Journal des débats 1984-juin-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) has very appropriately brought to the attention of this House outstanding young amateur athletes who represent Ontario.

The Bobcaygeon Bantams recently won the all-Ontario D hockey championship and are here today in the members' gallery accompanied by their coach, manager and members of the Bobcaygeon village council. They are all champions. I am sure members would want to welcome them here today.

ELECTION ANNIVERSARIES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the members to join me in offering our best wishes to the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) and the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of their first election to this House on June 11, 1959.

It is good to know both gentlemen are in fine health and continuing to enjoy their respective responsibilities. We wish them many more years of happiness in public service and personal life.

I might add that last Saturday, June 9, marked the 29th anniversary of the first election of the man who continues to serve as the "father of the House" or the most senior member, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton). I know the House was pleased he was able to attend the recent D-Day 40th anniversary remembrance events in Normandy with other representatives, including the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick).

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will join for a moment in the happy tributes being paid today to some of our esteemed colleagues who have survived in this institution for a goodly number of years, a lot longer than some of us are going to survive here, believe me.

I am delighted to pay tribute to my esteemed colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who today celebrates 25 years in this House. There is no other member with a sense of commitment and duty similar to that displayed by my colleague. He has served dutifully and well. As members know, he is in excellent health, and I fully expect he will be here for another 25 years as well.

It is typical of my colleague that he is too modest to be here to receive all this attention. He is one of the great attenders in this House and it is an aberration he is not here today. He will get a copy of my remarks in Hansard, suitably framed in a scroll with as many signatures as we can get to say collectively -- not just from the members of my party but I am sure from the members of all parties in this House -- he has done a good job and served the people of Ontario well. All those in this business, knowing the vagaries and the uncertainties of political life, respect anyone who has lasted that long, even if he happens to be a Premier in some particular cases.

My colleague the member for Wellington South, who was alluded to by the minister, the real dean of us all, represented the government of Ontario in an official capacity at the D-Day commemorations. We could not be more proud to have him as one of our official representatives, along with the government House leader, to take our best wishes to those ceremonies.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, according to the Globe and Mail of June 11, 1959, it was a very hot and muggy day. The paper ran the important news, "Own Dog Stains Rug; Insurers Must Pay." The Toronto Daily Star ran a story on election day that pointed out that the Canadian dollar was up to $1.04. How long ago that seems.

I cannot help noticing that on June 11, the then member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, Mr. Grossman, the police having taken down 500 election signs they believed had been put up improperly, which subsequently they were told was not the case, issued a pre-emptive strike. "Last night the CCF had a few gangs of beatniks, and that is all you could call them, a bunch of young teen-age punks pulling down my signs." That was in the Tely, I want to point out.

We were told on June 11 that butter was 59 cents a pound -- this is almost like ancient history -- porterhouse steak was 79 cents a pound and lean minced beef was 39 cents a pound.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That was before Mel was around.

Mr. Rae: That was before the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) was elected.

The next day there were articles by one Frank Drea, the Telegram staff reporter, saying the election marked "the kiss of death" for the new party.

Buried somewhere in the Toronto Telegram on the next day was a small article under the headline, "Metro Fringe Ridings: Tradition Decides Tight Battles." There was discussion of a number of ridings and then the small headline, "Same Old Story." It went on to say:

"In Ontario and Peel it was the same old Conservative story. Despite a couple of aeronautical storm centres, it was smooth flying for PC Peel Bill Davis, who at 29" -- count them -- "will be one of the youngest at Queen's Park. Lawyer Bill bucked Avro Arrow discontent and the Malton airport land expropriation hassles to win in the best Tom Kennedy tradition."

The Telegram says he whipped his opponent by 2,000 votes. I want to say for the record that when I won by 2,500 votes it was described as a "squeaker."

The member for Peel, who of course today is the member for Brampton, made a couple of interventions fairly early in his career, but I just want to quote from one, which was a speech on the budget, March 28, 1961, to show how little things have really changed. I want to read this sentence; it is all one sentence. He is talking about government spending and this is what he says: "I am the first to agree that in a period of expansion, government spending must of necessity keep pace; yet I believe it is time to assess the demands presently being made on government and obviously what the demands will be and what our position should be in view of what are the inevitable future demands."

2:10 p.m.

One of my predecessors said, "The people of Ontario can scarcely dislike what they cannot comprehend." I think the record started just about 25 years ago is one that has been playing on and off for many years since then.

On behalf of our party, I want to rise to wish the Premier well on the 25th anniversary of his election to this place. We wish the very best to the member for Windsor-Walkerville as he celebrates the same anniversary, and we wish our very best to the member for Wellington South, the member for Guelph, of whom we all think with so much affection. We are so glad to see him back in the House in good health and so proud of the way he was able to represent us overseas very recently.

It is a great honour to be a representative in this Legislature. We all think back to our first election as a time of great moment in our lives. We would like to wish these members well for the next 25, 30 or 50 years. I am sure the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) will join with me in wishing the Premier another good, healthy, 25 years as the member for Brampton.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BICENTENNIAL QUILT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the order of speaking was not planned.

It is my pleasant duty to extend to the honourable members an invitation to a special bicentennial event to take place in this building this afternoon. In connection with this, I would like to introduce to my colleagues two guests we have with us today. They are seated in the Speaker's gallery, and I would ask them to stand. They are Mrs. Charlotte Johnson, president of the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, and Mrs. Janet Hiepleh, past president of the FWIO and also a member of the Ontario Bicentennial Advisory Commission.

They are here representing the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario to present a wall hanging to the people of Ontario. There were about 200 individuals involved in this project, and the finished product is a fine tribute to their skills. The wall hanging is a combined effort of FWIO members from 48 counties and districts across the province. It is typical of the spirit of this organization, whose members have given of themselves in this way to celebrate Ontario's bicentennial.

The women's institutes are organizations of which we can all be justly proud. Started in Stoney Creek close to 90 years ago, they have become the largest women's organization in the whole world. I invite the members to join with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), the parliamentary assistant to the Premier and member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), and myself as we accept this work of art on behalf of all the people of Ontario. The unveiling ceremony will take place this afternoon at 3:30 p.m. on the third floor between the public galleries.

RAPID TRANSIT

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, back in October 1982 I announced the province's strategy for an interregional rapid transit network that would serve the area between Oshawa and Hamilton. In that announcement I outlined our desire for a co-ordinated approach to the future development of transit services, an approach that would give the municipalities an opportunity to integrate their local systems with an interregional rapid transit program.

As part of that plan, I described proposed extensions to the existing GO Transit lakeshore line, one linking Oakville to Hamilton in the west and another connecting Pickering to Oshawa in the east. These extensions were seen as the first application of the advanced light rail transit, or ALRT, technology developed by the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and would serve as the initial stage in the eventual construction of an electrified system on the lakeshore route.

I also outlined our proposal for an east-west rapid transit line that would extend across the north of Metro Toronto, connecting Pickering to Oakville and servicing the Scarborough Civic Centre, the North York City Centre, northern Etobicoke, the airport and the Mississauga City Centre. In addition, I announced our intention to work closely with the railways to determine what capacity improvements are possible on the existing lakeshore rail system. At the same time, I announced we would identify an alignment for the ultimate GO-ALRT system on its own right of way in the lakeshore corridor.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide a progress report to the members on developments that have impacted on this strategy during the intervening 20 months. First of all, I am happy to report we are making significant advances on the initial phase of the GO-ALRT program, as evidenced by the imminent start of construction on the eastern extension from Pickering to Oshawa.

The first contract was awarded recently, with work scheduled to begin this month on grading and drainage for a 7.2-kilometre section of guideway. This initial track segment will be used to test this new line of vehicle and system controls and will give us an early opportunity to see the advanced light rail vehicles in operation. This year another four contracts will be awarded for the Pickering-to-Oshawa extension, followed by three more in 1985.

As work gets under way on the eastern extension, I feel this might be an appropriate time to thank publicly the Durham regional council and the municipalities of Pickering, Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa for the co-operation they have given us in the early stages of this project.

Meanwhile, however, there has been some speculation concerning our planning activities on the proposed route through north Metro. I would like to assure the House that this planning is continuing. Members will recall I informed them in October 1982 that the province would be working with the Toronto Transit Commission, Metro Toronto and other affected municipalities to select possible future alignments for this service. These investigations are currently being conducted and are proceeding well. In fact, as part of this overall joint effort, we have received from the staff of the TIC an extensive review of local rapid transit proposals.

This report indicates that the immediate concern of the TTC is the Sheppard Avenue corridor, which is already one of the most heavily travelled transit routes in the municipality and is increasing at a rate greater than any other route served by the TTC. The recommendations therefore call for a rapid transit service along Sheppard, stretching from a proposed station on the extended Spadina subway line to the Scarborough Civic Centre with a link to the Pickering-Oshawa GO-ALRT. Another line is proposed along Eglinton running from the Spadina subway to the vicinity of the airport, with consideration of a future link to the Mississauga City Centre.

In response to these recommendations, I am prepared to lend support through the municipal transit subsidy program to the planning and implementation of these two proposed routes. I concur with the TTC's observation that the provision of these transit services will promote the desired development of the North York and Scarborough city centres, as well as improve the overall transit accessibility in north Metro.

Because of the nature of the ridership on these routes, the most cost-effective method of proceeding with our strategy to integrate municipal and interregional systems is to support the TTC plan. We believe their proposals will provide efficient service for the increased volumes of local traffic in these corridors. The combined effect of these proposed rapid transit lines will be to establish a service across the northern part of Metro Toronto that will meet local needs and, at the same time, keep pace with requirements for interregional transit in the immediate future.

We will, of course, continue with our joint study to determine a future corridor for the GO-ALRT line through north Metro to ensure that an appropriate interregional service can be put in place when this transit need develops.

Meanwhile, on the subject of the western extension of GO-ALRT service along the lakeshore, I outlined in 1982 my intentions to proceed with plans for a line between Oakville and Hamilton. So far we have been successful in defining an alignment and obtaining municipal support for the Oakville-Burlington sections. However, considerable concern has been expressed by individuals and organizations over a route into the city of Hamilton.

The technical advisory committee has established a preferred alignment. We are awaiting the decisions of the Hamilton city council and the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council regarding its proposal. As I am sure members can appreciate, no design or construction commitments can be made until this issue is resolved.

2:20 p.m.

Turning our attention to the lakeshore line, in 1982 I directed GO Transit to work with Canadian National on identifying possibilities for short-term improvements to the existing service. Since then the two organizations have been investigating ways to accommodate the anticipated growth in travel between Pickering and Oakville.

We are now aware of problems and opportunities on the line, and it appears from our discussions with CN that increased service is possible with minimal funding through the addition of extra trains. Furthermore, representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit are currently working together to look at future commuter demands on the lakeshore route, recognizing that there is a variety of passenger needs in this highly congested corridor. This particularly applies to the central waterfront area, where major developments are envisaged.

We are also continuing our co-operative studies with the railways to investigate all opportunities involving the use of this vital rail corridor for long-term interregional rapid transit requirements.

I want to reiterate our position that we are committed to an interregional rapid transit system that will serve the Golden Horseshoe area well into the future. The system and its accompanying Ontario-produced technology are still at the centre of our commitment to give the region the kind of modern, economical rapid transit system it deserves.

AMERICAN MOTORS AUTOMOBILE PLANT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of bringing to the Legislature this afternoon more important news about automotive investment in Ontario.

A week ago today the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) stood before this House to tell members that the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) was in Ottawa announcing with the federal Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion that the first Japanese vehicle assembly plant to be built anywhere in Canada was coming to Alliston, Ontario. Subsequently, notice came from General Motors of a $255-million investment in its St. Catharines engine plant.

This afternoon the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Industry and Trade are at the American Motors plant in Brampton, where they, along with American Motors president Jose Dedeurwaerder and the Honourable Ed Lumley, are announcing a federal-provincial agreement with American Motors Corp. to establish a state-of-the-art car assembly facility in Brampton.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just one out of 125? That is the first time the honourable member has shown some leadership, and he could not get any followers.

This is a $764-million project. The government contribution will be a maximum of $121 million, to be shared equally between the federal and Ontario governments. A royalty payment on the cars produced at Brampton will provide a return on the crown's assistance.

The new plant is scheduled to open in July 1987. It will manufacture a new line of intermediate-sized cars under a North American product mandate. American Motors expects annual sales to exceed 150,000 cars by 1990, more than five times Brampton's current production.

The project involves more than 7,000 jobs. Twelve hundred people now work at the Brampton plant, and the new plant itself will employ about 1,800 more. A further 4,200 jobs in satellite parts facilities and other Canadian parts industries are expected.

The announcements of Honda locating in Alliston and American Motors building a new facility in Brampton are the results of federal-provincial co-operation. Further, they show the high regard for this province held by major automobile manufacturers throughout the world.

All the Big Four auto manufacturers of North America have now made commitments to upgrade and modernize plant and production facilities in Ontario to meet worldwide automotive challenges. We hope Honda is only the first of the Japanese vehicle manufacturers to see the benefits of locating in Ontario. We welcome this American Motors initiative, which, with its Renault connection, brings an important European auto maker to our province.

In few other industries has the impact of economic transformation been more evident than in the automotive sector. Our automobile manufacturers have faced the pressures of aggressive international competition and are now helping to lead Ontario's economic expansion. These major investments will provide new jobs and opportunities throughout the province and will further strengthen the cornerstone of our industrial base. This major AMC investment in Brampton is truly a great testimony to the strength of our economy and our continued recovery.

I might add that it is a bit of a personal triumph for our Premier.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: When I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) last week, I could not hear his answer because of the interjections. I checked through Hansard and noted that he answered a rather embarrassing question with an old phrase we have all heard many times, "a battle of the wits with an unarmed opponent." Regarding the minister's self-designation as a wit, he is half right.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources with respect to government policy on the use of government aircraft. I would like him, as the minister responsible, to answer several questions.

There is no doubt that he is aware of the Manual of Administration rule in this matter and that it has been broken by the private trip of two ministers of the crown as well as a senior civil servant. What is the policy with respect to the private use of aircraft for members or cabinet ministers? In this instance, who gave the authorization, how much was the bill, who was charged and who is paying for it?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has the manual, so he knows what the policy is. He also knows it is the individual minister's responsibility with respect to the use of aircraft. If he wants to engage in a debate with the Premier (Mr. Davis) on that issue, instead of congratulating him on what has been happening in the automotive industry in this province, that is up to him.

Mr. Peterson: The responsibility is constantly juggled among the Minister of Natural Resources, the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) and various other ministers, and no one takes responsibility for the violations of the Manual of Administration. In this case --

Hon. Mr. Brandt: There are no violations.

Mr. Peterson: Of course there are. The honourable member should read it. The member has never read it. If he had, he would know there are wholesale violations going on.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I want the minister to confirm what a government source has told us, that the billing rate for that aircraft is $304 an hour. In this case the total bill for the parties who used that aircraft would come to about $450. Yet if one compared that with private, chartered aircraft, Flightexec would charge $1,600 to $1,700, Central Airways would charge $1,600 to $1,650 and Toronto Airways would charge about $1,900 for equivalent flights.

How can the government justify chartering aircraft to members of the crown at a cut rate, obviously subsidized by the taxpayers of this province?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can justify the statement that it is a cut rate. It is on a cost-recovery basis. If the honourable member says it is a cut rate, I presume he has the statistics to back it up. It is obvious we are in the last two weeks of the session when this is the member's leadoff question.

The responsibility for the use of government aircraft, which is a service the Ministry of Natural Resources provides, lies in the hands of the individual ministers who seek to use government aircraft. They are the ones who, as always, account to the House for their use.

Mr. Peterson: As the minister in charge of the provincial aircraft fleet, would the Minister of Natural Resources not agree that he has a responsibility in this matter, or is he denying all responsibility for this violation of the Manual of Administration? Is the minister saying it is not his fault or it is the fault of his colleague who is sitting beside him? Is it the Premier's fault? Who is responsible for this violation of the Manual of Administration?

Hon. Mr. Pope: First of all, the word "violation" is the Leader of the Opposition's, not mine. It is my responsibility to provide a service to members of the cabinet and the government's to authorize personnel to use aircraft. We can go right back to the early 1970s on this one, before I was in the House. The responsibility for answering for the use of government aircraft lies with the individual ministers.

CHRONIC CARE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister is no doubt aware of the increase in the number of people who need chronic care, both at home and in institutional settings.

Can the minister tell this House why his ministry has refused to approve ministerial funding for two programs? One program is the Mohawk Community Health Services Centre program attached to Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, and the second program is the respite home care program of Alzheimer patients run by the Alzheimer Society of Ontario.

Why has his ministry refused to approve funding in both those instances where people are being kept in their homes as a result of positive, community-based programs?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I believe the honourable member received a copy of the letter I sent to the chairman of the board of Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital last week, prior to their meeting, indicating my support for their continuing to operate the program until such time as we were in a position to provide some funding support.

The problem with that program is that it was introduced and implemented by the hospital without any consultation with the ministry or without ministry approval, thereby making it impossible for us to have budgeted for it. To that extent, by taking that initiative on its own, the hospital was the author of its own present difficulties. My hope is that the hospital will be able to sustain the program until such time as we have an allocation of additional funds to fund some further new programs.

When discussing this, I think it is important to bear in mind why the problem arose. It was not through lack of appropriate planning on the part of the ministry but rather the lack of appropriate planning and consultation on the part of the hospital.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Norton: There was a remaining part to that question.

Ms. Copps: I wonder whether the minister can clear up for this House why he has been unable to find money for the programming of the Mohawk Health Centre in Burlington. Also, why has he been unable to find $1,100 a month to keep 18 volunteers in London doing home visits to 16 Alzheimer patients?

He was very quick to come up with funding for the bicentennial baby program sponsored by his ministry in which his government gave out spoons and certificates to bicentennial babies at a total cost of more than $61 each and a tab to the taxpayers of more than $11,000.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: If the minister can find $11,000 for spoons and certificates for the bicentennial baby program, why can he not find the money to keep 120 people out of hospital?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member reflects for a moment upon her own question, I am sure she will know the answer. There is a very real difference between making a commitment for ongoing funding without having had an opportunity to plan it as part of our budget, recognizing that it will be an ongoing, annual expense, and being able to take a one-time initiative with available funding in recognition of the bicentennial of this province. They are two quite different matters in terms of approach to budgeting.

