Journal des débats 1982-déc-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I believe is a legitimate matter of privilege, and I ask your indulgence because it is somewhat lengthy. It pertains to the annual report of the Provincial Auditor, which was tabled very recently, and the subject matter is subsidiaries of crown agencies.

The Deputy Attorney General has advised the auditor, as of July 21,1981, and I quote: "It is our view that there is some difficulty in characterizing the subsidiaries ... you refer to as crown-controlled corporations. It is our view that the ownership of the shares of the subsidiaries would be held to be vested in the parent corporations and not in Her Majesty in right of Ontario. This interpretation is not free from doubt. I would recommend that the matter be clarified by an amendment to the legislation."

As a result, as reported in the auditor's report, "the following subsidiaries are not considered to be crown-controlled corporations and have not been included in exhibit 7 of this report." There are a few companies listed: they are Minaki Lodge Resort Ltd., Minaki Development Co. Ltd., Thunder Bay --

Mr. Speaker: I will have to call the honourable member to order and ask him to state his point of privilege, please.

Mr. Cunningham: I will, Mr. Speaker. The point is that no less than 10 or 12 companies are subsidiaries that do not come under control of the auditor and, in my view, are not subject to any public scrutiny whatsoever. The auditor has requested this matter be clarified so that we, as members of the Legislature, can discharge our responsibility in the examination of the stewardship of these companies.

Mr. Speaker: Interesting as that may be, it is not a legitimate point of privilege, and I have to rule it as such.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take your mind a bit further along those lines. The Provincial Auditor is not an employee of the government; he is an employee of the House and you are the principal spokesman for the House. I do not believe it would be proper for us to raise it with a member of the government, since this is something that has been brought to our attention by our employee, not an employee of the government. What are we supposed to do if we should not put this before you, sir?

Mr. Speaker: I would think the proper place to raise it would be the standing committee on public accounts.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to belabour the point, but if I could just ask your indulgence, and mindful of what my House leader has said, the auditor said in his report, in concluding on that section:

"In our 1981 report we suggested that if it were the desire of the Legislature that such subsidiaries be treated as crown-controlled corporations, an amendment to the Audit Act be recommended by the standing public accounts committee."

This has not been done. Therefore, these subsidiary corporations do not fall under the scrutiny of the Legislature and hence we members of the Legislature, responsible to our constituents for the stewardship of public money, cannot examine these companies.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. As the auditor has pointed out, it is the responsibility of the standing public accounts committee.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Is the Premier (Mr. Davis) coming today?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, he will be here.

Mr. Peterson: Shortly? Perhaps we can waste some time and hope the Premier comes.

GAINS PAYMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I do have a serious question I want to ask of the Treasurer. It pertains to the whole matter of pension reform in this province.

The Treasurer is no doubt aware of the discussions we have been having over the last little while with his superior, the superminister in charge of social development policy. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) mentioned to this House the other day that her ministry has made some recommendations with respect to pension reform. I am talking particularly about the guaranteed annual income system rate for single elderly people as well as the child-rearing drop-out provision and other aspects.

As I understand her answer, she suggested that she has made recommendations to the Treasurer and that it is now in his hands.

Why is the Treasurer, who is responsible for pension reform, not doing anything? Why is he taking so long to respond to the various committees and royal commissions? Why will he not move immediately on the Gains recommendation, which has almost universal support?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will brush aside the innuendo early in the question and focus particularly on the fact that the honourable member says we are doing nothing. The truth is that Ontario in the past 18 months has been the leader in getting provinces in Canada to work together to look at the whole pension issue. It is not simply a question of the guaranteed annual income system for the aged, the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled, the guaranteed income supplement or old age security but, rather, the sum total of them all.

It is very easy for everyone to say Ontario should not wait for a fundamental reform of OAS but should jump in and top it up and immediately increase Gains for singles so that the total is at least 60 per cent of that for a couple. Like my colleague, I agree with that; for the information of the Leader of the Opposition, I agree that is a fair level.

What we try to point out is that any one province doing it would automatically be left in that position by the federal government, because obviously they are not about to involve themselves in the basic reform that is needed, which is really OAS, when provinces are willing to step in on their own.

Bear in mind that we have a set --

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer is wrong. Everybody does not agree.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjection, please.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition is asking me for my opinion. I could he wrong. That is what he is there for. He is there because he is supposed to express a different point of view, and he often does. It does not make him right or me wrong. It just makes us differ.

We have a number of problems, and I admit that the Leader of the Opposition is probably as well versed on this topic as anyone in this House -- except me. I added that quickly.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Modesty becomes you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It has always been one of my strong points.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have a lot to be modest about.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now you are plagiarizing somebody else; be creative.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have never had to quote the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course not, you do not have the capacity.

Mr. Speaker: Treasurer, will you please proceed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I certainly abhor these interjections, Mr. Speaker, and with your guidance I will be delighted to follow along.

In any case, the provinces got together in June 1981. They saw each other pretty regularly until about a year ago in January. They have a course of action which they believe all nine provinces in the Canada pension plan can back in relation not just to CPP but also to general pension reform.

We were told some time last summer that the federal government would be proposing a paper on it, and most of us felt we would be unwise to move until that paper came out. Since back in October it was expected to be last December, and in January it was expected to be March, we thought we had only a short time to wait. I am told December 14 is the day that paper is coming out. I think this is an important date, because it will allow all 10 provinces, which will be meeting in Ottawa on December 16, to have a chance to decide whether they now are prepared to take their next steps.

All I ask the Leader of the Opposition is for him to allow us to take that orderly route. We are doing it. We have led the way with the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario, which has a number of major structural changes to recommend, and we are looking at them.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer always has an excuse. Now we are waiting for the federal paper. I remind him that on April 24, 1981, he was asked about these matters. He responded that he was considering the royal commission's recommendations. On May 8, 1981, he was asked about the child-rearing drop-out provision, and the Premier said he was waiting for the select committee. Then on May 12 --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Question coming, obviously.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard it yet.

Mr. Peterson: On May 12 I asked him again whether he did not recall that same question. He was waiting for a select committee. On April 23, 1982, the Premier said, on being asked about some of these provisions, that the Treasurer was considering them. On December 3, asked about pension reform, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development said that many other groups needed assistance too, and on December 6 she said they were waiting for the Treasurer. There is nothing new about this.

We also recognize there are a number of small, sticky issues which the Treasurer could have moved on. Why, for example, is he being the last holdout on the child-rearing drop-out provision? Why does he not get rid of his veto -- British Columbia got rid of theirs not very long ago -- so at least we can improve some parts of the pension programs in this country even if we cannot move on them all simultaneously? Why does he not show some good faith on this issue in an area where the Treasurer is the only sticking point in this country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition's second question reminds me of many interviews all of us go through where the second question was written before the first response and the script reader has to stick right to it because obviously he cannot think independently and reflect on the answer that was already given. He did not reflect on the answer I gave him at all. All the answers to which he was referring were in it.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer undoubtedly has better information than I do, but I was told at the beginning of this week that the green paper had been put off again until the spring, which would be at least the fifth time it had been put off.

I do not hold to that, but whether or not the green paper comes out next week, surely the Treasurer will agree that whenever it does come out the process of pension reform obviously has been put way on the back burner by the federal Liberal government. It will be a number of years before the kinds of things we had hoped were coming out of the federal government actually will emerge. and in the meantime single senior citizens are living below the poverty line.

Will the Treasurer not simply accept the advice of his own Provincial Secretary for Social Development, who supports the recommendations of the seniors advisory council, the royal commission and the select committee on pensions, and increase the Gains single rates to an adequate level of 60 per cent of the rate of a married couple?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thought I said I supported it in the answer to the first part of the question by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Rae: Why don't you do it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: How? We are in a country. It is an interesting fact that this so-called veto power is not a veto power; two thirds of the provinces with two thirds of the population must agree to changes. We live in a country where we are working hard at having certain national programs with a degree of comparability. All the provinces agreed this was one area where there was a crying need for comparability. The provinces had a lot of discussions.

I can assure the honourable member that when the finance ministers meet in Ottawa next Thursday, whether it is on the agenda or not, we will have an opportunity to discuss this and I will be fighting hard for progress. However, let us hope that progress is not made impetuously, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us do, by making Ontario the sole contributor to those improved benefits.

Mr. Peterson: Anyone who has looked at the issue, including the Treasurer's own backbenchers, a number of whom signed that report, believes Ontario should move alone failing action by the federal government. Given that we have a crisis now, given the Premier has said only government has the capacity to act for those seniors now, and given that no amount of private pension reform and no pension reforms we enact now will have immediate impact except in those areas, surely that should impress upon the Treasurer that he has a responsibility.

He is alone. Even the superminister disagrees with him. Surely that should bring some urgency to this question. Why does he not show some leadership? How can he go on forever blaming the federal government? He is the holdout on the child-rearing drop-out provision. He cannot have it both ways.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend across the House --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Has difficulty hearing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, he has some trouble hearing at times. We have provided the leadership on this issue as a province. I have been the chairman of the committee. That committee made great progress. There are only nine of us involved, because Quebec has its own programs. The other eight ministers felt strongly that we had to await more signs.

The Leader of the Opposition should not forget that Mme Bégin as running around this country making some pretty surprising statements. He should not forget, as he has reminded me quite often, the major problems with the Canada pension plan. I can go back and bring out his speeches. He did it at length each year in budgets. He told me what books to read. I read them. I then found some by competent authors and read them.

In this case we have been dealing with a program that is massively underfinanced. The Leader of the Opposition knows it was not a social program. it was a contributary pension program. was it not? Does he agree? Okay. The moment one brings in the drop-out provisions or the disability provisions, one is starting to change the actuarial base upon which it was all formulated.

The Leader of the Opposition and I both know that 3.6 per cent, which is the present contributory rate, pays for roughly 40 per cent of the benefits being paid out. He and I also know that in states like the United States where they have got into more mature plans, income is nowhere near outgo.

Does the Leader of the Opposition not think one of our first responsibilities is to ensure the money is there for people who have put their money into programs and to make sure we negotiate those with the federal government? That is the kind of leadership I am trying to produce. I am trying to guarantee benefits in the future rather than political opportunities today.

Mr. Peterson: In the same speech the Treasurer may want to stand up and tell about the billions he has owed the CPP, the avails of which he has lived off for years and years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the first question has taken 13 minutes. New question.

2:20 p.m.

RESTRAINT ON DOCTORS' FEES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier as his government moves today to limit the debate on Bill 179, Is he or is he not going to ask the medical profession to make a contribution to the restraint program in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have really nothing to add to what I said some weeks ago. I acknowledge that one of the amendments the Liberal Party of Ontario would have liked to have made, and I have not read them, was to bring the medical profession into the legislation.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier also acknowledges that his Treasurer said on September 28, 1982: "1 sincerely hope there is an understanding on the physicians' side of how important it is for them to be seen to be helping in this restraint program."

Is the Premier still just going to reply "no comment," or is he going to do something constructive in this area? He knows there is still a considerable amount of opposition to this legislation by people who feel it is inequitable.

Will the Premier not agree with me that he could make it more equitable, as I am sure his Treasurer would agree, by bringing in people such as the medical profession? When did the Premier meet with them last? Did he ask them for a contribution? What is he going to ask of them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said to the press a couple of days ago that I had no further thoughts to communicate at this precise moment.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Premier can tell us why the government has continued to refuse the option of very clearly indicating to the medical profession that, in return for a collective agreement, in response to collective action by the medical profession, the least the government could then expect of the medical profession would be that there would be no extra billing, no additional billing for work performed by individual doctors when the collective agreement was clearly there. Can that not be a condition precedent for the signing of the kind of collective agreement that was signed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the honourable member is not aware of it, but I understand the agreement with the medical profession was signed last March or April. I understand his position and his party's position to be that they would eliminate the agreement in that context. As I recall their position, and I find this intriguing, they say to the medical profession that the existing collective agreement should stand but that we should alter the collective agreement to make extra billing not possible in the province.

I find it intriguing how the leader of the New Democratic Party can argue, philosophically, not to touch the agreement, to leave that agreement with the doctors as is on one hand, and then argue that we should alter that agreement on the other hand. It is a little act of juggling that I do not totally understand.

Mr. Rae: There is nothing in the agreement about it.

