has said, is designed to assure that a minister, whether he knows the events or not, is held responsible for what occurs in his department so that the chance of recurrence of those events will be reduced; in other words, ministers resigning when there are allegations of this type is designed precisely to assure that it will not happen again.

The Premier said in 1983 and on other occasions that it's a tough doctrine. It's a tough doctrine, as he pointed out, because sometimes you have to apply it to people who are nice people. It's a tough doctrine. In some respects, it can be a rough master. The Premier went on, "But it is nevertheless the principle of our political and constitutional life which must be respected." He then went on to quote examples of ministers, both in this Legislature and elsewhere, who had taken personal responsibility for mistakes, often unknown to them, made in their ministries.

My question for the Premier is: What has changed? The public wants to know. The former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was fired immediately for appearing fully clothed as the Sunshine Boy. The former Minister of Community and Social Services stepped aside pending a rent review investigation. The former Solicitor General was eventually fired for his constituency office's attempt to fix parking tickets. Yet the current minister, in a serious case like this, is allowed to blame the civil service and carry on as before.

Given his previous support for the principle of ministerial accountability, will the Premier please tell the House and the people of Ontario what his standards really are?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Much of the rhetoric in the question is exaggerated.

Mr Scott: It is not rhetoric. I was quoting you.

Hon Mr Rae: No, this rhetoric about fixing parking tickets and other stuff --

Mr Scott: That is what they attempted to do.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's really excessive. The member for St George-St David knows better. He has this tendency to descend to this rhetoric every time he gets to his feet and even when he isn't on his feet.

Let me say directly to him with respect to the issue that when a minister has not been informed, the test surely is, what does he do as soon as he is informed, as soon as he's made aware, as soon as it's brought to public attention, as soon as it's brought to his attention? If I may say so, that test has been applied in just about every instance.

I referred earlier to the member for Timiskaming, who was the Minister of Correctional Services. Nobody in this House stood up and said, "You should resign because of something that took place before you were aware of it." The question is, what do you do as soon as you're aware of it? As soon as you're aware of it, you close the facility, which is what the member has done. You bring in Judge Hansen to make sure that steps are being taken and you set out a very clear rule to say that the minister must be kept fully informed of these kinds of events and this sort of an incident.

I'm not satisfied that at the political level this government was not made aware. To follow the logic of the doctrine which the member for St George-St David is now espousing --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): It is your doctrine.

Hon Mr Rae: -- not my doctrine -- which he never espoused while he was in government, the basic argument should be, if an incident of this kind takes place in any ministry, we should all resign. I know one thing very clearly: That member will never be happy until everybody else except for him resigns. That's the kind of level to which he has now fallen. That's the level he's fallen to.

Mr Scott: The Premier's response in confronting a problem of his own, in his own ministry, of a very severe potential coverup of a gang rape at a public institution is to malign me. His minister's attempt is to malign the honourable member for Leeds who brought it to the minister's attention. The reality is that the issue is not mine; the issue is the Premier's.

The public wants to know. The people of the province are now aware, notwithstanding the speech from the throne and the guidelines, that if you smear a physician and lie about him, you can stay in the cabinet, but if you reveal a patient's name in the Legislature, you have to go. If you breach the rent review act, you go, yet if you break the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines, you stay. If your constituency staff try to fix a parking ticket -- and that's what they did -- you go, but if your staff ignores a sexual assault scandal, you stay. If you appear as a sex object in a newspaper, you go, but if you were unaware of a serious problem of sexual assault which was for almost a year the subject of rumours in the ministry, you stay.

Premier, will you make some sense of it, not for me but because it is your responsibility to tell the public where you stand at the end?

Hon Mr Rae: Where I stand at the end and where I think this government stands at the end is trying to deal with a very difficult situation as soon as we heard of it. As soon as we were made aware of it, we took steps which we hope very much will begin to address what is clearly a systemic problem in the corrections system. There must be a systemic problem in the corrections system or this kind of problem wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

I say to the honourable member, that's the issue. The issue isn't someone resigning every day for this or that. That's not the issue in the public's mind. The issue is how is this government going to handle a case of sexual harassment, and possibly if sexual assault, occurring on government property. That's the issue, the allegation occurring against government employees potentially by other government employees. That's the test. That's the difficult issue we've had to address. We've had to address it quickly, we've had to address it sensitively, and if you choose to turn this into some kind of political circus in question period, that's your choice, not ours on this side. It's your choice, the way you're choosing to proceed with this.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I don't think the issue is whether or not the Premier decides if someone is turning this into a political circus. The question is gross incompetence and ignorance. That's the problem we're faced with here, Mr Premier. If you're choosing to see this as a political circus, that's your choice.

What the public is seeing is a minister who is so incompetent -- this is to the Premier -- he literally did not know what was going on in his own ministry. Dozens of senior officials knew. It was the word on the street in this ministry. Everybody knew but the minister, and your defence is, "He didn't know, and when he found out, he acted."

Do you not understand, Mr Premier, that the criterion you're setting up to maintain your position in your cabinet is to lock yourself in the office, disconnect the phones and claim to know nothing? Further, Mr Premier, you've set up a cabinet system based on, "The less you know, the better off you are." That's what you're trying to achieve? Is that the goal this government has been reduced to, "Don't tell me I'll have to take some responsibility"? Answer that.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not sure if that was a question or an order coming from the member.

Mr Scott: You would do well to answer it none the less.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the member for St George-St David, if he'll stop heckling for a moment, I'll try to respond as clearly as I can.

I say to the honourable member, the test surely is, what did the minister do as soon as he was informed and as soon as he was made aware? If the member says --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Premier, do you wish to continue your answer?

1450

Hon Mr Rae: The second thing I would say is about the word you have that this was all out on the street. If it was out on the street, I would have thought there would have been a lot of honourable members who would have known before last Tuesday when this was put forward. The fact that members opposite raise questions as soon as they hear of them is exactly what I would expect. There is this notion somehow that absolutely everybody in the world knew about this and nobody was asking about. I would say to the honourable member that this minister has responded as effectively as he could as soon as he got the information, as soon as the information was made available to him. This government has responded as soon as the information was made available to us.

I think this is an extraordinarily difficult circumstance. Politics aside, there clearly is a human dimension and a human problem here that we all have to deal with. We all understand that -- the political partisanship aside -- and that's what we're trying to do. But I would say to the honourable member that surely he would recognize that with respect to dealing with the problem as soon as it became publicly known to us through question period and through our then going back and asking every question we possibly can of the public service, we have attempted to respond.

If I may say so, that is a test that has been applied by governments for a long, long time with respect to trying to get information and as soon as you get that information, to respond as best you possibly can.

Mr Stockwell: It seems to be a test that you've adopted since you have come into power, Mr Premier. It was not a test or practice you operated with when you were in opposition. It was a very different Mr Bob Rae when it came to information to ministers and ministerial responsibilities.

The test the Premier suggests is what he did when he found out. I take exception to that. I don't agree with him. The test that should have taken place is, when this happened once, if it should happen at all, what happened? That's the test. The test is that this shouldn't have happened on a weekly basis, which apparently it did. It should never have happened without this minister knowing. It shouldn't have taken place without this minister being fully informed. I don't think anyone would argue that point, least of all the minister.

Now, if there is ministerial responsibility, Mr Premier, and if you honestly believe the buck stops in the Cabinet Office and the buck stops at the ministerial desk, how can you defend this minister when he suggests, "Nobody told me, and since nobody told me this could be going on for months, I have no responsibility"? He washes his hands of the issue. He says, "When I found out, I acted," and you accept it. My question is, when is the minister going to accept responsibility for the actions in his ministry, whether it's two weeks old, three months old -- alleged gang rapes, sexual harassment, wild parties? If this minister is not responsible, who is?

Hon Mr Rae: We are taking responsibility for acting as a government and for taking the steps that need to be taken in responding to a problem. If the member is suggesting that it's now the new rule of the member for Etobicoke West that every time anything happens within a ministry, the minister must immediately resign, and that's the only test of responsibility --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: We're accepting responsibility for taking the action. We're accepting the responsibility for responding as best we can to a very difficult human problem. That's what we're doing. The test the member for Etobicoke West is now establishing is that as soon as anything goes wrong, the entire government must resign. That's the new test he's putting forward. Every problem becomes a resignation problem. I must say that's not a perspective I share in instances and it's not a perspective I share in our trying to deal with a very difficult human issue, which we're trying to respond to.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. From time to time in the local media, some reporters make comments and statements that lead to some consternation on the part of my constituents. I can recall a couple of weeks ago when the critic from the opposition asked you a question about the bill of rights.

My question today has to do with an article written by Peter Gorrie on July 15 in The Toronto Star about the landfill situation. You were quoted in there as saying, and I will read the quote, "And, she said, she still believes that incineration and shipping garbage to other regions are environmentally sound solutions to Metropolitan Toronto's looming garbage crisis."

I think perhaps the reporter should have taken a look at Wayne's World and added "not" to the end of that.

Could you perhaps clarify this for my constituents who are a little concerned about the ambiguity of this report.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Yes, I'm very glad to clarify that. The story the member refers to did indeed leave out the word "not." I'm glad the paper the next day corrected that impression as well.

Let me also use the opportunity to remind the member, who, having served on the committee that looked at Bill 143, is probably aware of this -- other members may not be -- that the arrangement with Metropolitan Toronto and the region of York to ship their waste to Kirkland Lake dealt with only 1.5 million tonnes of waste of year, so that even if the shipping of waste to northern Ontario were accepted, if it were going to that particular site, there would still be a need for extensive landfilling in the greater Toronto area.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do with the whole issue of part IV of that act, which has to do with waste reduction. We heard a number of very forceful presentations during those committee hearings from the public, which I think is well in advance of the politicians, especially on the local level, given that the town of Ajax has just curbed its recycling in four apartment buildings. They seem to be farther ahead in terms of their demands on the politicians to have recycling and reduction. I'd like some indication from you. Perhaps you could give us some information about how well this whole process of waste reduction is going, given the part of Bill 143 that deals with that, and that's the fourth part.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad to respond to that and tell the member that in fact the progress with respect to waste reduction is quite significant. Just this week I was able to say to the region of Halton that we would facilitate with money its search for a centralized composting facility. We're very optimistic that Metropolitan Toronto will get its waste reduction action plan back on track and begin to seek approval within Metropolitan Toronto for both MRFs, which are material recovery facilities, that will separate waste, as well as centralized composting. The region of Durham is also looking at putting in place a waste reduction action plan. The targets that have been accepted by my ministry for a 50% reduction by the year 2000 are targets I believe we can reach within the greater Toronto area.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. We have heard from various locations that the Ministry of Correctional Services has had various difficulties with respect to sexual harassment and other difficulties. In fact, one of your own colleagues in cabinet clearly has information about that in terms of the system at corrections. I want to know from the corrections minister if he was ever briefed in relation to his new responsibilities as the corrections minister and if his political staff were ever briefed in relation to the problems that have been ongoing in the corrections ministry over several years.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm not sure I understood the first question.

Mr Elston: Were you ever briefed on sexual harassment?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There have been a wide number of initiatives taken within the ministry with respect to sexual harassment. They include, as I say, a wide variety of matters: memos issued to all staff, poster campaigns, insertions of information on the new Ontario public service harassment policy in the pay packets of individuals. We have staff training seminars on a face-to-face basis with members of the ministry, and they are ongoing. There are additional initiatives. There are, I think, somewhere around eight specific initiatives that this ministry has provided with respect to that particular topic. They're all there.

Mr Elston: Someone who knows about all these initiatives either has just found them out or was well briefed on the difficulties in his ministry. I want to know whether the inquiry which has been announced today will have the mandate to proceed to inquire into the ministry procedures and in fact will be able to inquire into the activities carried on by the minister, his parliamentary assistant and his political staff, and whether this inquiry will have the ability to call and swear in witnesses so that it can get the full story.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Madam Justice Inger Hansen will be reviewing this particular matter with respect to Bell Cairn. It indeed does require looking into. She will bring forward a very complete report and recommendations. I'm not aware of whether it would be necessary to call witnesses to this. That perhaps is something that Madam Justice Hansen will consider as to its necessity.

1500

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to file notice with you at this time that I am dissatisfied with the answer to my question and request further opportunity to join the issue later in the day.

The Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to advise the table accordingly.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You may not uphold this point, but I want to express concern about a delaying tactic the government entered into this afternoon when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Correctional Services got up with a very lengthy question to ensure that the members of the third party did not have an opportunity for another question to the minister, his minister. I think that's totally inappropriate, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair always tries to be as fair as possible, and I think that we've achieved that, to give a chance to everyone to pose his or her questions. The member for York Centre.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I am rising on a very important point of order. I have with me some notes. Regrettably we don't have any pages, but perhaps one of the other officials could distribute copies of these: one to you, sir, one to the table officer, one to the government House leader and one to the House leader for the third party.