If someone had asked that we find money to fund spoons and certificates at that rate every year for an indefinite time, my answer would have been no. But at the time, it happened we were asked to find particular initiatives we might undertake to recognize the bicentennial, something related on a one-time basis to the field of health. The one thing that was suggested and accepted was the idea of acknowledging those children who were born as New Year's babies this year, so they or the parents might have something to remember the significance of the timing of their birth. We were able to find that funding, but we would not be able to do that on an annual basis for an indefinite period.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the minister managed to find not just a few thousand dollars for the bicentennial, after he concocted a bicentennial that is not mentioned in any history books, but he found about $10 million, and Lord knows how much has been hidden away. His whole government did and he is part of the government.

I want to remind the minister that in October 1981 his predecessor once removed, the current Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), promised delivery of homemaker services for the frail elderly and the adult handicapped. By 1982-83 we were to have five or six pilot projects, and presumably the whole thing would be going full tilt by the latter half of the decade. We are now told it will be the end of the decade before this very necessary program is even in place.

When his government has $10 million for this bicentennial boondoggle, why does the minister not have any money for the frail elderly in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the honourable member is getting his timetable with respect to that program. I have said repeatedly it is our intention to proceed with that initiative within this fiscal year.

TRAUMA UNITS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that today the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians has issued a release saying, The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians agrees that as many as 400 Ontario citizens die needlessly each year as a result of injuries from car-accident trauma." They say specifically the minister is misinformed with respect to his answers to questions raised last week. They say most well-informed experts agree with Dr. McMurtry that up to 400 people in Ontario are dying unnecessarily every year because of the failure of the government to designate trauma centres.

How does the minister respond to that statement from those experts? Are they also engaging in histrionics and are they being irresponsible?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I maintain it is impossible to substantiate any specific figures that are quoted; they are arrived at by a variety of methods of estimation. There may be some consensus among the people who prepared that press release -- I believe the gentleman is also located at the Sunnybrook Medical Centre -- that the figure is of that approximate magnitude. I believe those kinds of arguments accomplish nothing.

One of the problems one finds in the various methodologies used is that very often the methodology was developed by using American standards, where some 30 to 40 per cent of trauma cases are a result of gun and knife wounds. This is clearly not the case in Canada and therefore those standards are not necessarily applicable to this jurisdiction at all.

All I was suggesting last week was that if one starts quoting specific figures, or even specific ranges of figures, one is in a very risky area and it achieves nothing other than to create unnecessary alarm. The fact of the matter is that if one wishes to reduce the risk of death of victims of trauma, it requires a whole range of services that are part of the planning and implementation of a comprehensive emergency health system in this province, which is under way and of which the trauma unit is only one part.

One cannot isolate trauma units as being the sole factor if, for example, one does not have the capacity to get the victims to the appropriate trauma units within a certain time frame. The point I want to make is that one has to plan and implement these things on a reasonable and rational basis.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Since the minister is quarrelling with the specific figures from these people, who apparently know less than the minister -- after all, they are only the people who are in the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and the minister is the Minister of Health, so his expertise is obviously far greater than theirs -- I wonder whether he disagrees with the following statement: "Mortality in the critically injured increases by 33 per cent for each 30 minutes of delay from the time of the accident to the time of suitable treatment." Does the minister disagree with that specific statement?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Going back to the preamble, if I might just for a moment, I would not suggest I am more knowledgeable than the individuals the member for York South is relying on for his information. All I am saying is that he is selective in the information he is using in that there are professional opinions that do not necessarily concur with those he has chosen to cite.

With respect to the time frame the member has chosen, I do not know. I could certainly check that with others to see if it is generally accepted within the field of emergency medicine. Certainly, the time frame within which an individual victim reaches the appropriate treatment is clearly a critical element. In certain kinds of emergency medicine -- for example, for cardiac victims -- it is even more critically important that the person who has first contact with the victim be able to administer assistance such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. That may be more important than any of the other factors in the victim's survival.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from what the minister has said that when communities have an infrastructure in place that includes people trained in CPR, the intra-hospital network and a 911 system, he will consider expanding the current paramedic program that is operating in Toronto and Hamilton to include those municipalities? I am thinking specifically of Ottawa, where the minister will know there is a plan being put forth to include 911. Will Ottawa get approval to begin a paramedic program immediately the 911 system is in place?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I have had some discussions with people from the Ottawa area who are keenly interested in seeing some progress there, but there are a number of other steps besides 911 that have to be taken there first.

Ms. Copps: Which are in this.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, they are not in the Ottawa area. They do not have, for example, central dispatch. They do not have a region-wide system of ambulance service; they have a fractionated one at the moment which we hope to see, perhaps within this fiscal year if all goes well, united into one comprehensive ambulance system.

if they had all those elements in place, then surely the next step could be to consider that, once we have finished the first phase of the pilot projects. Obviously, we are still at the point where we are evaluating the paramedic training program and its implementation in Hamilton and in Toronto. It may be a year or so before we are able to take any further steps, and it would take at least that long for Ottawa to have the other elements ready.

Mr. Rae: The quotation I read to the minister was from a speech the Premier (Mr. Davis) gave to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in 1975. He said, "We envisage a province-wide system of medical trauma centres across the province." That was followed up by a statement from the Ministry of Health saying at least 2,000 patients could have been saved if they had had a proper emergency care system. Then there were statements from the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) in 1982 and from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) in 1982.

Statements were made by coroner's juries in nine recent cases alone, calling for trauma centres and the upgrading of emergency care in order to save lives. People are dying of heart disease and in car accidents. Little children are dying because they have aspirated their stomach contents in a schoolyard accident. How many people does it take and how many deaths have to occur in Ontario before this government will respond? The government has been promising a program for 10 years. When is it going to be put in place to save lives in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: That was a neat little sleight of hand the honourable member tried to engage in, but I caught him out.

The member quoted to me, perhaps from a speech that was made by the Premier or one of my predecessors, but he also has to admit that he quoted to me something I would not disagree with. He did not quote any specific figure in terms of numbers of individuals when he quoted it to me. That is what I was questioning.

I have never questioned the fact that all these measures are part of an effort to save the lives of trauma victims. I have never questioned that. I have said it is dangerous to try to speculate about specific numbers.

Mr. Rae: That is not what the minister said. He accused people of being irresponsible and of having histrionics.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is precisely what I was objecting to. It is precisely what I am still objecting to.

The fact is I agree with what the member has quoted from the Premier or from predecessors of mine. That has given rise to the policy that has been adopted by this government, which includes the establishment of trauma centres across this province as part of a comprehensive emergency health care system.

The leader of the third party should not stand up and try to deceive people who might be listening -- I will retract that, Mr. Speaker, before you ask me to -- try to create the impression the member has somehow pointed out that I have been contradicting my predecessors or my colleagues. I have not been. I agree with that; I have never disagreed with it. I do not agree with the member's fast and loose use of figures he cannot substantiate.

Mr. Rae: Those are not my figures. They are figures from experts in the field. There is nothing fast and loose about them.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Health. I will show the minister a face cloth that comes from the Parklane Nursing Home in Paris, Ontario. I will show the minister a bath towel from the same home. One can practically see right through it.

What is happening with the minister's so-called nursing home inspection system? In September 1983, a nursing home inspection team could go into a home, as it went into the Parklane Nursing Home in Paris, and find restorative care was not being provided for some residents, that some residents were not shaved or dressed, that beds were still unmade in the afternoon, that residents in geriatric chairs were not repositioned every two hours, and that some of the linen in circulation needed to be replaced.

When they went back in March 1984, after complaints from one of the physicians who was caring for a resident there, they found exactly the same problems with respect to the most basic quality of care for residents. What is happening with the nursing home inspection system in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first, with regard to the relevant question, I do not know the answer off the top of my head. I would not presume to. I do not know whether what the member held up in the House are what they have been presented to him as being.

Second, if so, were they being used? The more critical question is whether the individuals who are being cared for there are being maintained in clean, sanitary and healthful circumstances. I am sure that in the homes of many people who are members of this Legislature the member might find a face cloth or a towel that was in less than perfect condition. I can assure the member that he could in my place of residence. I had better not speak for my colleagues.

What is more critically important is the circumstances under which the individuals are being maintained. The member knows full well that since I came to the ministry we have undertaken a number of initiatives, building on initiatives taken by my predecessors, in terms of the enforcement of inspections of the nursing home industry in this province.

Mr. Rae: They have not worked.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: They have definitely worked. In fact, I believe that as of this month we have come on stream with additional inspectors hired subsequent to my announcement in December 1983. I believe they are now in the field. Furthermore, we now have on staff a full-time seconded crown attorney who is handling the prosecutions and who was temporarily delayed because of his involvement in another rather high-profile trial in Ontario.

He has brought on staff an experienced senior officer of the Ontario Provincial Police who has been providing additional training for the inspection staff in the area of collecting and preparing evidence for appropriate and successful prosecutions. I do not think the leader of the third party can really stand up and say we are not doing anything about it.

Mr. Rae: Let the record show the minister's response to a declining quality of care is to giggle in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: The nature of the depth of the minister's response to what is going on is a long, prolonged giggle. That is the extent of his concern.

I would like to say to the minister that these towels were in use. We had the assurance, evidence from someone, that these towels were being used and that was mentioned in both reports.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Why did it take more than six months for his ministry to respond after the initial inspection which found so many problems? Why did it require a physician to call in, in order to get the inspection staff back after those initial inspection reports?

Why did it take the following for the ministry's inspectors to go back in? There were three reports, dated March 25, 26 and 28, from a physician who notes the lack of supervision and the lack of numbers of people on staff to provide care. I quote: "Patient fell off bedpan. Patient unsupervised at the time. Second fall recently." March 26: "Patient fell off the toilet. Unsupervised at the time." March 28: "Patient fell, as noted. Two recent other falls. Inadequate staff for supervision of patients."

Why does this kind of thing have to happen to people in Ontario? These are older people who are in desperate need of care and for whom all of us want to provide quality care. Why does this continue to happen? We have been bringing it up for years in this Legislature. Why can the minister not devise a system which ensures quality care for all of us as we get older in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all, I think it ought to be pointed out to the member that the kinds of incidents he is citing are not common in their occurrence in nursing homes or any other long-term care facility in this province. I agree they are totally inappropriate and ought not to be occurring, but it always mystifies me when the leader of the third party has such information or claims to have such information as this that he chooses only to raise it with me in this particular setting.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister is no doubt aware there are dozens of members, I think on all sides of the House including the government side, who have written to him with concerns about nursing homes, and I think for him to stand in this House and say the issues are raised only in the House is utter fallacy.

Does the minister not think it is time we developed an independent complaint commission to deal with issues which are not being followed up by the inspection services? It is clear that time and again we are having reports that the inspection service is not following through, does not have the time to follow through, does not have the numbers to follow through. Does the minister not think an independent complaints commission, independent of the Ministry of Health, structured along the lines similar to the current Ombudsman, would be at least an effort to try to bring some balance into the system?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, these preambles always include a statement that deserves a response. Of course I hear from members from time to time and I hear from ministry staff from time to time of infractions that have occurred with respect to the regulations. We do pursue those and we do pursue them more vigorously all the time. We will continue to try to ensure that in the system these things either never occur or the chances of their recurring are very limited.

With regard to the honourable member's suggestion with respect to an independent commission, I do not know whether she has in mind precisely what we are doing. As she may be aware
-- I think I have announced it -- we are establishing an independent appeal process whereby matters that are not dealt with adequately in the view of residents and residents councils can be brought before a provincial appellate body, which will hold a hearing in the locality of the home and make recommendations with respect to the resolution of those issues that do come up.

I expect they will deal primarily with nonregulatory issues, because they are issues that relate to quality of life, which are not specifically part of the regulatory framework and may never be; it may even be impossible to cast them in the context of regulations.

Basically that is the kind of objective we have and I hope we will shortly have that body in position and operating. In fact, we hope it will operate on a regional basis, perhaps with one common chairman to maintain province-wide standards.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister should realize from the violations that have been cited on this particular nursing home that we are not talking about minor violations. One of the violations cited was that people were restrained in chairs and they were not even being repositioned. All the minister has to do is to visit nursing homes that are nonprofit and properly run and he will find they put enough staff in place so the residents do not have to be tied into their chairs.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: When is the minister going to realize the only way to achieve dignity and a proper quality of life for the residents of nursing homes is to take the profit motive out of the nursing homes and make them nonprofit so the quality of the care and quality of life come before profits for the large corporations that run many of these nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member really does believe this is the bottom line with respect to the problems that exist from time to time, then he is being very naive. Surely even he remembers that just a very few years ago I was faced with the prospect of being cited for contempt of court on a matter relating to a public servant in this province who had physically abused a mentally retarded resident in a home that was not run for profit at all. In fact, if I recall correctly, the majority of the members of his caucus at that time supported the employee and not the resident.

[Later]

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I rise to correct the record. The Minister of Health said in his last answer that when he was Minister of Community and Social Services he disciplined an employee who had abused a resident at Orillia. He implied our party had opposed that disciplinary action. That statement is completely false. I was the critic of the day and it is my record that is being maligned. I called for disciplinary action, as did my leader, and this party supported that disciplinary action--

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member resume his seat? I would point out to the member --

Mr. McClellan: The minister can take his cheap shots if he likes, but that is the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services which relates to the answer, such as it was, he gave to this House on May 10 regarding the skyrocketing increases in consultants' services by his ministry.

The minister read into the record the dollar amounts expended in the field of consulting services but provided no other information that would allow us to assess the need for the increase in consulting services. The minister states: "We are only too happy to provide answers within reason. That does not include, in this case, the background on who did or did not get something which way, or how many contracts there were."

Why will the minister not provide the information when his colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) was able to provide details of his consulting contracts from 1978 onward?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is all a matter of perception of what one feels is complete. I said at the time of my estimates, and I will gladly repeat, I do not think it is appropriate or fair to the taxpayers of this province to put any ministry, as far as that goes, to the trouble of going into files from many years back at great cost to the taxpayers to come up with some figures that really will have no great meaning to the member opposite in any event.

I did provide that day, and again I am quite prepared to do so, a breakdown of the management consulting services and, more important, I was able to answer as to the reasons they have been increasing in the last couple of years. Surely the question that is really being asked is why have they increased, rather than absolute numbers on whether it is up so many dollars or whether it is this many or that many contracts.

3 p.m.

In fact, there are great reasons. The biggest one over the last number of years, of course, is the development in the use of computers within government. That accounts for approximately half the total expenditures in 1982-83 and even more in the current fiscal year. In our management consulting services expenditures for the 1981-82 year, it was about two thirds. I suggest this is not an expense; it is an investment in good government.

Mr. Haggerty: I am delighted the minister provided some information. If he would only answer the six or seven questions I have in Orders and Notices, I would not have to stand here and ask him for information week after week.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps the minister will take some time to go back and read the details of his government's version of a freedom of information bill. I would like to remind him that the draft legislation includes the right to obtain information relating to expenditures listed in the public accounts. I would also remind him that he said he would not provide details of consulting contracts because, as he said, "In my view, that would not be a prudent response on behalf of the taxpayers of this province."

Is the minister telling this House he believes his colleague the Minister of Revenue has not been prudent and realistic in releasing public information? Is he telling us he has no intention of following the spirit and guidelines of his government's freedom of information bill as to the expenditure of public funds?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is not what I am saying. In using the comparison of another ministry, it so happens the member chose one with which I am somewhat familiar. The nature and the scope of the management consulting services do not compare at all.

In the Ministry of Government Services there are many facets of consulting; for example, ministry administration, accommodation, repairs, operation and maintenance, executive directors, human resources, corporate services, employee advisory, computer services and telecommunications. These activity headings are much broader than in most of the relatively smaller ministries. I am not including large ministries, such as the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Education, which are obviously more vast and, I am sure, have quite a variety of headings as well.

I am trying to get across what I feel most sincerely on behalf of the taxpayers. When we get a whole series of questions that have no meaningful purpose other than to put public servants to work at great expense and then in turn are criticized for the expenses that are being put forth, I do not think that is prudent management of taxpayers' funds. I am quite prepared at any time to provide reasonable, responsible and rational answers to similar questions.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health concerning Trillium Villa Nursing Home in Sarnia. In September last year I phoned the ministry's inspection branch working out of London to complain about a faulty roof and a lot of leaking that was occurring in the nursing home due to a rainstorm. I received a letter back from the nursing home inspection branch on October 7 indicating all the repairs had been completed, an entire inspection had been carried out and there should be no further problems with that roof.

I had a call last Monday while a rainstorm was occurring in Sarnia and was informed that the roof was again leaking, that a ceiling had collapsed and that there were pails throughout the hallways of the nursing home to collect the water from the leaking roof. In view of this incident and in view of the fact that the roof leaked throughout the entire winter, I would like to ask the minister what is going on with his inspection branch. How does it check some of these major structural problems with nursing homes?

The minister may grin about an infraction such as this, but when there is water on the floor of nursing homes, old folks fall and break their hips. If the minister does not enforce nursing home regulations properly, these are the ramifications. Do we have an inspection branch? If we do, why is it not carrying out its work and forcing the owners of the nursing homes to do proper repairs rather than the cheapest possible repairs, putting residents at risk?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not laughing at or trying to make light of the situation. I am just rather bemused by the nature of the questions the honourable member chooses to ask. Surely the answer to his question is any one of a number of answers. For example, if the roof was properly repaired last summer, perhaps it is another part of the roof that is leaking now. If it was repaired and passed inspection last fall, perhaps the workmanship was inadequate. I suppose there is a variety of explanations.

If the member wants to give me the information he has received in the last day or two about this problem, I would certainly be glad to follow up on it. If there is any failure on the part of the staff of my ministry, of course I will take disciplinary action. However, to use an example like that to substantiate the hypothesis the member is putting forward, that every leak in every roof is the fault of my staff, is a little preposterous.