Mr. McClellan: It is nowhere in the agreement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I understand the Premier's embarrassment over this issue and the most unsatisfactory way in which he and his government have handled it.

I quote him from Hansard of September 21, 1982, when he said: "All right, listen: The honourable member can be as critical of the profession as he wants, but they happen to be self-employed professionals. He does not like it, but that happens to be the reality.

"I have communicated with the head of the Ontario Medical Association. I have asked him and his colleagues to meet with the government to discuss this issue." Maybe he just wanted to discuss the weather or the Argos; I have no idea. "I will say no more than that at this moment. I have no intention, on a supplementary, of hypothesizing or anything of that kind. I just say what I have done."

That was on September 21, 1982, almost two and a half months ago. The Treasurer, as I quoted earlier, has the feeling, I gather, that the physicians should be seen to he helping the restraint program. What is the Premier's position? Are they going to be asked for a contribution, or are they not? If they are not, will the Premier have the guts to stand up in the House and say he is not going to ask them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will make no reference to one's intestinal fortitude, which I find a more acceptable parliamentary term, but that is only taking a leaf out of the book of the gentleman on the left of the Leader of the Opposition. I really would only repeat that at this precise moment I am not in a position to communicate anything further.

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for York South.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Leader of the Opposition has had his two questions. I am now recognizing the leader of the third party. the member for York South.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour and concerns the right of a worker to refuse work where the worker considers that work to be unsafe. Does the minister considers there to be acceptable circumstances where a worker in a health care facility has a right to refuse? Can the minister comment on that general question?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, obviously the honourable member is going to come up with a particular instance in his supplementary. My interpretation of the act is that the worker has the opportunity to refuse to work, and there are no notable exceptions to that opportunity on the worker's behalf.

Mr. Rae: I do indeed have a specific example with respect to a worker in the Midwestern Regional Centre; it is of some real importance and has policy implications that go well beyond the specific example. The question involves a Mary Lou Ruttan who, at the time of her refusal, was seven months pregnant. As a worker in the Midwestern Regional Centre, she was in contact with a hepatitis carrier, which Mrs. Ruttan felt, and doctors agreed, placed her at some risk and her unborn child at great risk.

In the light of those facts, will the minister inquire why Mrs. Ruttan was told by the local inspector, by the regional office and ultimately by Dr. James of the occupational health branch that she had no such right to refuse, because she was a worker in a health care facility and because the law, according to Dr. James. while it may have acted to protect Mary Lou Ruttan, did not provide any protection for her unborn child? Because it has such important policy implications, will the minister make that inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I agree with the member that it does have policy implications. I certainly will investigate it further.

Mr. Rae: I simply tell the minister that Mary Lou Ruttan was informed, as I indicated to him, by the local inspector that she had no right to refuse. She was told by Dr. James that her unborn child had no protection under the act which, I am sure the minister will agree, is a question of fundamental importance to a great many workers in Ontario with respect to the children they are carrying.

The second reason she was given by the regional office was that there were no regulations pursuant to section 23 with respect to health care and other public sector facilities that would allow her to claim the right to refuse.

Will the minister give an undertaking to this House that with respect to the question of the rights of unborn children to protection under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and with respect to the regulations in public hospitals and other public institutions, he will clarify those matters so workers in those places will know exactly what their rights are under the Occupational Health and Safety Act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will report back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANT

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, who I notice is engaged in a conversation. I wonder if I could have his attention for a moment. It concerns the case of Donald MacAlpine and the decision that was made by the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board nearly two weeks ago with regard to his reinstatement.

I ask my question in the light of the statements that were made and the nature of the decision that was made by the chairman of the grievance settlement board, since the decision states: "The evidence is overwhelming and uncontradicted. The regional director, his assistant and the regional forester put strong pressure on Mr. MacAlpine to come up with reports or recommendations which would justify the unjustifiable." It goes on to say, "Apart from the testimony, regional communications to the district staff were pre-emptory in tone and their language left no doubt of what was demanded."

2:30 p.m.

In the light of the further statement in the report, "We are obliged to conclude that the regional staff's demands at the time were not consistent with the provisions of the Crown Timber Act and the management manual, that those demands were unreasonable and unfair to the district staff," first, can the minister tell us whether he has yet reached a decision with respect to the reinstatement of Mr. MacAlpine? Precisely what steps has he taken to see that this kind of behaviour on the part of the regional office, which is criticized so directly in the decision of the grievance settlement board, does not occur again?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the grievance settlement board also indicated that Mr. MacAlpine was ordered to issue a permit. As the honourable leader of the third party knows, the only ones who issue permits in this province are the Minister of Natural Resources and the cabinet. That is just one indication of some of the context of what he is quoting from.

This matter will be subject to judicial review. The grounds for judicial review will beset out in the notice and the documents filed. In the meantime, with respect to Mr. MacAlpine's reinstatement, I understand discussions were undertaken with him late this morning in order to accommodate his problems, as well as ours.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister indicate precisely what kinds of protections are being given to Mr. MacAlpine in the light of the statements that he himself made last week with regard to Mr. MacAlpine's conduct, which are in direct conflict with the findings of the grievance settlement board as to Mr. MacAlpine's loyalty as a public servant?

While the grievance settlement board agrees that Mr. MacAlpine was at fault to the extent that he deserves a one-week penalty, the board went out of its way to make clear that, in its view, Mr. MacAlpine was acting at all times with the utmost integrity and according to the lights of his own conscience, and that much of what he did was understandable in the light of the government's own guidelines with respect to open government.

Can the minister make it very clear to this House that Mr. MacAlpine will receive at least the same compensation from April 7 onwards as he would have without the government having taken this decision to do a judicial review? Will the minister make that commitment to the House?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am not sure of all the elements the leader of the third party is asking me for. The settlement board dealt with the issue of salary from the time of suspension to the date of the decision. It also dealt with our efforts, referred to by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) in the House, with respect to certain contractual arrangements that were entered into in the meantime.

I have been advised by counsel with respect to our obligations pending any judicial review of the decision. I am aware of those obligations and they include monetary ones. These are the discussions that are taking place with Mr. MacAlpine directly. I can only say that we are trying to take care of him in a monetary sense while this process is taking place without penalty and that is what we were working on with him this morning.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, why would the minister decide to go the judicial review route when the arbitration decision said, "Members of the public had a right to know about the internal dispute within the ministry over cutting rights which affects their interest? I am thinking specifically of the 30 to 40 independent operators who were going to be directly affected by it. They also said. "To suppress such information by invoking the oath in its literal form is not consistent with the concept of open government," that you espoused in sessional paper 215 on October 9, 1980, in a previous incarnation.

It also said, "It is somewhat naive to imagine that what is properly known to a civil servant must be denied to a legislator by reason of section 10 of the Public Service Act."

Is it not a fact that with regard to the forest resource inventory Mr. MacAlpine asked for before being called upon to make a recommendation about the issuance of a licence, his position has been vindicated by a subsequent forest resource inventory that says unequivocally that he and his supervisor were quite right in not recommending a licence because there is not sufficient wood to satisfy all of the needs, including Mr. Buchanan's?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the arguments that went on with respect to the volume of allowable cut in that area and the three different volumes that were indicated at various times by various people within the ministry as being available or not available. I understand all those issues.

The honourable member refers to my previous incarnation. I wish he would also refer to the work of the ministry and the Minister of Natural Resources in terms of the land use planning program and the forest management agreements where we have made substantial changes since April 1981 to open up the process for public consultation.

I am sure the member also acknowledges there is a difference between responding to requests for information from the public and members of the opposition and initiating a political confrontation.

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Now that the minister has had time to absorb the facts concerning the presence of dioxin in herring gull eggs on Fighting Island, will he now agree the contamination is from a localized source and will he undertake a complete scientific investigation of the potential source of dioxin contamination?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the facts we were discussing before have not changed in terms of the information that exists with regard to the suggestion of a localized source. I see no reason to do other than continue the testing work we already have under way and that I indicated was progressing in preparation for, among other things, the ultimate environmental assessment process which will be applied to that site.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be aware that Dr. Douglas Hallett of Environment Canada has said: "The federal government is concerned that it requires further investigation. We are definitely pursuing Fighting Island as a problem with the province of Ontario."

Will the minister tell the House what resources his ministry is planning to allocate to the testing of Fighting Island in conjunction with Environment Canada's assault on the problem, and what in-depth studies will he do and when they will take place?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the testing as it relates to Fighting Island is ongoing. I want to assure the honourable members that at no time have I indicated we were not interested and concerned about Fighting Island. We are determined to ensure it does not constitute either an environmental or a health hazard.

In terms of resources, off the top of my head I cannot quantify that, if the member is looking for a dollar figure or whatever it is he is talking about. Is it human resources, economic resources, technical resources or what? All I can say in terms of the program of testing that is under way is that all the resources of my ministry are available.

CANADIAN PAPERWORKERS DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is he aware of, and can he bring us up to date on, the dispute between the 130 members of Local 949, Canadian Paperworkers Union, at the CIP plant in Burlington, Ontario, who have been out of work since August 2 and have had no talks at all for the last four to five weeks? As well, there are the other 14 plants, largely in the container industry, that are also members of the Canadian Paperworks Union where there has been no movement since the beginning of the disputes, either July 7 or August 2.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that has been a most troublesome dispute and one that has had the full attention of the conciliation and mediation services branch of our ministry. At one time we felt we were very close to a settlement, no longer than a week or 10 days ago, but the talks have broken down again.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: Would the minister bring the House up to date on what specific action he is taking in this dispute, because I understand that in the case of Local 949, the plant in Burlington, there have been no talks for better than a month?

Would the minister bring us up to date on what initiatives he is taking specifically to try to resolve this long dispute, which has a number of ramifications? And did the takeover of the CIP plants by Canadian Pacific less than a year ago, the $1.1-billion purchase, have anything to do with the difficulties we now find ourselves in with respect to collective bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect to the CIP plant, I can advise that the mediators are in there this afternoon -- in fact, at this very time -- so a meeting is going on and we are very hopeful that something may come out of this latest mediation attempt. With respect to the involvement by Canadian Pacific, I have no comment to make.

STRATEGIC LAND USE PLANS

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister has now had time to see that virtually all interested parties in Ontario have expressed serious reservations about his strategic land use plans.

Is the minister now prepared to delay the implementation of these plans until two prerequisites are met: first, that all of the relevant legislation has been put before this House and passed and/or amended; and second, that the minister has convened a conference to find the common ground among all of the interested parties and to bring an end to the confrontation that is so plaguing this plan?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the issues that have arisen at the public forums -- and we have now held five, with two more to go -- the issues that have arisen from the comments of 10,000 people at 130 open houses in communities across the province this summer, and the issues that arose when we had our open meetings with respect to the strategic land use planning, the plans themselves, on a regional basis in 1979 and 1980 when another round of public meetings was held, do not relate to the process, they relate to the conflict in positions between interest groups.

The honourable member is quite right as far as that goes. It is conflicts between different positions of interest groups on specific decisions that have to be made on land use planning, not the process itself.

Indeed, there has a been a lot of input from a lot of people and a lot of interests in the province. The member was at the one last Thursday in Toronto where we had approximately 600 people. We had 700 people in Thunder Bay a week ago last Monday. We had 800 people in London last Monday. So there has been a lot of interest in this. The whole purpose of the public forums we are holding is not to try to convince anyone of one particular point of view or another or of the integrity of our process, it is to allow different groups to address the public through the media in these regional centres and engage each other in the kind of debate the member saw last Thursday in Toronto.

Until there is a willingness on the part of the various interest groups to sit down and in a meaningful way come to some compromise solutions, there is no point in holding any kind of public conference at all. But I have sensed in the last few meetings we have been at, particularly the one in London on Monday night, a willingness to put forward specific compromise proposals, and we are considering those proposals right now.

How we proceed from here will not be decided or announced until we have completed the public forums, and we will complete them next Wednesday night in Kingston. In the meantime, and before any announcement is made, I had intended to consult with the member for Halton-Burlington and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) in any event.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is clear from the minister's answer that he indicates to us that interested bodies on both sides of the issue are prepared to sit down and talk, and that is the same kind of information and feedback that I get. Surely if the strategic land use plan is to have success and relevance in the province, we have to move now towards a spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation and having the differences remain. Surely the minister understands this is now a process of negotiation and the resolution of differences, not the continued stating of those differences that are well established.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The precise reason for the public forums was to provide an opportunity to state the positions. to try to convince the public and each other of the validity of certain points of view. We have had public forums in Timmins, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, London and Toronto. and we are going to have one in Ottawa tonight and next Wednesday night in Kingston.