I'm going to be speaking today on government notice of motion 13. The gist of my submissions, which will probably, with your indulgence, take about 15 minutes, is to the effect that government notice of motion 13 is out of order and is not properly a time allocation motion. I'm going to be arguing from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, as well as the precedents that have been set forward in this House, and I'm going to be raising a number of specific questions.

The relief that I'm asking from you, sir, is set out on the final two pages of my document. That is, first of all, a request that you rule government notice of motion 13 -- I'm sorry; this document says "15" but it should read "13" -- out of order; second, that you, in your discretion, suspend consideration of government notice of motion 13 until the issues raised in my submissions to you today have been ruled upon by you.

I would point out to you the first submission that I make in this document, which is as follows. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms submits as follows, in section 533: "Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion." This is described by Beauchesne as a well-established principle of parliamentary procedure. I am asking you, sir, what provision of our standing orders has the effect of varying this procedure in Ontario, and are there specific decisions of Speakers of this Legislature that have varied that principle?

That is the seminal question, if I might, in the matter I am raising. If I could just direct your attention to government notice of motion 13, it reads that upon the next calling of Bill 150, which is the bill that we were considering on Thursday night, rather than allowing the debate to continue, the Speaker would be required to -- and I'm quoting now -- "put the question forthwith on the motion, which question shall be decided without amendment or debate."

Let me just clarify again that government notice of motion 13, while appearing to be a time allocation motion, is in substance a motion that prohibits any further debate whatever on Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments.

In accordance with new standing order 44a, that is, the new time allocation provisions, the notice of motion says that when the order of the day is called for third reading of Bill 150, all debate comes to an end. If this motion were to be considered by this House and passed by this House, you would be required then to prohibit any further debate whatever on third reading and immediately put the question.

I submit to you, sir, that Beauchesne himself has stated that to do that would be in violation of what a time allocation motion is designed to do. I'm suggesting to you, sir, that there are no precedents in this Parliament for a time allocation motion which allocates no time. The motion we are about to consider in this House or that stands on the Orders and Notices would not provide for the allocation of any time whatever. In that respect, it is not a time allocation motion but rather a closure motion.

The second point I would wish you to consider is set out in number 2 of my submissions, and the question is framed as follows: Is a time allocation motion which provides for no further debate at any stage of a bill's consideration an indirect method of achieving closure of the debate for a particular state of consideration of a bill? I would submit to you, sir, that this motion in fact represents a closure motion in a different guise.

I then point out to you, sir, and raise the question in 3 as follows: What is the relationship between a time allocation motion which fails to allocate any further debate and a closure motion under section 45 of the standing orders? You're familiar with section 45 and you realize that under section 45 a member of the government has the ability, when he or she validly has the floor, to put the question, that is, to use the words of the motion, that this question be now put, which brings the debate at least temporarily to a close, and at that point the Speaker has to make a determination as to whether or not there has been sufficient debate. You are required to rule on that and if your ruling is in the positive, then there can be no further debate.

My fourth question, sir, is as follows: Are there any instances under our standing orders where a time allocation motion has been placed before the assembly in which it is provided that no further time be allocated for the consideration of the bill at any particular stage of the legislative process? In other words, have we ever seen a time allocation motion of this sort before? My submission to you, sir, and I've done the research back to 1982, is that in every single instance we have not had a time allocation motion which allocates no further time.

Fifth, my question is as follows, and this is important given this debate was interrupted on Thursday at 6 o'clock when the House was adjourned for the weekend: Where a member has the floor speaking to a bill at any stage of consideration of that bill, can a time allocation motion intervene to prohibit that member from completing his or her remarks?

Frankly, sir, I would like your attention on this.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You have my attention. Please, go ahead.

Mr Sorbara: I simply say to you, sir, if you're talking with the Clerk, it's difficult to believe that I have your attention, but I'll take you at your word.

When we recessed this Parliament on Thursday, we were considering Bill 150 and one of the members of the Progressive Conservative Party had the floor. Under our standing orders, that member was allotted 90 minutes in order to deliver his remarks. Obviously the House adjourned at 6 o'clock and the remarks of that member were not completed. I believe it's inappropriate to have a time allocation motion which would intervene to prohibit that member from completing his or her remarks.

1510

I have done research in our standing orders and in the precedents of this House and have found no instance where a time allocation motion interrupted a member in the midst of his or her remarks and would have the effect of prohibiting that member from completing his or her remarks. That's one of the matters I raise in number 6 of my questions: Can a time allocation motion validly abridge the the right of a member to speak for the full time permitted him or her under the new standing order once that member has commenced speaking and has not utilized the time permitted him or her to make his or her remarks?

We have standing orders that provide specifically the length of time that a member will speak. If you allow this standing order to stand and be debated and passed in this House, the effect will be to abridge the rights of a member, which rights are already in the process of being acted upon by virtue of the effect the motion will have, and that is, cutting off the member in midspeech, as it were.

Number 7 is as follows: Section 45, that is, the motion for closure, vests in a Speaker a discretion whether or not to require that a question be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. This arises where a member validly moves, "That this question be now put." The Speaker is required to consider whether such a motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority. A time allocation motion, which provides no further amendment or debate, has the force and effect of section 45. The question I raise with you, sir, is as follows: Does the Speaker acquire a discretion to reject a time allocation motion that would give rise to the same result as a closure motion under section 45?

Number 8: The time allocation provisions of the standing orders of the House of Commons are similar in substance to the new standing orders respecting time allocation recently adopted by this Legislature. Evidence from the House of Commons staff indicates that a time allocation motion allocating no further time would be out of order in the House of Commons. I ask you, sir: What distinguishes the substance of our time allocation motion from that applying to the House of Commons?

If I might just take you to the precedents that apply to time allocation motions in this House, I go back to December 8, 1982, where the Conservative government put a time allocation motion under Bill 179. That time allocation motion, as in every other motion ever put before this House, allocated some additional time for the consideration of Bill 179. The motion was debated vigorously, and in the end the Speaker ruled that it was valid because it did allocate time.

Then again, sir, on February 15, 1983, a time allocation motion was presented by I believe the Honourable Bette Stephenson for consideration of Bill 127. There again the time allocation motion allocated some time for the consideration of Bill 127, I believe both at further consideration in second reading and through further consideration in the House.

I want to make special reference to the time allocation motion which was presented to this House in respect to the bill on Sunday shopping, Bills 113 and 114, in the month of January 1989. On January 19, 1989, some issues were raised -- and this is a very important point, sir -- in respect to the time allocation motion to bring to a conclusion the debate on Bills 113 and 114. The questions raised by Mr Rae and other members of the opposition were of such significant significance to the Speaker that he reserved his judgement on those questions for the subsequent day. Then he replied to the House subsequently and made a ruling on the time allocation motion, supporting the time allocation motion but offering authority for his position in the ruling he made.

Similarly, in the time allocation motion affecting Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act, when issues were raised about the validity of the time allocation motion, the Speaker, rather than simply ruling on that motion, reserved his judgement and reviewed the authorities and the questions raised by the members in response to the time allocation motion and then reported back to the House.

I submit to you, sir, that this ruling will be very important in the way in which this House conducts its business from now on. If you were to rule today without considering the authorities, let me point out to you the effect your ruling would have.

As you know, the new rules provide that after three days of second reading debate a minister or the government House leader may put a time allocation motion before the House for debate for one full day. That's the substance of the new rule. If you rule in favour of this motion today, you create the possibility that in future, after three days of second reading debate, a time allocation motion could be put in the name of the government House leader which allowed for no further debate at second reading, no consideration in a standing committee of the Legislature, no consideration by committee of the whole and no debate at all on third reading. Yes, the bill would have to go through those various stages, but if you permit the government House leader the luxury of putting forward a time allocation motion that provides for no further debate on third reading, then you give him the power and the authority to put forward a time allocation motion in future which provides for no further debate at any of the stages that a bill will go through subsequent to the passage of the time allocation motion.

If you were to do that, sir, without reflecting on the authorities and consulting broadly about the precedents of time allocation motions in this House and in the Parliament in Ottawa and in other legislatures, then I say to you that you are not fulfilling your responsibility as Speaker. This is an incredibly serious motion, not because the government does not have the theoretical right, as it did, to put forward a time allocation motion, but this motion is in effect a closure motion because it prohibits any further debate.

You might think it's all right because we have had a great deal of debate on first reading and during previous stages of the bill, second reading and committee consideration. But if you allow that to happen here, you are by implication allowing for debate to be completely terminated on any bill or substantive motion after it has had three days of debate in second reading.

Remember that this motion says that once it is passed and Bill 150 is called again, there shall be no further debate. I remind you once again of what Beauchesne said about time allocation motions. He said, "Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing a debate to an immediate conclusion." Those are the words that govern the way in which our Parliament and parliaments in Canada are required to conduct their business. In fact, this is such a broad and well-established principle that Beauchesne doesn't even refer to a specific ruling but establishes that this is a well-established principle of parliamentary democracy both in Canada and elsewhere in parliaments that are similar to our own.

I want to speak for a moment about the submissions I make to you. First of all, I think it's absolutely essential that you consider this matter rather than rule on the matter. I grant that you may have advice from the Clerk that this answer is easily questioned, but the Clerk is not the Speaker of the House. You are the Speaker of the House, and this is an extremely serious issue. I am not asking you to defer your judgement for weeks and months; I am asking you to defer your decision until you have had time to reflect on the submissions we make. I'm perfectly agreeable to submitting to you, sir, the judgements of previous Speakers on time allocation motions for your consideration.

1520

The damage that will be done if you rule immediately and in favour of the motion is long-term and will apply to every single bill subsequently considered by this House, so I'm asking you, at the very minimum, to consider the arguments I've made here today, to consider the arguments that will be made by the House leader for the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party, and obviously to consider the arguments that will be made by the government House leader.

I know the government House leader urgently wants to call this motion today and have it debated for the balance of the day in this Parliament. Nothing will be lost if you prohibit him from doing that for one day so that you can reflect on the matters being raised before you.

Once again, I appreciate that the Clerk may have a view, but we have views as well, sir, and I remind you that if you, in your role as Deputy Speaker, simply make a ruling on this, you are going to give the government the authority, by the implication of your ruling, to cut off debate, finally and completely, on every single bill that comes before this House after it has had three days of second reading debate.

The implication of putting forward a time allocation motion that says, "There shall be no further time allocated," if approved here on a bill for third reading, is that it is available on second reading, is available when a bill goes to committee of the whole and is available on every other stage of a bill. There is nothing in our standing orders that says there has to be a reasonable amount of debate at a particular stage before the time allocation motion is brought forward. The only thing our standing orders say is that there has to be three days of second reading debate.

This is the most serious assault on our right to debate legislation ever presented in this House, and I urge you, sir, I plead with you, to reflect on this issue, to sleep on this issue, to read the precedents of the House, to examine those cases, all of them, available to you from your research staff or research that we can provide you; and that research indicates there has never been a time allocation motion presented in this House which allocated no further time.

I believe that if the government House leader had allowed the member of the third party who had the floor when this debate was adjourned on Thursday to complete that speech and allocate perhaps one more speaker, then he would have complied with the technical requirements for a time allocation motion. I believe that if he had allowed for 15 minutes or a half-hour or one more sessional day, he would have complied with the technicalities of a time allocation motion. But having gone the full length and placed in his time allocation motion a provision that there will be no further debate, is in substance a closure motion. I submit to you that he does not have the power to bring forward closure under the time allocation provisions where there is a specific motion for closure in our standing orders, namely, section 45.

In every instance where a member has set forward a series of questions to be answered by the Speaker, the Speaker has reflected on those questions and ruled on those questions before making a judgement. It's incumbent upon you, sir, to suspend and postpone any consideration of government notice of motion 13 until you have answered the questions that I have raised here with you today.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to take this opportunity to speak on the same point of order raised by the member for York Centre. Quite frankly, as you know, I'd given you advance notice that I'd be making a similar point myself if he or somebody else did not.

I think, first of all, that the point the member for York Centre makes with respect to your ruling is most appropriate. This will be a landmark ruling, if you don't mind my saying so, Mr Speaker, with respect to the new rules that the government has brought in, and I think it's very appropriate that you take the time to make sure in your own mind that you are absolutely certain that this government notice of motion 13 is in fact in order before you allow the notice of motion to be called and proceeded with.