Mr. Cooke: The point that has to be made is that the inspectors go into those nursing homes and do an inadequate job. Because they are not separate from the Ministry of Health, there is a conflict of interest and people are not being well served by the ministry's inspection branch in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister prepared to look at the proposal we put forward this morning as part of our task force report, which says that the inspection branch must be separated from the Ministry of Health so there is no longer a conflict of interest? if he is not prepared to accept that recommendation, would he at least, when he gets up in the Legislature, quit defending the private sector and private nursing homes all the time and start making the nursing home inspection branch do its job instead of going to bed with the nursing home owners of this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The defence that is alleged to be made on my part of the private sector is not that at all. In response to the member's totally biased and tunnel vision views on the issue, I simply try to restore a little balance from time to time by pointing out that he may be placing the emphasis on the wrong area in trying to substantiate his concerns.

In response to the member's specific question about the proposal I have not had a chance to read all of his proposal yet, but from a preliminary review of what both the member and the Liberal Party said in their competitive positions that were released this morning, on almost all substantive policy issues it is clear they are trying to ride the coattails of the progress of this government in the initiatives it has taken or that are already under way in the area of care.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, when the minister tries, in the comments he has made in this answer and the previous one, to get some kind of independence into the review of the inspection system, can he assure this House he will include not only recommendations from residents' councils, but also complaints from individual patients, from families and from concerned organizations and friends such as the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities, who have been deliberately cut out from the complaints process because of the stiff position taken by this ministry that it will act only on behalf of patients or their families? Will the minister make sure an independent review process can involve complaints from those specific sectors?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the statement that was made with respect to Concerned Friends being cut out is completely unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable. I have met with Concerned Friends and have had communications from them about specific concerns they have had, and I have seen to it they were followed up immediately. To say they have been cut out may be a perception some of them have because of their particular perception, but it is not factual. If they have other concerns they want to raise with me, they are free to do so at any time. We have acted upon their concerns when they raised them. We have acted on specific cases.

3:10 p.m.

With regard to residents' councils, the terms of reference of the guidelines for residents' councils make it very clear they need not necessarily be composed entirely of residents. If it is the wish of the residents themselves, they may have representatives from within the community at large sitting on the residents' council. That would not preclude individuals such as members of Concerned Friends if that was the wish of the residents in that particular home. It is their council; it is not mine.

ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD RULING

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. The minister is no doubt aware that the Assessment Review Board ruled last week that the method used by the provincial assessors to determine the amount by which renovations have increased the value of a home is inadequate. This landmark decision says the assessors cannot use the market value of similar properties to determine the assessment increases for renovated homes.

How does the minister intend to alter the practices of his assessors to conform to the standards set by this new decision?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct when he states the ruling radically changes or makes a comment on the methods being used in the city of Toronto and elsewhere. I say "the city of Toronto" advisedly because that is where the problem seems to be.

Obviously, the recommendation laid down by Mr. Bowlby will need to be appealed. In the interest of the taxpayers of the city of Toronto and in the interest of preserving the tax base of Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario, this ruling will need to be appealed. That will be done.

Mr. Epp: If the courts uphold the Assessment Review Board ruling, how will the minister right the wrong his assessors have imposed on approximately 14,000 residents in Toronto whose homes have been assessed in this inadequate fashion? Based on the Bowlby decision, these citizens have been overpaying their share of property taxes for up to three years and maybe longer.

What measures will the minister take to ensure that every one of these 14,000 taxpayers in Toronto who has carried an unfair share of the burden for the past three or four years is reimbursed? As the minister knows, the same Bowlby decision may have implications for residents right across the province. Assuming the decision is upheld by the courts, what measures will the minister take to reimburse these people for overpayment of taxes?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The member is making the assumption that this is pretty widespread across the province. Naturally, it does not apply where a market value assessment has been done. This covers two thirds of the municipalities in Ontario.

I find it rather confusing to hear this member asking me what I am going to do to reimburse people who have been overpaying, when I hear him commenting on the market value assessment basis and saying section 63 is wrong, when it is intended to do and is doing precisely what he is suggesting I should find a way to undo. I really do not understand him.

RAPID TRANSIT

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications based on his statement to the House today. The statement addresses various questions dealing with Oshawa, the north-end corridor and Hamilton, but it does not address the question of expropriation.

In view of the concern of residents in the Beaches area and Mississauga and statements by two of his officials that 100 or more homes, plus land, could be expropriated, could the minister set the record straight? How much expropriation does he envisage? How many houses would be expropriated?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to answer that question precisely because, first of all, the studies are under way with regard to the lakeshore corridor between Oakville and Pickering. That is a long-term strategy, as I stated when I announced the whole plan back in October 1982.

It is our intention to use the heavy rail line between Oakville and Pickering for many years, but we are proceeding to look at that corridor and to try to provide in the future for a GO advanced light rail transit corridor along the lakeshore from Oakville to Pickering.

Those studies are under way, as I say. We have not yet reached the stage at which there is anything definitive, but I think it is safe to say, if and when the additional corridor is completed, properties will certainly have to be purchased. We are not thinking about expropriation at this time. If expropriation does become a necessity, it will be many years down the road.

Mr. Samis: Since the basis of the possibility of expropriation would be the question of a new corridor, can the minister bring the House up to date on what negotiations have been held with Canadian National as to the use of the existing lines, especially in view of statements regarding the lakeshore west line, that if GO Transit were to create its own corridor and put all its trains on it, that line would be used for only 40 per cent of its present traffic? In other words, it would be rather unused when compared to the situation today.

Second, what is his ministry doing to try to consolidate passenger rail lines, especially west of Toronto and into Hamilton? Instead of creating new corridors, would the answer not be some form of consolidation of existing corridors?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not sure what the honourable member refers to with respect to consolidating existing corridors. To my knowledge, there is only one corridor along the lakeshore, and the proposal is for the GO-ALRT line from Oakville to Hamilton to follow the existing transportation corridor. It is only at the point where it enters Hamilton that a decision has to be made as to which route to follow.

We have been working with CN and CN has been most co-operative. On the other hand, CN is bound and determined in its own right to protect the corridor it already has for its use.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister raised the issue of the Oakville-to-Hamilton corridor because his statement leaves me a little bit confused and perhaps he could use this opportunity to clear up the record.

He states he has been successful in defining the alignment and obtaining municipal support for the Oakville-Burlington sections. By his own admission those sections are already in place and there has been no discussion. Then he states: "The technical advisory committee has established a preferred alignment. We are awaiting the decisions of the Hamilton city council and the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council regarding its proposal."

Am I to understand that the Hamilton city council and the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council will be allowed to make the decision with respect to the route as per his statement here today? Or is this statement just another example of the doubletalk he has used to try to force his preferred route down our throats, as he has done over the last year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I never get involved with doubletalk. I leave that to others who are more professional at it.

The honourable member was suggesting at the beginning of her statement that it was not important where the route went through Oakville and Burlington. I happened to think it was. We went through a very detailed program with the municipal councils and with the regional council. We have resolutions from those councils approving what we are proposing from the Oakville station through to Highway 6 -- basically in that area.

We have now gone through a similar process in Hamilton. We do not as yet have their resolutions. The technical advisory committee, which is made up of 10 people -- eight from the city and the region and two from my ministry -- recommended the York Street corridor. We are now waiting to see whether the city and the region endorse that recommendation.

Ms. Copps: Who makes the decision?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:20 p.m.

WATER RATES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment concerning the large increases in water rates being imposed on a number of small communities by decision of his ministry. Since the original problem was the incorrect projections of population and industrial utilization, is the minister going to be able to announce some valuable program to assist these communities in meeting their costs without increasing water rates by as much as 100 per cent in some cases?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the sizes of the systems were established originally in discussion with the respective municipalities. I agree, however, with the thrust of the question that in some instances there have been abnormal increases that have been brought about through a number of circumstances. In some instances, the growth in the municipalities did not occur as was anticipated. Frankly, the number of users anticipated did not occur either.

The question asked is directly with respect to whether there will be any assistance. At the moment, we are dealing on a one-to-one basis with those communities that make approaches to my ministry; in other words, those that feel the increases established are too high. We do meet with those municipalities and review the rates.

We are now trying to establish a blanket policy that will be applicable to all municipalities; that has not been finalized yet, but it is under discussion with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and my own ministry. This is an important matter, and I am trying to give a serious answer to a serious question.

The other matter I want to mention is that the municipalities also have the opportunity to appeal if they do not agree with the rate increases that are proposed by my ministry.

Mr. Nixon: In every case I have heard of, it has been the demographic projections of the ministry that led the local municipality to agree to a larger system than it thought was required for the community in the first instance.

Would the minister not agree that because of the policy of his predecessors, he and his staff have a special responsibility to come up with a uniform program such that the rate increases are not going to exceed something like 10 per cent rather than a 100 per cent increase, which is about to be imposed on a number of communities as of July 1? I will just mention one, Plattsville, in the county of Oxford in my constituency, which has probably one of the most pressing problems.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It is not quite that simple, and I know the honourable member is not trying to suggest that. In some instances, municipalities have caused their own problem by not increasing the rate on an annual basis. They have allowed a buildup of a deficit to occur to such an extent that the amount of money that would be required by way of a rate increase to clear up that deficit is very substantial. There is a very large number of different situations right across the province, and it is very difficult to come up with a uniform policy.

Last year, in an attempt to overcome the kind of problem pointed out by the member, my ministry did inject some $30 million -- that is a low figure -- or more as part of the application of funding from the province to assist municipalities to meet their obligations and keep the rates down.

I give the member every assurance that I will look at Plattsville and other municipalities to make absolutely certain the rate is not an unfair one.

ARBITRATORS' FEES

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour, if I can get his attention for just a moment.

The Minister of Labour will be aware of a letter he received from the Canadian Textile and Chemical Union sent on May 23 in which they make the point they have just received a bill for $1,607.40 for a straightforward arbitration case which took an hour and a half to present. I wonder whether the minister has any comments on that case and the costs involved in that arbitration?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is correct. I have received that letter and we are investigating the matter at this time.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will be aware that we have raised the question a number of times regarding the cost of arbitrators. Some recent checking I have done indicates that $1,100, $1,200 and $1,300 are now common figures for very simple and straightforward hearings. For a long time we have asked for limits on arbitrators' fees. Is the government now prepared to take another look at what arbitrators are charging unions across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, we are. In fact, that is under study right now by our labour-management advisory committee, and there is active study within the ministry to determine what measures, if any, may be necessary to ensure that the process of arbitration remains accessible.

SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities I have a question in regard to superannuation.

As the minister is aware, a number of senior teachers in our education system, people who were prepared to accept what I would call the option of early retirement, delayed the exercising of that option until such time as the legislation containing changes in the Teachers' Superannuation Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly.

Since the minister delayed this legislative initiative for so long -- indeed, until the last week of the legislative sitting of 1983 -- many senior teachers chose to remain on staff. Can the minister now tell us when she plans to announce the regulations which accompany the legislation in order that those who have delayed their retirement decisions may be aware of the specific provisions of the changes in the Teachers' Superannuation Act and may choose to retire before the commencement of their teaching duties in the fall of this year?

I point out to the minister that the normal time for announcing retirement or for submitting a resignation is the end of May. That date has passed, but I understand teachers still have the option of retiring in the summer. I am wondering when the regulations will be made public by the minister.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the regulations specifically will not have a tremendous impact upon decisions by teachers who choose to move in the direction of retiring somewhat earlier than they might have otherwise.

It was announced very clearly in all the information that was made available about the teachers' superannuation fund administration amendments that the benefits would flow to all those who had made the decision to retire by the date of May 31, 1982. Those provisions are still in place. Any teacher who has made that decision, if he or she has decided to retire or has retired, will gain the benefit of the amendments to the act beginning in September 1984.

It is my understanding that the specific regulations of interest in terms of the administration of the act are to be available by the end of June. I believe most of the teachers who have made the decision to retire will have done so because they will be aware the benefits have been improved significantly as a result of the amendments to the act, which were not delayed but which were introduced as soon as they were ready to ensure the provisions would be available to the teachers who made that decision this year.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to raise my concern over the fact that I tabled a written question for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) on May 23, 1984. It is my understanding that according to standing order 81(d) the minister should have responded with at least an interim answer as of last week, and there is still no response.

I ask that you investigate this to determine whether this is one more example of the Minister of Natural Resources stonewalling and being unwilling to provide information about what is going on in his ministry to the members of this Legislature, and direct him to comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: As the honourable member well knows, it is beyond my jurisdiction to do as he requests. I notice, however, that the government House leader has paid very close attention to your remarks and no doubt will inform his colleague.

PETITION

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bill of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine in small, independent grocery stores.

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition demandons l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien."

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will be interested in the fact that I have here another 4,400 names to add to the 6,600 I had already, bringing the grand total to 11,000 people who have signed petitions to this effect.

3:30 p.m.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Correctional Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $11,895,700; institutional program, $177,303,100; community program, $38,411,200.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 307, 322, 325 and 400 to 406 inclusive [see Hansard for Wednesday, June 13].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION ACT (CONTINUED)

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

On section 1:

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to begin some opening remarks the other evening.

Mr. Boudria: Some of us may have missed some of them. Could the member repeat them?

Mr. Breaugh: There has been a request for me to reread into the record some of the comments from the townships. I simply point out to the members that we did put them on record the other evening and they have the opportunity to peruse them at their leisure.

It is sufficient to say this afternoon that those comments, which are almost exclusively from rural townships in Ontario, are pertinent to the discussion as we begin clause-by-clause debate. They point out the very strong feeling many of our rural municipalities have about this bill and about this general approach towards annexation. Also at the heart of that is a very strong feeling that the government of Ontario, once their champion in the Legislature, seems somehow to have forgotten its roots and seems somehow determined now to run directly against the best interests of rural Ontario. They pointed that out in their letters, one after the other.

I think 103 municipalities in total responded to the request from their sister municipality of Vespra. They have given not quite identical responses, but responses that are identical in tone, if I can put it that way. They point out that the government of Ontario, in proceeding with this bill, has struck a chord they see as being particularly dangerous. It is one that runs contrary to the general intentions of most legislation to be fair, to be impartial and to operate in the best interests of everyone.

As we all know, whenever any legislation is written, it is taking away someone's personal rights. There is no question about that, but there has to be an element of fairness involved. That is the key ingredient missing from Bill 142. There is not much fairness in it. The bill is written from one perspective only; it does not have a real rationale.

In many of the rural municipalities, particularly among the councillors I have had a chance to talk to, their gravest concern is that the normal process, through a couple of channels, would have resolved this dispute some time ago. When there was a move by a municipality such as Barrie to annex a rural area, and that request for annexation has been put forward from time to time in the Legislature, the proof for establishing a need has been on the municipality that said, "We want to annex this little area." The ministry was somewhat of a third party in that dispute. The obligation to establish the need was clearly on one of the parties, and they did that; if there were financial matters in dispute, then the ministry entered the picture as the arbitrator.

The difficulty with the process we are discussing here is that it is the ministry that is taking the initiative and will at some time become the arbitrator of the financial and other disputes that are involved in this; and there are a great many of those disputes.

Quite rightly, all those municipalities have identified that there is something basically and inherently wrong with the legislation: there is something that does not stand a test of fairness; there is something clearly wrong from a democratic point of view. The wording of their motions was decidedly along the lines that a democratic fault was being perpetrated by this legislation, that such essential ingredients as fairness were missing completely from the legislation, and that it should not be continued and a halt should be made to this entire process.

It is interesting to note that in their comments to Vespra township -- and they have circulated them to the ministry as well, and to me and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) -- they did not say there was a little bit wrong here or there was a need on the part of the government to provide more compensation. They did not identify some powers that were wrong; they talked about the bill being wrong and being undemocratic and that it was not the way to proceed.

That is an important message that must be heard. I am not so sure it has been heard. I am not so sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has responded, although he wrote a letter in response to an article that appeared in the magazine called Municipal World. He did respond in that way to an article that had been previously published. But I am not sure the minister has responded in a direct way to the concerns that have been stated time and time again by ordinary citizens from Vespra township, by the council there, by the county council and by those 103 other municipalities that have expressed a concern around this bill.

I believe there is an obligation on the part of the minister to do that. However, that is difficult, because although the minister introduced the legislation he did not participate in the public hearing process. The minister was not at one session of the hearings on this bill, either here at Queen's Park or up in Simcoe county, nor has he even been present in the chamber during the course of the debate on this bill.

It must be very difficult for the minister to respond in a meaningful way to a bill which, frankly, he probably does not know a lot about. He has not been here and he has not listened to the people from Vespra township. He has not had much of an opportunity to pick up the tone of their dissent on this bill. He has relied on his parliamentary assistant, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), who in his usual manner has been faithfully, doggedly present; but the minister himself has not been here.

It must be difficult for the minister, who appears to be hoist with his own petard here. He is responsible in a legal sense for the introduction of a piece of legislation although, without telling any tales out of school, we all know the minister does not come from that area. He is responsible for the legislation in the sense that he introduced it, but he is not responsible for the legislation in the sense that he did not sit down and personally draft this bill, nor is it reasonable to assume that the minister personally seized the initiative and presented the bill to the Legislature. It is reasonable to say another member of the cabinet, who is a local member, perhaps seized the initiative and saw that the bill was brought forward.

3:40 p.m.

It must be tough for the minister, who has not been a participant in the ongoing debate around this bill and who was not able to participate in the hearings on the bill, now to portray himself as a reasonable third-party arbitrator on any kind of dispute on this bill.

I am sure he has attempted to make himself aware of some of the difficulties that were expressed, perhaps through briefings from his parliamentary assistant or perhaps through reading some of the Hansard reports, but he has not been able to be a participant. At best, he has the benefit of staff, which of course we do not have, and the benefit of a parliamentary assistant, which we do not have.

In a personal way, perhaps the minister is not aware of precisely what is going on here, of precisely how strong the feeling is against this bill in municipality after municipality in rural Ontario. Before we proceed clause by clause, I think we should try to get that feeling on the record. I believe it is incredibly important that we proceed with this bill only on the clear understanding that something is dramatically amiss.

As I sat through the hearings, I picked up a tone and tenor that disturbed me immensely. It is not unreasonable to say there was some confusion in the public's mind about the public hearings, but it is not just that and it is not just that people in the real world do not understand how this Legislature works.