We will then have covered the major centres of the province. We will have some idea of the regional issues and how the interest groups and individual citizens see the issues in different regions of the province. Once we have completed that work, we can then make some other decisions, at which time I will be pleased to consult with both the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Halton-Burlington with respect to a process.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider one grand forum or perhaps two grand forums to discuss a couple of issues: one, the whole question of environmental assessment for the forest management agreements; two, the unhappiness of our native people concerning the whole question of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment and the whole process of land use planning in which the minister is engaged?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the issues the member has just raised have been raised in the public forums throughout Ontario. Different people have taken different points of view on them. Nothing further will be gained by arguing about them again. Everything has been argued out.

Had the member been in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie or Timmins, he would have understood that all these issues were argued about in those forums, with different interests and different points of view given. I am prepared to answer in the House any questions he has on the forest management agreement concept.

I have also indicated to the member that we have tried, over a period of years, to meaningfully involve the native people in our land use planning process. Does he know how often we visited various communities in the West Patricia area to discuss this with the band council? Does he know what band council resolutions were passed and signed by the chiefs recently? Does he know what they have done with respect to fishing rights and the maps they have filed with us?

Mr. Laughren: I know how unhappy they are.

Hon. Mr. Pope: If he does not know that, then what is he talking about?

FERRANTI-PACKARD

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Ferranti-Packard Transformers Ltd. Is the minister aware that in 1980, five workers of UE Local 525 were experiencing severe headaches, loss of co-ordination and runny eyes from working with a new material called GPO-3? Is he further aware that the workers have never received to this date the results of the tests? Is he further aware that a member of his staff advised management, in the person of Mr. Ross Firman, that the samples had been tested but the results were confidential?

With these materials still being handled and these workers still experiencing the same difficulties, can the minister indicate to us why this material has never been identified and why this issue has not been adequately resolved?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the circumstances of Ferranti-Packard, in that I have asked now for some time to have the inspection reports of anything that may be the least bit contentious sent directly to me. I am getting numerous reports each and every day, so I am aware of the circumstance the member is describing. I am not aware of any reluctance to share the results of the sampling and would be pleased to follow up in that regard.

Mr. Martel: The minister will be interested to know that last week I received a brown envelope with one sheet contained therein. It says, "The polymer portion of the sample was identified by infrared spectroscopy as a styrene modified polyester." It was sent to Dr. Pelmear. Is the minister aware that styrene is a toxic substance, which is to be regulated and was gazetted on November 9, 1982, for regulation? Will the minister take steps to ensure that immediate investigation goes on and that the workers are advised?

Finally, will the minister kindly tell me why -- when workers are working with a toxic substance and the minister has an analysis -- there is a refusal to give them the results of those tests? The copy I received has "Confidential" marked right across it. There are workers working with a substance that is going to be regulated within the next number of months.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am well aware of the fact that styrene was gazetted on November 9, as far as a toxic substance study is concerned, because I was involved in the preparation of the list that was gazetted at that time. As far as the document that the member for Sudbury East has received, I am not familiar with that. As I said earlier, I will be very happy to follow up.

COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR GO TRANSIT

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications in the absence of the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the minister is here.

Mr. Boudria: I am sorry, I thought he had left his chair. Given the pride that the government takes in adherence to a buy-Canadian policy and given the fact that the minister makes this rather well-known, and the most recent commitment of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) to cut by 10 per cent all government dollars spent to purchase government goods, why was a contract for the purchase of a computer system by GO Transit awarded to a subsidiary of an American company at a cost of $270,000 when the Canadian content of that computer was only 59 per cent, and when for $288,000 -- only slightly more -- he could have bought a 100 per cent Canadian-content computer?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case the member mentions but I will check into it and report back. I would only like to say that in cases like this, as the honourable member knows, we are very careful to make sure that we do examine the Canadian content as closely as possible.

Our ministry is working quite closely with the Ministry of Industry and Trade. In fact, we have one of its employees working in this area to highlight things that at the present, particularly in the mechanical and electrical area, we cannot purchase in Canada. So our ministry really is doing our part to work along with our sister ministry. I would not want to leave the impression that we were not.

Mr. Boudria: I have an evaluation system form -- established by, I guess, the Ministry of Government Services or Ministry of Transportation and Communications -- regarding this purchase. Could the minister outline why the Canadian content is not calculated in the evaluation of whether or not one item will be bought?

In other words, the minister affords points for experience, reputation, capacity, service and all kinds of other things, but there are no points awarded for Canadian content. Other than the fact that he gives a 10 per cent differential allowance, there is no other system of incorporating points for the amount of Canadian content in those products.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I have held a series of breakfast meetings for all the procurement people within our ministry to introduce them to the chap I mentioned, who has been loaned to us from the Ministry of Industry and Trade. There is a form that goes out to all the people outlining what we want to see and how they should fill it out showing Canadian content. I have instructed all our people to talk to the people submitting their bids if they are not able to figure it out.

Again, I am not familiar with the particular one the member is talking about. If he sends it over I will let him know all the particulars. We are well aware of it. We have had many meetings. We are working with John Whelan, the person from the Ministry of Industry and Trade, to make sure all these areas are covered.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In the memo he passed me yesterday concerning the video display terminal task force, he indicated that the council was sending material back to the task force and requiring them to submit it again for the January meeting, and that some time after that January meeting the minister would be given a recommendation, they hope.

Can the minister therefore give me some advice? What would he advise Pam Hannivan, who worked for Trot magazine, who is nine weeks pregnant and who was fired on November 26 because she refused to work at her VDT since she was afraid it would affect her pregnancy?

An official at the employment standards office advised her to put in a claim. But should she, or will she just run into evidence provided by the Ministry of Labour saying that she has no right to a claim, as was done in the cases of Terry Burroughs and Helen Barss?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend that the person in question submit a claim to the employment standards branch. That is the reason the branch is there, to deal with these matters as they arise.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Will the minister then please ask his ministry officials not to presume what his position is, because he has told us that he has not decided what his position is at this time. Will he instruct Dr. Muc not to send off a letter to employment standards telling them there are no problems and that she has no right to refuse, thereby prejudicing the case? Will he not perhaps intervene at least to say that she should have the right at this point until we have received his decision about his policy, and that they should not presume his policy at the moment just through his officials?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I feel that is a reasonable request.

OMB CAR RENTAL FEES

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), but I see that he is not in the House so I would like to redirect it to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

The provincial secretary may be familiar with the Provincial Auditor's recent report on government expenditures. Section 2.6 of the report deals with excessive costs incurred on car rentals by certain members of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Provincial Auditor states: "The ministry hears unnecessary charges for additional days when rental cars are picked up on Fridays or weekends for business use in the week following. Our tests, covering the 1981 fiscal year, revealed 11 such instances involving two board members."

Will the provincial secretary identify the two board members involved and indicate to the House whether they are still sitting on the board?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, having had some prior knowledge that the member for Lakeshore was going to ask me a question relating to this matter, I did call the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board to ask for a clarification of it. He indicated to me that in these cases a lengthy OMB hearing was going on in an area of our province where driving back and forth to that area was the most practical method of transportation.

Since these hearings were going on week after week, it was understood by the members of the board who used these cars that it was just as economical for them to keep them over the weekend as it was to turn them back to the rental agencies, take a taxi to their homes and then at the start of the week go back, take a taxi to the rental agency and then drive out to the various places in the province.

This matter was recognized by the chairman of the board as a potential problem, and on investigation he found that the overall cost to the government would not have been significantly different if the members had not kept the cars. However, after discovering this practice some time ago, he did make it clear to all members of the board that it should no longer persist and the practice has been terminated. Everyone is of the understanding that when a rented car is needed, it is to be turned back after the business week.

I will refer the question as to the identity of those members to the Attorney General and ask him to relay that information to the member for Lakeshore.

3 p.m.

Mr. Kolyn: Could the provincial secretary indicate the amount of money involved in the incidents mentioned? Will he take the necessary steps to ensure that the two board members reimburse the Ontario Municipal Board for the cost inappropriately incurred on the board's behalf?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: As indicated in my answer to the initial question, I think there was evidence that there was no difference between the expense incurred by the government whether either situation developed. However, I will pass along the request to the Attorney General.

WINDSOR CHRONIC CARE BEDS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health, who was in Windsor not too long ago. I am sure the minister is aware that there are 96 patients in four hospitals waiting for chronic care rooms, and 160 patients in nursing homes and rest homes throughout the city waiting for chronic care, which means we are waiting for 256 beds for chronic care. As well, there are 75 people waiting for nursing home beds.

When is the minister going to do something about the chronic care bed situation in the city of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member knows that the ministry is awaiting advice from the Windsor area with regard to the new chronic care beds we intend to put in there, and how adequate numbers will be adjusted in the other hospitals so that we do not get into an even larger surplus than we already are in that area on our regular ratio counts. I know there is always a controversy with regard to whether the ratio is proper or not, as we hear in all parts of the province.

None the less, when the appropriate adjustments are made to the other chronic care beds to move patients into the new chronic care beds, then we will be able to proceed. Those conversations are going on and, indeed, have been going on for some time.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Swan: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He will recall that on Monday of this week his attention was drawn to the tremendous increase in the price of puffed wheat even though the farmer was getting less than he got when the price was only a third of what it is now. I hope he will not, as he did in that question, treat further questions on the increasing gap between the farm price and the price to the consumer as a joke.

Is the minister aware that the farm-gate price for oats is 24 per cent lower than it was last April; that corn is nine per cent lower than it was last spring and 29 per cent lower than it was a year ago; that wheat is 10 per cent lower; barley is 24 per cent lower; rye is 33 per cent lower; but that the cost of cornflakes is up some 12 per cent --

Mr. Speaker: I hope you have a question after all this.

Mr. Swart: -- and all cereals are up an average of 10 per cent? As the minister responsible for consumer matters, how can he justify that kind of situation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first, let me make it very clear that I take exception to the member's remark that I treated the complaint he made as something less than serious. I just resented personally that I would not have the puffed oats available for my family for the weekend for breakfast. That is the only objection I had.

Mr. Swart: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What I was pointing out to him was that I know that it is nice if the camera is on the bag of puffed wheat. But he did not say and he never does say that from October to November the overall prices dropped again in food and that in cereals, in particular, they dropped 2.2 per cent over the course of a month. I am well aware that the income of farmers --

Mr. Swart: I am very much aware.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just hang on now. I am well aware that the income of farmers is dropping. I believe those diminishing costs are reflected in the price drops we have seen recently.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult to hear the questions. I ask all honourable members to maintain order.

Mr. Swart: I am very much aware that the minister would think it is a great success for the price of food to go down two per cent when the amount the farmer gets for it has gone down 20 per cent. He is quite willing to fight inflation on the backs of the farmers.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely we could respect the rights of each other and allow the member to place his question.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not think there is a widening gap between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays, whether one compares them with the costs last spring or a year ago? The amount the farmer gets for cereal grains has been reduced 20 per cent, and the price of prepared cereals has gone up 10 per cent. Does he not think that is worthy of a full-fledged investigation in these times of restraint?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member was serious in suggesting that this government is endeavouring to fight inflation on the backs of the farmers, then I have to tell him he has a problem. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and this government are making exceptional efforts to support farmers in this province. Let there be no doubt about that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Having allowed the member to ask his question, surely we can allow the minister to make his reply.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker. in spite of the fact that we are still on clause 1(a) of the wage restraint bill, I can assume now that the member will be supporting the part of it that exempts the marketing boards from the bill.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audit programs, $3,886,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

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

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 64(a), government business be considered on the afternoon of Thursday, December 9, 1982.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be some element of doubt.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to read the motion?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I clearly heard somebody say "dispense."