I couldn't agree more with the member for York Centre that in effect what the government House leader is trying to do is that he's trying to do indirectly what he can't do directly. Under standing order 45, he can very directly move closure if that's what he wants to do, and in fact that's exactly what this motion does. This is not, I submit to you, a time allocation at all, because -- very simply put, without any great, reasoned argument -- it provides for no allocation of time; there is no time provided for in the time allocation motion. What he's trying to do is cut off debate at this point, end it and have a vote immediately. There's a procedure for that in this place. It's called a closure motion. It is under standing order 45, and that's what the government House leader should be using. The reason he isn't using it, very bluntly, is that there's only been one speaker for the official opposition on this third reading debate -- not even a full speaker on our party's behalf.

The member for Carleton I believe had the floor and still had time left, as the member for York Centre has pointed out, and the government House leader knows very well that the Speaker, at his or her discretion, would not permit closure to be invoked after one and a half or one and three quarters speakers. Therefore, he's trying to do indirectly what he knows he cannot achieve directly. I think it's very important that you take that into account with respect to your ruling here today on government notice of motion 13.

I'd also like to point out standing order 1(a) in our rules, which says, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders." I firmly believe that government notice of motion 13 does not conform to our standing orders as recently amended. I believe it is a breach of the standing orders, which are for all members of this place and not just for the government.

Erskine May says on page 1, "The purpose of many of the rules is to safeguard the rights of a minority of the House: to guard against the development of an 'elective dictatorship' which some have predicted.... Above all, the balance between the right of governments to obtain their business and the right of the House as a whole to examine it...is maintained through the discretionary powers given to the Speaker."

I can presume why the government House leader has introduced this motion with respect to cutting off debate, because as I've said: (a) he knows he can't get closure under standing order 45 at this particular point in time; (b) he knows he's getting some political heat and the Premier and his government want to get out of this place as quickly as they can because they don't like question periods such as the one that prevailed this afternoon and in the latter stages of last week. I think it's important that the people out there know the lay of the land and know what's going on behind this government notice of motion 13. That, in fact, is the political reality as to what is happening and why the government House leader is now introducing this motion.

This is a bill that the government says is very important, that it says it has to have: Bill 150. Let me tell you a little bit about the legislative history of Bill 150 in this place, because I think it's always interesting that we understand the sense of urgency that governments place on such things.

"When did this bill first receive first reading?" I asked myself. It first received first reading on November 6, 1991. Here we are on July 20, 1992. Second reading debate was for two days, December 16 and 17, 1991. The bill was passed on second reading on December 18, 1991, and it went to committee for five days. Now we have a bill that the government says is so significant that it can't leave this place this summer, some four and a half or five weeks later than we're normally here, saying, "The bill is so important; I introduced it about nine months ago; I have to have this bill before I leave."

There was only two days of second reading debate on this piece of legislation, and now, after not even two speakers on third reading debate, we have the government House leader saying: "I need this bill and I need it right now, and there can't be any further debate. I know I'd never get a closure motion through, so under the guise of a time allocation motion I'm going to provide a motion that provides for no allocation of time whatsoever. I'm going to get this thing passed and out of here so I can go home, like my Premier wants me to, so Mr Pilkey doesn't have to come to question period every day." That's what this is all about, just so there's no mistake by the public at large out there.

Also, just so there's no mistake, in my humble opinion and that of the member for York Centre -- and I presume several other members and perhaps even the government House leader himself if he was brutally honest about this -- this is not a time allocation motion at all because it provides for no allocation of time, not one single minute, not one second. How can a time allocation motion be for allocation of time when none is provided? You can call an elephant an orange, but that doesn't make it one. An orange is an orange, and an elephant is an elephant, regardless of what you call them. This is a closure motion as sure as I'm standing here. The government House leader knows he can't get a closure motion through at this point in time, and he's been ordered to get this business of the House done so he can leave.

1530

I also think it's very important, Mr Speaker, that in your deliberations you take into account not a particular standing order, in this case 44a, all by itself but that you take into account the other rules of the Legislature that go with it, like standing order 45 that I've already alluded to, because in fact you know and I know that what the government House leader is trying to do here is to cut off debate abruptly at this point in time and have an immediate vote on the matter. That is called a guillotine or a closure motion, and there's provision to do it, but he knows he can't get it, so he's not doing it that way. He's going to try to come in through the back door and do it by another means, hoping you buy his argument.

This is very important with respect to the other rule changes that have just been adopted in this place. It's very important to the intent and the spirit in which these negotiations and discussions with respect to rule changes went on, because when we were talking about these new rule changes, the House leader for the Liberal Party and myself asked the government House leader why he wanted these rule changes and what he intended to do with them. In the debate with respect to the rule changes, he said: "Oh, I would hardly ever introduce this. I'd only introduce it maybe two or three times a session at most, and I'd only do it for really significant pieces of legislation."

There have only been two bills called, and he has introduced it on both of them. I wouldn't consider this to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that a government will ever pass. They introduced it on November 6, 1991, and now they're getting around to talking about it on July 20, 1992. that's how significant it is in their minds, which I would suggest is not too significant at all.

If this place is going to work, there has to be some respect and agreement among all three parties. To cut off the member for Carleton when his time wasn't even finished and introduce such a closure motion is absolutely ludicrous. It is very important that you consider all this in its proper context before ruling on whether government notice of motion 13 is in order or isn't in order.

I couldn't agree with the member for York Centre more. I don't believe there's a precedent in this Legislature that provides for a time allocation motion that has no provision of time in it whatsoever. The House of Commons in Ottawa has three ways it can introduce time allocation motions, and they're outlined in standing order 78. It's very interesting to note that in standing order 78(1) and (2) in Ottawa both of the first two ways provide for cooperation and consent and agreement among the parties sitting in the House of Commons. Only under 78(3) can the government in Ottawa proceed unilaterally with respect to a time allocation motion -- which is what is happening here; the government is trying to proceed unilaterally -- and then there has to be at least one day on any stage of a bill before our government can proceed unilaterally.

When you are talking about this very significant interpretation of the standing orders as recently amended in this place, I want you to take into account how the rights of the minority in this place may be usurped by this government, or future governments for that matter, by really invoking closure under the guise of a time allocation motion that provides for no time whatsoever.

In my humble opinion, and hindsight's always great, what the government House leader should have done if he wanted to proceed by way of a time allocation motion was to introduce a motion that provided for one further sessional day of debate on third reading of Bill 150. That would have been very much in order. But he didn't do that because he didn't want any further debate, not one second more. He even wants to cut off the member for Carleton from concluding his remarks. That is most inappropriate. I suggest to you it's not in order. I suggest to you that government notice of motion 13 is not a proper time allocation motion at all. It's operating under the guise of time allocation when in effect it is in reality a closure motion.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to be absolutely certain in your own mind that it is in order, and if there is one scintilla of doubt in your mind, I request of you very respectfully that you postpone the consideration of government notice of motion 13 here this afternoon and that you take all these circumstances into account before arriving at your decision.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I will be very brief. The section of the new rules that provides for time allocation clearly provides for the ability for the Legislature to put time allocation at any stage of the bill. The fact of the matter is that we've had second reading debate on this legislation, we've had committee hearings on this legislation and we've had clause-by-clause on this legislation. Then we started third reading of the legislation last Thursday and had a whole day on third reading of this bill. Time allocation clearly would apply to only the final stage of the legislation because that's the only stage that is left.

The reason, Mr Speaker, that time allocation is clearly necessary in this case is that -- you have been here long enough to know -- the tradition in this place, if one wants to raise a valid point of order, has clearly been for many years that third reading is a very short debate, a very focused debate. What has happened is that now it has become the norm in this place for the opposition to debate at length on third reading as well.

We had a 90-minute speech by one of the members of the opposition on Friday. If they wanted to get their final words in on third reading, as has been the tradition around this place, instead of delaying -- and that's obviously the goal around here -- then there would have been a more fair way of dealing with third reading of the bill, but the goal around here is to delay, delay, delay, delay.

I didn't want to bring in time allocation on this piece of legislation. It would have been preferable to sit down at a House leaders' meeting and be able to discuss how this bill should be handled, but that seemed to be quite impossible. So the time allocation motion is there. It provides for bringing in the allocation of time at any stage of the bill. This is third reading, and that's exactly what this motion deals with.

Mr Speaker, I don't believe it would be appropriate for you to delay your decision on this matter, because that, again, would do exactly what the official opposition in particular wants you to do: to delay and delay further. It's clear that this motion is in order. It was tabled on time last Thursday before 5 o'clock. It was circulated to the opposition parties. It is now here to be debated and decided upon by the members of the Legislature. That's what this is all about: the members of the Legislature deciding.

The rules and procedures in this place should respect the opposition and its ability to oppose and should also respect the ability of the government to govern. It's a balancing act that you have to play, but not allowing this decision to be decided today by the members, which is entirely what the rule calls for, I think would be an abuse of the government. It's in order; it was tabled on time; it was circulated. It's now up to the members to debate and decide, and that's what the government's prepared to do.

1540

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I wish first, in making comments on this point of order, to thank my colleague the member for York Centre, who has done an extremely good job of laying out the series of issues to be discussed but, Mr Speaker, I might draw your attention as well at this time to some other aspects of this particular motion.

If this were a time allocation motion, and you understand standing order 44a as having been one of the new rules to come in, you would also understand that it was accompanied by several other pieces of new legislation for standing orders around here, which included the fact that the beginning speakers from each of the parties under time allocation, in fact under each of the stages of the bills, were allotted a full 90 minutes to make their remarks, which, when you come to consider this issue, means there is an anticipation that the very maximum for the opening speeches would be 90 minutes and that there would be an expectation that each leadoff speaker would go for as long as he or she determined to go. After that, the rules of this House prescribe that a member may have up to 30 minutes to speak. If there was to be any justice in putting that provision in the standing orders, then it would mean that more than just the leadoff speakers would be contemplated to be able to speak at each stage.

Mr Speaker, when you look at this rule 44a, as well, you will see that it contemplates, as my colleague the member for York Centre and my friend the member for Parry Sound have indicated well, that there is a sense that there would be an allocation of time after the motion is determined. In this situation, there is no such time. If 44a were to be used to bring a vote to the House immediately, then we would not have allowed any other rules to have been brought forward which had indicated clearly that there cannot be a 44a motion unless there are three days of debate on second reading and unless there have been other provisions for members to speak.

I agree fully with what the member for Parry Sound has clearly indicated, and that is that the member for Windsor-Riverside has determined that he will go about his business by excluding not only the opposition from making their points, but in fact excluding the Chair from exercising the age-old authority of the Chair, which is to protect the minority in this House and rule upon when the use of the closure motion, which would have come under standing order 45, is an abuse of process.

Mr Speaker, you cannot in my view allow this 44a motion to stand as being in order at this time. If you conclude that, it is my view that this is a standing order motion that is not perfectible merely by moving an amendment to it, that the order has to be withdrawn or withdrawn at your instigation and that any other standing order motion under 44a would be a new one that would have to be duly tabled and, as a result, the opposition would have to receive notice of it.

In its place, the member for Windsor-Riverside, as government House leader, can have access to standing order 45. If it is his will that he wishes the vote to be taken immediately, if he wants closure, which is what the motion currently in front of us speaks to, then he can use standing order 45. But in that instance, he will then have to rely upon the fact that the Chair would rule that there has been enough debate. It is my view and the view of a lot of people here that there has been hardly any debate. I thank my friend from Parry Sound for bringing forward to us the fact that there were only two days of second reading debate on Bill 150, five days of committee and now but one day of third reading. That is not very much time.

It is and has always been the role of the Speaker to protect the minority and to allow the minority to speak out. It is now, Mr Speaker, your unenviable position to have to make a determination on 44a, but if it is your determination that it does not stand, then the motion must fall altogether. Then we in the opposition will have to be aware that the member for Windsor-Riverside, on the instructions from his Premier, Bob Rae, will cut all of the debate off. That's what all the issue around this place has been over the last several weeks, about Bob Rae and David Cooke cutting off all debate at all times so they don't have to put up with the irritation of somebody who disagrees with them.

Seeing that this now is fully brought into focus by this very precipitous motion delivered by the member for Windsor-Riverside, I think it is incumbent upon you to make an acknowledgement of that set of factual information and read into this motion 13 exactly what is at play in the government's mind.

Mr Speaker, with that I thank you and my other colleagues for intervening on this very important issue, but I leave with just one word: If it looks like closure, if it reads like closure, then it is closure, and it must as a result be brought under standing order 45, not under new standing order 44a.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I want to try to be as brief as possible, but I was the member who was cut off in midsentence. Actually I guess literally the government pulled the plug on me with regard to my remarks last Thursday afternoon.