It is that a perception was reinforced for them that something is wrong here and there does not appear to be an ability to put it back on the tracks. There does not appear to be a fair hearing process at work. There appears to have been an almost clandestine decision reached to proceed with this legislation, a decision having been made some time ago behind closed doors and revealed to them about an hour before the minister introduced the legislation, and that this legislation would proceed come hell or high water and there was absolutely nothing anybody could do to influence the minister, the legislation, the public hearing process that was set up or to change the legislation which is before us today.

I think what has them confused is they sense an unease even among members of the government party. During the course of the public hearings, the members of the government party on the committee put out vibrations to people who appeared before them that they understood what it was like to live in rural Ontario; what it was like to be a small rural township facing annexation by a larger adjacent urban centre, and what it was like to have a legislated solution, as this one is, to a problem with some history. However, nothing was going to happen. I think that is what disturbed them more than anything else.

They were talking to a group of people who did know about their concerns. They were talking to a group of legislators who had clearly in front of them the problems that are inherent in this bill. Nothing was going to be given in response. Many of them felt they would have been better off in court. A court at least has to hear the arguments and make a decision based on evidence presented.

In this instance, it appeared that no matter what evidence was presented, nothing was going to change. No matter how eloquent the pleas from the residents of Vespra township were, nothing would change. They even heard members of the government party say to them: "I agree with that. You are right. This annexation is too big. We really should work out the financial details. We really should give you a hearing." Those things were all understood, but the government still was not going to do anything about it.

During the course of the committee hearings, the frustration level was quite immense. To refresh the memories of members who perhaps did not participate in those hearings, I want to put on the record some of the remarks, little quotes here and there, of people who appeared before the committee at Queen's Park or the Simcoe county building to present what they thought were arguments. They left somewhat disappointed that no one gave them the courtesy of listening to their arguments.

I think they felt some frustration that, even though members of the government party heard what they had to say, they were not about to pay much attention to it. That frustration went all the way through the hearings of the committee, both here and up in Simcoe county.

They objected to the idea that the parties most directly affected in a formal way only knew this legislation would be introduced by the minister within about an hour of his entering the House. They felt that was passing strange. The dispute had gone on for a long time. It had been before the courts. It had been argued at the Ontario Municipal Board. All of that is true.

If it was a dispute of some 10 years' standing, why was it that one hour's notice was all the parties got? There is an inference on the part of those in Vespra township who are directly affected that some people knew about this legislation before they did. They inferred that some actions occurred which caused the council of the city of Barrie to withdraw an objection to a development proposal in Vespra township and that the council must have had some basis for withdrawing that objection prior to being told about this bill.

The inference is that one council was informed about this legislation before the other council. We do not know whether that is true. We were never privy to those discussions. We have not been given a background paper outlining the actions of the ministry. We do not know if a member of the cabinet went to one of the councils and gave it advance notice of this legislation. Unless one were a member of Barrie council or a key driver for a cabinet minister, one would not know those details.

We do know one of the participants was given an hour's warning that this legislation would proceed. As one who has been involved in municipal politics for a while, I admit it is pretty tough to determine why only an hour's notice was given that something was going to happen. Did the government not know this legislation was being drafted? Was it not aware it would be introducing this legislation?

It is obvious the government was aware. It is obvious no one sat down and drafted this bill on a matchbook. It has been in the works for a while. Civil servants drafted the legislation; someone wrote little speeches for various cabinet ministers; someone wrote a speech for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It was known this bill was going to be introduced, or at least it is reasonable to assume it was known by the government, and a little more than one hour's notice could have been provided to the participants.

It has not gone unnoticed that the bill was introduced just prior to the Christmas recess. It has not gone unnoticed that there was a bit of hammering around how much debate the bill would be allowed before we prorogued the House. It has not gone unnoticed that there was some hesitancy on the part of the government to hold any public hearings at all. The opposition parties made that part of it happen. The government then quite willingly said, "If you are going to make a fuss about it, we will have public hearings."

When we went to committee, we said it was only logical on a bill like this to go into the area and hold public hearings to sample the waters locally. Government members resisted that in committee as well. Eventually, a portion of the public hearings, that is, one day, was held in that area, a fact that does not escape the notice of the people who are directly impacted by this legislation.

They understand there are two agendas at work here: one, a formal public face on how this piece of legislation was arrived at and presented to the Legislature; the other, the bottom line of the real story or the real dirt on what actually happened behind closed doors and how this bill was put together and presented.

I think they have a legitimate point in saying proper notice was not given; there was no warning of the government's intention to introduce this legislation in a specific form or a general form, and no attempt was made, as far as I can determine, to referee the dispute here.

One could muster an argument, and one would in other legislation, for example, the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, centring on the idea that someone has to resolve disputes. In this case I do not think there is even a pretence of resolving the dispute. No attempt was made to send emissaries from Queen's Park to Barrie or to Vespra township to listen to both sides and say: "You are both wrong. A pox on both your houses. This thing has been going on long enough. Here is a compromise piece of legislation which will resolve a dispute of long standing."

That did not happen. I think it is clear and on the record now that there was no attempt on the part of the government of Ontario, through any of its secret agents operating in the area, to put together a deal to try to build a compromise, to put together a package both sides might have looked at and said was unfair to both sides and, therefore, fair; or it is fair to both sides and, therefore, acceptable.

Someone -- we really do not know who -- put this deal together and put it out on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We can say what we want about it at any length, but that is the deal that has been struck. We do not even know who struck the deal and we are not too sure exactly what the deal is even now.

3:50 p.m.

During the course of the committee we listened to a fair amount of discussion about good agricultural land and whether we were preserving farm land or building shopping centres. I found it more than a little confusing that we are taking good agricultural land and putting it into a city. What is the purpose behind that? Is there some new farm program in the cities that I have not heard about yet? Does the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) have a new deal under way whereby he is going to encourage farming in urban centres? I do not seriously believe that for a minute.

I know that Cadillac Fairview got what it wanted before the bill was introduced. That seems strange to some of us, but it is according to Hoyle in the way things are done at Queen's Park. These large development corporations and lawyers such as Eddie Goodman always seem to get their way. Even before the concerns of the people are dealt with, they get what they want, they trot off and then the rest of us are left to deal with all the ramifications.

One of the ramifications of this is that we are now going to have a lot more good agricultural land in this city. Members of the committee had a chance to tour the area to see the land there. It is now a farm, but it is a farm either owned by a developer or on which a developer has an option; there is no question about that.

I do not think there is any member here who does not have the same thing in his own constituency. I see it every day driving in from Oshawa. On land that was farmed last year, land that the guys were out cultivating on tractors last fall, now the tractors are a bit bigger and they will not be growing crops there any more, except perhaps the old cash crop of three-bedroom bungalows. You can see it all around Metropolitan Toronto, and that is exactly what you are going to see here, without question.

From Barrie's point of view, I suppose, there are those who might ask, "What was Vespra doing allowing shopping centres adjacent to an urban area?" But Vespra has not a bad argument; namely, that it provided the township with an assessment base and allowed it to continue in a rural mode in the remainder of the township. It is not a bad argument, I must say; at least, it was not a bad argument until the government decided to grab the entire assessment base and shove it into Barrie, and that is exactly what this bill does.

You can talk about agricultural policies and about the preservation of farm land, but you really have to look at a bill like this to see exactly what the province does with good agricultural land when it comes to legislation. It annexes it to an urban area, and none of us has any illusions that this land is going to remain in production. We know it will happen for a little while, that there may well be farmers who will continue farming in that area for a while; but it will not last very long.

We know what happens when you get a subdivision next door to a farm. The people who move into the subdivision do not like the way a farm smells, they do not like the sound of the tractors and all that, and the farmer will soon take a look at his land, which is not an easy thing to cultivate, and say, "I have developers rapping on my door every day offering me huge amounts of money to buy my farm."

This is a time when farming is a tough business; it is a time when it just is not what it traditionally was, a long, hard work day involving some good years and some bad years. It is now in a state where you have to go through a tough financial crisis every year. It is a time when interest rates really can put you completely off the map with respect to whether you even have a survival instinct at work here, whether in economic terms your farm operation can grow or die on the vine.

Of course, all of us, even those of us who represent urban ridings and have farms around us, know what happens to those farmers. I have seen them in my constituency office saying: "I am losing my entire farm operation. The work of my family for generations is going because of interest rates, equipment problems and not being able to sell the goods I produce on my farm." We know what is happening.

As members look at this bill, I think it should be noted that it is symbolic in some sense. It is important for members of the Legislature to look at the bill and say: "Wait a minute. A lot of what the government is proposing to put into this city is now operated as a farm, and that is wrong."

A lot of us were struck by the fact, which I am sure a lot of travellers going north on the highways in the area have recognized, that the whole area around Little Lake is environmentally sensitive. It is strange; I find it an unusual move for a city such as Barrie to buy land in another municipality. I am not aware of very many municipalities in which that has happened, but that is what has happened there.

Of course, whatever boundary might be drawn by this bill -- and it is not very clear -- somehow Little Lake is going to get cut up in the process, and I am not sure how that is going to work out. I do not know how that environmentally sensitive area in and around Little Lake, and in other areas in the area that is proposed to be annexed, is going to survive either. Is it going to become a playground for Barrie? Is that necessary? Right now, when we went through it, there were some cottages around there; but it seems to me it is essentially a rural area. It is not very highly developed. It is being preserved in its environmentally sound state as it is. It does not seem to be a good idea to mess around with it. I do not know why Ontario is even vaguely interested in messing around with that, but it appears it is.

As we went through the committee hearings, and before drawing little squiggly lines on maps on the wall, sometimes Little Lake was in the annexed area and sometimes it was out. Sometimes it was split. It is interesting to note that even now there appear to be changes made continually as to how those lines are drawn. I am not sure we have a definitive word on exactly how much land is being annexed here and exactly where that boundary line is going to be.

Mr. Chairman: While the member is pausing, may the chair canvass him on how long he is expecting his current comments to run? Can you share that with us? I say that with all due respect, mindful of the comments we heard earlier in the committee when we recognized that for some time now the committee has been lenient about the fact that we are not dealing with clause-by-clause debate, as is our mandate. Rather, we are hearing an echo of second reading debate. I think we all acknowledged that.

We were lenient to permit each of the caucuses to make comments. There was some keeping of the time in our sense of fairness. I wonder if the member might share that with us, just for our guidance. I do not want to call this to order.

Mr. Breaugh: I have a few notes here and I would anticipate being through them some time this afternoon. We would proceed to clause-by-clause debate today. I am not sure whether we will get through the entire clause-by-clause debate, but I have some other remarks I would like to make in the beginning of the presentation. Then we could proceed as we normally do with the House in committee and we will deal with each clause as we go through it.

I have a number of comments to make in the clause-by-clause debate. I do not have a great many amendments to propose. In fact, I have only one. When and if the bill is brought in for third reading, I want to propose that Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this date six months hence.

That will not come until we begin the process of third reading debate. Perhaps it might be helpful to circulate that. I do not know when this third reading debate will begin, but if I could have a page, maybe we could give copies to the opposition, the parliamentary assistant, the table officers and the member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Chairman: I do not think that motion requires a notice.

Mr. Breaugh: I know you do not need that.

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your courtesy.

Mr. Breaugh: I like to give you advance notice when I do these things, just so you are not surprised.

Mr. Chairman: If the member advises he has additional comments on section 1, which we are dealing with, since the committee is operating under a loose consensus, we will have to consider that somewhere we have to address ourselves to just exactly what we have in section 1, section 2, section 3 and so on.

Mr. Breaugh: I am not disagreeing with that.

Mr. Chairman: We shall take it as it comes, but I would just give notice that my responsibility as Chairman is not merely to conduct the affairs of the committee but to follow our rules, lest we set precedent that distorts the precedent that has been our guidance for a long time and breach our standing orders.

Mr. Foulds: Can you speak a little bit more clearly so the rest of the members can hear?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. I am having a little difficulty hearing you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I was simply saying to the member and sharing with other members that I have a responsibility, in the chair, to see that we abide by our standing orders. Of course, that is the responsibility of all members, not just those who are participating in this debate.

With regard to the time of the committee, we must follow our rules of order. We have been out of order for some time and it will fall to the chair to call the member to order as soon as this consensus we are operating under deteriorates.

4 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: I think we are all in agreement, Mr. Chairman. I do not see any problem here. We were all happy to allow the parliamentary assistant the option of making some opening remarks. I was interested in what he had to say. I was somewhat shocked at the abbreviated form of it, but I had no qualms about it. I was happy when the member for Waterloo North rose to give his opening remarks. Having established that the --

Mr. Chairman: With all due respect to the member, there was a varying degree. The parliamentary assistant took something in the order of 10 minutes and the Liberal critic took in the order of 30 minutes. I have lost track, but I think the member is currently exceeding two and a half hours.

Mr. Breaugh: I am into this bill, so to speak.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, I sense that. The chair is concerned about setting a precedent that will work to the disadvantage of some members and of our rules down the road.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman: I just do not want us, and I think the member would agree, to get into a rehash of what went on in the committee hearings and during second reading because that is not our purpose, as we all know.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate that. I am ready to continue now. I appreciate what the chair had to say.

Mr. Chairman: I am putting us all on notice.

Mr. Breaugh: Perhaps on another occasion when members such as the parliamentary assistant want to make an opening statement, at that time the House may do so by unanimous consent. I rather assumed that, by allowing the parliamentary assistant to make an opening statement, it was with unanimous consent that everybody could make an opening statement.

If someone wanted to put it in the form of a motion that said, "You can talk for only 10 minutes," that would be fine with me and I would know what the rule was. When I agreed that the parliamentary assistant could speak, I did not say it was for five minutes. There is nothing in the standing orders that I can find that says a member can talk for 10 minutes or 20 minutes.

There is a proposal by the standing committee on procedural affairs to put a limit on members' speeches, but that and the famed rule of the member for Wilson Heights and a number of other things sit on the shelf waiting for the House leaders to call that report of the committee and put in place what the Chairman is talking about.

In the absence of that, I know of no restriction on how long a member may speak. I know the Chairman is quite right that a member must be in order, but it was my understanding at that time, and perhaps I am incorrect on this, that we had agreed by unanimous consent we would all get to make opening statements under clause 1(a). That is fine with me. I am happy to proceed on that basis. If we have some other basis, I would protest mildly that the parliamentary assistant made his statement unimpeded by the chair, so to speak, and the member for Waterloo North made his opening statement unimpeded by the chair. I intend to proceed similarly.

Mr. Chairman: Except that we are out of order. That is the only point I am making. We are out of order and we are not following the job the committee was set to do. We are not supposed to be doing second reading, but with all due respect we are back having a second reading debate.

Mr. Breaugh: I have to put it this way. If we are out of order, we are out of order by unanimous consent and one cannot beat that game.

Mr. Chairman: I am in the hands of the committee.

Mr. Breaugh: Good. I like to see that.

Mr. Chairman: I remind all members that we are playing light with our rules.

Mr. Breaugh: We are constantly rewriting history here. The Chairman knows that.

I wanted to point out that the feeling on the part of the people of Vespra township was that this was not a hearing by an independent body. It was a common feeling that was expressed on a number of occasions and in a number of ways. As we go through this, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that this has had a hearing process attached to it, because I would dare to speak for many of those people in saying they felt there was no independent body at work, that there was a committee of the Legislature which was in some ways patient with people and in some ways quite rude with people, which held what was touted to be public hearings on the bill.

They did not leave the committee room feeling an independent body had a public hearing at all. Quite the contrary, they felt that on a number of occasions they were not even being listened to, were not even being given a polite hearing and then ignored, but rather were subjected to some abuse.

The major problem I have with moving swiftly through this is that it seems to me a bill of this nature has money at its very heart. There is no question about that. The bill addresses itself to compensation factors. The comments of the one witness before the committee whom I recall speaking about the government as a nice group of folks to deal with in terms of annexation procedures, the reeve of the township of Innisfil, were about money. A financial settlement favourable to the township was arrived at. He did not go into all the reasons the government sweetened the pot that much, but that was the gist of his argument. A lot of money was put in the municipal coffers and that made the whole thing palatable.

Here is an indication of a piece of legislation in which the amount of money in question has never been resolved. The government has not made much more than a token effort to resolve that, and yet we are expected to proceed with the clause-by-clause debate of this bill in its absence. When one gets to the practical ramifications of it all, it is unlikely this bill will be given royal assent prior to the end of June; yet it has a start date of July 1. Somebody is saying there will be a couple of days perhaps near the end of the month when all the outstanding financial arguments can be resolved. I do not really think that is going to happen.

A more likely thing will be that the bill will be passed into law and proclaimed. This will happen and, after the fact, somebody will attempt to deal with the financial obligations of the various municipalities involved in it. To be polite, that is unfair. To be accurate, that is dead wrong. Along those lines is not the way to proceed. There is a need to clarify the financial aspects of this annexation prior to the legislation being put in place.

If we were able to look at a set of numbers this afternoon that were favourable to all parties, it would in great measure resolve the difficulties Vespra has with it or the great difficulties I think Barrie has with it. Barrie's financial obligations have not really been spelled out as yet. It is buying an obligation to provide amounts of money as yet unspecified. From the point of view of everybody -- Vespra, Barrie and the county council -- each ought to know what it is getting into in dollar terms before we proceed, and that is not happening.

Why that is not happening is a good question, because in most other arrangements between and among municipalities I have been involved with, one of the first orders of business is money. Let us get the money on the table. Let us discuss who has the financial obligation here. Let us discuss who is responsible for which of the services that are going to be provided. Let us talk about the level of services that will have to be provided. Let us talk about who picks up the liabilities, who gets the assets, who has to do what for the forthcoming year. Most of those municipalities will want to know what impact that is going to have on their municipal budgets this year, next year and in ongoing years. They want to know that stuff and with good reason.

None of that has happened. It would appear the passage of the legislation means the minister who initiated the bill will at some time in the future be the sole arbitrator of the financial obligations. That is my reading of what is going to happen. How fair is it? Can one even pretend it is fair to have the minister who introduced the legislation causing all this to happen, the villain in the piece from my point of view, not appear at some time before a court, tribunal, legislative committee or any such thing, but arbitrarily on his own, on the advice of his staff, make those financial decisions?

It seems to me it would be dead wrong for us to establish that as a precedent. If this were the minister arbitrating a dispute here, we might say a further level of arbitration can take place over financing at some time, but most of us would say there has to be an appeal process. We must understand how the minister arrives at a decision and we must be able to see there is some kind of input at work, a measure of fairness, and the parties can state their case. All those things would be given. We would be saying all those things.