Mr. Wells has moved that notwithstanding the provision of standing order 64(a), government business be considered the afternoon of Thursday, December 9, 1982.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

3:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ruprecht moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley. first reading of Bill 200, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Rae: On a point of order: With your permission, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put an argument before you which I think you have to consider with respect to the motion that stands in the name of

Mr. Speaker: You will have to wait until that is properly put before the House and that has not been done at this point.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 179

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, that notwithstanding any order of the House, the consideration of Bill 179, the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, by the committee of the whole House, be concluded not later than 10:15 p.m. on the first sessional day following the passage of this motion unless such a date be a Friday, in which case the conclusion of the consideration will be not later than 10:15 p.m. on the following Monday, at which time the Chairman will put all questions necessary to dispose of every section of the bill not yet passed, and the schedule, and to report the bill, such questions to he decided without amendment or debate; should a division be called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, that, any debate on the question for the adoption of the report be held on the next sessional day and be concluded not later than 10:15 p.m. on that day, unless it be a Friday when again it will be on the following Monday, at which time Mr. Speaker will interrupt the proceedings and put the question for the adoption of the report without amendment or further debate and if a division is called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, further, that, the bill be called for third reading debate on the third sessional day following the passage of this motion and be completed not later than 10:15 p.m. on that day unless it be a Friday, when again it will be called on the following Monday, at which time Mr. Speaker will interrupt the proceedings and put the question without further debate and if a division is called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, finally, that, in the case of any division in any way relating to any proceeding on this bill prior to the bill being read the third time, the bell be limited to 10 minutes.

An hon. member: The short title is, "A muzzle."

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before any points of order are heard, I would submit I should be able to explain the reasons for this particular motion which --

Mr. Martel: No. we have a point of order

about the motion.

Mr. Renwick: Where did you get that rule?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am prepared to hear the point of order now that the motion has been properly put, and we will see what the member for York South has to say.

Mr. Rae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: But I would ask him to be brief. Just before you start, if I may lay down some ground rules: I am prepared to listen to the point of order of the member for York South. I am also prepared to listen to a representative of each party if they wish to speak on the same point of order. I would ask the members to keep their remarks as brief as they can.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I believe the point of order I am raising, whether one agrees with it or not, is put entirely in good faith and I think is of some importance to this Legislature. I suggest that you have to consider the very basic proposition that this motion in and of itself is out of order. I want to put to you as simply as I can, and I hope not to take too long a time to put the case before you, why I believe it is out of order.

I refer you to section 38 of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly and, of course, to sections 1 and 36. Those are the three sections on which I will rely in my argument. I hope not to take too long a time to put the argument before you, because it is not put before you to in any way delay your ruling on this matter; it is put before you because I think it does raise fundamental questions that have to be of concern to every member of the Legislature.

The argument is quite simply this. There is no provision in any standing order of this House for this time allocation, this form of closure. You have to find a place in the standing orders where this kind of rule has been considered and has been provided for in the standing orders. That is the first argument.

With respect to that argument I would put to you that the only way in which a motion for closure can be put in the Legislative Assembly is according to section 36 of the rules.

I would put before you that when you consider the provisions both of the House of Commons in Ottawa and of the House of Commons in London, the only --

An hon. member: Commonly known as the big House.

Mr. Rae: It is because I think this is the big House that I am putting this argument.

It is only under the terms of the specific standing orders and regulations of the assembly in question that closure can be moved.

I would refer you to Beauchesne, where it is stated specifically with regard to closure in the House of Commons:

"Closure is a method of procedure which brings debate to a conclusion and enables the House to secure a decision upon the subject under discussion. Closure was introduced as a rule to the standing orders in 1913." That is Beauchesne, page 117, paragraph 334.

The point I am making is that before 1913 the only way in which closure, or I would say to the honourable member any motion with respect to time allocation, could be put in the House of Commons, the only motion permissible was a motion analogous to the one we have in section 36 that the previous question be now put; and members will know, of course, that when they had the filibuster, the long debate on the naval appropriations bill, and Arthur Meighen brought in the changes to the rules prior to the First World War with respect to that, it changed the practice of the House of Commons with regard to closure and with regard to time allocation.

3:20 p.m.

Since that time, the other major change that has been made in the House of Commons with respect to time allocation was made subsequent to the election of Mr. Trudeau as Prime Minister, and it was a major reform of the rules of the House of Commons, when there was provision for time allocation, specifically according to rule 75(a), 75(b) and 75(c). All of those deal with provisions which restrict and confine debate and which prevent the full participation of all members of the Legislature with respect to a matter that is before the Legislature or assembly.

According to the House of Commons, the only way in which time can be allocated is according strictly to rule 75(a), 75(b) and 75(c). Without rule 75(a), 75(b) and 75(c) it would not be possible for the House of Commons to have any rules with respect to the allocation of time.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that you are, as you are certainly correct to do so, consulting Erskine May with respect to the procedure of the British House of Commons. What I want to suggest to you is that you will find provisions both in the manual of procedure of the House of Commons and in standing orders of the House of Commons, with respect to the question of time allocation. I would suggest to you that time allocation is something which is considered at some length in Erskine May and that there is an extensive procedure in the House of Commons with respect to the allocation of time.

The point I am making is the reason there is allocation of time discussed at some length in the chapter on closure in Erskine May, and the reason that it is a procedure of the British House of Commons and has been a procedure of the British House of Commons for some time, as you will notice from the precedents in Erskine May, is because the House of Commons at Westminster has considered this question and because there are specific procedures and regulations setting out the circumstances under which and through which a government may introduce a motion for the allocation of time.

Outside that framework, which is specifically provided for in the Manual of Procedure -- number 221, allocation of time orders; and you will note, Mr. Speaker, this is the House of Commons Manual of Procedure in the Public Business, 12th edition, published in 1980, laid on the table by Mr. Speaker for the use of members -- according to the Manual of Procedure there is a very specific procedure which must be followed by the government in the British House of Commons if the government wishes to introduce a motion with respect to the allocation of time.

I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that when you read in Erskine May that allocation of time is permitted, and the following hours of debate are set aside for the allocation of time, or what is commonly referred to by members of the opposition as a guillotine motion, that has to be considered in light of the specific consideration and the specific rules which members of the British House of Commons have made with regard to the running of their public business with regard to the allocation of time.

I want to suggest to you that this motion has, so far as we can determine, no precedent in the procedures of this House with regard to the conduct of debate in this House. There are some precedents, sir -- if I can just conclude, I will be another three minutes, Mr. Speaker; as I suggested, I do not intend to take too long because I think the argument is very straightforward.

There is no precedent. There is no usage. There is no standing order. If you refer to rule 1 of the standing orders, you will know that the standing orders are binding, and it is up to you to interpret those standing orders, but there is no precedent, no usage, and no custom with regard to the procedure of this House with respect to a guillotine motion of this kind.

The only precedent which you can rely on is the precedent either of the House of Commons in Ottawa, or of the House of Commons at Westminster. When you turn there, Mr. Speaker, you will find it very clearly stated, as I have specified, in Beauchesne that there is no common law right, if I may use that term, on the part of the government to invoke closure or to allocate time.

The only right a government has to impose closure or to allocate time is that right which has been specifically conceded to it by the Legislative Assembly itself in its own standing orders.

This assembly has never before considered a motion of this kind. This assembly has never granted to the executive the right to bring in this kind of motion. The only right this assembly has specifically given with respect to the right of closure is that right which is contained in section 36: moving the previous question.

That is the right which existed in the House of Commons in Ottawa until 1913 which was specifically changed by the government of the day and which has been subsequently changed a number of times to give the government the right specifically to allocate time.

Mr. Speaker, if I may summarize: I do not want to repeat myself too much but I do want you to understand the thrust of what I am saying because I think it is an important argument which reflects on the rights of every single member of this assembly, whether on the government side or on the opposition side.

My argument is as follows: There is no common law right of the government to move closure or to limit debate in this assembly. There is no right of the government to allocate time with respect to the proceedings of the Legislature, with respect to a specific measure which is before the Legislature.

Indeed, there is a common law right and a generally conceded right that debate must continue and can only be brought to an end if the House votes on that proceeding or if the House allows the question to be put according to section 36.

Mr. Rotenberg: Or if the House changes the standing orders.

Mr. Rae: Or if the House changes the standing orders.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am saying this motion is out of order. This motion is offensive to the basic principle --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: So are the actions of that party.

Mr. Rae: No, I am sorry. If the government does not like the actions of this party, then it is up to the government with the help of whoever is prepared to give it help, to change the standing orders of this House and to change the procedures of this House. The government does not have the right to change the rules in the middle of the game. That is the basic argument we are putting. It is a serious argument and a fundamental argument.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you find this motion is in order, notwithstanding the fact there is no authority for the motion in any single standing order, there is nothing to prevent the government, the executive, from controlling entirely and completely, without any objection or intervention on the part of the opposition, the entire business of government. There is nothing preventing them from doing that at all.

Mr. Havrot: Time.

Mr. Rae: I hear a member shouting "Time," but with respect, sir, I think this is a pretty important argument for members of the opposition and for members of the government as well. The only protection we have is the standing orders of the assembly as they have been decided upon in a process of consultation that goes on in the standing committee on procedural affairs.

I suggest that is how these standing orders came about. I suggest that if it is the intention of the government to introduce this kind of motion, and the minister states it is clearly his intention, the only way that motion can be put is if the whole question of time allocation is referred to the procedural affairs committee and there are then specific provisions laid out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly with respect to the allocation of time.

That is the way the House of Commons in Ottawa did it; that is the way the House of Commons at Westminster has done it; and it would be unbecoming of us to do it any differently here at Queen's Park.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to offer a few comments with respect to the government notice of motion 10 introduced in the name of the government House leader.

It is of genuine concern to my colleagues and to me that we have before us so serious and so significant a new departure in terms of the way we have conducted ourselves in this Legislative Assembly for lo these many years.

3:30 p.m.

Let me reiterate what I have said on an earlier occasion. I, like many others in this assembly, have been taking note of the fact that we have arrived at this parliamentary impasse because one group of politicians, one group of members, has made it clear it will not easily agree to the passage of this legislation. That is the right of these members.

However, in the course of this difficult passage, we must be very careful that we do not allow to be put in our tradition, as we stand now to do, not one but two serious departures by way of closure. Those of us who sat in the standing committee on administration of justice last week saw the first departure in that connection, and now we see this.

Quite frankly, as my colleague and leader has indicated, it is an experience and rule among lawyers that difficult cases make for bad law. I am deeply concerned that, in the course of this difficult passage, we are going to write very bad new rules into our practice here in this assembly.

It seems to me we have a couple of options, or at least I naïvely believe we still have a couple of options. The member who has just resumed his seat after speaking on behalf of his party has invited us to consider this kind of time allocation within the standing committee on procedural affairs That would very much be my preference. I do not want to see this new procedure written under these trying circumstances.

For that to happen, it is obvious there has to be a return by all parties of this assembly to the kind of consensus in the House leaders' panel that will allow the business of the assembly to proceed. As I have stated on earlier occasions, I personally have that as my very strong preference.

I appreciate absolutely the depth of feeling with which my friends in the New Democratic Party have fought this particular legislation over the past two months. I would be the last person to argue the case that it is not an important parliamentary responsibility to fight as passionately as one can against any initiative to which one takes strong exception. But we must all return to the fundamental parliamentary premise, which surely is that this place has to work. It has not been working. We are locked in a deep and difficult deadlock, out of which there must be some escape.

Let me say, in the presence of the very much involved member for York South (Mr. Rae), I would like very much to see the resolution of this deadlock by means of the framework we have evolved here since my arrival seven years ago, namely, the House leaders panel, because I do not want to see this kind of new order born in the middle of this kind of deadlock and difficulty.

I also want to say that if it is felt some kind of closure or some kind of move in that direction is required, then I draw the attention of the government House leader, difficult as it may be for me, to section 36 of our standing orders, which heretofore has been the way in which we have dealt with this kind of problem. I must admit I cannot recall a time when we have had the protracted difficulty we have had with Bill 179.

Mr. Mackenzie: We have not had such a bad bill either.

Mr. Conway: The member for Hamilton East, as he has done repeatedly in this debate, draws our attention again to his very deeply held views that this is a very bad bill.

I simply want to say that in our standing orders we have a rule we could look to if the government feels there is absolutely no hope of the kind of consensus I would like to see to take us out of this impasse. Out of this impasse we must get; I want to be very clear about that. I have confided that to a number of members on a number of occasions in past weeks.

Failing the normal House leaders' agreement. and I thought I heard from the leader of the third party some renewed interest in that possibility. I regret to have to point out that section 36 of our standing orders does provide the government with a means of moving the debate along.