The fact of the matter is, the critic for the Ministry of Revenue for the Liberal opposition party had an hour and a half to speak and he took that time up, which he was entitled to. As a result, after question and answer provided in our standing orders, it left me with approximately 15 minutes before I was required to sit down because we had run out of time on Thursday afternoon.

I want to say that under a lot of circumstances, third reading wouldn't require a great deal of debate in this Legislature, but two things make it very, very important that members in this Legislature be given an ample opportunity to express their opinion on third reading.

The first one is that I hold in my hand the amendments to Bill 150 during the committee process. This bill, Bill 150, contains 51 sections. I hold in my hand 49 amendments to 51 sections. If one can argue that Bill 150 is the very same bill or principally the same bill as it was when it left this House on second reading, then you might have some substance behind the argument that members in this Legislature do not need a great deal of time on third reading. My argument is that as a result of these amendments, we do require time to talk about those changes in the legislative chamber.

Interestingly enough as well, during the committee hearings there was only one day of hearings on the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and I think you should know that, Mr Speaker.

I think as well those who had attended the public hearings, the other four or five days which we spent in committee, will attest to the fact that very few members of the public were in favour of this bill, and surprisingly enough, that not only included those who might represent the business or the investment side but it also represented the labour union side, which this bill was intended to enhance or benefit.

Therefore, on third reading, Mr Phillips, who represents the Liberals with regard to the Ministry of Revenue, has already expressed some dismay with regard to that input. But I think it's only fair to members of that committee and members of this Legislative Assembly that they talk in some detail about the submissions that were made in a negative sense about Bill 150, even as it is amended.

Last, I would like to talk about urgency, the urgency of this government to have this legislation passed. As my House leader indicated, on December 18 this bill received second reading and was sent out for committee hearings during the winter break. The committee on which I sit, the committee dealing with this matter, was to hear these hearings beginning on February 23 or February 24, in and about that time.

Three or four days before the committee was ready to hear input from the public, and the witnesses had been lined up, the Minister of Revenue called off the hearings unilaterally, a procedure which I objected to at the time, but basically said that the ministry was not ready to go ahead with hearings at that time because it had significant amendments to the bill. Their argument at that time was that they didn't want the public to come forward to talk about Bill 150 as it had been passed on December 18 in this Legislature but they wanted the public to react to a different document after the 49 amendments had been introduced.

1550

The opposition was ready to go ahead in the latter part of February to consider Bill 150. The government wasn't ready to go ahead with Bill 150 in February in terms of the hearings. We could have had this bill back in the Legislature in the first week this Legislature began sitting in April. We could have been considering this in April. We could have been considering this in May. We could have been considering this in June. But because the government wasn't ready with its amendments till the latter part of April, and we had public hearings during the month of May, it is the government which has stalled the progress of this bill; it is not the opposition.

Now the government wants to close off the opposition with its one chance to remark on the significant changes which it has made to the bill and to stop our response and our reaction to this bill. Mr Speaker, if there is any opportunity for you to strike down this motion and give myself, along with other members, an opportunity to comment and respond to the government's tardiness with regard to Bill 150, I think we deserve it. I believe my privileges and responsibilities are being usurped by this motion. I am the Treasury critic, I am the Revenue critic for this party. I believe, quite frankly, that Bill 150 should not be passed and I demand the time to make that case before this Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Is this on the same point of order, the member for St Catharines? I believe I've heard enough.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thought when I got up you'd probably say that.

The Deputy Speaker: I've heard enough evidence. It is the role of the Speaker to be fair, to be just and to make sure all points of view are listened to. You're asking me in reality to give you a ruling on 44a. I cannot do this immediately. I have to reflect on the whole issue. I would ask your indulgence. I would ask you to give me time so that I can come back tomorrow and give you a full ruling so that there is no longer interpretation on that section.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matters before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules and procedures in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

Mr Speaker, I attach my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 62 citizens of the town of Westminster in the county of Middlesex who petition the Legislative Assembly to set aside the arbitrator's report in regard to the greater London area because these constituents believe it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings, it awards too extensive an annexation to the city of London and will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and its rural way of life.

I've signed my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I add my name to this petition.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I am pleased to add my name and to affix my signature to this particular petition, which is one of many that have flowed in over the past couple of weeks.

1600

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I will affix my signature to the petition.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and at that time utilized the former rules to take full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate the bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

It is my intention to also affix my signature to this petition.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To The Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet members; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

There are 55 signatures, and I've added mine to the petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

1610

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONDON-MIDDLESEX ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LONDON ET MIDDLESEX

Mr Cooke moved second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex / Loi concernant les annexations faites à la cité de London et à certaines municipalités du comté de Middlesex.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to make it very clear indeed, because there have been certain allegations made in regard to this bill not being allowed to come to the floor by the Liberal Party, that although it has been introduced too late in the session to receive second reading in the extended sitting as prescribed by the rules of this Legislature, the Liberal Party is consenting to this bill coming on for second reading debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): It's not a point of order; it is a point of information.

Mr Elston: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: We could have stood and prevented it from coming. Both the Conservative opposition and the Liberal opposition have consented to this coming forward. I want to make it quite clear that we are both here as opposition parties to get the business done.

The Acting Speaker: You have made your point, sir. The Minister of Municipal Affairs had some opening remarks?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It's interesting. The House leader for the official opposition made a valid point that under the new rules we now have in the Legislature, no longer will governments be able to bring legislation forward, if the session is extended, in the last eight days. It's good to hear that there's at least one part of the new rules negotiated between the three parties that the House leader for the official opposition party agrees to. To give him credit, this was a section of the rules that he and the House leader for the third party suggested.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about the bill we've now called forward, the annexation bill for London and Middlesex. I want first of all to indicate that in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs I don't think there's any type of legislation, any type of initiative that is more difficult to have to deal with than boundary disputes that exist in various areas of the province. This particular one is much larger, much more difficult than most, but all of them, I must say, are extremely difficult.

I want to make it very clear to the members of the House and to municipalities across the province that this is a very unique situation in the province. There is no other county and no other city, no other area in the province that has the same difficulties and the same divisions of population that this area has. There are approximately 302,000 people living in the city of London and around 60,000 in the county. That made the options available to the government very difficult indeed.

I should point out that this issue first started being discussed in the London-Middlesex area 11 years ago. That's when the issue first came up. The issue was not resolved at the local level. There were opportunities through the informal discussions that took place when the issue was first raised 11 years ago. Then, when the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act kicked in, I believe in 1988, there were certainly provisions under the legislation to go through to see if this matter could be resolved at the local level. It was impossible to settle at the negotiating table at the local level. There were lots of discussions and there was lots of urging from the previous government as well.

I should point out that the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Sweeney, worked very extensively on this issue as well and had the same difficulty I had, that nobody would settle the issue at the local bargaining table. The province appointed a chief negotiator and that appointment was done --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): What about Irene's solution?

Hon Mr Cooke: No, the chief negotiator was appointed by Mr Sweeney, and that is provided for under the boundaries legislation. There was a report that came to me not long after I became Minister of Municipal Affairs. My suggestion, when that report came to me, was, "No, I want the whole matter sent back to the local municipalities and I want them to get back to the negotiating table." So a further effort was made to try to negotiate.

One of the parties in the discussion, Westminster, was very much in favour of having regional government. The city was very much interested in having annexation. The county had a much more difficult situation because it represented the interests not only of all the other municipalities but also of Westminster. The issue simply could not be resolved and regional government was not an option for the London-Middlesex area because of the distribution of population. To have regional government in London-Middlesex would clearly have meant that there would have been one-tier government because of the overwhelming population in the city; therefore, the representation on regional council would have very much been overwhelmingly from representatives of the city of London. Other options had to be looked at.

There was a whole variety of options looked at by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. One of the options that found a fair amount of support within the ministry was of having one large regional government that included the entire county of Middlesex and the city of London, plus the entire county of Elgin and the city of St Thomas. That option was actually publicly supported at the local level by the former MPP for Middlesex, Mr Reycraft. I think it's important for me to explain why we rejected the option that has been put forward by the Liberal Party at the local level.

I do not believe a regional government that would include all the county of Middlesex and the city of London, and all of the county of Elgin and the city of St Thomas would be able to deal with the variety of issues that exist in such a huge area. First of all, that would have been the largest regional government in southern Ontario. Second, it would have taken away from the community values a lot of people hold within that area; it would not have allowed for the maintenance of many of the communities in Elgin and in Middlesex.

I think that because of the huge area we'd be talking about, it would not have been economically viable. So I rejected that option right off the bat and said that we were not going to eliminate the county of Middlesex, that we were not going to eliminate the county of Elgin, and that we were going to look at a solution within Middlesex.

I also had difficulty with the whole idea that when boundary disputes take place, local politicians very seldom find local solutions. Mr Speaker, you would know this; you've been in politics long enough to know exactly why that happens. It happens because when you're dealing with boundaries and you're dealing with communities and you're dealing with empires, whether they're small towns or whether they're large cities, then everybody of course wants to protect his own community and his own structures. They don't want to see change.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs has the floor. Other members will have an opportunity.

Hon Mr Cooke: Usually what happens is that reports are written and then they're sent off to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Because the issue is politically difficult to deal with, they would like to see the decision dealt with by somebody else and some other decision made and then they can heap scorn on the decision that's made. We tried a different process in this community. We instead went back to the community and said there are certain values, there are certain criteria this annexation must meet, and one of those criteria has to be protection of the environment, protection of agricultural land and the ability for the new city of London and the new county of Middlesex to plan well into the future. That can be done only when this decision is made and you make a decision that will last for many years.

We also of course looked at things like where the airport should be and where the intersection between Highways 401 and 402 should be in order to encourage economic growth and economic renewal. London and Middlesex are projected by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics to be the fastest growing areas in this province in the next couple of decades, so it's important that we have the ability to have long-term planning and it's important that there be the ability to have economic growth, but it's also important that there be provisions for protection of the environment and agricultural land. That we have done.

There should now be the ability for London, under this plan, to plan for many years ahead economically, socially and environmentally. If you look in the legislation, there are actually some provisions for making it mandatory that the province be involved in the development of the new official plan for the new city of London, that there will be people in the community who are involved, not just the planning advisory committee that exists under the current Planning Act, and that there will also be the provision for a social plan to go along with the land use plan, which will be the first time that has occurred in the province. I think it provides for some very unique and innovative suggestions of how we can proceed.

There has been a lot of concern expressed about the amount of agricultural land that will be in the new city of London. I want to make it very clear that the new official plan will have to protect that land. It will not be approved by the province unless that's the case. That's why we're going to be involved in the planning process to develop the new official plan.

1620

I think it's been very instructive to hear some of the comments that have been made by people who have looked at the new provisions in this act. People have said very clearly that agricultural land is going to be protected, not based on which municipality it exists in but based on the official plan and based on provincial policy, and I can guarantee you, Mr Speaker, and the people who live in London-Middlesex, that agricultural land in this area will be protected. In fact the provisions in this legislation and the protection in the Brant report provide that the agricultural land in the new city of London will be the best-protected agricultural land in the entire province of Ontario.

In terms of protection of the environment -- and the former Minister of the Environment is here -- he will know some of the difficulties that existed in the town of Westminster. They were very serious problems and the province had to act. Whether we were in power or somebody else was in power, the environmental consequences of a subdivision that was built on septic tanks that then had problems and leaked in a massive way meant there had to be intervention.

I don't think the record of planning in this area has been tremendous, to say the least. There have been some real problems with planning and protection of the environment. People in the town of Westminster and people in the whole area recognize that there have been some major problems with protection of the environment and the way that subdivision was built in the town of Westminster. Everybody acknowledges that there had to be an annexation. Everybody acknowledges that. The county acknowledges that, the town of Westminster acknowledges that, and other people who lived in the county, as well of course as the city.

How could we find a solution that could be achieved at the local level? This is where the process was different than it has been in other cases. I do not believe a Minister of Municipal Affairs should simply take the chief negotiator's recommendations -- and the chief negotiator is an employee of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- take that report and make a decision in Toronto.

There has been some criticism by people in Middlesex that this arbitrator's process was undemocratic. I just ask you to look at the existing process under the existing act, the way it's been done in the past. First of all, the way it's been done in the past, in many cases, no decision is ever made at all. The decision the previous government had to make in Sarnia-Clearwater in order to get to the point where the government actually made a decision took 42 years for one annexation decision. I give the former minister a lot of credit. The decision that was made in Sarnia-Clearwater was a difficult one politically, but it had to be made.

In this particular case, what we did was we looked for a person who knew London well, who had a background of community service and was well respected. John Brant was a former president of the University of Western Ontario board of governors. He was involved in a variety of activities in the community, the business community as well as the social community. He enjoyed the respect of people from all political parties. He then went out and consulted, with the terms of reference that were set out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. He made a recommendation, and as an arbitrator, that decision of course had to be a decision that would be implemented.