4:10 p.m.

We would certainly not be saying, after the thing is law, at the minister's pleasure and behind closed doors he may arbitrarily set the financial obligations for the municipal players in this action. I do not believe that to be even close to being fair. I do not believe that to be a reasonable way to proceed; yet that is what we are asked to accept.

Many people were a little taken aback by some of the things that happened during committee. Many of them had been involved in this dispute for some time and were familiar with court proceedings where people swear oaths and provide evidence that is considered to be hard evidence, such as one would present in litigation, but none of that happened. There was no ability on either part to cross-examine what was presented as evidence. Members of the committee noted on a number of occasions that simple cost projections were not done, simple assessment projections were not done, and simple assessments of what it would cost to plough the roads were not done.

Simple assessments of what it would take for police costs came from newspaper reports out of the Barrie area where the police chief was noting it would cost more money to police the mall area than is now in the budget. They would need another $100,000 or $200,000 to do that. That is as close as the committee ever got to seeing hard evidence. Aside from that, none was really provided.

Recent press reports say: "There is not going to be any cost because we are not going to provide any police service. We will let the Ontario Provincial Police go in there." It is a strange piece of business.

This is a little awkward for me to get into, but I really think it must be addressed. During the course of this debate or the hearings themselves, many people were upset. They thought there would be a committee of the Legislature that would sit and listen to evidence as presented. They were somewhat taken aback, when members of the Legislature went off to committee for hearings, that it was not quite the formal cap-and-gown process that was underway. Some of them got the impression that members were not interested in listening to what they had to say. Some of the people who appeared before the committee were somewhat taken aback when members read newspapers and told jokes to one another. They were there physically, but they were not there mentally or they were engaged in some other activity.

I think one of the things that shocked some of the members of the committee was an incident that happened on a day when one of the members of the committee got up and, as he walked out of the room -- there was a witness appearing before the committee who was kind of in mid-testimony -- as he went by, almost as an aside, he said to the witness that he had "heard enough of this bullshit." The witness was really shocked by that. I do not know whether --

Mr. Chairman: It is not parliamentary language either, even in the recounting.

Mr. Breaugh: That is why --

Mr. Chairman: I think you should withdraw the remark.

Mr. Breaugh: I cannot withdraw it because I did not say it.

Let me just continue in this way and I think it will resolve the problem. The witness was really taken aback by that. Of course, it was not quite on the record, but it was loud enough that it was audible and members heard it. Members raised it, and the next day the chairman of the committee, in all fairness, asked that the remarks be withdrawn and a semi-apology was put in place.

I think what is pertinent about all of that is that people were shocked that that was the attitude of members of the Legislature. Had there been an open argument back and forth, in many respects it would have been much better. People would have said: "Oh, my, we have to watch our language. We cannot use these words. We have to be careful what we say here, but there is an argumentative process at work."

I think what took them aback is that the member who said this said it as an aside, walking out the door. I happened to be one of the members of the committee who heard the words being used. I think he did not intend to put that on the record. He meant to do a little smooth manoeuvre there and say something to the witness on the way out the door that would not get in Hansard. The witness then was kind of caught. it is almost like being insulted in public where one is the only person who can hear the words being used.

The witness was taken aback. I think the committee was somewhat taken aback by that as well. It did cause a problem. I think many of the people who appeared before the committee on that day at least were shocked. That is not how a court operates. That is not how a county council operates. That is not how any municipal council I ever heard of operates. When one went into a public hearing forum so to speak, there were often arguments, but the attempt was always made to keep the arguing down, so one at least sat and listened to what people had to say, but one sure did not call them names in the process.

In every municipal forum of which I have ever heard, a real attempt was made by a council to sit there and at least shut up if it did not like what was being said to it on a given afternoon or evening. That is a relatively simple act, and if one could muster it, a little bit civilized in the process. These people certainly did not expect that someone appearing as a witness before a legislative committee would have this thrown in his face as an aside as a member of the Ontario Legislature walked out the door.

What is pertinent about it is that people were really shocked. Perhaps honourable members get pretty relaxed, so to speak, because we spend a lot of time in committee. It often is not the most exciting work in the world, but it has to be done. Everybody's caucus needs to have a few representatives there. On a number of occasions, I did not always look excited at or enraptured by whatever the proceedings of the committee were at any given moment.

I think the representatives were taken aback because they think it is a big deal, and it should be, to have a committee of the Ontario Legislature holding public hearings. Members of the Legislature do not have to sit there like Supreme Court justices, not by a long shot, but they are supposed to listen to the proceedings and make an informed judgement afterwards. Many people were confused.

Because a number of people from the area spent more time in that committee than did some committee members, they kept coming to me and asking: "How can you sit in judgement on a bill? How can you participate in public hearings when you are there one day out of five, when you are there for half an hour, leave for two hours and then come back in the afternoon for another half an hour? How can you hear evidence?"

You try to explain to the people. You tell them we have Hansard, so we can read it. Realistically, however, does anybody believe that if we were not there that day, we would take Hansard home that night and read it? I confess I do not read Hansard every night. I understand there are people who actually do that, although I do not know why. The point the people were making was how could we hear what they had to say when we were not even there. Even when we are physically present in the room, we may seem to be mentally absent and just not with it. I think they have a legitimate point there; they have a legitimate beef.

I would like to put on the record a couple of comments from people who did appear before the committee. Some of the groups that appeared before the committee were representing larger groups of people. As I said the other night, Vespra is a rather unusual place in that people seem to be organized. In some senses it is not unlike my own community, which is one of the most highly organized communities in the world. On a slightly smaller scale, Vespra was a participant in a very active way in all these proceedings. I think those people deserve to have part of their presentations put on the record here.

Mr. Paul Warner, who is the chairman of the Residents Against Vespra Exploitation -- RAVE, a citizens' group in Vespra township -- said: "I would like to remind you people that we are people. You were in with us at one time in the grass roots. The people of this country fought and are still fighting against dictatorial governments and those controlled by central committees. We are fighting this all over the world. I am asking you not to let it happen here. It is up to all of you and in the long run up to us."

I think those are important words for members of the Legislature to understand because the Vespra people are not just saying the government is making a mistake on this bill or the bill needs some improvement. Once again it talks about the process, much the same as many of the rural municipalities did.

This is from Mr. Bruce Bonnell, a member of RAVE, who did appear before the committee both here and with those in attendance at the hearings in Simcoe county. He said: "It remains obvious that the dishonesty of all proceedings or lack of any proper proceedings will continue on to its predetermined conclusion. Vespra has farm land. Vespra has tourist attractions. Vespra has business sense. Vespra is not in debt. The one thing that will upset the applecart is the vile ripoff of its commercial strip. The government of Ontario and the city of Barrie are intent on the destruction of a viable entity, the rural municipality of Vespra. That is wrong. Stop it."

4:20 p.m.

Those are pretty tough words from an ordinary citizen. They seem to reflect an attitude of the people who live around him, people in rural Ontario who probably are true-blue Tories in many respects of the phrase, who understand exactly what they want, who know exactly the kind of lifestyle they want to have and who are not looking at major budget deficits when they prepare the budget for their rural municipalities and have found ways and means to get around that. It seems to me Mr. Bonnell very succinctly says all that.

Mr. Ronald Sass said: "in addition to that...if you annex this property you virtually destroy a viable urban population. Who are you satisfying? Are you satisfying the citizens of Vespra? I do not think so. Are you satisfying the citizens of Barrie? All they are going to be faced with is additional taxes. There could be some income. Or are you satisfying developers or those people who own numbered companies registered outside of our country which are in the areas that have been added to the annexed area?"

They seem to know what is going on in their area. I know many members of the Legislature have raised on several occasions the idea that rural property is no longer owned by folks around the corner. It is owned by numbered companies, by investors from offshore and by large corporations. They have an awareness of all that, although sometimes in the Legislature of Ontario we seem to deny that is really happening.

Here is a little quote from Mr. Lom: "We are all strongly opposed to the proposed annexation on much the same grounds as have been related to you by the speakers this morning.... We feel there is no justification for annexation of Vespra land by the city of Barrie and that Barrie has enough land on its hands now to handle. The proper procedure which ought to be followed has been disregarded and the democratic action which ought to take place has been supplemented by a legislated measure.

"We do not wish to be absorbed by Barrie. We do not see any advantages which will flow to us from that annexation. We live in a rural area. We participate in the life of Barrie, to which we contribute our money by way of commerce and indirect contributions. Simply stated, we oppose this annexation on every count."

This is from Mrs. J. Money: "We feel what Barrie grabbed from Innisfil township is much more than what is required for Barrie's development in the next 20 or 30 years, unless Barrie grows a heck of a lot faster than it has grown in the last 30 years."

This is from Mr. R. Watson: "I seem to find quite a few difficulties in accepting anything I have read or heard on this annexation. As I say, I am a businessman in Barrie. I watch Barrie every day. I watch Vespra when I get home. I see that Barrie cannot handle the maintenance of its own area."

That is interesting because we had a few citizens of Barrie and Vespra who lived in one municipality and owned property in another, such as this gentleman, who essentially said: "I have dual citizenship, and from both points of view this annexation makes no sense. From both points of view, this is not the right way to proceed. There is no advantage on either side. It should be left as it is, that is, accepting that it is really important."

Mr. G. White, representing the Seventh Concession Vespra Ratepayers Association, said: "I do not think there is any need. I think Barrie is looking for every dollar it can get, but I think the prime drive behind Barrie is one of prestige and the fact that the Barrie council is a Conservative one. All the area MPs are Conservatives and it fits in with their general plans. I do not think really when you dig down into it, it is anything more than that. I think they feel offended."

That was said in committee and time and time again by people who said to me afterwards they too used to be Conservative. Their family had been Conservative for a long time and they were using the old argument that they are Conservatives because their grandparents were Conservatives. They felt betrayed by a government which at one time they thought was theirs but which was now doing something they considered to be very wrong.

Here is a little bit from Mrs. E. Adams, representing the Vespra Valley Group: "Why should this annexation dispute have been created? Barrie has already annexed enough land to last it for 30 years or more. If the same thing happened in other countries, there would be a revolution. Yet here in Ontario, where we elected the government to look after our needs, it has turned its back on us and we have had to fight for our rights. The costs have been great financially and mentally."

She goes on in a slightly different vein: "In conclusion, if this annexation is passed, many people in the county of Simcoe, and particularly in the township of Vespra, a former Conservative stronghold, will not forget the part that this Progressive Conservative Party has played in this proposed takeover."

Here is a little bit from Mr. J. Partridge, representing the Minesing Concerned Citizens Group: "We are in total support of the present council resisting Barrie in its desire to grab the commercial assessment that belongs to Vespra ratepayers."

Again I think the language is important. They see it as a land grab, as a grab of assessment; they see it as a grab of some sort that is not very noble in nature and does not rely on a great planning study to say that it ought to be part of the greater urban Barrie area. They do not see it as some great planning exercise; they do not see it as a great servicing exercise. They see it purely and simply as a land grab motivated by money. I must say, having sat through the committee hearings, that I do not see much more rationale for the bill either.

I did not receive any of the things I am familiar with as planning tools to broaden one municipality's boundary. I did not receive any great service study; I did not see any great population projections done for it. When it got right down to the nitty-gritty, I was told there is an area of commercial assessment that is the guts of the financial wherewithal of Vespra township, and it is going to be ripped out of that township and tacked on to the city of Barrie. This might not be as complete a description as one might like, but Mr. Partridge really got a handle on exactly what is going on here.

This is another little bit from a Mr. Paul Channen: "Please be very careful in your decisions. It is very easy to forget the little guy who can be very easily hurt. Think carefully. Does it make sense to weaken one area of the province in order to strengthen another, as Mr. Taylor suggests?" He goes on to say: "My response to that is, there is a solution which is just to simply say: 'No annexation. We are just leaving things for the time being the way they are until Barrie has fully developed what it already has.' I totally agree with you that it has been a long procedure and it has dragged on for a long time and it is not fair to land owners, as you were suggesting, but I do not see that the solution has to be, 'Okay, we give them the land.'"

Here is a group to which I will bet many rural members would pay close attention. I noticed that today the Minister of Agriculture and Food introduced a similar group as part of our bicentennial celebrations. This is from Mrs. Coutts, who represented six women's institutes in Vespra township. Those who were born in rural Ontario will know that the women's institutes in rural Ontario are a powerful force in many respects, politically and otherwise; they have a very close-knit organization; they form the backbone of many social, cultural and educational programs in rural Ontario. If one is a member who represents a riding in rural Ontario, one will know the women's institutes are not to be messed with.

Mrs. Coutts said: "Our organization's 86-year reputation of working with government to modify laws for the benefit of home and country forces us to bring to your attention that this proposed settlement was not handled in a democratic manner....

"As country women, we cherish the rural way of life. We are concerned that the viability of our township may disappear if this commercial-to-other tax base ratio is disrupted. The retention of agricultural land is critical to our country's future. We realize that the rural people are a small minority, but our civil rights are just as important as those of the urban majority. Therefore, we trust that your committee will deal wisely and fairly with our township, giving full consideration to the problems we will face in the future if Bill 142 passes as at present proposed.

"Perhaps I should add at the end, maybe Bill 142 should be withdrawn since our case says they do not need any of it."

I would appreciate a response on the part of the parliamentary assistant, wherever he is, to this women's institute group. I would have been pleased if the Minister of Agriculture and Food had stood up today to introduce the women from the women's institutes around Ontario as part of the bicentennial celebration and if he had mentioned a portion of his response to the women's institutes in Vespra township.

I would have been interested if the government of Ontario had taken some time to write to them and say: "You are wrong; you do not know what you are talking about here. You are members of the women's institute, but you do not know what you are talking about with respect to this bill."

4:30 p.m.

I did not hear that. I did not hear much of a rebuttal in the committee. It seems to me that at that time the Tories in the committee did the wise thing: they shut up, sat down and slunk around a little bit. They were not about to take on the women's institutes in a head-on battle. The answer as to who would win that battle is pretty straightforward: the women's institutes would clean their clocks. They know that and maybe that is why they settled into silence rather nicely for a while.

It seems to me the women's institutes laid it out for them. They did not have the temerity to respond. That is a bit of a shame. Had the government of the day really been supportive of this bill, one would have thought it would have been anxious to do battle with the women's institutes to establish clearly that the women's institutes were on faulty ground, that they did not have a strong basic argument to make.

I did not see the government doing that. They made a case in front of a committee of the Legislature, and the government let it lie there. It did not challenge them and say they were wrong. It did not say, "Oh, we are being very dramatic here." It just left it alone.

Let me quote Jack Greaves, representing the Craighurst Ratepayers' Association: "We are all citizens of Ontario and we supposedly have equal rights, whether we live in Vespra township or the city of Barrie. Many of us feel our rights are being ignored."

Later he said: "We wonder, too, seeing that we mentioned that 94 per cent of our citizens in Vespra township voted against annexation, what happens to our Charter of Rights. We also wonder what happens to our judicial system under the arbitrary system whereby Mr. Bennett can change the present system that we have. We wonder why there has been no information other than what we occasionally read in the newspapers. We wonder what is happening to democratic government."

Those two might be considered, perhaps not as think-tanks, but as two groups of people representing rural Ontario, the women's institutes of Vespra on the one hand and the Craighurst Ratepayers' Association on the other. They have identified something this government has let slip. Where are people's civil rights? Where is there a right for them to challenge what the government of Ontario is doing? Do they not have the rights that minorities have in other situations? Do they have a legal right to challenge this legislation? Will they have an opportunity, in a practical sense, to challenge this before a court?

That remains to be seen, but I think both groups have pointedly used language that is not unfamiliar to members of the Legislature. As far as dealing with other minority groups and other kinds of civil rights is concerned, we would be rushing to their defence. We would be saying that even though there are fewer of them than there are over here, they have not only a right to be heard but other rights as well.

One could make not a bad argument that this is annexation without compensation, because so far that is exactly what it is. It is a land grab of rather substantial proportions with no money on the table. If I, as a New Democrat, were proposing this kind of stuff I can imagine what would be hurled back at me from the government side of the House. There would be yells and screams about nationalization without compensation and all the old tommyrot that we hear time and time again when we talk about things that are important to us. Here in this Legislature, that is exactly what this government is proposing to do.

In the Legislature this afternoon the government gives every indication that it intends to continue, come hell or high water, with this bill that the backbone of the Tory party in Ontario says is undemocratic, unfair, unnecessary and just plain wrong from a number of points of view. Yet it intends to proceed no matter what they say and no matter what minority rights may be involved.

I am not going to go so far as to say it would be crass enough to say there are 3,000 votes in Vespra township and 40,000 or 50,000 votes in and around Barrie. If that is the way to resolve this, I hope there will be some small semblance of honour which would say, "At least we had better mount some kind of phoney frontal attack that makes a bit of our case," but I have not heard it and I have been listening for some time.

For the better part of six months, I have been waiting for the government to make its case to prove all these individual citizens and all these citizens' groups wrong. I have not even seen an effort to try to do that.

I have seen the minister write a letter to Municipal World in response to a magazine article written by Julian Tofts, the administrator for Vespra township, but I have not seen him in committee and I have not heard him yet so far -- I listened very carefully to a certain extent to the parliamentary assistant; I have not heard him bother to address himself to these people's concerns.

I do not buy that it is the right thing to do. I do not buy admonishments such as: "We have to do something, and this is what we are doing. Therefore, we are going to proceed." He has an obligation to give them a better argument than that and to address himself to the concerns of the women's institutes and the ratepayers' associations. I have not seen him do that. It would be plain common courtesy to do that, but he has not done it yet. Maybe during the course of the clause-by-clause debate we will hear some of that.

How about this from Reeve Grant Andrade from the township of Innisfil? "I would like to say to this committee that all the views expressed here this day by all the people are extremely important. Vespra is to be congratulated that so many people in a short time made the great effort to be here. In Innisfil, we had some support but not on the same scale or comparable to that here today."

That is unusual. That is one reeve praising the citizens of another township. It does not happen all the time, but they do recognize it is exactly what happened. Even though reeves from other townships said the views expressed by all the people that day were extremely important, the minister does not seem to think so. He does not think they are important enough to provide them with a response.