Notwithstanding what some in the government may feel, I think we threaten to poison this parliamentary well if we proceed in this debate by writing into our rule book this kind of time allocation. It may be that we need some kind of structured time allocation. My views on that are fairly positive; I personally think we should have, but I absolutely caution members on all sides to draw away from so important and new a departure as that at this time. That is not the way and this is not the time to write into our rule book this kind of very new departure.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take that into account as you consider this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that with the speech by the government House leader, the debate will be terminated.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, at this point in the debate I want to point out why I feel this motion is in order and to cite some rebuttals to the arguments that have been put forward. There is certainly no argument on this side of the House with the statement made by my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) that this House must work. We over here feel it has not been working as it should.

First of all, it has been stated that this assembly has never considered or thought of this kind of time allocation motion. I point out that today we are talking not about a closure motion but about a time allocation or guillotine motion which May talks about.

Mr. Martel: Rubbish.

Mr. Rae: It's just another name. You're closing down three debates, not one. This is three closure motions in one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I hope my friends will allow me to put my case. I did not utter a sound during any of their presentations.

This is a time allocation or guillotine motion. I point out that the Ontario Commission on the Legislature, commonly known as the Camp commission, made a recommendation:

"We commend the provision in the standing orders for a mechanism to schedule the length of debate. It should only be invoked, of course, after discussion about the scheduling and the times among the House leaders, and after notice is given to the Legislature, preferably on the Notice Paper, that on such-and-such a measure and at such-and-such a stage, the government intends to close debate after so much time has been given to it. We underline that such a procedural arrangement fits in with other recommendations we have made regarding hours of sitting and extensions of sittings."

This recommendation of Camp was studied by the Morrow committee, which made this recommendation: "The committee has reviewed" -- and I hope members will listen to the recommendation.

Mr. Martel: I was on the Morrow committee.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I know; I was going to remind the House that the member for Sudbury East was on that committee. Listen to the recommendation:

"The committee has reviewed the commission's recommendations on closure and is not prepared to support them. Since debate in the Ontario House is very seldom prolonged, the committee recommends that there be no change to the present procedure of standing order 37."

That was signed by the member for Sudbury East, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), all present members of this House.

This matter was considered by a committee of this House which in its wisdom decided not to recommend any change in our standing orders, I guess basically because no one foresaw the kind of situation we are now in. The fact that it was considered and not put into the standing orders does not mean that in a particular situation, at a particular time, because of a certain circumstance, such a motion cannot be made. I submit that there is nothing in the standing orders that prohibits this kind of motion.

3:40 p.m.

If the member looks at Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, and I am not as learned in May as some of my colleagues in this House, the chapter on methods of curtailing debate says on page 454:

"As stated earlier (p. 448), the allocation of limited amounts of time to the stages of bills, and occasionally other kinds of business," -- and I emphasize this -- "forms no part of the general procedure of this House" -- in other words, I cannot find anything in May similar to standing orders 75(a), (b) and (c) in the House of Commons.

Mr. Martel: It's in the act.

Mr. Rae: It's in their standing orders.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend can send it over to me. I am talking about the British House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It says here -- "but is applied in each case to a particular bill or several bills jointly Particularly what May says is that if a motion is made by a minister of the crown providing for the allocation of time, it can be debated for only three hours. In other words, there is a limit --

Mr. Martel: That's in the standing orders.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is in the standing orders, but there is nothing in the standing orders that says the motion can be made. It is assumed that time allocation and guillotine motions will be made by responsible governments.

By order, as a substantive motion of this House, completely in order -- notice given, duly moved and duly seconded -- we are now proposing a motion, which because there is nothing in the standing orders, and in fact the traditions in the Mother of Parliaments would suggest such is the responsibility of a government to make, can now be moved.

Let me point out some examples of recent precedents of use of substantive motions with notice to waive rules or authorize a practice not specifically allowed for in standing orders.

First, I refer to March 31, 1978, and April 4, 1978. There was no provision in our rules for a nonstatutory report or report other than annual reports to be referred to a committee. The government first proposed to send its paper on policy options for tenant protection by way of party agreement and thus routine motion. The New Democratic Party opposition at that time disagreed, telling us it would have to be done in the face of their disagreement; that is, by substantive motion, with debate and with division.

We did put such a motion at that time for that one paper only. I point out that we did it for that particular time only, not changing the rules of the House, and that was carried. At that time, by substantive motion and on division, we changed something that was not provided for in the rules. We did not create a new standing order.

On June 17, 1976, a substantive --

Mr. Renwick: It was by consensus of the House leaders.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was not by consensus. The New Democratic Party voted against it.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On June 17, 1976, a substantive motion was moved to set out a procedure and authority for the Board of Internal Economy, which as we know is the House's equivalent of the Management Board of Cabinet, to set the Ombudsman's estimates after his submission and to submit them to this House. There was no clear provision to do this in the Ombudsman Act, and it was silent on the mechanism that could be used. At that time the Liberal opposition opposed doing it by routine motion and opposed the substantive motion as being invalid, claiming the motion that was being put was invalid.

If the members opposite wish, I can quote Vernon Singer's speech but I will not do that at this time.

Mr. Conway: Please, in full.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The point is that the House, on majority, with full support from the New Democratic Party at that time, carried the motion. The minority made its case but it let the House decide.

The problem in the standing orders was that there was no provision for treating a government ministry's estimates differently from nonministry estimates such as those of the Office of the Ombudsman. The House motion, when passed, then became the authority. That motion was passed on division. In that case, the authority became on a permanent basis without a new or permanent standing order being required or adopted.

The point with both these examples is that they used a self-contained and free-standing motion to authorize an action not specifically provided for in the standing orders. They were carried out and done.

The point also is that they showed this House does have, and must have, a procedure short of permanent new standing orders whereby the will of the majority of the members can be authorized to prevail from time to time by way of procedural matters on what is a political issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go on at any greater length, but let me just sum up what I have pointed out by these examples. I believe, by referring to May, that there is some kind of common law right to bring in a form of allocation or guillotine motion when a majority that has been elected as a government to present its legislation finds it is completely hampered in the House.

Although it is not provided for in our standing orders, the precedents I have cited show that through the procedure of a duly constituted, substantive motion, properly moved and seconded and put in this House, the kind of orderly conclusion to a debate such as we are now in can be achieved.

I do not particularly like bringing in this kind of motion, Mr. Speaker, but I submit to you that it is in order, that it does not violate the rights of anyone in this House and that it gets us all out of a situation that is making the operation of this House look silly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for York South on his point of order was of the opinion that the motion was out of order, and he put forward his arguments to support that.

As all honourable members recognize, this is indeed an important matter and not to be taken lightly. I do not think there is any doubt about that. However, there is precedent, as everybody has mentioned, at Westminster and Ottawa; it is provided for in Erskine May.

I submit to the members that, to deal with the argument put forward by the member for York South that this is not closure and that there is provision for closure as such, I do not know why the government has not chosen to go that route, but it has chosen this route.

All I can say is that the motion has been made properly. There has been proper notice. It has been printed. It was properly moved and put before this House. I find, therefore, that there is nothing out of order and that the motion, which is a regular substantive motion, is in order.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If I may say so, we disagree on our side so fundamentally with your ruling that we have no choice but to challenge your ruling with respect to the motion being in order.

4:36 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry;

McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock;

Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 68; nays 44.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, having decided that this motion is in order, which I firmly believed it was, I understand that there is --

Mr. Martel: You bullied it through.

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, we did not bully it through. I would not bully anything through. I firmly believe that the motion is in order and notwithstanding the provision in our rules for any --

Mr. Stokes: Are you going to debate it all over again?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am not. I am going to debate the motion now. I talked on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just for the benefit of all honourable members, there is an opportunity to debate this. I called on the minister to initiate the debate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I had assumed that all three speakers, including myself, were speaking on a point of order and we are now speaking on the motion, as it is our right to do. I thank my friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). I was trying to find the quote that he had used at one time, that the House can do anything it wishes if it so decides. It was something like that I believe. In fact, at some point it becomes necessary to take certain action.

We have presented this resolution in order to bring some finality to the debate on Bill 179. It can be argued that there are a number of ways of doing this and the simple rule 36 procedure was suggested. It is more fair and much more democratic to have this House decide by a majority vote, the decision of which is shared in by all the members, as to how, in an orderly way, we can conclude a particular order of business.

In my remarks on the point of order, I showed that this House actually has considered the possibility of including in its standing orders some time allocation provision, and in its wisdom a committee of this House decided not to do it. While I was not a member of that committee, my friend from Sudbury East was and others here were, but it seems apparent that they did not feel this was a necessary thing for this House because they said that very rarely was debate ever of such a length that a time allocation motion would be needed.

Mr. Martel: You have a closure motion.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This is not a closure motion. This is time allocation, which is a sensible way of allocating time when it becomes obvious that a political impasse has been reached. We acknowledge that there is a political impasse here. The third party is opposed to a piece of legislation. We are for it. We have had 138 hours of discussion on it, in various stages.

At some particular time, a finality must come. Included in that 138 hours have been a number of hours in standing committee and a number of hours in committee of the whole House, when another party in this Legislature has not even had the opportunity to place any of its amendments.

There has been an attempt to not get down to business at the committee of the whole stage. At some time the House must come to some means of deciding how this can be brought to a conclusion. As I have indicated, this is a particular way of doing it, and I certainly see no reason why this House should not unanimously vote in favour of this particular procedure.

This procedure follows, for this House, a procedure that is used in the House of Commons, a procedure which I quite readily admit is provided for in their standing orders, and a procedure which I am still checking. I indicated in my earlier remarks there was nothing in the British House of Commons rules concerning allocation of time. It may be that there is. I have not had a chance to study it, but it has been pointed out to me in the interval that there is a section there that may apply to the House. I believed it applied only to committees, hut it may apply to the House.

The fact is that the procedure for allocation of time, when it has become apparent that the passage of a particular piece of legislation is not proceeding, and after full discussion it appears the appropriate thing to do, to establish some ground rules, the British House, the House of Commons and so forth have adopted this particular procedure.

Mr. Martel: By rule, not by vote.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend says by rule. If I can digress, I think probably we should look at some kind of a rule like that, but I am not suggesting to him we are changing the rules now. I have indicated precedents where we have done exactly the same thing and he has voted for them at times. I have indicated to him when he has voted on substantive motions that have done exactly the same thing.

It may be that we should change the rules in this area, but the fact remains, this substantive motion deals with only one bill. It does not deal with two or three bills. It does not change the standing orders. It deals with one particular bill.

It sets out a democratic way to lay out procedures for the passage of this bill. It does not attempt to change the orders. It is quite apparent that in other Houses this kind of procedure is used. I think, in considering the situation we now find ourselves in regarding Bill 179, it gives us an opportunity in this House to use a procedure, see how it will work and then next year when we review our rules--and I hope we will review the rules of this House because I think they have to be reviewed -- it can be considered.

Mr. Renwick: No, no, that is the last thing we need.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend says we are not going to review the rules. I think most people would agree that the time has come to review the rules of this House again and see if there are some changes that can be made to make this place work better.

The procedure of allocation of time has been used, I note, 12 times this year in the House of Commons --

Mr. Martel: Because there is a rule for it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It does not matter whether there is a rule or not. Why did the member not vote to put it in our rules when he had the opportunity?

Mr. Martel: Because you have a guillotine rule, you have closure. It is the same difference; a rose by any other name.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is a closure rule, this is an allocation of time rule.

It has been used 12 times. I point out to members of this House that among the 12 times the allocation of time procedure was used in the House of Commons this year were all the various stages of the federal restraint bill. It was used, I believe, on second reading; notice was given at the committee stage, but it was not necessary to put it; it was used at the report and third reading stages. It has been used as recently as last week on a current bill concerning pensions that is before the House of Commons.

I would submit to members it takes away none of the rights of the majority, the minority or the members of this House. It removes none of their rights. It sets out a procedure whereby we can effectively deal with this piece of legislation. It provides that after the passage of this motion on this particular bill, there will be one more sessional day of committee of the whole hearings.

Just as an aside, I make a plea to my friends to work out a procedure somehow to allow the various amendments to be considered and heard. I think it behooves the members of the third party to consider allowing the members of the official opposition to have at least some of the time to put some of their amendments. There is no question the NDP has really deprived the official opposition, so far for three weeks in committee downstairs and for several days up here in the chamber, of the opportunity to put its amendments. I think the responsibility for that must rest on their shoulders.