When we had the first meeting and I pointed out that Mr Brant would have 60 days -- here were the terms of reference; the decision was going to be made -- there were a lot of local politicians both in the county and the city who said: "Good idea. We need to have a decision made on this. This is a good process." The criticism started coming after the decision was in, and of course that's what I expected. There's nobody who is going to universally support any decision dealing with annexations, but the decisions have to be made if there's to be economic growth, if there's to be good planning and protection of the environment.

The size of the annexation has raised some concerns. I'd just like to point out that the size of the annexation has something to do with the fact that in the county there are not a lot of people, so when you are annexing land in the county, then you have to look at where the assessment exists. If there's no assessment, then you can't just leave that land in the county, because it costs money to service it. But if there's no revenue from it, then it becomes uneconomical and could be a drain on the county. That's why the annexation is large.

We looked at some other alternatives. An alternative was put forward by the member for Middlesex, Irene Mathyssen, and we discussed with the municipalities in the southern part of the county whether that was possible. The difficulty they had was, as they said: "We'd like to take some of that land. We'd like to annex it into the existing adjoining townships, but we can't afford to do it because there's no assessment in the land and there's a lot of cost to servicing it," so it was rejected by the adjoining municipalities.

There's another suggestion that has now come forward from the county. I'll be meeting with the warden of Middlesex again tomorrow and we're going to discuss that. But I can tell you that after the process we've gone through, after the consultation we've gone through, it is my view that we must proceed and approve this bill for second reading. I'm prepared to, and I want to go to London to have public hearings on this bill if it's passed before the House adjourns. Then, if there are suggestions made when we get to Middlesex, we will of course listen to the people in that area.

I've been in that area and talked to people in that community at least seven or eight times since the appointment of the arbitrator and since the decision came in. I know feelings on these issues are very emotional and they're very difficult, but occasionally politicians have to make decisions instead of continuing to skate on important emotional issues like annexations. We've made a decision. Some people have praised the decision and some people have criticized it. There are very few decisions like this that are made where everybody is on side, but the decision had to be made. I can tell you that if we hadn't made this decision, any other decision would have received criticism as well.

The associate critic for the Liberal Party, who I am sure will want to speak this afternoon, was there first hand for many years. He was the administrator of the county, so he knows very much the reasons why decisions were not made by the county and the city before. He knows very well why it was impossible to come to a local decision. I'm sure he's not going to share all of that with the members of the Legislature today. I know that on an annexation question, it's highly unlikely that an opposition member is going to stand in his or her place and say, "This is the right decision," even if he knows in his heart of hearts that this is the right decision. I'm sure the member knows this is the right decision, but I don't expect him to say that today.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The rules of procedure of this Legislature do not permit any honourable member of the Legislature to question the motives of another member. I clearly heard the government House leader and Minister of Municipal Affairs do exactly that in his last statement. I'd ask that you review and ask the minister to withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member knows that he cannot impute motives, and I ask him to continue.

Hon Mr Cooke: The rules of the House don't allow the member to interject all afternoon either, but she gets away with murder in this place.

I'll finish my remarks by making one comment on one other very controversial part of the report in the legislation, and that's the whole issue of the public utilities commission in the city of London. The arbitration report recommended that the public utilities commission be eliminated and that what happen instead is that the council for the city of London control water, parks and recreation.

The London Public Utilities Commission is the only one in the province that has responsibility for hydro, for water and for parks and recreation. I think the arbitrator, Mr Brant, made a very intelligent and well-thought-out recommendation in saying that for the purposes of good planning and for saving money in terms of streamlining government, the public utilities commission should be eliminated, that water should go along with sewer so that good planning can take place, and that parks and rec should also go with the city so that when you're planning for the future of the city, all those responsibilities are with one group of people who can have direct responsibility to the public.

1630

There still will be a hydro commission, and the hydro commission will be appointed by the city council. It will be the current members of the utilities commission who will be reappointed for the balance of this term. But in the meantime, we're going to be able to streamline government. We're going to eliminate some politicians and we're going to be able to save, as the arbitrator's report said, millions of dollars in administrative costs by eliminating the duplication that exists by having two separate bodies.

Now that clearly has been one of the more controversial issues, but we worked through some of those problems by dealing with the employees. The employees have been guaranteed jobs. They're jobs with the city, and many of the human resource questions that I think were central and important to the transition have been dealt with by the transition team, along with involving the CUPE locals that represent the various workers at the local level.

I know this is a controversial bill in the London-Middlesex area, but I appreciate the opposition parties' allowing us to proceed with this bill for second reading. I hope we will be able to conclude it so that we can have public hearings and listen to the people in London-Middlesex and go forward with renewing the county of Middlesex as well as the new city of London.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Elston: We're all aware very much of the circumstances around which this bill has finally come to the House. I understand that there have been major differences of opinion, and that shouldn't be a surprise to any of us who have to deal from time to time with the annexation issues in our own constituencies. Although the member for Windsor-Riverside tries to make the London situation unique -- perhaps the circumstances are unique to it -- there are circumstances right around the province which invite similar questions to be raised. I can think, for instance, of other cities with large populations just outside their areas that have developed as a result of the inviting assessment rates, or whatever, found outside the city limits. There will be, I believe, more of those problems coming to the fore.

I want to raise a couple of questions and request that the minister provide me with an answer or two. It's very common knowledge in the London-Middlesex area that a court case has been commenced. In fact, as I understand it, it has been argued and the people are now awaiting the judgement of the court with respect to whether this whole procedure under which Mr Cooke is proceeding is constitutional.

If we are in a situation where Mr Cooke is moving after having taken unconstitutional steps himself, it seems to me that we are premature in bringing this bill here. In fact what bringing this bill here does is actually cut off some of the access to the courts that has been taken by some of the people from the county of Middlesex.

There are other questions that have to be answered with respect to the cost of this annexation to the city and the ability of a whole series of ratepayers to shoulder the responsibility and burdens being picked up. But if he could respond to those two questions, that would be quite helpful for me.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to stand up today and make a few comments with regard to what the minister is saying about restructuring. It's interesting to note that he talks about consulting, but for a long time I have not seen that consulting process taking place with this government. I can relate to other annexations and expropriations that have taken place across this province and I know the people have not been listened to.

I've had many letters from the people in Lambton and Middlesex counties with regard to this annexation that's taking place and I'm here to tell you that they're very disturbed, they're very concerned and they're upset. I have them coming to my office and indicating the problems they are anticipating, and letters daily, even another one today addressed to the honourable minister with regard to the boundaries dispute and the public utilities commission that is being dismantled. What's taking place there on a nine-to-10 vote in council certainly leaves a lot of room for improvements and input from the public.

I welcome the minister sending it to a committee because I think that's the most important place for it, and to have the hearings in London, to let the people come in and to make sure they have full and open discussion. If you had done that in Simcoe when we were dealing with Simcoe's county restructuring, there might have been a different attitude there.

But I'm saying to you today that you're indicating you want to have this open process, and I hope to be on that committee when it does visit London, because I want to make sure the people do have full input into it. The concerns that have been raised in the letters I'm getting with regard to the large amount of farm land that is going to be within the city of London is of great concern to me.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I think this is a bill that ought to concern the Legislature as a whole. I have myself been aware over the last number of years that there has been in London-Middlesex, as there was in Sarnia-Lambton, as there has been in so many other communities, an ongoing discussion as to how the expanding urban boundary of, in this case, the city of London is to be accommodated. But as I think will become plain after my colleague the member for Brant-Haldimand speaks in a few moments, the issues that are contained in this particular legislative initiative are ones that ought to be of interest not just to people in London and Middlesex.

I would suggest to any member in the province that there is in Bill 75 the kernel of some significant new policy. It is a policy that I know people in my part of eastern Ontario, in areas like Brockville, Cornwall, Pembroke, Smiths Falls and Kingston, Cobourg and Peterborough, are going to be very interested to monitor very carefully.

It seems to me that what we have in Bill 75 is also a new mechanism. Certainly over the course of the mandate of this government, I would, if I lived outside London-Middlesex, look to this as an example of what kind of strategy and tactic I might employ to try to resolve the boundaries issue that might be affecting my own community.

What we see in Bill 75, the so-called Brant solution, is very different from some of the stated policy of the government in this province, particularly this government and previous provincial governments. The whole boundary negotiations process has been set aside here, for whatever reason, and I will have more to say when my turn comes. But as I say, this is a very important bill, not just for London-Middlesex but for the entire province, and I would encourage all members to take a very careful look at what has been proposed here.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I am pleased that this bill has come for second reading today, because I know that the city of London and the county of Middlesex and the townships are anxious for public debate on this particular piece of legislation. As I asked my staff about the letters that were written in, and the minister will certainly know the statistics, we had some 1,400 letters that didn't like the process and a couple that did.

If indeed we're looking at people in London-Middlesex who are unhappy with the process that took place, the least we can do now is to have some meaningful public hearings so that we can have the concerns of the public properly presented to the members of a legislative committee of this government.

It's quite true that this has been quite a startling reality, certainly for many of the citizens of Middlesex county, who of course have never been part of this process before, as well as of course the citizens of London. But the recommendations, as you will well know, Mr Speaker, seem to have moved in the direction of the concerns and certainly the desires of the citizens of London, as opposed to many of the county residents, and I particularly am quite eager to be part of the questions and answers that can take place in the meaningful committee hearings.

My colleagues have spoken about their concerns in this House before. I now speak on behalf of the member for Grey, who would normally be here presenting the point of view of our party, and I certainly welcome the concerns around the court case that is out there right now with regard to the members of the Liberal Party. We too are concerned about the outcomes of those hearings, but it would be my expectation that with those kinds of concerns, we should get on with public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The minister has two minutes in response.

1640

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the comments from the member, and since the member for London North spoke last, I would like to say that during this whole process all of the members from the London area have been very helpful. We have tried to deal with this matter -- and I think the member from London North will agree -- in a non-partisan way over the last several months, and the member for London North as well as the other members, Irene and Marion and David Winninger, have met with us on an ongoing basis to offer their advice and to be updated as to the process and where we're going and parts of the legislation. I appreciate the involvement they've had in this process, even though not everybody is going to agree with it.

I would like to make one point in reference to the comments made by the member for Renfrew North. I know there are concerns from other municipalities in the province. I have seen them, I've seen the resolutions, I've talked to local politicians in my own riding in the town of Tecumseh and the village of St Clair Beach and some of the county councillors. I can only reiterate what I said earlier, that if you take a look at the county of Middlesex and city of London, there is no other area of the province where there is anything comparable in terms of the population base in the city versus the county. That limited very much the solutions that could be looked at in this area of the province. You wouldn't be able to and you wouldn't want to look at this type of solution in other areas of the province, whether it be in my county or whether it be in your county.

Back to Simcoe county, I would point out to the member who spoke from the Conservative caucus about public hearings for his restructuring that we haven't got the legislation yet. Wait for the legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the second reading of Bill 75. The honourable member for Brant-Haldimand.

[Applause]

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I'm compelled to rise to speak to this matter, and I must say unaccustomed as I am to having people applaud before I speak rather than after, I'm also unaccustomed to being called a liar before I speak, as the minister certainly said in his preamble. I want to assure you I will not be lying during the debate and I will be speaking from the heart. I did not appreciate the comment.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has presented the bill, is either so ignorant of the provisions of the Boundaries Act or he is so inept and misguided in his reason and decisions to force an arbitrary decision on the good people of London and Middlesex and its constituent municipalities that he should join the other three ministers who should be resigning at this time and make it number four. There's no doubt about that in my mind, and I'll try to substantiate the reasons for that statement.

As I said, the minister must be completely ignorant of the provisions of the Boundaries Act. I want to speak about that act for a few minutes. Following the great Barrie-Innisfil annexation wars in the 1960s, involving the Ontario Municipal Board at several hearings, Supreme Court decisions costing millions of taxpayers' dollars both at the local and the provincial level, county and city, a call came from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, composed of elected municipal officials, for a better process, and they were prepared to work towards a better process.

So a committee was formed, as is important in all matters, to proceed, and they had on this committee a number of representatives of the large urban municipalities, of the small urban municipalities, the rural municipalities, the counties and regions of Ontario and the northern municipalities. The committee was formed to inquire and make decisions and recommendations regarding a better annexation process.

The result of that committee of elected municipal representatives was to bring forth recommendations for a negotiations process where the elected people would have the opportunity to decide among themselves what decision should be made in any boundaries application.