I do not want to read all these comments into the record but to move along quickly picking out a couple of them. Here is one from Mr. Brian McGregor, the spokesman for the Little Lake ratepayers' association. He said:

"I am here today to register our opposition to Bill 142. There are two aspects of the annexation issue that we find unacceptable, one being the way in which the Solicitor General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Mr. George Taylor and Mr. Claude Bennett, have introduced this piece of legislation...and I would ask that you give this presentation and all others you hear today a little more consideration than the Solicitor General gave the Vespra residents."

That speaks to the confusion I spoke of earlier. It is fairly logical that the people would be confused by it all. They are not sure who is proposing this legislation. Neither am I. I am not quite clear. I saw one minister of the crown stand up and introduce it and another minister on other occasions take credit for it, but we are not sure whether it is the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) making a move to nationalize part of the turf of Vespra township or whether it is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing addressing himself to a municipal problem. It is either the top cop of Ontario seizing some land or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing resolving some kind of municipal dispute. It is not clear to me, nor to this gentleman Mr. McGregor, what is going on. That too needs to be clarified.

Members might be interested in the comments of Mrs. Bonnie Smith, who said: "The lines on a map may be easy for the city of Barrie to change -- maybe we'll take only the commercial strip; no, maybe everything up to the pipeline! But, a boundary change for me would be a catastrophe; it may destroy my farm. Why should I be forced to leave my home, lose my means of livelihood and the lifestyle I love? My home farm gave my first son a start in agriculture, but the annexation would deny this opportunity to my other three sons.

"I hope I have outlined my concerns as a farmer in Vespra township in regards to the annexation of Vespra lands by the city of Barrie. I do not wish to be part of Barrie as it will mean an end to my livelihood. I want to continue to farm my family farm. I hope the committee will allow myself and my family to continue to farm."

I remember that testimony. It was kind of moving. That is someone who laid it on the line and spoke to the reality of the issue. This is not a map the government is playing with. We should try to understand that. It is not a set of little dots on a piece of paper. This is people's lives --

Mr. Rotenberg: What happened to her farm? It was all left in Vespra. Why do you not mention that to get the record straight? The boundary was changed.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Are you okay?

Mr. Breaugh: Want us to send for the medics now?

The Deputy Chairman: If he wants, he can participate when you sit down. Maybe some other people can talk. You have the floor.

Mr. Breaugh: Will they bellow like you?

The Deputy Chairman: You never know.

Mr. Breaugh: No. There was an interjection by the member for Wilson Heights who pointed out the boundary lines were changed --

Mr. Rotenberg: It is not my version, it is the true version.

Mr. Breaugh: If it is the true version, it certainly is not his version.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, there is an implication that I think should be withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman: No, I do not think there was an implication. Member for Oshawa, get to the subject. Are you in your wrapup statement?

Mr. Breaugh: I am moving in a little one piece at a time.

The Deputy Chairman: In conclusion?

Mr. Breaugh: Do you want to harass me a bit more?

The Deputy Chairman: In conclusion?

Mr. Breaugh: What Mrs. Smith had to say here -- and maybe the member for Wilson Heights would not understand it -- was that for her and her family and her farm operation this kind of annexation move, whether she is inside or outside the boundary line, means something pretty substantial. It touches how people live, their traditions and their right to raise a family in rural Ontario and to see that part of the hard work of developing a farm in rural Ontario is a tradition that can be handed down to sons and daughters.

She is simply saying -- and I am not too sure the member got the message -- "Buzz off, kid. Do not bother me. I am here in rural Ontario. I am doing what my parents have done. It is an honourable thing to do. It is not an easy life, but it is an honourable life. It is a tradition I want to hand down from one part of the family to another. Maybe you are interested in grabbing assessment from shopping malls. Farm families are not interested in grabbing assessment from shopping malls. For the most part, the people I grew up with would be happy if governments just buzzed off, left them alone and did not louse up their lives for a while. Just let them do what their fathers and mothers had done before them."

That is essentially what Mrs. Smith had to say to the parliamentary assistant. She did not make a big plea to move the boundary line around. She did not talk about assessment, services charges, frontage or anything like that. She just said: "Get lost. Take your bill and leave me alone." It seems to me that in its own way is a very straightforward, simple and eloquent response to the government. It is one the government did not answer very well.

Here is another response from another woman, Mrs. S. Devries: "If we are to continue to believe in the system, it has to be built on faith. And, Mr. Davis, you did give us your word about regional government." The Premier (Mr. Davis) was not there. She was speaking rather rhetorically that afternoon, as I am this afternoon. She said: "The only answer to annexation by the provincial government, the Davis government, to be credible, is to reverse the decision. More is at stake than money, taxes and grants -- our democracy and what the Conservative Party stood for in the past. Mr. Davis, it rests with you."

The Premier was not there to respond to her. I know he did respond to council in the area. The fact that his response did not exactly materialize is another matter entirely. However, here is a woman who thinks with the audacity that people in a democracy often have. She thinks she can talk to the head honcho. When the Premier of Ontario says there will be no more regional government in this area, she thinks that is exactly what should be the case. She is a little upset that the government has now called it annexation.

This government plays a wonderful game. It feels if it calls it by another name, it can do it anyway. If it calls a tax by a different name, if it calls it an Ontario health insurance plan premium, no one will smell it out as being a tax.

In this case, Mrs. Devries is saying: "I thought you said there would not be any more regional government. I thought you made that commitment." She does not care that the government calls this annexation. She knows what it is. The government cannot fool her. She is a little smarter than the average bear. She can smell it out. She knows whether it is honey or some other substance the government is sticking on the wooden plate this afternoon.

She does not need a lecture from the member for Wilson Heights or anybody else. She is an independent woman who thought she understood the system in which she worked and now seems to be a little confused. So am I. She believed in a system that was built on faith that if one gave one's word about something, one would not change it later. She believed that if the government gave its word about regional government or anything else, it would not call it an annexation bill years later and bring it in the side door. She has really got it.

I was born and raised with Tories such as this woman, so I think I understand her a little bit better than some members might. "More is at stake than money, taxes and grants. Our democracy" -- here is the part that hurts me a bit -- "and what the Conservative Party stood for in the past." Maybe she is born again. Maybe the light is beginning to dawn. Maybe when she uttered the words, "what the Conservative Party stood for in the past," the light was coming on. Maybe she understands it is not really all the things she believes in.

Let me point out to members another interesting comment. During the hearings, women seemed to have the most interesting comments which really hit the government where it hurts. This is an important point from Mrs. R. Hiemstra:

"In closing I would also like to point out that if the province is willing to offset the annexation with a grant to Vespra, this grant is for only a short time, but annexation is forever. Eventually all the residents of Vespra will be paying for the loss of this commercial strip."

This woman is really saying they cannot even bribe her into submission. She understands a short-term bribe might work and it might sweeten the path, but she also understands that in the long run one is grabbing the assessment base of a whole municipality and that ain't going to work. No matter what kind of upfront bribe one puts on the table, she knows that in the long run she is going to be paying for it.

These people seem to have an understanding of what the world is all about. It really is quite delightful. They understand if the government bribes today, it is going to steal it back from them tomorrow. She knows something a lot of people in Ontario do not know and ought to.

Here is a good quote from Tim Henshaw. He said: "I am opposed to the annexation of lands in the township of Vespra, as proposed by Bill 142. We, the people of Vespra, cannot even count on any support from our elected member, George Taylor, to uphold the wishes of the majority of township residents.

"I do not have to remind people that historically, taxation without representation has produced uprisings. Perhaps our only recourse is like the people of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada, to appeal to a foreign power for assistance against a corrupted team.

"In conclusion, I will state the only acceptable boundary between Barrie and Vespra township is the boundary that currently exists. Barrie has no historical, ethical or moral right to any land or moneys derived thereof, of the portion of Vespra township which is in question.

"I urge each and every member of this committee to act in a clear, concise manner. Consider the facts presented here tonight by the people to whom Vespra is a home. I am sure your constituents would want you to side with the 94 per cent of the population of Vespra who oppose annexation. Behave according to the trust placed in you by your constituents. Democracy depends on you."

That is pretty tough stuff. They are talking revolution right here in Vespra township. I am not sure what they had in mind when Mr. Henshaw suggested, "Perhaps our only recourse is like the people in the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada, to appeal to a foreign power." Quebec, maybe? Did he have that in mind? He is looking for help from someplace, and he is drawing a comparison which may be a bit extreme, but I think he is expressing his own personal frustration that even his local member seems to have abandoned him and does not care to listen to what he has to say.

Mr. Boudria: Where is the local member?

Mr. Breaugh: We should be grateful the local member has absented himself for a while.

Here is another little comment, by Mrs. J. Treasure: "In view of what to me appears a lack of expertise on the part of Barrie to realize that most of its own gold mines, I think the lands being considered for annexation by Barrie, would be more wisely used and developed in the hands of Vespra than in the hands of Barrie. In fact, I am not too sure that the wisest course would not be to grant Vespra the annexation of Barrie."

4:50 p.m.

We seem to have a little juxtaposition there and I am not sure I would go quite that far -- Vespra township taking over Barrie -- but in the course of our deliberations we listened to a lot of discussion about the level of services, who was financially secure and who had a balanced budget.

We heard a couple of complaints about the level of services in Barrie, but we did not in Vespra township. They seemed to have established a measure of government provision of services there which was spot on with the population's expectations. They did not have the problem many municipalities have of overproviding a service, of giving them more than they ever really wanted to have, of leaning on a staff report that gave gold-plated streets and things such as that.

Here is a little piece from Mr. A. McNabb: "I suggest you cannot make a just decision on Bill 142, on the annexation issue, unless you know considerably more about this ecologically fragile watershed; that approximately 80 per cent of the area in question drains into another watershed which is" -- the rest has been deleted here. "I suggest the elected council of Vespra township is much more apt to provide good planning and development for this area than any elected council of Barrie ever would. As residents of Vespra township, we hope you can make the right decision, one that is fair to all, because before any of us realizes it, it will be history and part of the past."

Mr. Boudria: Could it be said we have slowed down the historical process?

Mr. Breaugh: One never knows about things such as historical processes.

I know the members enjoyed hearing those comments from those people in the middle phase of my discourse. The people of Vespra township and Barrie who participated in the hearing process had a message for the Ontario Legislature and they delivered it very well. They told us this was not a good idea. They told us, according to their ancestors' and their own values, this was the wrong way to proceed. It was not accomplishing much good for anybody. It was a threat to their rural lifestyles, to their ecology and to the financial security of their municipality. There was a major problem in accepting the concept of Bill 142.

As they went through all that, they also pointed out there was not just a theoretical problem around the concept of annexation, but there was an inherent threat in there to the way they perceived democracy should work. There was an inherent problem in their political values as well. None of us really thought for a moment there would be a revolution in Vespra township, but it is the thing of which revolutions are made. When people get to the point where they say, "The people I elected do not represent me any more and, in fact, are working against my interests as a constituent," one has a major problem there.

When people say the process is wrong, that this is supposedly a hearing on a bill but nobody is listening during the course of the hearing, that members who are supposedly sitting in judgement, in arbitration in a dispute such as this, are not interested in what one side of the argument has to say, then one has a major problem.

I noted a couple of other things which are important to get on the record. Many of the rural municipalities I spoke of the other evening were very much interested in the article in Municipal World entitled "Annexation -- A New Provincial Solution?" We have pointed out on one or two occasions now, and I will point it out again, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not here. He has been in that state for quite some time now in considering this bill. He has just not been around.

Mr. Wildman: Not only is he not here, he is not all there.

Mr. Breaugh: There is that too.

Oddly enough, although the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not seen fit to participate in the debate on the bill, although he did not see fit to attend the public hearings, and although he does not see fit to be present with us in the Legislature as we move very quickly through clause-by-clause debate, he did, however, apparently read that article in Municipal World. Although he did not use any of the opportunities that are available for members of the Legislature to engage in argument about a bill such as this, he did take the time, or someone on his staff took the time, to write a letter to the editor of Municipal World.

I do not know whether it is the minister's practice to write letters to the editor. It has always been my personal opinion that if I have something to say to somebody, I do not write a letter to the editor. I usually pick up a pen and write directly or I pick up a telephone and call directly or, if possible, I go and see whoever it is. I am not really an advocate of writing a letter to an editor to be published in a paper. If I want to say something, I generally take a more direct approach.

I noted with interest that the minister wrote to Municipal World in response to the article. Maybe that is an indication that, although the minister does not seem to be listening on Bill 142, he seems to be aware that he has kicked over a hornets' nest here and that there are political implications beyond Vespra township in regard to this bill.

The other evening we listened to all the arguments about democracy and that kind of stuff, and there are people who do think they are important, even if this government does not. Someone on his staff, I presume, took the time to write to Municipal World, and I think that is worthy of our consideration here this afternoon. Let me quote from it, because I would not want to be caught out misquoting a minister. This is a verified and true copy of his letter to the editor. He starts out smoothly, as he always does.

Mr. Boudria: Not when he writes to me.

Mr. Breaugh: I think the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) will like this. The minister says, "I would like to comment on a number of issues and inaccuracies presented in the article on the Barrie-Vespra annexation dispute."

If one were interested in resolving a dispute, I do not think one would start out by saying the other guy is inaccurate. I think one might try to present one's version of what was the honest-to-God accurate truth or one might point out that one has a different opinion. I do not think one really begins to resolve disputes by telling the other people they are factually incorrect in whatever parliamentary way one would do it.

The minister says in the next little paragraph that he wants to focus on "the 'uniqueness' of Bill 142, the need for annexation, the perceived inequities of the process, and the alleged 'undemocratic' action taken by the government." He certainly seems to have got his ears open at the right point here, but I notice he is given to using adjectives such as "perceived" when talking about inequities. As someone who has followed this dispute for some time now, I would say the inequities are not only perceived; they are real. He can say there is an allegation here of "undemocratic" action, but he certainly has an obligation to try to spell out what he thinks democratic action is.

These poor people from Vespra township thought when a public hearing is held, people listen to them. They thought when they elected somebody to public office, that person had an accountability or responsibility to his or her constituents. I am not so sure they would go along with the idea that this is just an allegation of undemocratic action. They might go a little bit harder on that.

I will pick up the quotation here: "The article refers several times to the legislation as being 'unique,' with the implication that changing municipal boundaries by legislation is a departure from past procedures. For many years legislation was the only way. I would also be surprised if the majority of your readers are not aware that some 30 years ago, in 1953, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was created by Bill 101. This was a direct result of a number of annexation issues submitted to the Ontario Municipal Board. There are other recent examples, Thunder Bay and Timmins among them."

The minister may not have yet discovered that Vespra township is not quite Metro Toronto. It is seen in a different context with a different set of problems. The process whereby a boundary dispute will be resolved is different in that area than it would be in Metro.

Mr. Foulds: Using Thunder Bay as an example was not too cool either. They set back the cause of unity there about 10 years with a forced amalgamation.

5 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: I was afraid if I mentioned all these annexations, members would recall and tell the Legislature that what a minister in a letter to Municipal World points out as being a great way to proceed, once one gets a local interpretation on that, turns out to be not so great. In some areas there are people who still think regional government stinks, even though it was touted.

I was there listening to Darcy McKeough, John White and others tell us about the wonderfulness of regional government. I was there when Darcy McKeough gave a nice lecture to the Oshawa council, the Whitby council, the Ajax council and the Bowmanville council. At that time, he told us it was going to save us a lot of money through stuff he called "economies of scale." We sure as hell got the scale, but I do not think we have the economies yet. Maybe Darcy meant these things would kick into place in the next century, but they have not yet arrived.

Mr. Foulds: The Tory aldermen in Neebing in Thunder Bay are threatening to secede from Thunder Bay.

Mr. Breaugh: Secession. This is becoming a shocking debate. We are talking about revolutions, secession, all these things.

Mr. Foulds: Those are the Tory aldermen in Neebing.

Mr. Breaugh: Our society could be changing.

Mr. Wildman: Nothing succeeds like secession.

Mr. Breaugh: Let me get to this.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the honourable member speaking on Bill 142?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: You bet your sweet life.

Mr. Breaugh: I am surprised you had not noticed that.

Let me get to the heart of what the minister had to say in his little letter. He wrote, "In this particular case, with a task force report, several Ontario Municipal Board hearings (one lasting nine months), several court cases, over $1 million in public funds and 10 years of deliberations, the province was more than justified in deciding that this is a case where legislation is required."

I find that interesting because this is, quite frankly, the heart and soul of the decision of the government of Ontario to make a move here, the government of Ontario which in many other areas would say: "Never mind the cost. We have a judicial system and a semijudicial system here that are set up to find truth, justice and all that kind of stuff. It is not fair to intervene and say, 'We cannot afford to find justice this week.'"

The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has not intervened in the Grange commission across the way, saying, "There has been $4 million or $6 million spent on this inquiry and that is all the money we are going to spend on it at this time." We do not see the Attorney General intervening in the criminal proceedings and saying, "Listen, we spent $200,000 on this investigation and that is all it is worth, so we are going to stop the investigation here."

Mr. Stokes: Or the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. That is $10 million and counting -- seven years and counting.

Mr. Breaugh: We do not want to count such things as the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. In most instances, it is somehow seen as being not quite appropriate for a government to say: "We cannot afford any more justice. There is a price tag on finding truth and life in the Canadian way of doing things." Governments have had a tendency to say, "We have such bodies as the Ontario Municipal Board and, yes, it is expensive to participate in hearings before the board." In my experience, however, the government has always taken the other tack on this.

The government has always said the municipal board is a fine, upstanding board and is there to serve a purpose. It may well cost money to make representations before the municipal board. Countless municipalities have spent countless thousands, maybe even millions of dollars, in appearing before the board and making their arguments. I had always understood, however, it was one's right in a free society to take something either to court or to something such as the municipal board.

In the first instance, we were not really concerned that this was going to cost some money. If this were the case, we could shut down the courts. If the government of Ontario were about to embark on some new judicial procedure which said one had a legal right to go to court as long as it did not cost more than $100, I would hate to be caught in criminal proceedings, because there would be virtually no lawyer in Ontario who could defend me in the criminal court for $100. Those guys will not even open the mail for $50. If a lawyer has to make a phone call, it costs $200 or $300.