The motion provides for a one-sessional-day debate on the report procedure and a one- sessional-day debate on third reading, all three to be concluded with divisions, if necessary, with a 10-minute bell.

Some people will say that perhaps the use of the 10-minute bell device is not in keeping with the standing orders. We have many provisions in our standing orders which set times on bells. I point out to my friends that a 10-minute bell is just as much a hardship on government as it is on opposition or opposing parties. It means that all of us must be here within 10 minutes to vote.

4:50 p.m.

We have a five-minute bell on confidence motions. We have 10-minute bells on stacked motions. We have a half-hour bell in our standing orders on agreed-to votes. The procedures, the policy, the precedent of having bell times is well accepted within our standing orders. I believe it can be accepted in this motion.

If I can find the paper that I want here, I noticed a quote here which I thought -- oh, I cannot find it. I cannot find the exact quote I was looking for, but it concerned some remarks made at one time by the leader of the New Democratic Party, who said that he was concerned if any pattern of conduct should be seen to unilaterally hijack or impose a straitjacket on the Legislature of this province.

I must tell members with great regret, although they will not agree with me, the kind of conduct that is now being put forward in the committees and the bills is hijacking and imposing constraints on the operation of this Legislature. I say that because I regret it. I believe that the members who sit on that side do not want to see this. I think they believe we should be able to operate here.

Considering the fact that the public perception of us, all of us, is low enough at the present time -- they feel we are incapable of operating or of doing anything here -- we have to show them that this body, as a Legislature, can operate. We can get things done. We can pass things. We can have philosophical and political differences. We can argue those differences but those differences should not put this Legislature in a straitjacket. That is the position it is in at this time.

I could continue at length, but perhaps I should indicate one of the things that has not been said here is that we have not tried to get time limits. The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) indicated that a panel of House leaders should work on the matter of time limits and procedures and so forth. We worked on trying to get time limits. We tried to get procedures. We tried to get some orderly passage of this bill, but that was not possible.

I do not say that we should have, necessarily. There will be times when we do not arrive at that kind of consensus in the panel of House leaders or in any other interparty panel in this House, but that is no reason for not bringing in this kind of motion. This kind of motion must then come. Indeed, it is the kind of motion that is provided for in the House of Commons rules even after there is no agreement.

We have already been through the arguments about whether this motion is in order or not in order. The House has found that it is in order. Therefore, I submit that it is a proper course of action now, having tried to achieve some orderly way after 138 hours of debate, to conclude this particular matter so we can move ahead with a number of other very important matters, not the least of them being the bill from my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) and perhaps some other very important bills that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and others will want to introduce that must come in through this House.

My friends will say, "Bring those bills in and set this to the side." That is straitjacketing this Legislature. That is not what we want to do. We bring this motion forward. As I began to say a few minutes ago and as I have said to a number of people since we brought it in, in their hearts all members of this House want to see a way out of the debate on this motion. We offer them that way now. I believe they would be well disposed to vote for this motion and conclude this debate in a fairly expeditious manner.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for speaking long enough for me to get back because I do want to participate in this debate, though not at great length. I would like to share my thoughts, some of which are personal and others of which are on behalf of my party. I hope that out of this experience we have found ourselves involved in -- speaking personally, it is the first time that I have seen a dilemma of this type in my six or seven years here -- we will learn something for the future. I think there are good things and probably bad things we can learn.

One of the things that impresses me is the fragility of this institution known as parliament that is steeped in tradition. There are hundreds of years of parliamentary precedent. There is probably no institution that has had more written about it. We are the focal point of democracy itself. What we recognize is that even under the most well-crafted rules, one group can hold the rest of parliament to ransom.

I share with my colleague the member for Renfrew North a respect for the sincerity of the views held by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. Their position is clear and they have made it amply well. There are other competing interests in this discussion today and as concerned legislators we must think about them some time, probably through the device of the procedural affairs committee.

We have to ask ourselves if any one group should have that right and, if so, for how long. I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker: Supposing the government had not acted today, what would have happened? The reality is that probably we could be here a year or two from now on clause 1(a), 2(b) or whatever. In a sense, I understand the government had limited options, but I also think that, as my colleague quoted me earlier as saying, difficult cases make bad law. We now have a precedent that will be quoted back to all of us in the future and we will remember the debate attendant thereto.

I have some sympathy for the options that were available to the government. I wish very much that it had not been necessary. As my colleague pointed out, there were other options. That is why we cannot support this motion for closure, guillotine, phase closure, time allocation or whatever one wants to call it. That being said, it is a motion to limit debate.

The New Democratic Party has to reflect very seriously on its responsibility, as every legislator does. There are lots of things we object to. How far they push that, how far they use every available rule -- there are still a number of rules they can use if they want to hold up this debate and really bring parliament to its knees -- is the essential judgement call we have to make. There is no way one can write rules to make this place function. The only way to really function well is through the panel of House leaders. Ultimately, that is the bottom line. Ultimately, that is the only thing that is going to make it go.

5 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: You would rather ring bells?

Mr. Peterson: My friend refers to our bell- ringing incident of some time ago, and I remember very well the statement of the leader of that party at the time, who said, "I am always concerned when any group of individuals unilaterally hijacks or imposes a pattern of conduct on a legislature."

I do not like it when the government does it, and I do not know when anybody does like it. We argued then, as they argue now, that everything we did was legitimate under the rules. We did not violate any rules; we bent the rules to serve a purpose that we felt was valid at the time, as they have done. I am not suggesting for a moment that they have done anything up until this time that is illegal or violates the rules. They have used the rules to make a political point.

One can speculate as to the motives; one can speculate as to their constituency, who is demanding what of them. That is irrelevant at this point. The point is that they have used the rules, I would suggest, and it is a judgement call that they have abused their situation, whereas I would argue in our own particular case we have not. I just think there is a profound difference between holding up parliament for two and a half months and holding it up for a matter of some four and a half hours.

The member may not agree with that distinction. He may well not, and a number of others obviously do not. They see the two things as synonymous, perhaps. I see a difference between two and a half months and four or five and a half hours, as was the case last spring on the budget. So everyone is entitled to draw his own conclusions in that regard.

The other thing we have done is to force an inward-looking parliament. We are now preoccupied with our own rules rather than with the great issues of the day, which, in my experience at least, have never been more severe. Never have we had more severe problems that we have to address our minds to, and we have occupied so much intellectual and political energy filibustering in committee, debating in committee, holding up on votes, walking out, procedural motions -- on and on and on to make the point.

Ultimately I respect, and I think all members have to respect, their own positions, which are a reflection of the voters' wishes. The reality is, as much as I dislike it, that the Conservatives have a majority; they have the right to govern. I have the right to pursue the most vigorous opposition that I can pursue, and the longer I am here the more I believe very strongly that the opposition is the only thing that stands between government and the sheer, naked use of power. It is the only check we have in the system, and I believe it is our responsibility to exercise it in as responsible a way as we can.

How does one make those assessments? Ultimately, the electorate will decide, because there is no judge in this House. One can make all the noises one wants, and ultimately they will decide and we will be up for review in 1984 or 1985. So we have to balance our right to oppose versus the government's right to govern. That is why in all these difficult judgements that we have to make we regret very much what the government has had to do and at the same time have some sympathy for what I consider a tremendous overreaction of the New Democratic Party in this case.

I want to address that for just a moment. My colleague the member for Renfrew North spoke about why we oppose the closure motion, the time allocation motion. We think it is an unfortunate precedent. We think it should have been settled by a panel of the House leaders, and, unlike the government House leader (Mr. Wells), I would not give up on the possibility, working together through the procedural affairs committee, of rediscussing some of these rules.

I hope they have some application in the future. It is one thing to discuss the functioning of those rules in the abstract; it is another thing to discuss them when we have a specific case before us, when we have all just gone through two and a half months, some of it a relatively fruitless exercise and some of it a complete waste of time. Others would argue, of course, that it was a waste of time towards a more legitimate cause.

Speaking for myself and for our party, I say that part of our responsibility in pursuing what I hope to be a vigorous opposition is that we want to amend the bill and make it better. We regret very much that we have been precluded by certain kinds of behaviour from having that kind of discussion.

The New Democratic Party now is on the horns of a dilemma. It knows the bill is going to go through. It always knew it was going to go through, but it had to put up the appearance to the real masters, the Sean O'Flynns and the Cliff Pilkeys, that at least it was trying. But now it knows it is going to go through. We knew that from the beginning. That is a political reality; one did not have to be a doctor of philosophy to figure what was going to happen with the bill. Our view was, let us try to improve it.

We have always taken the view that one of the responses to our economic problems should have been a complete wage and price control program. We have been fighting hard to bring equity into this bill to include prices, rents, hydro bills, doctors -- the list goes on and on. We regret now that we will have very little time, if any, to discuss those; and there is no guarantee whatsoever we will even have a chance to discuss them, because the New Democratic Party may still want to discuss clause 1(a).

We regret the use of closure and the fact we are being punished for the NDP behaviour. We believe that a rational, sensible approach to this whole matter is being precluded from being discussed because of government overreaction to a series of irresponsible behaviours. That is why we in the Liberal Party have a considerable amount of frustration at this time.

Even the people the NDP members think they are supporting, support a number of the amendments that we have in mind. Teachers and a number of other groups have come to us and, recognizing as we do that the bill ultimately will pass into law, they would like us to fight in certain areas to make the bill more equitable. We are happy to carry that responsibility.

I do not know the NDP position on that. On the one hand, it says it wants the bill completely withdrawn because it is so flawed, but on the other hand it says it may amend it.

The reality, as I understand it from our House leader, is that we have two and a half hours to discuss amendments. The amendments we have in mind are substantive as well as the government's amendments. They go to the heart of the matter, and we think they would have improved it very substantially. This bill, in its broad application, not only is a closure on the New Democratic Party and some of its antics, if I can use that word, but also is a closure on what we consider responsible additions to this piece of legislation.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, in a way I regret what has happened today, but I think both good and bad can come out of it. The bad that is coming out of this is that we have established a precedent for the future. The good that is coming out of it, I hope, is that we recognize the fragility of this institution. We recognize that all parties must co-operate, and that is the only way this institution can run. It is to be hoped that we can put this into the hands of the standing committee on procedural affairs so that this kind of situation will not arise again.

Mr. Martel: Is that like walking out of the House for five days and letting the bells ring?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Peterson: I am getting all this political macho from the people to my left. I understand that party's terrible frustration. Believe me, I understand the frustration of opposition just as well, and perhaps better, than they do.

I also recognize that we in our party are lucky that we have no other masters except the people. We do not have to run out of here and account to Sean O'Flynn. We do not have to get them up here hissing in the gallery to support us. That is why the New Democratic Party never will be trusted to govern, because it is not its own master. Its members are the political boys for the union bosses.

5:10 p.m.

One does not have to be very intelligent to understand that the government House leader is right; the New Democratic Party was just dying for a way out of this thing. I am sure they were even embarrassed by their own behaviour. They could not have asked the government more eloquently to remove them from the horns of the dilemma upon which they had impaled themselves. That is a reality. They know it and we all know it. They have been just as responsible as the government in creating some bad precedents.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It's important to know your enemy, and you're misleading us.

Mr. Peterson: Well, if I had to chose which was more offensive, the New Democratic Party or the government party, it would be an awful choice, because they are equally bad in the circumstances. I would have serious trouble having that party and the people it fronts for running this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have exercised them enough; they are getting a little excited. I do not want to get my friend involved in another lawsuit that he is going to have to retract from, so at this point I am going to withdraw. But as we vote against this bill and as we reflect on the lessons of this great procedural impasse. I hope that over the next period of time we will come out of this a stronger and more effective Legislature.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, that savage attack from the Leader of the Opposition is obviously something we will have the greatest difficulty recovering from. We have been gummed to death before.

Mr. Epp: Tell us what you said.

Mr. Ruston: Where's Cliff Pilkey?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I can understand why the leader of the Liberal Party spent more of his time attacking the New Democratic Party than he did the government of the day. When a government of the day introduces a motion without precedent in the history of this Legislature, and the leader of the official opposition spends two minutes saying he does not think it is a very good idea and spends the rest of his time attacking the third party in this Legislature, that is the day the official opposition loses its right to be called the official opposition.