When the bill was presented to the government of the day, there was great interest in it. Indeed, a draft bill was proposed. But before it was presented to the House, a pilot project was carried out, known as the Brant-Brantford annexation. That was an area the provincial officials said could never be settled through negotiation. It was a long, bitter fight, much longer. This has not been a long, bitter fight at all. In fact it's a very recent application, as recent as late 1988. The minister needs to be corrected, and I'm pleased to do that at this time.

We had the pilot project -- and would you believe it? -- The locally elected officials of the township of Brantford, the city of Brantford and the county of Brant negotiated a settlement with a provincial arbitrator using the proposed system. It worked. That had a moratorium in it and that will carry on for quite a few years.

The city got what it wanted. It got large tracts of land. It was not number one farm land, as we're giving away today. It did not rob and pillage the township of Brantford of its local industrial areas which serve as the industrial assessment for both the township and the city. Everybody was happy because the province said: "We're going to help you service those abandoned gravel pits. The land that has tremendous gravel resources, we're going to allow you to take that out first and then use that for industrial and commercial development."

That's what's happening today. Out of a very bitter situation came one of the most acceptable solutions you could ever have. Why did that happen? It happened because locally elected officials were allowed to decide their future. It wasn't a unilateral, arbitrary decision as we have in this case.

I know the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act is not the Magna Carta of 1215 that brought social justice to civilization. It's not the Declaration of Independence of 1776 that our neighbours to the south brought about. It's not the Baldwin act of 1849 that brought local self-government to Ontario. It's not that, but it is a negotiated process for settling boundary disputes.

What's wrong with it? I don't know what's wrong with it, but the present minister has seen fit to make an arbitrary decision to appoint a sole arbitrator who had no municipal experience whatsoever and did not know the county. He brought him in and introduced him to the elected officials of the affected local municipalities -- the townships of Delaware, London, North Dorchester, West Nissouri and the town of Westminster, the county of Middlesex and the city of London -- and said: "This is the sole arbitrator. This man is going to hold hearings and make decisions and recommendations to us. Whatever he recommends, I will legislate." I thought it was the Legislature that legislated bills, but it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The minister said no one objected to that. Do you know why no one objected to that? It was simply because they hoped the sole arbitrator would have hearings, would listen to people and, more important, would hear what they were saying and act on the majority viewpoint expressed. Hearings were held. Unfortunately, the sole arbitrator heard the people, but the recommendations do not correspond with what he heard. I have talked at length both with elected municipal officials and with other citizens who attended every one of those hearings, and there were a multitude of them.

1650

As I said, this boundaries negotiation process was brought in, it was legislated. It was tremendous because it was seen as removing the medieval shackles of annexation wars from municipalities. Instead of spending millions of dollars going to the OMB and having several hearings, as in the case of Sarnia-Lambton, as we know, and many others, spending, spending, spending, the elected municipal officials would sit down at a table with a negotiator appointed by the province and negotiate the results. That's what's happened in many cases. The minister, I notice, noted particularly Sarnia-Lambton and mentioned that was a forced decision. I'm not sure of that, but I do know that all of the locally elected representatives signed an agreement at the end of that process agreeing with what would be done, and that has happened in the case of all applications for annexation since the present Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act was passed. They've all had that opportunity and they've all done it and that's the way it should be.

I'm very disappointed in it. I was an appointed official in that regard in the county of Middlesex and there was a great deal of progress. There wasn't total agreement and we didn't get to the point where there was total agreement, but I want to stress that the negotiations that were concluded where there were agreements on certain matters were negotiated outside of the boundary negotiations process, because the negotiator who presided over the negotiations did not require nor were there actual negotiations at any of those meetings. That's unfortunate, because the negotiator had a great responsibility and there should have been some decisions.

There are many matters to speak to in this regard, but I want to stress to you and to the citizens that I am speaking from the heart. I think what has happened here is a precedent which the minister and the government are going to have to live with for a long time. He says London-Middlesex is a very unique area. That's true. What area in the province, what municipality, is not unique? Every situation is unique.

The minister has stated it's the only area in the province where there's an imbalance, but I want to point out that there are other areas where there are imbalances. I want to point out that the city of Brantford is reaching 100,000 and poor little Brant county, which is all the way around it, is 25,000. Is that an imbalance as great as this? Of course it is, and there are a couple of other areas.

I also wanted to point out and ask if the members know how the city of London got so large. It got so large through previous annexations. It more than doubled its size in the annexation of 1962. Of course, that was under a previous process: That was when municipalities went to war, to the OMB, and hired the lawyers and all of the professionals and the specialists and fought it out, with the taxpayers' money of course.

So I think what has been in use in the last few years is a much better process and it should be used, it should be followed. It is the law of the province of Ontario. It is legislation, and no one, especially the present Minister of Municipal Affairs, has the right to go around it, as he has in this case. He made a unilateral decision that has landed us in the court. I would say, from my own knowledge, that it never needed to happen nor would it have happened if we hadn't had a unilateral, arbitrary decision annexing 64,000 acres, predominantly classes 1 and 2 agricultural land. Some of the finest land in Ontario and some of the finest dairy operations in Ontario are going to be annexed to the city of London.

Don't you agree with me? I propose that annexing prime farm land to the city of London -- we can say all we want about protecting it; sure it'll be protected, maybe for a whole year -- is like hiring Colonel Sanders to babysit your pet chicken.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How many acres was that?

Mr Eddy: It's 64,000 acres. There's no stalemate. The county and the affected local municipalities are prepared to negotiate. They're not stalemating annexation; they have offered 24,000 acres to the city of London. In the annexation of 1962, with the thousands and thousands of acres annexed to the city, it was for a city of 500,000, to last after the turn of the century.

Mr Bradley: Has anyone told Stephen Lewis how much they're annexing?

Mr Eddy: How many acres a day are we losing? Yes, I used to listen to that particular gentleman speak in the Legislature weekly, if not daily, asking how many acres of farm land per minute, per hour, was going out of production? How much land going out of production this time? It is 64,000 acres.

The minister says, "We'll protect it." Maybe you can say it's going to stay farm land, but you can't force people to farm it and you can't force farmers to maintain ownership of it, so what's going to happen? We understand that the developers own a considerable amount of it now. How much are they going to own one year from today? You're protecting farm land but you're certainly not protecting agriculture, and I think that's a very important thing.

There are many other areas in the province of Ontario, and I was told the other day by the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that if this happens there will be a lineup of applications for annexation. Why wouldn't there be? All you have to do is apply to annex this township, this township, this township, and then stalemate the negotiations, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs will then say: "This is a very unique area. We have to have a settlement. There are industries not coming here to locate -- and they would -- because of these boundary disputes. So what we'll do is have an arbitration process. A sole arbitrator will be appointed." He doesn't need to have municipal experience and doesn't need to know anything about municipal government.

Mr Bradley: John Sewell?

Mr Eddy: John's busy. He's working on a planning process. I don't know, is that going to save farm land? It won't save agriculture.

There are many other areas and I want to list some of them: Brantford in Brant county; St Thomas in Elgin county; Windsor in Essex county. It's too late to save the separated town of Riverside: Riverside already went; it was ceded by the OMB a number of years ago. I don't know where the honourable minister stood on that issue, but it's long gone. There's Kingston in Frontenac; Owen Sound in Grey; Belleville in Hastings; Chatham in Kent; Prescott in Leeds and Grenville; Gananoque in Leeds and Grenville; Brockville in Leeds and Grenville; St Marys in Perth; Stratford in Perth; Peterborough in the county of Peterborough; Trenton in Hastings and/or in Northumberland, because it borders Northumberland, Smiths Falls in Lanark, Pembroke in Renfrew, Barrie in Simcoe, Orillia in Simcoe, Cornwall in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and Guelph in Wellington county.

1700

Those are the cities and separated towns located in the counties of southern Ontario. As we know, the same process is not followed, of course, in the regional municipalities because there's a different process. Each region has its own bill and arrangements are made in those cases. So they won't be facing it in quite the same way.

Any of these municipalities could apply tomorrow, and they could, if they wish, get into negotiations and then stall them. In addition, there are hundreds of villages and towns in counties of Ontario which, through annexation, could become separated municipalities and get even more.

The precedent, and it is a precedent, a unilateral, arbitrary decision which is a precedent, which is challenged in the courts at the present time -- I was hoping we'd have a decision. It'll be very interesting to see the decision on that particular application. We'll see that one day.

The municipalities of Middlesex county were negotiating but wanted the matter of compensation to be dealt with. The city of London said: "Of course there should be compensation, but it should be from the province of Ontario." I suspect that anybody here who's been involved in any annexation knows there are settlements, and there are usually provincial funds of one sort or another for certain purposes. In the case of Brant-Brantford, there's considerable funding for new roads and services for this industrial area, which is composed of gravel lands, partly excavated; the balance will be before it's developed. Isn't that the way it should be?

They wanted to talk about compensation. The city said, "That's from the province, naturally," and who would blame it? Why not? It's happened in any other place. When Hamilton-Wentworth was formed and the city streets became regional roads, the city of Hamilton had been in the custom of debenturing every road it reconstructed. In order to settle the matter, the government paid the debenture debt on those roads that became regional roads so the debt wouldn't go with it. It was a negotiated settlement and people felt they got a good deal.

Here, the province says, "There will be no compensation," but it did come along later and say, "Yes, there will be compensation." I have the figures here some place. I believe it's around $1 million a year. But it's each year for a period of 10 years, at the end of which the suburban roads commission will be dissolved.

The suburban roads commission system is a system the provincial government brought in prior to the First World War whereby the large separated urban centres would contribute to certain designated county roads so that those roads would be kept in good shape, and they were, and it's worked. Every other separated municipality in a county in Ontario has a suburban roads commission and contributes up to a half mill on its assessment as equalized by the Minister of Transportation, and it's working out very well. Sometimes the cities say, "Well, we shouldn't be," and there have been discussions on that.

My point on that matter is that this should not be discontinued, because it is pillaging or robbing the counties of that income from the cities. If the MTO wants to negotiate a change and do away with a suburban roads commission and suburban road appropriations from the large urbans, that's fine, but there'll be something to replace them and it'll affect them all. The city of London will be the only separated municipality in Ontario, in a county, that will not contribute to suburban roads if this bill goes through, and I think that's wrong.

The only other one that's a bit different is the city of Brantford; again, a negotiated settlement in the Brantford annexation process where the city says, "We don't want a suburban roads commission any more, but we will gladly continue to pay the half mill on our assessment as equalized by the minister," and that is continuing. They have the right to come to the county council or the county engineer and say, "Mr Engineer, we would like this project to go ahead in the county next year on this county suburban road because we're going to do this on the other side in the city," and it works out very well.

In addition to taking millions of dollars of assessment from the local municipalities in the county, along with the 64,000 acres, and reducing the county's income from those areas, the province, by this arbitrary bill, is also going to discontinue the suburban roads appropriation for one separated municipality. When the minister says it's unique, it's not unique, but it is certainly -- I hope the Minister of Transportation will comment on that. I hope he realizes this is changing the system for one separated municipality in the county only.

When the 13 southerly municipalities of York county were added to the city of Toronto in 1952 to form the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the suburban roads commission wasn't discontinued. Before it became a region, Metropolitan Toronto paid to the county of York one half mill on its assessment and all the county roads in York county became York suburban roads. Why? Because they took people to the lake and brought them back too; a little crowded at times.

When the city of Hamilton annexed a great deal of land from Wentworth county in 1968, the township of Barton and parts of Saltfleet township, Ancaster township and West Flamborough, and became a very large city of over 300,000 compared to the county's 90,000, the suburban roads commission was not done away with. All the county roads became suburban roads, and that relieved and rather tended to compensate for a reduction in income. Because of a reduction in assessment of those local municipalities in the county, it tended to make up for some of that.

It was a very just and proper system. I'm sure the Minister of Transportation will agree with that, because suburban roads commissions are in use in all counties of Ontario. The city of London is part of that system and would continue except for this particular bill.

Much has been said about negotiations and discussions with locally elected officials. I'm telling you, nothing has upset me more than the way the present Minister of Municipal Affairs has treated locally elected officials. Personally, I would ask that he stop treating locally elected municipal officials like horse shit, because that's exactly what he's doing.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member please reconsider using those words.

Mr Eddy: I apologize. I meant to say "horse manure."

The Acting Speaker: Please. Language is a way of communicating and there are good ways and less good ways, if you will, to use it.

1710

Mr Eddy: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw the term "horse manure," but I really feel very strongly about the way the present Minister of Municipal Affairs has treated municipal elected officials. It doesn't matter about the appointed ones. I've been one of them and you can call me anything, and I have been called names and that's fine. That's part of the job, even -- well, we won't say about the employers. So I will say I wish he would stop treating the municipally elected officials in the area -- and if you people would go out and talk to some of them, you would find how they are seething about the way they have been treated. They don't come forward and spout off about it, simply because they're afraid of what else will be done to them, because it is so arbitrary and unilateral and it's going around the law.