That is the problem when the central thrust of a government's proposal is that it is too expensive, that one cannot go on any more. One has to wonder if there is really any justice in any of this.

The other part of the government's argument is that this has gone on over a lengthy period of time. I notice the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said there had been 10 years of deliberations. I recall during committee we asked if there had really been 10 years of deliberations over this matter. In other words, had there been a court, an OMB hearing or any kind of hearing going on for a decade on this matter? That ain't quite accurate, quite frankly.

It would be accurate to say that on and off over a 10-year period this dispute has simmered. It would be accurate to say there have been some one-day hearings. There was, I believe, one lengthy hearing before the municipal board lasting some nine months. But it is not true to say that for 10 straight years the government of Ontario, the Ontario Municipal Board or anybody else has been working on this dispute and seeking a solution.

It is accurate to say, if one can pick up the little distinction here, the dispute has gone on, off and on, over a 10-year period, but it is not accurate to say we have had 10 years of hard, bone-crunching work every day.

As an analogy I can think of a number of labour disputes, for example, over particular articles in a union contract, where people have been negotiating for 10 or 20 years to try to get something in, but they have not been negotiating every day. As in most negotiated settlements of any kind, one may go into a room and negotiate for three or four hours, go away to other committee rooms for a few weeks and then come back and negotiate for another two-hour or three-hour period.

I dare say if the government of Ontario really wants a negotiated settlement to this particular dispute, it has the resources to make it happen. It could have put all its talents, all its lawyers and all its powers to work in a concentrated way over a period of time. That would mean we would not be sitting here this afternoon going through clause-by-clause debate on this particular bill without knowing the financial ramifications; we would have known them a long time ago.

If the government of Ontario really wanted some kind of negotiated settlement, it probably could have said 10 years ago, "Settle this thing in court. I am sure a court could have come down with a decision. It might not have been appreciated much more than this one, but it would have been possible to come to a conclusion.

The truth is that on and off over that time -- and that means for brief periods -- a decision will be made by the OMB, or an attempt will be made to arrive at a decision there. Then everybody will go away and nobody will really do anything for a lengthy period. Then it will pop up again, and some other attempt will be made to resolve the dispute. When that is done, everybody goes away for a while.

I hardly think one can honestly and in a straightforward way muster much of an argument that this government has done anything on the basis that it spent more than $1 million of public funds. I recall a social occasion on the front lawn of the Ontario Legislature just last year that ran up a tab in one night of pretty close to $1 million.

Mr. Stokes: The bankers?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, there were some banking people here from all over the world.

I know the government appreciates that a million is a million. I am not sure whether it understands that this is a lot of money or not, but I know in one evening's reception on the front lawn of the Ontario Legislature it spent pretty close to that.

The government sealed every single door, built a fence around the Legislature and the legislative grounds and put a big tent at the front in case it was cold. I am told it was, so they then heated the tent. They had the ability in one evening to blow pretty close to $1 million.

Mr. Wildman: It blew a lot of hot air, too.

Mr. Breaugh: It blew a lot of hot air, but then that is normal.

The government of Ontario in this bicentennial year will be spending what it admits is $10 million, but I think all of us understand, in all sincerity, that it will spend two or three times that amount of money. So $1 million to this government is like $10 to me; it is not a huge expenditure.

If the government had wanted to marshal its resources, it would have put together a resolution to this dispute that perhaps would not have made everybody happy but at least would not have resulted in talk of revolution in Vespra township, as we have heard this afternoon.

Let me say, too, that the next little paragraph of what the minister had to say may jeopardize his position as a neutral arbitrator in this dispute. He says, "The township of Vespra has taken and continues to take a position that an annexation is not and never has been justified."

5:10 p.m.

That is okay if the minister is accepting the role of the proposer of the annexation. It is okay as a private member of the Legislature or as a private citizen expressing an opinion on the actions of one particular council.

Where that causes a bit of a problem is he is the guy who is going to resolve the financial arbitration problem. He starts off by saying the position taken by one of the participants, the township of Vespra, has never been justified. I have a little difficulty when here is a guy whose start position is that their position has never been justified, when the end result is he is going to make the financial arbitration awards at the end of the process. If he starts off by saying their position is totally unjustified and not worth thinking about, he is not liable to give them a fair shakedown at the end of the process. That is what he really has to say.

I do not want to bore the members with the entire contents of the minister's letter. It is a boring letter.

Mr. Nixon: Come on, bore us. It will be a first.

Mr. Breaugh: All right. The member has convinced me.

"The township has chosen to assume that the only reason for a change in municipal boundaries is the need for more land for expansion."

One nice thing about a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is one can always throw it in the garbage. This cannot always be done with the minister because he does not always fit.

"It has ignored completely that many annexations are based on enclosing within one municipal jurisdiction the urban development in the community. This is not only government policy reflecting sound municipal organization, development and planning procedures, but it is backed up with ample historical precedent in this jurisdiction and many others."

I am not sure that what the minister said in that paragraph is accurate. I am not sure the first sentence does not say the only reason for changing municipal boundaries is the need for more land for expansion. I did not see any evidence that would indicate to me this annexation is "based on enclosing within one municipal jurisdiction the urban development in the community." I did not see that when we had a chance to tour around the area in government vans.

I am not sure he is right when he says in the next paragraph, "Barrie's 'need' for more land is therefore not an issue in the Barrie-Vespra situation as it was in the successful Barrie-Innisfil negotiations." If Barrie's need for more land is not an issue, why are we proceeding with this annexation bill that gives Barrie more land? There is something amiss here.

The minister has slipped one by us. It seems to me that he is providing more land for the city of Barrie. I cannot believe he is putting the land in the hands of the city of Barrie for purposes of retaining it as farm land.

It seems to me that Fast Eddie Goodman and his people at Cadillac Fairview who want the expansion of the mall must have something to do with more expansion of an urban municipality. It seems to me that we were presented with ample evidence during the committee hearings that land was already held by developers and would be developed. As a matter of fact, we saw some development proposals for certain areas within the annexed area near the end of the committee hearings. It seems to me that is what urban expansion is all about.

In this paragraph he says, "The reason for Bill 142 is that the commercial strip is a part of the community fabric of the city of Barrie. It is not five miles or three miles or even one mile outside the city boundary. It is immediately adjacent to the city boundary."

I have been through the area on a number of occasions. I would be a little hard-pressed to say the commercial strip is part of the community fabric of the city of Barrie. I do not know that to be true, just as I do not know it to be true in anybody's municipality that a commercial section of town is necessarily a part of the community fabric.

One might make an argument that Kensington Market is part of the community fabric of the area. One might make an argument that Yorkville is part of the community fabric there. However, I am not convinced that a commercial strip in another township is part of the community fabric of the city of Barrie. I find that a bit of a stretch. I am not sure that distance is really the criterion here.

I understand from people I talked to in the area that, if anything, the commercial strip in question is part of the community fabric of Simcoe county. It is kind of a regional mall idea and people from all over the county shop there, not necessarily just people from Barrie. In fact, I talked to a couple of residents in the area who said if one is operating a store in this particular commercial area, it is really for the county of Simcoe, not the city of Barrie. There are other malls in Barrie that would be a better place to be if the idea was to get commercial business from Barrie itself.

The minister goes on to say, "The article implies Vespra is an injured party." I read the article and I do not think it implies that at all. I think it says it flat out, straight up, tells it just exactly as it is. There is no question, in the eyes of the people of Vespra township, that it is the injured party. This is not the arbitration of a dispute; this is an annexation move which does not even pretend to be fair to both sides. I do not think that is an unfair thing to say. It is dead on. As the article in Municipal World magazine said, "Vespra considers itself to be an injured party, and there are many of us who agree it is an injured party."

On the face of it, the minister would have to agree, if someone took two thirds or three quarters of his municipality's commercial assessment, it would be injured as a municipality. In this instance, where I think it is upward of 90 per cent of their commercial assessment that is taken away from them, that has to smart somehow. It has to be constituted as an injury.

This next bit is interesting: "It states that Vespra did not have the necessary planning authority to prevent the shopping centre development taking place. This is simply not so. The Planning Act, with its provision for official plans and zoning bylaws was not used by Vespra and there is no record of any action being taken by Vespra to prevent this development. Indeed, the province was forced to impose a zoning order in 1973 to bring a halt to this kind of strip development.

"The article also suggests that when the OMB decisions were challenged in the courts, the courts found that there was a denial of natural justice and an apprehension of bias. Again, this is not quite accurate." While the minister is making quite a career of deciding what is accurate and what is not accurate, I am not completely convinced that the original article was not right on the money and that the minister's response to the article is not somewhat off base itself.

He goes on to say: "In fact, in the quashing of the 1977 decision, bias was never even raised as an issue. Furthermore, Vespra was not represented at those proceedings, the issue being related to government policy on population, which at that time did not appear to be a matter of concern to Vespra.

"The article appears to suggest that democracy is only served by the government of Ontario complying with the wishes of the citizens in one municipality, as set out in a referendum. I cannot see how this could be done.

"I believe democracy is best served not by referenda, but by decisions taken after due consideration of all factors by duly elected representatives of the people. My experience is that responsible government necessitates at times making decisions that are unpopular. Without in any way departing from that position, let me say that a question on the ballot paper asking, 'Do you oppose annexation of lands within the township of Vespra by the city of Barrie?' is simplistic in the extreme."

5:20 p.m.

Let me just respond quietly as a member of the Ontario Legislature of status not quite equal to that of a cabinet minister, but at least here we are supposedly all equal members. I would beg to differ from the minister's description about democracy. I am not a great fan of referenda. I am not always convinced that it is the best way to go, but I do believe on issues such as this it is a useful thing to poll the population. The population in Vespra township is informed and can give us a decision based on much discussion, many facts and much good common sense. That is precisely what they have done in their referendum.

I want to take issue with a couple of things that are worth noting, because they mark a difference between the way the minister and I view democracy. For example, he said, "I believe democracy is best served not by referenda but by decisions taken after due consideration of all the factors by duly elected representatives of the people."

I do not disagree with that totally.

Mr. Boudria: It happens every time when they elect a municipal council.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. I am not the least bit convinced that the minister is not the author of his own misfortune. He is denying in some way that the members of the council of Vespra township do not have the status of duly elected representatives. I believe they do.

I will take it a step or two further. In this Legislature, the reason this bill is proceeding is not that all the duly elected representatives think it is such a hot idea. That is not true. The reason it is proceeding is that one party had the majority on a committee. I would be hard pressed to say that all duly elected government members who sat through the committee hearings really believe this bill is hot stuff either. I am aware that some of them are sniffing around the edges at the foul aroma given off by this bill.

I am aware that they used different members on that committee on a regular basis. It was not the same group of Tories that listened every day in committee to all the evidence. Come voting time, the same thing happened that happens in this Legislature: the party whip goes on and the party members will vote for this bill whether they like it or not. It would be a misstatement to say this was anything even close to due consideration of all the factors by duly elected representatives of the people. That did not happen. If that had happened, I might be a little more amenable to the minister's version of democracy.

I want it clearly on the record that, by my standards, there was no due consideration of this bill on the part of government members. Government members were sent to committee to see the thing stayed on track. That is exactly what they did. Every once in a while they would give a nod towards listening to what people had to say and some little traits that hinted they were in favour of the people or some wonderful thing like that. Every once in a while they would say, "We ought to go up there and listen to what the people have to say." I would be hard pressed to state that they really did listen to what people had to say.

This bill would have gone through in the same form with the same majority vote come hell or high water because they were sent there to do a job, to see they raised their hands at the right time in the committee. That is what they did.

We tried in certain ways to rearrange certain portions of the bill so it would be a little better and reflect some of that in its current state. But I do not for a minute want to leave the impression that in committee the government members listened to the facts they were presented with and that they sought to give what the minister says is due consideration.

I did not see that. I was there every day all day. I saw them doing what they were told to do at the right time. That is what I saw. In the course of committee deliberations, only in the last two days, and out of that in only one full committee day, was there an attempt to search out a compromise, to do a reasonable thing.

The bill as it was presented to me in the Legislature in the latter part of September was the one we stuck with all the way through. What happened in committee was that the government members withstood the onslaught for a period of time. For one or two days near the end of the process, they tried to give something approaching consideration. Whether it was due consideration or otherwise must be left to each individual's judgement.

May I continue with what the minister had to say: "The article implies that people were denied the opportunity to make their views known. Concerning the new boundary line, let me say I made it very clear when I introduced Bill 142 that the contiguous commercial area would form a part of the city of Barrie. The reason for this has been consistently ignored by the township and is again ignored in the article."

I am faced with a piece of legislation that includes a boundary line; but I heard the parliamentary assistant say on a few occasions, "That is not really the boundary line." Then on the final day of committee, after some variations were tried on for size, I heard them say, "This is the boundary line." At a subsequent meeting, after the committee had dealt with it, I heard representatives of the ministry saying, "We have changed the boundary line again." Now, today, I see a different boundary line. I am not sure if anybody, trying to follow as best he can what the ministry was proposing as a boundary line, could make head or tail out of it at any one time.

The one place where the ministry did hang in there and where it was consistent was in intending that the commercial area should be grabbed by Barrie. For example, if someone sitting in a committee were not dealing with the assessment from the commercial angle but rather trying to find an area for annexation that might make some sense, he would have been precluded from drawing the boundary line a different way.

We have to recognize that the basic thrust of this bill has nothing to do with boundaries. Maybe that is why the ministry is playing so fast and loose with the boundary line. This bill has nothing to do with boundaries or with planning, service areas, conservation areas or any of that. This bill has to do with the grab of commercial assessment from the township of Vespra by Barrie. That is what it is all about. As long as that happens, the ministry has what it wants.

Let me pursue those remarks a bit further: "Having repeatedly made the point that the commercial shopping district would be part of Barrie, I also made it very clear that the proposed boundary line would be modified as a result of the committee's deliberations. This was done."

I was there. I watched it happen. I would be hard pressed to give an argument that it was the committee's deliberations that established the boundary line. I did not hear any ardent defences about that. I heard some not too eloquent arguments about whether the boundary line should go through the middle of the lake or around the lake. I am not convinced that the half-hour or hour's session we had on that last afternoon really constituted deliberations. I do not know what one would call it, but that would not be my version of it.

"A number of the delegations made suggestions relating to the boundary line and these were taken into account by the committee." Again, I was there and that ain't the way I saw it happen. What I saw happen was that a couple of civil servants got up and drew lines on a map. It had nothing to do with delegations making suggestions. It had something to do with them deciding where it would arbitrarily be okay to slip it in there. It had a little bit to do with some of the deliberations on the part of various committee members about how big this annexation should be, but it was produced out of a hip pocket, so to speak, at the last moment.

I invite the parliamentary assistant or anyone to give us the rationale for the boundary line as currently drawn in this bill. There is none; it is arbitrary in the extreme; it is just not there; there is no rationale for it. "It makes as much sense as anything else, so we might just as well" is virtually the argument as to how it was done. It was changed on at least one other occasion that I am aware of, after the committee had supposedly dealt with it.

Let me conclude this portion of my opening remarks about this letter.

Mr. Boudria: Already?

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Just a portion.

"It is of deep regret to me that the township of Vespra did not feel it could make any contribution or suggestion with regard to the boundary line. Ample opportunity was available for input during the committee's deliberations."

I am not sure that is the case either. If this annexation takes place, as it perhaps will, I think it is sometimes an unreasonable request to put to a township like Vespra that it participate in the cutting of its own throat; I am not sure that is a reasonable way to proceed. I am not sure members could honestly expect them to sit in there and say, "Well, we want to cut this concession off."

I think the township did the honourable thing; it did the only thing it could do. It said: "This is our position as a council; these are our residents who want to talk to you. Do not expect us to say that we like some of our residents but we do not want others; do not expect us to say that some of our citizens are worth fighting for and others are not."

I think this is an unreal expectation that the minister is attempting to lay on to the council of Vespra township, and I think it is really unnecessary. In the first instance it is not the way I saw it.

Mr. Stokes: Write your own eulogy.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, write your own eulogy.

The government says there was ample opportunity for input during the committee's deliberations. Well, I listened, but "input" means you are part of the process; you can make real change. It was made very clear to me as an opposition member, to the council from the township of Vespra and to several others that this government had intended to proceed with this legislation no matter what. I still hear it saying the same thing this afternoon: it intends to proceed with this legislation as is, no matter what.

That is not my version of negotiating; that is not my version of how you arrive at a consensus. It is one side telling another side exactly what you are going to do, when you are going to do it, how much it will cost, what size it will be and what shape it will take. That is not participation in the decision-making process, not by a long shot; so I reject that particular statement.

Let me just read this last little bit from the minister:

"Last, but by no means least, the article says that the township continues to explore 'means by which this totally undemocratic legislation can be challenged.' This legislation can hardly be undemocratic, since our parliamentary system provides a democratic process by which our elected representatives enact legislation in the public interest. I am convinced the people of Vespra, Barrie and Ontario generally are not well served by a continuing wrangle at the Ontario Municipal Board and in various courts of the land."

I would be interested to hear from people at the Ontario Municipal Board how they view a minister who describes their proceedings as "a continuing wrangle." I would be interested to hear what the learned judges in the courts think when they find that a minister of the crown in Ontario does not deal with the august proceedings of the courts but says they are a wrangle, they are a hassle. The inference is pretty clear that this is something that should not happen in Ontario.

When you get right down to it, members might have been somewhat taken aback by the language used by the people from Vespra township, but they are right. We are not talking about jacking around and inconveniencing somebody here; we are talking about how a democracy functions. We are, in essence, dealing with the nature of this beast we call democracy in the western world. In those circumstances, one does not refer to the Ontario Municipal Board proceedings as a wrangle; one does not refer to people's legitimate rights to enter into litigation before the court as a wrangle.

Part of the awkwardness of a democracy, part of the awkwardness of freedom, is that there are sometimes people out there who do not accept your point of view. That is part of the inconvenience you have to put up with: they do not always do what you want them to do, and you cannot find ways and means of forcing them to do it either unless you give them some recourse. That is what this argument is all about.

The minister says that "our parliamentary system provides a democratic process by which our elected representatives enact legislation in the public interest." I want to register my objection to that, because it is a misrepresentation, in an academic sense, of the parliamentary process.