The leader of the Liberal Party attacked the trade union movement. He attacked the leadership of the trade union movement, which is elected. He attacked the members of the trade union movement who have spent time in this assembly watching this debate. He has nothing better to do than to attack the very people who are being affected by this legislation.

There is a good reason for that. Once he got his orders from Allan MacEachen in June, the leader of the Liberal Party spent the entire summer telling the Premier (Mr. Davis) to do for Ontario what Pierre Trudeau has been doing for Canada. What an apologetic performance from the Liberal Party; what an apologetic performance by the leader of the official opposition.

When faced with legislation which affects the most fundamental rights of working people in this province, the only response we had from the Liberal Party was that the legislation did not go far enough. That is the sum total of their anger. That is real opposition for you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not good enough for them that the rights of more than 500,000 working people have been taken away. They want to make sure it applies right across the board so that workers in Windsor. St. Catharines, London and right across the province will be treated with the same disrespect and contempt that this government is showing for its own workers in the public sector.

It is an absolutely appalling statement when the leader of --

Mr. Riddell: Cluck, cluck.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: That sounds like a Liberal talking. That is chicken talk, and it is worthy of a chicken performance by the official opposition with respect to this bill. It is a chicken performance. This is nothing but a Tory rump. This is nothing but the junior league team.

They were passing compliments back and forth and carrying the ball for each other. The government House leader could not say enough to defend the rights of the official opposition and "Wouldn't it be a great idea if we could all bend over backwards?" since the government is giving only two and a half hours for a discussion of this in committee of the whole. "Wouldn't it be nice if the New Democratic Party decided to sit back and let the official opposition put their amendments?"

Let me say to the government House leader, he has introduced a measure, this motion that is before us today, which we believe is without precedent; it is a closure motion that affects the ability of all members of the House, regardless of which side they are on, to put their case with respect to this bill. He has restricted the rights of all the members of the Legislature. He has restricted the rights of members of both the official opposition and our party, and I can tell him that we have absolutely no intention of sitting back --

Mr. Elston: And letting anybody do anything.

Mr. Rae: No. We have no intention of sitting back and letting this bill go through this Legislature unchallenged at its very foundation.

Who has been stonewalling this legislation?

An hon. member: You have.

Mr. Rae: The government.

Mr. Wrye: You have, first in committee and then here in the House.

Mr. Kerrio: Where's Stephen Lewis when you need him? You're gasping like a fish out of water. You're flapping around there.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I can understand the members of the Liberal Party. I can understand their sensitivity. We still do not know what the position of the Liberal Party is with respect to this bill. If I listen to the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) I get a completely different feeling of what the response is going to be than if I listen to the leader of the official opposition. We have no idea where the Liberal Party stands with respect to this bill.

We made two fundamental requests at the committee stage of this bill. Since this legislation affects the very foundation and root of collective bargaining and collective rights and freedoms, we asked the government whether it would be possible for the Minister of Labour to be present before the committee and to be cross-examined to give us an indication of what impact he sees this legislation having on the structure and foundation of collective bargaining.

I do not think that was an unreasonable request. If I remember correctly, it was a request that even had support for a time, it would appear, or at least in a tentative or momentary way, along the lines of: "Well, it might be a good idea. We do not know exactly which direction we should take on this bill. Perhaps there will be help even from the Liberal Party itself."

This bill has nothing to do with the control of inflation. It has everything to do with labour relations and collective bargaining, and that is the reason we asked that the Minister of Labour be there. The government said no.

The second fundamental request we made was with respect to a response from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) concerning the impact of this legislation on due process and on freedom of association in this province.

When I asked that question of the Attorney General in this House, he said he was not sure whether there was a written opinion. He thought there was, but he had not seen it himself. However, he had some kind of discussion with a number of individuals at some point -- he could not remember exactly when; perhaps it was before or after a hockey game, but he did not tell us -- indicating that he thought there was no problem about freedom of association.

We happen to think in our party that this bill does have an impact on freedom of association, that it does affect some very fundamental constitutional rights that have been recognized not only by this Legislature but also by the Parliament of Canada and by the Parliament of Britain. We believe that the question we have raised is such that as an opposition party we are entitled to a response to that question. We have had no response.

5:20 p.m.

The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) gave a speech on second reading; there was no response. I gave a speech outside the Legislature -- admittedly that was the only place I could give it at that time -- and there was no response. We asked questions in the committee; there was no response. We asked questions in question period; there was no response. We asked questions when the government invoked closure and brought it back to the committee of the whole House; there was still no response.

This is not a government which is listening or responding to some very fundamental and basic requests from our party with respect to this legislation. This is a government which introduces a motion that has absolutely no precedent in this Legislature; it cuts off committee of the whole discussion, it cuts off report-stage discussion and it cuts of third reading discussion. This is a government which says it is not introducing closure. It is correct; it is introducing closure not just once but three times. So it is not a closure motion; it is a triple closure motion, that is what it is.

This government has some nerve giving advice to our party with respect to how we might proceed when it comes to considering the matter in committee of the whole, at report stage or at third reading. Let the government at least take this responsibility. The government has introduced legislation that is offensive, and not only to the labour movement. The leader of Liberal Party is so out of touch, he has so little understanding of the nature of the labour movement or the nature of the people who built those democratic institutions --

Mr. Bradley: Don't be so condescending.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I can understand why the member for St. Catharines is embarrassed. He is embarrassed and that is why he is heckling. I know the source of his embarrassment, and I understand his embarrassment. He is embarrassed because he has a leader who does not understand anything about the trade union movement. The member has been trying to educate his leader about it, but he just will not listen to what he has to say. I can understand that embarrassment.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: He is listening to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) instead.

Mr. Rae: That is right. He is listening to those people who do not understand that the labour movement is a democratic movement, that its leaders are elected and that it deserves respect -- that is all -- as being able to speak for --

Mr. Peterson: They are elected and they appoint you.

Mr. Bradley: That's called a turn of phrase, Bob.

Mr. Peterson: You can't come up with an answer. Think of another one.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The interruptions should stop, and the honourable member who has the floor is speaking to government notice of motion 10.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting accusation by the leader of the Liberal Party. It is a base and inaccurate accusation, and he knows it. He knows full well that there were more delegates freely elected at our convention than there were at his.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is speaking to the government motion.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I ask honourable members to respect the fact that the member for York South has the floor. The interruptions will stop now.

Mr. Kerrio: You didn't do that for our member.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I tried then too.

Mr. Rae: It has been mentioned many times that I was in another assembly, which is true. When I was there I sat, not in the front row, but in the second row. To my right was the Conservative Party. I must say the behaviour and the kind of attacks on the trade union movement, on our party and on the nature of social democracy and of democratic institutions have a very familiar ring.

Mr. Peterson: If you can't stand it, you shouldn't be here.

Mr. Rae: Indeed, when the leader of the Liberal Party went to school at the knee of Joe Clark and decided the very best tactic he could dream up was one that was derivative of Joe Clark, I came to realize just how desperate and out of touch the Liberal Party is in Ontario, just how bankrupt the Liberal Party is in Ontario and just how little it has to do with the fundamental issues that are before us.

Mr. Riddell: His attack on the Liberals would indicate they are worried.

Mr. Martel: No, we will attack the government eventually.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Is it true the NDP is being paid for 30 members and only elected 22?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Everyone is taking a shot. It is now the opportunity of the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: I used to watch the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) here many years ago, and he has not changed in his attitudes or questions about the labour movement either. That is, of course, the very reason the Liberal Party is completely ambivalent and has nowhere to stand when comes not only to Bill 179 but also to the motion that is being put before the House by the government at this stage.

The leader of the Liberal Party said these things would be considered ultimately by the voters, and that is correct. These things ultimately will be considered by the voters. But until they are considered by the voters, I think it is important --

Mr. Kerrio: Is there a gas pump nearby?

Mr. Rae: Unlike the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), I have more than one gear. I do not backfire quite as often as he does either.

I want to turn to the motion that is before us today and indicate to the House why we believe in our party that no opposition party worth its salt could conceivably support such a motion: the arbitrary termination of debate and the extremely restricted closure that has been imposed on the House with respect to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I put earlier to you arguments which you rejected but which naturally I think were correct. Nevertheless, I recognize your decision, sir, as the one that will carry the day. But there are no precedents in this House with respect to the allocation of time.

It is not, I believe, open to the government to move a motion of closure unless it has the specific authority to do so from the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. It does not have that authority. There is no mention anywhere in the standing orders about the allocation of time, and the government does not have the authority to move that kind of motion.

Closure motions have been used in one sense, that the previous question be put. They were used in the House of Commons prior to 1913 and have been used in this House itself on occasion to bring a matter to a close. I am referring to the closure motions that are called for and contained in section 36.

5:30 p.m.

The government House leader said he thought we were all reasonable people, that when everybody is reasonable it should be possible for all allocations of time to be considered on a friendly basis and to be subject to the panel of the House leaders, that it should be entirely possible for all people to come to a perfectly friendly, reasonable and rational conclusion that these things can be done in time, and that the government should be allowed to do whatever it wants to do.

The government House leader knows very well that when it comes to some questions that are not contentious or that may be contentious, there is often an agreement to refer to committee. There have been agreements that matters will be considered at some length. There is agreement that matters will be considered in a variety of ways.

I submit that there is a real difference in being reasonable on matters on which some degree of consensus can be reached. Indeed, there may be a difference between the arrangements that have been arrived at in this parliament and the arrangements that were arrived at in the minority parliaments of 1975 and 1977.

I want to suggest that when it comes to certain fundamental issues about which an opposition party feels particularly strongly, there will often come times when there will be real differences of opinion with respect to the ability of the government to force its hand and to have its unilateral way with respect to that legislation.

For reasons we have described at some length, for reasons we have put forward in all good faith, we regard this legislation as a fundamental attack not only on collective bargaining but also on the rule of law, on the structure of law, and on the pattern of give and take which exists in the public sector. I am not going to repeat our views with respect to Bill 179. In a sense, this motion is a separate issue and discussion from that.

The government House leader knows perfectly well how strongly we in this party feel about that. I do not think we have ever given any indication at any time or in any way, shape or form other than to say to the leader of the government that we are completely opposed in principle to this legislation.

We are opposed to the way in which this legislation is being introduced, to the manner and the kinds of powers that are being given to the Inflation Restraint Board and to the contempt that is being shown for basic principles of natural justice and due process. We are opposed to the fact that collective agreements are being broken and shattered, and we are opposed to the fact that this legislation is different in kind from other inflation restraint legislation that has been passed in other jurisdictions at other times. This is a fundamental break with some basic principles.

In a sense, this is a somewhat unusual circumstance in the affairs of this House. When a government brings in legislation that is a fundamental breach with previous traditions of industrial law, with previous practices of industrial relations and with fundamental collective agreements that have been arrived at, normally both opposition parties express some fundamental concerns about that act and some fundamental opposition to that legislation. That has not been the case this time.

I respect the right of members of the Liberal Party to take whatever position they may feel they have to take. I realize perfectly well the kinds of pressures they are under. I know well the sorts of policies they have to follow because of the people they are beholden to. I know the phone calls that go back and forth between Ottawa and Toronto--

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: -- the very real problems that are created as a result of that special relationship which I know exists on that side. I do not want to spend too much time talking about that, but I know the difficulties the members of the Liberal Party are labouring under. Some of them are self-induced, others are --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. From what I heard, the honourable member allowed other members to voice their opinions. I think we should allow the member for York South to continue.

Mr. Rae: I am intrigued by the approach of the leader of the Liberal Party. It is intriguing that when the government introduces a bill of this nature, the anger of the official opposition would be directed at this party rather than at the government. I just find that an extremely intriguing kind of alliance that has now been created --

Mr. Speaker: Intriguing as you may find it, I ask you to speak to the motion.

Mr. Rae: This does affect the procedural motion because if at any time the Liberal Party had shown fundamental concern with questions with respect to natural justice and due process, it ties in --

Mr. Peterson: Why is he picking on us rather than the government? That is dirty pool. They are the ones who did it.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member could address himself to the motion.

Mr. Rae: I have been attempting to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: Let's make a deal.

Mr. Martel: You've made it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South.