The boundary negotiations act is a law of the Legislature of the province of Ontario. It was negotiated by locally elected municipal officials, a level of government and perhaps the most important level we have because they're closest to the people. They hear every day what's on the people's minds and they react. That's one of my disappointments in coming here, because I find you don't have the effect that you can have in a locally elected council with other members, where you can prove your point and there is more give and take. I think that's unfortunate.

I went through the whole bit of the establishment of regional government, and I must say, even there, there were negotiations and the opportunity was given to anyone, any elected council and any elected official, to give his opinions and to say what he wanted to say. So I think the treatment given to locally elected municipal officials is wrong. It's terrible, and I wish the minister would not act that way. It is most improper. I was a locally elected official, and I will tell you now, I would accept from no minister what has been handed and said to some of the elected representatives of Middlesex county, including the warden. I know because I was there. The minister can call me a liar, as he did before I ever spoke.

The Acting Speaker: Please, I did not hear unparliamentary language from the minister. I would like to suggest that you may want to withdraw those comments, to the member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Eddy: Mr Speaker, I'll withdraw the statement, but the minister did say that he knows I would not speak from the heart and say the way it was. Certainly they were false. The negotiations process was not successful, but the minister, instead of appointing an issues review committee as required by the boundary negotiations act, appointed a sole arbitrator for the process. A sole arbitrator is not provided for in the act. There's been no agreement about that. We detest it, and certainly the others will.

That's one of the issues. I guess the issue about the suburban roads commission -- and I want to get into another long list of things: the PUC, the public utilities commission of the city of London, which is none of my business in a sense, although I guess it is somewhat, being associate critic; the dissolution of the public utilities commission, a locally elected body, established by the council of the city of London, being disbanded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What's wrong with letting the city of London decide whether it wants to continue with the public utilities commission or not? It's not in the terms of reference.

The annexation of lands to the village of Belmont in the county of Elgin was not in the terms of reference, but there it is. You don't have to apply any more for annexation of lands to your municipality. You can have it included, apparently, in somebody else's bill. I didn't realize that Belmont wanted to expand, but in the bill it's getting -- I don't know whether it's several hundred acres or whatever, but it is being expanded.

Before I leave the dissolution of suburban roads, I want to say how crucial it is to the county of Middlesex, because not only are you taking most of the industrial and commercial assessment of the county, which is in the town of Westminster, immediately adjacent to the city on the south; not only is the bill annexing practically the entire 401 -- it will if it takes the town of Westminster -- corridor and the 402 corridor and robbing the county of any opportunity in the future of having any or much industrial growth; it is also taking Crumlin airport -- London Airport, as you know it -- from the township of West Nissouri.

The township of West Nissouri has done studies. Do you know what's going to happen with the township of West Nissouri? I believe it's three years and it'll be bankrupt, because it gets a large grant in lieu of taxes. The airport is a very large portion of the township.

The airport doesn't really need to be in the city of London. Malton -- excuse me, Toronto -- Lester Pearson airport is not in the city of Toronto; it's not in Metro; I don't think it needs to be. Hamilton Airport is not in the city of Hamilton; it's in Glanbrook township. The city has a civic airport committee. It develops and services it, but it does not have to be in the city of Hamilton; in fact, it isn't.

Neither does Crumlin or London Airport have to be in the city of London for the city to develop it. They've already serviced it; they serviced it some five or six years ago. It has sewer services and water services, I suspect through agreement. It does have agreements with the township of West Nissouri, the county or the suburban roads commission to cross the suburban roads and all that sort of thing. They're in place.

It's such an interesting thing that's happened, because the city was negotiating with the county and the local municipalities for lands. I know it didn't arrive at a successful conclusion, but I think the minister could have taken other steps that brought it about. But the fact is, in 1988 the city of London council passed bylaws to annex lands from the township of London, the township of West Nissouri, the township of North Dorchester and the town of Westminster.

A year later, they rescinded the bylaws to annex lands from the township of West Nissouri and the township of North Dorchester and made the statement: "We are not interested in proceeding with an annexation in those municipalities at this time. We're leaving it. We are concentrating on our annexation application of lands in the township of London and the town of Westminster." Indeed there was a settlement successfully negotiated between the councils of the township of London and the county of Middlesex. There wasn't between the town of Westminster council and the city council because the council of the day there, in its wisdom, preferred to look at a regional government setup.

The city had said, "We don't want that." Now what do we find? The city would have settled initially, as I understand it, for a little over 20,000 acres. That's what they would have settled and signed for. What is the Minister of Municipal Affairs doing on the recommendation of the sole arbitrator and making an arbitrary decision completely outside the boundary negotiations act?

He's giving them a very large portion, practically the total industrial assessment, of the township of West Nissouri, and he's giving them a large tract of land in the township of North Dorchester; they were off the table before the negotiations procedure ever started. He is including a portion of the township of London and a portion of the township of Delaware -- how did that get into the act? The sole arbitrator wants it in the act, apparently -- and all of the town of Westminster; of course that was a township just a few years ago, approximately five years ago.

1720

The municipalities are meeting with the minister, as he stated, and I'm so pleased and I thank him for agreeing to meet with the municipally elected officials. I'm not sure whether the member for Middlesex was aware of that or whether the honourable member for Middlesex will be included, as she should be. I'm not sure of that, because I understand there was a previous meeting where it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and she was not included. It's hard for me to understand why the honourable member would not be included when it's her riding, so to speak, or it's the riding which she represents and deals with the people whenever she's in the riding.

I don't understand that, but I thank the minister for agreeing to meet with the representatives and I sincerely hope that tomorrow afternoon when he meets with them he will deal with them in a proper manner because they are elected municipal representatives, equal to us in every respect. At least that's the way I operate in the riding I represent, which of course is composed of several local councils and three upper tiers, as a matter of fact. I'm privileged to represent one municipality in the region of Waterloo; all of the local municipalities in the county of Brant; two first nations areas, Six Nations and Mississaugas of the New Credit; and the towns of Haldimand and Dunnville in the Haldimand-Norfolk region. So I deal with a lot of elected people and I think it's very important to foster the relationships between locally elected councils and the representatives of the other levels of government. It's essential, and one of the criticisms I hear continuously is about everybody going in their own separate directions and not knowing or caring how the other representatives feel or which way they're going, and that's a shame.

As I said, I was involved with the negotiations. I don't know how much I can comment on them, because at the insistence of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs all those negotiations were in camera. The ministry would not allow us to have open meetings. The county and the affected local municipalities voted for it, but the ministry would not allow it. They felt very strongly that in matters like boundary negotiations -- and there was no idea that an entire municipality was transferred -- that the local people should be able to hear or indeed the media should be able to report on what was happening as negotiations were going on. The reason for that simply was to allow citizens to respond.

Any of us who are in elected office know that you are contacted by citizens from time to time on various issues, and many times they have good ideas and information that can be useful in any matter that you're dealing with and especially in those negotiations. That's been my experience in the 37 years I have been employed by municipal governments in the Wentworth and Middlesex areas, and of course the last 13 as an elected representative at the same time. I had some very strong feelings about it and I was always pleased when people would take the time to phone me or write to me or have an appointment with me, even if it was just to set me straight, so to speak, or tell me off, because at least you knew what was on their minds and you knew why they were thinking that way.

As I said, in 1988 the city of London applied to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to annex certain lands. The city, in spite of the annexation many years ago providing all this land for a city of the future of up to half a million or more -- it may have been 600,000 -- felt it needed more. Of course there are pressures of growth and development because of the controlled-access Highway 401 and now Highway 402, which joins it; indeed Highway 403 accesses 401 just east of the county of Middlesex. So it's in the heart of southwestern Ontario. It is a hub. It is the commercial, industrial and residential centre of all of southwestern Ontario, and we know that. They felt the need to have additional lands for long-range planning for growth.

Municipalities in the regional municipalities don't have that same option; of course it's because there is a regional government which supplies many of the hard services at the upper tier. The city felt the need to grow and to plan for the future. The county was prepared to sit down, and did sit down, to negotiate the city needs. The township of London and indeed the other two townships, before the city council saw fit to rescind those bylaws applying to annex lands from the two, were agreeable and were included in the boundary negotiations at the beginning. So what was the problem? The problem was the age-old problem that is the case when any urban municipality, urban centre, annexes areas adjoining: simply the amount of land and what was to be lost.

The township of Westminster, latterly the town of Westminster, was really concerned and upset about losing all of the industrial. It was important to the town to continue to supply services. By the way, it's not mentioned very often but the town of Westminster does have a municipal water supply and it's hoping to be in on the new Lake Erie water pipeline from the south, as the city of London will be and has applied to be. I'm not sure where that stands. It's either that or another pipeline from the north from Lake Huron, a provincial pipeline which we, as the province, had built to supply water to the city of London and the local municipalities along the way, but it has more than met its maximum capacity. So the city PUC is presently looking at paralleling that or bringing water from Lake Erie, and if a water pipeline were to come from Lake Erie from the south, it would pass through the town of Westminster. Wouldn't the town of Westminster have as much right to water off that as would the city of London? Of course it would, and I know we all agree to that.

So it's not that the town of Westminster has no services; it's not that way at all. It's more like the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener, side by side, the twin cities, and I suspect they want to continue that way. Certainly if they want to -- if the citizens want to -- continue that way then that's the way it should be. If a bill were ever to come in to put those two municipalities together, I imagine lots of us would be on our feet opposing it. The same is true of the town of Westminster sitting beside the city of London.

1730

The problem was not that there will be no annexation. The problem was how much are the local municipalities and the county prepared to cede to the city of London or let the city of London annex and for what compensation or for what in return?

The usual thing in most municipalities is that you get land for services or you get land for compensation, and that's what the boundary negotiations act is all about. I don't recall in my experience any petition or request for changes to the boundary negotiation act, either by the large urbans, the small urbans or the rurals. I don't recall that at all, because it was initiated, was negotiated by the elected representatives of those municipalities. They went to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and there were some changes. There was a pilot project and everybody was agreed that this was so much better than the old system of passing a bylaw to annex, starting an annexation war, applying to the Ontario Municipal Board, hiring lawyers, professionals, experts, planners, a whole array of expert witness. Surely some of you remember those days. You must remember some of the big annexation wars.

This other process may take what seems longer. The minister referred to Sarnia-Lambton. Of course Sarnia-Lambton is an old, old story. The city of Sarnia went, many years ago -- I was at a conference in the early 1960s at Point Edward. They had been to the OMB, the city and the county and the local -- that was the last year for the village of Point Edward. It would be no more, because they were expecting a decision of the OMB saying it's all in, Sarnia township or a large portion of it, Moore township to the south, Chemical Valley, and Point Edward's all gone.

The OMB came back, and I've forgotten -- the member for Lambton will know this and be able to refresh my memory about it -- what the OMB said: "It's too small. You're not asking for enough." Either that or it was too large. So they regrouped and they put in another application. Some five or six or eight or 10 years later another application went forward. There was another hearing and the OMB, in its wisdom at that time, said the reverse. It was either -- if the first was it was too small and the second was it was too large, then it was the other way around.

It was settled, but I want to point out the difference here. Maybe it was a forced negotiation -- they all are -- but at least the locally elected representatives, at the end of that process, signed an agreement. There had been elections. There had been some members change. There was a thrust and a desire for locally elected people to come to some conclusion, to get the matter settled and get on with life, and there was an agreement. Whether it's the right one or not, I'm not commenting on. I'm sure we can get viewpoints from the members.

I'm disappointed in the system and the road the minister has decided to go. I'm sure if he was here he'd be telling me to shut up or sit down, as he does so many members in the front row. But it's unfortunate. I know the people are angry over this decision. I know people and I've had people talk to me from the city of London who say: "It is too large. We don't want this large an area because we're going to have to service it. If the town of Westminster becomes part of the city of London, the city will have to service it."

I know there's a volunteer fire department in the town, and maybe some arrangement can be made to keep that on. I don't know whether that's allowable in a large urban municipality, with the unions or what. The city will have to start policing it immediately. There is no local police force in the town. That was being discussed and I think they were under way looking at that. But there will be policing. There will be some services that will be expected. If they're part of the town of Westminster, they may demand London bus service. I don't how this -- petition for it; let's put it that way.

In my opinion, the views of the people, of the citizens of the area, of the city of London and the townships of Delaware and London, the town of Westminster, the townships of North Dorchester and West Nissouri, are being ignored. We're going to have hearings. I know there will be hearings where people speak. But it's one thing to hold hearings; it's one thing to hear people and it's another thing to react.