The parliamentary process is about a little group of folks -- the government -- who sit over there. The government proposes the ideas. It puts forward the legislation. All the other little folks in behind stand up at the appropriate moment. That is what a parliamentary system is all about.

The government members should not try to confuse us with such garbage as, "This is all about legislatures that strike committees and the members of the Legislature go off to committees and they all have equal input into bills or legislation." That is not true and the members opposite know it.

That is the basis of the government's stand on this bill. It did not come to the member for Waterloo North and me and say: "We have this little problem up around Barrie and Vespra and would like to seek a solution to it. We would like to hear what you fellows have to say on it and would like to set up some public hearings in the area." We did not hear any of that.

The first action this government took, and the first action any government in a parliament would take, was to sit down and say: "Here is the law. This is the way the legislation is going to be written." First, the government writes it out; then it presents it to me, as an opposition member, and asks, "What do you think of that?" It should not pretend, however, we all have equal opportunity for input into these things.

In a majority government such as the one here, it is reasonable to say that if any opposition member comes up with the greatest brainstorm idea the world has ever seen concerning this or any other bill, the government may choose to accept it. In my time in the Ontario Legislature, however, that is a really rare occurrence.

I can think of two or three occasions when the government was not in a minority government position that it actually accepted an idea put forward by someone other than a member of the government. When I say "someone other than a member of the government," I mean somebody who is not in the cabinet; that includes the ordinary members of the government party as well. That is not the way they function, not for a minute. I do not have any illusions about it at all.

Mr. Wildman: Do not put yourself down. Without you, this would have passed.

Mr. Breaugh: That is what we have. That is what a Legislature has in response to that. Now the government does not like it because it is inconvenienced.

It is not unfair to say that this government would very much like to be able to walk into the Legislature of Ontario and say: "This is the law as we wrote it. You can go outside and listen to what people have to say about it, but the law is staying the way we wrote it. We do not want a whole lot of mouthing off about this; so keep the speeches down, boys. We will have this vote tonight at six o'clock and it will be law by 6:30 p.m."

The parliamentary assistant, the member for Wilson Heights, would like to proceed in that way. Having to come before the Legislature with bills such as this is awkward. It is an inconvenience to him. He hears stuff he does not want to hear. He has to listen to arguments he does not like. Unfortunately, that is what a democracy is all about. All those people from Vespra township identified that as the problem here. That is what it is all about.

Let me read this last little bit from the minister's letter. "I do believe that decisions relating to municipal boundaries are a matter of public policy which are best sorted out at the local level." Thanks a lot. He also says: "The new Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act is testimony to this belief." Again, thanks a lot. Why did he not use it? "However, I have said many times and I say again that when a resolution cannot be obtained locally it is the duty of the government of Ontario to act."

What we have to say in response to that is, "In what way?" Is the government attempting to resolve a dispute, or is it attempting to propose an annexation that reflects the considerations of one party in the dispute at the total expense of the other party?

I do not believe this government can even pretend any more that it is acting as an arbitrator here. The government of Ontario decided, perhaps through the Solicitor General, maybe through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but somewhere behind closed doors, that one party in this dispute ought to get all that commercial assessment -- that is what it is about -- and the other party in this dispute ought to go whistle in the wind.

In its own way, that is exactly what it told the people from Vespra to do, some days in committee using some rather crude language but most days simply ignoring them and hoping the problem would go away. I do not believe the problem will go away, not for an instant.

5:40 p.m.

"The village of Point Edward is also involved in a boundary dispute and is interested in this bill. It is interested in proceedings initiated by the city of Sarnia under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act. The village's role is that of observer. The fact-finder appointed to study this area after the city's application determined there were certain issues worthy of negotiation by the city of Sarnia, the township of Sarnia and the county of Lambton. The negotiations have been in progress in this area for eight months."

It is a different set of circumstances to what we have here.

"The village of Point Edward was extremely disturbed and disappointed with the article appearing in the April issue of Municipal World entitled 'Annexation -- A New Provincial Solution? The Minister Responds.'

"The village feels this article undermines the present negotiations. The parties came to the negotiating table on the assumption that there may be boundary-related issues worthy of discussion. If discussion between the parties revealed there were, in fact, problems, and that the ratepayers could be better, more economically and more expeditiously served, then the parties would attempt to agree on a resolution to the problems. If the parties determined that the resolution to the problems required boundary adjustment, that would then be considered if all parties deemed it necessary and beneficial.

"Obviously, boundary adjustment is not the only possible solution to boundary-related problems. Perhaps after thorough negotiation the parties would agree that an intermunicipal agreement would better serve the ratepayers in the area.

"We ask the honourable minister what the negotiating parties responding to the city of Sarnia's application are to think when the minister states it is government policy that urban development in an area should be enclosed within one municipal jurisdiction.

"It leaves very little doubt as to what the minister will do if the matter is left to him. It gives an unfair advantage to the applicants, in this case the city of Sarnia, because they can say, 'This is the way it is going to be, and if you do not like it, walk away and we will let the minister decide.' It forces the responding parties to be the compromising parties because they fear the matter is going to the minister.

"It predetermines that boundary adjustment is the only solution because it is government policy that urban development in one area is best served by one municipal jurisdiction. It places an unfair burden on the responding parties to disprove that the stated government policy makes sense locally, and it takes the onus away from the applicant to first show and back up with facts and projections that there are problems worthy of discussion. To date, the city's application is tainted with the view that the provincial government is on its side.

"The presentation outlining their problem related to boundary issues speaks in generalities and puts forth the policy statements of the provincial government. They tell the responding parties it is common sense that economies of scale are better and that municipal agreements are not workable. They state further that the local ratepayer is suffering because the urban area is not enclosed within one municipal boundary.

"However, they have failed to present hard facts and projections which show that boundary change would accomplish what they say it would or that the entire area would be better served. They obviously feel it is not necessary to do this. The township of Sarnia and the county of Lambton are bucking government policy and, therefore, in the city's mind will surely be forced one way or another to accept boundary change.

"When the act became law the provincial promise was that local municipalities would be allowed to solve their own boundary-related issues. Government policy, as stated in the article cited, undermines the ability of the parties to consider all solutions other than annexation. It also wrongly takes the onus off the applicant party to clearly substantiate with facts the problems and inequities they feel are caused by the location of their municipal neighbours."

It is signed by D'Arcy Bell, councillor, on behalf of the village of Point Edward. It points out without any question the problem this government has with this bill. It has ramifications, it has spillover and it moves over into other areas. It causes other people substantial concern about basic things such as how municipalities deal with one another and how the province deals with its municipalities itself. Without question, it causes grave concerns about whether this government is attempting to find reasonable solutions to boundary problems or whether this government is simply intent to have its way with municipalities.

It is my experience here that at about the end of December every year it seems to be the case that the government brings before us one rural municipality where there has been a problem with boundaries. Every year, just before Christmas, its Christmas present to itself is to inflict some pain, some damage on a small rural township. I guess they have always felt fairly comfortable about that, that most of them are small disputes, not substantial ones on the order of a big regional government like Durham, Hamilton-Wentworth or something like that. These are small, local arguments, by and large, and they are happening in Tory ridings, so members of the opposition parties on this side of the House will not necessarily know what the argument is all about. We will not be able to pick up the local flavour of the thing.

I think the premise behind all this action is to say: "We will bring that in late in the session, around the end of December, and it will be whipped through here. Never mind the committee hearings and all that junk, just pass the bill." Again, it goes back to all those people from Barrie-Vespra talking about democracy and how governments work. It goes back to the little lecture the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing gave to Municipal World for daring to print that article.

It comes down to the heart of how democracy and the parliamentary system work in Ontario. It says that once a year, near the end of a legislative session, we will whip something through. If it is unpleasant, something we probably should not do, the time to do that is late in the session. We will wait until all the members have been in there for two or three months. We will wait until they are fed up with legislation. We will wait until they have had to sit through all the boring estimates of everybody's ministry. We will wait until they are enticed by the invitations to appear at Christmas parties back home, church suppers, social events, dances and all of that. Let all of that pile up around the Christmas season and we will see if these guys want to sit in the Ontario Legislature or whether they want to go back home and do the political thing.

We will get it into that stage. We will bang it up there and say: "Normally we would let you people debate this bill but we really do not have time. Maybe we could give you half an hour this afternoon." Last year, for example, with Tiny township, I think we got a whole afternoon in committee on Tiny township.

That would have happened this year. If the Solicitor General had the skill, instead of the bravado, he would have been able to get this legislation through the House. I noted that some other members over there had said: "I happen to have read some time ago about disputes in the Barrie area. In fact, I read many of the planning studies. I happen to know a little bit of the basic arguments that are put here." Another member said, "No, this had better go outside." After a little bit of initial resistance the government said, "Let it go out."

That was the fatal flaw. That is where things went screwy. As soon as one opens this process up, this wonderful parliamentary process that we have, the hiccups occur. That is when people from Vespra township actually get a chance to voice themselves. That is when it becomes very difficult to railroad and ramrod this stuff through here. The government has to at least justify, in the public's mind, it has to go through some pretence. It can have a set of phoney hearings if it wants, but it is hard to get away with that because people can actually see what is going on there.

That is difficult. I know the Solicitor General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the parliamentary assistant and all that crowd thought this little bill was going to come in here in December, near the end of a session, when the boys would be tired, anxious to go back home and get ready for Christmas, anxious to participate in that stuff, so they would not be interested in Barrie-Vespra.

That is why Barrie-Vespra got one hour's notice that the legislation was going to proceed and so did we. That is why there was some awkwardness as the government moved into its final phase of the legislative session, but agreed to let this go out. Really, it would have been somewhat beyond the pale not to let it go out for public hearings. So it did. That was the fatal flaw. Now it is back in here again.

I want to point out that this bill has some unusual legislative twists and turns to it. As members may know, I am interested in the machinations of procedure and all that stuff. This is a bill which was carried by motion of the Legislature of Ontario from one session to the next. It is an unusual procedure; not unheard of, but unusual. For a while we were dealing with a bill that had been introduced in one session and had no status in the next one.

We dealt with the bill in committee. As we went through it in committee and worked our way through it clause by clause we got to the state where we said: "There is no problem here. People are drawing boundary lines on a map that had no legal definition to them." I recall saying to the parliamentary assistant at the time: "You have a chance to reintroduce the legislation in the spring. Why do you not simply let your lawyers go off and draft a legal boundary definition such as we would see on an annexation bill of this kind and put it in?" They said: "No, we will not bother with that. We will just slap it together this afternoon and we will put that clause in. We will sort that out later."

5:50 p.m.

We subsequently found that the boundaries were changed. There is something not quite kosher about that. There is something not quite kosher about presenting a bill to a committee, having the committee vote on a supposedly clear definition of a boundary line and then subsequently the minister, it seems at his own whim, changing that.

I raised this with the Speaker and, to paraphrase him, he said the minister will have to take such steps as need be to correct that situation.

This is where it gets dicey. I cannot say it misled us, I cannot say it misrepresented the bill, but it surely did something that left me with an unclear understanding of exactly what the government wanted in this bill. There is an aura around here, a sleight of hand, a little shucking and jiving so to speak, a little dip and a dive here and there.

We are left with a general impression that the government wants this damned thing resolved and it does not much care how. It does not particularly care who gets hurt in the process and it is not particularly worried whether it is seen as being fair. It is always dangerous when this government gets on the loose and does not really care any more whether it is perceived as being fair or just. It thinks it has an issue such as this one which is very local in nature, and then it shows its ugly side.

We are all aware of the millions of dollars the Big Blue Machine spends in Ontario convincing people how wonderful it is. When it gets right down to the hard core here and it decides it want to ramrod something at somebody, it sure knows how to do that. It knows how to pack a committee and get it out on the road, it knows how to introduce legislation at the appropriate moment and make that happen. For all its sense of propriety, it is not averse in the slightest to changing every little rule in the book, giving itself every little advantage it sees as necessary to work things around until it is the right time, the right place and the right way. Then, boom, it has exactly what it wants.

It does not mind taking potshots at all those wonderful agencies, such as the Ontario Municipal Board and the courts, that it would on other days so proudly herald as being so much a part of our democracy and part of the wonderfulness of being here and alive in Ontario. It does not mind categorizing them as being wrangles over a set period. It has no aversion to that at all. In recent months, we have seen the government talk about life in rural Ontario. When it is to its advantage to destroy life in rural Ontario, it is just procedure to go right ahead and do it.

For all the grand statements about women's institutes and their value to the rural community in Ontario, it does not pay much attention to them. When the women's institutes say something the government of Ontario does not want to hear, it does not generally get rude to them as it did to one other witness before the committee; it just simply ignores them.

We hear this government talk a lot about its roots in rural Ontario. That is true. That is how this one-party state evolves. In Tory Ontario, they put a lock on the system in this particular kind of rural setting. This is where they hone their political skills and we can see it at work in Vespra township. We can see there is a group of people to whom politics really means being a Tory. It is the only game in town.

Now these people feel betrayed. They understand the political process perhaps better than the member for Wilson Heights does, but that would not be hard. They understand the needs of a rural community. They understand what it is to live in a place such as Vespra township, to become relatively self-sufficient and then to see that self-sufficiency grabbed and drained away.

Mr. Stokes: I wonder if he has ever been out of Metro Toronto?

Mr. Breaugh: Not by choice. He was at one time kidnapped up into Vespra township.

Mr. Rotenberg: I went up there before the member even knew there was a problem.

Mr. Wildman: The member started it.

Mr. Breaugh: There was no controversy until he went up there.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Gillies): Order. Would the member speak to the motion, please, and ignore the interjections?

Mr. Rotenberg: No, I went up to settle it, but Vespra did not want it settled. It has been going on for years, and this filibuster is not doing any good.

The Acting Chairman: Will the member for Wilson Heights please restrain himself.

Mr. Wildman: The member means he is going to ram it through anyway.

Mr. Breaugh: I am feeling harassed. I have rarely been subjected to such a vicious attack.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, the member for Wilson Heights is telling the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) it does not do him any good as a member of this Legislature to speak in this Legislature.

The Acting Chairman: The member for Oshawa is speaking in the Legislature and has the floor now.

Mr. Breaugh: The parliamentary assistant wants me to make some sense and get on with it.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member has not done so for the past two hours. I do not mind.

Mr. Breaugh: I apologize to the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would be pleased to hear him if he were going to make sense.

Mr. Breaugh: I apologize because I have not said things that pleased him immensely, but I want to point out that is going to continue.

The Acting Chairman: The member will please continue with his remarks.

Mr. Breaugh: I am being harassed by the member for Wilson Heights. There has been a constant barrage of great quips.

Mr. Rotenberg: I have been sitting around for two hours waiting for the member to stop.

Mr. Breaugh: Will the member wait longer?

Mr. Rotenberg: I will wait as long as he wants.

Mr. Breaugh: Good. Now I have his consent, I may continue. He has allowed me to speak and I am most grateful.

I want to say a little bit in conclusion, in the bit of time I have left before the debate adjourns at six o'clock. I want to put on the record that I am intending to put forward what is called in the trade a hoist motion on third reading. That is, of course, anticipating that I will have concluded my introductory remarks by the time the House adjourns for the summer and that we will eventually get to a third reading stage.

The contents of this bill are such that there has been no attempt made on the part of the government of Ontario to arrive at a settlement. The nature of the bill begs for that. The nature of the bill begs for some common sense, for sitting down and sorting out problems that have existed for some time, but the government chooses not to do that.

The motion I will put to this Legislature, if and when we get to third reading of the bill, will simply say: "Let us set this one down for a while. Let us come back to it six months from now. Let us see if it makes more sense then to the interested parties than it does now. Let us see if we can get the financial stuff sorted out. Let us see if we can arrive at even some small pittance of consensus on the matter. Let us cease the confrontation tactics that have been used."

Basically, the confrontation on this bill comes from the government. The government instigated the confrontation on this bill.

Mr. Rotenberg: Nonsense. No way. That is not true.

Mr. Breaugh: The government did introduce the legislation, did it not?

Mr. Rotenberg: That did not start the confrontation. It ended it.

Mr. Breaugh: By the introduction of legislation, the government led to this impasse between the communities and led us to a situation --

Mr. Rotenberg: No, the impasse was there long before the government introduced the legislation.

Mr. Wildman: It just made it worse.

Mr. Breaugh: I am being harassed again.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member is not being harassed, if he would just give the facts the way they are.

The Acting Chairman: Order. If the member is being harassed, he is also being a trifle --

Mr. Breaugh: I am under fire here. I cannot withstand this barrage again. He says I am not giving the facts as they are. I suppose this implies I am giving the facts as they are not. I do not know what that means, but I always have a problem following the member's logic.

It would be a useful exercise to stand down this bill for six months, a year or two years. There are not going to be any big changes. I have read the press clippings from the Barrie area newspapers lately and I know there are not going to be great changes. I hope there are not going to be great changes in the area being proposed for annexation. I know they have said they are not going to run out there and provide a whole lot of services. I know the pressure will be on to provide urban development in the area being proposed for annexation. There is no question about that.

I also know there is a little bit of time. I think it might be a useful exercise for us simply to say: "Let us pause here for a minute. Let us hold on. We have brought it to this stage." I think it would be accurate simply to say that at this time we know this legislated solution is not much of an answer. We know that. We know it is very likely that Vespra township, with the uppity folks there are out there, will exercise its democratic right to go to the courts. Without question, this is an option they have. I think they have established in the past that is exactly what they are likely to do.

As a legislated solution, this is unlikely to work as smoothly, to flow through the problem as quickly as the government would seek. I do not think the legislated solution in this bill is going to work, quite frankly. I do not believe the problem that has been initiated, at least in this phase of it, by the government of Ontario can work itself out. I do not think it is going to be that smooth at all.

The government could say: "Let us leave this bill on the Orders and Notices. Let us all go home for the summer, come back in the fall and pick it up again then." The possibility exists that if the government really wanted to put its resources to work to find an amicable solution, or if it wanted to do the most straightforward and sensible thing, it could just back off, so to speak; it could just leave things alone. The world would not end. It has chosen not to do that.

I think at some point we have to give that consideration. We have to be able to say the government of Ontario has now put the legislation on record as it sees it.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

11 juin 1984