Mr. Rae: The members who have clearly made the deal with respect to this legislation are the members of the Liberal Party and of the Conservative Party because they have come together. Mr. Speaker, with respect -- it is because these two parties have agreed on the substance of Bill 179 that the government feels it is able to introduce this kind of unprecedented motion. That is the reality.

Mr. Riddell: The only reason we still have a democracy is because there are two old-line parties.

Mr. Martel: You would like to have the cosy old days of the past, wouldn't you?

Mr. Breaugh: There used to be two old-line parties, but there is not any more. Now there is just one.

Mr. Rae: There is just one. There is this great alliance at work here. There is this great alliance. No one --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure all the members who want will be given the opportunity to speak. In the meantime, I recognize the member for York South and I would appreciate the co-operation --

Mr. Peterson: He is picking on us, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Not really -- of all the members in letting him voice his views. The member for York South, on the motion.

Mr. Rae: It is because of the agreement in substance on Bill 179 that the government feels it has the right and the moral authority to introduce the kind of motion it has introduced with respect to time allocation. That is the reality. That is why we feel as strongly as we do about the implications of the official opposition abandoning its role as an official opposition with respect to the question of rights. The question of rights in the bill is tied to the question of the attitude of the government towards the rights of the members of this assembly with respect to this legislation.

5:40 p.m.

A government that says there is nothing wrong with taking away the rights of over half a million people, that there is nothing unusual about this kind of thing, that it is a bill that has to go through by Christmas, sets up some arbitrary standards very similar to those of Liberal Party members in 1956 when they said about the pipeline, "We are sorry we cannot have a debate about the pipeline. It has got to go through by June 15, an arbitrary date set by a committee established by Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Howe and somebody else. That was the position of the government of the day.

Similarly, the position of the government of this day is that it is administratively convenient for this government to have this bill passed by December 31. That is all. That is what the government is saying: "It suits our convenience. It would make us feel better if we were able to have this bill passed by Christmas." There has been no justification whatsoever given by this government for the abrupt termination and closure that is being imposed today, no justification at all in terms of the bill itself, other than to say it has been discussed for long enough.

The judgement on whether it has been discussed long enough, according to the rules and standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, is not a decision the government is allowed under the rules, as I understand them and see them, to make unilaterally. It is a judgement that has to be made, we believe, according to the rules. This judgement has not been made according to the rules. This judgement has been made unilaterally on the basis of convenience.

A government -- and a Liberal Party that is supporting a government -- that does not take rights seriously, that does not see anything wrong in attacking freedom of association, that does not see anything wrong in attacking natural justice and taking away basic fundamental rights that have been bargained for, that does not see anything wrong in breaking the basic principle that a bargain is a bargain, is a government that is going to see nothing unusual or wrong in introducing a resolution such as the one it introduced today with respect to closure.

It is that same remarkable sense of self- satisfaction, that same remarkable sense of smugness, that allows the government to say, as the government House leader said: "We are not taking any rights away here with this resolution. We are not affecting the rights of the opposition in any way. We are not restricting their abilities in any way." I do not see how the government House leader can stand in his place and make that kind of statement.

This is closure that is imposed not once, not twice, but three times. This is a resolution that restricts, limits and eliminates the ability of any party concerned about this legislation to indicate its fundamental concerns about it.

This is a resolution that says nothing about whether the Minister of Labour and the Attorney General are going to appear before this House and have the courtesy at least to give us their opinions and an idea of what they think and how they feel about the matter before the government passes this legislation.

This is a resolution that, quite simply, for reasons of sheer administrative convenience on the part of the government, eliminates the ability of the opposition to do its job. That job is not always a popular job. Indeed, it is a job that, as has been stated by both the government House leader and the Liberal leader, requires some judgement. It is a job that requires decisions on the part of all opposition parties, indeed, on the part of every member of the House. Every member has to make a decision with regard to legislation. Members have to decide which legislation is fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, and they are going to take positions of principle with respect to that legislation.

When all is said and done, we do have a substantially different position from the government or even the official opposition with regard to this legislation.

On the wages side we think that this legislation -- we made this judgement and it is a judgement which has tempered our response to every aspect of this bill -- is fundamentally offensive to anybody who is concerned about civil liberties, and to anybody who is concerned about due process and respect of contracts in Ontario.

We made a judgement in September. We have been criticized for that judgement and we have been praised for that judgement, depending on what one's point of view happens to be. But we took the position with respect to this legislation that we found it to be so offensive and such an attack on civil liberties that our opposition had to take the form of a fundamental opposition, an opposition to the very foundation of this legislation. I make no apologies for that.

Indeed, I am surprised to hear members of the official opposition and members of the government suggesting together that somehow there is something wrong when an opposition party indicates its opposition, and follows through that opposition, always according to the rules, always according to procedure, always according to the rights that have been granted to members of the Legislature by the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly.

I find it bizarre, to put it mildly, that members of either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party would feel that there is room for agreement on this kind of legislation. I find it strange that they would somehow expect an opposition party to roll over and die.

I can understand how the Conservative Party has reached that conclusion with the Liberal Party because it rolled over and died three months ago on this legislation. We indicated at that time that we had no intention of doing that.

Mr. Kerrio: The member is going to need intravenous any time now.

Mr. Rae: That is why our opposition --

Mr. Kerrio: The member is dying on his feet.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, one has to ignore the Liberal sidecar to the Tory Harley over there. That is all they are.

Mr. Rae: I know the member for Niagara Falls is doing whatever he can to help the government in this matter. He may see that as his job. I know he sees that as his job. I know he sees it as his function to do everything he can to keep the Conservative Party in power. He sees it as his function to act as a professional apologist for the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker: I think the honourable member is being provocative.

Mr. Rae: I don't happen to think that is our job over here.

Mr. Kerrio: The member thought it was tough in Ottawa.

Mr. Rae: We are faced with a motion --

Mr. Kerrio: He thought those were the big wheels in Ottawa.

Mr. Rae: I was under no illusions when faced with the Liberal Party in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I found it strange that the government House leader would introduce this resolution with as little justification in terms of the precedent of this House, or in terms of the precedent of any other House, as has been done today. The government House leader, in making the bald statement that he was acting on the basis of precedent from Westminster, is, I believe, misstating the case.

We believe fundamentally that when it comes to such measures that affect time allocation, this kind of resolution would only be acceptable once a procedure for time allocation had been discussed by the standing committee on procedural affairs, and once there was full provision in the standing orders for this kind of motion. We say that on the basis of clear precedents, not only in Westminster but also in Ottawa.

The clear precedents with respect both to Ottawa and to Westminster are as follows -- and let us set the ground rules once again so the government understands exactly the nature of our opposition to this kind of motion.

5:50 p.m.

There is no right on the part of the majority to bring in a motion for time allocation that falls outside the standing orders of this assembly. There is absolutely no right in the majority to impose closure other than under standing order 36. Standing order 36 is quite specific with regard to the fact that questions can be called and a motion can be put that the previous question be put. That is the sum total; that is the beginning and the end of the ability of this government to impose closure.

The government may say: "That is ridiculous. We need additional powers. We need to be able to do more than that. We need to be able to allocate time." The government House leader can refer to the Camp commission and all sorts of recommendations that say the government should have that kind of power; but the fact remains, the government does not have that kind of power.

The very fact that the Camp commission referred to it and recommended it is an indication to me that the Camp commission knew we did not have that power in this assembly and that our standing orders did not provide for it, because if the standing orders did provide for it, surely the Camp commission would not have referred to it. Surely the Camp commission would have said there is a power, there is a common law right so we have no need to make any changes or additions to the standing orders of this House with respect to the allocation of time and guillotine motions such as this.

There is no power in the government. Rather than strengthening his case, the arguments that the government House leader put earlier on have in fact weakened his case.

I know the government House leader is interested in this question because he was relying so heavily on Erskine May with respect to this precedent. I want to suggest to him, sir, that the manual of procedure and the standing orders of the House of Commons in Westminster are fundamentally different from our own. Both of these documents make specific reference to the requirements the government must go through before it can introduce a time allocation motion. The very fact that they make specific reference to time allocation and our standing orders make no specific reference to time allocation, again strengthens, not weakens, the argument.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the member will just give me the number of the standing order in the British House of Commons; not a procedure, but the standing order.

Mr. Rae.: I am going to give the minister both the standing order and the manual of procedure. If he looks at the manual of procedure, pages 160 and 161, allocation of time orders, rule 221, he will see a reference there with respect to a reference of this matter to a business committee; and if he looks at the standing orders, he will see it referred to in standing order 44 at page 45.

I know very well what argument the government House leader is going to make. Because there is a time limitation attached to a time allocation order in rule 44, he is going to argue, "We have not introduced a time order with respect to this bill, so we have been more generous than they are at Westminster." But that misses the point.

The reason the standing orders of the House of Commons refer to time allocation is that it is an accepted usage and precedent in Westminster. It is something that has clearly been discussed among House leaders and is clearly being done according to the rules and procedures of the House of Commons. We have no such rules and procedures in this assembly. Our government will say, "Perhaps we should." That was the argument that was made earlier by the member for Renfrew North and by the leader of the Liberal Party as well.

For our part, we would certainly be very happy and prepared to participate in a discussion with respect to the allocation of time. I can warn the government House leader -- a warning that did not come from the official opposition, although one would have expected it would -- it is going to be difficult for us to give up the right to debate. The right to debate is, I believe, a right that is fundamental to parliamentarians, to members of this assembly. Any limitation on debate and any right to closure are things that have to be exercised with the very greatest of care. I do not think that care has been shown by the government.

The government will say: "We never anticipated there would be such a division of opinion. We never anticipated there would be such a problem with respect to a piece of legislation. This is unprecedented, because we have never had this kind of problem before." To which we can only respond: "We do not think there has ever been legislation that affects fundamental contractual rights and collective rights in quite the same way before, and that is why we are taking the position we are taking. It is because this legislation is unprecedented that we are taking the kind of action we have taken and that we are debating this matter at such length and in such a way.

It is the unprecedented nature of the legislation that we believe justifies the kind of response we have given it. As I say, that is a judgment call on our part as an opposition party. That is a judgment call that others have had to make as well, in terms of the strategies and ploys and devices they have used.

I would only say this. We intend always to follow the rules. We are not going to engage in any tricks. At no point have we ever engaged in any procedural tricks or devices. We have always stuck strictly to the rules. We are not going to get into ringing bells or hijacking anybody or taking the rights of speech away from other members or anything else. We are simply speaking to the issues. We are speaking to the fundamental concerns. We want to hear from the Minister of Labour. We want to hear from the Attorney General.

When the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) wanted to move his motion, he brought in a motion that under section 36 a previous question be now put. That motion was put. That motion was called. That motion was voted on. Every single vote that took place in the committee took place according to the rules of that committee. At no time was there any attempt by us to prevent anybody from voting or to stop any procedure from going ahead.

Mr. Jones: Or delay the issue.

Mr. Rae: There has been all along the line -- the member says "delay." I say to the honourable member, we have been doing everything we possibly can to get this government to change its mind, and that is a right he can never take away from an opposition party in this assembly: the right to convince the majority it might be wrong. I say to the honourable member who spent so much time in the committee, there are majorities and there are minorities. It is always difficult to find the appropriate balance in terms of fair procedure and a sense of fair play.

No minority in this parliament, no opposition party in this parliament, can ever give up its right to convince the majority that it just might be wrong. for all its smugness and for all its self-assurance that this kind of resolution is perfectly in order because it was typed in time and handed in on time, or that this kind of a bill is in order because it has been typed up properly and because there do not appear to be any printing errors in it. That means it is okay and should be considered and it should just fly through the committee.

The majority can never take away from the minority the right to convince that majority it might just be wrong, and maybe it should start listening to some of the arguments that have been raised. And, instead of accusing us of stonewalling, maybe it should recognize that there may be some substance in the questions about freedom of association raised by my friend the member for Riverdale. There may be something about the impact of this on collective bargaining.

Maybe the members opposite should think about that. Maybe they should respond to that, instead of introducing this strangulation measure, which is simply going to have the effect of closing off debate and of preventing the government from being held accountable for what is without question one of the most serious attacks on contractual rights, due process and collective rights in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps this would be a convenient time to move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. Rae, the debate was adjourned.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before moving the adjournment of the House, I should indicate that the House will proceed with this order of business tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow evening.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

8 décembre 1982