The fear is there won't be any changes to the bill. I'm not prejudging it, because I don't know. The fear is simply because the elected representatives were excluded from the process. They could make presentations at the hearings. They weren't prevented from going to the hearings, I don't believe. They were included in that.

In addition to the 64,000 acres being annexed from constituent municipalities of the county of Middlesex adjoining the city, there's a large area known, as a buffer zone, of 55,000 acres that's completely sterilized; no developments unless it's farm related. Where in Ontario do we have such dictatorial arbitrariness?

In the case of Brantford, a negotiated settlement said, "Yes, we need a buffer zone." It's a green area or a buffer zone. But what they did was establish the buffer zone beyond the city of London for at least half a mile. It goes further in some cases. They took at least half a mile. They said the area to be annexed to the city, the designated area around the city, shall be a mutual advisory planning area. There will be a mutual advisory planning committee with three representatives from the city of London, two from the township of Brantford and one from the county of Brant. No changes can be made unless they agree.

What do we find has happened? We find there have been several changes. Certainly there has been considerable development in the area annexed to the city, changes to the official plan that were required by the negotiated settlement, changes in the zoning. Many things have changed. There have been new roads and accesses on to suburban roads that were never contemplated at the time. There have been changes in the buffer zone in the township of Brantford. Why? The elected representatives sat down and agreed to it. They negotiated the changes.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): They negotiated green lumber.

Mr Eddy: That is what the boundary negotiations --

Interjection.

Mr Eddy: It doesn't bother me. I like the input. It's a democratic forum and a democratic process. I want all the comments I can get. I'm used to heckling. I'm used to name calling. I'm almost a veteran, not as much as some members here.

It's unfortunate I'm here today to speak to this issue. I was compelled to speak to it because a lot of people have said to me: "For heaven's sake, can't you reach them? Can't you talk to them? Can't you reinstate the value in the negotiation process for annexations?" I don't think the honourable minister or any member of the government realizes what he's dealing with here. I don't know whether I can reach any of them or not. I know the member for Middlesex is listening to me intently because she has real concern about that. It's a mess, but we're going to try to do it.

The previous Liberal government urged London and the county municipalities in this dispute to work out solutions under the existing negotiations act. The Liberal government of the day rightly believed the negotiation process under the act was the proper way to resolve the issue, whether it was quickly or not. It takes time. We've all been involved in meetings that take far longer than they should. But when you're dealing with your entire future, when you're dealing with boundary changes and changing property, land, assessment, people and services from one municipality to another, it takes time. You have to consider all the problems you may create by doing what you're looking at. As I say, I'm so concerned that the public has not been listened to.

1740

I know in many governmental processes there comes a time for someone to make a decision. You have the boundary negotiations process. You negotiate, you come to some kind of conclusion; or, if you do not, the chief negotiator submits a report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he may do one of several things. The problem here is that the minister didn't do any of them, not one of them. He went around it. What do they call that? There's a term for that. He went out around it, he ignored it, he didn't close the procedure off. He did not name an issues review panel. They could have dealt with that, I'm sure.

If he had to have an arbitrator, why couldn't he have had a board of arbitration, a member appointed by the county and its municipality, one by the city and a neutral? Wouldn't that have been preferable? Even that would be preferable to this.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): He is one of our best new members.

Mr Eddy: Till the next election, anyway.

I'm gravely concerned about this and I hope I can instil my concern in other members here who are representing counties which have separated municipalities, because any of you could find yourself in the same position as the honourable member for Middlesex and I. That's why I think it's so important to please look at it. I've listed a number of municipalities in this province, and any one of them could have this same problem tomorrow, and indeed, as I said, hundreds of other villages.

They say the county of Middlesex is unique because the city is so large. How did it get so large? By annexation over the years; of course it did.

In this unprecedented move, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs has arbitrarily appointed a sole arbitrator to review the application of the city of London to annex areas of adjoining municipalities. There were terms of reference, and he was recommending a new boundary. Although the minister has, and we all know this, under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act wide-ranging authority to effect a new settlement, this third-party determination is new and disregards the sacrosanct principle of negotiating a local settlement.

As I said, the sole arbitrator had no municipal experience. I know the minister said he served as chancellor, I believe, or president of the board of governors of the University of Western Ontario, and that was excellent. I understand he did an excellent job, but he had no municipal experience. Let's face it: Municipal government and provincial government and federal government are absolutely different from business. It is my understanding that the arbitrator had no experience in municipal government, and so he required five advisers from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 23 researchers. I've forgotten whether it was five or seven.

I have to ask -- I'm forced to ask -- whose report was it? Whose recommendations are they?

Mr McLean: The ministry's.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your comment.

As well, the minister -- and I well remember the day when he introduced Mr Brant -- pledged to legislate whatever the arbitrator recommended. Has any minister ever put his future in the hands of another individual to that extent? "Whatever he recommends we will legislate." I couldn't believe my ears. Why would any minister ever say that? He could say, "I will consider." He could have said a hundred things other than, "We will legislate whatever he recommends," and he told Brant that.

Brant went out and had the hearings and brought in a report, but he did have his seven advisers from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 23 researchers. I haven't checked that, but I have been told that by more than one person. Of course you would have, because in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the boundaries and negotiations branch is there for that purpose. They're there to protect the provincial view on annexations. That is fine, but where is the municipal view? Who protects it? Nobody protected it. There was nobody there to speak for the municipalities, because he wouldn't listen to the people. He did not. That's a mistake and it's wrong.

I sincerely hope that when the minister speaks to the elected representatives of Middlesex county and its affected local municipalities -- and I'm not sure whether the city is going to be or not -- that he will listen. There can be a negotiated process. There can be a negotiated settlement. There can be a negotiated agreement signed by the representatives of all municipalities affected. Wouldn't that be better than us voting here on the bill that imposes things on the citizens of the city, on the citizens of the affected municipalities of the county of Middlesex, and indeed on Belmont, a municipality in another county? My goodness, it's amazing.

The minister pledged to legislate whatever the arbitrator recommended. I well remember the day that Mr Brant appeared and pronounced his recommendations, and the minister again said, "Your recommendations will be legislated." Since that, I understand that when he was asked a question, he said, "No, we won't legislate that." Why not? "Well, that wasn't a recommendation. That one was a suggestion, so I'm not sure about that."

At the meeting where Mr Brant presented his report to the elected representatives, one member got up and said, "Mr Brant, I want to talk about the area." He said: "You can't talk about the area. That's not on the table." No one will discuss the size of the area. Why not? It's in his report. It's a shame.

I'm sure the members here all agree with me that this unprecedented, arbitrary move, combined with the mandate given to Mr John Brant, has turned the role of the arbitrator from a recommending body to a decision-making body, and that's the effect it had. I just don't understand why we're faced with that.

The arbitrator's determinations were bound to be contentious because it's an imposed solution. Obviously, in the competing claims between the city, the county and its affected constituent municipalities, someone would lose. The local municipalities knew that and they were prepared to lose something. They were very realistic: "We have the large city of London. It has some room for growth, but it wants more. We will negotiate it." And that's what they were doing.

However, the Brant report contained startling surprises in the extent of land which it transferred to the city. I've said 65,000 acres. Does anyone realize how large that is? I think the closest in size is probably the city of Mississauga. I've forgotten whether it's a bit larger or a bit less, but that's the size of land. The city of Mississauga is composed of the former townships of Toronto, Toronto Gore, Streetsville, Port Credit -- there are several municipalities all put together, and that's the city of Mississauga. That's what we're talking about adding to the city of London, so it will more than double the city of London's existing area and eliminate -- and this is the really bad part -- more than 35% of the county's tax base.

I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs is a bit skittish about this matter, because he has responded to the petitions -- and I have a communiqué here where he's responding to me, I believe -- in a way which was rather startling. In addition, he has recently sent a letter out to all municipal councils in the province stating: "I want to explain to you that this is a unique situation. It's because London is so much larger than the county." The county of Middlesex is one of the largest land masses of counties in Ontario. It's not the biggest; I believe Simcoe county still holds that record. But Middlesex county is a huge county.

1750

Mr Bradley: How many acres?

Mr Eddy: Well, I can't get down to figures now. There are 15 townships, five villages and two towns. It's five times the size of the city of London, but it doesn't have as large a population. Why doesn't it have as large a population? Because the development has been in the city of London because of the 1962 annexation doubling or tripling the size of the city of London at that time. And that's fine; it's the urban centre for southwestern Ontario.

So the minister sent out a letter saying: "This would never apply any place else in Ontario. It's only in London-Middlesex because it's unique." Well, Brantford is just as unique; there is a large imbalance there as well, approaching 100,000 with lots of area to develop -- and it's developing -- compared to poor little Brant county with around 25,000. I had an example of another area; it slips my mind at present, but there is another city-county combination.

It's not a valid argument, because if a large township adjoining the city of Kingston, for instance Kingston township -- and I'm afraid even to mention these names -- were to annex, then the city of Kingston would have the same imbalance with the county of Frontenac, absolutely, or Ernestown township. It could happen many other places; there's no doubt about it.

I've mentioned many points, but the size of the annexation is crucial. It takes in large rural areas, farm land. Why would any member in this House agree with taking very large, immense areas of good farm land and putting it into the urban centre that didn't ask for it and doesn't really want it? It's far bigger than they ever wanted.

It has been mentioned that I will not be speaking from the heart. I do speak from the heart. What's happening here worries me. Is there no room for rural-type government for agricultural areas, for farmers? Are we going to have city government across this province from one end to the other? That's what this sets up, I assure you, and I assure you that there will be other applications and the negotiations will be stalemated. Why wouldn't they? If somebody wants to stalemate negotiations: "It's not enough" -- I must say there were occasions when we were negotiating that the area to be included got larger and larger, and that was unfortunate, but certainly it can happen.

Bill 75 proposes to annex to the city of London 65,000 acres from five constituent municipalities of the county of Middlesex. It robs the county of 35% of its commercial and industrial assessment; that's over a third. It's disastrous. It changes the county from a viable county to one that will have a great deal of problem financing its services. It's crippling it. It leaves absolutely no room for any type of growth or expansion, and I'm opposed to it.

One might think that the annexation of all this land may be necessary for the city of London to adequately plan for the future, but this is not the case. We only need to look at the 1988 London Urbanization Study: Final Report to conclude that the amount of land to be arbitrarily given to the city by the minister is unnecessary. In that report, the city only recognized the need for one fifth of what it is actually being awarded by the arbitrator -- one fifth.

Mr Bradley: I'm interested in the farm land. How many acres of farm land are being lost?

Mr Eddy: Most of it. The city only requested 12,000 acres. The county and the local municipalities are prepared to given them 24,000; I've had a copy of their signed presentation to the minister. But an arbitrator without municipal experience, who has not heard the people, says it'll be 65,000 acres.

How can anyone agree with Bill 75? It's impossible to agree with it, for several reasons.

All that class 1: What is wrong with having a rural area with a rural council dealing with rural problems? I think that's important to consider.

In the recent submission to the arbitrator, the city only stressed the need for one third of what the arbitrator has awarded. In my opinion, it is ridiculous and arbitrary indeed that a municipality would be granted over three times the amount of land the same municipality deemed necessary.

Why has the minister arrogantly overridden the provisions of the boundary negotiations act and the elected representatives of the municipalities? I don't understand it, but I know that if this passes there will be a reckoning one day -- that'll be in approximately three years -- and people will have their say one way or another. I know we're going to have hearings, and I pray that when the people make presentations, they will be heard and there will be some changes.

I question what the minister and Mr Brant were thinking. Are these two gentlemen, these two people, more knowledgeable about municipal affairs and the city of London and the county of Middlesex and its local municipalities than their elected councils and the citizens? I think not. The action is arbitrary. It's unilateral. In my opinion it's arrogant, and I firmly believe that.

Another point of great contention in this legislation is the compensation to the county in exchange for the 64,000 acres. I must point out again that the boundary negotiations process was developed as a give and take -- "You can have this and we want this in return" -- and it has worked well, but now it's all changed.

According to the legislation, the city of London will pay the county $19.6 million over 10 years. However, in reality the county will receive much less, because the county is now already getting approximately $1 million per year for suburban road purposes -- and I must point out that it's well and wisely used -- because it's a very large county and of course all the roads connect to the city of London, or the city of London to Grand Bend, Lake Huron and the many places the city of London people want. Of course I must say there are many people who wish to go to the city of London because of its large shopping malls, its commercial centres --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. When Bill 75 next comes to the floor of the Legislature, the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand will have the opportunity of continuing his debate for the duration of the time allotted to him.

It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, July 21, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.